Wednesday, July 3, 2013

New Loos for the Lords


Peers Come Under Fire Over Lords For Hire Allegations



I say...an awfully good day to you. Absolutely capital to see you today. Feeling top drawer, are we? Help yourself to some Typhoo Tea and a cream slice while I tell you about some 'essential' spending in Jolly Old England. Hem, hem!

Taxpayers will fund a refurbishment of two toilets used by peers and VIP guests at the Palace of Westminster - at an "eye-watering" cost of up to £100,000. (Oh here he goes on about poo and toilets again!)

The men's and women's lavatories in the House of Lords are in "unacceptable condition for the high profile area they are in", according to an advert inviting contractors to bid for the work.

The rooms are not the only toilets in the building and are not particularly big, with one cubicle and two urinals in the men's toilets and one cubicle plus a hand basin in the women's.

However, the costs will not be helped by the fact that the work must comply with English Heritage requirements for Grade I listed buildings. (I should think so, what!). It includes replacing "historic oak panelling", minor demolition work, new decorations and new sanitary equipment.

The toilets - used by peers, staff and visitors from delegations from overseas parliaments - were built in 1937.

They have reached the "end of their serviceable life" and give a "poor image" of the Palace of Westminster, the tender document adds.

Twelve companies have expressed an interest in carrying out the work and a House of Lords spokesman said the winner of the contract would be chosen "with a determined focus on value for money for the taxpayer". (This is one case where taxpayers may not want to see their money in action, eh!)

The work, which will ensure the toilets in the Salisbury Room area comply with disability access legislation, is estimated to take six weeks.

Hey...I've got an idea...why not get that fellow in Scotland who polishes cars to do the job. Bit of spit (I said 'spit!) and polish for the same £100,000? 

See ya, eh!


Bob

0 comments: