House of Commons Administration Committee
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
First Report of Session 2010–12
Volume I Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence
Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/ac
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 28 March 2011
HC 560 Published on 10 May 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £20.00
The Administration Committee
The Administration Committee is appointed to consider the services provided to MPs by the House of Commons. It also looks at services provided to the public by Parliament, including visitor facilities, the Parliament website and education services.
Current membership Rt Hon. Sir Alan Haselhurst MP (Conservative, Saffron Walden) (Chair) Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP (Conservative, The Cotswolds) Rosie Cooper MP (Labour, West Lancashire) Thomas Docherty MP (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife) Rt Hon. Mark Francois MP (Conservative, Rayleigh and Wickford) Mr Kevan Jones MP (Labour, North Durham) Dr Phillip Lee MP (Conservative, Bracknell) Nigel Mills MP (Conservative, Amber Valley) Tessa Munt MP (Liberal Democrat, Wells) Sarah Newton MP (Conservative, Truro and Falmouth) Bob Russell MP (Liberal Democrat, Colchester) Angela Smith MP (Labour, Penistone and Stocksbridge) Rt Hon. John Spellar MP (Labour, Warley) Mr Shailesh Vara MP (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire) Mr Dave Watts MP (Labour, St Helens North) Mike Weatherley MP (Conservative, Hove)
The following members were also members of the committee during the inquiry: Rt Hon. Frank Dobson MP (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras) Gemma Doyle (Labour/Co-op, West Dunbartonshire) Mr Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South) Mrs Siân C. James (Labour, Swansea East)
Powers The powers of the Committee are set out in House of Commons Standing Order No 139, which is available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.
Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/ac.
The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume.
Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only.
Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are David Weir (Clerk), Dawn Brown (Committee Assistant) and Liz Parratt (Media Officer).
Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Administration Committee, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 4151; the Committee’s email address is [email protected].
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 1
Contents
Report Page
1 Introduction 3
2 Catering to the House 5
3 The Catering and Retail Service 7 The purpose of the Service 7 Who eats where? 7 Rising demand 8 Sitting hours of the House 9
4 Managing the service 10 Subsidy and savings 10 Staffing the service 10 Paying the staff 11 Staffing efficiently 13 In house or outsourced 14 Staff efficiencies 16 Gross profit levels 17 Prices 17 The impact on staff 19 Quality, value and convenience 22 Staff loyalty schemes 22 Quality 23 Service 23 Internal marketing 24 Made-to-order sandwiches 25 VAT exemption 26
5 Individual Outlets on the Estate 27 Access to facilities 27 Members only 27 Dining rooms 27 Members’ Dining Room 27 Strangers’ Dining Room, Adjournment and Churchill Room 30 Cafeterias 35 Members’ Tea Room 35 Terrace Cafeteria 37 Debate 38 Bellamy’s Cafeteria 39 7 Millbank 40 Portcullis Cafeteria 40 6th Floor Cafeteria 42 Moncrieffs 42 Moncrieffs table service 43
2 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
Moncrieffs Self-Service cafeteria 43 Moncrieffs cafebar 44 Despatch Box 46 Pugin Room 47 Jubilee Cafeteria 47 Bars 48 Strangers’ Bar 48 Smoking Room 49
6 Revenue raising 51 Retail 51 Souvenirs 51 Internet sales 52 The public 53 Banqueting and events 53
7 House of Lords 55 Two Houses; two services 55 Co-operation 55 Joined-up thinking 56
8 Conclusion 57
Conclusions and recommendations 58
Formal Minutes 66
Witnesses 68
List of printed written evidence 69
List of additional written evidence 69
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 3
1 Introduction
1. In business terms Parliament is no ordinary institution. There are enormous capital costs involved in maintaining the fabric of a treasured national building. Allocating these costs as in any ordinary business to every activity conducted in the Palace of Westminster would produce results showing all of them to be prohibitively expensive. However, there is no serious call to vacate the Palace for a purpose-built, cost-effective 21st century meeting place elsewhere.
2. An institution which comes together in full assembly for only 34 weeks while maintaining staff costs and other overheads for 52 weeks will find it hard to break even. Of course the House has an obligation, not least in the current economic circumstances, to bear down on its running costs. But there is nothing unusual about a subsidy for catering services in a place of work.
3. Members form only a small, albeit vital, proportion of employees on the parliamentary Estate. So this report is also about the needs of many more numerous groups, be they parliamentary staff, Members’ staff, visitors, press, civil servants from Whitehall and contractors’ staff. Their needs are varied; so too are their incomes.
4. The Commons Catering and Retail Service’s aim to perform efficiently and effectively is subject to a number of influences. Being fully operational for only about 65 per cent of the year has already been noted. The hours of sitting, largely dictated by the Government, also affect the situation. The more that they are moved in what is loosely called a family friendly direction, the greater the loss of revenue to the Catering and Retail Service. If Members and staff are free to leave the precincts in the evenings, the greater the likelihood that they will go home (where that is possible) or eat out. The IPSA ruling of 2010 that 128 MPs— recently amended to 97—could no longer claim the cost of additional accommodation has already made this more of a reality.1
5. By the same token morning sittings would drastically reduce the opportunity for constituents to undertake much valued tours of the Palace. This would mean a further reduction in demand for refreshment and souvenir items.
6. The increasing need for tight security coupled with tradition has made the House very cautious about the extent to which its facilities might be subject to more open access when not required by Members. Visitors pour into the Palace for tours during parliamentary recesses. Such tours might easily be enhanced by lunches or teas. By extension lunches and teas themselves might be offered to the public without the need for Member sponsorship. To maintain a self-denying ordinance in this regard simply means that overhead costs continue to be borne without any compensating revenue. If security needs are met and accounted for in the prices charged, the House need not hold back from considering whether, in line with other prestige venues, it should not seek an outright profit.
1 Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, The MPs’ Expenses Scheme, HC 501, March 2010, p. 25; and Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority press notice of 25 March 2011.
4 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
7. A report from a Commons Select Committee has to be cautious and respectful if it crosses the line which divides its responsibilities from those of the House of Lords. Yet to have two separate catering and retail operations within the same building must be a source of extra liabilities for the House. It could only be by agreement, but a merger of the two organisations would surely yield savings. An integrated service would have the potential to create a more diverse range of outlets. This might increase footfall across the Estate.
8. The sale of souvenir items raises a substantial amount of income. At the moment they can be purchased only at sites on the parliamentary Estate. The freedom of the Catering and Retail Service to choose the most advantageous sites is curtailed by English Heritage. The best place for a souvenir shop is the final point on the route followed by the visitor. In the case of the Palace of Westminster this point is unquestionably Westminster Hall. This is not an option which has to date found favour with English Heritage. There is similar disapproval of the souvenir stall which was put into St Stephen’s Hall. Whilst this produces a healthy revenue it is absolutely not in the right spot to maximise earnings from what might be termed passing trade.
9. Stately homes and other such attractions would testify that a reliable way of making money from tour groups is to provide a place of refreshment prior to the point of exit. It defies credulity that the Jubilee Cafeteria at the northern end of Westminster Hall manages to buck this trend. Part of the problem is signage. The Jubilee Cafeteria’s existence needs to be more boldly advertised. Here again English Heritage’s influence has, or is perceived to have, stood in the way. However, it is now time to make a clear decision to override this advice.
10. As this report will show, the catering subsidy cannot be controlled or reduced, let alone eliminated solely by a policy of ever-increasing prices and closure of outlets. The Catering and Retail Service will end up by chasing its tail. A workplace subsidy for catering is nothing out of the ordinary. At Westminster the greatest volume of transactions comes from thousands of modestly paid staff. Their needs should be looked after at reasonable prices. Many of the outside bodies which book refreshment facilities for the purpose of lobbying MPs are charities. It would be unfortunate if they were priced out. Members themselves are well disposed to providing hospitality for their constituents, who appreciate sharing the privilege of tea, lunch or dinner in the Palace. Contrary to myth, MPs do not have an expense account for this purpose. Part of the culture of Westminster is that groups of Members form clubs which dine on a regular basis. These contribute useful income to the Catering and Retail Service. The hike in banqueting prices has impacted harshly on these groups and they now look to eat elsewhere.
11. Suppressing demand is a depressing and ultimately self-defeating way of cutting costs in the complex community of differing needs which makes up a modern Parliament. Provided that prices charged relate to appropriate benchmarking, there ought to be no complaint if the retail sector is the greater generator of additional revenue to help the Catering and Retail Service meet (and possibly exceed) the stiff overall cost reduction target it has been set. If there is a risk to the reputation of Parliament, it must be met and answered.
12. Taking into account all these considerations, this report seeks to identify a positive way forward.
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 5
2 Catering to the House
13. The media refer frequently to the Westminster village. In fact, with more than 13,000 pass holders on the parliamentary Estate, the House of Commons, beyond the public, televised face of its Chamber and Committee rooms, more resembles a small town. The task of feeding thousands of people daily, with differing incomes, with many and varied demands, and at often unpredictable hours, falls to the Catering and Retail Service. There is much comment, accurate and otherwise, on the fact that the House contains a variety of restaurants and bars, and that the service is provided at public subsidy. The service, which employs nearly 300 people, has one of the highest profiles of any provided by the House, and is among those most commented upon by Members and others.
14. We set the following terms of reference:
• to review access to catering and retail services, including considering opportunities to widen access to under-used services, and the risks and benefits that might arise;
• to consult on what Members, their staff, staff of the House and other users of services need and prefer;
• to consider the relationship between the House of Lords’ and the House of Commons’ catering services; and
• to consider how catering and retail service might be improved without requiring the expenditure of additional resources.
15. As we launched the inquiry, in September, two linked changes in the way the service is provided were occurring, which have informed much of the comment we have received from Members, staff and others. First, the service was, at the instruction of the House of Commons Commission—without consultation with this Committee or the Finance and Services Committee—raising its prices to raise an extra £1.267 million a year. Secondly, the Commission approved plans to reduce spending on the House administration by at least 17 per cent over the next four years.2 The Catering and Retail Service was asked by the House’s Board of Management to identify savings or new revenues that would reduce its annual subsidy by up to 50 per cent.3
16. The Catering and Retail Service has put forward specific proposals intended to make savings by 2014–15, as requested, and we shall comment on each in due course.4 From the outset, however, we believe that the Service can be provided more cost-effectively and efficiently than it is at present. Our approach towards how that may be done has been to consider how demand and revenues may be raised and the Service made more responsive, rather than its seeking to reduce or close facilities simply on grounds of current footfall or cost. As the Director of the Catering and Retail Service, Mrs Sue Harrison, has told us,
2 http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/offices/commons/house-of-commons- commission/minutes/hccminutes2010/hcc-210610/. 3 Ev 77 4 The proposals are listed at Ev 76–84
6 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
demand has risen consistently over the past decade as the number of staff based on the Estate has grown.5 For that reason we are reluctant to see facilities lost rather than used more efficiently and effectively.
17. Ours is far from the first inquiry into this subject: our predecessor committee produced a similar Report in 2005, and Catering Committees produced further reports in 2002, 1994, 1990, 1979, 1967 and 1966 and so on deep into the past.6 Some of the themes that we identify here have arisen before, particularly as regards the range and exclusivity of services provided largely or wholly for Members, such as the Members’ Dining Room, and the need or desire for more low-price, quick-service facilities, such as the Tea Room and the Despatch Box. It is frustrating to discover that previous Committees have over the past two decades correctly identified problems that still exist—the decline in formal lunching, the slowness of service in the Members’ Dining Room, for example—but to which the House’s management has not yet found a solution.7
18. Two questions in particular arise again: whether the House is best served by providing its catering service in house or should contract out some or all of it; and how much subsidy is justifiable. We shall turn to both in subsequent chapters, but enter two early notes: we recognise the difficulties that would be raised and costs incurred by any move towards outsourcing the service; and we note that many workplaces subsidise catering to a significant degree.
19. We have received formal submissions from Members of Parliament, their staff, staff of the House and other users, such as members of the Press Gallery. We have, as individual Members, received many more informal submissions from all those groups. We have taken evidence from the Catering and Retail Service, from user groups across the House, and from entrepreneurs from outside the House on how the Service might better fulfil its potential. We are particularly grateful to four witnesses from the commercial sector for sharing with us, at our request, their expertise: Duncan Ackery, Hamish Cook, Oliver Peyton and Rupert Ellwood.
20. This Report is based on more information than we have been able to publish, since specific financial information about the service may require to remain commercially confidential if future steps are taken to restructure the service. That information will be made available to the House of Commons Commission, to which we report. Published evidence not printed with this Report is available on our Committee’s web pages.8
21. We have been advised by Jon Hewett of EP Business Evolution and are grateful to him and to his colleague, Sally Houston, for the considerable work they have done in analysing financial information, identifying witnesses and guiding us in drafting this Report.
5 Ev 53 6 In reverse order, see: Administration Committee, Second Report of Session 2005–06, Refreshment Department Services, HC 733; Catering Committee, First Report of Session 2001–02, Refreshment Facilities in the House of Commons, HC 832; Catering Committee, First Report of Session 1993–94, Refreshment Services for the House of Commons, HC 75–I; Catering Sub-Committee, First Report of Session 1989–90, The future development of Refreshment Facilities in the House, HC 234; Session 1978–79, HC 120; Session 1967–68, HC 46; and Session 1966–67, HC 384. 7 HC (1993–94), para 6.1; and HC (2005–06), para 68. 8 http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/administration-committee/.
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 7
3 The Catering and Retail Service
The purpose of the Service 22. The remit of the Catering and Retail Service is to “meet the needs of Members, staff and visitors to the Parliamentary Estate”.9 The service employs 286 full-time equivalent staff.10 Its cost, around £14 million (with about £8 million returned in sales, and, therefore, a subsidy of about £6 million), is entirely funded from the House of Commons administration budget.11 Most of the outlets provided are also available, however, to members and staff of the House of Lords and other non-Commons user groups, such as civil servants, police and security officers, and members of the Press Gallery. Until 2008, the Refreshment Department was a stand-alone department headed by its Director as a member of the House of Commons Board of Management; since then, it has been merged into the Department of Facilities, and board-level membership resides with the Director General, John Borley.12
23. The primary reason for having a catering service at all must be to assist Members, their staff and staff of the House in ensuring that Parliament’s work is done, a purpose which is assisted by the proximity of catering facilities to the offices in which they work. Without that purpose, there would be no reason for the Catering and Retail Service to exist. Because of that purpose, its primary motivation cannot be purely commercial or profit-based, but it should be provided as cost-effectively and as efficiently as possible.
Who eats where? 24. The service faces the difficulty that its ‘market’ is comprised of significantly different user groups working at frequently unusual and different hours and on substantially different pay scales. Around 13,000 people hold passes allowing access to the parliamentary Estate, and by implication to the catering facilities within it. A rough breakdown of the major groups is contained in table 1.
9 Ev 61 10 Ev 66 11 See Ev 61–63 12 See House of Commons Commission, June 2007, Review of Management and Services of the House of Commons: Report by Sir Kevin Tebbit KCB CMG, HC 685.
8 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
Table 1: Passholders on the parliamentary Estate
Pass type No. Pass type No. Pass type No.
MP 649 Peer 758 Civil servants 1,686
MPs’ staff 1,498 Peers’ staff 517 Media 436
Ex-MP 348 Ex-Peer 83 Contractors 1,312
House staff 2,000 Lords staff 975 Temporary 796
Ex-officer 17 Staff of 2 Houses 1,468 Other 501
TOTAL 13,268 Table 1: derived from figures supplied by Serjeant at Arms, 4 November 2010.
25. The particular position of Members means that a number of facilities, or sections of facilities, are set aside entirely or wholly for their and their guests’ use, although the 650 Members represent only 5 per cent of the total internal ‘market’ for catering facilities. The nature of this workplace makes that necessary, but we are keen to stress that Members should not forget the needs of their own staff, the staff of the House and the other users of the service who support us in our work and the House of Lords in theirs.
Rising demand 26. Demand for catering services within the House has risen over the past two decades. Around 900,000 meals or snacks were served annually in the early 1990s; last year, that figure rose to just under 1,700,000.13 Several factors explain this growth in demand. First, the number of Members’ staff has expanded consistently. Members “should not expect to be able to accommodate more than two members of staff comfortably at Westminster” according to the Administration Committee’s 2005 review of accommodation on the Estate.14 There is continued pressure for that average to be breached, and a growing use of interns and part-time staff has increased the number of people on the Estate.15
27. Secondly, styles of eating have changed over the past 20 years so that the rising number of transactions may represent a significant growth in grazing and snacking throughout the day. The Director of the Catering and Retail Service told us that this “mirrors trends observed in other workplace catering situations, where work is increasingly conducted in informal meetings, semi-social situations scheduled throughout the day, often in communal areas such as the catering facilities and accompanied by a tea/coffee or light snack”.16 The opening in 2000 of Portcullis House, with its wide and airy atrium and restaurant, cafeteria and coffee bar have considerably accelerated that trend within the parliamentary Estate.
13 Ev 53–54 14 Administration Committee, House of Commons Accommodation, Third Report of Session 2005–06, HC 1279, para 105. 15 Survey of Services 2010, Report by FDS International, House of Commons, February 2011, pp. 40–42. 16 Ev 54
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 9
28. Thirdly, the House has, over time, become more regular in its pattern of work. As the Director notes: “The days when Members and their staff were simply not present on the parliamentary Estate during recesses are long gone”.17 This trend will only continue with the reintroduction of September sittings to break the long summer recess.
Sitting hours of the House 29. The greatest single factor affecting demand for routine, as opposed to banqueting, services has always been and remains the sitting hours of the House of Commons, and the business being transacted in the Chamber on any given day. The current standard sitting pattern—until 10.30 pm on Monday and Tuesday, until 7.30 pm on Wednesday and until 6.30 pm on Thursday—means that demand for dining services, in particular, peaks early in the week, then tails off. Considerable peaks and troughs exist, with the highest peaks concentrated into the 50 hours between Monday and Wednesday lunch times. In other words, business is briskest, particularly in Members’ facilities, on the days when the Chamber sits late and is likely to be considering substantive business requiring votes.
30. The present Parliament is less than a year old, and 232 of its 650 Members entered at the 2010 general election.18 The pattern of behaviour of the new Parliament is not yet established, but it seems clear that, to greater degree than used to be the case, more Members for seats distant from Westminster have their main home in London than in their constituencies. This creates more reasons why, when opportunity permits, more Members will choose to go home than stay within the Palace precincts in the evening hours. The new expenses rules introduced by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) are also having their effect, and not always in a manner wholly foreseen. The 128 Members who live closest to Westminster, for example, received no additional accommodation allowance after the May 2010 general election.19 This meant, for most, a considerable commute to their homes, giving reason not to remain within the precincts if they were able to get away.
31. The Procedure Committee is inquiring into whether the present sitting hours of the House should be altered, and we have asked it to consider the positive or negative impact on catering business and staffing of any change it proposes. We note that any move toward ‘9 to 5’ on Mondays and Tuesdays would reduce demand for evening services and would require decisions to be taken about the level to which outlets such as the Members’ and Strangers’ Dining Rooms continue to operate and the level of subsidy required to maintain them. It would also have an impact on revenues raised during the daytime from visitors and other users.
17 Ev 54 18 Two more have since entered as a result of by-elections. 19 Recent rule changes are reducing this number to 97. See footnote 1.
10 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
4 Managing the service
Subsidy and savings 32. Like many workplace catering operations, the House service is subsidised. Last year, 2009–10, the subsidy—the difference between the revenue raised from sales of food and other goods and the cost of purchasing the goods and staffing the service—amounted to £5.7 million.20 The subsidy ratio—that is, the amount of subsidy as a proportion of the total cost of running the service—has been significantly reduced over the past 10 years.
33. The present subsidy does not include all the costs that a commercial catering operation would expect to cover. The departmental trading account does not bear the cost of capital works, maintenance, furnishings, utilities or accommodation. Those costs are largely met from the budget of the Parliamentary Estates Directorate. We shall later discuss whether all or parts of the service could or should be provided by private operators rather than an in- house service, but note in passing that both the amount of the subsidy and the fact that it does not include all costs that a contractor might be expected to bear could be a substantial bar to finding anyone interested in taking services on.
34. The last management review of the services provided by the House, conducted by Sir Kevin Tebbit, former Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence, concluded that some level of subsidy was probably necessary and justified. “For three and half days per week, thirty four weeks per year when the House is sitting, there is a need to provide a full service, while at other times the customer base is greatly reduced. The problem of maintaining an infrastructure to cater for peak demand, but which is under-used for the rest of the year, inevitably adds to the overheads. The need to provide special services exclusive to Members, even though take-up may be limited, is a further factor”.21
Staffing the service 35. The principal reason for the losses made by the service is the cost of staffing it. Price levels at present and gross profit percentages achieved in individual outlets—that is, the difference between the cost of purchasing goods and the price at which they are sold—are broadly in line with those in similar outlets in a variety of public and private locations. What is a long way out of line is the cost of staffing the service: where an in-house or commercial coffee shop might expect the staff cost to sales ratio to be between 20 per cent and 25 per cent, the staff costs of the Despatch Box in Portcullis House—the only profitable outlet on the Estate—amounted to 51 per cent of takings in 2009–10. The problem is far worse in most of the House’s cafeterias and restaurants: in most, the cost of staffing is greater than the revenue raised from sales, and in the worst case, the cost of staffing the service is six times greater than revenue raised.
20 Ev 55 21 House of Commons Commission, June 2007, Review of Management and Services of the House of Commons: Report by Sir Kevin Tebbit KCB CMG, HC 685. para 248.
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 11
36. Oliver Peyton, Chairman of the private sector catering company Peyton and Byrne, told us that the industry average for labour costs as a percentage of takings was between 28 and 32 per cent: individual outlets within the Commons’ service vary considerably, but the headline figures are that it took £8.278 million in sales in 2009–10 and spent £8,948 million on staff.22 In other words, staff costs alone, before the cost of goods, supplies, cleaning, HR and finance have been added in, amounted to nearly 108 per cent of sales.23 The Commons staff cost to sales ratio is exceptionally high, and would be viewed as a key area of focus when delivering any cost reduction or efficiency programme in any catering business. Only nine of the 25 individual earnings areas on the Estate achieve sales that are higher than their staff costs. The odd working hours of the Commons raise significant challenges in running it, but it cannot be sustainable to staff the service at three times the proportionate cost achieved in commercial operations.
37. Although this position is neither good nor sustainable, it is fair to point out that it represents a significant improvement on the past, and that the managers of the catering service have been gradually moving it in the right direction. The Director of the Catering and Retail Service told us that there has been over the past two decades a steady reduction in staffing levels, even as demand for meals and snacks was nearly doubling: “19 years ago when I started here, we had 340 staff producing about 4,000 meals a day just here in the Palace and 1 Parliament Street. We now provide over 8,000 meals a day. We also have Portcullis House and 7 Millbank, and there are 280 staff. So we have made quite sizeable increases in our productivity and at the same time reduced very considerably the number of staff”.24
Paying the staff 38. There is a persistent and unpleasant myth, even among Members, that staff costs are so high because a substantial number of catering staff earn very high wages. We are happy to dismiss that idea by publishing the following table:
22 Q 250 (Ev 42) 23 These figures are based on costs once central costs have been allocated to each individual venue, and they also include pension costs. If pension costs are excluded, staff costs amount to about 92 per cent of the revenue raised from sales. 24 Q 291 (Ev 49)
12 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
Table 2: Pay and grading in the Catering and Retail Service No. of Grade Job Titles Salary Posts Range 1 SCS1A Director of Catering & Retail Service £95,000– £100,000 1 A1 Executive Chef £56,584– £74,270 1 A2 Operations Manager £46,071– £61,255 2 CGA1 Senior Sous Chef, Pastry Chef £37,607 8 CGA2 Sous Chefs, Banqueting Weekend Duty Management £33,270 4 B1 Food & Beverage Managers, Head Chef, Purchasing & Stores £34,643– Manager £42,401 6 B2 Catering Managers, Reservations Manager, Hospitality £29,786– Manager, Business Support Manager £41,601 6 CGB Junior Sous Chef, Chief Steward/Back of House Manager, £28,207 Butcher, Banqueting/Principal Floor Manager, Headwaiter 11 C Asst Catering Managers, Asst Retail & Catering Manager, £22,579– Banqueting & Events Coordinators, PA to Director, Kitchen £29,330 Coordinator 19 CGC Senior Chef de Partie, Cafeteria Supervisor, Head Linenkeeper, £24,590 Head Storekeeper, Banqueting/Dining Room Supervisor 2 D1 Administration Assistant, Purchasing Assistant £19,198– £24,839 42 CGD1 Goods Receiver, Cellarkeeper, Storekeeper, Chef de Partie, £21,697 Stillroom Supervisor, Souvenir Shop Supervisor, Senior Bar Attendant, Senior Room Service Assistant, Deputy Cafeteria Supervisor, Assistant Chief Steward, Catering & Retail Supervisor 62 CGD2 Storekeeper, Demi Chef de Partie, Bar Attendant, Dining £19,598 Room Waiter/ess, Assistant Linenkeeper, Barista, CaféBar Assistant, Souvenir Shop Attendant, Stewarding Supervisor, Evening Shift Leader (7MB) 100 CGE Cafeteria General Assistant/Cashier, Kitchen Steward, Sotres £17,554 Porter, Room Service Assistant, Linen Steward, Retail Assistant 21 Commis Commis Chef £16,174– £17,228 Source: Catering and Retail Service 39. While the Director of Catering, who manages a staff of 286 and a budget of £14 million, earns up to £100,000 a year, the table clearly displays how thin the senior management structure is within her department. Only two of her staff, the Executive Chef and the Operations Manager are graded within the House’s senior management structure. The senior managerial salaries in the service are in line with comparable posts externally.
40. More than 94 per cent of the department’s staff—269 of the 286 staff listed—earn less than £30,000 a year, and about 185 of them earn less than £20,000. Within the House service, catering staff are among the lowest paid; we regret that some of the submissions we have received have suggested otherwise and glad to dispel any ignorance on that point.
41. That said, the House’s catering staff are, on average, better paid than similar catering service workers in the private sector. All are paid above the defined London Living Wage of £7.85 an hour, which is not common in the private sector. In addition, some associated conditions are more beneficial than would be the case in most private sector organisations.
42. We would expect the House to set an example as an employer and have no desire (or, indeed, power) to influence the pay and conditions of some of the lowest-paid staff of the House. Free meals are common enough in catering; late-night taxis for staff who serve us
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 13
and who remain in the building at least an hour longer than we do provide security and enable staff to go home after public transport ceases to run; and providing decent pensions for comparatively low-paid staff is a sign of good employment practice. We believe, however, that some staffing efficiencies, greater flexibility in contracts and improvements in customer service could raise productivity without any downward pressure on individual wage levels.
Staffing efficiently 43. If the target of reducing the subsidy by 50 per cent is to be achieved, staffing costs will have to be cut, and that means a reduction in headcount. Savings proposals have been made to us by the Catering and Retail Service, and we shall come to each in due course. A House-wide voluntary severance scheme has also been set up, and some staff reduction has been achieved as a result of that.
44. Reductions in staffing costs may be found in several other ways. First, a long-term combination of low turnover and insufficiently flexible contract arrangements appears to have raised difficulties with staffing some areas of the operation, particularly in the decade or more since Wednesday and Thursday evening sittings of the House became rare and the House limited its Friday sittings to only 13 a year. The Director of the Catering and Retail Service told us that a third of the workforce is today employed on four-day week contracts because of the concentration of most demand into the Monday to Thursday period.25 That leaves approaching 200 staff still on five-day week contracts, largely designed for another era.
45. In particular, there appears in the past to have been a lack of flexibility about where certain staff would work, meaning that, for example, a comparatively empty dining room would have waiting or kitchen staff doing little or nothing as they waited for customers, while another busier room might be under pressure. All four of the witnesses we met who work in the private sector identified the ability to move staff around to fit periods of peak and low demand as crucial to the success of an operation. As Oliver Peyton put it: “in a venue like, let’s say, Inn at the Park [...] during the winter the turnover plummets to a shocking level, and we would tend to move those people into our other venues. We have a fluidity of people so that, as it gets quieter, we’re already starting to move them around. We would never allow ourselves to be in a situation where you have people being paid for keeping a space empty. It’s just not the real world”.26
46. Staff scheduling tools are available to assist with maximising staff productivity. Although the operation of the dining rooms means there is some unpredictability in how staff rotas are organised, technology enables the identification of patterns across time which could result in greater flexibility and responsiveness from staff.
47. Perhaps because conditions for staff are better than in the market sector, turnover has historically been low in the Catering and Retail Service. In response to our predecessor Committee’s Report of 2005, the House of Commons Commission said that it was “proud”
25 Ev 66 26 Q 255 (Ev 42–43)
14 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
that turnover was low. None the less, it acknowledged that low turnover can raise problems: “In particular, it is understandable that staff who have been carrying out the same job for many years without exposure to new ways of doing things may find it difficult to adjust when changes are implemented”.27
48. In the intervening six years, turnover has not remained low in all areas. The Executive Chef, Mark Hill, who took that post four years ago, told us that turnover had increased in the kitchens and that the chance had been taken to introduce new flexibility in working: in short, the chefs, unlike some waiting staff, are not tied to particular kitchens for long periods, or in some cases for their careers. Mr Hill has also sought to encourage ambitious chefs to gain experience across the range of services that the Commons provides, a variety of opportunity which he described to us as one reason he came here from the contract catering sector. Constant churn of staff raises its own difficulties, but Mr Hill told us he seeks to strike a balance between retaining staff and encouraging innovation and ambition. It is encouraging to hear that chefs trained by the Commons over the past decade have departed for some of London’s best known high-class venues and that many have competed successfully at a high level in catering competitions. Those facts imply a high standard of training and the pursuit of excellence.28
49. There is likely to be more turnover in the near future as the savings programme takes effect, and decisions were taken on voluntary severance as our Report was being completed. The Director General, Facilities suggested that some long-term flexibility difficulties might be solved by this means; we would rather that they had been more actively managed in the past, and voluntary redundancy, however fortuitously timed, should not be seen as the ideal way to manage problems out of the system. The Director General, we are glad to note, also said that it would be unfair to blame the workforce for any long-term difficulties: “Management have responsibility for the efficiency of organisations”.29
In house or outsourced 50. The Catering and Retail Service is provided entirely in house. Our predecessor Committee six years ago invited the House of Commons Commission to identify reasons why parts or all of the operation should not be contracted out in order to deliver a better quality of service and more value for money.30 The Commission rejected the recommendation, arguing that the House could lose the knowledge and experience of its staff and that there would be no easy way to revert to an in-house operation if outsourcing proved unsatisfactory. In particular, it argued: “An incoming contractor would only be interested in taking on the business if there was deemed to be sufficient scope for profitability within the operation. […] the need to maintain profitability might in time lead
27 Administration Committee, Refreshment Department Services: Response to the Committee’s Second Report of Session 2005–06, 5 June 2006, HC 1146, para 17. 28 Executive Chef, private session, 24 January 2011. 29 Director General, Facilities, private session, 17 January 2011. 30 Administration Committee, Refreshment Department Services, para 132.
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 15
to compromise on service levels. […] There is no such conflict when the service is provided in-house”.31
51. Sir Kevin Tebbit, too, in his 2007 review of the House’s management and services considered outsourcing unlikely to work for the House: “In practice […] the limitations imposed by the nature of the Parliamentary environment—with peaks and troughs of demand, restrictions on the client base and entitlements to dining rights in some outlets— would be constraining factors on a private sector operation, as much as they are on the present in-House management. It is most unlikely, therefore, that an outside contractor could provide the existing level without a similar subsidy, especially as there would be a need for a profit margin. Otherwise, any benefit to the contractor could be achieved only by compromising service and quality levels”.32
52. Much has changed since then in both the parliamentary environment and the wider economy. Over the intervening period, contracted-out services have become more common than in-house provision in organisations broadly comparable to the Commons, although none runs for the full range of hours peculiar to the Commons. The National Assembly for Wales provides breakfast and lunch time cafeterias, a coffee shop, two Members’ Tea Rooms and a restaurant, and a public cafeteria. Its operation is contracted out.33 The Northern Ireland Assembly uses an external contractor to provide services including a restaurant for all staff, including Members, and separate Members’ restaurant and bar.34 The Scottish Parliament contracts out its catering service and has a staff restaurant, a coffee bar, a Members’ restaurant and bar, and a public cafeteria. Members have priority booking for Members’ facilities, but access to all facilities is open to all users of the Parliament building.35
53. Of Government departments that supplied us with information, five now contract out their services. Another has just closed its service, and the seventh never had one.36 Most of those that contract out provide no subsidy to the external caterers, although the costs of rental, utilities and maintenance, which a commercial high street operator would expect to cover, are paid by departments rather than contractors.37
54. Although the Commission and Sir Kevin Tebbit argued that private sector operators might find it difficult to run the Commons’ services at a profit, neither conducted any market testing to find out whether the private sector itself thought so. The Director General of Facilities told us that the House Management Board believed that the time had come actively to test the proposition as the House seeks to reduce its Administration Estimate: “redesign work will examine whether Catering and Retail Service functions,
31 Administration Committee, Refreshment Department Services: Response to the Committee’s Second Report of Session 2005–06, para 80. 32 House of Commons Commission, June 2007, Review of Management and Services of the House of Commons: Report by Sir Kevin Tebbit KCB CMG, HC 685. para 249. 33 Ev w 28 [Note: references to ‘Ev w xx’ are references to written evidence published in the volume of additional written evidence published on the Committee’s website. 34 Ev w 29 35 Ev w 29 36 The Departments were: Ministry of Defence; Department for Education; Department of Health; Ministry of Justice; Scotland Office; Department for Transport; HM Treasury. See Ev w 30–33 37 Ev w 30–33
16 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
either alone or in conjunction with other hotel type services, such as reception staff, attendants, porters and our in-house cleaning, should be subject to a market testing exercise”.38
55. Several witnesses from the private contract catering sector were cautiously optimistic that a Commons service could be run cost-effectively, albeit without their having been given access to any financial or staffing information. Oliver Peyton made the private case most strongly, focusing on quality of food and service, and on matching staffing to demand. He also made the case in principle: “What operators like the people you’ve been seeing bring to the table is their own sense of commerciality. I have yet to see a case where that isn’t substantially better than what happens in house. We wouldn’t exist if you were better […] People always put obstacles as to why you should or shouldn’t do this. I think a commercial operator is going to come in; he’s going to work with you to deliver the solutions you need, I’m sure to a higher quality and to a better service level than you currently have, because it’s the nature of the beast. It’s in our blood”.39
56. Like the Commission six years ago, we doubt whether the House’s catering operation as currently configured is likely to prove attractive to any commercial operator, no matter how valuable the House of Commons brand might be. We do not, however, any more than the Commission, know that this is so, because no significant market testing of the possibilities has been undertaken. While the peculiar nature of the parliamentary timetable and security demands mean that it is highly unlikely that staffing costs could be reduced to commercial levels, we consider that the current level of staffing cost and management cost to income is excessive and represents an unacceptably high cost to the taxpayer, especially at a time of spending constraint in all public services. We urge the Commission and the Board of Management to take positive steps in the near future to address this issue and recommend that progress be made by 31 December 2011 and a report made back to this Committee by 31 March 2012 on whether a process to outsource the service should commence.
Staff efficiencies 57. Two more points are worth making about where staff-related efficiencies ought to lie. First, HR and finance costs borne by the Catering and Retail Service are unusually high at close to 7 per cent of total annual sales in 2009–10.40 This figure is far higher than the 2 per cent normally forecast in the commercial sector. HR and finance costs attached to the House’s Catering and Retail Service appear to be three times the average expected in the commercial sector. We recommend that steps be taken by the Department of Facilities to find efficiencies in that area.
58. Secondly, the costs of cleaning are also out of line with commercial practice: cleaning costs were 6.6 per cent of total annual sales, which is considerably higher than the 2 per cent achieved in the external market.41 The Director of the Catering and Retail Service told
38 Ev 95 39 Q 253 (Ev 42) 40 Analysis of Catering and Retail Service figures provided by Jon Hewett. 41 Analysis of Catering and Retail Service figures provided by Jon Hewett.
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 17
us that part of the reason for this is that all cleaning is done by the House’s contract cleaning staff. She proposed that this cost be reduced by an estimated £110,000 from 2012– 13 by redrawing staff contracts so that light cleaning duties are performed by her staff rather than contract cleaners: “Many of the light cleaning duties carried out by the contractor (such as dusting of furniture, carpet vacuuming, cleaning down of display cabinets and low-level cleaning in kitchen areas) are commonly carried out by catering staff in other organisations”.42 Due negotiation will be required to alter contracts, which explains why the department does not expect to introduce this saving until 2012. If it can be done quicker, it should be. We recommend that the Department of Facilities seek to save £110,000 a year by absorbing light cleaning duties into Catering and Retail staff duties.
Gross profit levels 59. Quite apart from staffing, the gross profit levels attained in individual outlets have a significant impact on the amount of subsidy required to run them. Gross profit is the difference between the price the House service pays for its goods and the price at which it sells them to its customers. With some significant exceptions, most outlets on the Estate achieved in 2009–10 gross profit levels below or within the lower range of what would be expected in comparable outlets elsewhere. The price rises subsequently introduced from August 2010 are likely to reduce the difference to a substantial degree.
60. We were surprised to note, however, substantial disparities in the gross profit levels obtained in different outlets, and in particular to note that cafeterias used principally by staff of Members and of the House take more in gross profit than those used primarily by Members and journalists. For example, before the price rises, gross profit at Bellamy’s was 35 per cent and at the main cafeteria in Portcullis House 33 per cent. By contrast, the Members’ Tea Room gross profit was 28 per cent, and that for the Moncrieffs cafeteria, mainly used by members of the Press Gallery only 21 per cent.43 In other words, the gross profits obtained on prices charged to staff using Bellamy’s or the Terrace cafeteria were about a fifth higher than those charged to Members in the Tea Room and about half again higher than those obtained in Moncrieffs. Since differential staffing costs play no part in the relationship between the price at which goods are purchased and sold, it is hard to see why such substantial differences should obtain, and of deep concern that it is our comparatively lowly paid staff who pay the highest margin. The new benchmarked prices may have ironed out some anomalies, but we recommend that steps be taken incrementally to even out disparities identified in gross profit levels in outlets that are similar in style of provision and purpose.
Prices 61. Last year, the House of Commons Commission decided on substantial price rises, bringing prices in the various outlets across the Estate into line with externally
42 Ev 82 43 Analysis of Catering and Retail Service figures provided by Jon Hewett.
18 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
benchmarked comparators. The price increases are expected to reduce the subsidy by £1.267 million in a full year and by £500,000 by the end of March 2011.44
62. By December, increased revenue from sales amounted to £480,000 putting the service well ahead of target and on course to achieve the expected full-year reduction in future, albeit with the number of transactions recorded at the tills falling.45 The sharp increase in prices has, however, caused considerable criticism among users of the service. Members are discontented with the new pricing structure in the Members’ Dining Room and rises in prices in other Member-related facilities.46 Many staff of Members and of the House believe that they have been penalised because the Commission, in the aftermath of the expenses scandal, sought to reassure the public that MPs were not receiving ‘perks’.47 External organisations, particularly charities, complain that banqueting prices have risen so far that they can no longer afford to host events here. Finally, and most worryingly, the statistics we have received suggest that, particularly in areas used mainly by the staff of Members and the House, people are no longer using the service as much as they did, with the number of covers recorded significantly down.48
63. One preliminary point needs to be made before we consider what the current price increases have entailed. Simply, there is some confusion about the related but not identical concepts of subsidy and cheapness. Many of the submissions we have had have suggested that the new prices provide profit: they do not: they merely reduce the overall level of loss. Before the price rises, some tariffs charged in the House were indeed cheaper than might be expected on the high street, particularly the prices charged in bars. The price rises reduce cheapness; but they do not in any way come close to putting the Catering and Retail Service into profit.
64. The new prices were agreed by the House of Commons Commission last June, not long after the general election, and before Member Committees, including our own, were set up and able to be consulted. This is to be regretted. The new prices were based on benchmarking in various comparable external organisations. The Director of the Catering and Retail Service told us that staff restaurants had been compared with those in government departments and the other UK parliaments and assemblies, that bar prices had been aligned with those in a “competitively priced high street pub chain”, and Dining Room prices set approximately 25 per cent below those in “local, mid-market, high street restaurants”. Banqueting prices took the highest increase, being brought “into line with prices charged by commercial venues”.49
65. Among Members, the most controversial price change has been the introduction of a fixed price system in the Members’ Dining Room for evening meals. Under IPSA rules, Members (uniquely among user groups) are entitled to claim up to £15 for an evening meal if the House sits later than 7.30 pm, which it routinely does on Monday and Tuesday and
44 Ev 83 45 Ev 69 46 See Ev w 20–27 47 eg Ev 94–95 48 See tables for the House’s cafeterias on pp. 38–43. 49 Ev 55
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 19
regularly does on Wednesday. The Commission’s increases included the introduction of a £15 flat rate fee, no matter whether a Member ate one course or three. After we protested that this was unfair and ignored IPSA’s phrase “up to £15”, the Commission amended the system so that £10 is charged for a single course, a soft drink and coffee, and £15 for three courses, a soft drink and coffee. We have received more complaints from Members on this than on any other aspect of the pricing changes, and on two main grounds. First, it is perceived as unfair both to those who choose to eat little and to the taxpayer. Secondly, it gives the impression of providing an allowance for Members, rather than their claiming for what they actually spent. We recommend that the Members’ Dining Room offer a mixture of fixed price and a la carte prices.
66. Members have also commented to us on the substantial increase in prices charged for beer, wines and spirits. In particular, the costs of wine have been raised, with several pointing out that, for example, two glasses of Chablis in the Pugin Room now cost more than £14.50 Politics is no ordinary profession and is one in which essential networking and the exchange of information have ever been done across a lunch or dinner table. The new bar prices appear, so far as we can tell, to have largely been benchmarked fairly accurately against the comparators chosen.
The impact on staff 67. Some staff of the House and of Members see the provision of subsidised food as, in effect, part of their terms and conditions. There is a clear perception among such staff that the price rises affect them disproportionately. As many, particularly those employed by Members, earn comparatively low wages, this seems likely to be so. The average salary for staff of Members is around £20,000, and the introduction of new IPSA rules means that many have taken an effective pay cut and that, for example, bonus payments are no longer allowed.51 At 9 September 2010, almost half the House’s staff (889, out of 1,789) were paid under £25,000.52
68. As noted, the prices in the cafeterias most used by staff have been benchmarked against those in government departments and the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Parliament and Assemblies. As comparators, these seem entirely reasonable, although we note that the House trade unions have questioned the accuracy of comparison.53 The fact that the prices of some items have risen substantially as a result demonstrates that prices were, perhaps, previously too low, bringing considerable benefit to the staff and Members who paid them. Some effort has also been made to restrict increases in the prices of the more essential items—main meals and fruit, for example—while bigger increases have been placed on the less essential—chocolate bars and crisps, for example.
69. What does concern us is that staff appear in some cases no longer to be using facilities whose explicit purpose is to feed Members and those who support them. The following
50 Ev w 22 51 Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, The MPs’ Expenses Scheme, HC 501, March 2010. 52 HC Deb, 15 September 2010, Col. 1039W. 53 See Ev 94–95 and Q 14 (Ev 4)
20 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
four bar charts represent the number of transactions made in the four cafeterias most used by staff in the three-month period from October to December in 2009 and in 2010.
Table 3: Terrace Cafeteria daily covers: October to December 2009 and 2010
Terrace Cafeteria Daily Covers Oct - Dec 2009 & 2010 2500 2019 2002 1847 1943 1899 2000 1782 1718 1618 1337 1500 1093 1020 1077 992 1021 867 923 891 998 1000 818 804 524 524 500
0 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
SITTING 2009 SITTING 2010 RECESS 2009 RECESS 2010 N/S FRI 2009 N/S FRI 2010
Table 4: Debate cafeteria daily covers: October to December 2009 and 2010 Debate Daily Covers Oct - Dec 2009 & 2010 3000 2372 2549 2531 2500 2308 2195 2275 1994 2000 1801 1846 1652 1583 1272 1500 1276 1285 1311 1089 1209 1162 1083 871 977 1000 848
500
0 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
SITTING 2009 SITTING 2010 RECESS 2009 RECESS 2010 N/S FRI 2009 N/S FRI 2010
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 21
Table 5: Bellamy’s Cafeteria daily covers: October to December 2009 and 2010 Bellamy’s Cafeteria Daily Covers Oct - Dec 2009 & 2010 721 727 687 800 664 631 569 571 530 586 600 464 378 393 400 200 0 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
2009 2010 N/S FRI 2009 N/S FRI 2010
Table 6: Portcullis Cafeteria, 7 Millbank daily covers: October to December 2009 and 2010 Portcullis Cafeteria ( 7 Millbank) Daily Covers Oct - Dec 2009 & 2010
1200 1036 1090 1083 1043 1000 824 792 802 779 780 779 800 755 686 642 625 567 600 526 554 438 438 306 400
200
0 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
SITTING 2009 SITTING 2010 RECESS 2009 RECESS 2010
70. A simple glance at all four reveals the same picture—a drop in the number of transactions passing through the tills. This does not, of course, tell the whole story— revenues overall are up even if individual transactions are down, which was, after all, the point of the price increases. And the drop in transactions may well represent no reduction in ‘proper’ meals purchased: the Director of the Catering and Retail Service told us, it is largely a reduction in “counter lines”—that is, “teas, coffees […] Kit Kats, the bags of crisps, the things that are easily purchased in a retail shop and brought into the workplace”.54 The Director also suggested that even if the number of transactions is down, the number of people using the cafeterias is not, and average spend is, of course, up.55
71. None the less, there is persistent anecdotal evidence from Members, staff representatives and the House unions of more staff bringing in sandwiches or food to heat. The Parliamentary Director of Estates has told us that demand for items such as toasters
54 Q 271 (Ev 45) 55 Q 112 (Ev 20)
22 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
and sandwich makers for use in offices had risen since the price increases were introduced. We have recommended that such items should not be provided because of the associated fire risk, but the fact that staff are asking for them lends substantial support to that anecdotal evidence.56 We would find it a matter of deep regret if some members of staff felt they had been priced out of facilities whose very purpose is to service their needs. The price rises introduced in 2010 have happened, and some increase in tariff was clearly necessary if the overall subsidy were to be reduced. We recommend that the Catering and Retail Service monitor the impact of price increases on footfall in staff cafeterias and identify means of reclaiming some of the trade from staff that has clearly been lost as a result of prices increasing. We recommend that, until the new patterns of trading have become clear, the Commission consider no short-term further increases in those cafeterias above the rate of inflation.
Quality, value and convenience
Staff loyalty schemes 72. House trade unions and staff representatives have suggested that staff might be encouraged to make more use of the service by a simple staff discount or loyalty scheme. The service provided to aid Members and those who support them in their parliamentary work is open, on the same terms, to various groups who might not obviously fall within that definition—notably, members and staff of the other House, the Press Gallery and civil servants on the Estate to do business for the government departments that employ them. One of the House’s chefs, Nick Munting, giving evidence to us in his capacity as a GMB officer, made the point: “I’ve never understood why we subsidise strangers’ food. I do understand why we subsidise our food, but I don’t really understand why we subsidise the cost of food for people from the outside who are just visiting”.57
73. A staff discount or loyalty scheme might pay dividends in bringing back those whom price increases may have discouraged. Unite, the trade union representing more than 400 MPs’ staff, suggests that a loyalty card scheme, offering modest discounts, would encourage staff to continue using the Estate’s facilities rather than, for example, getting a sandwich lunch at Tesco on Bridge Street.58 The House’s Trade Union Side President, Ken Gall, concurs: “ a discount for staff on presentation of a pass; a staff-only restaurant, perhaps; a tiered system of charges for low-paid staff”.59 Such schemes work well in the commercial sector, and have the added benefit of providing data on what it is that users of the service actually purchase. A Dining Loyalty programme could encourage Members’ staff and others to use specific locations more frequently through offers focusing on, say, particular dates, special occasions and seasonally available ingredients.
74. There are costs, of course, to any such scheme, both in revenue lost on discounted items and in administering it. It cannot, however, be beyond the wit of modern technology to introduce a distinction between ‘staff’ and ‘non-staff’ on the parliamentary pass. We
56 See Administration Committee, notes of discussion: 7 March 2011. 57 Q 25 (Ev 6) 58 Ev 100–01 59 Q 16 (Ev 4)
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 23
recommend that the Catering and Retail Service introduce a staff loyalty or discount scheme to benefit the lower-paid staff of Members and the House, with the specific intention of encouraging back customers who appear to have been lost as a result of price increases.
Quality 75. Opinion differs on the quality of the food offered on the Estate, although the balance among Members, especially among new Members, appears to be that quality is generally good. In the recent survey of Members’ services, 76 per cent of those responding were highly satisfied or satisfied with the cafeteria services, but only 66 per cent with the dining room services. The 25 per cent and 34 per cent dissatisfaction rates were, however, higher than the figures achieved for most other services provided by the House, such as security, library or procedural services.60
76. On the positive side, Caroline Lucas MP has in particular praised an “extremely high standard of vegetarian cooking”, and Jo Swinson MP praised House staff for an increasing and extremely valuable growth in knowledge of provision for people with food allergies, such as nut allergies.61 On the other side, Laurence Robertson MP suggests that the quality of food provided in the Strangers’ and Members’ Dining Rooms is of high quality, but that staff sometimes face ‘sub-standard’ food in cafeterias.62
77. The Catering and Retail Service has suggested, as part of its savings programme, that it could reduce costs by about £127,000 annually by reducing quality specifications for some foods, particularly fresh foods. For example, the current emphasis on high animal welfare standards means most pork and bacon can be sourced only or principally in the UK, where recognised welfare standards exist. A reduction in the standard required could enable the service to import more such foods, including from other EU countries. The service itself “would be very reluctant to go down this savings route”, and we agree.63 We reject any proposal to reduce subsidy by lowering the quality standards required for foodstuffs purchased by the House of Commons, particularly in respect of animal welfare standards.
Service 78. There is less satisfaction with the standard of service provided: while many Members and staff praise individual catering staff, there are too many complaints about slow or inattentive service, and it is alarming to discover from previous reports on the catering service that this appears to be a longstanding problem which the service’s management should long ago have taken steps to address.64
60 FDS International, Survey of Services 2010, House of Commons, February 2011, p 17. 61 Ev w 23 and Ev w 27 62 Ev w 26 63 Ev 78 64 Administration Committee, Refreshment Department Services, para 68.
24 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
79. Comprehensive customer service training is required to ensure consistency of attitude among staff, and a specialist external company could be employed to deliver it. Greater staff knowledge of practice in the commercial sector could also be achieved by organising more placements in the private sector to broaden customer service skills and knowledge. The department already undertakes some ‘mystery shopping’, when members of staff from other departments are asked to report on their experience of particular restaurants or cafeterias in return for a free meal, but a more extensive programme could identify areas in which customer service falls short of the standard that customers should expect. As a broad benchmark, incidentally, we believe that anyone using any part of the service should expect the standard of service they would find in the best high street restaurant, cafeteria or coffee bar.
80. We do not intend to cite particular incidents or members of staff, but each member of the Committee has at least one example of when that standard has not been achieved. One of our commercial sector witnesses, Duncan Ackery referred to the ‘carrot cake moment’, the incident in which a customer given a poor piece of carrot cake forgets all that was good about the service: the point is that service issues need to be dealt with as soon as they arise.65 We fear that this is not always so in our service: there are too many complaints about service, particularly in the Members’ Dining Room where delays can be considerable. This may, in part, in recent times, be to do with the introduction of a new electronic ordering system which appears to have delayed orders reaching the kitchen, but whatever the cause, the management of the service needs to respond more quickly and effectively to complaints about poor service, and to manage poor service out of the system. We recommend more comprehensive customer service training be provided and that members of staff be enabled to spend some time in the commercial sector to update and broaden customer service skills. We support enhancement of the existing ‘mystery shopper’ programme to enable the gathering of more customer data about the quality of service offered across the Estate.
Internal marketing 81. The House’s Executive Chef, Mark Hill, told us that custom in individual outlets rises on days when particular meals are on offer.66 For example, custom in the Moncrieffs Self- Service cafeteria rises substantially on Fridays, when fish and chips are on the lunch menu. Mr Hill suggests that he and his team of chefs could do more to highlight what is on offer, and where, if they had intranet pages of their own which could be updated daily and quickly instead of operating through the centrally provided intranet service, which can be slow to respond. Operations in the commercial sector often use a dedicated section of the intranet or a secure web site. Daily special offers, product information, promotional days and general informative messaging could be communicated to customers on a regular basis and used to attract more people to the catering outlets. We agree with the Executive Chef that much could be done more actively to promote the service and what is on offer in individual cafeterias on different days via dedicated intranet pages under the Chef’s own control. We recommend that these be provided to him.
65 Q 183 (Ev 30) 66 Executive Chef, private session, 24 January 2011.
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 25
82. Further substantial improvements can be made to marketing and promotion to what is, to some degree, a captive audience. We note, for example, a recent promotion, by poster, of a special two course for £9.95 lunch deal in the Adjournment, and believe that more such promotions would be valuable. We recommend that the Catering and Retail Service review product signage and labelling in each outlet to ensure that customers may make better informed decisions on the basis of price. Improved signage and labelling would also enable the department to tell its own ‘good news stories’ on the use of fresh seasonal ingredients, healthy cooking techniques and sustainable, organic or Fairtrade produce.
Made-to-order sandwiches 83. It has been suggested to us that the provision of a made-to-order sandwich service could prove profitable. Certainly, there appears to be some dissatisfaction with the range and freshness of bought-in sandwiches provided in most of the Estate’s cafeterias. Sandwiches are made to order in the staff restaurant at 7 Millbank, but experiments in providing similar services in Moncrieffs cafebar and the Strangers’ Bar were discontinued when take-up was low and wastage high.67 The Catering and Retail Service has suggested that the range of facilities available in Portcullis House could be adapted to include a fresh sandwich service, for example. Such services can reduce congestion in busy cafeterias and this type of operation is fairly commonplace in the commercial in-house catering world and the high street. It is, however, quite labour intensive, and labour costs are already at the root of the size of the subsidy.
84. The Atrium of Portcullis House has, partly because it provides via the Debate and Despatch Box the opportunity to hold informal meetings throughout the day, become over the 10 years since it opened, a meeting place for Members of the House and others. Pressure on space within the Atrium can be considerable at peak times—particularly so at lunchtime, but throughout the day, too, at the tables set aside for Member and senior staff business use outside the Adjournment restaurant. We note that the recent Members’ survey of services recorded high satisfaction with the Members’ Centre among those Members who use it, but we note, too, that it is used by only about 20 Members a day and is considerably more used by Members’ staff than by Members themselves. We support the principle of such a service centre for Members, and particularly the idea that PICT should have a presence within Portcullis House so that IT problems can be given speedy attention. We recommend that a made-to-order sandwich service be introduced in Portcullis House, on a trial basis if need be to test demand. Such a service might be provided within an enlarged Debate cafeteria, with a separate queuing system, and some additional tables and seating both within and outside the Debate. This could be done by reducing the space presently occupied by the Members Centre and by restricting that centre to use by Members, as was always intended, and not as an overspill space for additional Members’ staff. The sandwich service and a premium coffee bar could be placed in the additional space gained without any need to disrupt or reconfigure the existing Debate service.
67 Ev 69
26 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
VAT exemption 85. Certain cold take-away food items, such as pre-made sandwiches and boxed salads, are not subject to VAT if eaten away from the outlet in which they are purchased, and this is why, for example, most high street coffee chains offer different prices for such food eaten on or off the premises. The House does not take advantage of this, in spite of the fact that a significant proportion of sales must be sandwiches and other food items that fall into the VAT-exempt category if taken away. Resultant reductions in price for take-away items would make the House more competitive with local coffee shops and supermarkets, a point that could help encourage, in particular, lower-paid Members’ staff back into using the service. We recommend that the Catering and Retail Service investigate with HMRC whether VAT exemptions should apply to relevant takeaway food items sold on the Estate, and pass on any saving to those who purchase takeaway items.
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 27
5 Individual Outlets on the Estate
Access to facilities 86. As one of our principal aims in producing this Report is to seek means of raising footfall within the Commons’ catering facilities, the question of who is allowed to use each was part of our terms of reference. Early in the inquiry, we discovered that a complicated set of rules currently applies, accreted over the years rather than worked out as an holistic package. The rules are confusing and differ from place to place and day to day. They are also, the parliamentary intranet notwithstanding, not always easy to find. For that reason, particularly in a new Parliament in which many new Members have been joined by new staff, we discovered that potential users of the Estate are uncertain of which facilities they may use, when they may do so and whether they may entertain guests.
87. We have also had specific requests for new access to some facilities. Mr Speaker asked us to consider whether dining facilities should be opened to all Members of the House of Lords (instead of, at present, to Peers who were formerly MPs). The Press Gallery has asked for access to a wider range of facilities than it presently enjoys.68 Staff unions also seek greater access for more House and Members’ staff, in particular to the Terrace and the Strangers’ Bar.69 Our guiding principle in considering access to each individual facility will be to extend access where it is possible to do so without compromising the first principle of the service—that it should support Members and those who sustain them in doing the work of Parliament.
Members only 88. Members may use any of the facilities on the Commons part of the Estate and some parts of the Lords’ estate, but very few facilities are reserved entirely for Members. The Smoking Room allows access to no-one but Members; but the Members’ Tea Room and the Members’ Dining Room are open to a limited number of staff, and the Strangers’ Bar to a wider market still. Members may also use a section of the Terrace and seats in the Terrace cafeteria are reserved for them and their guests, although it has proved difficult to police these areas. Members also have greater rights than other groups to entertain guests in the major facilities.
Dining rooms
Members’ Dining Room 89. On the general question of access to facilities, it is essential to the primary purpose of Parliament that its Members be able to meet informally in private surroundings. The Members’ Dining Room provides such surroundings, but is, in per capita terms, the second most highly subsidised facility, behind only the press dining facilities. The Members’ Dining Room service is not, incidentally, provided in the same room at all times: the
68 Ev 99 and 100 69 Ev 94 and 100
28 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
smaller of the two Dining Rooms on the principal floor is used for lunch every day and for dinner on Wednesday; the larger of the two rooms (which otherwise serves as the Strangers’ Dining Room) is used for dinner on Monday and Tuesday.
Table 7: Members’ Dining Room Usage, By Outlet—Lunch
Members Dining Lunch Covers Oct - Dec 2009 & 2010 80 60 39 32 40 25 20 19 13 20 17 20 0 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
2009 2010 Capacity
90. Footfall figures, in tables 7 and 8, demonstrate that the Dining Room is significantly underused, particularly at lunch time, and that use has dropped substantially over the year from 2009 to 2010. The number of lunches served dropped from 103 a week in October to December 2009 to 82 a week in the same period in 2010. Total capacity in both cases was around 240 a week, meaning that weekly occupancy was around 40 per cent in 2009 and down to around 30 per cent in 2010. Daily transaction figures show a similar downward pattern—there were 13 lunch covers on Mondays in 2010 compared with 19 in 2009, for example. Only on Wednesday does the lunch service achieve 50 per cent occupancy, with 32 of the 60 places available filled.
Table 8: Members’ Dining Room covers—dinner
Members Dining Room Dinner Covers Oct - Dec 2009 & 2010
200
150
97 98 92 100 86 58 50 31
0
Monday Tuesday Wednesday
2009 2010 Capacity
91. The evening service fares better, with occupancy approaching 66 per cent on Mondays and Tuesdays, and slightly higher than it was in 2009, but low on Wednesdays, having
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 29
halved on its 2009 levels. Some 98 covers were served on Mondays from October to December 2010, some 92 on Tuesdays (against a capacity of 150) and only 31 on Wednesdays. That makes 221 covers a week, which even if no Member used the service twice would leave more than 400 not using a service provided only for them on an average week.
92. The clear conclusion to draw is that the lunch and evening services offered in the Members’ Dining Room are not attracting sufficient custom from the very small market of 650 Members at which they are aimed. Nor is this a new conclusion: our predecessors of 18 years ago noted that “the Members’ Dining Room is seriously underused at lunch time” and recommended that something be done to appeal to more Members.70 It is deeply depressing to find the situation no better nearly two decades later.
93. The Catering and Retail Service has proposed changes, removing waiter service and offering only a buffet and carvery instead. This would, says the Director of the Catering and Retail Service, save about £145,000 a year by allowing staffing to be reduced by four in the dining room and two in the kitchen that services it.71 We are not convinced that this is the right approach and believe that the Catering and Retail Service should be looking for means to encourage Members to use the Dining Room rather than reducing the range and quality of what is on offer there.
94. We believe that several factors play a part in the Dining Room’s failure to attract the majority of those for whom it is intended. First, and simplest, the fixed price system introduced for evening meals has been unpopular. Secondly, the Members’ Dining Room by its nature appears formal and traditional, a style which, even six years ago according to our predecessor Committee was largely considered “rather stuffy” and less appealing than the more informal service of the Adjournment restaurant in Portcullis House.72 Thirdly, the greater and increasing popularity of the Tea Room at both lunch time and dinner time demonstrates that most Members most of the time seek something quick, light and comparatively inexpensive. Fourthly, we have heard from too many Members that service in the Dining Room is too slow and that they are therefore reluctant to use it.
95. Our predecessors, six years ago, said “we consider that the time is right to change the style of service in the Members’ and Strangers’ Dining Rooms. Our preference would be for a brasserie-style restaurant with a simple menu changed on a regular basis, possibly supplemented by a high-quality buffet”.73 The buffet has been introduced, but the suggestion that the style of food and service become more varied and less traditional or even ‘outdated’ remains valid. There is also an appetite within the Catering and Retail Service, both at management and staff level, to appeal more widely to more Members. The Director of the Catering and Retail Service suggests that “Members choose not to use the Dining Rooms because that reflects the trend throughout workplace catering in the past 10 years or more towards much more casual dining”. Members, she says, “have jobs of work
70 Catering Committee, Refreshment Services for The House of Commons, First Report of Session1993–94, HC 75–I, para 6.1. 71 Ev 78 72 Administration Committee, Refreshment Department Services, para 68. 73 Ibid, para 73.
30 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
to do—they are in their offices working. They may not wish to take the time to go to a dining room and have a full meal”.74 On the staff side, the GMB suggests that change is necessary: “The department should be allowed to offer a more modern fine dining style, with some elements of the traditional. Ways of increasing use of these facilities should be examined so that use is maximised without increasing the cost”.75
96. We must recognise that change in the traditional service offered in the Dining Room has in the past been resisted by Members themselves, a point made both by the GMB and by our own predecessors in their Report on catering in 2005.76 It is a simple fact that those who do use the service regularly like it the way it is; the usage statistics suggest, however, that those Members who regularly use the MDR are in a minority, and a declining minority at that.
97. We recommend that the Catering and Retail Service identify means to reduce staffing levels in the Members’ Dining Room without entirely removing the table service valued by many Members. We recommend that the service seek to capture more of the untapped demand among the Members for whom the room exists by offering a wider range of simpler, lighter, inexpensive options as well as a few main courses and the buffet currently provided, and we welcome the positive response the Catering and Retail Service has already made to this suggestion.
98. The Catering and Retail Service suggests that an additional £11,000 a year might be raised from the Members’ Dining Room by extending access to all Members of the House of Lords. At present, only those who were once MPs have such access.77 With the caveat that acceptable reciprocal use of Lords facilities should first be negotiated, we agree that all Peers should be able to use the Members’ Dining Room at lunch times, and are open to the suggestion that that access should be extended in the evenings, too, perhaps with a limit on the number of Peers who may use the Room at that time.
Strangers’ Dining Room, Adjournment and Churchill Room 99. Like the Members’ Dining Room, the other three main Dining Rooms which offer table service operate significantly below capacity both at lunch time and in the evenings. Unlike the Members’ Dining Room, however, take-up of their services increased in October to December 2010 on the comparable figures for 2009.78 This reinforces our view that what is on offer in the Members’ Dining Room is not sufficiently appealing to the Members for whom it is intended and who, we believe, are dining in other facilities, possibly because of the spreading perception that service in the Members’ Dining Room is slow.
100. The Strangers’ Dining Room, in which Members may entertain guests, is the least subsidised of the four main dining rooms, partly because its gross profit levels are the highest, although it still operates with a substantial subsidy. As table 9 demonstrates, lunch
74 Q 293 (Ev 49) 75 Ev 97 76 Ev 97, and Administration Committee, Refreshment Department Services, para 39. 77 Ev 83 78 See tables 9 to 14.
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 31
time occupancy barely reaches 50 per cent of capacity, although the total number of covers served per week was virtually the same in October to December 2010 as it was in the same period of 2009, unlike in the MDR where trade has dropped. Mondays and Tuesdays averaged 48 covers (against a capacity of 90) and Wednesdays 64, with Thursdays dropping off to 39. The evening service achieves better occupancy rates—49 (against notional capacity of 60) on Mondays, 48 on Tuesdays, and 71 on Wednesdays. This shows a small increase of 15 across the three days as a whole (see table 10).
Tables 9 and 10: Lunch and dinner occupancy in the Strangers’ Dining Room: October to December 2009 and 2010
Strangers Dining Lunch Covers Oct - Dec 2009 & 2010 100 90 80 68 70 64 60 48 51 48 50 41 38 39 40 30 20 10 0 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
2009 2010 Capacity
Strangers Dining Room Dinner Covers Oct - Dec 2009 & 2010
80 71 70 67 60 49 48 50 45 42 41 40 30 20 10 0 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
2009 2010 Capacity
101. The Churchill Room makes a good level of gross profit, but staff and other costs outweigh sales and subsidy is about two and a half times sales. Lunch time usage is extremely low: with a capacity of 70, it served an average 13 covers on Tuesdays from October to December 2010, 26 on Wednesdays and 12 on Thursdays (table 11). That
32 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
makes a weekly total of 51 against a notional capacity of 210, or less than 25 per cent. As with the Members’ Dining Room, those figures represent a substantial drop on the 2009 equivalents, when the average weekly uptake was 84. The evening service shows better occupancy rates and rising demand on the 2009 figures for Mondays and Tuesdays, if not on Thursdays (table 12). Monday averages for 2010 were 48, for Tuesday 55 but for Thursday 41, reflecting the fact that Monday and Tuesday are the busier nights in the Chamber. The Churchill does not open on Wednesday evenings, being reserved for banqueting.
Tables 11 and 12: Churchill Room, lunch and dinner usage: October to December 2009 and 2010
Churchill Room Lunch Covers Oct - Dec 2009 & 2010
80
60 34 40 28 26 22 12 20 13
0
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
2009 2010 Capacity
Churchill Room Dinner Covers Oct - Dec 2009 & 2010
80
55 60 58 60 48 47 42 41 40
20
0
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
2009 2010 Capacity
102. The Adjournment restaurant in Portcullis House also achieves reasonable gross profits, but the costs of running it result in a substantial subsidy. As table 13 demonstrates, lunch time covers for the Adjournment from October to December 2010 were extremely low, and with the exception of Friday (when the restaurant is open to all staff, not just
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 33
Members and senior staff) down on the comparable figures for 2009. With a notional capacity of 70, the restaurant served 21 covers on Mondays, 36 on Tuesdays, 35 on Wednesdays, 26 on Thursdays and 33 on Fridays when the House was sitting. Uptake was higher, though not substantially so, on days when the House was in recess, probably reflecting the fact that no other Dining Room was open then. That means that only on Tuesdays did the Adjournment reach 50 per cent of its lunch time capacity, and then with 36 out of 70. Unlike the Palace-based Members’ and Strangers’ Dining Rooms and Churchill, the Adjournment does not do hugely better for evening meals (table 14). With capacity remaining 70, average on Mondays from October to December 2010 was 35, on Tuesdays 53, Wednesdays 38 and Thursdays 27.
Tables 13 and 14: Adjournment lunch and dinner usage: October to December 2009 and 2010
Adjournment Lunch Covers Oct - Dec 2009 & 2010
80 68 62
60 44 47 40 40 36 35 36 35 36 33 40 33 26 26 27 21 22 20 20 2 0
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
Sitting 2009 Sitting 2010 Recess 2009 Recess 2010 Capacity
Adjournment Dinner Covers Oct - Dec 2009 & 2010
80
60 53 41 35 39 38 40 35 27 20 20
0
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
Av. Covers 2009 Av. Covers 2010 Capacity
103. The clear conclusion to be drawn from the figures for the Strangers’, Churchill and Adjournment Dining Rooms is that restaurant facilities on the Estate have unfilled
34 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
capacity, and especially so at lunch time. It is for that reason that the Catering and Retail Service proposes to close either the Churchill Room or the Adjournment restaurant. Doing the former would, it estimates, save about £257,000 a year by reducing staff costs and providing another venue for banqueting. Doing the latter, by turning the Adjournment into a premium coffee, sandwich bar and delicatessen, could yield between £145,000 and £400,000.79
104. Both approaches rely on the idea that the current demand cannot be bettered, and that idea rests at least in part on long-term trends, particularly at lunch time, and the point identified above that formal lunching in the workplace has long been on the wane. None the less, we are not convinced that closing services rather than seeking to use them better and attract more custom is the more appropriate solution. It is frustrating to note that this is not a new problem, and that sensible solutions have previously been offered by Member Committees: our 2002 predecessors noted that “Ideally, the Churchill Room would provide a cafeteria service at lunch time while remaining a waiter-service facility in the evening”.80
105. We recognise that changing times, healthier lifestyles and stricter working practices have reduced formal lunching, and that the four main Dining Rooms which currently offer full table service lunches on the House of Commons Estate collectively suffer from significant under-occupancy. We acknowledge that the Catering and Retail Service has proposed reducing their number to three in order to reduce the cost of providing that service.
106. We believe that offering a wider range of food styles and less formal service in the Churchill Room would help to raise revenues while also reducing costs to some degree. We reiterate the nine-year old suggestion of our predecessor Committee that the Churchill Room might provide a lighter, quicker, cheaper style of service at lunch time and a waiter service in the evenings, possibly including a carvery service.
107. We recognise that remodelling the Adjournment would provide more space for the type of food offer made to all parliamentary pass holders in the cafeterias that are already overcrowded and most popular, but would be reluctant to lose the lighter, more modern style of food and service that has been achieved in that location.
108. More can be done to vary the food styles on offer. At present, customers may broadly choose between cafeteria food or high-quality dining. There is a gap for the provision of mid-level, high street type offers such as pizza, pasta, Thai, Indian, Chinese or sushi, and we recommend that the Catering and Retail Service produce proposals outlining what might be achieved in that respect.
109. The Catering and Retail Service suggests that £33,000 might be raised from extending access to the Strangers, the Churchill and the Adjournment to all pass holders, instead of, as at present, to Members and senior staff of the House.81
79 Ev 79 80 Catering Committee, Refreshment Facilities in the House of Commons, para. 28. 81 Ev 82
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 35
110. We suggest that widening access to the underused Dining Rooms might also help raise more revenue and is an alternative to simply reducing the variety and quality of what is on offer. To that end, we recommend that members of the Press Gallery be granted access to the Adjournment with the right to entertain three guests (and that the success of that be reviewed 12 months from the date of the Commission’s response to this Report), that all Peers be granted access to the Adjournment, the Strangers’ Dining Room and the Churchill Room, without guests on sitting Monday and Tuesday evenings but with up to three guests at other times, and that full pass holders be granted access to the Churchill Room and Adjournment Restaurant at lunch time.
111. We recommend that an integrated booking system for the Dining Rooms be introduced as soon as possible, in order that customers turned away from one may be advised which others have tables available.
112. We recommend that Members retain full booking rights for the Churchill Room and Adjournment, and that other user groups may book tables on a first-come, first- served basis no more than two working days before dining. We acknowledge that this may mean Members who seek to book late or turn up without a booking may be turned away. This is an inevitable consequence of widening access, and the Strangers’ and Members’ Dining Rooms will continue to be available primarily to Members as at present.
Cafeterias
Members’ Tea Room 113. Only Members and a comparatively small number of senior House staff may use the Tea Room, giving it a fairly restricted market. The costs of staffing the Tea Room for that small market make it one of the most highly subsidised facilities on the Estate, and the profit margin achieved on the sale of goods in the Tea Room is lower than the average among the cafeteria facilities.82 The Room’s usage figures are more encouraging than those for the dining rooms, although with an average spend per cover of only about £1.60, the potential for raising significant revenues there is fairly limited.
114. Table 15 shows the weekly average number of transactions in the Tea Room each day in October to December 2009 and in 2010. It is clear that use of the Tea Room rose by small but consistent amounts each week in 2010, which, allied with the drop in use of the Members’ Dining Room, may suggest some shift towards the quicker, lighter, cheaper choice on offer there. The chart also clearly demonstrates the impact the pattern of the House’s sitting hours has on catering facilities—rising from Monday to peak on Wednesday, then tailing off on Thursday and falling precipitately on Friday. The same pattern applies in both 2009 and 2010. Within those overall figures, there are some variations throughout the day—Monday was the most popular day for evening meal times in both years; Wednesday the most popular at lunch times, as well as overall.
82 Analysis of Catering and Retail Service figures provided by Jon Hewett.
36 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
Table 15: Members’ Tea Room
Members Tea Room Daily Transactions Oct - Dec 2009 & 2010
800 664 579 618 580 600 457 490 397 400 313
200 104 43 53 12 0
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
2009 2010 N/S FRI 2009 N/S FRI 2010
115. The Catering and Retail Service has made two savings proposals in relation to the Tea Room—reducing its menu, to save £74,000 a year, and closing it on non-sitting Fridays, to save £10,000 annually in staffing costs.83 Friday trade, even when the House is sitting, is near minimal. There was an average of 43 transactions during its seven hours opening on non-sitting Fridays in 2010, more than half of them during what might be termed the breakfast period. Given the low usage of the nearby Pugin Room in the mornings, recorded elsewhere, we question whether a cold buffet breakfast of the type set out in many hotels might not be offered there as an alternative, requiring a smaller number of staff, particularly kitchen staff. Our predecessors six years ago argued that the Tea Room could close on non-sitting Fridays, another example of a Member-proposed solution that has not resulted in action.84 We agree that it makes sense to close the Members’ Tea Room on non-sitting Fridays, and recommend that the Catering and Retail Service close it earlier than 2013–14, as is presently proposed.
116. We are not persuaded that the menu offered in the Tea Room should be restricted. The Catering and Retail Service’s proposal appears to be based largely on logistics—“The space itself struggles to accommodate the current extent of food being served, and shoe- horning in additional food offers has compromised the integrity of the service”.85 This may be so, and it is clearly inconvenient to have the Tea Room served from the busy Terrace cafeteria kitchen one floor below, because of the lack of space available within the room for cooking facilities. But the popularity of the Tea Room, and informal consultation with a variety of Members, suggest that this is a service that the House provides which Members would rather see extended than reduced. We accept that it would be difficult to extend it to any great degree, given the space constraints, but we oppose any proposal to reduce the service offered in the Members’ Tea Room.
83 Ev 80 84 Administration Committee, Refreshment Department Services, Second Report of Session 2005–06, HC 733, para 66. 85 Ev 80
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 37
Terrace Cafeteria 117. The Terrace Cafeteria is one of the most popular facilities on the Estate. It also, in pure cash terms, requires by far the largest subsidy because of its high staffing costs. The Terrace cafeteria achieved a gross profit of 28 per cent in 2009–10. A gross profit of between 35 and 45 per cent would be appropriate for this type of cafeteria in most workplaces, most of which would provide it at some subsidy.86 The price rises introduced last year will take the 2010–11 gross profit margin closer to, if not within, that range. In spite of its high volume of sales, the costs of staffing the Terrace Cafeteria again outweigh takings by a considerable degree. We are concerned to see that the number of transactions there dropped on every day of the week between October to December in 2009 and the same period in 2010, and we assume that this is a direct result of the price increases. The same pattern is apparent in other cafeterias used primarily by staff. The Director of the Catering and Retail Service told us that average spend is up and that the items no longer being purchased are of the ‘optional’ variety—the bar of chocolate or bag of crisps.87 None the less, it would be regrettable if trade were lost from the very people the cafeteria is intended primarily to serve—our staff and the staff of the House.
Table 16: Terrace cafeteria
Terrace Cafeteria Daily Covers Oct - Dec 2009 & 2010 3000
1847 2019 2002 1782 1943 1899 2000 1718 1618 1337 1093 1077 992 1021 867 923 1020 891998 524 1000 818 804 524
0
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday SITTING 2009 SITTING 2010 RECESS 2009 RECESS 2010 N/S FRI 2009 N/S FRI 2010
118. At present, about a fifth of the Terrace Cafeteria is reserved for Members only, behind a barrier which, when it was introduced a decade or so ago, was intended to be moveable at times of high demand in the ‘public’ section and low demand in the Members’ section. This has never happened, and it is hard in any event to see how it could be done easily in a full cafeteria. The Terrace provides the only full-scale private cafeteria space for Members (and guests), and it is therefore necessary that the barrier be retained most of the time. That said, we see no reason why the Members-only area of the Terrace cafeteria should not be opened to all users on days when the House does not sit, including recesses and non-
86 Analysis of Catering and Retail Service figures provided by Jon Hewett. 87 Q 112 (Ev 20)
38 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
sitting Fridays. There is no reason to move the partition; a simple reversible Members Only/Open Access sign will suffice. We suggest that Members themselves be mindful, particularly at Tuesday and Wednesday lunch times, that sitting in the ‘public’ section while Members-only seating remains unused may be depriving someone else of somewhere to eat.
119. The Catering and Retail Service proposes to save £81,000 annually in staffing costs by introducing self-clearing systems in the Terrace cafeteria, and in the Debate in Portcullis House; at present, trays and plates are cleared up by staff.88 Self-clearing systems already operate in the Bellamy’s and 7 Millbank cafeterias. We recommend that the Catering and Retail Service make an estimated saving of £81,000 a year by introducing self-clearing to the Terrace and Debate cafeterias. We see no reason why this should not be done long before the planned start date of 2013–14.
Debate 120. The Debate cafeteria in Portcullis House is the busiest facility on the Estate, achieving the highest revenue in 2009–10 from the largest number of covers, at 454,000. Gross profits at 26 per cent sat below the 35 to 45 per cent range appropriate for a facility of this type.89 Staff costs were considerably closer than in any other major outlet on the Estate to revenue raised, but were none the less higher. The Debate is one of the most cost-effective facilities on the Estate, but as it, too, loses on every cover served, that achievement is purely relative. Last year’s price increases will raise the gross profit level and make the outlet more cost- effective.
Table 17: Debate Cafeteria, Portcullis House of Commons
Debate Daily Covers Oct - Dec 2009 & 2010
3000 2372 2549 2531 2308 2500 2195 2275 1994 1801 2000 1652 1846 1583 1272 1276 1311 1089 1500 1285 1162 1083 1209 871 977 1000 848 500 0 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
SITTING 2009 SITTING 2010 RECESS 2009 RECESS 2010 N/S FRI 2009 N/S FRI 2010
121. The downturn in transactions seen in the Terrace Cafeteria is considerably more marked in the Debate cafeteria(see table 17), and differs in one quite alarming respect.
88 Ev 80 89 Analysis of Catering and Retail Service figures provided by Jon Hewett.
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 39
While the analysis of the Director of the Catering and Retail Service that sales of main meals are holding up while sales of ‘choice’ items such as chocolate bars are falling appears to be borne out by meal time usage statistics for the Terrace Cafeteria, there has been a significant drop in lunch time trade in the Debate.90 This is the cafeteria most popular among Members’ staff, and we have heard from Members’ staff representatives that a combination of their comparatively low salaries and the price increases are encouraging staff to bring in their own food or purchase from nearby, cheaper supermarkets. Transactions during the 12 noon to 3 pm lunch time period between October and December 2009, before the price rises, totalled 4,720 during a sitting week; for the same period in 2010, they totalled 4,107. That makes a drop of 613 transactions at the busiest time of day, and it seems at least likely that that means a drop in the number of main meals being sold, not just side items. A 13 per cent fall in the number of transactions seems to us to be a matter of concern, particularly as the Debate is, once again, the place where most Members’ staff might be expected to eat.
122. Arising from that last point is the question of whether there ought to be a restaurant for staff alone, which Members are not permitted to use. A staff-only restaurant might offer new options—lower prices for staff, for example, or a discount or loyalty scheme of the type described in paragraphs 73 and 74 of this Report. It has never in the past been the House’s practice to provide facilities which Members may not use, however, and although our counterparts in the House of Lords have a restaurant designated primarily as a staff restaurant—the River Restaurant—there is no prohibition on Peers, or indeed Members of this House, using it.
123. We recommend that consideration be given to closing the Debate in the evenings owing to the much-reduced demand at that time of day and the availability of sufficient capacity in the Terrace cafeteria to absorb that custom.
Bellamy’s Cafeteria 124. Bellamy’s cafeteria, in 1 Parliament Street, is another facility in which usage appears to have fallen considerably since the prices were raised last August (table 18). The cafeteria largely serves the staff of Members based in the building, and staff of the House from that and neighbouring buildings. Its staffing costs were more than double the revenue raised, and once total costs are taken into account, the subsidy on the service was considerable. Overall weekly covers in a sitting week between October and December 2009 were 3,385; in the same period for 2010, the total was 2,512. That makes a drop of 873, nearly 25 per cent of transactions. Once again, we doubt that this precipitate fall can be accounted for only by the non-sale of side items: this must mean that staff—largely Members’ staff and House Library staff in that location—are no longer buying as many meals. The significant drop in lunch time use of the Debate and Bellamy’s cafeterias supports the case that staff, and in particular Members’ staff, have been substantially discouraged from using facilities as a result of the price increases introduced during last summer’s recess. The Catering and Retail Service needs to reverse this trend as a matter of urgency, and we have elsewhere suggested staff loyalty or discount schemes as one potential means of doing so.
90 See Ev w 9
40 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
Table 18: Bellamy’s cafeteria, 1 Parliament Street
Bellamy’s Cafeteria Daily Covers Oct - Dec 2009 & 2010
721 727 800 687 664 631 586 569 571 530 600 464 378 393 400
200
0
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
2009 2010 N/S FRI 2009 N/S FRI 2010
125. Significantly more than half the Bellamy’s trade occurs between 12 noon and 3 pm, and the fact that trade is substantially lower before and after those times has prompted the Catering and Retail Service to propose that £54,000 a year in staffing costs be saved by opening the cafeteria only during lunch time.91 Lost breakfast business could probably be largely transferred to Portcullis House, and afternoon business is negligible. We agree that the Bellamy’s Cafeteria should open only between 12 noon and 3 pm in order to reduce the costs of staffing an all-day service by approximately £54,000 a year.
126. It may be worth the Catering and Retail Service considering whether the unused space in 1 Parliament Street offers some potential for evening banqueting facilities. For example, the various Members’ Dining Clubs might choose to use the discrete back room if a suitable menu were on offer, thus releasing banqueting rooms elsewhere for more commercial purposes. The same point applies to various other potentially under-used or presently unused facilities on the Estate, most notably the Dining Room space in Moncrieffs and some of the meeting rooms on the first floor of Portcullis House, which might easily be converted for evening use as small dining rooms.
7 Millbank
Portcullis Cafeteria 127. Around 650 members of the House’s staff are based at 7 Millbank, which contains two cafeterias. Those staff work principally for Select Committees, for Hansard, for PICT and in finance, administration and human resources roles. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) is also housed there, as is the secretariat of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Both the ground floor Portcullis Cafeteria and the 6th Floor Cafeteria attract substantial subsidies, raising the question of whether it is appropriate to
91 Ev 81
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 41
operate two outlets in a building that appears, on the face of it, unlikely profitably to support just one.
128. As with the Debate in Portcullis House, the price rises appear to have had a very substantial effect on footfall in the main cafeteria, the Portcullis (table 19). Total transactions in a sitting week for October to December 2009 were 5,031; the comparable figure for 2010 is 3,715. In other words, the number of covers served has dropped by 27 per cent, and the figures for the lunch time period, 12 noon to 3 pm, are also substantially down, implying, as in the Debate, that main meals as well as side items are no longer being purchased. In short, to some degree, some staff of the House have been priced out of the cafeteria that serves them and almost them alone.
Table 19: Portcullis cafeteria, 7 Millbank
Portcullis Cafeteria ( 7 Millbank) Daily Covers Oct - Dec 2009 & 2010
1200 1036 1090 1083 1043 1000 824 792 802 779 780 755 779 800 686 642 625 567 554 600 526 438 306 438 400 200 0
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
SITTING 2009 SITTING 2010 RECESS 2009 RECESS 2010
129. The Catering and Retail Service suggests that £10,000 a year might be saved in staff costs by ending evening service in the Portcullis Cafeteria and closing it at 5.30 pm instead of 9 pm.92 Usage figures demonstrate that between 27 and 40 covers were served on evenings between October and December 2010, but the Director of the Catering and Retail Service tells us that more than three-quarters of those involved items which are also available in the building from vending machines, such as sandwiches, chocolate bars and coffee. As few as two transactions a night are for items provided only by the evening service.93 We recognise that ending the service will inconvenience those few members of staff who use it, who will instead have to make alternative arrangements or spend more time crossing to the Palace to use facilities open there. We see no reason to retain the evening service at the Portcullis Cafeteria in 7 Millbank given the small number of transactions carried out there each evening, and we note that staff in the building have previously been advised that they would lose the service if it was not used. We support the proposal to save £10,000 a year by closing it at 5.30 pm.
92 Ev 82 93 Ev 82 and Ev w 13
42 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
6th Floor Cafeteria 130. The 6th floor cafeteria offers a smaller and different service, built around coffee bar type services in the morning and afternoon and a limited range of hot lunch time food. It also offers the only outside eating space in that building, a small terrace overlooking St John’s Church in Smith Square. Its loss in cash terms is not as considerable as in most other venues, but the level of subsidy required far outweighs current takings. Once again, the price increases appear to have influenced a significant reduction in the number of covers. Average weekly use in a sitting week in October to December 2009 was 915; in 2010 it had fallen to 716, or by about 22 per cent. Lunch trade is down over the year, too, but not by as substantial a percentage.
Table 20: 6th Floor Cafeteria, 7 Millbank
6th Floor Cafe Daily Covers Oct - Dec 2009 & 2010
350
250 188 187 191 193150 155 156 176 140 150 148 132 148 126 150 94 123 113 109 123 109
50 0
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
SITTING 2009 SITTING 2010 RECESS 2009 RECESS 2010
131. It is questionable whether a building containing 650 or so staff can support two catering facilities. The Catering and Retail Service proposes to save £58,000 a year by closing the 6th floor cafeteria, albeit with the possibility that the premium coffee service which it offers might be incorporated into a refurbished Portcullis cafeteria, which does not at present offer that.94 We accept that the joint cost of running two full-time facilities in the building is too high and that steps should be taken to reduce it. The case that 7 Millbank cannot support two full-scale cafeterias is a compelling one and savings can clearly be made there. We support the Catering and Retail Service’s proposal to close the 6th floor cafeteria, which will save an estimated £58,000 a year.
Moncrieffs 132. The Press Gallery is comprised of about 300 journalists, of whom about 170 have desk and offices provided for them by the House and on the premises, within the Palace of Westminster and, unlike most MPs’ offices, close to the Chamber. Journalists who are not
94 Ev 81–82
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 43
members of the Gallery also have access to the Estate, and approximately 440 media passes have been issued.95 The Gallery has traditionally been provided with subsidised catering facilities of its own, although access to most of them has been open to all pass holders in recent years. At present, the Moncrieffs suite—named after a distinguished former Press Association correspondent, Chris Moncrieff—includes a cafebar, a self-service restaurant and a table-service restaurant.
Moncrieffs table service 133. The dining service provided to journalists is by some distance the single most highly subsidised service per cover on the whole House of Commons Estate. The service is restricted to members of the Gallery and their guests. In other words, the House is providing at public expense an exceptionally highly subsidised dining room for the employees of a variety of private sector organisations, for whom it also provides free accommodation, heating, lighting and so on.
134. This is clearly not sustainable, but we recognise that journalists in the Gallery have a need to dine guests sometimes, and hold valuable political events, including their monthly lunch, attended by senior political figures, such as the Prime Minister. The Catering and Retail Service has proposed closing the table service area of Moncrieffs as a savings measure, and we agree that it should do so, with the proviso that members of the Gallery should instead be able to dine in the Adjournment.
Moncrieffs Self-Service cafeteria 135. The self-service restaurant opens only at lunch times and serves an average of around 100 covers Monday to Thursday, but up to 150 on Fridays, which is Fish and Chip special day (table 21). Formerly open only to the Gallery, it is open now to all pass holders, but it suffers from being in a comparatively unknown part of the Palace which is also difficult to reach, principally by one small lift or one steep staircase from the Colonnade. Use of the cafeteria has increased over the past few years since access was opened to all passholders. In 2009-10, the gross profit achieved was only 21 per cent, the lowest in any of the Estate’s outlets. Staff costs again outweighed revenues considerably to make the cafeteria the most heavily subsidised of all the cafeterias (though less so than the dining rooms).
136. Price increases appear to have had less impact on Moncrieffs than on other cafeterias, with lunch time covers broadly similar in October to December 2009 to those in the same period of 2010, perhaps reflecting both the ‘captive’ nature of the main client group, the journalists, and the fact that they are probably better paid and perhaps less price sensitive than either Members’ or House staff.
95 See Table 1.
44 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
Table 21: Moncrieffs self-service restaurant: Covers served October to December 2009 and 2010
Moncrieffs cafebar 137. The cafebar is the most cost-effective of the three parts of the Moncrieffs service, and one of the more cost-effective of all the Estate’s facilities, albeit still at a comparatively small cash subsidy. It operates throughout the day and into the evening on sitting days, with a coffee bar service in the mornings and afternoons, and alcoholic drinks also available throughout the day. Daily covers for the measured periods in 2009 and 2010 were broadly similar, though slightly down overall in 2010. Trade peaks at lunch time, but is fairly steady throughout the day, but falling to fairly low levels after 5.30 pm. It obtained a gross profit level of about 34 per cent, significantly lower than would be expected in an outlet serving this range of goods: by contrast, within the House, the 6th Floor cafeteria at Millbank has a 52 per cent gross profit rate, and the Despatch Box’s GP is 74 per cent.96 Staff costs were, unusually, lower than the total revenue taken, one of only four locations on the Estate where this is true.97 Overall costs, however, outran revenues, resulting in an overall subsidy for the cafebar.
96 Analysis of Catering and Retail Service figures provided by Jon Hewett. 97 The others are the Strangers Bar, the Jubilee cafe and the Despatch Box coffee shop.
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 45
Table 22: Moncrieffs cafebar Moncrieff’s CafeBar Daily Covers Oct - Dec 2009 & 2010
400 285 294 250 266 273 273 300 219 233
200 160 158 112 130 122 97 103 71 90 86 100 53 49
0
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
SITTING 2009 SITTING 2010 RECESS 2009 RECESS 2010
138. The Catering and Retail Service proposes to close the cafeteria (while keeping the cafebar open), saying that that, combined with ending table service, could save an annual £155,000. The service also suggests that the space vacated by the service could be used to provide catering staff with meals, which could take another £48,000 off the subsidy; at present, staff eat in a variety of cafeterias and attempt to avoid the busiest periods (when they are, of course, likely to be at work anyway).98
139. We are not unsympathetic to these proposals, but believe that more, and more creative, work needs to be done to identify the best use of the Moncrieffs space. Retaining the cafebar, perhaps with a slightly enhanced service to make up for the loss of the self- service part of the suite, is sensible, particularly if its costs can be reduced or revenues raised sufficiently to push it into profit rather than the comparatively small loss it currently incurs. Raising the gross profit level achieved there will go some way to doing that.
140. Losing the self-service restaurant facilities altogether would, though, run counter to our belief that the service may be able to use what it has to raise new revenues rather than shutting services down. We have suggested that the Catering and Retail Service return to us with proposals on whether that space might be used in the evening as a banqueting area for Member-only groups, such as All-Party Parliamentary Groups or dining clubs, or for other private events, which in turn might relieve pressure on profitable banqueting rooms elsewhere in the House. If significant savings can be made by consolidating staff meals into a single area, then it should be done; but, as the Press Gallery has pointed out, if staff meals are served between, say 11.30 am and 12.30 pm, there must be at least some case for continuing to operate the kitchen already running to serve anyone who wants to eat in the same space at 12.45, if there is sufficient demand.99
141. We also see some potential in the presently under-used bar area in Moncrieffs, not least because of the demand among Members staff for a replacement for the Bellamy’s Bar
98 Ev 81 99 Ev 99
46 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
in Parliament Street and the long-gone Annie’s Bar. Indeed, we suggest it may be time to revive the name “Annie’s Bar”, and to rebrand the cafebar area to promote among staff of both the House and Members the fact that it is no longer set aside purely for use by the Press Gallery. The name Moncrieffs would remain, of course, for the remaining cafeteria service. We recommend that Moncrieff’s cafebar be renamed Annie’s Bar and promoted actively by the Catering and Retail Service to Members’ staff and staff of the House as an alternative to the bar lost last year when the nursery was constructed in 1 Parliament Street. We recommend that closing time in the bar return to matching the rise of the House for a trial period of six months, from 10 October 2011, to see whether demand for an evening service exists in that location.
142. We note the various proposals the Catering and Retail Service has made on altering the service provided in Moncrieffs. We are not yet minded to agree that the approach proposed is the correct one, and ask the service to return to us with alternative proposals on the basis outlined in paragraph 140.
Despatch Box 143. The Despatch Box in Portcullis House bears the distinction of being the only outlet on the Estate actually to return a net profit rather than requiring a subsidy. Gross profit was a healthy 74 per cent, a figure in line with the return expected in high street type coffee bars. Usage figures for October to December 2009 and 2010 show a slight fall in the number of transactions recorded in the latter year, and since prices were increased. Price levels remain below high street equivalents, however. Trade is fairly steady throughout the week, although like most Commons outlets it peaks on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and drops on Fridays. The busiest periods, predictably enough, are early morning and lunch time, but mid-afternoon trade is also consistent and steady. The Despatch Box location in the Portcullis atrium, surrounded by tables where informal meetings may be held, clearly plays a significant part in the venue’s success.
144. The success of the high-volume, high-profit margin coffee bar prompts the question of whether more such facilities would be similarly profitable. Certainly a number of the submissions we have received have suggested that there is some latent demand for ‘good’ coffee, and the additional sales of tea, muffins, biscuits and the like by a small number of staff provide potential for profit.
145. Premium coffee is available to the press in Moncrieffs, but there is none elsewhere in the Palace. Various locations have been floated for such a service in the past, including the former Annie’s Bar, but none has the space available in Portcullis House. The Catering and Retail Service has proposed turning the current souvenir shop in Medals Corridor, next to the Terrace Cafeteria, into a takeaway coffee bar, for which the nearest seating would be either on the Terrace, in the cafeteria, or more probably back at a desk. It is suggested that such a service might contribute about £42,000 a year to help reduce the overall subsidy.100 We are not convinced that the souvenir shop is the ideal location for a new coffee bar, but see the force of arguments that there is latent demand for such facilities and would
100 Ev 84
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 47
support the creation of more of them, either within existing facilities or in new locations, including in the Palace of Westminster itself.
146. Removal of the gift shop in favour of a coffee bar would require replacement of the gift shop elsewhere. The end of the Line of Route in Westminster Hall is the best possible location for a gift shop.
147. We note the Catering and Retail Service suggestion that installing an espresso coffee machine in the Strangers’ Bar could raise footfall there during the quieter daytime hours, and we recommend that that be done regardless of whether the souvenir shop is converted to a coffee bar. Provision of an espresso machine in the Smoking Room might serve the same function.
Pugin Room 148. The Pugin Room, although overall costs were comparatively low in cash terms, also required a subsidy because sales were substantially lower. Although the Pugin Room is open from 9.30 am, considerably more than half its business is done after 3 pm, with afternoon tea and pre-dinner drinks the principal component of that business. After 10 pm, however, business is minimal—an average of 6 transactions on a Monday, 7 on a Tuesday and 3 on a Wednesday, which hardly justifies the cost of keeping staff on late.101
149. The Catering and Retail Service has proposed making the Room a bar only, or reducing staff costs by opening later and/or closing earlier than is currently the case.102 We reject the proposal that the Pugin Room should become only a bar. The present range of service should continue to be provided. We note the service’s proposal to reduce opening hours because of comparatively slack business before lunch time and later in the evenings. We recommend as an alternative that access to the Pugin Room be granted until midday to all Peers and staff of the House for a trial period of a year to enable the service to test whether demand may rise to fill the slacker early hours. Given the minimal transactions recorded after 10 pm even when the House is sitting, we see no reason why the Room should not close at no later than 10 pm on any night.
Jubilee Cafeteria 150. The Jubilee cafeteria, off Westminster Hall, is provided primarily for visitors to the Estate, including tour groups. It seems remarkable to us that one of the most famous tourist attractions in the world could manage to run its visitor cafeteria at a loss, but that is indeed the case at Westminster. Again it is staff costs that primarily result in the need for subsidy:, they, uncharacteristically come in below overall sales, but once central costs of management, HR and finance, plus sundry costs of supplies and so on are added to the account, the cafeteria made a loss last year. To be fair to the Catering and Retail Service, it is not entirely its fault that a tourist cafeteria in a prime location is not turning a profit. Signage directing visitors into the cafeteria from Westminster Hall is less than prominent, tourists are unlikely to realise in the absence of signage inside and outside the building that
101 Ev w 16 102 Ev 80
48 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
there is a cafeteria at all, and the prospect of waiting in the lengthy queues that often build up at Cromwell Green is hardly likely to encourage casual use of the cafeteria. In addition, considerably more could be done to sell souvenirs through the cafeteria, and the current drab and uninspiring decor of what ought to be a spectacular room needs urgent attention. We recommend that more visible and more informative signage be erected in Westminster Hall to ensure that visitors are more aware that there is a cafeteria there, at the end of their tours, and that they are welcome to enter it.
Bars
Strangers’ Bar 151. Since the closure of Bellamy’s Bar in 1 Parliament Street, the Strangers’ Bar has been the primary ‘public’ bar available to users of the Estate. Of other bars available, the Sports and Social Club is run mainly as a bar for staff of both Houses, and falls outside the Catering and Retail Service remit. The Smoking Room bar is provided for Members only.
152. The Strangers’ Bar promises to be profitable following the price rises introduced last August, when prices for drinks were aligned with those applied in a mid-market high street pub chain. In 2009–10, the bar made an operating loss, but only after central administrative and management costs were taken into account; it would otherwise have turned a small profit. It is one of the few outlets on the Estate in which revenues outweigh staff costs, and it appears likely that it will in 2010–11 be closer to or in profit. If so, despite the discontent that has been recorded by many over the loss of Bellamy’s Bar, which was replaced by the House’s new nursery, the House would have one profitable bar instead of two loss makers.
153. Little change appears to be required in the popular service offered by the bar. The principal issue that raises concern is access to what is a fairly small space, and one which can become extremely overcrowded, particularly on summer’s evenings.
154. The access regulations for the Strangers’ Bar are worth quoting full as an example of the difficulty many staff perceive in knowing where they may go and when. Access is allowed for:
Members of Parliament, Officers of the House of Commons, Peers who were former Members of Parliament, SCS Members of Office of Parliamentary Counsel, all with up to 3 guests. The Trade Union Side Administrator and Staff News Editor may use the Strangers’ Bar with up to 2 guests when carrying out their official duties. Staff of the House who are grade B1 or B2, former Members of Parliament who have served a minimum of 10 years and retired Officers who had served a minimum of 30 years may also use the Strangers’ Bar but may not take guests there. Staff of the House and Members' staff are authorised to use the Bar on non-sitting Fridays and during recesses, no guests.103
There is no security officer at the door of the Strangers’ Bar to check who goes into it. Precisely how the bar staff are supposed to judge which ex-MPs served for 10 years or which retired officers served for 30 is unclear. There is no Editor of Staff News, a
103 House of Commons intranet, 7 February 2011.
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 49
publication abolished some years ago. Although staff at grade B1 and B2 may use the bar, a blackboard above it informs them that only Members and Officers may buy drinks. Clearly the regulations require simplification.
155. Even before closure of the Bellamy’s Bar in 1 Parliament Street the Strangers’ Bar was frequently overcrowded in the evenings, particularly in the summer months when the Terrace is also heavily used. Since Bellamy’s closed, pressure has grown worse on a bar that is by no means large. Tempting as it is to offer more open access, sheer practicality prevents any evening extension, a position supported by the GMB, which represents the bar staff.104
156. We appreciate that the bar staff have difficulty in enforcing the regulations on access in the bar, but we believe that those regulations are increasingly more honoured in the breach than the observance. There is a clear need for access to both the bar and the Terrace to be more vigorously policed. We recommend that the security officer based at the entrance to the Terrace be tasked with ensuring that those on the Terrace have the right to be there, by challenging at the door and by ensuring that patrolling officers monitor users of the Terrace regularly. We further recommend that the Strangers’ bar staff be encouraged more vigorously to challenge those who do not have that right, including guests of Members or of staff who are or may be present in the bar without their host.
157. Since the purpose of the bar is to allow parliamentarians to meet and talk, we are persuaded that access for Members of the other House should be extended to all Peers, not just those who used to be Members of this House: it is hard to see what business purpose creates two classes of Members of the House of Lords. We regret that the small size and overcrowding of the bar mean that that extension of access has to be balanced by some restriction for another group. The principle that access should be on the basis of business need requires that that restriction apply to those less senior House staff who, unlike Members’ staff, have previously been allowed access during Monday to Thursday, but are, technically at least, not permitted to buy drinks. We recommend that access to Strangers’ Bar be allowed at any time for Members and up to three guests. Officers of the House and Peers should have access without guests on Mondays and Tuesdays, and with up to three guests for the remainder of the week. Other staff of the House, staff of Members and members of the Press Gallery should have access to the bar and the Terrace on non- sitting Fridays and recess days.
Smoking Room 158. The Smoking Room provides a bar that Members alone may use at present. Takings are small. The cost of staffing the bar more than outweighs the revenue raised. Average covers served in the room, which opens from 3 pm until after 10 pm on Monday to Wednesday, and earlier on Thursday, were, in October to December, 2010, some 36 on Mondays, 42 on Tuesdays, 26 on Wednesdays and only 5 on Thursdays.105 It would be possible to operate the Room largely without permanent staff: hot food or alcohol vending machines could be provided, for example. We recommend that the Catering and Retail Service offer options on how to run the Smoking Room (which might usefully be given
104 Ev w 8–10 105 Ev w 17
50 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
a new name) with the minimum staffing necessary in order to reduce the costs of the service, and taking into account our previous recommendation on the possibility of introducing a premium coffee service. We recommend that Members be able to entertain up to three guests in the neighbouring Chess Room.
159. The House’s savings programme is scheduled to reduce the administration estimate over the next four years. Few of the specific proposals made for savings or income generation by the Catering and Retail Service are scheduled to begin within the next financial year, and we believe that this provides an opportunity to test some of the options we have outlined above. The service will be in a position to trial such proposals as: introducing enhanced coffee bar services in, for example, the Strangers’ Bar and the Smoking Room; altering access arrangements; and introducing self-cleaning systems more quickly than is presently planned.
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 51
6 Revenue raising
Retail 160. Reducing the subsidy required by the Catering and Retail Service can be done by increasing revenues as well as by cutting costs. In addition to catering for Members, staff and so on, the service is responsible for the external banqueting service and for the sale of souvenirs. As part of its contribution to the House’s savings programme, the service has put forward several ideas for income generation.
Souvenirs 161. At present, souvenirs are sold only within the confines of the Parliamentary Estate, by both the Lords and the Commons. In part, this is because of restrictions imposed on use of the crowned Portcullis badge, but it is likely that those could be loosened by negotiation with the Queen’s representatives. The experience of other substantial but traditional tourist attractions in recent years suggests that there is considerable potential for income generation from widening the market for such souvenirs, as, for example, the Royal Collection has demonstrated.
162. The House’s retail operation is one of the profitable parts of the Catering and Retail Service’s work. The Catering and Retail Service believes that an additional £400,000 might be generated in income from 2012–13 by selling via a high street outlet, which is based on the proposition that the current £1 million or so of sales could be doubled.106
163. The Director of the Catering and Retail Service told us that experts in this area advise setting up a high street outlet before considering online sales of souvenirs.107 The House already possesses such an outlet, which currently functions as a bookshop on the corner of Bridge Street, selling books of parliamentary interest and official papers. The use of that shop is currently under review; although it falls outside our direct remit as it is not a service provided to Members, we have been interested to watch developing thinking on widening both the variety of material on offer there and raising the commercial profile of the shop.108 We fully support moves to raise additional revenue by widening the sale of souvenirs, and in particular moves to sell a full range of souvenirs through the Parliamentary Bookshop. We also suggest that the name of the shop be changed to reflect such wider use.
164. It has in the past been suggested that there was some cachet in keeping the House’s souvenirs “exclusive”. This argument relies on the idea that visitors or those who receive gifts personally or, for example, as prizes for a constituency raffle might not so much value something easily obtainable on the high street. We doubt whether there is much value in this argument, but if some exclusivity is thought desirable, it would be perfectly possible to
106 Ev 85–86 107 Q 287 (Ev 48) 108 Sales of some souvenirs began in the shop from 28 March, as we were concluding this Report.
52 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
retain some items for internal sale, as, for example, the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) does.
165. The other significant risk in selling more souvenirs is the accusation that they are ‘tacky’ or inappropriate. The external witnesses to our inquiry were united in dismissing this fear. Duncan Ackery said “it’s down to integrity of product. That’s all it is. If the product has integrity and if you sell it in a well thought through and considered environment, I do not believe that you in any way belittle or undermine the brand”.109 Rupert Ellwood, who was once involved in the sale of souvenirs for the House of Lords, added “It is about selecting quality products that match the surroundings. [...] There are things, like the whiskies and champagnes, that are quality products and people love”.110
166. Whisky and champagne are, in fact, among the best selling items currently sold within the Estate, as is demonstrated in table 23.
Table 23: Top-selling souvenir lines by sales value Item Selling price No. of sales 1 HoC Whisky £20.50 3,516 2 Dark Chocolate Mint (large) £6.95 7,159 3 Dark Chocolate Mint (small) £3.75 11,632 4 HoC Champagne £23.00 1,766 5 Speaker Whisky £28.50 906 6 Diary £3.99 6,127 7 Guide Book £5.00 6,373 8 Big Ben Pencil £1.50 13,453 9 Hoc Vintage Port £13.50 1,435 10 Luxury Chocolate Box £11.00 1,836 11 Pen £6.95 2,140 12 Torch Key ring £2.95 4,072 13 Christmas Mug £15.00 830 14 Bridge Set £8.00 1,417 Source: Catering and Retail Service
Internet sales 167. One obvious further outlet for souvenir sales is via the internet. The Director of the Catering and Retail Service told us that profitable returns on such sales are not likely to be achieved within the first three years of setting up such a system, and it may well make sense from that point of view to concentrate first on expanding the existing sales through a shop unit.111 On the other hand, if it takes three years to create a profitable on-line business, then it also makes sense to get started as soon as possible if on-line sales are thought worthwhile. Since any proposal to do this would involve new expenditure, it is more a matter for the Finance and Services Committee to consider than it is for us. The Commission has already
109 Q 186 110 Q 206 111 Q 288 (Ev 48)
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 53
tasked the Finance and Services Committee with considering the long-term potential of online souvenir sales as it continues its work on the redesign of the House’s services.
The public 168. Perhaps more controversial, within the House, are Catering and Retail Service proposals to widen access to some facilities to members of the general public. Any such proposal inevitably raises questions about conflict with the business of the House, which is, primarily a place of work, albeit one which is also a significant tourist draw. Greater public access to the buildings and their facilities also raises questions of security.
169. The Catering and Retail Service suggests that about £85,000 a year could be raised from enabling members of the public to fill some of the spare capacity identified in the main Dining Rooms at lunch time. It suggests that the Strangers’ Dining Room could be opened in this way for visitors beginning or finishing a parliamentary tour around lunch time.112 Members of the public are allowed to use facilities in many other Parliaments or equivalents: Scotland, the United States and Germany, for example, all allow use of some eating outlets. It is neither feasible or desirable to open the Strangers’ Dining Room to the public at times when the House is sitting. We are, however, not opposed in principle, and so long as any concerns raised by the Serjeant at Arms about security can be overcome, to opening the Strangers’ and other facilities to the public on non-sitting days, including weekends and recesses, if all costs can be covered and the service offered profitably.
170. The Catering and Retail Service also suggests offering traditional afternoon teas to visitors from Monday to Saturday in the Terrace Pavilion, estimating that more than £75,000 could be raised annually. Such a service might, for example, be included as part of the package for those who undertake a specialised tour of the Palace’s works of art or for those who visit Big Ben.113 Again, so long as any security concern is dealt with, we believe that allowing public access to the Terrace Pavilion for an afternoon tea service for those who have taken tours would raise revenue for the House and contribute in a minor way to the strategic goal of promoting public knowledge and understanding of the work and role of Parliament through the provision of information and access.
Banqueting and events 171. Aside from providing for those who work on the parliamentary Estate, the Catering and Retail Service is responsible for running the banqueting and events service which caters for dinners, receptions and other events hosted by Members of Parliament. This is the single most profitable element of the service. It appears clear that there is potential for greater profit in this area, and the sharp rise in banqueting prices since last October is likely to see considerably more revenue raised in 2010–11.
172. Broadly speaking, we favour moves to raise more income from banqueting, not least because profits made in this area clearly help to cross-subsidise those facilities where
112 Ev 83 113 Ev 83
54 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
business need rather than profitability is the primary reason for their existing. The private sector and contract caterers who gave evidence to our inquiry were unanimous in believing that there is considerable capacity to raise revenue from events held in the Palace.
173. The Catering and Retail Service believes that about £100,000 a year could be raised, for example, from hiring out Westminster Hall for just four events a year, preferably via an approved third party event specialist.114 Our private sector witnesses unanimously argued that demand for such a prime location would be considerable. Westminster Hall is, of course, a space shared with the House of Lords, and is part of a royal Palace, so considerable negotiation would be required for such a proposal to be put into effect. Once again, though, from the point of view of both revenue and wider public access to a national asset, we support in principle the idea of hiring out Westminster Hall on a limited number of occasions and for events in keeping with the historic character of the location.
174. Three further proposals have been made by the Catering and Retail Service to raise additional banqueting revenues.115 We accept in principle that banqueting room hire fees should be brought into line with commercial rates and that fees should be charged for all rooms used for banqueting.
175. We have recommended elsewhere that banqueting restrictions be loosened so that members of the public may sponsor and host events at times when the House is not sitting. Regardless of whether that is agreed to, we believe that the current restrictions on Peers should be lifted. We agree, again so long as suitable reciprocal access is offered by the Lords, that all Members of the House of Lords should be able to host events in the House of Commons at off-peak times, and recommend that the Catering and Retail Service identify the times at which this policy might usefully apply.
114 Ev 84 115 Ev 84
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 55
7 House of Lords
Two Houses; two services 176. It may seem surprising to anyone outside the parliamentary Estate that it houses two entirely separate catering organisations, one for the Commons and one for the Lords. The Lords’ service is on a smaller scale, with fewer facilities and fewer staff. It, too, runs at a loss. The subsidy was £1.547 million in 2009–10, and is expected to reduce over the next few years.116 The Lords, like the Commons, recently raised prices in its outlets.
Co-operation 177. The Commons Director General, Facilities, told us that a “significant amount of joint procurement does [...] already occur, and ICT improvements (including improved electronic point of sales equipment, cashless payment, web based functions and room bookings; and refrigeration temperature monitoring) are already being delivered through a bicameral Facilities ICT programme”.117
178. The Commons service purchases more than 4,500 food, beverage and souvenir products, and more than 1,000 other commodities and supplies. Around 160 suppliers provide these goods, including more than 40 small businesses which supply specialist ingredients or bespoke souvenirs. Contracts with suppliers are generally let for three years, with the option of a one-year extension. Much procurement is done jointly with the House of Lords, and bicameral contracts include those for fruit and vegetables, dairy, eggs, laundry, agency staff and some cleaning. Individual chefs help to draw up contract specifications and daily orders for fresh food are made by sous chefs in each outlet. Chefs are not, however, authorised to appoint suppliers or do business with unapproved suppliers.118
179. The last management review of the Commons service, conducted by Sir Kevin Tebbit in 2007, noted that “On the face of it, there is a strong case for combining the two Departments and forming a single bi-cameral joint catering organisation for Parliament. But this has not found favour with the two Houses so far”.119 The Director General of Facilities also told us that the House management would “explore the potential benefits of combining further services across the two Houses”.120 The GMB suggests economies of scale might be achieved by more co-operation in areas such as storage and purchasing.121 Mr Rupert Ellwood, now a private sector contractor but a former banqueting manager in the Lords, suggested there was “definitely an opportunity for more joined-up thinking”, suggesting that both sides of the Estate could be more closely allied for events at weekends
116 HL Deb, 23 November 2010, WA305. 117 Ev 92 118 Ev 84–86 119 Sir Kevin Tebbit, Review of Management and Services of the House of Commons, June 2007, HC 685, para 253. 120 Ev 92 121 Ev 97
56 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
or otherwise outside Parliamentary sitting times.122 The Director of the Catering and Retail Service agrees that savings can be made by encouraging more joint procurement by the two Houses, and we recommend that the Catering and Retail Service’s proposal to save an estimated £116,000 annually through closer co-operation and more joint procurement with the House of Lords be pursued.
Joined-up thinking 180. We would go one step further, however, and argue that the greatest efficiencies and economies of scale would be achieved by negotiating a suitable merger of the two services. Such a merger would also offer greater opportunities for diversifying the range of what is in offer across the whole Estate. We accept that our colleagues in the Lords may fear an effective takeover by its larger partner, and we stress that it would remain essential for some separate facilities for Members of the two Houses to be maintained for the obvious business reasons. But we see little commercial reason and no constitutional reason why two organisations should serve what is effectively a single market of Members, staff, and staff of the two Houses, and the journalists, civil servants, police officers and others who work across Parliament. It ought also be possible, in an integrated operation, to increase the variety of what is offered through the larger range of outlets available.
181. Legislation already exists enabling the creation of joint departments across the two Houses, and the existence of the Parliamentary Information and Communication Technology department, which serves both, demonstrates that there is no bar to shared staff and facilities in purely administrative, if not in all areas of work. Indeed, the fact that PICT is a comparatively new service provided jointly and the provision of catering a very old one provided separately is in itself suggestive: if the two Houses were today charged with creating a brand new refreshment department from scratch, we think it highly unlikely that anyone would think it sensible to create two of them.
182. Joining the two catering services would, of course, require political as well as administrative agreement between the two Houses. We recommend that the House of Commons Commission and the House Management Board begin discussions with their counterparts in the House of Lords on the feasibility of providing a joint catering service for the two Houses.
122 Q 202 (Ev 34)
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 57
8 Conclusion
183. We have in the course of this Report supported proposals made by the Catering and Retail Service which, if adopted, would reduce the annual subsidy by about £1.25 million. This represents considerable progress towards the target of reducing the overall subsidy by 50 per cent. We have also made recommendations of our own which we believe would reduce the overall subsidy further by increasing revenue from raised demand for existing services in both the catering and retail sides of the operation. Should the Commission approve the approach we suggest, we would expect the Catering and Retail Service to return over the next year or two to report to us its progress towards meeting the target of reducing that subsidy from about £6 million to about £3 million by 2014–15.
184. In many ways, the Catering and Retail Service deserves considerable credit—it serves thousands of meals every day to a diverse and often demanding customer base, and the productivity improvements it has achieved over the last decade are commendable. One massive problem undermines its achievements, though, and that is the cost of staffing. Those costs currently account, if pensions are included, for all the revenue taken by the service, and that is before the cost of food and beverages, equipment and so on is considered. No commercial operation would continue if it failed to cover even the costs of staffing; the House authorities must find ways to reduce staffing costs at the same time as they seek to raise income so that a more workable long-term balance between staff costs and sales may be struck.
185. Our inquiry has taken place against the background of a savings programme intended to reduce spending across the House service. We fully agree that what the House does should be done as efficiently and effectively as possible and at the lowest achievable net cost to the public purse. Our approach, however, has been to seek means by which the services we have might be better run and better used, rather than simply reducing their cost by curtailing them. Savings need not mean ‘cuts’ in expenditure, if that expenditure can be balanced by revenue raised, and the Catering and Retail Service, more than any other area of the House’s work, provides opportunities to balance what is spent with money earned.
186. In particular, the retail side of the House’s service offers considerable scope for expansion, through sales of more souvenirs and through extending public access more widely to facilities perhaps including some of the restaurants hitherto off limits. Indeed, the latter idea strongly supports the House’s stated aim of increasing engagement with the public whom we are all here to serve.
187. Nevertheless, we believe that a duty of care extends to all who are part of the parliamentary family. We therefore recommend a deliberative step by experimental step approach which maintains financial accountability in parallel with high-quality and responsive service provision.
58 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
Conclusions and recommendations
In house or outsourced 1. While the peculiar nature of the parliamentary timetable and security demands mean that it is highly unlikely that staffing costs could be reduced to commercial levels, we consider that the current level of staffing cost and management cost to income is excessive and represents an unacceptably high cost to the taxpayer, especially at a time of spending constraint in all public services. We urge the Commission and the Board of Management to take positive steps in the near future to address this issue and recommend that progress be made by 31 December 2011 and a report made back to this Committee by 31 March 2012 on whether a process to outsource the service should commence. (Paragraph 56)
Staff efficiencies 2. HR and finance costs attached to the House’s Catering and Retail Service appear to be three times the average expected in the commercial sector. We recommend that steps be taken by the Department of Facilities to find efficiencies in that area. (Paragraph 57)
3. We recommend that the Department of Facilities seek to save £110,000 a year by absorbing light cleaning duties into Catering and Retail staff duties. (Paragraph 58)
Gross profit levels 4. We recommend that steps be taken incrementally to even out disparities identified in gross profit levels in outlets that are similar in style of provision and purpose. (Paragraph 60)
Prices 5. We recommend that the Members’ Dining Room offer a mixture of fixed price and a la carte prices. (Paragraph 65)
The impact on staff 6. We recommend that the Catering and Retail Service monitor the impact of price increases on footfall in staff cafeterias and identify means of reclaiming some of the trade from staff that has clearly been lost as a result of prices increasing. We recommend that, until the new patterns of trading have become clear, the Commission consider no short-term further increases in those cafeterias above the rate of inflation. (Paragraph 71)
Staff loyalty schemes 7. We recommend that the Catering and Retail Service introduce a staff loyalty or discount scheme to benefit the lower-paid staff of Members and the House, with the
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 59
specific intention of encouraging back customers who appear to have been lost as a result of price increases. (Paragraph 74)
Quality 8. We reject any proposal to reduce subsidy by lowering the quality standards required for foodstuffs purchased by the House of Commons, particularly in respect of animal welfare standards. (Paragraph 77)
Service 9. The management of the service needs to respond more quickly and effectively to complaints about poor service, and to manage poor service out of the system. We recommend more comprehensive customer service training be provided and that members of staff be enabled to spend some time in the commercial sector to update and broaden customer service skills. We support enhancement of the existing ‘mystery shopper’ programme to enable the gathering of more customer data about the quality of service offered across the Estate. (Paragraph 80)
Internal marketing 10. We agree with the Executive Chef that much could be done more actively to promote the service and what is on offer in individual cafeterias on different days via dedicated intranet pages under the Chef’s own control. We recommend that these be provided to him. (Paragraph 81)
11. We recommend that the Catering and Retail Service review product signage and labelling in each outlet to ensure that customers may make better informed decisions on the basis of price. Improved signage and labelling would also enable the department to tell its own ‘good news stories’ on the use of fresh seasonal ingredients, healthy cooking techniques and sustainable, organic or Fairtrade produce. (Paragraph 82)
Made-to-order sandwiches 12. We recommend that a made-to-order sandwich service be introduced in Portcullis House, on a trial basis if need be to test demand. Such a service might be provided within an enlarged Debate cafeteria, with a separate queuing system, and some additional tables and seating both within and outside the Debate. This could be done by reducing the space presently occupied by the Members Centre and by restricting that centre to use by Members, as was always intended, and not as an overspill space for additional Members’ staff. The sandwich service and a premium coffee bar could be placed in the additional space gained without any need to disrupt or reconfigure the existing Debate service. (Paragraph 84)
60 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
VAT exemption 13. We recommend that the Catering and Retail Service investigate with HMRC whether VAT exemptions should apply to relevant takeaway food items sold on the Estate, and pass on any saving to those who purchase takeaway items. (Paragraph 85)
Members’ Dining Room 14. We recommend that the Catering and Retail Service identify means to reduce staffing levels in the Members’ Dining Room without entirely removing the table service valued by many Members. We recommend that the service seek to capture more of the untapped demand among the Members for whom the room exists by offering a wider range of simpler, lighter, inexpensive options as well as a few main courses and the buffet currently provided, and we welcome the positive response the Catering and Retail Service has already made to this suggestion. (Paragraph 97)
15. With the caveat that acceptable reciprocal use of Lords facilities should first be negotiated, we agree that all Peers should be able to use the Members’ Dining Room at lunch times, and are open to the suggestion that that access should be extended in the evenings, too, perhaps with a limit on the number of Peers who may use the Room at that time. (Paragraph 98)
Strangers’ Dining Room, Adjournment and Churchill Room 16. We recognise that changing times, healthier lifestyles and stricter working practices have reduced formal lunching, and that the four main Dining Rooms which currently offer full table service lunches on the House of Commons Estate collectively suffer from significant under-occupancy. We acknowledge that the Catering and Retail Service has proposed reducing their number to three in order to reduce the cost of providing that service. (Paragraph 105)
17. We believe that offering a wider range of food styles and less formal service in the Churchill Room would help to raise revenues while also reducing costs to some degree. We reiterate the nine-year old suggestion of our predecessor Committee that the Churchill Room might provide a lighter, quicker, cheaper style of service at lunch time and a waiter service in the evenings, possibly including a carvery service. (Paragraph 106)
18. We recognise that remodelling the Adjournment would provide more space for the type of food offer made to all parliamentary pass holders in the cafeterias that are already overcrowded and most popular, but would be reluctant to lose the lighter, more modern style of food and service that has been achieved in that location. (Paragraph 107)
19. More can be done to vary the food styles on offer. At present, customers may broadly choose between cafeteria food or high-quality dining. There is a gap for the provision of mid-level, high street type offers such as pizza, pasta, Thai, Indian, Chinese or sushi, and we recommend that the Catering and Retail Service produce proposals outlining what might be achieved in that respect. (Paragraph 108)
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 61
20. We suggest that widening access to the underused Dining Rooms might also help raise more revenue and is an alternative to simply reducing the variety and quality of what is on offer. To that end, we recommend that members of the Press Gallery be granted access to the Adjournment with the right to entertain three guests (and that the success of that be reviewed 12 months from the date of the Commission’s response to this Report), that all Peers be granted access to the Adjournment, the Strangers’ Dining Room and the Churchill Room, without guests on sitting Monday and Tuesday evenings but with up to three guests at other times, and that full pass holders be granted access to the Churchill Room and Adjournment Restaurant at lunch time. (Paragraph 110)
21. We recommend that an integrated booking system for the Dining Rooms be introduced as soon as possible, in order that customers turned away from one may be advised which others have tables available. (Paragraph 111)
22. We recommend that Members retain full booking rights for the Churchill Room and Adjournment, and that other user groups may book tables on a first-come, first- served basis no more than two working days before dining. We acknowledge that this may mean Members who seek to book late or turn up without a booking may be turned away. This is an inevitable consequence of widening access, and the Strangers’ and Members’ Dining Rooms will continue to be available primarily to Members as at present. (Paragraph 112)
Members’ Tea Room 23. We agree that it makes sense to close the Members’ Tea Room on non-sitting Fridays, and recommend that the Catering and Retail Service close it earlier than 2013–14, as is presently proposed. (Paragraph 115)
24. We oppose any proposal to reduce the service offered in the Members’ Tea Room. (Paragraph 116)
Terrace Cafeteria 25. We see no reason why the Members-only area of the Terrace cafeteria should not be opened to all users on days when the House does not sit, including recesses and non- sitting Fridays. (Paragraph 118)
26. We suggest that Members themselves be mindful, particularly at Tuesday and Wednesday lunch times, that sitting in the ‘public’ section while Members-only seating remains unused may be depriving someone else of somewhere to eat. (Paragraph 118)
27. We recommend that the Catering and Retail Service make an estimated saving of £81,000 a year by introducing self-clearing to the Terrace and Debate cafeterias. We see no reason why this should not be done long before the planned start date of 2013–14. (Paragraph 119)
62 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
Debate 28. We recommend that consideration be given to closing the Debate in the evenings owing to the much-reduced demand at that time of day and the availability of sufficient capacity in the Terrace cafeteria to absorb that custom. (Paragraph 123)
Bellamy’s Cafeteria 29. We agree that the Bellamy’s Cafeteria should open only between 12 noon and 3 pm in order to reduce the costs of staffing an all-day service by approximately £54,000 a year. (Paragraph 125)
7 Millbank 30. We see no reason to retain the evening service at the Portcullis Cafeteria in 7 Millbank given the small number of transactions carried out there each evening, and we note that staff in the building have previously been advised that they would lose the service if it was not used. We support the proposal to save £10,000 a year by closing it at 5.30 pm. (Paragraph 129)
31. The case that 7 Millbank cannot support two full-scale cafeterias is a compelling one and savings can clearly be made there. We support the Catering and Retail Service’s proposal to close the 6th floor cafeteria, which will save an estimated £58,000 a year. (Paragraph 131)
Moncrieffs table service 32. The Catering and Retail Service has proposed closing the table service area of Moncrieffs as a savings measure, and we agree that it should do so, with the proviso that members of the Gallery should instead be able to dine in the Adjournment. (Paragraph 134)
Moncrieffs cafebar 33. We recommend that Moncrieff’s cafebar be renamed Annie’s Bar and promoted actively by the Catering and Retail Service to Members’ staff and staff of the House as an alternative to the bar lost last year when the nursery was constructed in 1 Parliament Street. We recommend that closing time in the bar return to matching the rise of the House for a trial period of six months, from 10 October 2011, to see whether demand for an evening service exists in that location. (Paragraph 141)
34. We note the various proposals the Catering and Retail Service has made on altering the service provided in Moncrieffs. We are not yet minded to agree that the approach proposed is the correct one, and ask the service to return to us with alternative proposals on the basis outlined in paragraph 140. (Paragraph 142)
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 63
Despatch Box 35. We are not convinced that the souvenir shop is the ideal location for a new coffee bar, but see the force of arguments that there is latent demand for such facilities and would support the creation of more of them, either within existing facilities or in new locations, including in the Palace of Westminster itself. (Paragraph 145)
36. Removal of the gift shop in favour of a coffee bar would require replacement of the gift shop elsewhere. The end of the Line of Route in Westminster Hall is the best possible location for a gift shop. (Paragraph 146)
37. We note the Catering and Retail Service suggestion that installing an espresso coffee machine in the Strangers’ Bar could raise footfall there during the quieter daytime hours, and we recommend that that be done regardless of whether the souvenir shop is converted to a coffee bar. Provision of an espresso machine in the Smoking Room might serve the same function. (Paragraph 147)
Pugin Room 38. We reject the proposal that the Pugin Room should become only a bar. The present range of service should continue to be provided. We note the service’s proposal to reduce opening hours because of comparatively slack business before lunch time and later in the evenings. We recommend as an alternative that access to the Pugin Room be granted until midday to all Peers and staff of the House for a trial period of a year to enable the service to test whether demand may rise to fill the slacker early hours. Given the minimal transactions recorded after 10 pm even when the House is sitting, we see no reason why the Room should not close at no later than 10 pm on any night. (Paragraph 149)
Jubilee Cafeteria 39. We recommend that more visible and more informative signage be erected in Westminster Hall to ensure that visitors are more aware that there is a cafeteria there, at the end of their tours, and that they are welcome to enter it. (Paragraph 150)
Strangers’ Bar 40. We recommend that the security officer based at the entrance to the Terrace be tasked with ensuring that those on the Terrace have the right to be there, by challenging at the door and by ensuring that patrolling officers monitor users of the Terrace regularly. We further recommend that the Strangers’ bar staff be encouraged more vigorously to challenge those who do not have that right, including guests of Members or of staff who are or may be present in the bar without their host. (Paragraph 156)
41. We recommend that access to Strangers’ Bar be allowed at any time for Members and up to three guests. Officers of the House and Peers should have access without guests on Mondays and Tuesdays, and with up to three guests for the remainder of the week. Other staff of the House, staff of Members and members of the Press
64 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
Gallery should have access to the bar and the Terrace on non-sitting Fridays and recess days. (Paragraph 157)
Smoking Room 42. We recommend that the Catering and Retail Service offer options on how to run the Smoking Room (which might usefully be given a new name) with the minimum staffing necessary in order to reduce the costs of the service, and taking into account our previous recommendation on the possibility of introducing a premium coffee service. We recommend that Members be able to entertain up to three guests in the neighbouring Chess Room. (Paragraph 158)
Souvenirs 43. We fully support moves to raise additional revenue by widening the sale of souvenirs, and in particular moves to sell a full range of souvenirs through the Parliamentary Bookshop. We also suggest that the name of the shop be changed to reflect such wider use. (Paragraph 163)
The public 44. It is neither feasible or desirable to open the Strangers’ Dining Room to the public at times when the House is sitting. We are, however, not opposed in principle, and so long as any concerns raised by the Serjeant at Arms about security can be overcome, to opening the Strangers’ and other facilities to the public on non-sitting days, including weekends and recesses, if all costs can be covered and the service offered profitably. (Paragraph 169)
45. Again, so long as any security concern is dealt with, we believe that allowing public access to the Terrace Pavilion for an afternoon tea service for those who have taken tours would raise revenue for the House and contribute in a minor way to the strategic goal of promoting public knowledge and understanding of the work and role of Parliament through the provision of information and access. (Paragraph 170)
Banqueting and events 46. Our private sector witnesses unanimously argued that demand for such a prime location would be considerable. Westminster Hall is, of course, a space shared with the House of Lords, and is part of a royal Palace, so considerable negotiation would be required for such a proposal to be put into effect. Once again, though, from the point of view of both revenue and wider public access to a national asset, we support in principle the idea of hiring out Westminster Hall on a limited number of occasions and for events in keeping with the historic character of the location. (Paragraph 173)
47. We accept in principle that banqueting room hire fees should be brought into line with commercial rates and that fees should be charged for all rooms used for banqueting. (Paragraph 174)
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 65
48. We have recommended elsewhere that banqueting restrictions be loosened so that members of the public may sponsor and host events at times when the House is not sitting. Regardless of whether that is agreed to, we believe that the current restrictions on Peers should be lifted. We agree, again so long as suitable reciprocal access is offered by the Lords, that all Members of the House of Lords should be able to host events in the House of Commons at off-peak times, and recommend that the Catering and Retail Service identify the times at which this policy might usefully apply. (Paragraph 175)
Co-operation 49. We recommend that the Catering and Retail Service’s proposal to save an estimated £116,000 annually through closer co-operation and more joint procurement with the House of Lords be pursued. (Paragraph 179)
Joined-up thinking 50. We recommend that the House of Commons Commission and the House Management Board begin discussions with their counterparts in the House of Lords on the feasibility of providing a joint catering service for the two Houses. (Paragraph 182)
66 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
Formal Minutes
Monday 14 March 2011
Members present:
Sir Alan Haselhurst, in the Chair
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Nigel Mills Rosie Cooper Sarah Newton Thomas Docherty Mr John Spellar Mark Francois Mr Shailesh Vara Mr Kevan Jones Dave Watts Dr Phillip Lee Mike Weatherley
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
The Committee considered informally the Chair’s draft Report.
[Adjourned till Tuesday 22 March at 4.30 pm
Tuesday 22 March 2011
Members present:
Sir Alan Haselhurst, in the Chair
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Sarah Newton Thomas Docherty Angela Smith Mark Francois Mr John Spellar Mr Kevan Jones Mr Shailesh Vara Dr Phillip Lee Dave Watts Nigel Mills Mike Weatherley Tessa Munt
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
The Committee considered informally the Chair’s draft Report.
[Adjourned till Monday 28 March at 4.30 pm
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 67
Monday 28 March 2011
Members present:
Sir Alan Haselhurst, in the Chair
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Tessa Munt Thomas Docherty Sarah Newton Mark Francois Mr John Spellar Mr Kevan Jones Mr Shailesh Vara Dr Phillip Lee Dave Watts Nigel Mills Mike Weatherley
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
The Committee considered informally the Chair’s draft Report.
Draft Report (Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons), proposed by the Chair, brought up and Read.
Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 187 read and agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report be the First Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134.
Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for printing with the Report, along with written evidence reported and ordered to be published on 25 October, 8 November and 6 December 2010, and 28 March 2011.
Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for placing in the Library and Parliamentary Archives.
[Adjourned till Tuesday 26 April at 5 pm
68 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
Witnesses
Monday 8 November 2010 Page
Ms Sian Norris-Copson and Ms Julie Spencer, Members’ and Peers’ Staff Association (MAPSA) Ev 1
Ken Gall and Denise Eltringham, House of Commons Trade Union Side (TUS) Ev 3
Mr Will Conway and Mr Nick Munting, GMB House of Commons Branch Ev 5
Monday 22 November 2010
George Parker and Tomos Livingstone, Parliamentary Press Gallery Ev 10
Louise Haigh, Lauren Edwards and Shelley Phelps, Unite (T&G) Ev 14 Parliamentary Staff Branch
Monday 29 November 2010
Mrs Sue Harrison, House of Commons Ev 18
Monday 6 December 2010
Mr Duncan Ackery, EP Evolution Ev 29
Mr Rupert Ellwood Ev 33
Monday 13 December 2010
Hamish Cook, Spotless Group Ev 37
Oliver Peyton, Peyton and Byrne Ev 41
Monday 17 January 2011
Mr John Borley, and Mrs Sue Harrison, House of Commons Ev 45
Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons 69
List of printed written evidence
1 Director of Catering and Retail Services, House of Commons Ev 53 2 Further written evidence Ev 61 3 Further written evidence Ev 67 4 Further written evidence Ev 76 5 Further written evidence Ev 86 6 Director General of Facilities, House of Commons Ev 91 7 Letter to Chair of Committee from the Director General of Facilities Ev 92 8 Members’ and Peers’ Staff Association (MAPSA) Ev 93 9 House of Commons Trade Union Side (TUS) Ev 94 10 GMB House of Commons Branch Ev 95 11 Parliamentary Press Gallery Ev 98 12 Unite (T&G) Parliamentary Staff Branch Ev 100
List of additional written evidence
(published in Volume II on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/ac)
1 Annexes supplied by the Catering and Retail Service: Dining Rooms cafeterias and bars: number of covers served October to December 2009 and October to December 2010 Ev w1 2 Bob Ainsworth MP Ev w20 3 Lorely Burt MP Ev w20 4 Lorely Burt MP—further written evidence Ev w20 5 Dr Thérèse Coffey MP Ev w21 6 Dr Thérèse Coffey MP—further written evidence Ev w21 7 David Davies MP Ev w21 8 Brian H. Donohoe MP Ev w22 9 Brian H. Donohoe MP—further written evidence Ev w22 10 Clive Efford MP Ev w22 11 Richard Graham MP Ev w22 12 Margot James Ev w22 13 Caroline Lucas MP Ev w23 14 Fiona Mactaggart MP Ev w24 15 Kerry McCarthy MP Ev w25 16 Madeleine Moon MP Ev w25 17 Teresa Pearce MP Ev w25 18 Andrew Robathan MP Ev w25 19 Laurence Robertson MP Ev w26 20 Jim Sheridan MP Ev w26 21 Jo Swinson MP Ev w27 22 Stephen Williams MP Ev w27 23 First Division Association (FDA) union Ev w27
70 Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons
24 Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union Ev w28 25 National Assembly for Wales Ev w28 26 Facilities Directorate, Northern Ireland Assembly Ev w29 27 The Scottish Parliament Ev w29 28 Department of Culture, Media and Sport Ev w30 29 Ministry of Defence Ev w30 30 Department for Education Ev w30 31 Department of Health Ev w31 32 Ministry of Justice Ev w31 33 Scotland Office Ev w32 34 Department for Transport Ev w32 35 HM Treasury Ev w33 36 Frances Allingham, House of Commons staff Ev w33 37 Tom Jones, Members’ staff Ev w34 38 Emma Laity, Members’ staff Ev w35 39 Linda Rostron, House of Commons staff Ev w35 40 Linda Rostron, House of Commons staff—further written evidence Ev w36 41 Selina Short, Members’ staff Ev w36 42 Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) Ev w36
Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 1
Oral evidence
Taken before the Administration Committee on Monday 8 November 2010
Members present Sir Alan Haselhurst (Chair)
Rosie Cooper Nigel Mills Thomas Docherty Tessa Munt Mr Mark Francois Sarah Newton Mrs Siân C James Bob Russell Mr Kevan Jones Mr Shailesh Vara Dr Phillip Lee ______
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Ms Sian Norris-Copson, Chair, Members’ and Peers’ Staff Association (MAPSA) and Ms Julie Spencer, Executive Member, MAPSA, gave evidence.
Q1 Chair: Good afternoon. Sorry we kept you while staff are unable to sit down and have their waiting, it is very difficult to be entirely precise about lunch. evidence sessions, but you’re very welcome. Would Sian Norris-Copson: I know sometimes it’s obviously you care to speak to the notes we’ve already had not possible, but it’s just, again, because of our from you? slightly strange working arrangements, something that Sian Norris-Copson: Okay, thank you. We asked our perhaps people could consider, and perhaps they members to give us a few ideas following your might not have considered before. It may just ease the catering review. You’ve seen some of them. Most of queues and the access that we have. them concern price rises; that is people’s main I probably ought to ignore the staffing. We have only concern, as you won’t be surprised to hear. There are had the one comment about staffing, I’m afraid, which a few additional comments to the ones you have got. was a negative one, but talking amongst ourselves, I Quite a big one was, “Who do you think the prices think actually the staff do a bloody good job. I think are competitive with? Not Tesco, not any of the local they work very hard in general and are pretty friendly. sandwich stores, supermarkets or anything. Where are Quality of food, as I’ve said, is generally very good. people meant to go to find these cheaper prices within We have a slight thought that maybe things like fruit the House?” Quite another thing is, because of the and salad were a bit expensive, which is not really nature of our job, we are often here all day, sometimes encouraging healthy eating. We have a lot of quite late into the evening. People are buying three promotions on English food, or this or that, but it meals a day, and that really has to be taken into might be an idea to think about keeping costs down consideration; that amounts to quite a lot of money. on healthier food. Somebody else has mentioned the People also cannot necessarily get out at lunchtime to cost of the new staff uniforms in Portcullis House. I find this cheaper food, so they are forced to eat here. don’t know if that was something that could be It’s not even practical, necessarily, to get to Millbank thought about. Given that we are all being asked to or something like that; that’s a 20-minute round trip save money and cut down, the fact that a whole load from Portcullis House. I think, practically, people are of new uniforms suddenly appeared, although they are “captive”—I think that was one of the words that were not very glamorous, looked a bit bad. used. In addition, opening hours and access were You won’t be surprised to hear that the other main another thing that people pointed out, as were opening comment that we had was about the loss of Bellamy’s; hours for things like the Debate and the Terrace. Do I think it is really too late now, obviously, to do both cafés need to be open that late, using that much anything about it. However, the point was about the money? Perhaps if the resources were concentrated lack of consultation, and I think that cuts across, on one outlet, savings could be made. Someone else really, the whole savings programme. I’ve just been suggested, so things don’t get overcrowded at in a meeting with Andrew Walker, Director General lunchtime, Members and Officers of the House might of Resources, and we and the union brought up the like to think about holding meetings at other times general lack of consultation in advance for savings on and avoid lunch hours so staff could get in and eat things like Bellamy’s, but obviously we appreciate their lunch and not have to queue or squat around you asking us here today. So not too much else to add, the side of the restaurant like they do sometimes in I think. the Debate. Chair: Well, thank you very much indeed. You Julie Spencer: It does seem that a lot of the tables probably understand that the timing of all this has not around the Debate are used for Members’ meetings, been particularly propitious. You refer to consultation. as opposed to the use of Members and staff for eating In the void that took place between the dissolution of food. So it’s Members sitting there, perhaps at Parliament and the re-establishment of domestic lunchtime, with a few coffees and a glass of water, Committees, a strategic decision was taken by the Ev 2 Administration Committee: Evidence
8 November 2010 Ms Sian Norris-Copson and Ms Julie Spencer
Commission, and in a sense we are now playing Sian Norris-Copson: Yes, I do. I think they’re pretty catch-up. We are reacting to that on the basis of, I unmoveable on some things, but we need to look at think, all levels of users in this place. I think members any possibilities, such as shutting down some of the of this Committee are very conscious of the many restaurants to save a bit of money or, as you say, issues that have arisen. This is why we decided that buying in cheaper, non-label things. There are this had to be the first subject that we tackled. We are probably a whole load of measures that can be taken. also aware that there are further moves afoot to eat into—if that isn’t an unfortunate expression—the Q5 Mr Jones: What do you actually think though, subsidy that is affecting the catering arrangements in taking on Mr Russell’s point, about the fact that this this place. I will ask colleagues if they would like to is your members’ workplace, and if you were be first. Mr Russell. anywhere else there would quite clearly be—and there are, in both industry and offices—employers who Q2 Bob Russell: The picture given to the outside provide a subsidy. Why should your members be world by the gentlemen of the press is that this place treated any differently, to the way they would be, say, is full of MPs gorging at heavily subsidised prices, if they worked for Marks & Spencer, or even in a whereas I suspect the gentlemen of the press are factory somewhere? actually allowed to make a full claim—I'm sure they Julie Spencer: I think there should be the same would never exaggerate the claim—for the food they fairness. As you say, it’s a workplace; many times we have in the Press Gallery. You’ve painted a picture, don’t actually have the time to go somewhere else. which is quite worrying, of low-paid staff, which there We have to pick up something on the run. Particularly are, with expensive food, awkward and long hours, if you want a hot meal, there is no point; you can't go and so on. What would be your resolution, bearing in out and get a hot meal and bring it in, you have got mind you’ve got the conflict of Members of to have it here. I think particularly as well, with the Parliament, who are not viewed in a good light, way that IPSA has been structured—sorry, I mean gorging at the public expense, and hard-working and with the current staffing budgets—a number of our quite often low-paid staff; how do you balance that? members have seen a salary decrease in real terms. So Sian Norris-Copson: I admit it is obviously a very they’ve actually had a real-terms salary decrease and difficult one, but given that, as someone has said, we a great hike in prices in the cafeteria. are all in this together, we need to look for savings, and I don’t imagine the staff are demanding that we keep every single perk. Q6 Chair: It may be a slightly unreal question, but Julie Spencer: This thing about being competitive, what is more important, price or access? If one tried and at prices that are similar to other organisations, to take account of the significantly different income has been bandied about. If I can just quote a case in levels that might be found within the whole point, if you buy a bottle of this water in the canteen population of the workforce here, is it better to it’s £1.50; if you go into Tesco by the station, you can segregate in order that one can perhaps provide an get three litres for £1. Now, how is that competitive? exclusive area for staff and then again for Members, Bob Russell: Ours is a better label. or is it better—because of the crowding at particular Julie Spencer: Exactly, that’s what I mean. Why have times—that access should be broadened in certain we got special labels if that is making it cost so much places, although you couldn’t then differentiate more? It’s little things like that. The cost of between price in the same establishment? confectionery, again, is cheaper in Tesco than in our Julie Spencer: I think, probably, broadening access canteen. Why? would be better. For example, the Adjournment is often half empty and yet staff are not allowed to go Q3 Mr Jones: Can I ask you a question? I know Sir in there. If you wanted to have a special occasion Alan said that they stuck the price rise in between meal, you couldn’t do that. I know this is going when we didn’t have the Committees, but don’t you against my thing of cheaper prices, but if you think the fundamental point is that this is your segregate establishments, how do you actually members’ workplace? In the steel industry, or differentiate? Have you got to have a certain pass, or anywhere else, if you worked where you had a canteen something like that? I think that would make things or subsidised facilities, it was quite in order for the worse. employer to put a subsidy in to ensure that people who work long shifts, for example, could have Q7 Chair: If you have a staff bar, that is presumably something to eat. That’s one thing. Also, have you a staff bar into which, as I understood it, a Member done any analysis of how many people are not eating would only go as a guest of a member of staff, and so any more and are bringing in sandwiches from home? on; so predominately the price levels in that particular I know certainly some of my staff are. You mention establishment would be—could be at any rate— in your evidence about the evening meal issue; I think different from other places. Thinking of staff bars, there is an issue there, about staff working late, and where do you think the staff who formerly used then not being able to reimburse members for that Bellamy’s bar are now going? Is it the Red Lion, or meal. Have you made representations around that? the Sports and Social Club, or going home? Sian Norris-Copson: We haven’t, no. Sian Norris-Copson: Sports and Social, or the Lords, I suppose. Perhaps they’re not staying in town at all. Q4 Mr Jones: Do you think that is something that I haven’t done an exclusive survey as to where should be looked at? people go. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 3
8 November 2010 Ms Sian Norris-Copson and Ms Julie Spencer
Q8 Chair: Is this an issue which staff have raised looking for a way out. You ask “Can I help you?” “Oh with you, about that particular outlet? yes, I was going out.” You say, “Well where have you Sian Norris-Copson: Yes, definitely. It is a difficult been?” I’ve been here for a long time, so I know the one obviously to say, “Well you know, we’d rather rules, but I am sure that a lot of staff wouldn’t, and as have a bar than a crèche.” It was a difficult one to sell Sian says, there doesn’t seem to be much to say, “This really. But yes. It doesn’t help our image, does it, is important”; it should really, in some way, be really? Again, the lack of consultation was the blindingly obvious to all of us that it’s important, but problem with that. If there had been some kind of it needs to be reinforced meeting like this, we could have talked about it. I don’t know what the takings were in Bellamy’s, but I Q10 Thomas Docherty: Would you accept the point would imagine they were pretty good. So that’s that staff are now using, for example, the Strangers another revenue stream gone. facilities? Julie Spencer: The dining room is available as well, Julie Spencer: I have no idea whether they are or not, not for members of staff but for Members to hold to be honest with you. meetings in. Sian Norris-Copson: I don’t know whether they can go in unaccompanied; whenever I’ve been in there, Q9 Thomas Docherty: Just a quick one. Without I’ve been with an MP, so I’ve never gone in there on getting into the rights and wrongs of it, we’ve had a my own. lot of representations about staff members using areas that really they are not supposed to—for example, Q11 Chair: If there are no further questions from my Strangers. Have you picked up on that at all? If you colleagues, can I think you for submitting your note, have, has it been a result of bars that were previously which is very helpful? Thank you for coming here this available not being available any more, such as afternoon and supplementing it, and let me assure you Bellamy’s? Secondly, do you think staff have adequate that we are very conscious of the situation that has training or information about the security protocols of been created for staff and are trying to find ways of the Palace and how, for example, they are responsible dealing with this sympathetically and helpfully in the for the guests they bring into the Palace? context of certain decisions, which may not be Sian Norris-Copson: I don’t think there’s much reversible in terms of cost cutting within the Palace, information available, no. It may be there somewhere. but there may be more than one way of skinning a I'm sure it’s there somewhere, but it certainly isn’t in cat, as they say. We shall look very carefully at all of something like a new member’s staff pack or this and we thank you for your input. something like that. Sian Norris-Copson: Thank you Julie Spencer: I’m quite appalled sometimes by the Julie Spencer: Thank you. number of visitors who I find wandering around
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Ken Gall, President, Trade Union Side (TUS) and Denise Eltringham, TUS Administrator, gave evidence.
Q12 Chair: Good afternoon. Thank you very much Ken Gall: One of the most important issues to me is indeed for your attendance. I apologise for keeping the risks to the House. One of the House’s corporate you waiting a little bit. We’re only running to an goals is to ensure that it has well-motivated staff of informal timetable, but nevertheless I’m sure you sufficiently high morale to ensure that the demands of appreciate that some of these things do run over a the House, which are many and various and can occur little bit. Thank you for your submission. Would you at any time of the day or night, are met. The way that like to say anything by way of introduction before this decision was taken and the way in which it has taking questions from colleagues? been implemented has, in our view, led to a decrease Ken Gall: No, I think we’d be quite happy just to take in staff morale. A lot of the staff here, as well as being questions and then perhaps expand, before we finish, professional, are extremely proud of the part they play on some of our concerns. in Parliament. When decisions like this are taken in which their interests seem to have played very little Q13 Chair: Right. What would you say is the biggest part in coming to the decision, it chips away at that issue that we have to look at? There are a number of pride, particularly when staff are in the middle of a conflicting things, obviously, confronting the two-year pay freeze, they are now paying more for Committee. I prefaced the introduction to the last their food, they’ve had very little input into the witnesses by pointing out that we were, of course, decision being made; that is not something that is playing catch-up to a certain extent with a decision going to increase the morale of staff here. That is a that had been taken perfectly constitutionally by the strategic risk to the House which I would say perhaps House of Commons Commission, and we are has not been raised yet. confronted with the consequences of that and we have had quite a few reactions. What is the most important Q14 Chair: To coin a phrase, we all feel that we are issue that you think we should be trying to tackle in all in this together in the sense of having had this inquiry? consultation, whatever our particular role in the Ev 4 Administration Committee: Evidence
8 November 2010 Ken Gall and Denise Eltringham workforce of this Palace is. We are trying to look at the other one, which is meaningful and where they are ways in which we can meet some of the points that actually trying to involve you in it? have come up so far. This is why we are treating this Ken Gall: Specifically on catering, had we been inquiry as the first thing we must do. consulted prior to this decision being made, there are Ken Gall: If I could just add to that. One of our major any number of suggestions that we might have made: problems on the Trade Union Side in terms of the for example, a discount for staff on presentation of a House of Commons savings programme generally has pass; a staff only restaurant perhaps; a tiered system been access to information. In this regard, in this of charges for low-paid staff. As it is, the decision instance, we have found it incredibly difficult to get was taken and yourselves and us are dealing with the access to information. Who made this decision to consequences of that; it doesn’t set a very good increase prices? On what basis was that decision precedent for how the House wants to go about its made? What evidence was used in coming to the business if it’s going to take staff with it over the figures? We have found it almost impossible to get savings programme, which it is advisable that it does. that information. That is information that, in my view, in our view, should be provided to the trade unions Q17 Chair: Is pricing or access more important? One and to staff as a matter of course. Unfortunately we’ve of the problems, which adds to the costs of running a had to go to the extent of issuing an FOI request to get catering operation in this place, is the number of the benchmarking data from the House of Commons outlets that we have, some of which are under-utilised. authorities. Frankly, that it me is not sufficient. It’s not Is it therefore better that one utilises a smaller number a way to do business with staff and with their of outlets—and staff of all ranks, as it were, would be representatives. using them—or could we be looking at specific areas Chair: I think it’s probably fair to say that now the that are primarily aimed at staff, where perhaps the Administration Committee has been reconstituted, as pricing and the menu structure is more favourable? it were, in the new Parliament, we should be an Ken Gall: I think the two issues are probably linked. interface between the consumer in this Palace and I find it hard to imagine how prices can be increased those who are making the final decisions. I hope there across the board yet access arrangements stay exactly will be a more regular mechanism for dealing with the same. Thank goodness it’s not my decision to this and I think all members of this Committee would make, but I would imagine that there would be a link feel very disappointed if their views based upon between the two. From our point of view, we do get evidence-taking did not carry a great deal of weight frequent calls, from members of all four unions, for in future. more open access to Commons facilities, but equally we have to be realistic that there are certain areas of Q15 Mr Jones: It doesn’t surprise me, to be honest. the House that have to be left for Members of We’ve talked a bit about catering, but what about the Parliament to be able to carry out their business. It other ludicrous decisions that are apparently coming would seem to me that on Thursday nights, perhaps, our way—the proposal, for example, that we are at the moment, non-sitting Fridays, recess periods, if charged for car parking. Have you actually been you are looking to increase revenue, it would be involved in any way—not just looking catering but common sense to allow greater use of those facilities across the piece—in trying to make savings in this in the House. But my experience of this kind of thing place in terms of either asking for suggestions from is limited at best, so I wouldn’t like to judge how your members or even being consulted by the powers to run a catering facility for 2,000 or 3,000 people, that be? thank goodness. Chair: Can I just say, I don’t really want to go down the road of car parking, which raises issues in itself. Q18 Chair: Do you recognise the extent of the It has been floated, as it were, in a document which security issue that overhangs us increasingly at the has come from the Clerk of the House and I think we present time in terms of widening access to this place will want to look at that separately rather than in a or to different parts of the Palace? catering inquiry. Denise Eltringham: Yes, we do. Going back one step, Denise Eltringham: We are in consultation with I think our main concern from the Trade Union Side management over the savings programme. We have is that a lot of staff do not have an alternative to go monthly meetings with them to discuss the issues, to for catering if they’re working late night, they’re in how it’s affecting or could affect staff, and we have uniform, they have to be on the premises. I think when requested information. This is where this originally the increases in the catering costs came into force came from. We requested the benchmarking figures as people noticed it even more because of the pay freeze part of this savings programme. and because of the austerity measures that are being introduced. I think the combination of the two things Q16 Mr Jones: I’ve been in your position. There is highlighted it even more to the staff. a difference between consultation where you are being told something and actual real consultation when you Q19 Chair: Colleagues any questions? are actually being involved in the decision making, Ken Gall: If I could just make one comment. and possibly being asked for suggestions. A lot of Chair: Certainly. your members might have suggestions coming Ken Gall: As I said to you at the start, there is a risk forward. What type is it? Is it just you’re being told to the House and there is a risk to Members of things, which is one type of so-called consultation, or Parliament in this. My fear is that when decisions are Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 5
8 November 2010 Ken Gall and Denise Eltringham made about the House—specifically about the House not is a problem for you. That is a problem for and its business—the staff can be just outside the Members here to try and deal with. peripheral vision of those who are actually making Ken Gall: That is a problem for me. those decisions. Sitting times are moved earlier, then Bob Russell: But clearly the IPSA culture was that they’re moved later; we have September sittings, we this was a Monday to Friday, 9 to 5 job; that’s how don’t have September sittings. The interests of staff they see it, or at least that’s my perception of how don’t seem to be very high up the scale of priorities they see it. What do you think we as the employers of of people making those decisions, and there is an the staff should be doing to try and restore the ethos expectation that staff will simply adapt. That’s fair and the culture that your members feel that they have enough, we can understand that. But as I say, now lost or are losing? something like this—with the lack of consultation, the Ken Gall: Strictly in relation to catering or more lack of ability for the unions to make any kind of broadly? representation—and being presented with a fait Bob Russell: Well I think we’re here for catering, but acompli chips away at the pride the staff have here. I I’m sure that catering is just one aspect of how the would think that would be a fairly common theme job has changed for the worse. from the trade unions. Once that pride in the Ken Gall: Access to information for staff and their institution of working for Parliament has gone you representatives at an early stage, that would be our don’t get it back, it’s gone for ever. I’m not going to primary demand. If decisions are going to be made in over-egg the pudding here and say that a rise in the this area, provide us with the information that we price of a Twix is going to lead to the complete require at an early stage. breakdown of the Parliamentary service, but it is all adding up together, with pay freezes and savings Q21 Chair: A Division of the House is taking place, drives and so on and so forth, to create a lessening of so we will adjourn and resume at 5.50. I think possibly morale among the staff on whom you rely. we’ve reached the end of your particular session, thank you very much. I don’t think you will find many Q20 Bob Russell: Very powerful observations there members of this Committee who are careless of the from the President of the TUS, and I’m sure he attachment that the vast majority of staff in this place wouldn’t have made them lightly. What I would say, have to the institution and we will keep that very as someone has been here 13 years now—nowhere much in mind, plus your points about adequate near as long as the Chairman—is the ethos and the consultation. But I hope that we will be a medium culture of this place has diminished dramatically in through which you can feel you’ll have access to more the last few months, which from the Members’ side I information. Thank you very much indeed. put down to the culture created by IPSA. Now that is Ken Gall: Thank you.
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Mr Will Conway, Branch Secretary, GMB, and Mr Nick Munting, Sous-Chef, Portcullis House, gave evidence.
Q22 Chair: I apologise that we are somewhat actually doing was asking the consultants to talk to depleted, but all Committees in this House overlap you about the services provided and the possibilities with something else, and when a Division comes that and difficulties of contracting out. Year on year, it has does rather torpedo things. Can I thank you first of all affected the staff. The staff as a whole are hit by the for the submission that you’ve made, and also for price rises and by the cuts in the House. But it seems coming here this afternoon? I apologise that we’re to be that catering and retail is a case in point, where running slightly late. Is there anything you would like they are being taken above and beyond the rest of the to start off by saying to supplement what you’ve said cuts in the main House. in your helpful memorandum? Nick Munting: Can I just add to that from the Will Conway: I think the main issue is really one of kitchen’s point of view? I’ve been here for a long staff morale, in that it’s a feeling of “Why us again?” time, since 1987, and the kitchens are a very Year on year we’ve been asked to provide savings and professional, organised place of work that we are so on. From my point of view, every bar I go into I really proud of. We do our absolute best to represent get asked, “What’s the price the price of beer and how this place outside as well as in it, working in schools, cheap is it?” and so on. But every year, year on year, entering competitions, trying to get the outreach from this Committee and its previous entities has asked us our point of view, out to kids and people in our to make savings, provide more services, we’ve had industry, to the extent that we have been massively more staff come in, and there is a feeling of “Why us successful over the last couple of years and we have again?” Then it came to a head last week or the week much interest from colleges wanting to work with us, before, with the announcement that you were asking and school children from primary age up until work consultants about contracting out. Everything went experience students. We have been doing this sort of haywire from the announcement in the morning to stuff for the last 15 years; the rest of the House is just 7.30 at night when I was told the name of the new starting to do this sort of work. contractor who was going to take over, the actual date On the question of the price increases, we obviously they were going to be coming in, when all you were have to deal with this from a totally different Ev 6 Administration Committee: Evidence
8 November 2010 Mr Will Conway and Mr Nick Munting perspective to everybody else. I’m in charge of all completely. There are various projects that have been food operations in Portcullis House, so a lot of my shelved and put back and put back, and so on. They day now is spent deflecting criticism which is directed don’t seem to be being addressed through this and, at myself and my colleagues, and trying to explain the sorry to push my own area, but the fridges in the reasons behind price increases without fully Strangers bar are 17 years old, and you can’t just carry understanding them myself, apart from the fact that on and carry on and make do and mend. Things we’ve been tasked with finding all this money. As actually need looking at and investment. It seems we Will said, last week was probably the worst week that are not going to get that money to invest to improve I can remember in 23 years working here, when the services and just to keep things running. That seems rumours were rife about contracting out; lots of people to be one of the victims of this cuts exercise. that had been here a long time were worrying about their jobs, their families. It was a really awful time, Q25 Chair: This Committee is, as it were, rehashing and a team of people—I can only really talk for the catering again by having an inquiry, because we felt, chefs—who are so passionate about what they do for in view of what had happened in the void period, and this building was really feeling quite let down that that the reactions to it, that this was something we simply was what people were looking at. had to look at first of all, because of the different We’ve got lots of innovative ideas of our own for opinions that we were getting. I think we certainly increasing revenue. Some of those ideas seem to have started on the basis that we’re interested in blue-skies been pushed by the wayside. We had various ideas to thinking in ways of looking at how we can deal with, do with Portcullis House, changing services, adjusting firstly, a public concern about how much we subsidise access regulations, etc. However, because of the initial the services in this place, and then all the other factors cost implications they seem to have been pushed by about access for staff who are on different levels of the wayside. We are just all quite worried about how pay, the conditions and everything. We shall look at everybody is thinking about our part of the everything I hope with new eyes, so far as we can be Department. well informed by those who are giving evidence to us. Nick Munting: On the question of how much food Q23 Chair: Can I just say, on the contracting out costs, maybe we are missing an opportunity, point, if we said we were having a catering inquiry especially in a venue like Portcullis House, which is which didn’t cover that point, it would have been very big. We do over 2,000 transactions a day, most rather strange, because I think it has probably been of them at lunchtime. We also have a lot of strangers covered at every point when there have ever been come though that area, and I’ve never really questions asked about it. I think I go back even further understood why we subsidise strangers’ food. I do than you, to 1970. Even then people were asking understand why we subsidise our food, but I don’t “Why don’t we contract out?” That is simply there understand why we subsidise the cost of food for because it is an issue, and I’m sorry if staff or anyone people from the outside who are just visiting us. It is else misunderstood that that was somehow a not their place of work. Why do we do that? It’s a prejudged conclusion. It was most certainly not. It was question we could look at. Maybe there could be a just there because if you are doing a thoroughgoing two-tier system of charging. inquiry someone is bound to ask you, “Well did you not, in the course of your inquiry, consider that Q26 Nigel Mills: I’m going to have to say, I thought option?” That’s the only reason it’s there. We certainly the GMB’s submission was extremely helpful. There haven’t considered it as a body and certainly haven’t were some very interesting ideas on revenue raising made our minds up on that issue, or indeed on and cost saving which I think we will be looking to anything else, but we hear what you are saying. discuss when we get round to that phase of the Nick Munting: That’s good to know. inquiry. One of the questions I continually have on Will Conway: To be fair, I think it’s one of the things this is, from your perspective, do you think there is that every three years there is a vague rumour about. something missing in the offering? When you all talk In this case, obviously, in the Committee’s paperwork do you say, “Why don’t we provide a specialist coffee there were calls for consultants to come in. So there bar here?” Or “Why don’t we provide a pizza outlet was actually a fact there for the people to get their or a ready-made sandwich thing or something?” teeth into. It went from one small bit of paper to Anything like that you want to add? mayhem, and it wasn’t very well handled by the Nick Munting: I think the problem we have is trying Department. to provide something of everything for everyone all over the Estate. For instance, in Portcullis House we Q24 Chair: Or by me, I suppose, as the Chairman of do have a specialist coffee bar. Maybe it’s not big the Committee, you could say, because I obviously enough, but we did come up with ideas to possibly authorised the issue of the original document saying turn the Adjournment restaurant into a larger coffee what we would be covering. I hope you will accept bar area and lose the Adjournment restaurant. That my assurance as to the exact position. would provide a saving on staff costs in the evenings, Will Conway: Oh yes. I talked to Ms Harrison at quite but it would be a service that has gone. I think what some length about the issues and it’s hopefully we need is for Members to decide what services they sorted out. want us to provide. We are happy to be here and One thing that has again happened year on year is happy to provide bespoke restaurant services to lack of investment in the facilities that we have, in cafeteria services to vending machines. We can do the refurbishment. It again seems to have been ignored lot but we need to have a steer on what you want to Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 7
8 November 2010 Mr Will Conway and Mr Nick Munting us do and at what times of the day or night you want when you’re working within these areas every day, us to do it. We will quite happily provide it, but, as you know they are in need of repair. Some of the ideas far as I can see, the more we provide, and the longer that were put forward for Portcullis could enable us amount of time we provide it over during the day, the to change the services quite dramatically and maybe less chance there is of saving any money. offer some savings. But there would be an initial cost to that sort of work to the House. As I understand it, Q27 Mr Jones: This to me is like déjà vu. We’ve it just seems now that the management board is all been here before in the last Committee when we about “Where do we save the next penny?” I looked at this. I’ve got to say, I wouldn’t like to knock understand that we want to try and look after people’s privatisation off the agenda completely, because that jobs, but sometimes you have to invest for the long is the only thing that gets Ms Harrison’s and the term for us to be able to provide you with what you management’s attention, frankly. I would like to ask a need. question, because it always seems to me strange; there is a sense of frustration among Members. For Q30 Mr Jones: The last consultant we had in, for example, there is the farcical situation in Strangers, example, talked about that coffee bar, and one simple which has now become ludicrous. The quality of the thing he pointed out was the fact of the queues. He food has gone down, the service frankly is terrible, said “The reason why it’s not working properly is prices have gone up. In terms of suggestions that you because you’ve only got two people there and if have—you are a professional chef, you obviously talk you’re going to run a coffee bar you need three.” to chefs outside here—the one thing that we tried to Simple things like that, which I thought was quite address here before, but which never seems to be sensible, have still not been taken on board. addressed, in my opinion, is the ordering of food, for Nick Munting: It’s like the Terrace kitchen. When example. that was redesigned, it was designed to feed 800 Nick Munting: The ordering of food? people, and it probably does twice that much, at least. Mr Jones: The ordering of food from the number of We are now working in areas that are being over-used suppliers, etc. In terms of these price rises and just because they are popular, which is good for us. generally, what is your involvement? I don’t mean being asked and then it just being noted, but do you Q31 Mr Jones: I agree on contractors. I’ve raised really think that you have an input into how this place this before: why on earth should this House, during is run? the summer and other times, pay for subsidised meals Nick Munting: I can’t talk about how this place is for contractors who come onsite? When we’ve raised run. What I can talk about is how I run my side of the it before in terms of, as you suggested, having two business from Portcullis House. It goes as far as me levels—which is quiet common in industry, where you visiting fishermen down in Hastings and talking to have contractors going onsite—again we were told it them about the price of fish, and daily phone calls to was all too difficult. It is things that like that that need suppliers. There is a certain amount of leeway that we to be looked at, both controlling volume and trying to can use in our day to day work, but there are some get costs down. hard and stringent rules that we have to stick to Nick Munting: I think on the question of money we because of access for delivery drivers; they need to be should look at how we increase revenue, how we pass holders, etc. I know that the Department is make more money. It was quite interesting, when looking at a centralised purchasing offsite some time ago I suggested that the House of consolidation centre. I don’t know what sort of effect Commons memorabilia should be sold to the outside, that is going to have on me personally, and what sort and then a few weeks ago we read that Number 10 is of deals I could do over the phone; I don’t know how selling it outside. it is going to affect that sort of stuff. I think there should be probably a lot more joint services with the Q32 Mr Jones: Quite right, that’s been raised before. House of Lords on procurement of foodstuffs, buying Nick Munting: There should be a shop down by bigger amounts in, getting a better price etc, etc. As Boots, underneath St Stephen’s Tavern, selling this for the way the House is run, the only information we stuff. I know it would devalue the brand slightly, but get is when we are invited to a senior board all-staff there is an amount of money to be made there, I think. meeting that we go to and we hear that it’s got to be Chair: I can say to you that there is certainly more 17% over four years and that amount of money has that a gleam in my eye that we could do something got to be saved. This information all comes to us and along that line. It is only an adjunct to the catering we are just told it. inquiry, but I don’t think it’s going to be forgotten.
Q28 Mr Jones: Are you ever asked for suggestions? Q33 Thomas Docherty: Will, I have two questions. Nick Munting: Yes, we came up with lots of You really are at the chalk face of the first question. suggestions some months ago. One thing that has been raised with us repeatedly by colleagues outside this is Strangers bar, and Strangers Q29 Mr Jones: What happened to them? terrace, both from a security point of view and just Nick Munting: There were suggestions made about the sheer volume of people. Standing behind the bar, the redevelopment of Portcullis House. It’s now over what is your impression as to the problem that is 10 years old, the kitchens are in a poor state of repair causing this? Why have we suddenly got so many now. I think you are due to have a tour tomorrow. more people trying to use those facilities than we had They might not look that bad to the naked eye, but before? Just to speed up the time, the second question, Ev 8 Administration Committee: Evidence
8 November 2010 Mr Will Conway and Mr Nick Munting which is kind of related to it: we have also been because all the facilities are already there, from the approached by colleagues, and I note you’ve made tea point of view, and it’s all set up for the bars. similar suggestions, about the Terrace Pavilion bar. Obviously I appreciate you aren’t a structural Q34 Thomas Docherty: Just a quick follow-up on engineer, but from your professional viewpoint, how the issue about the Members’ staff and so on coming difficult would it be to perhaps link the Terrace bar to in, who realistically do you think should have primary the Strangers bar in some way to provide a more responsibility for policing, to use the phrase, access to rounded service, a—? Will Conway: A buffer. On the first issue, about the the Strangers bar and the Terrace? sheer volume, there are various different things. Since Will Conway: Security; it’s security basically. When I the election, a lot of new young Tories have come in first started we just had the handily-named who are obviously more pub-type drinkers. So for the PC, Peter Clark, who was virtually permanently first time since I’ve been here it hasn’t been a totally ensconced on the back door to the Terrace. He knew Labour majority bar. There is also, obviously during all the Members, he knew the staff. We’ve got the the summer, the incredible weather, which made an difficulty now that the passes don’t show so much awful lot of difference. We are also seeing a lot more what you are, but you can see if they’ve got the green Members bringing in their staff, which is causing bit on them. You used to be able to tell who a problems of its own and is very difficult for us to deal Member’s spouse was through the numbering on their with behind the bar. The knock-on effect is that once pass, but we can’t do that now, because they have all people get used to coming into the bar they think they changed slightly. However, we can tell who Officers have got a right to come in on their own. So that are. So we can tell Officers, Members, Peers. You can creates its own problems again, which we deal with, tell them pretty much immediately, but other staff you but sometimes it has a knock-on effect, and the can’t tell and we don’t have the time to ask them one customers who should be getting served are not at a time. Members taking out or bringing in more getting served as quickly as they should. Obviously it than three guests, we don’t mind it when it’s quiet, but is putting on extra pressure on us behind the bar. when it’s busy, half a dozen or 10 people all coming in On the Terrace Pavilion bar, that was—although no poses problems. They shouldn’t really be getting past one noticed—opened at the beginning of the summer. the door in my view. I don’t think it’s been opened with any real will from the management in the Department. Years and years ago both bars would be pretty much equally busy. I Q35 Tessa Munt: I wanted to ask you some think members have got out of the habit of using it. It questions if I may, Nick—actually, my first question has got a place. If it was open properly all day—or is probably to both of you. I presume there is a opening at 5.30, closing at 6 and then opening again maintenance schedule which does the emergency, at 8 pm—so that, now that the teas have gone up, urgent and routine stuff, and your fridges and your members could bring guests in to have teas out there, kitchens are on some sort of schedule, would you not for 20p a cup, so you are actually making a bit of know what that was? money, and take those guests out on the Terrace, it Nick Munting: Yes, I have a weekly maintenance would be a desirable venue. If you get people back report. So, whenever I have a problem with a piece of into the habit of using it during the day you can then equipment I phone it through, report it, get a reference flow it into the evening so it provides a sort of buffer number and wait for the guys to come and fix it. It’s for Strangers, although with a slightly different range. a contracted firm in Portcullis House. It would be very difficult, and we’ve tried for years, to get draught beer out there. It’s incredibly difficult to do because of the temperatures. Although we have Q36 Tessa Munt: Okay, so that’s responsive got cellar type fridges, having draught beer is maintenance, what about proactive maintenance. particularly difficult to run. I think with the will, not Nick Munting: No, not as far as I know. There has letting banqueting eat into it all the time, and giving never been any preventative maintenance that I’ve it one real proper go, we could see if we can actually known of, and I’ve asked for it before. make it work. I got called something by an Evening Will Conway: When John Borley first started a couple Standard journalist, but I can't remember the actual of years ago, one thing that was highlighted in my word—I think the word means waiting to die—when talks with the Estates Department was that the rolling I sat out there one particular rainy night with no maintenance programme was virtually non-existent. It customers. But you are going to get that, and you are had just been overtaken by events, and it hasn’t really going to get times when the weather is awful and been put back or ever got going. It is something that people aren’t going out there, and we have got to put the place is crying out for. a little into it to get something back. I do think if you really try then hopefully the service in the Strangers would be better, because you are offering another Q37 Tessa Munt: Sorry, I am slightly dismayed to service which would pretty much mirror what’s in the find that, but thank you anyway. My second question, Pugin Room; however, instead of being in the Pugin Chef, is, are your salaries commensurate with outside? Room, you’ve got a desirable venue on the Thames Nick Munting: It depends on the grade and the jobs. offering a pretty much unique service. Hopefully the At the moment, when you look at salaries outside, we staff who aren’t doing anything in the Pugin Room are not doing too badly. But there are not many jobs would go down, and it wouldn’t take any investment on the outside at the moment, which adds to the Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 9
8 November 2010 Mr Will Conway and Mr Nick Munting worries that I was telling you about earlier. When you Q40 Tessa Munt: So all of the catering aspects. look at catering grades, and we talk about pay, we do Nick Munting: All the food in Portcullis House. feel that we are treated differently to the House, across Will Conway: On the back of house side of things. the staff, because we are treated separately and our pay and our grades are completely different to Q41 Tessa Munt: What is your food GP? everybody else on A to E. So it doesn’t matter how Nick Munting: Our GPs up until a couple of months much management responsibility comes with my job, ago, before the price increases were set in stone, and and how many staff have to report to me, I’m treated when we had targets to work to— differently to all other Departments across the House, and we have had this question of catering pay over Q42 Tessa Munt: What was your target? the last 18 months. Nick Munting: We had to get 27%. But the price increases have confused all the food GPs and we’re Q38 Tessa Munt: Can I just clarify—are you saying getting no information. differently less or differently more? Nick Munting: In my opinion, my job would be worth Q43 Tessa Munt: So you don’t sort out your own— a higher A to E grade than it is under a CG grade. Nick Munting: I’ve got no way of telling you what our food GP is at the moment since the prices went up. Q39 Tessa Munt: Okay, fine, thank you. Can I ask Tessa Munt: Thank you you one last question, Chef, and that is—I’m not sure, because I can’t find it in the paperwork and I must Q44 Nigel Mills: Do you think it’s higher or lower have missed something—what exactly are your than it was? responsibilities? I know you’ve referred to Portcullis Nick Munting: Well I do know that we are making House. more money and I’m aware that we are doing slightly Nick Munting: Well I’m a Sous-Chef of the House of fewer customers Commons kitchens, so at any time the Executive Chef Chair: Any more questions? Well, if not, thank you can decide to pick me up and move me to a different very much indeed. I think it’s been a very useful area. I’ve run most areas now across the Estate. submission and a very useful exchange that we’ve Will Conway: Nick is basically in change of had, and we are grateful to you for coming and giving Portcullis House. your evidence to us. Ev 10 Administration Committee: Evidence
Monday 22 November 2010
Members present: Sir Alan Haselhurst (Chair)
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Tessa Munt Rosie Cooper Sarah Newton Thomas Docherty Bob Russell Mr Kevan Jones Angela Smith Dr Philip Lee Mr Shailesh Vara Nigel Mills Mike Weatherley ______
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: George Parker, Chairman, and Tomos Livingstone, Parliamentary Press Gallery, gave evidence.
Q45 Chair: I apologise that we’ve kept you waiting. the confidences that were being granted. Obviously, Thank you for your patience. Thank you for the paper journalists are journalists, but really it’s a question of that you’ve submitted. Would you care to say a few confidence building. That’s what we have been introductory words before we ask questions? endeavouring to do over the last few years, George Parker: Indeed. I’m George Parker, political particularly with the help of the new Speaker, in the editor of the FT. This is Tomos Livingstone, political sense that we’ve been granted access to the Terrace editor of the Western Mail. We’re members of the Bar increasingly during non-sitting days. That seems Press Gallery Committee. to have worked very well and certainly there have The subject of our submission to the Administration been no breaches of confidence there. We do operate Committee goes, I hope, with the grain of work that under a system where off-the-record conversations are has been done. We know there’s a tough financial treated as off the record and we would try to live up settlement ahead for the House authorities. We were to that. making the point that the Press Gallery facilities, Tomos Livingstone: Just to add to that, George particularly the Moncrieff’s Café Bar and Restaurant, mentioned the changes to our access to the Terrace, have been opened up to all pass holders. It’s been a which has recently come in. Part of that was an great success from our point of view: it’s increased undertaking from ourselves that we would obviously throughput through the area and has obviously not report any overheard conversations or anything increased revenues, and it’s actually added to the life like that. To my knowledge, there has been no breach of the facilities up there. We are basically arguing that, of that. given the need to widen access and, I hope, generate more revenue, we are proposing that other facilities Q47 Chair: Could I just ask you on a factual basis— around the House, including the Terrace Cafeteria, the I genuinely do not know the answer—do you have Strangers’ Bar, the Churchill Room and the access to any part of the House of Lords facilities? Adjournment, should be opened up for wider use in George Parker: We have access to the Lords cafeteria the hope of generating more revenue. Of course, there at the end, but that is it, I think. is a self-serving argument there that we would very Tomos Livingstone: Yes. much like to use some of the facilities as well. Chair: That’s the limit of it? George Parker: Yes. Q46 Chair: Thank you very much. I put it to you that there may be some nervousness about giving Q48 Thomas Docherty: Mr Livingstone, on that last more access to some of the dining rooms or cafeterias point, you mentioned access to the Terrace. Could you for members of the gallery and the lobby because of clarify for me what your understanding is of what the the extent to which it seems quite innocent activities Press Gallery’s access is now to the Terrace? by Members of Parliament are reported, particularly Tomos Livingstone: My understanding is we have as we live in the land of tweeting and blogging and access on non-sitting Fridays and in recess. That’s a so on. What assurance can you give the Committee relatively recent development. that by opening up, so that with tables a short distance from one another, there would not be conversations Q49 Bob Russell: Can I suggest to the two that were picked up and put into a wider arena? That gentlemen from the press that a journalist wouldn’t be is understandably something that Members would be doing his job properly if he was deaf to something extremely anxious about. that he heard? I’ve never known a journalist to be George Parker: I can understand that concern and I off duty. know there were incidences back in the 1990s during George Parker: There are rules which govern the the John Major administration where conversations ways we operate in the House, not just in the catering that were overheard on the Terrace during the summer facilities but also for example in the Members Lobby, were put in pages of some of the papers. We would where conversations that you have with us are treated appreciate that it’s very much a privilege if we’re as off the record. The same would apply were we granted access to these facilities and we would do our granted increased access to the catering facilities. The utmost as a Committee to ensure that people respected fact is that although, obviously, we don’t have an Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 11
22 November 2010 George Parker and Tomos Livingstone unalloyed, unblemished reputation, there is a certain George Parker: We’re not coming here demanding amount of discipline within the Press Gallery. We do access to these places. The only point we are making operate under a certain code of conduct. is that, if there is a review going on of facilities and Tomos Livingstone: And it’s not in our interest to the need to increase revenue and throughput through breach those confidences anyway, if the result is that the Commons facilities, our experience in the Press we’re then barred from using the facilities. Gallery is that when we opened up our facilities, takings through the tills went up, the general buzz Q50 Mr Jones: I agree, because I was on the around the place increased and we found it an entirely Committee last time when the Press Gallery was productive and positive experience. We’re certainly closed and I think you used the Churchill Room for a not demanding access. We would love to have access period of time, which I think was quite successful. but we were just making a general point really. But I presume if we allow this, we will then get headlines from you saying, “Journalists eat subsidised Q56 Thomas Docherty: So if I’m correct, the two meals at taxpayers’ expense”, like you do with us. If places that you’re asking for is the Adjournment and I still remember rightly, it certainly was on the last Churchill, is that correct? Committee when I was on it, the most expensive George Parker: The Adjournment, the Churchill subsidised meal to eat in this building is actually in Room, the Strangers’ Bar and therefore the Terrace. the Press Gallery. We are allowed to visit the Strangers’ Bar in the George Parker: The fact is we all eat subsidised meals wherever we eat in the Houses of Parliament. company of a Member.
Q51 Mr Jones: You wouldn’t think that if you read Q57 Thomas Docherty: As guests? the press. George Parker: As guests, yes. George Parker: I can understand your concern on that point. The thing about the Churchill Room is that, Q58 Thomas Docherty: Well my next point is: do when our own facilities were closed down, we were you have access at the moment to both the unusually granted access to the Churchill Room and Adjournment and Churchill as guests? there were no breaches of confidences that I’m aware George Parker: Yes, as guests. In fact, to all of those of. Just to make a point that we’ve made in our places, just as any other member of the public would memorandum here, some of our colleagues who were have access. using the Churchill Room, particularly on a Monday and a Tuesday night, found themselves often to be the Q59 Thomas Docherty: I never go to Adjournment only people dining in there. That has been withdrawn because it’s in the other building, so apologies, but from us now, but there was a view that if you are what’s the reason you think you don’t get access to looking to increase the throughput in some of these Adjournment and what’s the reason that you want premises, that seemed to be a fairly good precedent. access to Churchill and Strangers’, given that you can get access if you’re accompanied by a Member? Q52 Thomas Docherty: Gentlemen, if I understand George Parker: The rules simply say that we’re not this correctly—I am trying to get my head around allowed to go to the Adjournment apart from in the where everyone can and cannot get to—at the company of a Member. I think, just as you would moment, you have access to everywhere except enjoy taking guests visiting the House of Commons Churchill Room, Members Dining Room, Adjournment, Strangers’ and therefore the Terrace. to a nice dining place, it would be great for us to Have I missed anywhere? be able take visitors to the Churchill Room or to the George Parker: The Members’ Tea Room is another Adjournment. It’s simply that they are nice places to obvious one but I think those— eat and people love coming to the House of Commons. At the moment our options for visitors are Q53 Rosie Cooper: You’re having a laugh. You fairly limited. We have our own premises in the Press really are having a laugh. Gallery, which closes about seven or eight o’clock, so George Parker: I’m not suggesting we have access to in the evening, we don’t really have any particular the Members’ Tea Room. I was just listing the places places where we can take visitors or dine ourselves. we’re not allowed to go. Q60 Angela Smith: You talk about potentially Q54 Thomas Docherty: So Members’ Dining Room, bringing visitors to the Churchill Room and Strangers’ Members’ Tea Room, Adjournment, the Strangers’ and so on. When I think about visitors, I think mainly Bar and therefore the Terrace—those are the only about constituents—or primarily constituents, and places? occasionally officers from local authorities down for George Parker: And the Churchill Room. a purpose, such as a ministerial visit. What do you mean by visitors? Q55 Thomas Docherty: Therefore you are asking George Parker: Well we don’t hold public office, so for access to Churchill? I’m not going to pretend that we have a long list of George Parker: The Churchill Room. worthies that we could bring in, but they would tend Thomas Docherty: And the Adjournment. to be journalistic colleagues from your own George Parker: And the Adjournment. newspaper for example or friends. Thomas Docherty: Okay. Do you— Tomos Livingstone: Editors as well, I suppose. Ev 12 Administration Committee: Evidence
22 November 2010 George Parker and Tomos Livingstone
Q61 Angela Smith: Right. You call it a productive activities. I’ve never been the focus of this, but Eye and positive experience. What does that mean? Spy MP is tracking some MPs repeatedly. The places Productive in media can mean something very where there’s never a comment made about an MP are definite. the Churchill Room, the Members’ Dining Room, the George Parker: In terms of our facilities—I don’t Strangers’ Dining Room and the Members’ Tea know whether you would like to come on to this— Room—these are the four places where MPs are maybe just for the benefit of the Committee, I could relatively safe from some of the rather unpleasant explain the facilities we have at the moment in the comments that have been made on Twitter about MPs’ Press Gallery. We have a café bar area, which was movements. Strangers’ Bar is a classic source of refitted and refurbished in 2006–07. I should say this stories on Eye Spy MP. Can you understand why some was not at our request, but at the instigation of the Members may feel very reluctant to have the places House authorities. where they can feel safe disappear in front of their very eyes? Q62 Mr Jones: Yes it was. I’m sorry. Tomos Livingstone: Of course we can understand George Parker: We asked for the House of Commons that. If your concern is Eye Spy MP, I don’t think Press Gallery bar to be—? anyone in the Press Gallery is involved in that at all Mr Jones: You actually asked for the improvements and I think you are barking up the wrong tree, frankly. to the Press Gallery, including the new offices, which I think came to £7.5 million, which I noted was never Q64 Angela Smith: I’m just asking whether you can reported anywhere. understand why, because this would represent further George Parker: Mr Jones’ recollection may be restrictions and a further loss of the places in different to ours, but I don’t think—I wasn’t here at Westminster where MPs can feel relatively safe? the time—that we requested the refurbishment of the George Parker: We perfectly well understand that and Press Gallery canteen and bar. Sorry to digress, but we know that you have had experiences in the past. I we were very attached to our old bar, which was mentioned the period back in the 1990s when we were rebuilt, but that’s by the by. excluded from the Terrace as a result of some of the We have a terrace, we have a café bar and we also reporting. People in the Press Gallery are fully aware have a cafeteria, which doubles up as a restaurant that they immediately risk losing the privileges that during lunch times as well. We are very disappointed they have been granted if they break the rules. and regret the fact that we only discovered last week that the House of Commons Management Board has Q65 Angela Smith: What about the cameras on proposed closing our facilities, which I’m sure the Westminster Bridge? Committee may be aware of. It is one of the proposals, George Parker: I don’t know whether that was— which may put the evidence we are giving now in a Angela Smith: They have been there this summer. slightly different light. We weren’t consulted. We’re They have been there frequently; that’s newspapers. not part of the intranet system by which this Chair: That is slightly outwith the scope of this information was disseminated. We only found out inquiry, but the point is on the record. about this from a policeman who told us he heard our facilities were going to be closed. I gather we have Q66 Nigel Mills: Changing subject a little, your about two weeks to put in submissions. submission referred to wanting more grab-and-go I don’t know if I can talk about that, but to answer the coffee places. Do you have an idea what sort of thing question, the reason why we found it positive is that you would like to see introduced and how well used we value our facilities. Apart from being a social hub they would be? in the Press Gallery as you can imagine, we use them George Parker: The reference to grab-and-go coffee for formal lunches—for example, the Prime Minister was more in relation to our own facilities. The general is coming to give a Press Gallery lunch on point is that, although, strangely enough, we don’t Wednesday, and the Chancellor is coming next month. drink quite as much as we used to in the Press Gallery, We’ve had receptions for MPs, for press officers and we still consume quite large amounts of caffeine for the Speaker up there, so it’s the centre of the way during the day, so that’s a very important part of it. the Press Gallery operates. We’re very concerned That’s one of the reasons why we’re very keen to about the need to maintain our facilities and we want preserve our current facilities in the Press Gallery, to to encourage use of the facilities. What I mean by it be honest. But you have the same experience as us, I being a positive experience is that, when it was know, in Portcullis House, which is our main reopened and opened up to all pass holders, it brought alternative outlet, where there are often very big fresh blood in. As well as having capacity for us, there queues. So provision of good-quality hot drinks, are days when the place is so busy that we can’t find which to be honest is currently met mainly by our seats up there. Generally, having people coming own facilities, is quite important. through and using the bar makes it a more lively place. Q67 Nigel Mills: Do you find your colleagues have been sneaking out to Tesco to buy their lunch, or have Q63 Angela Smith: Can I just finish Sir Alan? My you been loyally staying here with the increased experience of Strangers’ generally is that it’s always prices? very busy and always buzzing anyway and that there George Parker: I haven’t seen any Tesco bags around are plenty of journalists around most of the time. I’m the Press Gallery. There’s been the usual grumbling also experiencing increasing reporting of Members’ about the rise in the price of teas and coffees, but if Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 13
22 November 2010 George Parker and Tomos Livingstone that is the price we have to pay to maintain facilities, give Peers access, we give Members of the European I think we’re all grown up enough to accept that. Parliament access, we give Scottish Members of Parliament access, we give Northern Irish Members Q68 Mr Jones: I was on the last Committee. I think of Parliament access, we give Welsh Members of we spent £7.5 million on the Press Gallery, including Parliament access—all sorts of very worthy groups— your new offices, which you don’t pay any rent for. and we end up with Members of Parliament not being The Press Gallery was refurbished with the agreement able to get into any of these facilities. Why should we of your previous chairman, because when I proposed consider that you should be one very privileged group, getting rid of it altogether, it sent him into hyperspace. perhaps ahead of some of those other groups? George Parker: I think there’s a difference between George Parker: I don’t think that’s what we are us accepting something happening to our facilities, requesting, to be honest. We’re not in a position which of course we would do. Were the taxpayer obviously to demand anything. If there are facilities prepared to improve your facilities, you would that Members of Parliament use that you are worried probably say yes. I don’t think the impetus for you won’t be able to make use of in future because of improving the bar, café or offices came from the overcrowding issues, then I think obviously you Press Gallery. would be well within your rights to draw the line. The issue that we are raising is that we are all operating in Q69 Mr Jones: No you didn’t object to it and you a straitened financial situation. The authorities are were supporting it. trying to cut the budget by about 17%. It seems to me I’m quite relaxed about opening up the Churchill that there are some facilities in the House which are Room, because I think it was a good success last time, basically underused and which, if people don’t use but if we were to do that, would you consider having them, will be closed down—the Churchill Room differential pricing? As most of your newspaper being a classic example of that. If you don’t increase editors are completely against subsidies for MPs, do the access to people like us—and actually we would you think we could open it up and have differential like to use the facilities—then nobody will be using pricing for members of the press to pay the full them in the future, as far as I can see. unsubsidised prices in those restaurants? George Parker: Sounds like a splendid idea and you Q73 Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: So you wouldn’t would continue to enjoy subsidised prices as tribunes object to only being allowed to use certain facilities of the people. on certain days of the week and at certain times of the day when they weren’t busy elsewhere? Q70 Mr Jones: Well, no. The fact is that you always George Parker: We wouldn’t object to any extension seem to complain about what we get subsidised here. of facilities for members of the press. What we are I have never yet seen in a newspaper—ever—the fact saying is that if we can contribute and be part of the that you eat on this estate and enjoy subsidy. I know solution to the financial problems that the House in the previous Committee, the most subsidised place faces, we would very much like to do so. in the Palace was the Press Gallery. The reason why Tomos Livingstone: It is worth making the point that, it was opened to more people was to try and get that when we did have access to the Churchill Room, it throughput through. All I’m saying to you is if we are wasn’t throughout the week. It was on certain days of going to have a grown-up debate about this, shouldn’t the week, on Mondays and Tuesdays, I think. we also have the fact that the same people who are writing or commenting on television about our Q74 Mike Weatherley: I think my question is fairly wonderfully subsidised facilities are also at the similar to one we just had, but phrased a different way. receiving end of it as well? The central plank of your argument at the beginning George Parker: I’m not sure whether a two-tier was that it could increase revenue for the House, pricing system works very well. I know they do it in which is a very emotive way of putting that you would Cuba, but I’m not sure whether you necessarily want like access. I’m a new Member here and it’s always to introduce it into the Palace of Westminster. impossible for me to get a booking in the Churchill Mr Jones: I’m suggesting it; I’m just putting it to Room or Strangers’ at the moment, so we do have full you. capacity on days that we are sitting. You also have the luxury of being able to go outside the House for a Q71 Chair: One at a time. Mr Parker, if you wish to number of facilities right across London, whereas we come back? don’t because we have to stay within the eight-minute George Parker: I don’t think that would be workable rule. I just wondered, first, how would you feel if unless you—but it would probably not hugely Members or other people who don’t have access welcomed by members of the Press Gallery, were I to elsewhere have priority on bookings, and maybe not be absolutely honest, Chairman. only restricting to off-peak times but perhaps restricting to short-notice booking times? The second Q72 Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: George, I am old point is: why does the press feel that they have priority enough to remember the old Press Bar and the old over, say, my researchers, who would also dearly love Press Dining Room, so I have seen a change in your to be able to go into Strangers’ Bar in the same way facilities. I would certainly be opposed to closing and which has always been crowded every single time Moncrieff’s, but this is a different issue. What it seems I’ve been in there? to me to boil down to here is actual use of these George Parker: Well, on the last point, I would just facilities. If we’re not careful, we give you access, we like to stress that isn’t what we are suggesting. We Ev 14 Administration Committee: Evidence
22 November 2010 George Parker and Tomos Livingstone aren’t proposing any additional privileges over other Q76 Chair: Thank you. Can I just say about all the pass holders. It seems to me that you have ultimate proposals, which included the possible closure of control over these facilities. We would dearly love to Moncrieff’s, that these all came out together and no have access because we like working here. We like one was consulted, so we have time to respond being part of the life of the House. We actually like certainly within the context of this inquiry and we are mixing with Members of Parliament. looking at all sorts of different possibilities. If we Tomos Livingstone: Believe it or not. could accommodate the monthly Press Gallery George Parker: Believe it or not. That’s the truth of luncheon in another part of the Palace, would that our daily life here, so we would like the access, but necessarily cause a difficulty? we’re not coming here demanding special privileges. George Parker: It is obviously far from ideal. The We’re just saying that, as part of a general review, truth is, if we lose our facilities, you take away the opening up access more widely would be a good central point of the Press Gallery. It is where we thing. entertain Members of Parliament, the Speaker and so Tomos Livingstone: I don’t think we’re suggesting forth. There is plainly a social aspect of working in that we should have priority over Members for the Press Gallery that we would lose. That probably booking or anything like that. doesn’t move Members of the House of Commons Management Board particularly. The other thing is Q75 Angela Smith: There is an informal that if we lose those facilities, it just means that 300- arrangement in the Members Dining Room at the odd people who work in the Press Gallery will be moment whereby, generally, Opposition Members of looking elsewhere to eat, to work, to drink. the House dine on one side and Government Members dine on the other. It’s informal and fluid, but it works Q77 Chair: I wasn’t necessarily thinking that that because it does allow people to relax and converse in meant closure. I was merely entertaining another relative privacy. Would you object to a similar possibility because it might be that there are other arrangement operating in the Churchill Room, if you ways one could do these things. Am I right in thinking were to be allowed access? you don’t really have any lingering interest in the George Parker: Of course not, if you felt that would evening in the use of that major room? offer you more protection from irresponsible George Parker: That is correct. It has to do with the journalists. changing working practices in journalism and in the Angela Smith: And there are a few. House. The days when journalists would hang around George Parker: I think you have less to fear than you drinking in the bar until ten or eleven at night and think because the truth is, as you know and we know, there would always be a team of journalists working that as soon as a rule is broken, we would lose our the late shift, I’m afraid, have all gone with the age privileges. Speaker Martin proved that most of Blackberries and laptops. Really, the facilities close dramatically back in the 1990s when he kicked us off off in our area at about eight o’clock. the Terrace. I think that’s an experience that is seared Chair: Thank you very much indeed for coming to us in the collective memory of the Press Gallery. and helping us with our inquiry. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: You gave him a lot of stick because of it.
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Louise Haigh, Secretary, Lauren Edwards, Political Officer, and Shelley Phelps, Interns Officer, Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch, gave evidence.
Q78 Chair: Good afternoon. I’m sorry we kept you to the attention of the Committee. I hope we’ve all waiting. We’re running a little late. Thank you for read it, but nevertheless you might want to give coming to see us and thank you for paper that you emphasis to something. submitted. I gather that James Mills has had to go to Louise Haigh: Yes, we do have a couple of other hospital and that it’s Lauren who is replacing him. things that we would like to add to the written Welcome. Is there anything you’d like to say by way submission, if that is okay. of introduction before we ask you some questions? First, we were quite disappointed as a branch not to Louise Haigh: In terms of our oral submission or have been consulted before the price rises were introducing the branch? announced. We do have a memorandum of Chair: I’m sorry? understanding with the House authorities. We do Louise Haigh: Sorry, would you like us to introduce appreciate that it was a quick strategic decision, but the branch or introduce our oral submission because we would have liked to see some consultation with we’ve prepared an oral submission as well? the branch. Also, we were quite disappointed not to Chair: I’m still not quite hearing you properly. have been invited to consult and to submit to the Louise Haigh: Sorry. Do you mean would you like us Commission. It was a request from myself that led to to introduce our oral submission? us making the submission, whereas the Trade Union Side and MAPSA were both invited. Q79 Chair: You can enlarge on it, if you’d like to Enlarging on our written submission, the main point highlight any particular points that you need to draw that we want make is that the catering price rises will Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 15
22 November 2010 Louise Haigh, Lauren Edwards and Shelley Phelps impact disproportionately on MPs’ staff. We have an Lauren Edwards: Yes. We are asking, basically to average salary of around £20,000 per annum, which take into account our below market rate salaries, is far below the market rate for the vast majority of whether that would be one of the options that you the jobs and qualifications of most MPs’ staff, and at could consider. Some people have been talking about the same time, we’re also facing higher costs on the perhaps a staff canteen, but we just think with the pure estate. I know this is not part of your remit as the numbers of staff that we have on the estate, it would Administration Committee, but just to give you some just get incredibly busy. That could be an option, just context, IPSA is driving down salaries through cuts to in recognition that MPs’ staff are being hit quite hard MPs’ staffing budgets and MPs have also been banned with the decline in salaries and the rise in catering from giving their staff bonuses, so many MPs’ staff prices at the same time. feel they are unfairly bearing the brunt of the cuts at work. Q81 Bob Russell: If I could ask a second question? In addition, we also have a response to the cuts On the loyalty scheme at paragraph c), you’ve specifically proposed in the Houses’ saving highlighted one commodity, which is a bottle of Coke, programme. with quite a substantial mark-up within the estate as Lauren Edwards: Yes, we have just been having a off the estate. Are there other examples? I’m just look at the House savings programme and our major wondering whether perhaps an entrepreneurial concern really is that the cuts programme recognises member of staff could bulk buy and make a killing. the long hours a lot of MPs’ staff work. We know that Shelley Phelps: Even if you bought pasta in the one of the proposals is to close down some of the Debate now, which is about I think £3.25, you could facilities and replace them with vending machines. I buy a pot of pasta for £1.20 in Tesco nearby. know that’s the context of 7 Millbank, and we don’t Louise Haigh: There is also confectionary I believe. believe that any of our members work in that building, Lauren Edwards: Yes. A lot of our members have but just in terms of that setting a precedent, we would been in touch to say that prices of standard chocolate like evening meals and that kind of thing to still be bars is now higher on the estate than it is in Tesco, available for our members, given that some of us work which is just around the corner but leaving the estate as long as the MPs are here. can often be quite difficult. Usually, when you’re on Shelley Phelps: Finally, as Interns Officer, I would the estate for the day, you are basically here all day. like to bring just a few points to your attention. Our Louise Haigh: It’s just not clear what the benchmark members have expressed concerns about access has been for setting the price. It’s not clear whether arrangements for short-term staff, such as interns. We it’s just about removing the subsidy rather than feel that they should be able to access the Terrace at profit-raising. the same times as green pass holders can; also, things like access to the Debate. Obviously we recognise that Q82 Thomas Docherty: First of all, can I ask you to this is a problem when it is extremely busy, but this clarify what you understand, or what your members rule applies regardless of quieter times, with the understand, are the access arrangements to things like exception of recess. So that’s just something that we Strangers’ Bar, the Terrace and the Terrace cafeteria? wanted to have addressed, really. Louise Haigh: Sorry, which bar was that? Strangers’ Chair: Thank you. I think I should just say that no Bar? one was consulted. We are all in it together, to coin a Thomas Docherty: Strangers’ Bar, the Terrace as a phrase, in the sense that these decisions were taken in whole and the Terrace cafeteria. the void period between the ending of the Committees Louise Haigh: My understanding and, I believe, the under the old Parliament and the setting up of the understanding of the members is that Strangers’ bar Committees in the new. The Commission, as it is access is only as MPs’ guests. To the Terrace, I entitled, nevertheless took decisions that we are now believe we have access on Fridays and during recess catching up on. As to the future, there is only one item periods. What was the other one? in the list that is affecting the next financial year so far as the catering side is concerned, and that happens Q83 Thomas Docherty: And the terrace from to be the Members’ Dining Room. On any other Strangers’ Bar? proposal on that very widely drawn list, we are going Louise Haigh: That is the same: only with an MP, to have the opportunity of input. In fact it has been I understand. stated that the inquiry being conducted by this Committee will help to inform and, I hope, influence Q84 Thomas Docherty: On your submission, you what might happen in the future. said—and apologies for not getting this properly—on the Fridays, do you have the right to bring guests Q80 Bob Russell: I think there is a general when you go on to the Terrace cafeteria? acceptance that the curse of IPSA falls on staff, Louise Haigh: No, that wasn’t my understanding that possibly more so than it does on elected Members. we were, but it seems to be administered haphazardly I’m grateful to you for pointing that out in the and sometimes MPs’ staff are allowed to take on “Loyalty Scheme” section—number two. I wonder if interns or potentially staff that don’t have a full pass, perhaps you could spell it out a bit more? Are you and other times they are not. We would like suggesting that perhaps low-paid staff, shortly or clarification on that. already to be on IPSA-reduced salaries, would be entitled to a lower purchase price of commodities? Is Q85 Thomas Docherty: When you said in your that what is being suggested? submission on the point about access to the Terrace Ev 16 Administration Committee: Evidence
22 November 2010 Louise Haigh, Lauren Edwards and Shelley Phelps for lunch on Fridays, you said, “On some days, staff Lauren Edwards: We have had members get in touch with interns who’re still waiting for their pass will be when we asked for their views on the written and the allowed access and on other days they will not.” I take oral evidence that we are giving now who’ve said that you meant by “on some days” that it is random? It is is something they are increasingly doing. The problem not consistent to Fridays? is that there is not a lot of other places that you can Louise Haigh: Yes. It depends entirely who is on the go. You can go to the Tescos and the Neros, but security on that day. because of the location of where we work, there is not a local coffee shop necessarily that you can pop out Q86 Thomas Docherty: If I understand correctly, to, so it is the only place really. We have had evidence what you are asking for is, for those days for which of people increasingly doing that, of people making you have access, you would like the right effectively their own lunch and bringing it in and that kind of to bring guests on to the Terrace? thing. Ultimately, if that happens en masse and that Louise Haigh: To bring guests that are staff—for increases, there will be a decline in revenue on the example, interns who very rarely have full pass estate. entitlement. Q91 Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I don’t notice, and Q87 Thomas Docherty: Do you understand the maybe I am wrong, the decline in the number of staff reasons why interns, who I think you said yourself are using the Debate. If anything, the queue is longer now on short term, won’t necessarily have passes, because than it was before. they haven’t been security cleared? Does that make Lauren Edwards: It may just take a while for the cost sense? to hit. It takes a while for people to change their behaviour. Louise Haigh: Yes, but they’ve been security cleared Shelley Phelps: A lot of people would probably still to get on to the estate and they’ve been employed be queuing up to buy teas and coffees and they are presumably by the MP, so they have been cleared in still eating their lunch outside the Debate, but a lot of that sense. people are still bringing their own or going out to Tesco to buy things. Q88 Thomas Docherty: But the staff would then effectively take responsibility for vouching for them? Q92 Tessa Munt: I just wanted to check something. If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is I’m not entirely clear about why it is that people who MPs’ staff and MPs’ researchers would take are interns don’t always have passes, seeing as how responsibility for vouching for the interns on the one can get a pass for someone who is on work Terrace, and that is the access you want on the experience, as I understand it. I’m not entirely sure non-sitting days and the Fridays? why your interns don’t have passes. Louise Haigh: Yes, absolutely. The second question I would like to ask you, which is sort of connected, is that I would envisage that, Q89 Thomas Docherty: My final point, Sir Alan, is given the complexity of a pass like this, one can grade that there have been a number of incidents in recent it so that you could get some sort of staff discount. months where MPs’ staff have been on the Terrace at That would, of course, require each of you to buy a night. Do you think that the union has a role to play meal and not to be buying each other’s meals. I just in raising awareness that staff shouldn’t be on the wondered if you saw that as being workable—if there Terrace, and particularly that their behaviour on the was something that you flash across the EPOS system Terrace needs to be adjusted accordingly? on the till, whether you could limit yourselves to Louise Haigh: I think we can certainly play a role buying a meal each as opposed to buying meals for in raising awareness but if they are there as guests others also, if you were to get a discount? of MPs— Louise Haigh: I presume it could be limited to use, Thomas Docherty: They’re not. say, once or twice a day for a lunch or evening meal. Louise Haigh: Okay. It should be taken into account As for the pass for interns, often because it can be that a lot of the new intake are former researchers and very short term or perhaps they have used their pass will be in social circles with researchers now, so a lot allocation on full-time staff, on permanent staff, then do take them on in that respect. Certainly we can play a lot of the times, they don’t have enough. a role in raising that, absolutely. Shelley Phelps: As Interns Officer and when we’ve had interns in the office, one thing I’ve come across Q90 Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I wouldn’t want you is, for example, in half term, when we had two or to go away thinking this Committee wasn’t three people coming in, and you contact the Pass sympathetic with your members, because we have Office to try and get them short-term passes, the Pass consistently asked questions about the impact of these Office often just say it is easier, if they’re only in price rises on your members and that is where I want for the Monday to Wednesday or Thursday when the to question you. I totally understand that, but since Members are going back to the constituency, for them we’ve had the price increases, I haven’t noticed any to have the paper passes for those days and be huge decline in the number of staff using the Debate. accompanied by a staff member. Have you any evidence of that, and also have you any evidence that your staff have had to stop using it and Q93 Mike Weatherley: I am hugely sympathetic to instead have gone outside and bought lunch at Tesco what you’ve got here and I congratulate you in or whatever? making very reasonable proposals. To answer that last Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 17
22 November 2010 Louise Haigh, Lauren Edwards and Shelley Phelps question, I have interns that don’t have the pass, and way of trying to make money in this area. When we they have to be escorted elsewhere, so I see the had a tour of the catering facilities last week, the one problem that you come up with on a daily basis. I in Parliament Street is a lot less used than the ones in only have one very small question on the whole thing. Portcullis House. Do you sense that staff look at What is the capacity of Annie’s Bar? How many menus and choose where they want to eat, or is it people? How big is it? I’ve never been it—I’m new always the same place? Would different pricing here. encourage some people to move over to different Louise Haigh: Of Annie’s Bar? I’ve never been in it buildings? If you knew that Parliament Street was either. I know it is closed. empty Monday to Tuesday, if it was 20p or 50p cheaper, do you think that would even out the demand Q94 Mike Weatherley: I appreciate it is closed now, somewhat more? but if it were open, is it the size of Strangers’ Bar? Is Louise Haigh: I absolutely think that the staff look at it double the size? Is it this room? Does anyone in this menus and pricing. I think if you were looking to room know? increase in footfall in one, lowering the prices would Chair: If I could just contribute to that point, I was greatly increase revenue at Bellamy’s. going to ask a question as well. I know, simply because I made a point of going there, Q98 Thomas Docherty: I’m curious. Have you had that it is unused at the moment. I was very conscious any discussions with your counterparts in the Scottish of the fact that we had lost Bellamy’s bar and I was Parliament and Welsh Assembly about their catering asking the question as to whether or not there was arrangements and how they provide for their staff? sufficient footfall to justify reinstating Annie’s Bar as Having worked a very long time ago at the Scottish a bar for staff. There are doubts on management side Parliament, I know they do provide staff discounts on as to whether it would work for that purpose—that some things but they don’t do it for canteen staffing, particular premises—and whether in fact, as it’s an if that makes sense. You can get a discount on stuff at enclosed box, it would find much attraction with the gift shop and so on of 10%, but you don’t get a people, compared with what the Bellamy’s bar had, discount on eating there—the theory being the food is with the great view out on to Parliament Square and subsided as it is, so effectively you get a second so on. I think if there was evidence provided that there subsidy. Have you talked to either the Welsh or the was a demand by staff for a bar that was their territory, Scots about that? we might see whether or not it could be provided. I’m Louise Haigh: We haven’t. As is part of our just not sure that the Annie’s Bar space is in least bit submission, it’s not unusual across the public or attractive for that purpose. That is the trouble. I take private sector to have a subsidised catering note of the points you’ve made in that and I think arrangement in a workplace. No we haven’t had any we just need to see harder evidence rather than mere discussion is the answer to your question, but certainly speculation as to whether or not we would get the in previous workplaces for me, there have often been demand. staff canteens or subsidised food arrangements.
Q95 Mike Weatherley: Apart from the fact that I Q99 Nigel Mills: Do your members have suggestions think there is a lot of demand for another facility on for things that are missing from the estate? Do you the estate, since people say it to me all the time, I just ever think, “Why isn’t there a pizza place or a want to know how big it is. Is it a really small box sandwich place?” Is there anything that you can’t get room or is it a large room? that you would really like to see here? Chair: It has a capacity of about 50. I am just trying Louise Haigh: No. Everything that we have come to imagine. It is less than half the size of this across with our members has been included in the Committee room. written submission. Chair: That makes you more satisfied than Members, Q96 Mike Weatherley: So about the same as I think. Strangers’ then? Thank you very much indeed for coming to see us and Chair: Smaller than the Strangers’. for the submission you’ve made. We have a little extra time over the next few weeks to complete our inquiry, Q97 Nigel Mills: Speaking of someone who has a as we are not under the pressure we thought we were, morning trip to Tesco to buy Coke, chocolate biscuits so we shall deliberate in due course. Thank you very and fruit juice, I entirely agree that putting the price much indeed. up on those easily substitutable items is not a clever Ev 18 Administration Committee: Evidence
Monday 29 November 2010
Members present: Sir Alan Haselhurst (Chair)
Rosie Cooper Angela Smith Mr Mark Francois Mr John Spellar Nigel Mills Mr Shailesh Vara Tessa Munt Mr Dave Watts Sarah Newton Mike Weatherley Bob Russell ______
Examination of Witness
Witness: Mrs Sue Harrison, Director of Catering and Retail Services, House of Commons, gave evidence.
Q100 Chair: Good afternoon Mrs Harrison. I there will be a tension between making the maximum apologise for keeping you waiting slightly as we were use of our facilities and generating additional income preparing for this. Thank you for the paper that you from members of the general public, while have submitted, and, indeed, for your second maintaining the security of the premises. Naturally all appearance before this Committee. Is there anything of us who work here are very interested to ensure that you would like to say, or any points you would like to we are working in a safe environment. pick out before you submit yourself to our questions? Sue Harrison: Mr Chairman, just by way of Q102 Chair: Having said that, do you think there is introduction, I would just like to say that we do very substantial scope for improving our income? much welcome this review and I think it is very Sue Harrison: I certainly think there is considerable pertinent to hold such a review at this time for two scope for improving the income and that the main reasons. First, as we are all aware, the drive for conversation about the extent to which we do that and savings is incumbent on us, as it is on the whole of the trade off vis-à-vis security and what we could do the public sector. Secondly, it is 15 years since we last is very much one worth having. had a major review that looked at the scope and nature of our business and the premises that we have to Q103 Chair: You have been here a fair number of deliver it. In those last 15 years we have actually years now so you know us very well. Is there anything coped with an 80% increase in the total usage of the which you are inclined to bang your head against the facilities and at the same time there have been changes wall about and say, “Why on earth haven’t they agreed to the sitting patterns of the House. It is quite to do such and such?” Is there something that you understandable that from time to time it is necessary feel, above all else, we should be thinking about that to review what we are doing and to make sure that has not just happened over the last few years? looking forward we make the best use of the facilities Sue Harrison: I think that one of the key things that that we have, and the best use of the public money, to I would point to there is the sale of the House of realign where we can to actually cater for the needs Commons souvenirs. We have asked in the past of the present and the next few years. In that context, whether it is possible to sell souvenirs outside the I very much hope to work with your Committee to confines of the Parliamentary estate and on each make the best of the facilities and the resources we occasion that we have asked that question we have have at our disposal. been told no. Yet when I look around at Buckingham Palace, even 10 Downing Street, they are Q101 Chair: Thank you very much. If I may start now selling their souvenirs to the general public and with a couple of questions, do you feel that sufficient I think that there is considerable scope there. We know attention has been given to revenue raising, and how from the level of interest we get from the general could we best exploit the assets we have got to raise public just writing into us that there is such scope. It revenue as opposed to the feeling that it is simply a is a strong brand and if the House wants to make more matter of cutting in a negative sense? income, which I believe it does, that is certainly an Sue Harrison: I think that it is probably true to say area that I would focus on. that in the past we have not given as much focus to Secondly, a lot of people who visit the House, whether income generation as is now the mood of the House. that be for private events or for tours, would be highly I think the key reason for that is obviously that, in delighted to be afforded the opportunity to have a order to increase our revenue, we need to extend the meal of some sort here and would be prepared to pay market. As long as we are looking at extending the for the privilege. Likewise, the people who book to market among those with internal Parliamentary come on tours at the moment can make use of the Passholders, it is then nevertheless a constrained Jubilee Cafe, but it is what is says, it's a cafe; they market. In the present day, to extend facilities beyond cannot get a full lunch or a good-quality full afternoon that to the general public does bring in to play the tea that would bring some income to the House. very serious security issues that I know are of concern All private functions have to be sponsored and to the Serjeant at Arms and the people that advise the attended by an MP. What that means is that at the House on security matters. It is incontrovertible that times when politicians are not in London, which by Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 19
29 November 2010 Mrs Sue Harrison and large is a Thursday evening, Fridays and in, in addition to what we have at the moment, you weekends, the market for our functions is really said that security considerations had been a factor why restricted to those 40 or so London and south-east that had not been given much thought. At present we based MPs, because if MPs are not here, they do not have thousands of people who come to the Houses of wish to sponsor functions. Yet again, however, we Parliament every day and given that the House prides know from general demand that there is a lot of itself on trying to boast about the increased number of interest just in this place as being a fantastic venue for people who come here, whether it be children or an organisation to have their event. visitors, has any consideration actually been given to what the security costs would be if it were decided Q104 Tessa Munt: Thank you for your figures, they that, for example, an evening function were to be held are interesting. I just wanted to ask you why you had for a 100 people in a function room such as the Jubilee chosen October to December 2009 to give us a picture Room? I accept that going to the inner sanctum of the and why there is no strict comparison between Houses of Parliament may have more security perhaps that period in 2008 or onward, or comparing implications but the impression I get at the moment is spring, summer and autumn? that there is the blanket phrase, “Oh, because of Sue Harrison: The reason that we took only one security considerations”, and then you don’t go any period is that our systems do not lend themselves to further. I also recognise that it is easier to make cuts doing this work very easily. than to actually think out of the box and say, “Let’s Tessa Munt: Sorry, they don’t lend themselves to— see how money can be made”. Would I be right in Sue Harrison: They don’t lend themselves to saying that there has been no consideration given to extracting these sort of figures retrospectively very planning a scenario of, for example, an event for 100 easily. It was a pragmatic decision to take October to people? December last year. Since April of this year, we had Sue Harrison: I think it would be very fair to say that the impact of the general election, and we have not no scenario planning has taken place. In terms of the really had normal patterns of trading since then. We additional cost of security, if we are looking at looked back at October to December last year and we bringing in external events at a time when the House are now compiling the same information for October is not busy, so there are not large numbers of visitors to December this current year so that after Christmas being processed through the security access points, we should then be able to have a two-year then I would have expected there to be little or no comparison. I think going back to 2008 is so long ago additional cost to that. We do indeed have a problem I doubt whether it would be of huge relevance now at the moment of simply trying to process the number that we are in a new Parliament that is already of visitors through the Visitor Centre at peak times, establishing some very different patterns of trading. particularly on a Tuesday and Wednesday, if you speak to the people who are responsible: the Visitor Q105 Tessa Munt: Surely that is exactly the point Assistants and indeed the Serjeant at Arms. I am isn’t it, because one would need to be able to compare thinking about making use of our facilities at the off- specific areas across two or three years in exactly that peak times. Typically, in my experience, services for light, showing how Members behaved differently in a the House—this is not restricted just to catering—are different Parliament, but in the long run we are still either busy or they are quiet and that is very closely here and there are 600 and however many of us linked to the actual business activity in the Chamber there are. and in the Committees. Sue Harrison: Yes. Tessa Munt: It would be useful for me to be able to Q109 Mr Vara: If I may come back on that. You compare across the year, across the seasons. I accept have just dismissed using the facilities during peak absolutely that perhaps in April you would have had periods because there is a difficulty in the flow of nothing doing, but we can explain that. It is useful people coming here, yet may I suggest that perhaps and I would have liked to have had a little more consideration should be given to easing the inflow of information. people, because we might then be able to raise Sue Harrison: Right. additional funds to the tune of thousands of pounds. For example, on Saturdays, thousands of people visit Q106 Tessa Munt: We might have covered this the Chamber in both places as visiting tourists. So it before but I just want to clarify: there is no land cost seems eminently sensible to me that perhaps if attached to this? someone wanted to use the Jubilee Room there would Sue Harrison: No, there is not. The cost of the space be no additional cost, or minimal cost, in people that is given over to catering and retail services is not coming through the security clearance. So if they have charged out to us. had their security clearance then it would simply be a question of—I don’t know, I am not a security Q107 Tessa Munt: Why is that? expert—some more security for the Jubilee Room and Sue Harrison: I couldn’t honestly answer you the then the catering costs. I am concerned that there are reason why other than to say it never has been done blanket prohibitions on thinking of revenue and and other Departments of the House are similarly not income, and I have heard it twice so far: when Sir charged an allocation for their premises costs. Alan asked the question, the blanket phrase used in response was “security considerations” or words to Q108 Mr Vara: Mrs Harrison, when Sir Alan asked that effect. When I pressed you, you again said, “Well, earlier on about considering outside revenue coming during peak periods we can't get enough people in”. Ev 20 Administration Committee: Evidence
29 November 2010 Mrs Sue Harrison
Instead of thinking of why you can't, I respectfully Q112 Nigel Mills: Do you sense that people have suggest that we perhaps consider how we can go about traded down? You can get into the horrible situation doing it. where people move from your high-margin items to Sue Harrison: May I just apologise if I have given your low-margin items and you might see a little the wrong impression? When I point to security, I am increase in revenue whereas actually your contribution not using that as a reason not to do things. I am falls. Is that trend there? actually saying there is a school of thought amongst Sue Harrison: I think as I said to this Committee the House that security is a very serious consideration. when I appeared in September, we are in uncharted It is not my personal stance to say that security is waters in terms of imposing such a large price something that will prevent us from doing something. increase. I fully anticipated that some consumers What I am saying is that it is something that needs would not continue with their previous purchase to be discussed and I welcome that opportunity. The patterns. We have certainly seen in the cafeterias a backing of this Committee gives me far greater downturn in the number of people buying rationale to go to my colleagues elsewhere in the confectionary items: crisps, Kit Kats, those sorts of House Service and open those conversations and say things. We haven’t seen a downturn in the number of that this Committee very much wants us to be looking people using the facilities and the average spend has at ways of extending the use of the facilities for the significantly increased since the price increase. I think general public, whether it be at peak or off-peak times. it is very early days to be trying to predict what the Mr Vara: Please be under no illusion, this Committee final outcome will be. fully recognises security considerations. All I and my colleagues are asking is that the proposal ought to be Q113 Nigel Mills: On the summary of contribution looked into nevertheless. by area, the gross margin of sales value less food costs Chair: If I may just follow that up. In a different varies wildly between what I would instinctively think context this Committee was considering further access would be comparable outlets. I look at from the public for a particular type of event and we Portcullis House compared to Terrace Cafeteria/ were then inquiring about whether the fee to be Member’s Tea Room, you’ve got effectively a gross charged took full account of security costs and there margin of 26% in the Terrace Cafeteria, 41% in was no immediate answer, it had to be researched. It Portcullis House; yet in 1 Parliament Street you get a did suggest that the security costs were possibly gross margin of effectively 50%. Is that something higher than had originally been envisaged when that you monitor on a regular basis? Have you got provisional charge figures had been put forward. I targets for these? I think we had one of you chefs in mustn’t prejudge the findings of the Committee in any here and he said he knew what his gross profit target way, but it would seem helpful if you, desirous of was and he tried to work towards it. I can't exploiting some of the facilities, had got a clear instinctively think why they are so different. message from security as to what their costs would be Sue Harrison: At gross profit level we have a target if, for example, you catered in X, Y and Z facilities for every single venue. The figures that you have in at particular times, so that we have a clear picture of front of you are by building or group of area, because what would be involved. Otherwise we are in danger it also includes the staff costs. The reason that of saying, “Yes, go ahead we want to maximise the Portcullis House is very different at gross profit level facilities”, and then suddenly finding that the security from the Terrace Cafeteria and the Member’s Tea costs are looking ludicrously high. Room is the business mix. Portcullis House has got included in its portfolio of services the Debate, which Q110 Nigel Mills: Mrs Harrison, under the recent is a self-service restaurant and is one of the more price rises there is a quote in here that the increased highly subsidised areas, and on the other side of the revenue has been £80,000 over two months. coin, it has got the Despatch Box coffee bar which Sue Harrison: It was primarily over one month. The makes a net contribution, so it is making a much, cafeteria price increases came on-stream at the much higher GP, that is normal in the business. beginning of September but the rest of the price increases were only effective in October, and then the Q114 Nigel Mills: I was quoting food cost House was in recess for the constituency recess. It was percentages. I was doing effectively sales less direct a little bit over one month; it is probably between one costs of food. That shouldn’t include any staff costs and two months. should it? Sue Harrison: In the figures before you now we have Q111 Nigel Mills: What you were hoping they would grouped together all of the services that are, for achieve was effectively £1.2 million a year, which is example, in Portcullis House. The food gross profit £100,000 a month. Some of those months you won't target in the Debate self-service restaurant is a lower be sitting so you need to be getting more than percentage gross profit target than it is in the £100,000 quite comfortably in the full sitting months. Adjournment, which in turn is lower that it is in the Sue Harrison: You are absolutely right. first floor committee and meeting rooms, which in turn Nigel Mills: Are you thinking you are quite a long is lower than it is in the Dispatch Box. When you way off achieving that? Is it setting off alarm bells? amalgamate those into the total for Portcullis House, Sue Harrison: I will be in a far better position to the average for that area is on a very different sales answer you once I have had the results for November. mix basis compared with when you look at the I have only had that one month’s set of results so far. Member’s Tea Room and the Terrace Cafeteria. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 21
29 November 2010 Mrs Sue Harrison
Q115 Nigel Mills: There is so much grouped in there by time period?”, so you can try and match resource we can't make any sense of it; that’s probably the to demand. outcome. I looked at those and wondered whether that Sue Harrison: No, it is not. was just huge difference in wastage, but is there a Nigel Mills: That’s a bit surprising. better answer in there somewhere? Sue Harrison: It is largely to do with the pricing Q121 Rosie Cooper: I used to work in Littlewoods, policy. The pricing policy in the cafeterias is set in and knowing what you were doing by the day, by line with other organisations that provide staff range, by whatever was normal 20 or 30 years ago. I restaurants in the work place. They will typically work can't understand how you can forecast what you need, to a lower margin than, for example, the coffee bars how many people you need to work, how many use that are provided in such an environment or a table- the facilities. This just seems to me like a complete service restaurant, which we have now benchmarked fuddle. It is like sticking a pin in—how do you know? against the high street, less 25%. Is that why these numbers are so bad and why the costs are so awry from what we would expect? How Q116 Nigel Mills: That was where I was struggling. do you know what to order? How do you know what I was looking at 1 Parliament Street compared with you are catering for? Frankly, I am lost for words to Portcullis House and thinking Portcullis House has the describe what I would call the management behind coffee shop, which should have a lower food cost this situation. Seriously. percentage overall. I was kind of getting the reverse Sue Harrison: We do look at figures on a daily basis. answer to what I was expecting. Are you happy with The chefs look at their ordering on a daily basis. They these food and beverage cost percentages? have menu cycles, they have records of how many Sue Harrison: The figures that you have got cover were sold the last time that particular menu was the whole of last year and of course, until January last running and they will look at that from a historical year, in 1 Parliament Street as well as the cafeteria basis. They wouldn’t get it all from the point of sales there was also the banqueting business in the Astor systems. For example, the chefs need to know by food ingredient what they are purchasing, the point of sales Suite and the Bellamy’s Club Room, and there was system is going to give them so much data that it the bar as well. Those will have affected the gross would actually be very difficult for them to drill down. profit margin in that building. Each building has got a They have other systems that they use to get that different sales mix to it and that affects the combined information. gross profit level. At management level we have got a gross profit target for every single trading venue. Q122 Rosie Cooper: What kind of system is that? A The chefs in each venue would be working to those book? A pen? An abacus? margins. If you take somewhere like Portcullis House, Sue Harrison: No, there is a computerised purchasing the chef is encouraged to not just look at achieving and stock control system, which shows them by food the target in one area, because what we want to do is and beverage commodity what the consumption has to make sure that if there is food left over in one of been. They marry that up against the actual sales the areas that is catered for out of that kitchen, that it figures for the day, the number of items that they have is used up somewhere else in the premises. sold, and they keep their own logs on that.
Q117 Nigel Mills: Lastly, I am a little concerned that Q123 Rosie Cooper: How long does that take them you said you have to go back and historically using this process? interrogate the system to find out what your usage Sue Harrison: I honestly couldn’t give you an answer numbers were on things. Is that not something that to that. you monitor on a monthly basis? I thought a computer Rosie Cooper: That might be a cost that is in there would just spill that report out every month so you somewhere. It sounds manic to me. knew what was happening. Chair: This is a very difficult place to manage in the Sue Harrison: We have the usage figures on a daily sense of the hours we keep and the erratic way in basis, but to get the level of detail that shows us the which we keep them. pattern of trading by day of the week and by time of Rosie Cooper: Funnily enough, there are things like the day was where we had to go back and interrogate airports; there are things like railway stations. the system. Tessa Munt: Centre Parcs, where I have worked; you have 13 to 15 restaurants in a very small area and Q118 Nigel Mills: Your system doesn’t run that as a every chef knows exactly the cost of his space, the report at a press of a button or under automation? cost of his commodities and the food GP and he is Sue Harrison: No, no. tested on them on a daily or a weekly basis. Rosie Cooper: Either you are doing the job or you’re Q119 Nigel Mills: Someone has to go and add up? not doing it. Sue Harrison: It doesn’t at the moment. The system that we have now is about to be replaced early in the Q124 Chair: I think we have got a point. Mrs new year with an updated version. Harrison, do you want to comment on that? Sue Harrison: No. Q120 Nigel Mills: That is not a management report you ask to see every month or every quarter then, Q125 Mr Watts: Will the new computer system “What's my usage been by outlet, by day of the week, allow you to have that level of information? I am a Ev 22 Administration Committee: Evidence
29 November 2010 Mrs Sue Harrison bit worried that if you haven’t got it, and you’re going Q129 Rosie Cooper: I just wondered whether the to get a new system, whether that new system will Prime Minister’s view about salaries would actually provide the information that you will need. apply to the top end of this and just how it would Sue Harrison: The new system that is going in is the compare outside. I know it is a difficult and complex replacement of the electronic point of sale system. business but there are equally difficult businesses. To That is where we drill down to get these usage find that there are people here who earn more than the statistics that you have here. They record our sales Prime Minister to run this, at a loss, in this befuddled that go through the tills on a half-hourly basis. So yes, manner that means we can't extract the information we will be able to get those reports on an ongoing that we need, I just think is really difficult. basis. What we have not yet got is a stock control Sue Harrison: The only thing that I would say to that system that is entirely interfaced with the point of is that I don’t think there is anybody in the Catering sales system, and that is in a project that we are and Retail Service that is earning more than the working on with our IT colleagues, looking at the next Prime Minister. phase of replacement. The stock control system that Rosie Cooper: Okay, good. we have now was originally purchased approximately Sue Harrison: I am the only member of the Senior 15 years ago, albeit it has been though upgrades since House of Commons Service. I have two Band As, one then. We won't complete the full cycle of control until of whom is the Executive Chef, and one is Robert we have actually got two systems that can be Gibbs, my Operations Manager. That is my sole senior interfaced with each other. management resource in House terms, and I have to say that, for delivering the business as we do across Q126 Mr Watts: A similar question that I asked last almost 30 trading venues, from 7.30 in the morning time. Will that new system have a cost centre base until whatever time at night the House rises, my that will allow you to distribute the central costs to Executive Chef, Mr Gibbs and I are working each of the different outlets that you have got? Will it extremely long hours just to cover that business. I give you a proportion of those? think one of the points that I would make is that we Sue Harrison: That’s unlikely to be done on the point have got just about enough management resource to of sales system but again that is part of the bigger manage the day-to-day business, but if we move into strategy that we are working with the IT people on. a phase where we are exploring ways of generating They are currently researching the market to find out new income, then I would say that we will probably what products there are available that would meet all need some assistance with that, because it would of our requirements. jeopardise the day-to-day business if I were to pull Rosie Cooper: Why don’t you just nip to Centre my Executive Chef or my Operations Manager away Parcs and have done with it? from delivering those day-to-day services. Chair: Order, order. Rosie Cooper: Sorry, Mr Chairman. Q130 Bob Russell: Earlier in our discussion on another matter, John Spellar asked what is the purpose of the House of Commons for its Members and, Q127 Mr Watts: I have got your structure in front of indeed, staff? And I agree with that, because if we me. Would it be possible to have some details of the start or continue down the dumbing-down route, salary bands that the people have got because it seems which is what’s happened over the last year or so, then to me—this might be unfair—to be a bloated I have concerns, and I hadn’t realised—and I managerial system and quite an expensive one. The apologise—on page 6, that the main souvenir shop figures don’t help me to understand the levels of pay was under threat. Now, that may be a small thing in and the level of seniority posts that you have there. the grand scheme of things, but I think it’s indicative, Could you provide the Committee with a breakdown Sir Alan, of how facilities and services for Members of what those boundaries mean? and their staff are being diluted to a point that we Sue Harrison: Yes, of course I can. might as well just have a kiosk, rather than services for Members, and do away with catering and just have Q128 Mr Watts: When was the last time that you a few dispensers of hot drinks and put coins in. I may reviewed the management structure to see that it was be being a bit facetious, but the general point I’m as efficient and effective as it could be? making is that this is the Houses of Parliament, the Sue Harrison: The last time we reviewed the House of Commons, where Members of Parliament management structure and reduced the number of come to represent their constituents, and their staff people working at management grades was about six and other staff members of the House, and I just feel weeks ago. We have taken every opportunity that we that we are being driven collectively, by whoever is can in recent years—every time that somebody moves driving us, to a situation which is not necessarily on within the organisation—to review. Part of the way going to be helpful. in which we have achieved the savings in the catering I just make that observation and put one question to subsidy over the last eight years has been by Mrs Harrison: under paragraph 5, you say, “The constantly reviewing and downsizing the more senior House of Lords operates its own Catering and Retail management structure so that we delegate more of Service. Whilst there is considerable management and those management functions down to the individual co-operation between the two services, particularly in chefs and the restaurant managers. areas such as procurement and IT, there is no legal or Mr Watts: But you can provide those figures? formal link between the two services, and the services Sue Harrison: Yes, not a problem. are separately funded by each House”. Are you aware Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 23
29 November 2010 Mrs Sue Harrison of any moves in the other place to treat those the present subsidy in the House of Lords is £1.5 unelected Members differently from the elected million in 2009/10; it’s expected to reduce to £1.14 Members in this place? million over the next three years. I do know there are Sue Harrison: I’m not sure this entirely answers your price rises intended in the House of Lords, but I don’t question, Mr Russell, but I am aware of Members of know more than those outlined figures. the House of Lords who would very much like to have Bob Russell: In terms of the economies in Mrs wider access to the House of Commons catering Harrison’s breakdown, there are considerably more facilities. Certainly, in my many years here, there has non-elected Lords than there are elected Members of been very little engagement at the formal political Parliament. level between, for example, this Committee and its Chair: Yes, but any moves towards getting integration counterpart Committee in the Lords to explore how of procurement, for example, would, of course, have there might be greater sharing, not only of the to be agreed. services, but cross-funding of those services. Bob Russell: Yes.
Q131 Bob Russell: The point I’m getting at is Q135 Tessa Munt: I’m going to take you to Annex whether the elected House, its Members and its staff, D. I just want to clarify one or two things, which I are under cost-reducing measures that are not couldn’t understand when I was going through this happening at the other end of the building? earlier. You’ve got unallocated staff costs of nearly £1 Sue Harrison: To the best of my knowledge, we are million. What? How? probably further down the track in the Commons than Sue Harrison: Those are the central management and they are in the Lords. admin posts that are not directly working in these specific areas. So, take, for example, someone like Q132 Bob Russell: That’s a very diplomatic answer. myself or my Executive Chef; rather than trying to Okay, thank you. Can I just ask one supplementary to allocate a proportion of our time to each business that? What is meant by “cooperation in areas such as area— procurement”? Is that procurement of foodstuffs and Tessa Munt: So, those are your senior managers? drinks? Sue Harrison: Senior managers, central managers. Sue Harrison: Yes. The purchasing, stores, goods-receiving staff, the linen room, staff who are away on maternity leave, Q133 Bob Russell: So, we are already trying to get long-term sick—those sorts of unallocated costs. That a reduced price, because of the purchasing power of way, we actually leave the managers who are the two Houses. responsible for each of these areas to control the costs Sue Harrison: Food costs, beverage costs; we are that they themselves are able to influence and control. increasingly going out to joint procurement with our colleagues in the House of Lords. One of the reasons Q136 Tessa Munt: Absolutely fine; I think that’s that the IT procurement is being taken more slowly is commendable but, again, I think, from what you’re because, for example, the EPOS contract that has just saying, they’re not able to do that, because they don’t been awarded is to get both Houses onto the same have the computer system to allow them to look at a platform, so that we will then be able to share the week’s business or a month’s business. same IT, and PICT will then only have one EPOS Sue Harrison: They do have the systems, but they are solution to have to support on its network. So, once not fully integrated. It is not as easy for them as it we are onto common IT systems, then there can be an might be. awful lot more sharing of data and information across Tessa Munt: But it will be. the two bodies. Sue Harrison: And, as I hope, in future, it will be, indeed. Q134 Bob Russell: Just take one vegetable commodity: is there one person buying potatoes for Q137 Tessa Munt: I haven’t quite got a grip—I think the entire Parliamentary estate, or are there two, three it was your question—about whether the new system or four people buying potatoes for the Parliamentary that you’re purchasing will allow them to do that. estate? Sue Harrison: It will allow them to drill down into Sue Harrison: The contracts are let jointly with the their sales. It is an EPOS solution, so it doesn’t have House of Lords in that instance, and what we would the stock control system on it. The next phase of the generally do is, when we award the contract, we will IT strategy is to look at whether or not the EPOS set up a framework with two or three suppliers so system can cope with the complexities of our stock that, over the lifetime of the contract, you’re having requirements. We’ve found that, to get your best in ongoing competition, because one of the issues with breed for the EPOS information and data, to be able food is that the commodity price changes very to drill down into that, classically those systems have frequently. Once that framework is set up, the chefs not been strong on the inventory and stock control will be ordering online. They simply say how many side. A hotel will usually run it through a PMS cabbages they need; that then is centralised on the system; we obviously don’t have a PMS here, so system by one purchasing office for the Commons that trying to get everything onto an EPOS solution and then places that with the company that has the best everything just drilled through that, we’ve found, in price for cabbages for that week, to use your example. the past, hasn’t met our full requirements on the stock Chair: I think if I could just add to the points raised and cost control. So, we’ve had a best in breed on the by Mr Russell, in that the Clerk’s note to us says that stock and cost control, which does the purchasing as Ev 24 Administration Committee: Evidence
29 November 2010 Mrs Sue Harrison well; the challenge is getting them to actually Q142 Tessa Munt: What happens to the food that interface with each other, so that you’re not having to is wasted? do manual reconciliations. Sue Harrison: The food that is wasted is thrown away. If it is fit for consumption, then we will reutilise Q138 Tessa Munt: I’m making an assumption that it in one of our other areas. the Executive Chefs or the Head Chefs in each of the catering outlets will actually be able to put together Q143 Tessa Munt: Okay. If sandwiches go out of one of these within a year for their own particular area date? and say, “This is what I’m making and this is what Sue Harrison: If the sandwiches are out of date, then I’m costing”. Is that your vision? they are thrown away. We have in the past attempted Sue Harrison: I’m not sure that we’d ask them to put to give them to charity, but charity will not take them that together themselves. from us. Tessa Munt: No, but they should be able to pull the P&L account for their area, effectively, and be able to Q144 Tessa Munt: One last question: staff meals, compare and say, “Look, last month, I spent this on 226—where do the staff eat? uniform costs. This month, I’ve spent this. Why?” Sue Harrison: The staff eat in the self-service cafeteria venues, and that is in virtually every one of Sue Harrison: I think you’ll find that the chefs are the self-service venues. By and large, they eat either very well able and very well versed on being able to before 12 noon or after 2pm. identify what their food cost has been for their area. They are less conversant with the full P&L for their Q145 Tessa Munt: How do you cost those? area. They look at the food costs; they look separately Sue Harrison: It goes through the till, so what they at the staff costs. The manager will be looking across have taken goes through the till, and then the finance the piece at food and beverage, the gross profits, the staff will reduce that from selling price to cost price, staff costs and the incidental costs. But that is an area and total it into the ledgers. where our systems are not as integrated as we would like them to be, and we know that that is an area Q146 Tessa Munt: My observation would be that, that we are focusing on with our colleagues in IT for looking at that staff meals figure, even looking at the improvement to take us on to that next step that you Terrace Cafeteria, which I took to be fairly ordinary, are describing. nice, that’s still 36%. That amount of money is still 36% of the sales in the Terrace Cafeteria, which is a Q139 Tessa Munt: Can I just question you: late- very high level of spending. I just think it’s quite a lot night travel of £173,384; if the House is sitting for 39 of money, isn’t it? weeks, or perhaps 165 days, that certainly comes out Sue Harrison: It is indeed a lot of money. It works at over £1,000 per sitting day, which I find out at a little under £1,000 per employee per annum. extraordinary, and I don’t understand why that would be. I just don’t see how one could spend £1,000? Q147 Tessa Munt: And everybody gets a free meal Sue Harrison: It’s not just per sitting day, because, when— quite frequently when the House is not sitting, there Sue Harrison: Yes, they do. are functions that carry on, and the staff who work after 11pm are similarly entitled to a taxi home after Q148 Angela Smith: I was just looking at the that. So, that is across all of our business. combined dining room usage figures, which surprised me somewhat, because the suggestion is, with these Q140 Tessa Munt: Having had some time in hotels, figures, that across the different days of the week— if your staff are scheduled to work a particular shift, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday—an one might take account of the fact that, on the whole, average of only 60% to 65% of the usage is occupied I think, the Tube works till midnight and that one on those days, whereas I’ve experienced difficulties might be able to use it, and there are night buses and on more than one occasion in actually getting a table stuff, I appreciate that, probably, there may be people in any of those venues. It’s been a real problem. So, I who live in Surrey or Hertfordshire or wherever, but wondered whether one of the explanations for this is it seems peculiar that one should still be paying such perhaps a high number of cancellations at the last a vast amount of money. minute for the use of these venues. Sue Harrison: I think that the key explanation of that Sue Harrison: I appreciate your point, but the House is that this is an average for a Monday over the period policy is that all staff who work after 11pm are measured, and an average for a Tuesday, and so on. entitled to a taxi home. And what we experience in all of the dining rooms is very significant peaks and troughs, so there is a range: Q141 Tessa Munt: Can I just ask you, then: how there are days on which they are fully booked, and much food is wasted and what happens to it? there are days on which it’s very quiet. That might be Sue Harrison: The food wastage is included in the across Tuesdays over a period. cost of food, so that we don’t actually give a separate credit for that on the line here to make the individual Q149 Angela Smith: I must have an extraordinary chefs responsible for it in their own areas. It is capacity, then, to get the fully booked periods, because reported on a monthly basis, and food wastage runs at it’s a real problem. Is part of the problem that you about 3%. have a booking system which is, frankly, extremely Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 25
29 November 2010 Mrs Sue Harrison inefficient, because you have three different telephone requires the House, first of all, to decide its strategy numbers for three venues, and you’re in one and about whether or not it will permit souvenirs to be there’s no suggestion that there may be capacity at sold outside of the Parliamentary estate. another? Would it not be more efficient to have one booking system which gave a Member, wanting to Q153 Mr Vara: But before it can decide, it would be take a table, information about what’s available in any helpful to know whether it’s worth deciding in the first one venue? place. So, has there been any thought given to possible Sue Harrison: I’m sorry to keep referring back to the revenue generation earning? IT programme of work that we have, but one of the Sue Harrison: No. It is a little bit of a chicken-and- workstreams on that is looking at that very thing, at egg situation. I’ve had some informal discussions with finding a computerised dining room booking system Buckingham Palace, so I’m aware of the work that that would then allow us to centralise how we take they’re doing. At the moment, they’re ahead of us on those bookings and would, precisely as you suggest, that, so we’re sitting and just keying into the work allow us to proactively suggest when another dining that they’re doing. room has got spare capacity. Q154 Rosie Cooper: Mrs Harrison, can I take you Q150 Angela Smith: I know you give averages here, back to the combined dining room usage? It is not but it would be really useful to know the numbers of quite as silly a question as I have no doubt it will occasions on which any one of these venues are fully sound: how did you count the occupied and booked in any one month, because if there are a unoccupied? In other words, what I’m asking is, if a significant number of days when there are empty table is set for four, and two people are sat at it, does tables in these venues, then why is it we still apply that mean that immediately your count will mean that the rule whereby Members can have no more than there’s a 50% non-usage of that table? three guests at a table? Isn’t that a waste of capacity? Sue Harrison: No, we actually set the capacity on the Sue Harrison: Certainly, as far as the use of the average normal numbers of covers that would be rooms, when there is spare capacity, we are in the served at which all the tables would be fully booked. business of wanting to maximise the number of people So, for example, if you take the Strangers’ Dining that go in there, but the rules as they stand were set Room, we set the capacity level at either 65 or 70, off and agreed by a previous Administration Committee. the top of my head, and that is, by and large, the Likewise, if you wish us to be able to exercise more number of covers that we will serve at which all the discretion over that, we would be very happy to do tables are booked. So, that then plays into exactly that. Indeed, on an informal basis, I do that when what you’re saying: if there are two people on a table Members call me direct. that could, in theory, accommodate four, then that wouldn’t show up as unoccupied. And that’s why, on Q151 Angela Smith: Occasionally, yes, but if a occasions, when we look at the Strangers’ Dining Member wants to book a few weeks in advance, it’s Room, it will show, on an individual lunch or dinner, very difficult for you to be flexible around that rule. that it has served more than 100% capacity, because Sue Harrison: Yes. It’s very difficult for the staff or it’s actually had a greater density of seating, or they a Member who wants to book considerably in advance may have done relays as well. of the event, because we won’t know what the business is going to be like, and it’s certainly my Q155 Rosie Cooper: How did you arrive at that 65: experience that a lot of Members book very much at pure counting or an averaging or ranging? the last minute, or even don’t book and walk in, so Sue Harrison: It was primarily in discussion with the there is a potential tension between relaxing the rules staff who work in that dining room, who are very well about how many guests a Member may take, or aware of how many covers on average they will reach extending access to other potential users: what before they have no more tables left. So, not done happens when the business of the House becomes, scientifically; it was done directly discussing it with suddenly and at short notice, very busy, and Members the staff who are managing those rooms. then who have to be here and want to entertain cannot get a table? Those are the sorts of issues that we have Q156 Chair: Mrs Harrison, you mentioned at one to consider. point that you thought that confectionary sales were falling off. Anecdotally, I’m hearing that people are Q152 Mr Vara: Briefly, you’ll be aware, Mrs finding it now cheaper to go across the road for items Harrison, that Buckingham Palace has been giving of that kind. Does that suggest that we’d be chasing thought to selling souvenirs online. after a loss-leader or that we need to re-benchmark Sue Harrison: Yes. some items like that? Mr Vara: I was wondering whether you’d had any Sue Harrison: Certainly, in my experience, it is consideration or feedback from any people here, or cheaper if you go to Tesco’s to buy your Kit Kat or any thoughts about possibly extending that to the your packet of crisps or those sorts of things; however, House of Commons. there’s an inconvenience involved if you have to go Sue Harrison: Indeed; we have been asked by the outside of the Parliamentary estate to buy that. There Finances and Services Committee through the Board will always be some people who buy it at the of Management to put forward income generation supermarket and bring it in, and the supermarkets, by ideas, and looking at extending souvenirs into internet and large, sell the multipacks and so on. We have sales is one of the suggestions we’ve put forward. It benchmarked our prices in the cafeterias against the Ev 26 Administration Committee: Evidence
29 November 2010 Mrs Sue Harrison prices, including for confectionary, that are sold in bought out would depend on the outcome of that Government Departments and the devolved negotiation. Assemblies, So, we are confident the prices that we are now selling at are in line with other staff restaurant Q162 Mr Spellar: Then can I clarify, following on venues that have a comparable workforce. It is not from Bob Russell’s point, what do you actually see as unusual that you pay more for it in an in-house staff the purpose of this building? restaurant than you do at a supermarket, and Tesco’s Sue Harrison: The purpose of this building? and the others do have a greater buying power than Mr Spellar: I don’t mean this particular room, I mean the House of Commons. the Commons. Sue Harrison: If I can put that in the context of the Q157 Rosie Cooper: I suppose you’ve answered this Catering and Retail Service, is that what you’re in some way, but to go on from that, even if you can’t meaning? give us full-month figures, are you seeing a loss in Mr Spellar: I want to hear how you would interpret revenue compared with— it. Sue Harrison: No. The revenue has increased and the Sue Harrison: I think that the primary role of the gross profit that is being banked has increased. Catering and Retail Service is to provide the meals and the refreshments that those people who are Q158 Rosie Cooper: By the same amount as your working in this building require. And whilst we are increase? all very keen to look at ways in which we can reduce Sue Harrison: Because the price increase was not a the subsidy—and we should rightfully be looking at flat percentage across all items, it’s very difficult to that—we must remember that the primary purpose is say what the overall price increase in percentage terms to provide those essential meals to the people who are would have been, if you follow what I’m saying; it working here some very long hours, and that’s does depend on the sales mix. Members and staff.
Q159 Mr Spellar: Regarding the comparison with Q163 Mr Spellar: Therefore, following on from that, supermarkets being cheaper, it’s not as though you’re how have you estimated the fact that there may well going to Surrey Quays and into some vast be a loss? You may want to take some steps to reduce hypermarket; this is a local convenience store, which that, but there is a need to maintain particularly the I suspect is slightly dearer than the main viability of this as a Parliament, and a Parliament supermarkets, and yet the staff are finding it which, by definition, as we’ve even seen today, has cheaper—in the case of sandwiches, considerably variable hours and variable activities, and therefore cheaper—than shopping here, and gradually word will we may have to pay a subsidy as long as we’re going spread and that will change. Their buying patterns to provide this service? The danger is that we’ll cut will change. further, we’ll still have to pay the subsidy, the service Sue Harrison: There is one particular issue with will get worse, and you get to the alternative in some sandwiches that I’m aware of, and that’s that if you Parliaments where, effectively, you then do not have buy the sandwiches in the supermarket, they are zero- any food provision, certainly in the evening. rated for VAT. Because we are selling them through a Sue Harrison: I think that is always an extremely restaurant service, they are rated at 17.5% standard difficult balancing act. It’s a matter of judgment, not rate VAT. just for this Committee, but also for us as managers, Bob Russell: 20% soon. and for the House of Commons Commission at a Sue Harrison: 20% soon, indeed. It is a point that I strategic level. In terms of the savings proposals and raised. I think early last year there was a case with the income generation ideas that we have been asked Revenue and Customs officials, where the caterers for, I was asked to put forward a package and, in very successfully argued that sandwiches purchased in an broad terms, I was asked the question: what might our in-house restaurant and taken away from that should catering service look like if we wanted to halve the be zero-rated, and I have asked our Finance people to amount of subsidy? It has been done on that basis. re-challenge the Revenue authorities on that, but the That is why I’ve described the options that have been answer that was given last year was that it was still put forward as ideas. We don’t believe they are the standard-rated. only ideas; we think that there is more scope for more Mr Spellar: That’s something we need to follow up income generation, and the more income generation as to whether there is scope there. we have, the less of the cutbacks we need to make. Sue Harrison: Absolutely. But they are all issues that affect everybody who works in this place, and everybody will have a view. Q160 Mr Spellar: Could you also clarify on the staff There has to be a very full discussion about all those meals that that’s actually part of their terms and options, and alternative and different options, before conditions? Would I be right? any changes are made to the catering services. Sue Harrison: Yes, it is. Q164 Mr Spellar: Was the remit to you from the Q161 Mr Spellar: Therefore, if there was a variation House of Commons Commission, “Make this cut, to that, effectively, we’d have to buy that out. come what may”? Sue Harrison: It would be something that would be Sue Harrison: No. part of the pay negotiations with the trade unions Mr Spellar: Or was it to say that it is desirable to representing the staff. Whether or not it would be reduce the subsidy; are there ways of other income Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 27
29 November 2010 Mrs Sue Harrison generation or cost-cutting by which we could do this, attendance at Parliament, where, typically, Monday consistent with, as you rightly identified, needing to lunchtime is quieter. Members will be using the maintain this building, and also, bluntly, to make sure services very heavily on a Monday evening, all day that the lives of Members of Parliament are actually Tuesday, through to a Wednesday lunchtime; tolerable and their conditions are not being severely Wednesday evening is then quiet, and all day undermined, as we’ve seen in a number of other Thursday tends to be a bit quieter, but certainly after areas? lunch on a Thursday, the business is very, very quiet. Sue Harrison: It’s very much the latter and, as I say, The other side of that is that, as long as we have got it was very much phrased as, “What would it look like regulations that only certain people can use the if we were to desire to reduce the subsidy by 50%?” facilities, that is preventing us backfilling the spare capacity at times when Members are not here. But as Q165 Mr Watts: It’s clear that you don’t have a we see on a Friday, even at times when we do allow management system to know how each individual all passholders to use those Members’ services, there’s product has been affected by the price increases. I take not enough demand from the internal market to fill all that onboard; we said about the sandwiches, for the capacity that we have available. I think that’s example. But if you’ve looked at the like before the because the very trend of Parliament—and I’ve looked increase, and you would expect it to have a bigger at reports that go back to the 1960s that say this very profit, because your prices are increased, has it thing—is that the greatest influence on the demand for increased in proportion to the increase that’s taken the catering services is the business of the House. If place, or has there been a drop-off in trade as a the House is busy, if it has a lot of well-attended consequence of it? Chamber debates taking place, a lot of Committees Sue Harrison: As I said a little while ago, I’ve only sitting, it’s not just that then all the Members are here had one month’s results since we’ve put in the price and using the services; their staff are here also. increases across the board, so it’s very, very early There’s a buzz around the place, and so we have this days. I haven’t seen a fall-off in numbers of people phenomenon that there’s huge peaks of business and who we are serving. Certainly, in the cafeterias, I have then troughs. seen a fall-off in the number of, as I say, confectionary sales—the items that people will buy when they don’t Q168 Nigel Mills: The reason why I asked is that I feel money is quite as tight. Now, to what extent that look at this and I worry the answer will always be, is absolutely to do with the price increase and to what “We need to sell more retail and we need to do more extent it’s to do with the general economy—and banqueting and we need to chop away at the rest”, people are being a little bit more careful with their whereas, actually, I look at the fact that 7 Millbank, 1 money—it’s difficult to define how much is caused by Parliament Street, the Terrace cafeteria and Members’ which of those factors. But yes, in the cafeterias, there Tea Room, and Moncrieff’s don’t even turn over has been some falling-off. In the dining rooms and in banqueting we have not seen any fall-off in the trade enough to cover their staff costs. since prices went up. What I’m thinking, actually, is that, if we got the structure right, we could actually look sensibly at the Q166 Mr Watts: I’ll try a different way: if there viability of all the current uses we have for places; hasn’t been a drop-off in the number of people, and otherwise, what we’re going to do is we’re going to you could have looked to see what you would have try and get enough subsidy out of banqueting and expected to raise from increased costs for the months retail to perpetuate something, and you’ll never that it’s gone up, has it gone up in line with achieve that, because once you max banqueting out, expectation? we’ll come back the next time and say, “Actually, Sue Harrison: I don’t think I can give you a simple we’re still not right; we might as well just shut that answer to that. outlet” or something, and actually we need to not merge banqueting and all the other things in one and Q167 Nigel Mills: Interestingly, you said you’d done try and look at the net; we should actually be saying, an exercise to look at what would happen if you tried “Banqueting here, catering for our own people here”. to halve the subsidy. If I said to you, “What’s causing Are we prepared to put that level of subsidy into what this level of subsidy? Is it the fact we sell things at we’re doing? too low a price or is it the fact we’re not efficient in Sue Harrison: Going back to your earlier point, Mr how we manage the resource or we’ve got too much Mills, the other cost that is high here are the staff back-office overhead or, actually, our staff costs are costs, and certainly in my experience, the rates of pay way out of line with turnover?”—aside from it being in some cases are slightly above the external market, all four—which one of those do you really think is but it’s all the other conditions that they have: the the one that’s really giving us this level of subsidy? annual leave, the pension, the sickness allowance. Sue Harrison: I think it is a combination of a number Catering, as an industry, does not normally offer all of those factors. Historically, the prices have been low. its staff those terms and conditions. We’ve now realigned those, so, moving forward, that should be resolved. The difficulty is that we have, in Q169 Nigel Mills: So, heaven forbid, when you made many areas, businesses for which there is only peak your recommendations on halving the subsidy, did demand or a sizeable level of demand for 50% of the you say, “We’ll need a wholesale review of staff terms week. A lot of the cost is built into the Members’ and conditions”? Not that I’m advocating that services, and that’s the nature of the Members’ necessarily. Ev 28 Administration Committee: Evidence
29 November 2010 Mrs Sue Harrison
Sue Harrison: We are certainly having some very work surfaces, but the contract cleaners then come in difficult conversations with the staff trade unions, and and will do a full hygienic clean in the kitchens, and they are just as aware of the issues as we are and, they also will do the hoovering of the floor in the understandably, we don’t necessarily agree. front-of-house areas and cleaning down those areas. In the savings proposals that we have put forward Q170 Tessa Munt: To a certain degree, some of my through the Management Board, you may have noted questions have just been asked by Nigel, but I just that there is, included in the savings there, a wanted to check my understanding again: you separate suggestion that we can take into our catering staff out uniforms, laundry and linen, and your cleaning some of those light cleaning duties that, at the costs, and I had made the assumption that you had moment, are being done by the contractor. one contract for your uniforms, your laundry and your Tessa Munt: That would be the industry standard, and linen. Is that not correct? has been for 30Ð40 years, maybe longer, I suppose. Sue Harrison: The “uniforms” is for the purchase of Sue Harrison: Indeed. uniforms. Q174 Tessa Munt: Just one other thing: what do you Q171 Tessa Munt: You buy uniforms—do you not mean by “admin costs and professional fees”? rent them? Sue Harrison: The administration costs— Sue Harrison: No, it is actually more cost-effective Tessa Munt: Sorry; you may have written this in and for us to purchase them. We have done that exercise. I’ve missed it. Unlike many other organisations, we have a very low Sue Harrison: The administration costs, the £68,000 level of staff turnover, so it makes it more cost- that you’re looking at, that is primarily printing and effective for us to actually purchase those uniforms stationery, photocopiers, toner cartridges and so on— ourselves than it does to rent them. the consumables for printing all of our menus, and general stationery. Q172 Tessa Munt: So, do you have a laundry on- site? Q175 Tessa Munt: Thank you. And the professional Sue Harrison: No, the laundry is contracted out, and fees? so the uniforms go away to be laundered, as does the Sue Harrison: The professional fees, which is the one table linen, and that is a contract that is let jointly with below it, those are for external consultants for our the House of Lords. hygiene auditors, for our supply chain management, for a benchmarking service that we subscribe to, and Q173 Tessa Munt: Okay. So, can I ask you stocktaking fees. Those are the four key things that something else, then? From the experience I have in we purchase on that. hotels and other leisure industries, it would be normal Tessa Munt: Stocktaking fees? Is that not worked out for the restaurant staff to clean the restaurant down by your food and beverage manager? and to hoover it before they left in the evening, and Sue Harrison: We do it ourselves, but we have an to do that after lunch, and it would be normal for the external firm that comes in and verifies the beverage chefs to clean down their areas and make sure they stocktaking. were swept up, and the KP to sort out the back areas. Chair: Can we conclude on that point, colleagues? Now, you have here just over half a million pounds Mrs Harrison, thank you very much indeed. There for cleaning costs. Is that deep-cleaning? may be queries we will have for you subsequently, Sue Harrison: No, that is for the overnight cleaning and some of the detail needs to be further explored. of our catering premises, so it’s both the front of house Thank you very much indeed. and in the kitchens. The chefs will clean down their Sue Harrison: Thank you. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 29
Monday 6 December 2010
Members present: Sir Alan Haselhurst (Chair)
Rosie Cooper Tessa Munt Mr Mark Francois Sarah Newton Mr Kevan Jones Bob Russell Dr Phillip Lee Mr John Spellar Nigel Mills Mike Weatherley ______
Examination of Witness
Witness: Mr Duncan Ackery, Consultant, EP Evolution, gave evidence.
Q176 Chair: I notice you were born in Australia. We mission to try and stretch their brand and, of course, won’t hold that against you while the Ashes are going earn more money for themselves so I’ve partnered on. We’re modest as always about that. with them in that business. What may be interesting Duncan Ackery: That is magnanimous of you. I’m for the Committee in terms of my background is that afraid I pass the Tebbit test. I understand running catering in environments where catering is not the key business of what you’re doing. Q177 Chair: Would you care to say anything by way I also understand about how you go about ensuring of introduction? We have a little blurb about your that the catering is underpinning the purpose of the background, experience and so on but you are work that’s going on in that environment and welcome to add to it. hopefully enhancing the work that’s going on, so Duncan Ackery: As you rightly said, I was born in whether it’s in a museum or an art gallery or whatever. Sydney. I opened my first restaurant when I was 23 or Does that give you a good enough snapshot? 24. It was a concession restaurant in a museum in Sydney. I went on and did some other things and built Q178 Chair: Yes, thank you. One of the difficulties up a business but what was interesting was that the we face here is the ever-increasing security core of that business was in the government or consideration: as soon as we welcome the public, who semi-government sector. Of that business, two of the put us here, into our midst, that raises issues of leases had to be approved by the Government, so they security that perhaps limit what we can do to take were in the equivalent of a royal park or museum, so money off them, as it were, through our banqueting I understood from an early age the world of providing facilities and so on. Have you experience of that catering within an environment where catering is not situation where you have to balance the security necessarily the key purpose of the organisation or the aspect while at the same time wanting to increase location of that unit. revenue? I moved to the UK when I was about 30. I then tried Duncan Ackery: Yes, in two ways. One has been to escape catering but couldn’t quite; I’m afraid it runs about the securing of the environment, particularly in deep in my DNA. I found myself back in the world, terms of providing entertainment in key galleries with did some stuff for the Corporation of London and then works of art on the wall that are worth extraordinary for the first time in my life took a job and took the amounts of money. It’s not just about those works of position of director of Tate Enterprises and ran the art but about ensuring the integrity of the building. catering company but was also on the board of the Then of course just managing the logistics of Enterprises company that covered publishing and retail at the Tate. I came in before Tate Modern welcoming 2,000 people into a high-security building opened, rode that wave and built them a really for an event that is going to start at that time and interesting catering business. I think it’s regarded as strangely enough is being televised, and you have to one of the best in-house operations around the UK. serve the main course by the time that the live feed People have their own view and I’m happy to share goes for the lottery draw or you will have failed. So people’s views on that but we can perhaps go on and yes, I have done a bit of that. talk about what made that successful. Primarily, the key thing that made that successful was that Q179 Mr Jones: In terms of branding, we have a everybody knew what it was we were trying to small gift shop down the stairs. Have you had a achieve, from Nick Serota to the board of trustees to chance to look at it? my management team and that’s what helped make a Duncan Ackery: I haven’t. success of that business. I’ve then gone on and Mr Jones: Clearly the V&A and the art galleries have worked for some big hotel companies, run Searcys, a got brands and they use the V&A brand to sell various very well-regarded, old, established London restaurant goods with. Firstly, how could we expand that firm and now I try my best to not do corporate jobs operation? Secondly, how do you do it by protecting and to do as much for myself as I possibly can. I’ve the brand and not becoming too tacky, if you know just done a joint venture with the V&A museum and what I mean, which is obviously a thing that the V& we’ve opened a small retail bookshop and wine bar in A and others want to do? Thirdly, have you any South Kensington outside the museum. They are on a experience of using the internet to generate income Ev 30 Administration Committee: Evidence
6 December 2010 Mr Duncan Ackery from those types of brand of goods? What is your we’re involved in retail—we had the ex-chief exec experience of how successful that’s been? of John Lewis partnership. We had some high-profile Duncan Ackery: Can I answer those questions in people on that board who felt passionately about the reverse? I’m not going to comment on the internet. I products that we were creating and they were very, don’t pretend to be an expert on that area and I think very tough on us if they felt that we were doing it would be a mistake for me to comment on that. anything that was impinging on the brand. Retail product is in a way a little simpler. It is easier Q180 Mr Jones: Do the V&A use the internet? to apply good taste to that than perhaps it is for retail Duncan Ackery: Yes, absolutely. I have been involved catering, which is a more difficult thing. What we in online businesses but I’m not going to pretend that achieved there took a long time; it was not quick— it’s really my thing. In terms of tackiness, it’s down the debate about the strategy of catering when I first to integrity of product. That is all it is. If the product came into that business was constantly hijacked by the has integrity and if you sell it in a well thought- debate about quality. It’s what I call the carrot cake through and considered environment, I do not believe moment. You would be sitting somewhere where you that you in any way belittle or undermine the brand had done your work about how you wanted to plan that you’re seeking to enhance. To me, it comes down what you wanted to do with the business for the next to appropriate selection of product, whatever that one, two or however many years and someone would product is, whether it is books or memorabilia or stick up their hand and say, “I had a poor piece of clothing or whatever. It is about integrity of product. carrot cake in your cafe last week.” There is only one way to deal with those complaints and they are only Q181 Mr Jones: Could you explain for example the valid, from my point of view, if they are made V&A? The trustees of the V&A must have immediately. Otherwise, what can you do about it as conservative views, I would think, a bit like this place, an operator? You can’t do anything about it unless in terms of what is appropriate. What is the process people immediately say that so you can address the that you would go through in terms of ensuring you issue. It was about putting mechanisms in place where protect that integrity but you also get something that you could review the product, you could certainly is commercially viable in terms of what people want complain about the product or say it was great, and to buy? there are appropriate ways to do that, and you could Duncan Ackery: The way that organisations like the review the business strategy. You would do those Tate or the V&A organise that is via an enterprises things at particular times so that they had a chance to company, so that all commercial activity is undertaken breathe and take shape. It took time, but I believe it by an enterprises company that is basically an adjunct was time well spent. to the core business. So you have the board of trustees in the core business here and you have the enterprises Q184 Sarah Newton: Thank you for sharing your company sitting at the side. The enterprises company considerable expertise. I am sure I speak on behalf of is then made responsible for creation and selection of us all. We are very grateful. You could probably that product and empowered to do it. Do they make charge thousands of pounds an hour for this advice so mistakes along the way and perhaps put the wrong thank you very much indeed. product in front of customers? Yes of course, they Duncan Ackery: Well, if you’ve got any clients you would admit that, but the thing is that you have to would like to share with me. have the right people running those businesses, people who feel passionately about the brands they are Q185 Sarah Newton: It is very public spirited of engaged with. Whether it is rolling out a piece of you. I very much agree with you about the enterprises fabric that you’re selling in a shop in Japan or the company model and I can see how that would work books you are publishing around the activity that is really well for us in terms of retailing and extending going or whether it’s a t-shirt, to me it just comes back the brand beyond the House. However, given that, to that point about quality. I haven’t been to your gift unlike your previous experience where you were shop here but— setting up a catering offer within a museum environment and that we have already got an in-house Q182 Mr Jones: It’s tacky in parts. operation, to what extent do you feel that the same Duncan Ackery: There’s certainly enough in the model of outsourcing the catering—so having a history of this fantastic environment that you could strategy inviting different people to come in and it create a set of products that would not be tacky and being more arm’s length from the organisation— that could really enhance the visitor experience and would be an appropriate model and what would the in turn underpin that experience. I don’t think I’ve challenges be when you have got an existing way of answered the first bit of your question. doing things to make that transition? Duncan Ackery: I will take that in a few chunks if I Q183 Mr Jones: In terms of commercialisation, how can. I’ve done all those things along the way. I’ve did the V&A for example start in terms of organising? been the outsource person, I’ve been the in-house Duncan Ackery: That goes back to that thing about person and I’ve done joint models. I’m a bit of a the enterprises company. It’s about empowerment and champion of in-house. Given my background, I then about creating the appropriate, in their case, suppose that is not surprising. I’ve helped board structure. For example, when I was at the Tate organisations like Sadler’s Wells and the National sitting on our board, there were people like Helen Theatre either go over to an in-house model or Alexander, who is the head of the CBI and—because enhance an in-house model, although I fully see the Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 31
6 December 2010 Mr Duncan Ackery benefit of outsourcing. There are a number of things compete with the Tate or wherever, do you think this that will make in-house work. Your business needs to should be more attractive and a premium to them? be of a certain size. You need to be generating a Duncan Ackery: We had a rule at Tate, we didn’t certain amount of income and the reason why you do do private events. We certainly didn’t do weddings. is because you have to take the same management I wouldn’t do weddings, personally. Flippancy aside, approach as a high street business would. You have to excuse me, it’s a word-class venue. Everyone around pay people the same amount of money as they would the world comes to London, where do they come? receive in the high street. It depends on the pension They stand on that corner and they take a photograph arrangements and all the rest of it, I understand that, of Big Ben and they take a photograph of one of the but broadly you have to take that approach because most handsome buildings in the UK. Ultimately, it is ultimately your customers, or in this case the a fantastic venue. The issue there is how you sell it. Members of the House or the staff who are working It is about how you set up a structure to effectively here, know what’s going on in the high street and they sell it. The people who are doing that job have to be expect that quality to be delivered to them and rightly empowered to sell it. Sure, you set the parameters so in an environment like this. So I am a fan of the around which they have to work. They know when in-house model if the business is large enough to clients can and can’t come in; they take control of the sustain that. diary. Yes, of course they have to do all that, but my How big is that business? Well, it depends. How long experience of running big event businesses in is a piece of string? It might take a bit longer to get a organisations is that it has to be absolutely crystal clear answer about that. I think it also works when clear who’s selling it, what the parameters are, what they can and can’t sell. If that’s all nice and neat and you have what I’d describe as vertical buy-in. if, at the end of that, you have the opportunity for a Everyone knows what you’re doing, so if you go to viable business, I would say it is worth considering, that venue and on a Tuesday afternoon it is only for sure. I can’t imagine why clients wouldn’t be selling scones and tea, that is all it is doing, then when interested in coming to entertain here. I am absolutely the complaint letter comes in and says, “Why couldn’t confident they would. Once again though, it may be I get a lamb casserole?”, it is very easy. You say, best to work with a partner or a few partners on that. “Because that is not what we do. We decided that we Out there in London are some of the world’s best are going to do scones and tea in this environment at events companies. They are world class and they that time.” Everybody knows—the management would be delighted to work with you on bringing what know, you know—who are responsible, the other they do to an environment like this. people here would know and then it comes down to quality. Was it good enough? In-house is good when Q187 Dr Lee: Is there any idea how much the V&A you can define it in that way. The problem arises if made? What sort of turnover increase did we see with you say, “Well, actually, we can’t quite define it well this V&A brand? enough.” For whatever reasons, we find ourselves in Duncan Ackery: Sorry, are you talking about the V& a situation where it is quite hard to get what I would A project? describe as vertical buy-in. Let me tell you one thing: Dr Lee: Yes. you can’t outsource that problem because you go and Duncan Ackery: It’s only been going three weeks outsource it and then how does your poor outsource that one. provider, who isn’t even integrated into your organisation as well as your in-house people, possibly Q188 Dr Lee: In which case, are there projections or survive? All that will happen is that people will see it expectations on the basis of other similar as an opportunity to perhaps beat them up more. They organisations? I’m trying to get a handle on how much will think it is their problem, that they are not doing we are talking about. a good enough job. It all comes down to definition Duncan Ackery: The catering business at the Tate, and that applies equally to in-house or an outsourced when I left, we were doing £13 million. In our best model. What I do think could be of interest is how year, we covenanted back £1.7 million. In an average you could bring some things together. Perhaps you year, we were doing between £1.3 million and could work with an outsource company to take £1.5 million back on about that turnover. We weren’t advantage of purchasing. Perhaps you could be using paying rent and other people who work in my sector their supply chain so that you are providing regional would say, “You could have made a lot more money products that are more reflective of what the high than that.” We could have. We could have bought street is providing, because there is this huge move cheaper chicken. We could have bought poorer quality towards providing local, sustainable food, which we vegetables. We made a decision about how we were should be doing. Maybe that’s around back-of-house going to run that business and we were happy with support, so that your financial reporting is up to the returns we got from it. That was a sizeable scratch so that you can look at any bits of your operation. It was also underpinning the ethos of the business and unpick it and then make a decision organisation by giving a great customer experience, a about it. great visitor experience.
Q186 Nigel Mills: How would you say this place, as Q189 Dr Lee: And you did that by pricing against an attractive venue, would compete with some of the who? others that you have been involved in? If we are Duncan Ackery: Benchmarking? Against similar wandering into banqueting or weddings and trying to organisations on the high street. I think when you’re Ev 32 Administration Committee: Evidence
6 December 2010 Mr Duncan Ackery looking at benchmarking, there are a number of things So whether it is their own environment—for example, to bear in mind. Perhaps the Tate is not a bad at the Tate we ran the staff cafe and as an enterprises organisation or model to look at but there are certain company, we knew it cost us about £100,000 a year. elements of what you do that are so unique that you It lost money but the trustees understood that. We can’t really benchmark it. What your benchmark for recorded it in our accounts as such. It was a loss- that sort of activity should be is around quality and making part of our business and we subsidised that provision of service and meeting benchmarks within offer and rightly so, because the people who were provision of service. Where things are like for like— going there were people who were at the lower end of if you are doing an espresso bar—you should be able the pay spectrum. I do not believe those things are to benchmark it just like that. It’s easy. You go out mutually exclusive. It is about good planning and into the marketplace, you see what they’re doing and understanding what it is you are providing, where, for you look at the prices and the quality. That is what we who and at what price point and then, particularly did. We had independent people who would come in with staff, having a way to engage them via a staff and benchmark us—mystery shopping. It is what committee. They will come back and tell you what people in our industry do. Someone turns up. It’s all they think of the service. You work with them. Make on a mobile phone. You don’t know what they’re them equally responsible in the provision of that doing; you’re taking the order and they’re saying, service in terms of its improvements and “Person has got a dirty uniform.” That sort of stuff is enhancements. very, very useful. Perhaps that is harder to implement in this environment, although I am not absolutely sure Q193 Bob Russell: I am grateful for that response it would be that hard. It is pre-planned; they are because I sense there is a danger that we might go coming in two months’ time; we can do the security down the Premiership football road where the prawn clearance; someone can accompany them. Is it that sandwich brigade were more important than the hard? That sort of benchmarking is critical, so it is ordinary fans. Here the ordinary fans are the low- price point, product, what is on offer, how does that paid staff. sit with what is out there on the high street? Duncan Ackery: I absolutely agree with you. You cannot disenfranchise people. It is a place of work and Q190 Dr Lee: And what about your judgment of the you need to be mindful of that. I will repeat what I power of the brand—this is a difficult one to answer, said, I don’t think it is mutually exclusive and if it’s I guess. If the V&A has a powerful brand, I would done thoughtfully, they can underpin each other. suggest that this has got a stronger brand than the V& A, certainly globally. Q194 Mr Jones: You said earlier about the Tate that Duncan Ackery: Yes, you’re right. you didn’t pay rent, which obviously we don’t here. In your costings, did you include heating and lighting? Q191 Dr Lee: So presumably you would think that Duncan Ackery: The answer is yes, although not in this would be a good business idea, to put out branded, every single area. We were certainly independently quality goods? metered on things like gas, which we were a huge Duncan Ackery: I do. It comes down to something user of. What we did was, for example in Tate we talked about earlier. It is about quality of product. Modern, was we had some pretty sophisticated If we’re talking about retail catering to people who building management systems that could tell you who are visiting the House, about events provision or about was using how much energy and the like. The answer the provision of a gift shop or whatever name you is broadly yes; some of it would have been done want to give that shop, you have to be proud about it. according to percentage formulas, some of it very You have got to be able to come back to this specifically. committee room and you have to sit there and think, “You know what, it’s great. What we’re doing is great. Q195 Mr Jones: But the important point: in those The product is great, tastes good, looks good. People profits that you just told us about, energy costs were are buying it.” That comes back to it being actually part of— benchmarked against people’s retail experience Duncan Ackery: Every single cost of running the elsewhere. You cannot divorce the two. Audience take business was part of it. their experience with them wherever they go. Mr Jones: Apart from rent? Duncan Ackery: Yes, other than security provision Q192 Bob Russell: I am very impressed with what and rent. you have said and also your CV. However, this is a place of work. There may be 650 MPs but there are Q196 Mr Jones: Can I ask you a follow-up question probably about 10,000 people who are not MPs, many in terms of cost effectiveness of supplies? You talk of them low-paid. While we are looking at the about quality of food. grandiose plans to bring in corporate hospitality, what Duncan Ackery: Purchasing. about the low-paid staff who do need to be fed and Mr Jones: It’s right to get the quality right. How did watered? you go around in terms of not only ensuring you get Duncan Ackery: It is arguably the most important bit the quality right but also you then get it at a of what you do. What I would say in respect to that, competitive price? and I’m not sure exactly how you manage that Duncan Ackery: We had friends in the industry and currently so I can’t say, but you need to find ways to we would talk to them. That was one way and you provide food for them in a really cost-effective way. certainly had a sense of who the decent suppliers Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 33
6 December 2010 Mr Duncan Ackery were. You would make the most of them. But we did Q198 Dr Lee: You outlined that at the Tate there is beauty pageants really. Every year, we would tender a subsidy for the staff canteen. Living in the world in out bits of our business, so for example, butchery, fruit which we’re all having to live at the moment with and vegetable, fish, whatever it was, we would review regards to how apparently we’re all here on subsidised our purchasing once a year; we would bring in other champagne, according to the media, it strikes me that suppliers; we would benchmark and so on. We had this might be an opportunity for you to confirm that other friends out there in the industry and we would it’s acceptable within a public building, such as the share our invoices with them: “What were you paying Tate, that the total catering can be presented—the total for Scottish salmon today?”. We did that regularly and cost or any profits—but at the same time it is pretty closely. indicating that there is subsidy going on in certain parts of that service. At the moment, we feel Q197 Mr Jones: Who took the ultimate decision in somewhat under pressure, and certainly the authorities terms of suppliers? Was it the chef or was it yourself seemingly are, to try to reduce any subsidy. In fact in terms of running the organisation? what you’re saying is, as part of the whole entity, there Duncan Ackery: In terms of the individual product has to be subsidy in some areas and that we make purchase was by the chef but in terms of the supplier our profits elsewhere. Do you think that it would be of that product, ultimately it was my responsibility to acceptable to put that forward? For the House of say, “We will go with this one and not with that one.” Commons to say, “The Members’ Dining Room, the There is an absolute difference between buying a Pugin Room and the staff canteens don’t make any commodity product, of which that is one, and buying money, but we make money out of conferencing and a bespoke product, such as a nice piece of Scottish various other outlets. Is that an acceptable way to go? salmon. I go back to the comment I made about the Duncan Ackery: Yes, absolutely, as long as that’s chicken. You can buy nice, frozen Brazilian chicken underpinned by transparency. As long as you know and it’s cheap or you can buy nice Norfolk free-range how much it’s costing you to run those individual chicken and it tastes a hell of a lot better. What we services and you can take a decision annually or often did was within our certain classifications, we whenever it might be. You can review it and take your may have two people we would purchase from. One position accordingly. of whom where we were buying the more commodity- driven product within that sector and one where we Q199 Chair: Thank you very much indeed. We are perhaps buying the smarter lines, so that when we appreciate your coming to see us. Look at the souvenir are thinking about our staff cafe, we know that we’re stall on the way out and if you have any after- buying a can of coke as cheaply as we possibly can, thoughts, let us know. and yet we are buying a nice bit of halibut when we Duncan Ackery: Christmas is coming. Cheers. feel we should be.
Examination of Witness
Witness: Mr Rupert Ellwood, International Growth Manager, Waitrose, gave evidence.
Q200 Chair: Mr Ellwood, we have a summary of focus it more around the audience that was coming to your experience. Is there anything that you would like the museum and that was very key. to add by way of introduction? From there I went to Vinopolis, where I have been for Rupert Ellwood: I suppose the first thing I should say the last three years. I am sure you will know is that any comments I make are my own personal Vinopolis, but it is a 75,000 square feet site just in comments and not the comments of my current London Bridge right opposite Borough Market. It’s a employer. That’s probably the best thing to say. As small plc with 500 shareholders. It’s a vanity plc so you have probably read, I was in the House of Lords it’s not listed on a stock exchange but shareholders for eight very happy years. I started as assistant are important to understand in the context of how that banqueting manager and left as the deputy head of business is run, and we had various different sides to catering. It was a very happy time. My experience that business, including a very strong events outside that is very relevant for this Committee business—probably about 60% of the profit was because I went from there to the Natural History generated through corporate events—and a wine Museum, where we had similar experiences to the tasting attraction. It is different from the Natural Tate. We had two sides of the business and one was History Museum in that the wine tasting was a the events business. commercial business as opposed to a heritage business The Natural History Museum has one of the strongest that was supported by grant-in-aid, so there was no corporate events businesses in London and that was funding for that. It was a profit-making business. We all driven towards raising money for the museum. We also had a restaurant business, so we had a micro were very straight about that. Then we had the public brewery pub, an à la carte restaurant, a cocktail bar catering side, so I was also responsible for that. For and a wine bar. Plus we also had two retail spaces that, we had a contract. We ran the events business on long-term leases, so it was a very wide variety of using partners, caterers and events teams. Then we businesses. I’ve just moved from there to Waitrose, had a public catering offer, which we had a contract which I think is less relevant to this Committee. That on. I did quite a lot of work on that offer, trying to is my experience. Ev 34 Administration Committee: Evidence
6 December 2010 Mr Rupert Ellwood
Q201 Chair: You heard some of the exchanges with make it difficult to bring the two sides together. There the previous witness. To save us asking you all those are some very good points made around the same questions again, are there any observations you purchasing and how that could be done jointly would make where either you might have a different because buying power is important and so there are point of view or you would wish to supplement some certainly shared services in IT that could be of the answers that we had before? developed. There is definitely an opportunity for more Rupert Ellwood: Knowing this place relatively well joined-up thinking and perhaps even around events as and understanding how commercial contracts and well, where both Houses could be used for particular enterprises run, there is a lot to be said for working events, particularly outside of the sitting of Parliament around the audience and understanding the different when things could happen at the weekend that could people who work within the building. We had a staff be using both sides of the estate. That might make it canteen at the Natural History Museum. We did that more attractive in terms of commercial expertise. through the contract. It lost money in the contract but There are some fairly big differences between the two that was part of the deal we had with the contract. The Houses. It is difficult because I haven’t been here for food was very affordable and it was important for us 10 years so I don’t know how that works now, but to offer that. I think that is important. Then we had a when I was here, we ran a slightly different operation very strong events business. We had the right partners. in the Lords to the Commons because our Members We were prepared to do events that were not had different needs. They had different requirements, necessarily in keeping with what the Natural History so the difference in management worked. That would Museum’s core values were. For example, I did a rock be my take. concert, in Central Hall for 1,000 people with The Strokes, all around the dinosaur. That was not exactly Q203 Bob Russell: The security issues in respect of part of the Natural History Museum’s core objectives the Houses of Parliament are greater now than they but the National History Museum needs to raise were 10 years ago, which does put a constraint on it. money to fund its business and to keep itself open. So I have fond memories of the staff canteen in the House we did that event. We covered our risk. We did a of Lords when it was by far the best eatery on the proper risk assessment. We made sure that all the entire estate. It was modernised out of existence. It parties involved in the museum were on board. The was a nice 1960s time warp that actually supplied stakeholders were aware and the event went extremely wholesome food that the hon. Member for Colchester well. There were no problems and it raised a lot of quite enjoyed. Can I just ask why was that modernised money for the museum. out of existence? Parliament can do some of these things without it Rupert Ellwood: The breakfast particularly. I think, at having a negative impact on the building. I have often the time, we needed more dining facilities in the thought about Westminster Hall, which is probably Lords, and the Lords staff restaurant was just too one of the finest venues in London for events. I always small to cope with the numbers of people we had said if I could get my hands on that, I could sell it coming through. every night. That is probably an exaggeration but I do Bob : It was always full though. think that there are a number of events—it currently can only be used for state occasions—that could be Rupert Ellwood: That is the point—it was too full. done in there. It’s a solid building. The Natural People were often not able to get in there so we had History Museum is the same; it has terracotta tiles, it to create something that could accommodate more has a very solid mosaic floor. There was very little people. damage you could do and there are opportunities and spaces within Parliament that could be used for more Q204 Bob Russell: The point I’m making is that a commercial events. Duncan made a very good point: successful eatery was done away with but it provided the Natural History Museum used to close at six food at a lower cost than elsewhere on the estate for o’clock. At six o’clock, we were allowed to come in low-income people. You will have gathered from my and start setting up but not a minute before. That was question to the previous witness that this is where I the rule. All our operators worked to those criteria. As am coming from. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in long as you’re clear about those things, you can favour of the corporate hospitality out of hours, so to deliver that kind of event. speak, in order to subsidise the outlets with wholesome food at lower costs for our underpaid Q202 Chair: Based on your experience in this employees. building, do you believe it would make sense for us Rupert Ellwood: It’s difficult because I’m not sure I to have an integrated management structure for all our understand the pricing structure of the current catering outlets? restaurant. I can’t even remember the name. Clearly, Rupert Ellwood: Do you mean between the Lords and the costs of developing that site are not reflected in the Commons? the prices that are being charged. I don’t believe it Chair: Yes. works on a financial model that we would work in Rupert Ellwood: It is a really difficult question to industry where we would make an investment, we answer. What I felt when I was here was there was a would work out a payback and therefore that’s big difference between the House of Lords and the reflected in the prices that you charge. I’m not sure House of Commons in the audience. It comes back to there's a direct link between the development of that understanding what people want. The demands of the site and the prices that are being charged. I think it’s Members are different to the Lords and that might more that there probably had to be an increase in Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 35
6 December 2010 Mr Rupert Ellwood prices due to margins that are required to be made to work, and you can sell them at a good margin, then make it more profitable. absolutely. I would agree with that. Sarah Newton: I’m reassured to hear from both our Q205 Bob Russell: My final question is that blank speakers that as a result of having more successful page is the all the rage. What would you put down on commercial aspects to what you were doing, you were a blank page as to how we could square the circle of able to offer really high-quality subsidised catering for lower prices for our staff but yet create a greater staff. Something that we really appreciate from both income in order that there is no greater subsidy? of you today, is that rather than perhaps the approach Rupert Ellwood: The development of the commercial that we’ve been asked to take by the Commission, opportunities that are there; I think there has to be an which is constantly to increase the subsidy and reduce agreement within the House that there would be a let- the costs, what we are doing here is realising a big up of the rules surrounding commercial activity. Retail opportunity to raise income, which then can increase is obviously one big opportunity. As Duncan says, you the subsidy to staff, who—I hope none of us are could create a retail business that could actually paying people less than they should be paid but I enhance Parliament in a major way. It is integral to accept that there are a lot of people here on low the brand and could be developed in that way. I think incomes—can have a high-quality catering service that is one of the areas. We had a very successful without having to be constantly cutting. That’s a really events business in the House of Lords. We did that good message from both of you, that’s really helped because we were always talking about what facilities us. we had and what opportunities we had. One of my jobs was, when new peers came in, to take them Q208 Nigel Mills: When you left the House of Lords around our facilities. It was a sales job. I was selling and went into private industry, did you look back and them what we had to offer. It was important that think, “We had some great conditions there” or is that Members knew that we had these facilities available. not quite how it is? It seems to get presented that way. That’s to do with the staff internally, so they are aware Rupert Ellwood: I think long summer recesses were that you can offer these facilities but it probably has definitely a bonus. I didn’t get paid anywhere near to go a step further and look at some of the spaces what I would have got paid in the outside world that are currently not utilised for events. commercially but that was a choice I made. I think the conditions were good, people were well looked Q206 Mr Jones: Can I just ask about the issue of after and perhaps pay wasn’t up there with other branding, in terms of how you get the balance right? commercial operations outside. How did you do it, for example, in the Natural History Museum in terms of the history of the actual building Q209 Nigel Mills: Was that for all grades or was and the actual institution? How did you keep the that managerial? integrity of the brand and not get to the point that you Rupert Ellwood: No, I think probably managerial are doing anything and everything just to get money level, from memory. I always look back on it with in? great memories. It was a very good grounding for me Rupert Ellwood: It is about selecting quality products in terms of learning how to operate, essentially as a that match the surroundings. In the Lords, we talked commercial person in a non-commercial environment about doing t-shirts and flat caps, baseball caps. It’s and going to somewhere like the Natural History probably a no-no. I don’t know. There are obvious Museum where effectively that is what you’re doing. things that you don’t sell that are going to denigrate You’re a money maker in an environment where you the brand. There are things, like the whiskies and the have keepers of palaeontology who don’t care about champagnes, that are quality products and people commercial environment at all, but you have got to love. We worked out that our little shop in the House persuade those people that what you are doing is of Lords used to do more per square foot than M&S supporting them. I think that’s what I got from in Marble Arch at Christmas time. There is a good working here, a real understanding of how to be demonstration of what you can achieve with such a commercial at the same time, how to respect the small space. Now that I’m a retailer I can say this: if integrity of what’s going on. you take the ranking of those products, let’s say the top five products, and you look at what they achieve Q210 Nigel Mills: When you were at Vinopolis, how and see where they fit in the quality levels, then you did you handle the fact that your micro brewery might have got something that you could then create into a be busy one day and your wine tasting later that new business. evening and the cafe bar the next day? Were your staff flexible in moving where the work went? Q207 Mr Jones: I agree with you. The Lords shop Rupert Ellwood: Yes. I think that’s one of the great is a lot better than the one we’ve got. If you look at things about having a business where you have a the quality of the two gifts offers, they are better in diversity of operations—you can pull people. the Lords. Do you not think that is an area where, for Certainly, Duncan would tell you more about that in example, there could be more co-operation between terms of events, where they were doing their own the two? events catering at the Tate and you could pull people Rupert Ellwood: Yes. It’s about finding the right from one part of the business to another; you service buyer who understands the core values of what the events. There are always ways of moving staff around. Houses of Parliament is and then translates that into We used to do that all the time. I think we ran a very whatever they buy, and, providing they commercially aggressive P&L at Vinopolis. We made very good Ev 36 Administration Committee: Evidence
6 December 2010 Mr Rupert Ellwood margins but that was a lot to do with the fact that Rupert Ellwood: I think you’ve got elements of that. our staff costs were well under control and we were Certainly when I was in the House of Lords, I felt that probably slightly under-resourced, looking back on it, there were some very similar values around that: the but it worked extremely well and you always had to care and concern for staff and how people were move people around and be aware and react to treated. I don’t know what it’s like now. I haven’t been situations. That is a lot to do with the attitude of the here for 10 years but I certainly felt that there were staff as well. If the staff are prepared mentally that some similar values. Whether you could create a they will go from one restaurant to another and they partnership model, it’s an interesting idea. I think the can fit in straightaway and start operating, then it problem is you have the vote that has to support works. certain core activities and you have loss-making functions that you have to deliver. I remember serving Q211 Tessa Munt: I wondered what you felt your one coffee in the Bishop’s Bar at three o’clock in the experience of Waitrose might bring to something here. morning because it was an all-night sitting. In the My perception of Waitrose is of its quality: even when commercial world, we would have just shut that it goes into motorway services, it still offers quality. down. We wouldn’t have done it. One has to It manages to lift itself above the grot of what was. It understand that Parliament operates in a very different also, to me, has a co-operative view about how it way. Those things, as we talked about, should be looks after its staff, and I just wondered whether there treated separately because they are loss-making are themes and ideas that one might pull across from services. I don’t quite know how you could translate Waitrose in the way that it deals with different types the partnership because it is all about generating profit of products in different places, maintains its quality for the partners, so as you are making losses in certain and still cares for its staff? areas, that might be difficult. Rupert Ellwood: We buy good quality produce and consequently, it’s a little bit more expensive because Q213 Tessa Munt: It might be quite an interesting we buy good quality produce. That’s the first thing. way of dealing with things like the waste problem that It’s all about service. If you go into a Waitrose store, we have heard about it in the last couple of weeks, you ask somebody for a product, they’ll take you to which got me going and in fact ensuring that people the product and then ask you what else you need, so understand where their interest is in serving good service is a very, very important part. If you take quality stuff to people but making sure that we look Welcome Break, which you mentioned, that is a after the staff and making sure that we don’t give franchise in fact. Interestingly, the people that work in enormous portions when people want a little one or the Welcome Break are partners of Waitrose. We took whatever. It might introduce another element of care. the decision to do that because we felt that was the Rupert Ellwood: I think certainly incentivising staff best way to protect our service levels and brand. I’m with rewards is good and it doesn’t have to be very new to this but I was very attracted to the fact financial. There can be many rewards that you can that it is a co-ownership business and we all share in offer to staff and that does keep their interest in. I the profits. Therefore, we all have a responsibility to would agree with that, definitely. Certainly in the manage those profits. I think it does change your commercial world, in Vinopolis with events, my attitude in the way you deal with things. You don’t events salespeople were heavily bonused. They waste things because you know that that’s your profit achieved their bonuses. That was part of what they being wasted. I think those are very good fundamental needed to drive them. That’s not exclusively about values. Obviously the care and concern for the welfare money, but I think you’re right. To have some of staff and the benefits they get are very important. benefits, to reward people for good service, whether It is a very happy place. In the short time, I’ve been that’s customer service or managing profitability, I there, I can tell you that. think that those are partnership values but they are also very commercial values actually. Q212 Tessa Munt: Do you think that sort of co- Chair: Thank you very much indeed. We appreciate operative and partnership model might work here? you sparing the time to share your expertise with us. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 37
Monday 13 December 2010
Members present: Sir Alan Haselhurst (Chair)
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Bob Russell Thomas Docherty Mr John Spellar Mr Mark Francois Mr Shaleish Vara Nigel Mills Mr Dave Watts Sarah Newton ______
Examination of Witness
Witness: Hamish Cook, Chief Executive and Managing Director’s Representative International services, Spotless Group, gave evidence.
Q214 Chair: Good afternoon, Mr Cook. Thank you government clients, reducing catering subsidies and very much indeed for coming to see us. I gather you working on projects to do that in large complex may have recently arrived back. Is that correct? environments would also be relevant to the team here. Hamish Cook: I had a few days in Australia a couple Whilst my comments today reflect my experience of weeks ago. working at Spotless, they will be related to myself and personal views, as opposed to those of Spotless. Q215 Chair: Thank you very much indeed for Obviously you will understand that some of the making time in your no doubt crowded diary to be requirements of contracts with clients will limit what with us. You have had some understanding of what I can say about the specifics of some arrangements we are trying to do here: to try to make some sense with our clients in Australia. Thank you. of the catering facilities. You’ve had some experience of how they do it in both Australia and New Zealand, Q216 Chair: Thank you very much indeed. which I think is going to be of particular relevance to Presumably every parliament building these days has us. Would you like to start by making any general to be regarded as needing special protection, and the observations? more one opens the doors to members of the public, Hamish Cook: Thank you very much. As outlined in the more there is a security aspect to it. Given that my profile, I’ve been employed by the Australian that is a fundamental issue for an organisation that is facilities services company Spotless for the last 22 operating perhaps between 30 and 35 weeks a year as years. My roles with Spotless have certainly focused an active sitting parliament, do you think there is any my attention on the outsourced catering industry and golden rule as to whether it is better to have an service markets in Australia and New Zealand and, in-house arrangement or to outsource the catering more recently, in the United Kingdom. I commenced facilities? with Spotless in the late 1980s, working in fine dining Hamish Cook: For a successful in-house or a restaurants within the arts and cultural centre, and also successful outsourced arrangement, the key is for the within corporate Australia. Since then, I’ve spent time in-house team or the outsourced team to clearly in senior management and executive roles, overseeing understand what the security requirements are. Our businesses in Australia, New Zealand and, more large corporate clients, our large government or recently, internationally. non-government clients, all have security concerns, The vast majority of my time has been spent working whether that is because of intellectual property in commercial, business and industry, education and requirements, or whether it is because they work in age care markets, and working with corporate clients sensitive areas themselves. It’s about the relationship as well as government clients at all levels of that an outsourced provider has with the organisation, government in Australia and New Zealand. During my time with Spotless, I have had small roles with and understanding what the rules are regarding access Spotless consulting to the Parliament of Australia, to and egress from those properties. when they outsourced their catering in the early 1990s, and more recently I’ve been part of our project Q217 Chair: So you think it could be done either team that was involved in retendering for the New way? Zealand Parliament business a couple of years ago. I Hamish Cook: It could be done either way, definitely. have some experience in those environments, and I’ve certainly looked at other government catering services Q218 Bob Russell: I wonder if I could follow up that have been in house and outsourced at a state level your question because the briefing we were given within Australia. says: “Mr Cook was part of the team responsible for Having researched the scope of your inquiry, I feel the delivering the catering services to the Parliament of relevant parts of my experience would be the Australia and the New Zealand Parliament. Both management and outsourcing of staff function, retail Parliaments outsource their catering services.” Was and tour-related activities, because I’ve had part of your briefing the fact that security was a experience in Australia and New Zealand in those consideration, and was that security anything like the areas. My experience in assisting corporate and security we have here? Ev 38 Administration Committee: Evidence
13 December 2010 Hamish Cook
Hamish Cook: When I was involved in outsourcing that we work with these days are very happy to for the Australian Parliament, which was in the early subsidise main meals and food that is produced on 1990s, security was certainly a factor. Staff, whether site. They don’t want to be seen to be subsidising they’re in house or our employees, all need to go retail items like bottles of Coke and chocolate bars. through appropriate security checks. That’s just a Therefore they will have a different pricing structure process that needs to be managed and it needs to be in those instances, and it’s managing that. For in line with anybody coming into this environment. executives that may have a different requirement and a need, because they work late and have meetings Q219 Bob Russell: So it’s not an insurmountable outside of work, you can provide a different level of problem? service again, and there may well be no cost or cost Hamish Cook: Definitely not. transfer to recognise that. The cost is providing the service. Q220 Mr Watts: Hamish, did your work in the If I look at government institutions—parliaments and Australian Parliament mean that parts of the the like—I think you’d be saying that the Members parliamentary building were off limits and some were would have a requirement and it would be expected not, so that the public was directed a certain way? Was that you would have a subsidy in those environments. there a need to secure certain parts but not others? Staff may have a subsidy, but the subsidy may relate Hamish Cook: I think I would struggle to answer that to the fact that there’s no rent charged for that space, regarding what’s going on in the Australian and the prices are therefore discounted by the Parliament now, but certainly, having been a recent equivalent of what you may pay as rent on the high visitor with my daughter to the Australian Parliament, street. You may want to run a function business that there are public areas and there are areas that are quite clearly out of bounds. generates income to offset those subsidies for those other two parts of your business. Q221 Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Absolute figures are not going to mean a lot to us, but could you say in Q224 Nigel Mills: Do you recall whether the both the New Zealand case and the Australian case Australian or New Zealand Parliaments allowed what percentage saving they made from switching people to pick and choose which outlet they went to? from an in-house operation to an outsourced Here we have subsidised outlets for staff, but also you operation, and would you expect the same percentage can take in visitors and use them in some situations. savings to be made here or can you see that there are Would you envisage, generally, that you would be factors over here that are different? trying to restrict some outlets for some uses and some Hamish Cook: I’m probably not in a position to for other uses? Would you recommend continuing that answer that question, because I’m not privy to the kind of cross-use? exact pre and post figures. Hamish Cook: You need to clearly define the purpose for each outlet. There is not necessarily a requirement Q222 Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What percentage to limit who can go to some outlets. You may decide savings would you expect might be applicable here? that staff can’t go to where the Members dine, but Hamish Cook: I don’t know because I’m not privy to there should be nothing to stop Members or guests, your current financial arrangements. general public excluded, going to the staff cafeteria because that’s where they want to dine. What you Q223 Nigel Mills: Perhaps we can try to get at the want to do is make sure that people clearly understand same thing in a different way. You said that you have the main purpose for that outlet and understand that experience of reducing catering subsidies in complex the menu is for that purpose, not necessarily trying to organisations. What do you think are the key things make sure that every outlet offers every range of food. you need to do to achieve that? Hamish Cook: The initial starting point with any cost Q225 Chair: How easy is it? I can remember more management project is, certainly, clearly clearly the geography of the federal Parliament in understanding what it is you want to achieve. In Australia in relation to the rest of Canberra. I’ve only catering activity, there are generally different been to the present New Zealand Parliament on one customer bases that have different expectations and needs. That may be staff; it may be executives; it may occasion and I can’t just now recall how close other be function users. Whether it’s a corporate client or a outlets were to it. One of the problems we have here government client, it doesn’t really matter. You need is that Members, if they are not facing an imminent to understand what has to occur in each of those vote, can very easily reach outlets of different kinds functions. It may be that you want to subsidise your and that takes away business. Are Australia and New staff dining. It may be that you want to run a Zealand in your experience slightly different, because commercial function business, because the only it’s not quite so easy to get out of the building? alternative is to go outside, and you may want to Therefore, there is a better footfall. offset subsidies in those instances. It’s very clearly Hamish Cook: Australia, as you know, is quite about understanding what you want to achieve at the removed from other retail outlets, so it’s probably a outset. car journey or a bus journey to go to local Once you get into a project to reduce costs, it’s then competition. From where the New Zealand Parliament working out, if I look at staff dining, what you want is located, in downtown Wellington, it’s very easy to to subsidise as an organisation. Many organisations get to other retail outlets. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 39
13 December 2010 Hamish Cook
Q226 Chair: In the New Zealand Parliament then, do Q231 Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Was it for all they fill, or get a satisfactory level of take-up in, their catering services, including for example shops? Did it dining rooms? include a range of services? Hamish Cook: I haven’t seen the most recent figures Hamish Cook: The initial contract that we operated there, but my understanding from my colleagues in there included the staff cafeterias, the retail outlets New Zealand is they get good usage, yes. open to the public, the Members’ dining room and Parliament services to Members’ offices and the like, Q227 Chair: Here one of the difficulties seems to be and then the function and special event business that that the business of the House can vary, even from went alongside that. night to night, with a dramatic effect upon the numbers of people who come in. I just wonder from Q232 Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Presumably there an outsourcing point of view whether anyone were special remits for special restaurants, Members’ contemplating making a bid to provide those services restaurants or whatever. What was the general basis could overcome some of those handicaps, when you of charging allowed? can’t necessarily substitute a different type of trade to Hamish Cook: I just can’t remember that. It was on a fill the empty tables. per head basis. Hamish Cook: Like operating any catering service, knowledge about custom, practice and what goes on Q233 Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It impinges on the is crucial for success, for instance, in the sporting Chairman’s question. Was your general level of arenas in which we operate. You build up that services at, above or below what could be obtained if knowledge over a period of time, and therefore you could get a taxi ride or a bus ride elsewhere? It’s manage the business accordingly. very easy to put the prices up and make a huge profit, but then you’re going to drive everybody out and Q228 Mr Watts: I think I take from you, Hamish, they’ll go elsewhere. that the first thing you would think that needs to be Hamish Cook: It was some time ago; I can’t done is to identify what is the purpose of every cost remember. centre and it’s important that you have the information about what that cost centre costs, including any central Q234 Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What was the basis costs that are determined. That’s where you should for dealing with complaints? It’s all very well start. outsourcing but, if you’re going to get a lousy service, Hamish Cook: That’s where you should start. how was that dealt with? Hamish Cook: I might talk about how, in the outsourcing arrangements, we would generally deal Q229 Mr Watts: As has just been said, the very with complaints and/or feedback from customers. difficult thing we have is that sometimes it’s busy and There are short-term complaints regarding quality of sometimes there’s nobody there. Is that going to put food, quality of service that need to be addressed at off anyone who is a contractor, because he or she does the point of service, because that’s the only time we not know the level of revenue that is going to be could fix something like that. There is then contractual derived from each of those outlets? performance, which is best managed in a meeting Hamish Cook: I think the contract catering industry forum on a regular basis, whether that be weekly, or the outsourcing industry have a level of monthly or quarterly, with our clients. That is based understanding on how to operate staff facilities, and around key performance indicators or criteria that are that would be driven by total staff numbers available. set when the contract is set up, and then regularly They would know how to run a retail outlet that is reviewed to make sure that they are still current. Some open to visitors, based on the number of visitors that of those KPIs might be around food service, customer you measure coming through the facilities on an service; they may be around food quality. It may be annual basis. I think the challenge would be the around the transparency of the relationship and the Members’ dining area, because it is driven by changes responsiveness of the relationship managers or team in House sittings and Government business. Once providing the services back to a committee or client. again, that would be manageable over time, because I imagine that there are trends in how the House sits Q235 Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Was all your food and how the business performs over a period of time. prepared fresh or was some of it prepared elsewhere and brought into the estate? Q230 Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It obviously takes Hamish Cook: These days the contract catering time to get to know how a new business works. In industry relies on a combination of ready-to-eat or Australia and New Zealand, what was the length of ready-to-cook food that’s prepared off site, and that contract? may mean that you procure great curries from a Hamish Cook: The process in Australia was that they particular provider because they are specialists there, went through a consultancy process, I imagine similar and then you will cook them on site, prepare them on to what you’re currently doing, for about a six-month site and present them in a professional way. It may be intensive period. The business was then put to a that you get some of your pastries and bakery items formal tender and was let on a five-year basis initially. off site, but then you will prepare a range of Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Five years? products—main courses, daily specials—on site as Hamish Cook: Yes. well. It’s a combination of both. Ev 40 Administration Committee: Evidence
13 December 2010 Hamish Cook
Q236 Bob Russell: Who employs the staff in the expect to find the easiest savings that you can bring Australian and New Zealand Parliaments now they’ve into play to meet your new budget? Is it procurement been outsourced? Who is their employer? or staffing levels or is it income generation that you Hamish Cook: The contract provider. look for? Hamish Cook: The art in going through a subsidy Q237 Bob Russell: When they were outsourced, did reduction project is to look at the supply chain, and they inherit staff from the respective Parliaments or by that I mean look at what items could be more were those people made redundant and new people effectively produced off site, rather than on site. It is came in? certainly looking at the opening hours and the services Hamish Cook: In the Australian Parliament, which offered in each outlet. There needs to be a review of we took on from the in-house operation, we took over what each outlet exists for. There needs to be a review a range of people; we didn’t take over all people. of what outlets are open at what times of the day for Some were made redundant or redeployed when we what types of service. There should be no expectation went through that process. In New Zealand, we took that every outlet is open from daybreak until the close over from another outsource provider. of business. When you clearly understand how people behave in this environment, where they want to go Q238 Bob Russell: The reason I ask that question is and how long they’re going to be working here, you that, having been involved in local government, where can put together a picture and make some grounds maintenance and whatever were taken over recommendations to refine what’s going on, but I by one outsourcing company and they took on the would suspect that there would be labour savings and staff, with what we call in this country TUPE there would be efficiency savings in food production arrangements, and then another contractor in four or by going off site. five years’ time takes over, and the staff get passed around as if they are commodities rather than human Q245 Mr Watts: I don’t know if you’ve had a beings. chance to study the commercial and event revenue Hamish Cook: That comes down to the maturity of from this place. In a professional view, if the security the outsourced organisation. We would like to think, issues could be resolved and the surplus time that this when we take over employees, that they get treated as place is empty could be maximised, do you think that our longstanding employees. In our organisation, we there’s a major opportunity to actually reduce the would recognise their service from the overall subsidy? commencement of service at that location, not just Hamish Cook: I haven’t seen the financial figures their commencement with our organisation. here so it would be somewhat hard to make a comment on that. We as an organisation operate in Q239 Bob Russell: This is hypothetical at the large town hall and government facilities, where there moment obviously but, if that did happen here, there are local councils or city councils that have would be no loss of benefits, length of service and so requirements to block off facilities for various times on, if there was a contracting-out. of the year. It’s about understanding when the rooms Hamish Cook: The TUPE requirements would are available and understanding the rules around indicate that that has to continue. booking functions. You could definitely run an effective function or event business in this Q240 Chair: How long have the outsourcing environment. It may not operate 365 days a year; it arrangements existed in Australia and New Zealand? may only operate 150 days of the year, but you could Hamish Cook: I’m not sure about New Zealand. generate income out of that. Australia outsourced their catering in Parliament House in the early 1990s. Q246 Mr Watts: In comparison to other facilities that you run, how attractive would this be as a Q241 Chair: Presumably from the fact that that is proposition? still going, although maybe not necessarily with the Hamish Cook: I’ve only walked through the main same contractor, the Members of Parliament, as well entry. However, the facilities are impressive. The as other users, have been broadly satisfied. history associated with this, I would imagine, would Hamish Cook: Yes. be very easy to sell.
Q242 Chair: The contractors must have been as well. Q247 Chair: As a contractor to a parliament, did you For all the disadvantages of trying to operate within a have any kind of interface with your customers building that does not have a constant attendance, the through, say, a committee like this one, which has the contractor has been able to come to an arrangement responsibility for services to Members, or was your that is sufficiently profitable for it to be worth doing. interface directly with them as customers, be they Hamish Cook: Yes, I would assume as much. Members of Parliament, be they staffers or whoever? Hamish Cook: There is a business-to-customer Q243 Chair: So what we see as the obstacles here, interface every time they come into a restaurant or in your experience, can be overcome? book a function. There is that level of relationship that Hamish Cook: Definitely. goes on, and I think that’s where you need to hear feedback immediately about the service that’s Q244 Nigel Mills: When you’re trying to reduce provided. My only comment about the senior subsidies, in what sort of cost areas generally do you relationship would be that, if there is going to be an Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 41
13 December 2010 Hamish Cook outsourced arrangement, there need to be senior Hamish Cook: I think the relationship between a people who are managing that process to start with contractor and the client needs to be open and and ongoing to ensure that every stakeholder is transparent. Both parties need to clearly understand effectively heard and issues can be dealt with quickly why the service exists and what the desire for revenue and effectively. growth is. Decisions should be made together rather than just the caterer trying to maximise revenue Q248 Chair: Is there an inevitable drive by a themselves. Our organisation would generally work contractor to try to ensure that you are making the very closely and in a transparent manner with our most money from the assets of the building you’re clients, and provide them with the information operating in, bearing in mind that you could probably regarding revenue and, in many instances, costs, so charge more for banqueting functions involving that our clients can make decisions with us that benefit members of the public who are coming in to enjoy the the long-term sustainability of the business. particular venue and so on? Is it inevitably the case Chair: Thank you very much indeed. We greatly that banqueting will start to edge in much more? appreciate your coming to see us.
Examination of Witness
Witness: Oliver Peyton, Chairman, Peyton and Byrne, gave evidence.
Q249 Chair: Good afternoon, Mr Peyton, and thank might work out quite well just to dip your feet in the you very much indeed for stepping into the breach to water. come and give us the benefit of your experience. You I come from the opposite end of the spectrum about will have heard from the previous exchanges some of food, in the sense that we make all our food every the thoughts that are going around us at the present day, so we have our on-centre kitchen; we make our time, as we try to make sense of the catering services bread; we don’t start making our sandwiches until the in this place in the 21st century. Is there anything you bread arrives from our kitchen. Everything’s fresh would like to say, first of all, by way of opening, on every day. I believe that, in the place that I operate, it the basis of either your experience or what you have is my responsibility to compete with the high street just been hearing? because, in most of the places I operate, there’s a Oliver Peyton: It’s a mixture of things. I think you choice whether to eat in the National Gallery or in the can look at the ebbs and flows of any business—if park. We’re just about to start in the Royal Academy. you’re talking about the Members, when they’re The Royal Academy is located in one of the most around, when they’re not around. For example, commercially aggressive restaurant neighbourhoods in personally, I operate businesses that go from £10,000 the world. My job is to compete against those people, to £175,000 a week. In some of the places I operate, whilst still giving people a cup of tea and a bun, or a it’ll be sunny one moment and snowing the next. Any bottle of champagne. commercial operator has to factor in the realities of I think it’s very important that in this country we start how any business operates. That’s why we’re in to demonstrate how great the produce of the country business. In terms of what I heard lastly about the is. We have relationships with farms where they only commercial exploitation of the building for events, rear the beef for us. We rear White Park beef, which I’m on the list of Lancaster House. The problem with is the oldest indigenous beef in Britain. We don’t use Lancaster House is it has to be kept at short notice for consolidators; we buy from virtually all our suppliers Government activities. direct, so we know who the farmer is. We try not even If you’re looking to explore the concept of using the to use wholesalers. I am completely against building for more commercial activities, one should consolidation in purchasing food. I think a place like start looking at the narrow windows when Members this should be showing the way forward for the are not around, when the building is not being used. country. It’s a shop window for people coming to visit By and large, commercial operators for events will the country. It’s a shop window for the people you want to use the space at the same time as Members represent throughout the country. I think we are on the want to, because people go on holiday. There are cusp of greatness in terms of food production in this probably narrow windows, given that you seem to country, and we have to step up to the mark and take slightly longer holidays than everybody else, support them. where you could try it out, where you could say, “The One of the things that I’m personally interested in—a building is closed; let’s give it three days where it slight aside but an important factor in putting down could be used for commercial activities.” Dip your how I feel—is that every British embassy I visit toes in the water and see how that goes. abroad only serves the food from their country, like in I think any space can be made secure. It all depends France or America. We don’t have British food on the cost and how much people are willing to pay. available in foreign embassies. To me, one of the If you have a few days available to rent out this greatest commercial opportunities is to sell British building, I guess there’d be a super premium involved food in our embassies. Why wouldn’t you want to do in that, and lots of people would want to do that, that? I am a bell ringer for commercialisation and a particularly companies that would want to impress shop window for what we do. The Italians do it; the people from abroad. Obviously there’s a super Spanish do it; the French do it all the time. We are at premium involved in holding an event here, so it least as good as those. The journey that British food Ev 42 Administration Committee: Evidence
13 December 2010 Oliver Peyton has made in such a short period of time is just it’s on your doorstep. I think the job is to compete amazing, and we need to be showing it off. That’s my with the outside world. take on it. Q253 Mr Watts: Can I just ask you about Q250 Chair: How attractive would this place be, do management costs? Our structure seems to be you think, to an outside contractor, if we could get managerially based. Is that something that is common over some of the difficulties associated with the fact within the catering industry or do you try, as an that it is a Royal Palace? We would have to ensure organisation, to push down costs? that permissions were granted for certain types of Oliver Peyton: The pie is a certain size. I say this all exploitation of the facilities. We’ve also got a the time. You see what the turnover is; you look at the difficulty whereby the pattern of business of the different intricacies of the business and you work out House is not constant. It falls off quite sharply how, in an open way, you operate the business. You mid-week, as the demands of constituency have have to remember that Britain comes from a culture grown over the years. Also there are a considerable of not really having very high-quality catering amount of repairs that have to be done to this building, management systems in place, if you know what I which might make it at times not as hospitable to mean. There aren’t the high-end catering management people coming in for an outside function and so on. colleges to back it up. A lot of it’s been higgledy All that said, would you still believe that there is a piggledy. What operators like the people you’ve been very good case to be made for outsourcing, which seeing bring to the table is their own sense of would attract some great interest? commerciality. I have yet to see a case where that isn’t Oliver Peyton: It is a crown jewel, so any operator substantially better than what happens in house. We including myself would be strongly interested in wouldn’t exist if you were better, if that makes sense, operating in this building, because of what it is. Also, because we have the desire and the passion to do this, in terms of the sector that I’m in, most people operate and we want to do it. That’s just the way it is. I think on around 30% margins. I think one of the things that’s the best way to describe it. people were trying to get at before is the labour costs, and certainly in the sector that I’m in, they are around Q254 Thomas Docherty: First of all, can I thank you 30%. Give or take 2 or 3%, that’s about what we for bringing Absolut to this country? On a more would expect to pay, in terms of percentage. I think important point, you mentioned the issue of super you were trying to get a handle on that earlier. I think premium; I’m assuming perhaps a super-premium that’s an important thing to say. The industry average price comes attached that you would be able to charge. varies between 28% and 32%, depending on certain You’re probably aware that at the moment the House factors. is often made available to charities and other organisations on fixed budgets, for launching Q251 Mr Watts: Oliver, you were talking about your campaigns and raising awareness, and Members passion for fresh food and locally sourced food. How sponsor that. If we did go down the route of a does that compare to mass-produced bought-in super-premium brand, how do you balance that desire products? Is it a lot more expensive to do what you to raise revenue while making the House available to do? organisations that perhaps can’t afford to pay super Oliver Peyton: No. I think it’s a bit of a fallacy that premiums? to have fresh food is more expensive than bought-in Oliver Peyton: I think that’s extremely easy, because food. When you’re flying turkey roll from you basically have different levels of offer. That’s a Turkmenistan or wherever it’s coming from, there’s no-brainer. You wouldn’t want to offer the same thing an inherent cost to that. My opinion, and I know this to people who were trying to raise awareness or a to be a fact, is that any food that is produced locally charity as you would to people who want to show off is cheaper to get to us than from Turkmenistan or their company or their awards or whatever. It’s very wherever it’s coming from. It’s just the way it is. I common that one is doing what I would call really don’t subscribe to that at all. fixed-price catering and premium catering in the same building. Q252 Mr Watts: It could be cheaper. Oliver Peyton: Sure. Also it’s important to say that, Q255 Thomas Docherty: Following on from Dave’s when it comes to staff facilities, like the British point about costings, and Sir Alan’s point, would you Library, last year we increased the turnover in the be surprised that we seem to operate a fixed level of public space by 23% when we took it over. This is staffing, effectively throughout the week, and that our what I would consider to be people who are readers, costs are also worked out on the basis of days that we students and everybody else. When you give people aren’t open? Is that normal practice, in your what they want at the right price, whatever the experience? parameters are about it, they will come back. People Oliver Peyton: No. For example, in a venue like, let have a choice now. People in Britain are more us say, Inn the Park around the corner, during the concerned about food; they’re more concerned about winter the turnover plummets to a shocking level and their diet; they’re more concerned about how they we would tend to move those people into our other live. If you’re in a building like this and you’re venues. We have a fluidity of people so that, as it gets surrounded by places outside you can go to, where it’s quieter, we’re already starting to move them around. perceived as better value, you’re just going to do it if We would never allow ourselves to be in a situation Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 43
13 December 2010 Oliver Peyton where you have people being paid for keeping a space website, you can feed back to me. That starts up at the empty. It’s just not the real world. end of January, so that people can email me directly. I think it depends. Sometimes, particularly when you Q256 Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Returning to your take over a venue, you tend to get a lot of complaints charging mechanisms, if you’re going to charge a because nobody likes change. Change is difficult, so super premium, presumably for visitors’ restaurants— you tend to get a lot more feedback right at the Oliver Peyton: I was talking about events beginning. Some of it is correct and you have to listen predominantly. to it. Some of it is change. On an ongoing basis, we deal with every complaint; our policy is to respond Q257 Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What basis of within 24 hours, and have dealt with it within a charging would you adopt overall? working week. Oliver Peyton: I can’t say that. For example in the Wallace Collection, where I operate, they charge Q260 Bob Russell: I’m quite attracted to the essentially £15,000 to get in for the evening. It National Café at the National Gallery. Is that for staff, depends on the level of what you’re offering, how visitors or a mixture of the two? many people come through the door, what it’s for. If Oliver Peyton: It caters for the public and it’s open you’re asking me what the rental price would be, I at night. can’t say until you give me a certain set of parameters. You’ve also got to look at the cost to the business of opening: how much the security is going to cost, what Q261 Bob Russell: Is the price structure there the the surrounding costs are. same for employees as well as visitors? Oliver Peyton: In the case of the National Gallery, we Q258 Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: To return to my give a discount of 25% to staff at all the outlets. There previous question to the previous witness, if you put is a staff area, which we don’t deal with, but generally the prices up too much—it’s very easy to put the speaking staff use our facilities and they get a 25% prices up—you end up emptying the restaurants. With discount, but that varies between venues. the other venues that you run, are your prices in line with what you can obtain nearby? How would they Q262 Bob Russell: The reason I ask that is there are compare? 650 Members of Parliament, but a large proportion of Oliver Peyton: There are two things here. If we’re people here, I think about 10,000 people, are low paid. talking about restaurants and events, they are two I was just wondering how would you gear the pricing completely different things. or whether you would have different establishments, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Separate the two. which were structured separately? Oliver Peyton: In some places we operate, we have a Oliver Peyton: That’s not a question for me, but I can tariff or a minimum. We have key products like, say, tell you some of the different solutions. I don’t know egg and cress, cup of tea, soup that the client wants the details of how that would operate, but I can tell to be priced and we have no problem with that. In you that in some venues we operate subsidised staff many of the venues we operate I think the reason restaurants, where there are allowances of between we’re successful is that we cater to lots of different £2.50 or £3.50 per meal. pockets. We cater from a cup of tea and a bun to Bob Russell: Purely for staff? royalty or to people having bottles of champagne. Oliver Peyton: Purely for staff, yes. In some of the That’s our job. For example in the British Library, we venues where there are no staff facilities, they will get will do staff catering, in-house catering, public a variety from 25% upwards in terms of discount. catering, events, everything. It’s a mixture. I think That is my favourite policy actually, because you’re that’s the difference when you have commercial guaranteeing the staff the same quality as the public operators. They will look at each venue; they will is getting. It’s not always technically possible to do work out what’s best for it, who are the sort of people either. The discount varies depending on the who should be working there, how it wants to be relationship between the staff and the client. perceived and they will market it and develop it on that basis. What you don’t want is to have empty spaces. The point is: if you’re empty, you’re wrong. Q263 Chair: Do you think it would be workable to have groups that wished to be segregated from others? Q259 Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If we let this out to There would be certain places in a parliament where you or somebody else, what mechanisms do you Members would regard themselves as having sole operate in your other venues for complaints, access—mindful of what Mr Russell said about the adherence to the contract and quality standards? needs of staff whose salary levels are different. Oliver Peyton: You have KPIs. In terms of Oliver Peyton: In some of the venues we operate, complaints, it depends on what the vehicle for there are private dining facilities, where obviously complaints is. Depending on the size of the site, the staff don’t go. It’s just a matter of sorting out where complaints could go directly to the general manager people are allowed to go. What I tend to find is that, and they would deal with them personally. On a in some of the venues we operate that have a staff personal level, I get a consolidated complaint list discount—because we operate in different places—we every week, so that I can see what’s happening. You say to the staff, if there are large queues, or if it is a can always tell, if there are a lot of complaints, that busy period, please try to order before or afterwards; something’s up, so I like to see them. On our new and people do that. It’s about relationships. In a lot of Ev 44 Administration Committee: Evidence
13 December 2010 Oliver Peyton the venues we operate in, everyone wants to get on, Oliver Peyton: There’s a myriad of opportunities out so there’s a willingness to get on. I’m against there, but currently it’s almost all on identification. segregating staff catering. I think it tends to go In restaurants, they have a cashless system. There’s a towards lower quality. I think it’s better to give staff myriad of different things around. discounts in the spaces where it’s possible to give them a discount. Q267 Nigel Mills: Presumably it’s quite easy just to make sure you’re not having staff buying discounted Q264 Chair: Of an evening, Members probably do meals for people who shouldn’t have discounted want to be able to eat privately and there will be, for meals. example, questions as to whether or not we have a Oliver Peyton: I think that tends to happen in places restaurant to which the press had greater access. where there are bad things happening. In most places Members might fear eavesdropping. we operate, we try to make sure we operate on a basis Oliver Peyton: I don’t think that’s ever going to of good behaviour, because we don’t have bad happen, is it? relations with any client. We just don’t. For example, we will always try to do some extra things for staff if Q265 Chair: There may even be Members they want it. In most of the places we operate, the segregated from each other, in the sense that Members staff are ambassadors for us as well. They are helping of one party might prefer to be on their own. It does us to get customers and keep customers happy. happen if you want to be conspiring together, discussing issues and so on, but it leads to Q268 Thomas Docherty: I’m loath to put you on the inefficiency. This is the thing I’m getting at. If you spot here, but there has been a bit of debate about the have several different outlets that have a different idea that we could make some of the House of purpose and the numbers, by a certain time of day Commons brand available over the internet or in gift or certain day of the week, have begun to dwindle shops. With your experience of brand value and so on, considerably, this puts a waste factor into it, which do you think there’s a danger that the brand becomes would be very disturbing to someone who’s looking diluted if all the produce is available online. Do you at it on a purely commercial basis. think there’s an element that you’d want to keep some Oliver Peyton: That’s the way you operate now. You things available only from the Commons, or do you can’t assume that a commercial operator will feel the think that’s a bit old-fashioned? same about it, because a commercial operator will Oliver Peyton: I have been the recipient of some look at the peaks when they’re going to make money, House of Commons gifts in the past. I think there is and the troughs when they’re going to have to control a luxury value to not having it available on the internet their costs better. That’s what we do; that’s our job. I mostly. I think the product range should be a lot more run Kew Gardens, for example. I have, on many days commercial and a lot more diverse than it currently is. down there during the inclement weather, more staff My opinion is that no visitor to the building should than customers. That’s just how it is. During the leave without some little trinket or souvenir of their summer it’s chock-a-block. visit to one of the most famous buildings in the world, I was listening to what you were saying when Hamish but I wouldn’t put it on the internet. With Kew for was speaking. People always put up obstacles as to example we have developed a range called Food for why you should or shouldn’t do this. I think a Kew, which is just starting to retail in the shops, from commercial operator is going to come in; he’s going chocolate bars to tea, jams and lots of different things. to work with you to deliver the solutions you need, I am really a very big fan. I remember the New York I’m sure to a higher quality and to a better service Fire Department had a T-shirt for many years, saying level than you currently have, because it’s the nature “keep 200 yards back”. It was very popular in of the beast. It’s in our blood. We want to serve people London. In one year alone, the New York Fire and we want to be hospitable and convivial and do Department sold $23 million worth of those T-shirts the best thing. Your choices should be made around out of the store in LaFayette. This is pre-internet days. that. We operate in a completely different world. I Selling the umbrella and all the other things that don’t think you have to worry about troughs. When visitors would want to buy is a great idea. Obviously you sit down and give a brief to people, they will, as they’re not very well represented at the moment. We I would, be very well aware of the pitfalls in any would commercialise food outlets so, if people are period when it’s operating. We will understand what buying a sandwich or a coffee, we would also have needs to be done at the quieter times to keep the client on display the branded products, so there’s a much happy and to deliver the service level that we have greater purchasing opportunity. agreed, so that when it’s busy we’re making our Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Peyton. We money. appreciate your giving up your time to be with us. We shall weigh up the evidence you’ve given us as we Q266 Nigel Mills: I’m just going to ask a quick prepare our report. question. How do you achieve the staff discount? Is Oliver Peyton: A weighty task. that by swipe card, recognition or what? Chair: Thank you very much indeed. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 45
Monday 17 January 2011
Members present: Sir Alan Haselhurst (Chair)
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Tessa Munt Rosie Cooper Sarah Newton Thomas Docherty Bob Russell Mr Mark Francois Mr John Spellar Mr Kevan Jones Mr Dave Watts Dr Philip Lee Mike Weatherley Nigel Mills ______
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Mr John Borley, Director General of Facilities, and Mrs Sue Harrison, Director of Catering and Retail Services, House of Commons, gave evidence.
Q269 Chair: May I formally welcome John Borley the price increases: customers who previously may and Sue Harrison? We have decided that the second have had a sit-down lunch or dinner are starting to paper, which was delivered more recently than the have a reception; people who previously may have first, on initial catering and retail service savings, will had a more expensive reception menu are trading be discussed next week. There is quite an amount of down to the lowest price point that is offered. I think stuff before us today, so we are concentrating on that is partly to do with the external economic paper 4. circumstances as well because most of our banqueting Mrs Harrison, would you like to make an introductory is sponsored by outside organisations. comment on what you have written? In the last three months, the Members Dining Room Mrs Harrison: I want briefly to say, Sir Alan, that has traded 14% above its budget, but I think that just paper 4 hopefully addresses all the questions that the serves to indicate that the greatest determinant of Committee brought back to us after my last evidence business levels in the Members Dining Room is the session, and that I am very happy to take any further activity in the Chamber. If the Chamber is busy with questions in today’s session. debates that are of interest to a large number of Members and Members are here and present, then Q270 Chair: Am I right in saying that you appear they will, in my experience, make more use of the to be making remarkable progress towards savings of £500,000 on the subsidy, with which you were Members’ Dining Room. There has been a little bit of charged by the Commission? switch in usage of the Strangers’ Dining Room and Mrs Harrison: Indeed. In the four months since we the Churchill Dining Room. We have brought the implemented the price increases, we have so far taken prices in the Strangers more closely in line with the an estimated £480,000 of additional income. That has prices in the Churchill, and there has been a growth all converted through to the gross profit level and at in the use of the Churchill Room, offset by a slight the net contribution level, which means that we have decrease in the use of the Strangers’ Dining Room. £480,000 towards our end-of-March target of One area that I am concerned about is the use of the £500,000. Adjournment. We have not yet determined whether that is a factor of the price increases or whether it is Q271 Chair: Looking at footfall, it appears that, in a more general trend. But the Adjournment is about most outlets, we are not achieving the numbers that 17% below its budget for the last three months—the we had in a comparable period a year ago. three months since we put the prices up. We have Mrs Harrison: In terms of overall covers, most of our noticed that some of that is on a Thursday evening venues have not seen a reduction. Some, in fact, have when it was previously well utilised by other seen an increase against last year. Just looking at that passholders because it was a night when it was open very briefly, we have seen fewer transactions in the to all passholders. Some of that business has moved cafeterias involving customers wanting teas, coffees— into the Churchill Room, but there is evidence that what we call counter lines: the Kit Kats, the bags of fewer people are using the House services for dinner crisps, the things that are easily purchased in a retail on a Thursday evening. That is a trend that we will shop and brought into the workplace. But we have look into in far more depth. seen no downturn in the number of cooked meals and salads and those core things that people cannot easily make or bring into the premises themselves. Although Q272 Chair: Specifically on the Adjournment, it is there is that downturn overall from the cafeterias, noticeable that it is trading better in the evening than despite the downturn in certain types of sales, we are it is at lunchtime. still banking more money at the bottom line. Mrs Harrison: It is, but overall it is a venue that we We have not seen any downturn in the total number are concerned about. There is a marked trend that it is of people using the banqueting services. What we trading at a lower level than it was in the last have seen is an ongoing trend and this is not just since Parliament. Ev 46 Administration Committee: Evidence
17 January 2011 Mr John Borley and Mrs Sue Harrison
Q273 Bob Russell: I have no doubt that Members of a traditional dish and a low-value dish. You and I have Parliament will continue to purchase items here talked over the years on many occasions about the despite the price increase. My questions relate to the vegetables. several thousand low-income people who are Bob Russell: And also the other Members. employed in the House of Commons area. Members will appreciate that these questions are not mine, but Q274 Mr Watts: Can I ask about the numbers I put them on behalf of those who raised them with compared with last year, and the income compared me. For example, I am advised that if jacket potatoes with last year? We had an election last year. Does this and sushi were available in the Strangers’ Cafeteria period cover that? How have you gone about there would be quite a market for it. I am also told accounting for it? that if there was a real sandwich bar where customers Mrs Harrison: Yes, it does, and that is why in can determine the content of their sandwich then that analysing the sales increase we have only looked at also would be more popular than the plastic box that sales increase in the past four months. If we look sandwiches that are available now. at our year-to-date performance against budget—our Last, but not least, and this is perhaps where I come budget is set historically on previous years’ in, could I mention pie and chips or fast food—the performance—in the first two months, April and May, occasional McDonald-type burger—or pizzas? While understandably we had very low levels of trade, which the first two categories are perhaps not me, the third meant that we had high levels of cost in relation to option—the pie and chips—is very much mine. Lastly, those trades, because a lot of our staff cost is fixed Mrs Harrison, you will recall that in a previous cost. incarnation I was a member of the then Catering Committee and one of my great triumphs in As happens with most new Parliaments, the early Parliament was to have peas and carrots made a staple months—May and June and to some extent July— vegetable in the Strangers’ Cafeteria. In view of some were a little bit of a slow start, particularly in the areas of the concoctions of vegetables we have down there of banqueting. Banqueting is a profit contributor to such as spinach and that fried cucumber, can we have the net catering subsidy before we allocate all the some real British food? central costs, so if we have less banqueting and more Mrs Harrison: I’m not sure whether I can cover all of the more highly subsidised staff restaurants it of Mr Russell’s points. The first one, concerning the changes the mix of business. Year to date, we are at pricing and how it affects low-paid staff, we took very the moment running slightly below last year’s, but we seriously into consideration. We recognise that there have reforecast our year end in the light of the price are a lot of staff—both Members’ staff and staff of increases and we should, if we continue the trading of the House—who are low paid, and that is why the the past few months, end this year ahead of last year, benchmark organisations that we looked at in our but certainly ahead of targets that we have been set. selling price were Government Department staff restaurants and the devolved Assemblies’ staff Q275 Mr Watts: I wasn’t entirely sure; your restaurants, which have a similar profile of staff using financial year runs from when to when? those venues. We have found it very difficult to justify Mrs Harrison: It’s from April through until the end why our prices should be markedly below those of March. levels, so without doubt there has been a very considerable price increase for those people. Q276 Mr Watts: You would expect your income and What we tried to do was to minimise the price your numbers to increase this year doing nothing increase to hot food—as I have said previously, in my because you’ve no election this time round. most recent evidence, the sorts of food that staff and Mrs Harrison: For next year? Members cannot easily bring in to the premises and provide for themselves—and to put higher prices or a Q277 Mr Watts: Yes. Your predictions are based on greater percentage increase on the prices for teas, coffees, Kit Kats and other snack items that people what they’re based on. I’m trying to see whether you have the choice to bring in or make for themselves. are doing a quarter by quarter comparison to a certain There are tea and coffee-making facilities in large time of year. areas of the estate, and people can bring in such things Mrs Harrison: Yes, we do. at a very reasonable price from supermarkets. That’s Mr Watts: It’s not just the election. There are peak how we have tried to address low pricing. times, I should imagine, in the catering world in this Regarding the sort of food that you are talking about, place: at certain times it does well, and at other times if I go to your third point—I remember your days it doesn’t do well. on the Catering Committee, Mr Russell—we try to Mrs Harrison: Unlike the other departments of the differentiate our product. I would say that the Terrace House, in the catering and retail service, we have a Cafeteria very deliberately attempts to have fairly trading week that starts on the first Thursday of April, traditional food. The pie-and-chips scenario is more and then we have a system of monthly periods at four likely to be found in the Terrace than it is in the weeks, four weeks and five weeks. That is so we can Debate in Portcullis House. Having said that, we have precisely do that comparison from one year to the to listen to our customers. There are large numbers of next, because, if not, the calendar month ends can fall customers who do not want to have pie and chips or on a weekend, a public holiday and so on. We have food of that nature on offer every day, so there is done that for 18 years, where we compare like with always one hot dish of the day that is supposed to be like on any trading day, week or month. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 47
17 January 2011 Mr John Borley and Mrs Sue Harrison
Q278 Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: There are two parts Could you also explain something? I am confused by to this question. If you were running a commercial paragraph 11 about the St Stephen’s shop. One line organisation, you would look very carefully, which is says that, unsurprisingly, given its customer base, what you have done, at your pricing, and you have guidebooks are a very popular line, and 6,300 were seen an increase in profits. Are you considering any sold last year. It also says that gross profits from sales measures to increase turnover further by flexible of guidebooks and some other product lines are pricing—maybe including specials—in order to try to transferred to the Speaker’s Art Fund. How does that increase the usage of the facilities, which appears to work in practice? be dropping year on year? That was question 1. Mrs Harrison: The profits from the guidebooks and Question 2 is: are you considering any measures to one or two other product lines that we sell go to the cut your costs? Clearly, any organisation like yours Speaker’s Art Fund, so a financial transfer is done at has to continually examine whether its cost base is the end of each period. What that means is that, in our appropriate or not. figures that you have in front of you, you do not see Mrs Harrison: Indeed, and in the other paper that the any profit or, indeed, the sales of those. We have taken Committee is taking evidence on next Monday, I those out of our figures, so we are transacting some believe, we have put forward a raft of cuts and business that is not reflected in the figures that you income-generation ideas that, commercially, we have in front of you. suggest could be looked at. We are not saying they should all be done—there may be other ways of Q283 Mr Jones: So you say that the House of raising more income or taking less of the cuts—but Commons guidebooks are in the top 10 sellers, but, we are looking at those who do that. The key costs in although they are, we are not actually getting any any catering business are the cost of staff and the cost benefit from them? of the food and drink that are consumed. Those are Mrs Harrison: The House is getting a benefit from our prime costs and we are always focusing on them. them, but the catering and retail service is not. Q279 Chair: Could I follow that up? There is also the possibility of increasing access. Presumably, if we Q284 Mr Jones: Could you just explain what is chose to recommend that, it would be seen as a source being done to cull, because—let’s be honest—when of boosting business. you go down there, there is stuff that has been on the Mrs Harrison: Indeed, Sir Alan, and part of the shelves for a long, long time? income generation is to generate additional income Mrs Harrison: There is indeed, and, for some of it, through widening access to people who are not able we have been trying for a long, long time to move the to use the facilities at certain times at the moment. stock through.
Q280 Mr Jones: On that note, could increased Q285 Mr Jones: The 80-odd-quid cushions always income be used to keep prices down? Will it be ring- get me. They seem to sit there a long time. fenced in the catering budget or will it go back into Mrs Harrison: They were bought a number of years the main budget? ago. We have, over the last three months in particular, Mrs Harrison: The current pricing remit that we have been having a cull, as you call it, of some of the slow- was agreed by the Commission, and its remit is that moving stock, and we have been trying to sell those our benchmarks are set in relation to certain external through. We want to start looking at the entire range prices. The external benchmark is different for the and to bring some new products in, but, before we do self-service versus the restaurants and versus so, we actually want to get rid of some of the old ones. banqueting. This Committee could, of course, make a recommendation to the Commission to change that. Q286 Mr Jones: Can I make a suggestion? You have actually done this before, because I remember that you Q281 Mr Jones: What I am trying to suggest is that once had a sale of out-of-date chocolates down there, it might incentivise your income generation. If you which seemed to go very well. One year, they get some benefit out of it and Members thought they suddenly discovered that they had ordered too many, were getting some benefit out of it, they might look at and the sell-by-date was coming up, so they had a using it more. In terms of income generation, on the sale. Honestly, wouldn’t it be good to clear some of it issue of souvenir sales, how many lines do we have? out? Other businesses would. I have been a Member It’s not in the paper. for nearly 10 years, and I have always seen those two Mrs Harrison: I could guarantee that a Member cushions there. I haven’t seen anyone buy one in 10 would ask me a question to which I don’t know the years, and, at 80-odd-pounds a piece, I’m not answer. I don’t know. I would hazard a guess that it surprised. We could do a deal—two for one or is probably about 50 or 60. something like that. If we are going to look at the serious point of trying Q282 Mr Jones: According to your paper, 36% of it to increase sales, quite clearly you concentrate on the is sales of the top 10 lines, which is not surprising. top sellers. Frankly, rather than carrying stock for long There are 13,400 Big Ben pencils and 6,100 diaries. periods of time—the little prime-ministerial models What is done to look at those lines to say that, if these seem to have been sat there for many years without are the top 10 that generated most of the income, there any takers—wouldn’t it be better to have more of a ought to be some that, frankly, are sat on the shelves strategy in terms of saying that if they are not selling, for a long time? Do we have a cull of those? we should get rid of them? Ev 48 Administration Committee: Evidence
17 January 2011 Mr John Borley and Mrs Sue Harrison
Mrs Harrison: Mr Jones, in the last three months, we learning how to do it and then, at the right point, have had some very heavy discounting on those items bringing it in-house to deliver that e-fulfilment that do not sell through. Sadly, despite that, they are themselves. The strong advice of that organisation, still not selling. and also two independent consultants in the area that Chair: At risk of incurring the wrath of the Chair— we sought, was very strongly that we should first of Mr Jones: You bought some cushions. all look to develop an off-site high street presence Chair: No. I want to cross over to paper 5, which we shop, from that learn what products appeal to the would prefer, because there is quite a bit in there, public, and then use that information to gradually then Kevan, about what might be done with income move into the e-sales. But the consistent advice from generation, dealing with the whole issue of souvenirs all three was start with high street presence. and sale of merchandise. It may well be that we want to have some more thoughts about that in terms of a Q288 Mr Jones: Yes, but how do things like the big effort on merchandising, because, at the moment, National Gallery do it? You go on line and buy things we are very modest in the way that we do it. from there. I know you can’t buy the entire range from With your first point, a question then arises, because I those organisations, but you can buy; it might be think I perhaps earned the wrath of Nigel last time worth looking at some of those similar things. when I said that income generation from retail sales Mrs Harrison: I think in our proposals here we’re not could be used to cover, as it were, the catering side. discounting the internet sales; what we’re saying is, In a sense, yes, the two have to be kept separate for for it to come on stream and be producing a profit accounting purposes, but if the catering and retail back to the House within three years is, on the advice services group is kept together and not separated, we’ve been given, unlikely. What we should be doing there seems to be no reason why we can’t meet overall is doing the research and starting it up in a small way targets by the fact that we have managed to increase if we decide to go that route. And I think it’s a very income generation. complex area that the House itself has limited experience of, and that we would be best to treat it Q287 Mr Jones: I like some of the ideas. Let’s be cautiously and bring that information back at regular honest, I have criticised the shop before, but there is intervals to this Committee, if we decide to move into the idea of having an off-site location. Clearly, you the internet sales area. need some advice on the range that you are covering—you can get rid of the cushions and other Q289 Nigel Mills: I will resist continuing the debate things that aren’t selling—and perhaps look at the about merging catering and retail, because I think it is things that are selling very well. important that we get the catering budget into a You seem a bit reluctant to go down the route of position where we’re happy to be transparent and say, online sales. I accept you not doing it yourselves, “This is what it costs for us to achieve these objectives because it’s a specialist sector, but have you perhaps that we set.” But I think we’re all a lot clearer, and looked at hitching up with Amazon or somebody else certainly I’m a lot clearer; we’ve got this variety of to offer that line of sales? I am sure that you would financial information, and information on the footfall sell through Amazon. They would obviously take a and everything, to understand exactly how we’re commission for selling, and I accept that we don’t getting to where we’re getting. Having been through actually want to get into the role of actually designing the exercise of producing all that, what do you think websites or anything like that, but going into are the key issues you need to address to be able to partnership with somebody like Amazon or one of the get down to somewhere like the budget target that’s other retailers would be an opportunity to actually get sort of been set by the Commission? those sales out there. Mrs Harrison: I’m not sure that I understand your Mrs Harrison: Before putting forward our proposals, question, Mr Mills. I did actually take advice from retailers. As you know, I am a caterer by background. I would prefer not to Q290 Nigel Mills: If there were three big actions you name the particular organisation that I took advice needed to take to get the subsidy down to the level from on this point, but they had experience of exactly that the Commission is targeting, what would those what you are proposing. Their summary advice to me three key things be? Is it income generation, is it was that as long as they had a third party fulfilling closing outlets, is it reducing certain costs? Have you their e-sales they made no money out of it whatsoever, actually gone through the exercise? because they found that the third party did not have Mrs Harrison: My previous experience and my the same ethos towards customer service that they felt personal advice is you need to do a mixture of all of represented their brand, which they felt was actually them. You’re unlikely to achieve the level of savings harming their brand and their reputation; and, for the that we’ve been asked to put forward as a package third party—and it may be the way in which the just by doing one. You could not achieve a 50% contract was structured—that there was not sufficient reduction in the subsidy merely by putting up the financial incentive for the third party to really try and selling prices because the customers would vote with grow the sales. their feet. That would have a dramatic impact on the They have taken that work in-house themselves. As number of customers we were serving, so no they said, it took a number of years of learning commercial business would be wanting to change curve—how to do it. They found going the route of their prices to that extent. the third party in the first instance, even though they I think that we do have a very extensive range of made no money, to be very beneficial in terms of them catering services that are open for long hours of the Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 49
17 January 2011 Mr John Borley and Mrs Sue Harrison day, and commercially I would always encourage very low levels of skilled staff within their considering the question “Do we need to have as organisations, and that is reflected in their service many services open as we do at all the times of the offer. day in the week?” and trying to consolidate back. It We at the moment have got a high number of staff in does mean that customers may not be able to go to many of our areas because we are making very little their venue of first choice, but there will be a service use, I would say, of pre-prepared foods. We are provision which is appropriate for the number of primarily preparing fresh foods here on site to meet people who are typically within the House. the demands of our customers. There is no doubt there On developing sales for new markets, hitherto we is a cost involved in that in terms of labour. If you have had about five or six years of doing that, trying talk to many of the contract caterers, for many years to extend more services to other passholders for the now they have been on a mission to—they may not Members’ services, at times when Members are not use this phrase with their clients—deskill their kitchen around. Certainly, it has had a benefit to us. Over the and deskill their operations, making more use of last seven years we have reduced the bottom-line goods that are bought in and then just reconstituted on catering subsidy by £1 million, bearing in mind, over site. That is a route that we could go. the seven years, that’s including swallowing the inflation. Q292 Bob Russell: A Tesco bakery? There have been some very definite improvements in Mrs Harrison: In simplistic terms, Mr Russell, yes. that area, but there is a limit to the number of passholders. Our experience is that when Members are Q293 Chair: Before I call on Tessa, can I just follow not around, a lot of House officials and members of up on that? For example, dining room usage on staff themselves are also not around, so the total average would show—across the Members Dining market for catering services is reduced when the Room, Strangers Dining Room, Churchill and House is not sitting and Members are not here. Adjournment—roughly 230 dinners on a Monday Therefore, to make any radical change on the night. There are 650 Members of Parliament, there are utilisation of our facilities is why we are looking in staff, officials and guests. As we have capacity there, our other paper at some of the income generation, and how far could we improve those numbers by looking whether it would be appropriate and possible to open at the type of food that we offer, by altering the mix some of our facilities more widely to the general and what we offer at the present time? Do you believe public, where they are not currently available to the there is any advantage in examining that? public. Mrs Harrison: The best way in which to examine that would be to have some structured interviews with Q291 Nigel Mills: I was trying to lead you in an open your colleague Members, so that we have some good manner towards the difficult question of the level of quality research into it. For many years, 150 has been staff costs compared with turnover, because of all the about the maximum number of Members who will use things that are out of line with comparables, that is it. the Members Dining Room on a busy evening. As you Do you have plans to try to address that? Otherwise, say, Sir Alan, there are 650 Members, which means in trying to increase income, you’re hitting a law of that 500 or so MPs are dining elsewhere. They might diminishing returns. Trying to chip away at other be elsewhere in the House—obviously many are in things won’t get you there. That looks to be the kind places such as the Members Tea Room; a number use of big issue. the cafeterias; and some, depending on the voting, are Mrs Harrison: There is no getting away from the fact not in the House itself and return to it just for the that catering is a labour-intensive business. It’s far votes. That is why what is happening in the Chamber more labour-intensive than retail, which is why it is has a direct influence on what is happening in our not as profitable in many instances as retail. The business areas. numbers of staff that we employ have been reduced I could make the general observation that Members consistently now for almost 20 years. Just to go back choose not to use the Dining Rooms because that 19 years ago when I started here, we had 340 staff reflects the trend throughout workplace catering in the providing about 4,000 meals a day just here in the past 10 years or more towards much more casual Palace and 1 Parliament Street. We now provide over dining. From talking to many Members, I know that 8,000 meals a day. We also have Portcullis House and if they are not in the Chamber and needed for votes, 7 Millbank, and there are 280 staff. So we have made they have jobs of work to do—they are in their offices quite sizeable increases in our productivity and at the working. They may not wish to take the time to go to same time reduced very considerably the number of a dining room and have a full meal. There are staff. different motivators and reasons for different Some of the savings proposals put forward are Members, and the best way in which to investigate designed to be able to provide services that we hope that is to get some good quality customer research. would be acceptable to our customers, but would be delivering services that require fewer staff. Staffing is Q294 Tessa Munt: A couple of my questions have our biggest cost. Therefore, like any commercial been asked already, but there is one that I would like catering operator, that is the first line that we look to, to address. On the external visits log that you provided to see whether we can deliver our services more cost- us with, I am not able to see whether staff or effectively. This is really where we want to discuss management have been to visit directors’ dining with this Committee how far down that route to go. rooms. If you go into the City, there are any number There are organisations on the high street that have of directors’ dining rooms, which are run in a pretty Ev 50 Administration Committee: Evidence
17 January 2011 Mr John Borley and Mrs Sue Harrison unembarrassed way by the commercial organisations Q297 Thomas Docherty: To follow up on my first concerned as facilities for the equivalent of Members. point, because it was quite a rambling question from They accept that those facilities are not there to make me, as a starting point, is it fair that the premise money at all. A lot of work has gone on to look at the should be that, rather than closing existing facilities, grab-and-rush and recession-buster meal end of there should be a significant step towards making things, which is absolutely right. Have you planned better use of them—such as through members’ dining for—or could you envisage—doing research on clubs or running special offers—to try to retain the directors’ dining rooms? width and depth of facilities that we have? Mrs Harrison: Indeed, a number of the venues that Mrs Harrison: There is always merit in looking at are listed on the log are contract caterer-operated, and ways in which you could introduce specials or try to there is a mixture of staff restaurants and directors’ grow the business that you have. Looking at the table dining. One of my operations managers and I visited a number of sites in Canary Wharf with your service restaurants, however, there is so much surplus Committee’s adviser about two years ago, I think. capacity at the moment that we think that it is That visit was specifically to look at those sorts of unrealistic to expect to increase the sales sufficiently areas, but we would look at the staff restaurants at the to fill it. That is why we have put forward two options same time. It is not restricted to me; supervisors and that could be looked at that would reduce the stock of staff who are working in the Dining Rooms go out accommodation that would be used for table service regularly, but we do not log every single one of those restaurants, and allow that space to be used for other visits. This log was compiled from our Outlook purposes or, if the Committee so recommended, to calendar records. Many of my staff do not use give it up from catering purposes all together. There Outlook, so we were not able to pull together the may be something else that the House wishes to do, information that the Committee asked from us, but I and that this Committee would like, that is not assure you that our staff do go out. catering or retail-related, if the space is appropriate for it. Moncrieff’s table service restaurant is part of Q295 Tessa Munt: That’s good. It’s just that it is the same room as the self-service cafeteria, and I think clear that it is helpful looking for a nuanced notion of that it was the self-service cafeteria, rather than the subsidising meals— café bar, that you were talking about when you said Mrs Harrison: No, we are aware of that. that it was phenomenally successful on a Friday. The fish and chips are served in the cafeteria. That is all Q296 Thomas Docherty: Moving away from part and parcel of one room. Members’ provision to that for the other 12,500 pass If we are going to look at alternative uses for that holders, your helpful and detailed paper mentioned room—economically, that is one of the things that the Moncrieff’s, the Adjournment and Churchill. I have a figures suggest that we should consider—the table couple of observations about the bar charts and so on. service is restricted entirely to the press at the Moncrieff’s café bar seems to be phenomenally moment, and there is plenty of surplus capacity in the popular on a Friday, which might relate to Mr other Dining Rooms. Therefore, it would seem to us Russell’s point about good British fish and chips. Although the Press Gallery had said that it was to be more of merit to look at allowing the press to interested in access to other facilities, that was not use those other Dining Rooms, where we have surplus supposed to be at the expense of Moncrieff’s. There capacity, and consolidating the business into fewer is spare capacity in Moncrieff’s, the Adjournment and areas. On top of that, you can still do precisely what Churchill during their current opening times and, as you are suggesting about offering specials and other Mr Borley has mentioned, there is a possibility of a incentives to use those facilities. more commercial operation at weekends and during recess. Your own comments have been that, Q298 Mr Jones: The reason why you don’t get many ultimately, the key is increasing footfall, otherwise we people who actually use the Members Dining Room are simply chasing an ever-decreasing circle. What is because the service is so damn slow. That’s the case benefit do you see in opening the facilities that we in quite a few of the restaurants, and there is a sense have to non-Member pass holders during the week, that there is no urgency. I have stopped eating in and looking to try to raise a significant sum by using Strangers’ because, frankly, I waited an hour between the facilities at weekends and during recess on a more the courses of a meal, which is not acceptable and is commercial footing, whether that be through catering not the right way of doing it. Surely changing how blue chip events, civil ceremony receptions or some of those restaurants are managed and structured, whatever else? Is that something that you are both looking at? and the type of food offered, would actually increase Mrs Harrison: Yes, indeed. Again, the paper that we the numbers you would get through them. will be talking about next Monday includes a number Mrs Harrison: I think it would be fair to say that the of suggestions that we have come up with as to where Members’, Strangers’ and Churchill Restaurants, in you could extend the facilities to the general public. particular, are very traditional. The Adjournment is far Some of those may find more favour than others, but less labour intensive. Generally speaking, it has a I have no doubt that there are other sorts of facilities faster service. It still should not take an hour, in any that could be open to the general public as well. That of those restaurants, for you to have the main course, is certainly our thinking, in terms of increasing the Mr Jones. That is the sort of thing that, if it happens, footfall. we need to know about at the time, so that we can Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 51
17 January 2011 Mr John Borley and Mrs Sue Harrison deal with it. As a general tenet, moving more towards Q301 Mr Jones: When you say, “Moncrieff’s bistro the style of menu and service that is offered in the lunch covers”, what is it? Adjournment would suggest that that is less labour Mrs Harrison: That’s the table service. intensive, and therefore a less heavily subsidised area. But, it is just a question of treating this with caution. Q302 Mr Jones: So we have an entire restaurant that We wouldn’t want to suggest having four Dining is catering for four people on most days. Rooms that were clones of the Adjournment. It’s a Mrs Harrison: That’s only one small part of the question of finding restaurant concepts that meet the restaurant behind a moveable screen. The rest of the needs of Members, and other passholders, and appeal room is used for the self-service restaurant. With the to them so that they want to use them, and are less agreement of the Press Gallery, because it has labour intensive than they currently are. recognised that the cafeteria is very popular, we don’t offer the table service restaurant in Moncrieff’s on a Q299 Mr Jones: It’s not just that. Compare the Friday lunchtime, so we can use the entire seating area Members Dining Room in the evening with the for self-service custom. carvery on Wednesday lunch time, which seems to get a bigger flow of people. I think that has increased, Q303 Mr Jones: So is Moncrieff’s the most heavily even though this place—this is the other thing I’ve subsidised? always said about it—doesn’t advertise what services Mrs Harrison: If you were to look at it for table are available and where people can eat. It would be service, I think that the cost per cover for Moncrieff’s better to go to the level where people can go in, have is the most expensive, but that is purely by factor of something to eat and at least not wait an hour or more the very low level of sales they are doing, and their for it. share of the allocated central costs is what pushes it The lunchtime trade at Moncrieff’s is pretty dire, isn’t up very high. it? Appendix C.1 says that there is a capacity for 30 Mr Jones: There is always a lot of press interest in covers, and this year you have been doing four on subsidies paid for our lunches and dinners, and, quite average on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. That clearly, the most expensive one is the Press Gallery is on page 5 I think. itself. Mrs Harrison: There is no doubt about it—it is not a Bob Russell: May I ask a supplementary question? I heavily utilised service. That is why we are suggesting think, Sir Alan, it’s fair to say that Press Gallery that that business could be accommodated in one or catering is subsidised. However, my understanding is more of the other Dining Rooms. that most journalists, if not all, are then able to claim the costs of that subsidised meal anyway. Q300 Mr Jones: Have you done any analysis? When Chair: That may be so. I was last on the Committee, a justification for I think, colleagues, that we should wind up there. We spending £7 million on the Press Gallery was that have had a very elongated session. I apologise to Mrs we’d open Moncrieff’s to other passholders. Who are Harrison and Mr Borley for keeping them so long. We these people? Are they members of the press or ran over, but this has been interesting stuff. We will other people? come back to these matters—both the initial catering Mrs Harrison: The table service area is still restricted and retail service savings. I think we need to examine to members of the Press Gallery and their guests. The the whole retail side of things more carefully, because rest of Moncrieff’s—the self-service restaurant and I suspect that there is great potential there. Thank you the café bar—is open to all passholders. very much indeed.
Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 53
Written evidence
Written evidence submitted by the Director of Catering and Retail Services
OVERVIEW OF CATERING AND RETAIL SERVICES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
Purpose
1. This note provides an overview of the House of Commons Catering and Retail Service. As well as providing a high-level briefing note for the members of the Administration Committee, the paper outlines the strategic challenges faced by the Catering and Retail service today and suggests issues the Committee may wish to conduct consider further.
Decisions Required
2. No decisions are required, but the Committee is invited to consider whether it wishes to commission: — a review of access to catering and retail services, including consideration of the opportunities for widening access to under-utilised services and the benefits and risks that might ensue from such changes; — a consultation exercise to gather firm evidence of the needs and preferences of Members and staff for catering and retail services in this new Parliament; — and, to inform its decisions by considering in greater detail the inter-relationship between the provision and usage of catering and retail services in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
3. The Committee is also asked to note that options for the refurbishment and updating of the catering premises in Portcullis House, which is now 10 years old, will be brought for consideration at a meeting in October. The work is scheduled to take place over the summer recess 2011.
Background: Development of Catering and Retail Services (1990–today)
4. The House of Commons invested in a major modernisation of its catering premises in the Palace of Westminster in the 1990’s, with works carried out over a seven year period from 1994 to 2000. The main thrust of this programme of work was to install the infrastructure and services necessary to bring the premises up to modern-day standards, particularly in kitchen and other “back-of-house” areas, in order to meet hygiene, health and safety, fire prevention and other statutory duties.
5. With the exception of the construction of the Terrace Cafeteria and its supporting kitchen to replace the former Members’ Cafeteria and adjacent Strangers’ Cafeteria, the 1990’s modernisation programme did not provide any new services or close down any outlets, although a number of services were moved to new locations.
6. Concurrent with the modernisation of the House’s catering services in the Palace, the Parliamentary Estate grew significantly in the 1990’s, commencing with the opening of 1 Parliament Street in 1991, continuing with the acquisition of the leasehold premises at 7 Millbank in 1992 (1994 for the upper floors), and concluding with the opening of Portcullis House in 2000. Catering services were installed in all three of these buildings, but in all cases the current level of usage is very significantly above the design capacity.
7. Since 2000, the focus has been on making best use of the catering and retail facilities to reduce the net cost funded by public money, and on the development of retail and catering facilities for visitors to the Parliamentary Estate. The Jubilee Café opened for visitors in 2003 (replacing the former Westminster Hall staff cafeteria). A small souvenir kiosk in Westminster Hall was replaced by a larger one in St Stephen’s Hall and in 2009Ð10 this outlet generated sales of over £0.5 million (inc. VAT).
8. The most recent development of catering services was the closure of the former Press catering facilities and their replacement in 2007 by Moncrieff’s, which, except for a small table-service area, is open to all pass-holders.
Background: Demand Trends (1990Ðtoday)
9. Development of the catering services in the 1990’s led to increased uptake of the services, particularly in the more highly subsidised self-service restaurant facilities, but there has been a marked increase in usage of the catering services in the last two Parliaments. Total meals/snacks served (covers served) by the catering service have grown from around 900,000 p.a. in the early 1990’s to 1 million p.a. in 2000Ð01, 1.3 million by 2002Ð03 and almost 1.7 million last year in 2009Ð10. Ev 54 Administration Committee: Evidence
1,800,000
1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,00
600,00
400,00
200,00
0 1992-1997 1997-2001 2001-2005 2005-2010 Max Annual Covers 951,000 1,050,000 1,501,000 1,670,000 Av. Annual Covers 934,000 998,000 1,354,000 1,536,000
10. Part of the growth in demand is due to increased numbers of people working on or accessing the Parliamentary Estate. However, it also mirrors trends observed in other workplace catering situations, where work is increasingly conducted in informal meeting/semi-social situations scheduled throughout the day, often in communal areas such as the catering facilities and accompanied by a tea/coffee or light snack. This sort of usage can clearly be seen in Portcullis House atrium.
11. However, the greatest single factor that impacts on the demand for catering services remains the sitting pattern of the House. Over the past decade, changes to sitting hours have tended to concentrate demand into daytime periods and had the effect of accentuating peaks and troughs in demand. As demonstrated by the above statistics, there has been an increasing gap between average and maximum annual covers during each of the last three Parliaments, indicating that demand is less static than it was in the 1990’s. This creates problems in trying to balance supply and demand without adversely impacting on quality, flexibility and cost efficiency.
12. Demand for banqueting facilities has remained largely unchanged over the past 10Ð15 years, but is currently facing pressure both as a consequence of the general economic climate and the increasing scrutiny of Members’ activities. For the moment, this has been off-set by the loss of two private dining rooms in 1 Parliament Street, which has had the consequence of adjusting supply to better fit the general demand for banqueting services. It has, however, left the service unable to accommodate all demand at peak periods.
13. Another consistent trend over recent years has been the increasing demand for services during parliamentary recesses. The days when Members and their staff were simply not present on the parliamentary estate during recesses are long gone, but the nature of demand during recesses remains very different to that experienced during sitting times: it is very much focussed on day-time provision and on speedy—almost utilitarian—meals and snacks in the workplace.
14. It is too early to predict what the demand for catering services will be in the new Parliament, but, to summarise the above, the key demand trends in recent years have been: — concentration of demand into a 72-hour period, from Monday lunchtime until Wednesday lunchtime, with many services under-utilised at other times of the week even when opened to other users; — continued growth in the day-time demand for self-service cafeterias and snacking venues, and demand for more informal meeting/socialising spaces to replicate the success of the Portcullis House atrium; — generally, surplus capacity in the dining rooms (the Members’ & Strangers’ Dining Rooms, Churchill Room and the Adjournment), although Monday and Tuesday evening services may be over-subscribed; — under-utilisation of bar facilities during the day-times and on Wednesday/Thursday evenings; — steady demand for private events (banqueting), although the current economic climate is likely to depress demand in the short term; and — growth in retail souvenir sales in outlets open to Visitors, offset by a decline in sales to Members and the parliamentary community. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 55
Background: Cost of the Catering and Retail Service
15. The growth of the Parliamentary Estate and the opening of new, additional catering services in the outbuildings during the 1990’s had the consequence of increasing the cost of the catering and retail service to a peak of £5.7 million1 by 2002/03. Following a review of the catering subsidy that year, the Commission agreed a strategy to reduce the net cost of catering and retail services funded from the public purse. This was achieved by a mixture of income generation, service cut-backs (closing more services at off-peak times and widening access to those remaining open at such times) and staff reductions.
16. Since then, the cost of the catering and retail service has been further reduced and the net cost to the House in 2009Ð10 was £4.5 million excluding staff pensions.2
£6,000
£5,000
£4,000
£3,000
£2,000 £‘000
£1,000
£0 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 Cost £’000 £5,665 £5,580 £4,883 £4,850 £4,759 £5,452 £4,742 £4,530
3
17. The greatest cost in the delivery of catering and retail services is the cost of staff, and a long-term strategy of investing in labour-saving techniques and the introduction of more flexible shift patterns has enabled the staff headcount to be reduced from over 3404 in 1992 to under 270 today.
18. Although the overall catering and retail service is funded from public money, there are three business activities that generate a net contribution after accounting for direct operating costs (but excluding any accommodation costs): — retail (souvenir sales); — private dining/banqueting; and — the Despatch Box.
There is potential to grow all these business activities further, but this raises issues of whether such services are an appropriate and desirable use of parliamentary facilities.
19. In June this year, the Commission agreed a major re-positioning of selling prices in the catering venues. Cafeteria prices have been brought into line with prices charged in Government Department staff restaurants and UK parliamentary bodies, and bar prices have been aligned with those charged by a competitively priced high street pub chain. Prices were increased in August. Dining Room and Banqueting prices will be increased at the end of September, setting the former approximately 25% below prices charged in local mid-market, high street restaurants and bringing the latter into line with prices charged by commercial venues. The Commission also agreed that the Members’ Dining Room lunch prices should be set at a 20% premium on cafeteria prices, and that a flat rate of £15.00 per person should be charged for dinner in the Members’ Dining Room.
20. These measures are estimated to reduce the cost of catering by £0.5 million this year, or £1 million p.a. in future years. This figure includes some allowance for fall-off in usage when prices go up, but it is difficult to accurately forecast the impact on customer buying decisions as we have no previous experience of implementing such a major price adjustment. 1 excluding notional staff pension provision 2 £5.7 million including notional staff pension provision 3 Costs unadjusted for organisational changes since the creation of the Department of Facilities 4 Full-time equivalent Ev 56 Administration Committee: Evidence
Current Catering and Retail Services 21. A summary of catering and retail services, their opening hours and access criteria is attached at Annex A. 22. An organisation chart, showing the key posts and their management responsibilities was supplied to the Committee. 23. Members of the Committee will note in particular that the information in the last column of Annex A, which gives details of who may use the service and when, is complex and somewhat confusing. This is a consequence of many years of “tweaking” access regulations in order to strike a balance between maintaining reasonable exclusivity for Members where appropriate, whilst extending access to others at times when Members are not around. There are many and frequent requests from other potential users for access to be extended, and it would now be timely to review access across the piece, rather than on an ad-hoc basis. We would welcome such a review. 24. In some cases, the hours of service have also become more complex in recent years as a consequence of the drive to reduce the cost of catering to the House. Some facilities are now open to other pass holders at times when there is normally little demand for Members’ services, and other services are closed at off-peak times to enable staffing efficiencies to have been made over recent years. However, both of these measures reduce flexibility if the House sits unexpectedly and we would welcome better evidence of the needs and preferences of Members and their staff for catering and retail services in this new Parliament.
Drivers for Change and Opportunities for Strategic Review 25. The over-riding driver for change is the general pressure on public services to reduce their costs in the current economic climate, and the specific decision, agreed by the Commission, to reduce the cost of the House of Commons Service by 9% by 2012Ð13. 26. Options for operational savings will be considered by the Management Board and the Commission in the autumn, but the Administration Committee can play an important part in helping to refine options and advising the Commission. At the present time, at the start of the process, the Catering and Retail Service has submitted a list of income generation ideas and cost-cutting measures for consideration by the Management Board. The scope of the suggestions put forward can broadly be categorised as (a) development of new income streams, (b) productivity improvements, and (c) service level adjustments. These will be considered alongside options put forward by other parts of the House Service and will in due course be incorporated into a savings strategy for agreement by the Commission. 27. The quest for cost savings has already resulted in much more joint working between the Catering and Retail services of the two Houses, particularly in areas such as procurement and I.T. systems. There is scope for even closer working between the respective Catering and Retail Services of the two Houses, but this would require effective engagement at the political level as well as the management level. Areas of common interest to the Administration Committee and their counterpart in the House of Lords might include shared access to catering facilities, cost-sharing arrangements between the two Houses or even the potential for establishing a bicameral catering and retail service. 28. The other key drivers for change in the future provision of catering services are the accommodation strategy for the Parliamentary Estate and the major works programme. Key changes to accommodation on the Parliamentary Estate, including changes in the House of Lords, will impact on the demand for catering and retail services, whilst major works projects have the potential to interrupt “business as usual” for catering and retail services. 29. The Committee will also have an opportunity early in the autumn to review options for the re-modelling of the catering services in Portcullis House, which are now 10 years old. Much of the essential equipment has reached the end of its economic life and is in need of replacement. Moreover, the Debate self-service restaurant struggles to cope with the ever-increasing popularity of that service, and is now catering for over 2,000 customers a day when it was designed for around 1,400. As well as drawing up a scheme for a like-for-like replacement of equipment and upgrading of ventilation systems, an alternative scheme is being prepared that would include the provision of a larger coffee bar, a made-to-order sandwich and deli-bar and, in the evenings, a bar service. These are all services that have been asked for by the previous Administration Committee and are the most frequently mentioned new service requests. Options for the refurbishment of catering services in Portcullis House will be brought before the Committee for consideration in October. September 2010 Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 57 - Annex A Fridays. Also available for private functions during recesses. Churchill Room rules apply. Open to full pass holders on MPs and Staff BandMPs’ A2 Spouses and Tuesday above lunch, withonly Thursday up (max lunch to 48 and 5 hours dinner Thursday guests. advance lunchtime booking). with Former upall MPs to full 3 pass family holdersAlso guests. Thursday available Open dinner. for to private functions during recesses. No guests. MPs andMPs Staff on Band Monday A2 lunchtimes andAlso only. above. available Former for private functions during recesses. MPs’ Spouses daily lunchhours and advance Monday booking). dinner FormerFriday (max MPs lunchtimes 48 Thursday with and upfull to photopass 3 holders family Fridayprivate guests. lunch. functions Open Also during to available recesses. all for (Friday) Friday and private functions June/July only except Monday lunchexcept Wednesday Friday and Saturday closed all except Thursday evening Saturday closed all except Thursday evening Friday evening Available for private functions at all times: see Banqueting Brochure for full details. Wed: 08:30 to 21:00of or House* 15 mins afterThur: Rise 08:30 until whichever 19:30Rise is or of the 15mins House* after (* whichever is the All later) full Parliamentary pass holders with up to 2 guests. later No admittance to Temporary pass holders 12:00 to 14:00. Available for private functions at all other times Available for private functionslunch, Monday Wednesday evening andafternoon every 16:00–18:00 day—available for private functions Available for private functionsevening Thursday and every afternoon 16:00–18:00 day—available for private functions Available for private functionsevening Thursday and every afternoon 16:00–18:00 and Saturday day all -available for HOUSE OF COMMONS FACILITIES DEPARTMENT—CATERING & RETAIL SERVICES snacks & light refreshments. Rise of House* House or 15:15, Thurs when House sitting). Former MPs with no guests. menu. 18:30Ð22:00 “Quick-serve” buffet alsoavailable. 18:30Ð21:30 Room. No buffet. 18:30Ð21:30 Terrace Dining RoomsAÐD SELF-SERVICE RESTAURANTS & Private CAFÉS Functions. Terrace Cafeteria Self service meals, all day Mon/Tue: 08:30 to 22:30 or 15mins after 08:30 to Rise of MPs, with up to 3 guests (reserved seating area Mon Summer Buffet Lunch Terrace Pavilion Summer buffet. 12:30Ð14:30 Churchill Grill Room Seasonal lunch and dinner 12:30Ð14:30 OutletPALACE OF WESTMINSTER (HOUSETABLE-SERVICE OF RESTAURANTS COMMONS) Members’ Dining Room Daily lunch and dinner Service menu, Available 12:30Ð14:30 Strangers’ Dining Room Menu as Members’ Dining Hours 12:30Ð14:30 of Service (Mon-Thur) Hours of Service Available To Catering & Retail Services 2010.08 v2.0 12.30Ð14.30 MPs and Staff Band A2 and above with up to 3 guests. Ev 58 Administration Committee: Evidence non-sitting Friday’s and during recesses. (Friday) of House* Wed: 07:30 to 21:00of or House* 15 mins afterThur: Rise 07:30 to 19:30Rise or of 15 House* mins(*whichever after is the later) New Year) 15:30Ð17:30 Afternoon Tea17:30ÐBar service from 17:3015mins until after RoH oris midnight earlier whichever Monday andWednesday Tuesday, and 23:00 22:00 Thursday. orders 23:45) Wed: 14:00 until 23:00 Thur: 13:00 until 19:0017.00Ð18.00) (closed daily later but not beforeat 22:00. 22:00. Thursday close 15:15, guests. Former MPs and Staff Band B without guests. Full HOC whichever is later photopass holders and Members’ staff have access on snacks and drinks. CoffeeBar. Bar hours: 12:00Ð22:00 or ROH if later 12:00Ð16:00 light snacks. Limited hotlunch and dinner buffet. Rise of House* Tue: 07:30 to 22:30 or 15 mins after Rise later teas and coffees.continental breakfasts, teas &coffees, afternoon 15:15 teas. whichever 10:30Ð15:00 is Coffee (also Service open on Saturdays except Christmas/ 11:00Ð15:00 Bar MPs’ Spouses with 1 guest, Officers & SCS members of the office of the Parliamentary Counsel with up to 3 Terrace Pavilion BarPRESS FACILITIES Moncrieff’s Café Bar Bar service. Grab and go items, light Café hours: 09:00Ð20:00 20:00Ð23:00 June/July, Mon-Wed only Closed 09:00Ð15:30 Strangers’ Bar rules apply. All full pass holders with up to 3 guests. OutletMembers’ Tea Room Salads, all day sandwiches & Service Mon: Available 07:30 to 22:30 or 15 mins afterJubilee Café 08:00 to RoH or Hours of Service (Mon-Thur) MPsBARS and & Staff LOUNGES Band A2Pugin and Room above. No guests. Light snacks, sandwiches, Hours of 10:00Ð17:30 Service Available Bar To Lounge Catering also & serving Retail Services 2010.08 v2.0 Members’ Smoking Room Tea, Coffee 09:15Ð11:00 and Breakfast Bar Service Lounge. Mon/Tue: 14:00 until midnight (lastStrangers’ Bar Closed Closed 10:00Ð17:30 Bar service. Open to all MPs pass and MPs holders Staff only. and Band visitors. A2 and above with up to 3 guests, 12:00ÐROH or 23:00, whichever is the 12:00ÐRoH or MPs and Staff Band A2 and above with up to 3 guests. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 59 d no guests Band A2 and except, Friday lunchtime with up to 3 family(subject guests. to House-wide access restrictions). full pass holders. Report with up to 3 guests. (Friday) only) above or by Departmental Authorisation. refreshments.snacks and lightrefreshments.Limited evening service. 18:00Ð21:00 15:15 whichever is later whichever is later offering meals and lightrefreshments.serving breakfast, weeklychanging à la cartelunch menu & for dinner, afternoon 12.00Ð15.00 tea. Lunch (last 15.00Ð18.00 18.30Ð22.00 orders Afternoon Dinner 14.30) Tea (last orders 21.30) Breakfast (last orders 14:30) recesses. Former MPs Wednesday dinner, Thursday and 12:00Ð15:00 Lunch up to 3 guests guests Thursday at evenings, any Friday time. lunch Full and pass throughout holders with up to 3 15:15 whichever is Full pass holders with up to 2 guests ( later between 12:00Ð14:00). cold lunches and refreshments. Table service. 12:30Ð14:30 12:30Ð14:30 Restricted to members of the Press Gallery and Official lunches served. (lunch 12:00Ð15:00) Floor Café All day coffee bar. Light 08:30Ð18:00 08:30Ð16:30 Parliamentary pass holders with up to 2 guests. th The Despatch BoxMeeting & ConferenceRoomsBELLAMY’S, All 1 day Teas, Parliament coffee coffees, Street bar. workingBellamy’s self-servicerestaurant Self-service meals,7 all MILLBANK day On requestÐplease contactPortcullis the Cafeteria Food 08:00Ð18:00 & Beverage 08:30Ð16:00 Manager on lunches & buffets/receptions Events must x6900 Self be snacks service6 sponsored and meals, by light all an day MP, Staff Band A2 an 08:30Ð18:00 08:00Ð17:00 08:30ÐRoH or Open Parliamentary to pass all holders pass with holders up with to a 2 maximum guests. of 6 08:30ÐRoH guests or Parliamentary pass holders with up to 2 guests. above, or by Departmental 15:15 Authorisation. PORTCULLIS HOUSE The DebateThe Adjournment Self-service restaurant Contemporary restaurant 08.30Ð11.00 08:30Ð21:00 Breakfast (not on Monday) 08:30Ð11:00 MPs, MPs’ Spouses and Staff Band A2 and above, with 08:30ÐRoH or MPs and Staff Band A2 and above with up to 2 guests. OutletMoncrieff’s Restaurant Self service: serving hot and 12:00Ð14:30 Service Available Hours of Service (Mon-Thur) 12:00Ð14:30 Hours of Service Available Members To Catering of & the Retail Press Services Gallery 2010.08 with v2.0 up to 3 guests and all Conference Room E Meeting and event catering. Teas, coffees and buffets catered for, MondayÐFriday (daytime Events must be sponsored by MPs and Staff Ev 60 Administration Committee: Evidence ages on the Intranet. (Friday) Also open evenings, subjectAlternatively to a Banqueting small business mobilerange levels. kiosk of may souvenirs open to to Banqueting offer customers. a limited Members of the House of Lords who were formerly a Member of Parliament retain access rights to House of Commons catering facilities as for serving MPs. OutletSOUVENIR OUTLETS Main Souvenir ShopSt Stephen’s Hall Shop Souvenirs sales. Souvenirs sales. Service Available 10:30Ð19:45 10:00Ð18:00 Hours MondayÐSaturday of Service (Mon-Thur) Hours of Service Available To Catering & Retail Services 2010.08 v2.0 10:30Ð15:00 All visitors and pass holders. All pass holders and escorted guests. Note: This document sets out the principal access regulations—for full details, please contact Catering & Retail Services on x3686 or 5303 or visit our webp Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 61
Further written evidence submitted by the Director of Catering and Retail Services ACCESS TO CATERING FACILITIES BY MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS Purpose 1. This note informs the Committee of access to House of Commons catering services by Members of the House of Lords. The regulations differentiate between Members of the House of Lords as follows:
Members of the House of Lords who are Former MPs 2. Former MPs serving as Members of the House of Lords retain the same access rights to House of Commons catering services as serving MPs (ie they retain full access to House of Commons catering facilities). They are not permitted to book meeting rooms in the House of Commons.
Members the House of Lords who are not Former MPs 3. As full parliamentary pass holders, Members of the House of Lords may use all of the House of Commons cafeterias and snack facilities at any time. This provides access to the following facilities: — the Terrace Cafeteria (with two guests); — Moncrieff’s café-bar and self-service restaurant (three guests); — the Jubilee Café (open to all visitors, so no guest restriction); — the Debate in Portcullis House (two guests, except 12.00 noon to 14.00 hours); — the Despatch Box (six guests); — Bellamy’s in 1 Parliament Street (two guests); and — Portcullis Cafeteria and 6th Floor Café in 7 Millbank (two guests) 4. They are also permitted access to the dining rooms at times when such facilities are open to all parliamentary pass holders. This provides them with access to the following dining facilities: — Thursday evening: the Churchill Dining Room and the Adjournment in Portcullis House; — Friday lunchtime: the Strangers’ Dining Room, the Adjournment and (June/July only) the Terrace Pavilion Buffet; and — during recesses: generally, the Adjournment (subject to opening). 5. Members of the House of Lords who are not former MPs are not permitted to use the Members’ Dining Room, the Pugin Room, Members’ Tea Room, Members’ Smoking Room, Strangers’ Bar or to book meeting or banqueting facilities in the House of Commons. September 2010
Further written evidence submitted by the Director of Catering and Retail Services CATERING SERVICES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS Background Information 1. The House of Commons Catering and Retail Service is part of the House of Commons Department of Facilities, created in 2008 following the Tebbit review of the House of Commons Administration. Prior to then, the service was a Department of the House in its own right: the Refreshment Department. 2. Whilst operational and trading information provided in this paper is consistent between the former Refreshment Department and the Catering & Retail Service, the historic total costs reported are unadjusted for the transfer of finance and HR staff costs to other budgets following the creation of the Department of Facilities. 3. Similarly, in order to provide like-for-like comparisons, total operating costs are reported exclusive of staff pension provision unless otherwise stated. 4. The remit of the Catering and Retail Service is to provide catering and retail services to meet the needs of Members, staff and visitors to the Parliamentary Estate. It is a House of Commons service, funded from the House of Commons Administration Estimate, but many of its services are available, either on an equal footing or at certain times, to Members and staff of the House of Lords and to other holders of full Parliamentary passes, including press and media representatives, police and security staff, other contractors and some Civil Servants. 5. The House of Lords operates its own Catering and Retail Service. Whilst there is considerable management co-operation between the two services, particularly in areas such as procurement and IT, there is no legal or formal link between the two services, and the services are seperately funded by each House. Ev 62 Administration Committee: Evidence
6. A summary of House of Commons catering and retail services, their current opening times and access regulations is attached at Annex A to the previous evidence.
Usage of Catering Services Trends 7. There was relatively low growth in the overall use of catering services in the 1990’s, but since 2000 there has been a consistent growth in the total usage of catering services in the House of Commons. The onset of the growth dates from the beginning of the 2001 Parliament, but this also coincided with the opening of Portcullis House and changes to the sitting hours of the House. The growth is largely driven by an increase in demand for cafeteria services, particularly at lunch-time, and changes in the workplace have led to more informal “snacking” throughout the day. These trends are mirrored in staff restaurant environments in other organisations. 1,800,000
1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,00
600,00
400,00
200,00
0 1992-1997 1997-2001 2001-2005 2005-2010 Max Annual Covers 951,000 1,050,000 1,501,000 1,670,000 Av. Annual Covers 934,000 998,000 1,354,000 1,536,000
Annual CoversServed since Portcullis House fully open
1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10
8. In 2003, the Finance and Services Committee agreed a package of measures to reduce the growing cost of the subsidy provided for catering and retail services in the House of Commons. Progress was reviewed by the Administration Committee in their last review of catering services, in 2005. 9. The costs set out below exclude the cost of HR and finance staff previously borne on the Refreshment Department budget. In 2009Ð10, these and other HR costs (eg recruitment) would have added an estimated £588,000 to the catering subsidy, bringing like-for-like costs to a total of £5,118,000. This represents a cash reduction of almost £550,000 (10%) in the catering subsidy since the peak cost of £5,665,000 in 2002Ð03. The figures are unadjusted for inflation. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 63
Annual Catering & Retail Service Subsidy Cost since 2003 Review of Services £6,000 (excluding pension costs)
£5,000
£4,000
£3,000 £‘000 £2,000
£1,000
£0 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 Cost £5,665 £5,580 £4883 £4,850 £4,759 £5,452 £4,742 £4,530 £’000 Year
10. Current year statistics were affected in the first quarter by the General Election. During this period, income was significantly depleted, but fixed costs (particularly staff costs) were still incurred. In common with previous experience, banqueting revenues remained low throughout the second quarter, but has picked up since September.
11. However, the downward impact of the general election on revenues should be counter-acted by additional income from the recent price increases and, to date, the catering and retail service is broadly on target to deliver its services within the agreed, revised budget of £6.04 million for 2010Ð11.
Overview of Usage and Revenue Contribution
12. Annual usage (covers/transactions) and sales for each outlet, grouped by area, for the last two financial years were supplied to the Committee.
13. In 2009Ð10, almost two-thirds of all transactions by volume were in the cafeterias (Members’ Tea Room, Terrace Cafeteria, Moncrieff’s self-service, the Debate, Bellamy’s and the Portcullis Cafeteria in 7 Millbank). Only 3% of transactions took place in the dining rooms, and banqueting accounted for just 9% of transactions.
Usage by Business Sector 2009/10
6% 9% 4% 3% Events & Banqueting
13% Dining Rooms Cafeterias Snacking Visitor Café Souvenirs
65%
14. However, in terms of income, the cafeterias contributed only 25% of total income, with events and banqueting contributing 43% of total sales. Souvenir sales contributed a further 12% of income. Ev 64 Administration Committee: Evidence
Revenue by Business Sector 2009/10
3% 12% Events & Banqueting
3% Dining Rooms 43% 5% Cafeterias Snacking Visitor Café
Souvenirs 25% Bars
9%
15. The importance of events and banqueting business to the service is even more obvious at gross profit level (ie after accounting for purchases but before allocating staff costs). At this level, 55% of total gross profits were derived from event and banqueting sales, whilst cafeterias contributed only 14% of gross profits despite accounting for two-thirds of transactions.
Gross Profit by Business Sector 2009/10
4% 10% Events & Banqueting 3% Dining Rooms 5% Cafeterias
Snacking 55% 14% Visitor Café
Souvenirs
Bars 9%
16. Usage statistics for each venue during the 3 months October to December 2009 were supplied to the Committee. This period was selected as it includes both sitting and recess dates, and will provide a basis for comparison when the same information is collated for October to December 2010 to enable the impact of the recent price increases to be examined in detail.
17. It must also be noted that the greatest determinant of usage of the dining rooms and other services open in the evenings is the sitting hours of the House and the level of Parliamentary business. Notwithstanding the price rises, evening trade has been strong since the return of House in October 2010.
18. Key observations from the 2009 patterns of business are noted below:
Dining Rooms (i) Across all dining rooms available for guest hospitality, average lunchtime occupancy is under 50% on Mondays and Thursdays, and around 65%Ð70% on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, indicating that there is some spare capacity for opening to other pass holders. (ii) Alternatively, the closure of either the Adjournment or the Churchill room would leave sufficient Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 65
capacity to cope with average demand levels, although there may be occasions on a Wednesday lunchtime that demand would exceed a reduced supply. (iii) On Friday lunchtimes, usage is less than 40% of capacity, despite the dining rooms being open to all pass holders. (iv) Evening supply is better matched to demand levels, although there remains spare capacity on all evenings. Currently, the Churchill Room operates as a banqueting venue on Wednesday evenings, but opens as a dining room on Thursday evenings to free up the Members’ and Strangers’ Dining Rooms to be let for large functions.
Cafeterias & Snack/Coffee Bars (i) Lunchtime (12.00 noon to 3.00 pm) is the key pressure point in all cafeterias, with demand highest on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays in the Terrace Cafeteria and the Debate in Portcullis House. (ii) The cafeterias in 1 Parliament Street (Bellamy’s) and 7 Millbank (Portcullis Cafeteria) show much less day-to-day fluctuation in demand, although, in common with all venues, demand is significantly lower on Fridays and during recesses. (iii) After 5.30 pm, cafeteria usage appears to be quite evenly balanced between the Debate and the Terrace Cafeteria, but both venues have plenty of surplus capacity. A more detailed analysis of this time period would be useful to establish whether one of these venues could close earlier than at present. (iv) In 7 Millbank, both the 6th Floor café and the Portcullis Cafeteria are very quiet after 3.00 pm, and most transactions are for teas and coffees only. There is scope for combining these services at off- peak times if the 6th Floor Café is retained. (v) The evening service in Portcullis Cafeteria serves an average of 35Ð45 customers nightly after 5.30 pm. but around 75% of transactions are for teas, coffees, confectionery and sandwiches, all of which are available from vending machines located in 7 Millbank. (vi) With the exception of its popular Fish & Chip menu on a Friday, lunch trade in Moncrieff’s self- service restaurant averages around 100 covers. As was demonstrated when the kitchen closed for remedial works last year, this custom can be absorbed in the other venues without any discernible impact.
Bars (i) The Pugin Room consistently remains very quiet until after 12.00 noon, when customers arrive for pre-lunch drinks. It remains busy as an afternoon tea venue, particularly on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. (ii) Currently, the Pugin Rooms remains open in the evenings until the Rise of House or midnight (whichever is the earlier) on Mondays and Tuesdays, until 11.00 pm on Wednesday and 10.00 pm on Thursdays. Usage statistics suggest that this should be reviewed in more detail to examine the case for earlier closing. (iii) The Members’ Smoking Room has experienced very low levels of business for many years, but previous Committee have failed to find support amongst colleagues to make any radical changes to the service or to open the facility to non-Members. The usage statistics and the savings programme are both drivers for making changes in this venue. (iv) Very few customers use the Strangers’ Bar before 5.30 pm. This venue is now due a re-fit, having been installed 15 years ago, and might be re-designed to operate as a coffee bar during the day-times and bar in the evening. This provides an alternative option to the suggested conversion of the Main Souvenir Shop listed in the Management Board’s savings programme currently undergoing consultation.
Retail & Visitor Facilities (i) Since the larger souvenir shop opened in St Stephens Hall, there has been a gradual shift of business away from the Main Souvenir Shop located near the Terrace. This is evidenced in the detailed usage statistics, and the Main Shop is now quiet for large periods of the day. It should be borne in mind that the surveyed period includes the peak Christmas trading period, when the Main Shop in particular experiences higher than normal demand. (ii) The Jubilee Café also has significant scope to increase business, but usage is closely linked to the level of Tours, which are in turn dictated by the sitting hours of both Houses.
Income and Direct Costs, by Outlet 19. The Committee has requested details of the income, cost of sales (food, beverage and souvenirs) and direct staff costs for each venue. Income and costs of sales information is held for every venue, but in cases where a venue is supplied from a central kitchen, the cost of food is allocated on a proportional basis. Staff costs are allocated against groups of venues, to reflect the flexible working patterns of staff employed across multiple revenue centres and in kitchens supplying multiple outlets. Ev 66 Administration Committee: Evidence
20. A breakdown of subsidy/contribution by trading area for 2009Ð10 was supplied to the Committee. This analysis is not available for previous years. 21. Key observations noted below: (i) After allocation of cost of sales and direct staff costs, but with no allocation for operating expenses and other costs, the only areas to return a net contribution last year were the Strangers’ Bar, Banqueting and Retail & Visitor Facilities (the souvenir shops and Jubilee Café, including food and drinks served to the Jubilee Room). (ii) Prior to the closure of Bellamy’s Bar, the Strangers’ Bar failed to return a net contribution, but the transfer of trade from Bellamy’s with no increase in staffing requirement in the Stranger’s Bar has enabled it to cover its costs this year. This should increase in 2010Ð11 both as a consequence of the price increase but also as the first full year of operation since the closure of Bellamy’s. (iii) The most highly subsidised areas are the Terrace and Members’ Tea Room, and the Principal Foor (Members’ and Strangers’ Dining room, the Pugin Room and Members’ Smoking Room). (iv) Staffing costs for the Terrace Cafeteria and Members’ Tea Room are higher than comparable venues for a number of reasons. They are both open for long hours from early morning until the House rises or later. The Tea Room is located very close to the Chamber and consequently it’s trading is closely linked to the business of the House. It suffers frequent but unpredictable peaks and troughs of demand, and closes during recesses (so incurring staff costs at a time when there is no revenue). (v) Following the closure of Bellamy’s Bar and the Banqueting facilities in 1 Parliament Street, this is now the most economic outbuilding, having taken over this place from 7 Millbank. (vi) Although Portcullis House required a net subsidy of almost £470,000 to operate is service last year, this includes a net contribution of around £90,000 from the Despatch Box. Premium coffees are high volume, high profit margin and high perceived value goods and the Despatch Box has the added benefit of an excellent location. If an appropriate space can be found in the Palace, an additional coffee bar would, we believe, be highly valued by customers without detracting from the Despatch Box, and presents an opportunity to generate additional profitable income. (vii) Unallocated staff costs include central management and administration staff, 3 senior chefs, purchasing, goods receiving, and stores staff, laundry and linen staff, and staff incurring costs whilst away from the business (eg maternity leave, etc).
Staffing 22. An organisation chart was supplied to the Committee. The Directorate employs a total of 286 Full-time equivalent staff (FTE). 23. The Directorate is headed by one member of the Senior Commons Service, who is supported by one Operations Manager (Band A2), one Executive Chef (Band A1) and one Head Chef (Band B1), one Purchasing and Stores Manager (Band B1) and a Business Support Manager (Band B2). All other members of the management team have operational responsibilities as well as line management responsibilities. 24. The Director of Catering & Retail Service reports directly to the Director General of Facilities and has wider management responsibilities as a member of the Facilities Management Board. 25. Staff employed in the catering grades include professional and technical staff who nevertheless carry out operational and line management responsibilities. 26. In addition to the permanent staff, the Directorate maintains a pool of casual and agency staff on zero- hours contracts. These staff are used both in banqueting, to cover sickness absence and to supplement the permanent team on days of peak demand. 27. Approximately a third of the workforce are employed on four-day week contracts in order to cover the operational requirements MondayÐThursday more cost effectively than if the entire workforce was employed on a basic five-day week. Some employment contracts have agreed flexibility clauses in terms of where staff may be required to work, whilst others (particularly older contracts) are more restrictive. However, there has been considerable movement towards more flexible working practices in recent years and this has been a key contributor to the gradual reduction in the catering subsidy over the past eight years.
Current Issues 28. As yet, it is too early to confirm in detail the impact of the recent price increases. However, it is estimated that during September and October, the cafeteria and bar price increases generated in the region of £80,000 additional income. The target for the six months to end March 2011 is £500,000 and, thereafter, £1.2 million per annum. 29. Cafeteria prices were benchmarked against prices charged in the staff restaurants operated within a selection of Government Departments and the devolved UK Assemblies & Scottish Parliament. All the benchmarked services are operated by contractors. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 67
30. Prices are currently being reviewed again in the light of the impending VAT increase from 01 January 2011. No decisions have yet been taken. 31. A list of income generation and savings options have been circulated to all Members by the Management Board. A consultation process with Committees, Members, staff and other users is currently taken place. The Finance and Services Committee has remitted all the proposals affecting catering and retail services to the Administration Committee for their consideration. I shall be please to assist the Committee in discussing these, and other, opportunities to generate new income streams or reduce costs. November 2010
Further written evidence submitted by the Director of Catering and Retail Services CATERING SERVICES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS Background Information 1. This paper amplifies evidence previously submitted to the Committee on 29 November 2010. It responds to the Committee’s request for further information as listed in the Chairman’s letter of 6 December 2010 and incorporates information requested from the Catering and Retail Operations Manager detailing the top-selling souvenir products currently sold in the retail outlets. 2. For ease of reference, sections in this paper are cross referenced to the Chairman’s letter where applicable.
Cost of Catering and Retail Services (Points 1–5 of the Committee’s request for further information) 3. A breakdown of income and expenditure for 2009Ð10, with central costs allocated across trading outlets, was provided to the Committee. 4. Sales and cost of sales figures are actuals for each outlet. 5. Of the £939k central staff costs unallocated in the previous submission, £611k has now been allocated, leaving a residual sum of £328k unallocated for the following costs: Director, Executive Chef, Business Support Manager, maternity pay, long term sick pay, staff on rehabilitation following long term absence. The Committee’s advisor suggested that these costs would normally be considered as “central overheads” and would not be attributed to individual outlet trading costs. 6. Salary and wages figures include Employer’s National Insurance, pension liability and agency staff costs. 7. Late night transport costs have been allocated only to those outlets open after 11.00 pm, the time after which staff are provided with transport. These venues are: the Churchill Room, Terrace Cafeteria, Members’ Tea Room and Strangers’ Bar. Other costs have been allocated either on the basis of actual expenditure incurred (where known) or on a ratio linked to sales, cost of sales, headcount or other appropriate basis. The Committee’s advisor was involved in discussions to agree the most sensible basis for apportionment of each type of cost. 8. HR costs are allocated on a ratio linked to staff headcount in each area, whilst Finance has been allocated on an estimated resource utilisation for each outlet.
Savings Target for Catering and Retail Services (Point 6 of the Committee’s request for further information) 9. The Commission and the Management Board have committed to reducing the costs of the House Service by at least 17% in real terms by 2014Ð15. The savings options put forward by the Catering and Retail Service are part of this House-wide savings programme. 10. The Savings Programme was initiated following the General Election but before the new Administration Committee was appointed. In the absence of a Committee, informal discussions took place between senior officials and politicians, and it was agreed that a target of 50% be tabled as the starting point for consideration of catering and retail budget reductions. 11. Whilst this target is higher than for other parts of the House Service, it reflects the ability of CRS to develop new income streams and to adjust pricing. The additional income generated by the price increases in Summer/Autumn 2010 will contribute to the savings. 12. The options put forward in response to this request were all incorporated into the Savings Programme discussed and agreed by the Management Board and Commission, and circulated to all Members in November 2010. The Commission has specifically referred all catering and retail options to the Administration Committee for their advice and a separate paper has been prepared to assist the Committee in this task. Ev 68 Administration Committee: Evidence
Progress on Letting of Contract for Sandwich and Coffee Bar (Point 7 of the Committee’s request for further information) 13. The commitment made to the Administration Committee in February 2010 to re-instigate the project to let the premises to a commercial partner has been delayed for a number of reasons: (i) more urgent priorities on senior resource time, in particular the development of the Savings Programme and the work flowing from that project; (ii) competing priorities for procurement resource time to manage a tender process; (iii) in the light of the emerging accommodation strategy, a need to consider the development of new catering services within a strategic context; the Accommodation Manager’s initial assessment is that: “Annie’s bar is an internal space with no natural light and poor ventilation. The space is not located on a core circulation route, is encircled by office accommodation, and access routes cross a change in floor level. All of these constraints render the space unsuitable for a use requiring a high level of access. The Accommodation and Logistics Service considers this space suitable for a back-of-house function, such as changing, locker or storage space, etc. A front-of-house use would require major re- configuration of the apace and its access routes, which would be costly if compliance with disabled access requirement is to be achieved.” This concurs with feedback from potential bidders. 14. In the light of recent developments, we recommend that the proposition to offer the former Annie’s Bar premises to a 3rd party commercial partner is reviewed in the context of other options for income generation or cost savings as put forward in the Savings Programme or new ideas emerging from the Committee’s Inquiry.
Progress on implementation of recommendations from the Administration Committee’s 2005 report on Refreshment Department Services (Point 8 of the Committee’s request for further information) (a) Opportunity for input into the development of the long-term Works Programme 15. New governance arrangements were put in place for the planning and delivery of estates matters across both Houses in 2007, when the Parliamentary Estate Board (PEB), a sub-Committee of the Management Boards of both Houses, was formed to fulfil an assurance and advisory role. It is chaired by the Director General of Facilities in the House of Commons. 16. As part of the annual business cycle, the PEB receives a detailed submission from the Parliamentary Director of Estates, which sets out the annual project budget requirement and programme of work for the following year in detail, and for the subsequent three years in plan. This is accompanied by a prioritised list of ongoing and proposed projects, along with the associated financial forecast. A project initiation procedure has been established, which provides Catering and Retail Services with a mechanism for inputting proposals and requirements to this planning cycle, including suggestions from the Committee. This budget requirement is interrogated in detail by the PEB and, in due course, is then recommended to the Management Boards of both Houses. 17. In 2010 this annual project budget requirement was submitted in the form of an Outline Business Case— Programme of Works 2011Ð12, approved by both Clerks on 21 December 2010. All catering projects are included within this document. However, it should be noted that any complex or Member-sensitive catering projects are also submitted to the Administration Committee for discussion and advice. One such scheme—an option to convert the Adjournment restaurant into a coffee bar/sandwich/deli retail area—is almost ready for submission to the Committee. 18. Non complex, “business as usual” type catering projects (such as the replacement of like-for-like catering equipment, alterations to extract ventilation, kitchen layouts etc) are not usually reported directly to the Administration Committee, but are included in the overall annual project budget requirement and programme of work.
(b) Study Tours 19. A summary of the principal study tours to external organisations for the past four years (2007Ð10) is attached at Annex B. In accordance with the House’s records management system, records for previous years have already been disposed of.
(c) Introduction of food to the Strangers’ Bar 20. Freshly made sandwiches were introduced in the Stranger’s Bar and trialled for a period of one year. However, uptake was very poor and wastage was high. In consultations with customers, the sandwich offer was switched to bought-in product with a two-day shelf life. This reduced wastage but take-up of the service remained low, except during the summer months when customers sitting outside on the Terrace valued the convenience of buying a sandwich from the bar instead of having to go into the Terrace Cafeteria. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 69
21. At other times of the year, bar staff collect and serve sandwiches from the Terrace Cafeteria on an individual request basis. 22. In addition to sandwiches, a range of good quality hot savoury pastries and pies has been introduced for sale in the winter months. Sales are relatively low but regular customers appreciate the opportunity for a hot snack. Wastage is minimised and quality optimised by cooking off the product in small batches.
(d) Possible locations for additional made-to-order sandwich or coffee bars 23. Since the Committee’s report in 2005, Moncrieff’s Café-Bar opened, offering a range of premium coffees and made-to-order sandwiches. The coffee offer is well used by members of the Press Gallery, but primarily as a take-away service. The location has proven too far off the beaten track to attract large numbers of other customers. A premium made-to-order sandwich offer was introduced when the venue opened, but take up was poor and, in consultation with customer representatives, the service was discontinued after a trial of around a year. 24. To date, the only viable scheme that has been developed for the introduction of a retail-style premium coffee/sandwich/deli offer is in Portcullis House, which would involve the loss of the Adjournment. This option is discussed in more detail in the Savings paper. 25. Other options are also put forward in the savings paper for the location of a coffee bar in the Palace, other than in the former Annie’s Bar premises.
Usage of Catering Facilities (Three Months October—December, 2009 & 2010) (Point 9 of the Committee’s request for further information) 26. Usage graphs for all catering venues have been updated to include statistics for October to December 2010 alongside statistics for 2009. These are attached at Annex C (parts 1–4).
Price Increase—Estimated Profit Contribution (to December 2010) (Point 10 of the Committee’s request for further information) 27. As stated in the evidence submitted to the Committee in November, it was estimated that additional income in the region of £80,000 had been generated by the price rises implemented at the end of August and on the return of House in mid-October. 2010 Sales increase against Budget since price increases £
Sept/Oct 80,000* November 243,000 December 157,000 4-month total 480,000 (*Note: Sept/Oct variance to budget reduced from £150k to account for contribution from September sitting) 28. Even though January and February are traditionally lean months, the performance to date indicates that the savings target of £500,000 from price increases in 2010Ð11 should be comfortably exceeded. 29. To date, the additional income has all fallen through to the bottom line, with the net subsidy moving from a position of being £240,000 below budget at the end of August (due to the impact of the General Election) to a position of being £565,000 ahead of budget at the end of December. This represents a turn- around of over £800,000 over the four months.
Pay and Grading Information (Point 10 of the Committee’s request for further information) 30. Staff pay and grading information is attached at Annex D. January 2011 Ev 70 Administration Committee: Evidence Annex B sentation Floor pizza offer th Floor Meeting rooms menu revised st Various point of sale marketing flyers stimulate demand in HoC outlets. Noted user resistance tothat cashless particular system supplier/ and installation unreliability of HoC Benchmark data added HoC customer service project PCH 1 EXTERNAL VISITS LOG 2007Ð10 HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING & RETAIL SERVICE Price benchmarking Benchmark data added Partie Catering Managers,Sous Chefs Improvements in grab and go labelling Venue2007 Aramark Innovation Centre(London) Director, Head Chef,Compass Innovations Centre Operations Opening Manager, of Centre Visited By Variety of concepts and display ideas. Branding and styling. Operations Manager Development of style for 6 Purpose of Visit Review of use of Speaker’s Kitchen for recipe Subsequent Actions development & training purposes Deutsche Bank(City of London)Hampton CourtIBM(Southbank) Director Retail ManagerInstitute of Civil Engineers(Westminster) Director,Lehman Brothers Managers, Chefs Meeting de(Canary with Wharf) Benchmarking HRP Group retail meeting divisionMarks Head & Chef, Spencer Asst HQ(Paddington) systems.National Gallery HealthNational & Portrait Safety Gallery Head briefing, Chef,The VAT treatment Banqueting Operations Wallace of General reception Collection Director take-away visit menus food to large Manager, Catering food Food Staff court courts, challenge style equipment to outlet giving HMRC with the clearly not cashless needs defined fully of offer resolved an to emerging fulfil Director grazing culture Noted Modification over of complicated cafeteria allergen marking displays system and leading counter to pre Understanding introducing ranges Benchmarking for group VAT a query meeting limited escalated period Brasserie to to menus Finance—no action, as industry Compare & contrast catering & retail service offers Ideas for Food canapé allergy revamp management and review of range Review of specification restaurant for and simplicity café in menus subsequent and labelling service introduced levels in Food allergy specialist commissioned to assist HoC in Changes to MDR and SDR menus & service development of allergy management processes (Chertsey)Chatsworth House,DerbyshireClaridges(London) Clifford Chance Senior(Canary Retail Sous Wharf) Manager Chef, Labelling of grab Product and range go evaluation products. Catering Operations and Managers, Manager benchmarking. Sous New shop— Chefs, Induction Asst hot Managers plate systems Introduction Customer of service new standards Working lunch lines offers (glassware and porcelain) layout, design and merchandising Multi-purpose carving station in Bellamy’s Design and introduction of ceramic Appointment induction of buffet Claridges system Manager to Chair development of for MDR and MTR Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 71 rias elopment of ects in HoC programme process programme Benchmark data added HoC material programme in conjunction with Hygiene Audit Systems party commercial partners rd support service contractenvironment, with particular emphasiscontracting on with selection 3 and Annie’s Coffee & Sandwich Bar development of specification of requirements for tendering cafeteriaschef Introduction of a comprehensive allergy awareness Catering Managers, AsstManagers ChefChefAsst Retail Manager Allergen information systems as applicable to high volume Benchmark data added. Price benchmarking Various point-of-sale materials shared with team for review of VenueNational Maritime Museum(Greenwich) Northern Operations Ireland Manager Assembly Director Customer serviceNovotel standards(Hammersmith) RAC Club Visited By(London) Royal Bank of Scotland(Goggaburn, Edinburgh) Member of procurement panel for tendering of Director catering & Purpose Operations of Manager Visit Lessons learned Director from pre-tender contract review Customer and service Front and Back of Ideas House incorporated into development of HoC Benchmark customer Group service meeting Brasserie menus & pricing See large food mall concept in corporate campus Ideas incorporated into development of HoC customer service Used in development of specification Subsequent of Actions requirements for Improved commercial understanding Changes to MDR and SDR menus & service Scottish Parliament(Edinburgh)2008 Compass (Various sites)(Canary Wharf) Director Director, OperationsComputer Associates(Datchet) HostedDebenhams by Jon Hewett, Business(Oxford Manager, Development Street) Sous Director Chefs, to Head Tour Chef, of Senior facilities, Sous with showcase Review particular Restaurant of emphasis Associates Food in-house on service labelling—identification sandwich Members’ offers of presentation& and levels dev Fortnum standards of & fat Mason in requirements food(London) for made-to-order Benchmark sandwich data bars added Chef, Managers, Director, Catering Executive Operations Managers Highgrove House Dining facilities, Implementation events of and Price traffic retail Point benchmarking.Hoxton light outlets of Apprentice system Director, sale Operations in marketing all(London) & cafete development of marketing plan VisitImperial to College newly-refurbished Operations Fountain Manager, Review Restaurant,(London) of Managers, particularly all Executive HoC point Director, of Executive Ideas sale Chef used material Visual in (hard merchandising Site development/refurbishment copy training tour proj to & course & review briefing finishes on & the equipment Changes charity’s specification restaurant to operation MDR and Director MTR services Hoxton unable to gain agreement to the proposal Benchmark data added intranet) & Briefing improved on Art co-ordination subsidy of of reduction setting special & up promotions development a of new shop and the power of Discussion the of brand secondment opportunity for a senior HoC commercial opportunities Information used to continue subsidy reduction strategy Ev 72 Administration Committee: Evidence feteria, er. stationery items Summer opening Benchmarking processes, service levelcontractors agreements, & contract types Contract options used to develop proposals for contracting of services at 14 Tothill St Reception standards Tele-conferencing facilities Senior Sous Chef Conveyor belt clearing system forRetail cafeterias Manager show and networking with industry. System installed in Bellamy’s and portcullis cafeteria. Head Chef, CateringManager Improvements in grab and go labelling VenueLe Meridien Piccadilly(London)London Transport Museum BanquetingMerill Manager, Asst Lynch Retail Manager(Canary Wharf) ResearchRoyal into Household current trends Print(Buckingham in and Palace) Visited afternoon By production tea training offers courseSearcys Pastry in Chef the CitySt Executive John’s Chef College Director, Cambridge Head Assessed Chef current offer and Director changed products Purpose of VisitSt. Paul’s Benchmarking Catering Cathedral Group Managers, meeting Service delivery, counterWestminster display Abbey, V&A,National Portrait Food Knowledge Gallery, cost used priceRoyal with comparisons Academy Asst regard of Catering to Arts, & Retail purchaseNational Retail Manager, of Trust Benchmarking Asst (various), postcard Group and Wallace Manager meeting Collection Regular Recycling (at and2009 least sustainability annually) ACE issues benchmarking (Association in visits ofBentall’s catering to Cultural areas these Enterprise) and Conference.(Kingston) Trade Ensure Sourcing pricesCompass new are Innovations products in Centre at line trade with(Chertsey) show the market Executive Chef, Retail contacts other Recycling made comparable initiative Modification sites launched of in cafeteria cafeterias displays andChatsworth counter House presentation (Derbyshire) VarietyCitiGroup of Achieved Director concepts a and Subsequent reduction display Actions (Canary in ideas. Wharf) cost Branding Benchmarking price and data of styling. broadened salmon and from developed supplier Operations Development Manager, of Director style for 6thHampton Floor Court pizza Palace off Heathrow Labelling Airport of T5 grab and(London) go products. Benchmarking Group meeting Retail Director staff Head Chef, Review Sous of Franchise Chefs retail agreements (souvenir (in-store range) catering and outlets) Looking development at of new to market energy saving larger capacity The visitor experience—start IT to systems Benchmark finish to data training handle added course commercial room activities bookings Led to Multi-purpose installation Cashless carving of payment station ovens systems in in Bellamy’s Terrace, Portcullis Ca Improved customer Benchmark service information added MKN ovens Information fed back into Facilities ICT strategy development and shared with individual project teams and Banqueting which will reduce energy usage. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 73 signs redevelopment proposals Parliamentary Off-Site Consolidation Centre options (catering contractor)Benugo ‘grab and go’ outlets on trading floors Adjournment into premium coffee/salad/sandwich bar Manager VenueIntercontinental Hotel —TheoRandall (London) Executive Chef, HeadKelvingrove and GlasgowSchool of Gain Art an understanding of the Operations impact Manager,Lords of Cricket commitment Ground to(London) Chef ACEMiddle (Association Temple Visited By of CulturalInner Enterprise) Temple Knowledge Conference incorporated inLincoln’s subsequent Exceutive Inn menu Chef, de SeniorRiver Asst and Catering Rowing & Museum Service Retail( equipment Henley for on Sourcing banqueting Thames) newSt. products Trade Paul’s Retail at show Cathedral staff trade and show Waddesdon networking Director with Purpose industry of Visit(Buckinghamshire) Sous provenance Chef on menu design Westminster Abbey, V&A,National Portrait Gallery, RetailRoyal staff Academy Asst of Catering Arts, &National Retail Presentation, Trust (various), Security andWallace Manager Merchandising Collection course Regular (at Compare2010 least and annually) Director contrast benchmarking service visits deliveryBaltic to organisations, Centre these of andContemporary New Art presentation dishes Ensure Buying used prices(Newcastle-upon-Tyne) and in are getting canapé in the receptions line most withBenugo’s out the Southbank Greater standards of market awareness Benchmark and suppliers on data costs course(London) locating added other products comparable sites Claridges Manager Review(London) Asst of Operations Catering retail Manager, & (souvenir RetailDeutsche range) commercial Bank Executive and activities Chef, development Better Senior of supplier(City relationships of show London) ACE and (Association networking On of with trend Cultural industry. Subsequent coffee Enterprise) Actions shop Conference. concept Trade Sourcing BenchmarkHeathrow—DHL new data Distribution products added atCentre Director trade Sous show Chef (London) Banqueting Director Manager,Highgrove Pastry Chef (Gloucestershire) Research into current trends in afternoon tea offers To view goods consolidation centre Benchmarking operation Group meeting Assessed current Director offer Development and of changed ideas products for inclusion in Salad/sandwich the bar Adjournment operation developed by BaxterStorey Development of plans Development for of implementation option of for the possible conversion Merchandising of & retail operations Benchmark data added Benchmarking information used for development of savings Ev 74 Administration Committee: Evidence ngs d nster equipment that was being tendered Parliamentary Off-Site Consolidation Centre the market Manager Sous Chefs, Chefs de Partie, VenueImperial College(London)Kings Place Arts Centre(London)Morgan Stanley(Canary Wharf) Director DirectorNomura Bank(London) Visited ByK&N Distribution Centre(Northamptonshire) Park Asst Plaza Catering Managers, Director(Waterloo, London) Sous Grab Chefs and go ranges Tour Business of ExecutivePret development conference Chef, a strategy and Chefs Manger, (including event Costa, competitive facilities, PurposeCaffe Eat, Rotunda of Nero, restaurant Visit Benugo’sRestaurant Monika Associates— Enterprise de system Partie Chef, BenchmarkingTower Banqueting information Asst 42 used Catering (City for Managers, of development Information London) of for Sandwich savi development ranges To of view savings Catering Head Catering goods options Managers, Chef, Assistants consolidation Senior Catering centreRoyal Sous Assistants, operation bidding Collection capabilities for for new Tour(London) 1,100 business) of & the commercial catering useRoyal Grab facilities and of Garden and of coffee premises Hotel go new bar ranges hotel(London) with banquetingRoyal Household Enabled planning(Buckingham of Palace) facilities for Director,Westminster large Head Abbey, event of Development V&A, in of Westmi Banqueting plansNational Manager, for Portrait implementation Gallery, ofRoyal the Academy Asst of Catering Arts, &National Research Rollout Retail Catering Trust Catering into of & (various), & Director, current updated Merchandising Retail Retail HeadWallace Able trends Manager in-house & HoL Collection HoL of to in grab retail Regular make afternoon and operations (at informed tea go least decisions offers range Sous annually) on of Chefs, benchmarking temperature yoghurts, Pastry visits monitoring Chef to these Subsequent and Actions Joint Ensure savings prices opportunities are in line with Assessed the Rationalised current market range offer of and Hall, sandwich changed plus other to products, increased comparable ensure variety awareness sites range an of over equipment price innovations on Rollout of updated in-house grab and go options range of Benchmarking desserts yoghurts, information and used packaged for salads development of savings bands and desserts to and minimise packaged wastage salads Discussions on-going options presentation in lines with current trends Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 75 British Cheese Awards 2008 Supplier VisitsM and J fishCheese showcase Cellar Ritter (speciality foods)Delice de France (desserts)Brakes Innovation CentreLeathams LarderSouthcoast FisheriesCovent Garden Market TourSteelite International (tableware)Dudsons China (tableware)CCS (catering equipment)Villeroy and Boch (tableware) Clifton Bain Mairies (catering equipment) Association Exhibitions, of Trade Cultural Events Enterprises Attended Hotelympia Hotel (ACE) 2008, and Conference 2010 Catering 2007 Show, Bournemouth London 2008, Wine 2009 Fair 2007, 2009 Speciality and Fine The Food Sandwich Fair Show 2009, 2009 2010 Restaurant Show Public 2007, Sector Skills 2008, Forum—Government for 2009, Spending Chefs 2010 and Conference Review 2009, programme Taste 2010 of London 2007, 2008 Ev 76 Administration Committee: Evidence
Annex C See additional written evidence at http://parliament.uk/ac
Annex D CATERING & RETAIL SERVICES PAY BANDS & GRADING—MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF No. of Grade Job Titles Salary Range Posts
1 SCS1A Director of Catering & Retail Service £95,000У100,000 1 A1 Executive Chef £56,584У74,270 1 A2 Operations Manager £46,071У61,255 4 B1 Food & Beverage Managers, Head Chef, Purchasing & £34,643У42,401 Stores Manager 6 B2 Catering Managers, Reservations Manager, Hospitality £29,786У41,601 Manager, Business Support Manager 11 C Asst Catering Managers, Asst Retail & Catering Manager, £22,579У29,330 Banqueting & Events Coordinators, PA to Director, Kitchen Coordinator 2 D1 Administration Assistant, Purchasing Assistant £19,198У24,839
PAY POINTS AND GRADING—CATERING GRADES No. of Grade Job Titles Pay Rate Posts
2 CGA1 Senior Sous Chef, Pastry Chef £37,607 8 CGA2 Sous Chefs, Banqueting Weekend Duty Management £33,270 6 CGB Junior Sous Chef, Chief Steward/Back of House Manager, £28,207 Butcher, Banqueting/Principal Floor Manager, Headwaiter 19 CGC Senior Chef de Partie, Cafeteria Supervisor, Head £24,590 Linenkeeper, Head Storekeeper, Banqueting/Dining Room Supervisor 42 CGD1 Goods Receiver, Cellarkeeper, Storekeeper, Chef de Partie, £21,697 Stillroom Supervisor, Souvenir Shop Supervisor, Senior Bar Attendant, Senior Room Service Assistant, Deputy Cafeteria Supervisor, Assistant Chief Steward, Catering & Retail Supervisor 62 CGD2 Storekeeper, Demi Chef de Partie, Bar Attendant, Dining £19,598 Room Waiter/ess, Assistant Linenkeeper, Barista, CaféBar Assistant, Souvenir Shop Attendant, Stewarding Supervisor, Evening Shift Leader (7MB) 100 CGE Cafeteria General Assistant/Cashier, Kitchen Steward, £17,554 Sotres Porter, Room Service Assistant, Linen Steward, Retail Assistant 21 Commis Commis Chef £16,174У17,228
Further written evidence submitted by the Director of Catering and Retail Services INITIAL CATERING AND RETAIL SERVICE SAVINGS FOR CONSIDERATION Background Information 1. Details of the Management Board’s initial savings for consideration were issued to all Members and House staff on 15 November 2010. 2. Following the consultation exercise in November, the Commission agreed in December a package of savings for most parts of the House service, but proposals for changes to the catering and retail services have, as an exception, been referred to the Administration Committee for consideration as part of their Inquiry.
Purpose 3. This paper sets out in more detail each of the initial savings and income generation proposals put forward by the Catering and Retail Service. It is a discussion document to assist the Committee in forming an opinion about which items it does or does not support. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 77
4. These proposals are not the only ways in which the catering subsidy could be significantly reduced— some ideas may not find favour, whilst other, new ideas are likely to emerge from the on-going consultation process and from the Committee’s Inquiry.
Savings Target for CRS 5. As a starting point, the Committee will wish to consider the overall savings target for the Catering and Retail Service (CRS). 6. The commissioning brief asked CRS to prepare savings options based on a net cost reduction of 50%. The overall House target is 17%, but the Management Board have acknowledged from the outset this will not be evenly distributed across all budgets. The higher target for catering and retail services reflects the fact that its operating costs are significantly offset by sales income: it is the difference that is to be halved, not the total cost. And CRS has more scope to develop new income streams than other parts of the House service. 7. The CRS package as it stands represents a subsidy reduction of 57% by 2014Ð15, leaving scope to reject up to £440,000 of proposals and still deliver a package that would deliver approximately 50% savings. 8. The savings proposals set out in this paper are relatively short-term measures—they do not include options for the more radical redesign of services which will be taken forward as part of the next phase of the spending review. As noted in the Director General of Facilities’ paper, the Administration Committee will be consulted as service redesign options are explored.
Initial Proposals—Cost Estimates 9. The call for Departments to offer short term savings proposals did not allow time for detailed costings and business cases to be prepared. For these reasons, the figures should be treated as “ball-park” estimates only at this stage. 10. The savings or income potential shown against each project include an income impact estimate, cost of sales attached to that income and, where new services or service cut-backs are proposed, and an estimate of possible staff resource savings or other operating cost savings. 11. The costings do not take into account any investment costs, for example to re-develop an outlet for changed use, or make allowance for staff severance costs if staff are no longer needed to deliver the new service and cannot be re-deployed. Such costs would take much longer to establish and would require wide consultation not only with other users of the services, but also with Trade Unions, the Parliamentary Estates Directorate, possibly the House of Lords, and a host of other stakeholders. 12. For this reason, we suggest that this paper be treated as a “programme initiation document” used by the Administration Committee to recommend which CRS proposals should be developed further, which to hold in reserve and which not to pursue. Together with any other savings or income generation schemes the Committee recommends in its Inquiry, we would then set up and resource a series of projects within the Facilities Transformation Programme, with the Facilities Finance Director providing assurance that the agreed savings are achieved by the business. SAVINGS PROPOSALS Ref Description of Saving Start Year Annual £
Df15 CRS procurement savings 2013Ð14 243,000
13. Unlike most other parts of the House service, the Catering & Retail Service has some bespoke systems in place to manage its procurement, but the service is subject to the same governance procedures as the rest of the House service. Details of the CRS purchase management processes and systems are set out in Annex B. 14. There is undoubtedly scope to deliver savings through more effective procurement, and collaboration between the two Houses is developing rapidly in this area. The savings programme is spurring on this work, but other constraints, such as the difference in purchasing systems, are also now being addressed, following a strategic agreement between the two Houses to develop common ICT systems to support their catering and retail activities. 15. The savings proposal put forward in the initial package incorporates several discreet procurement measures, some of which are more contentious than others: I. Greater consolidation of supply contracts, including more joint procurement with the House of Lords, to engineer higher discounts on the basis of economies of scale. As well as the savings imperative, this work is spurred on by planned the opening of the Off-Site Consolidation Centre (OSCC) in March. This will require all suppliers to deliver to a facility operated by a 3rd party logistics contractor, who will carry out security checks and then decant the goods for onward supply to the Parliamentary Estate in their own fleet of vehicles. Consolidation of the catering and retail supply chain will improve the efficiency of the OSCC operation and provide an even greater incentive to tender contracts simultaneously bi-camerally. The House of Commons has already Ev 78 Administration Committee: Evidence
appointed an additional procurement officer for 18 months to speed up this work. Target savings are: 3% improvement on food, beverage and souvenir prices; 5% reduction in the cost of disposables; 10% savings on other purchasing, such as small equipment. Together this adds up to an estimated £116,000, and has the potential to yield more. The project is non contentious, resources have been appointed to the project and work will commence in February 2011. We therefore expect to see savings start to come through earlier than planned when the savings package was drafted. II. Use of appropriate and suitable purchasing consortia or other 3rd party partnering arrangements for CRS procurement. This is likely to be explored as part of the service redesign work and so has not been costed into the initital savings package. The respective heads of CRS in each House are already collaborating to plan this work. III. Reduction in quality specifications for, in particular, fresh foods. Many of the quality specifications currently used in CRS contracts add cost to the product. The most frequent reason for this is the inclusion of high standards of animal welfare and other provenance criteria in food specifications. For example, the current animal welfare standards required for our pork and bacon supply is generally only achieved as a matter of course by UK farmers, and farming assurance schemes, such as the Red Tractor, are recognised and trusted by consumers. By reducing the higher welfare standard specification, imported bacon could be purchased at an estimated saving of over £30,000 a year. Other scope for savings include a switch away from premium branded ingredients, greater use of frozen produce, less use of prime cuts, etc. We have already identified many of the savings that could be made in this area, which come to more than the sum of £127,000 included in the savings package. However, we strongly believe that our customers are keenly interested in the provenance of the foods they are eating and, if consulted, would support our current procurement policies in this respect. We would be very reluctant to go down this savings route and, to the contrary, believe that we should be more pro-active in informing our customers about the provenance of foods served in the House of Commons. Ref Description of Saving Start Year Annual £
Df16 Offer buffet menu and carvery only in Members’ 2011Ð12 145,000 Dining Room
16. This proposal has been put forward as a way of reducing the cost of operating the Members’ Dining Room. After allocation of central costs, the Members’ Dining Room is one of the most costly venues to operate. This is largely due to the pattern of demand: the service is not needed at times when the House is not sitting, and income potential is limited by the sitting hours of the House. The room is already made available for banqueting at times when the House does not normally sit, but this has caused problems on occasions when the House sits late at short notice. Also, the market for private events is constrained by the requirement for a Member to be present at any private function they have sponsored, with the result that even if the room is available for banqueting, it is not necessarily sold.
17. However, when the House is sitting, the Members’ Dining Room performs an important function by providing a facility where Members can eat in private, with confidence that their conversation will not be overheard or reported. Evening usage of the room is notoriously difficult to predict, with no advance bookings and Members themselves often not able to predict calls on their time until very late in the day. Occupancy can vary wildly, from very low numbers to up to 150 Members descending on the dining room within the space of 15 minutes. Whatever the level of business, Members rightfully expect a service that is welcoming, swift and professional, with food that is appealing but not over-elaborate.
18. By far the biggest cost in operating this service is the cost of staff. We have therefore considered how we might reduce the labour resource requirement, whilst still providing a level of service that meets the needs of most Members. On this basis, we have suggested that the à la carte menu could be discontinued, reducing the service offer to a carvery and buffet menu only. This would enable staff savings to be made both in the kitchen and front-of-house.
19. The projected £145,000 saving assumes the loss of six posts (four in the dining room and two in the kitchen).
20. Although no capital investment is needed to introduce the change, some expenditure on new equipment would enhance the buffet and carvery presentation. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 79
Ref Description of Saving Start Year Annual £
Df17 Convert the Adjournment into a premium coffee/ 2012Ð13 145,000 sandwich/deli bar; re-fit the Despatch Box area to (potential to yield provide a quick “grab-n-go” sandwiches, snacks and £400,000+, hot & cold drink; reduce menu offer in the Debate to depending on hot food only. operating hours)
21. This option has been proposed as a cost saving opportunity, but a project examining the future of catering services in Portcullis House has been in progress for some time now and is shortly due to submit a scheme proposal to the Committee for the re-design of services around the Atrium (the Despatch Box, Adjournment and Debate).
22. In essence, the scheme proposes the development of these catering services into a food court consisting of a “grab-n-go” sandwich and hot/cold drinks counter where the Despatch Box is currently located, the conversion of the Adjournment to contain a bigger, more flexible premium coffee bar with a new made-to- order sandwich and salad counter, and the re-focus of the Debate on hot, cooked meals. The service proposition is modelled on the sort of premium-quality retail food outlet that is now becoming common in the workplace and which, we believe, would prepare Portcullis House for the next generation of users.
23. We recognise that the Adjournment is a popular facility with many Members. However, with the exception of Wednesdays, lunchtime usage of the dining rooms available for Members to entertain guests (ie Strangers’ Dining Room, Churchill Room and Adjournment) rarely achieves 50% of capacity (even with capacity defined as “all tables occupied”, not “all seats occupied”). There is clearly over-supply of table-service restaurant facilities at lunchtimes. Evening occupancy is better matched to demand, but a new service in the Adjournment could be designed to take up some of this trade by offering a wine bar and café-style food offer. Furthermore, other spaces are currently closed in the evenings, leaving scope to re-define which areas remain open for trading and which venues are available for private events.
24. The Adjournment is located in a prime space that, unlike the Strangers’ Dining Room or Churchill room, lends itself to the introduction of a new retail catering service offer. Such services have proven elsewhere to contribute reduce subsidies, as the products sold are typically high margin products with lower staffing costs than traditional restaurant services, and sales are more likely to extend beyond traditional meal times.
25. The conversion of the Adjournment into this new facility would deliver the following enhancements: — a made-to-order sandwich and salad/deli bar in a large, easily accessible space; — an enhanced, larger premium coffee counter, with space for two service points to reduce queuing and improved space for displaying a range of morning and afternoon cakes and pastries; — a small hot counter for an enhanced hot breakfast offer and the potential for a wine-bar/cafe menu to be served in the evenings; — removal of sandwiches and other “grab-n-go” items from the Debate, leaving this venue to focus on the offer of hot lunches only; — the creation of a “food court” range of offers around the atrium throughout the day, with the flexibility to contract the service offer back into the Adjournment space only in the evenings; — reduces the cross-flows of customer traffic in the Debate, and reduces queuing by distributing demand at lunchtimes across a larger number of service points; and — depending on the service hours of each counter, the potential to deliver savings significant in excess of the £154,000 put forward in the initial savings document; a costing model has been prepared and reveals that, subject the hours of operation of the various parts of the new service, savings could reach in excess of £400,000. Ref Description of Saving Start Year Annual £
Df18 If DF17 not accepted, close the Churchill room and 2012Ð13 257,000 use as permanent banqueting space
26. This option is tabled as an alternative to the conversion of the Adjournment outlined above. It is based on the same rationale that there is currently an over-supply of dining rooms for guest hospitality.
27. As demonstrated in the subsidy cost analysis by outlet, the Churchill Room is more costly to operate than the Adjournment, and so the savings of closing may initially appear greater, but the income potential of the Portcullis House scheme is greater. Ev 80 Administration Committee: Evidence
Ref Description of Saving Start Year Annual £
Df19 Open the Terrace Pavilion buffet to all pass holders 2013Ð14 4,000 throughout the week
28. The Terrace Pavilion Buffet only opens for six to seven weeks during June and July, but is currently only open to all pass holders on Fridays. Fridays are consequently its busiest day, and there is strong support from staff and other pass holders to extend access on other days. 29. To prevent the room becoming fully booked by staff and other pass holders, we would suggest that an agreed number of tables are held back for Member-only bookings. These could then be released to the wider market of pass holders at a later date. We would suggest releasing unbooked tables on a Thursday for the following week’s business. 30. The savings are modest, but the potential to generate goodwill is significant. There is no reason why this change could not be implemented for this year. Ref Description of Saving Start Year Annual £
Df20 Operate the Pugin Room as a bar service only 2013Ð14 39,000
31. This savings option has been tabled purely as a way of reducing the cost of a relatively low used space. The afternoon tea service is well subscribed in the Pugin Room, but this business could be transferred elsewhere (se IGF4, which suggests use of the Terrace Pavilion Bar area for the service of afternoon teas). 32. Certainly, the usage statistics indicate that the Pugin Room is lightly used before 12.00 noon or after 10.00p.m., so even if the afternoon tea service is retained in the Pugin Room there is scope to reduce staff costs by opening later and closing earlier. This should still deliver a reduced saving of around £25,000 through a reduction in staffing. This may be deliverable earlier than planned, depending on staff re-deployment and severance options. Ref Description of Saving Start Year Annual £
Df21 Restrict the menu in the Members’ Tea Room 2013Ð14 74,000
33. This option is based on a proposition to return the Tea Room to its original purpose: as a snack bar, not a cafeteria. The space itself struggles to accommodate the current extent of food being served, and shoe- horning in additional food offers has compromised the integrity of the service. 34. If savings are to be made in this area, it could be achieved by re-directing Members wanting hot, cooked meals to the Terrace Cafeteria or Members’ Dining Room. This would leave the Tea Room offering a light snack menu of sandwiches, cakes, other cold snacks and hot/cold beverages only. 35. The savings are all staff related, assuming that sales income from hot meals would largely be transferred to other venues. Ref Description of Saving Start Year Annual £
Df22 Close the Members’ Tea Room on non-sitting Fridays 2013Ð14 10,000
36. The usage statistics submitted to the Committee support this recommendation, and indeed suggest that the room could be closed on Fridays even when the House is sitting. The savings are staff related. Ref Description of Saving Start Year Annual £
Df23 Introduce self-clearing policies in the Terrace 2013Ð14 81,000 Cafeteria and the Debate
37. Self clearing systems operate successfully in all other cafeterias and we believe they should be encouraged in the last two remaining, albeit the busiest, two cafeterias. The savings are staff related, but we would recommend a gradual approach to staff reduction in these areas to ensure that there are sufficient staff available until customers are used to self-clear systems. Ref Description of Saving Start Year Annual £
Df24 Close Moncrieff’s self-service cafeteria and the table- 2013Ð14 155,000 service restaurant area
38. This proposal does not include any suggestion to close the Café-Bar in Moncrieff’s, which is a successful, valued and cost-effective service. Certainly, it has the potential to do more trade, but closure of the other facilities in Moncrieff’s may assist in this. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 81
39. Daily usage of Moncrieff’s table-service area is very low, and many Members of the Press Gallery would be happy for this to close if access to another dining facility was extended to them. Usage statistics indicate that there is capacity to do this, and there were no problems when special arrangements were made for the Press to use the Churchill Room during works in Moncrieff’s. 40. The self-service restaurant, which is only open at lunch-times, serves an average of around 100 covers a day, or up to 150 on Fridays. When the area closed last year for emergency kitchen works, there was no discernable impact on any other venue, indicating that the custom from Moncrieff’s cafeteria can be readily absorbed elsewhere. 41. If this area were to close, one issue to address would be to agree an alternative venue for the monthly Press lunch, which is very important to the functioning of the Press Gallery. We do not believe this is an insoluble problem. Ref Description of Saving Start Year Annual £
Df25 If DF24 is accepted, then use Moncrieff’s cafeteria as 2013Ð14 48,000 a staff restaurant for CRS staff OR Use Moncrieff’s as an additional banqueting space for Member/Parliamentary/staff events
42. Moncrieff’s is a relatively recently re-fitted kitchen, and thought was given to how else this space could be used. The key difficulty is its location, tucked away on the 3rd floor accessed by a small lift that many people do not know exists. It is also in close proximity to unsecured routes that lead directly into the Chamber and, as such, the Serjeant has significant concerns about its use for banqueting events attended by large numbers of unescorted visitors. 43. It could, however, be utilised for the provision of staff meals to the catering staff. This would have the advantage of freeing up space in the other cafeterias for paying customers, and would enable food costs to be reduced by restricting the range of foods available. Changes to the free meals arrangement for catering staff would have to be negotiated with the Trade Unions. 44. Alternatively, this space could be used as a banqueting facility for pass-holder only events. It can accommodate up to 90 people, but with careful screening could be made suitable for smaller events as well as larger ones. As well as catering for Member-only and parliamentary events, the facility could be offered to other pass-holders, for example for retirements or other staff social activities at a lower tariff than the fully- commercial banqueting prices. It is difficult to profile the income potential from this new business, but a net profit contribution of £50,000 is considered achievable. Ref Description of Saving Start Year Annual £
Df26 Operate Bellamy’s Cafeteria as a lunchtime venue 2013Ð14 54,000 only
45. The usage statistics demonstrate that Bellamy’s cafeteria has a low level of trade outside the lunchtime period. Breakfast business could be transferred to Portcullis House, particularly if the proposed conversion of the Adjournment goes ahead. Otherwise, the current hot breakfast offer in Portcullis House could be enhanced once the kitchen equipment has been replaced this summer. 46. The cafeteria seating area could remain open for teas, coffees and cold drinks during the morning, but after 3.00 p.m. there is virtually no demand even for this and we recommend closing the area after lunch. Ref Description of Saving Start Year Annual £
Df27 Close the 6th Floor café, 7 Millbank 2013Ð14 58,000
47. This proposal has provoked more feedback from staff than any other proposal in the savings package. There is no doubt that the venue is a welcome facility for a significant number of the 650+ staff based in 7 Millbank, many of whom work in large, open plan spaces. 48. The 6th floor café serves two markets: it operates as a premium quality coffee bar with informal meeting area, in a similar way to the Despatch Box in Portcullis House. However, unlike the Despatch Box, it also operates a lunch-time café menu, which is popular with staff who want to treat themselves to something that is a step above the cafeteria offer. 49. However, the facility comes at a cost of over £120,000 p.a. with allocated costs, or around £60,000 if only direct costs are taken into account. 50. The Portcullis Cafeteria on the ground floor of 7 Millbank is now almost 20 years old, and despite some uplifts over the years it is now starting to look its age and would benefit from a more extensive refurbishment. If a project is initiated for this, we suggest that the future of the 6th floor café is examined at the same time. Ev 82 Administration Committee: Evidence
This project would explore options for the reprovision of some or all of the 6th Floor Café services into an enlarged and enhanced ground floor facility should yield operational savings. Ref Description of Saving Start Year Annual £
Df28 Close the Portcullis Cafeteria evening service 2012Ð13 10,000
51. This proposal has been made before, and the staff who lobbied for retention of the service were warned that they must be prepared to “use it or lose it”. 52. Although the evening service serves an average of around 40 customers a night, only around 5% of these (or two people) purchase items that are not also available from the vending machines located on the 5th floor. This level of trade has now persisted for several years. We therefore recommend that this service is discontinued. If necessary, a vending machine could be positioned in the cafeteria or nearby, and the room left unlocked for staff to use during their rest breaks. Ref Description of Saving Start Year Annual £
Df29 Reduce cost of the cleaning contract by absorbing 2012Ð13 110,000 some light cleaning tasks into CRS staff duties
53. Cleaning of front-of-house and kitchen areas is carried out under the bi-cameral cleaning contract. The contractor also provides a janitorial service during the daytime. Many of the light cleaning duties carried out by the contractor (such as dusting of furniture, carpet vacuuming, cleaning down of display cabinets and low- level cleaning in kitchen areas) are commonly carried out by catering staff in other organisations. 54. Given that the savings proposals will require re-negotiation of contracts for staff in many areas, it would provide a timely opportunity to explore what light cleaning duties could be incorporated into the catering staff contracts in order be able to re-negotiate the cleaning contract specification and price. 55. The savings target of £110,000 represents 20% of the basic contract price for the cleaning of catering areas. Ref Description of Saving Start Year Annual £
Df30 Further catering staff efficiencies 2014Ð15 250,000
56. This target has been added to the savings target, largely to represent the reduced management and support staff requirement if most of the savings options are accepted. The achievable figure will vary according to which options are implemented. The saving is programmed to be delivered by 2014Ð15, but some savings have already been made through staffing reductions in the management and administration teams. It is anticipated that the savings would flow through incrementally as the service adjusts to its new requirements. INCOME GENERATION OPPORTUNITIES Ref Description of Income Opportunity Start Year Annual £
IGDF1 Increase retail souvenir sales by opening a high street 2012Ð13 400,000 outlet, and through development of e-commerce
57. The House currently only sells souvenirs within the confines of the Parliamentary Estate. This is partly in compliance with restrictions imposed on the use of the crowned Portcullis badge when permission was granted by HM The Queen. However, it is likely that this restriction could be removed if approaches were made through the appropriate channels. More fundamentally, when considered by Committees in previous Parliaments, there has been a desire to retain an element of exclusivity so that visitors to the House or recipients of items donated by MPs feel “privileged” in that the product is not available for sale on the high street. 58. This school of thought must be weighed against the commercial potential if the House of Commons were to follow others, such as the Royal Collection, who have established a highly regarded and profitable retail business. 59. The consistent advice of experts in this area is the initial step should be to set up a high street outlet. This provides an opportunity to develop an understanding of what products appeal to the general public, which might be very different to the products that sell well from the on-site outlets. Setting up a profitable e-commerce retail business is, according to those same experts, a lengthier process and one that is slow to build into a profitable business. 60. Based on that advice, the income target of £400,000 is almost entirely based on opening a high street outlet in the vicinity of Parliament, most likely in one of the shop units on Bridge Street or Parliament Street. A study examining the future of the unit that is currently operated as the Parliamentary Book Shop has already commenced and the Committee will be consulted on its recommendations. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 83
61. The target of £400,000 included in the savings package is based on an estimated turnover of £1 million p.a., which would double the current turnover from the sale of House of Commons souvenirs. This target has been calculated at the annualised income of the weekly average of St Stephen’s Shop during the summer opening, plus a 15% increase to reflect the potential footfall of a well-located high street shop. 62. The business model assumes trading six-days a week, with 3.5 full-time equivalent staff employed in addition to current retail resources. This could be a bi-cameral venture, but any profit-share arrangement with the House of Lords would reduce the estimated returns to the House of Commons. Ref Description of Income Opportunity Start Year Annual £
IGDF2 Catering price increases 2011Ð12 1,267,000 (already implemented)
63. The prices throughout the catering service have now been aligned against the following benchmarks: — Cafeterias in line with prices charged in the staff restaurants in a comparator group of Government Departments and devolved UK Parliaments/Assemblies. — Dining Rooms 25% below high-street prices, based on a comparator group of mid-market, London restaurants. — Bars in line with prices charged in a competitively-priced high street pub chain. — Banqueting prices in line with commercial prices charged by other Central London conference and banqueting venues. — Retail (souvenir) prices in line with other comparable venues. 64. The target of saving of £500,000 in 2010Ð11 is on track to be achieved or exceeded, indicating that the annualised equivalent of £1.2 million should be achievable.
65. There remains some scope to re-position a few other prices, particularly in the retail (souvenir) areas and some of the additional services sold to banqueting customers (flowers, printing, A.V. hire, etc). The additional £67,000 in the target reflects this.
66. Further savings could be achieved by introducing a high tariff for visitors in the cafeterias. This has not been included in the savings target, but is estimated to have the potential to yield around £20,000 per annum. Ref Description of income Opportunity Start Year Annual £
IGDF3 Extend access to dining rooms to other pass holders 2011Ð12 44,000
67. This covers two, separate, proposals: (i) To extend access to the Members’ Dining Room to all Members of the House of Lords, not only those who are former MPs. Agreements would have to be reached in order to protect availability for MPs in their own dining room, but if such agreement could be reached, there is the potential to yield a net contribution conservatively estimated at £11,000 (based on an assumed additional 30 lunch and 30 evening meals a week). (ii) Extend access to the bookable dining rooms (currently the Strangers’ Dining Room, Churchill Room and the Adjournment) to all pass holders. Even if this was on the basis of late availability only (two working days is the planning assumption), an average of an extra 10 lunch and 10 evening covers a day is estimated to contribute an additional £33,000. Ref Description of Income Opportunity Start Year Annual £
IGDF4 Offer bookable lunches and afternoon teas to Tour 2011Ð12 163,000 Visitors
68. The Strangers’ Dining Room frequently has surplus lunchtime capacity. We believe that this slack could be taken up by visitors starting or finishing a Parliamentary Tour at a time convenient to take lunch. Additionally, this could be offered on Saturdays if the Principal Floor is not booked for a private event. The Strangers’ Dining Room is immediately adjacent to the security post in the Lower Waiting Hall, but it might be necessary to position a second security officer outside the dining room. In total, we conservatively estimate that this business could generate additional income of around £150,000, with an estimated net contribution of £85,000 after costs have been taken into account.
69. Similarly, traditional afternoon teas could be offered to Tour visitors Monday- Saturday. We suggest that this could be done in the North end of the Terrace Pavilion, affording a view over the river. It would be possible to physically bar entry onto the Terrace itself, and security is already configured to allow public access to the banqueting areas. Based on a selling price of £18 a head, which is very competitive in the London market, such a scheme could yield a net contribution of another £75,000+. Ev 84 Administration Committee: Evidence
Ref Description of Income Opportunity Start Year Annual £
IGDF5 Convert Main Souvenir Kiosk to premium coffee bar 2012Ð13 42,000
70. Looking at sites to locate a premium coffee bar in the Palace, nowhere is available with access to a meeting space as desirable as the Atrium in Portcullis House. However, apart from during severely inclement weather, the Terrace is a popular place to take a cup of tea or coffee. There is potential to grow this market by offering a premium coffee bar. This type of business contributes a high gross margin and incurs low staffing costs, so is strategically a desirable business proposition.
71. The savings package suggests that the Main Souvenir Shop could be converted for this purpose, with the souvenir business consolidated into a larger, enhanced shop in St Stephen’s Hall or Westminster Hall. The Medals Corridor, where the proposed site is located, enjoys a high footfall, and if 50% of the business level of the Despatch Box could be achieved, this project has the potential to deliver an estimated net contribution of £42,000.
72. Alternatively, but on a more modest scale, the Strangers’ Bar could be re-fitted to include an espresso machine (although it is acknowledged that space is tight in this bar counter area). A modest refurbishment of this area, which opened in 1995, would have the double benefit of uplifting the Strangers’ Bar itself and, with the incorporation of a daytime coffee service, would make use of a space and staffing that is underutilised through the day. Ref Description of Saving Start Year Annual £
IGDF6 Increase banqueting income 2011Ð12 128,000 2012Ð13 220,000
73. The largest contributor to this proposed new income stream would be from the hiring out of Westminster Hall on a limited number of occasions a year for public/corporate events. The simplest way to do this would be for the House to offer Westminster Hall on a room hire basis only, with clients contracting direct with an approved 3rd party event catering specialist to deliver the event. We have been advised that a daily rate of £25,000 would be readily achievable for such a unique and historic location, and that to preserve exclusivity and premium pricing, the House should only offer the venue a few days a year. The savings package includes a net contribution of £100,000 from this source, based on hiring out Westminster Hall four times a year.
74. There is still scope to increase banqueting room hire fees to bring them into line with commercial rates, and at present no room hire fees are charged for events taking place in Portcullis House, Conference Room E or the Jubilee Room. It has been conservatively estimated that this could generate an additional £40,000 p.a.
75. Currently, the banqueting events can be booked as long as there is space availability and the booking meets the regulations. Banqueting staff do not have the authority to exercise discretion to decline business, even when they know that the event will be unprofitable. This most frequently applies to small weekend events, which are often family celebration that attract the 25% discounted price. If no other functions are taking place at the same time, and with staff paid at premium rates for weekend working, these events are unprofitable. The banqueting team have estimated that around £30,000 a year could be saved if they had the discretion to decline such unprofitable business.
76. As has been said in previous evidence to the Committee, it is difficult to sell banqueting space at times when Members are not present in the House. This could be assisted by allowing all Members of the House of Lords to host events in the House of Commons at off-peak times (peak demand is Tuesday/Wednesday). A further £30,000 net contribution has been estimated from widening the sponsorship regulations in this way.
77. A target to squeeze a further £20,000 from banqueting sundry revenue has been included in the savings package. This is likely to be achieved through many small changes, including increased income from the recently enlarged Terrace Pavilion. January 2011
Annex B
PURCHASE MANAGEMENT PROCESSES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING AND RETAIL SERVICE
1. The House of Commons Catering and Retail Service (CRS) currently purchases over 4,500 food, beverage and souvenir products, plus another 1,000+ other commodities and supplies needed to carry out its business activities. The service currently retains around 160 suppliers to supply these goods, but this includes over 40 small businesses who supply specialist ingredients or bespoke souvenir products. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 85
2. Under the House of Commons Resource Framework, supplier contracts are subject to the following thresholds for tendering: — Up to £1,000 1 oral quote — £1,000У2,000 2 oral quotes — £2,000У5,000 2 written quotes — £5,000У25,000 3 written quotes — £25,000У90,000 3 formal tenders — £90,319+
3. In determining the tendering method, the contract value is generally taken as the value of the supply requirement over four years. This avoids the cost of tendering too frequently but provides a sufficiently long contract to be of interest to the market. CRS contracts are generally let for a period of three years, with an option to extend for a further year.
4. Given the size of the catering and retail operations in the HOC, the vast majority of procurement for the catering service must be tendered under the EU procedures. The central Commercial Services Directorate in the Department of Resources oversee all EU tenders for CRS, except in the case that a bi-cameral contract is being tendered and managed by the central procurement service in the House of Lords. In the House of Commons, EU tender notices and responses are issued through the Commercial Services’ e-tendering portal to provide a full audit trail of the process. A team is set up to manage each tender, led by a procurement officer provided either by Commercial Services, a House of Lords’ procurement officer, or the Purchasing Manager employed within CRS. Chefs and managers employed in the business are responsible for drafting product specifications for inclusion in the tender documents, but are not authorised to appoint suppliers or transact business with unapproved suppliers.
5. Joint procurement for catering supplies has been in place for a number of years, but even though the House of Lords are invited to join in a tender, they may for their own business reasons prefer to contract separately. As well as adding purchasing power, joint procurement helps make best use of specialist procurement staff resources, and works towards a strategic aim to reduce the environmental impact of deliveries to the House.
6. Bi-cameral contracts covering CRS activities currently include fruit and vegetables, dairy, eggs, laundry, agency staff, learning & development, EPoS (point-of sale system), temperature monitoring, the Offsite Consolidation Centre, kitchen and front of house cleaning (as part of House-wide cleaning contract). The dry goods contract was tendered as a bi-cameral framework agreement, but the House of Lords subsequently withdrew from that contract. The House of Commons CRS has recently agreed to fund an additional procurement officer, due to commence work in February 2011, with the specific aim of increasing the level of joint procurement with the House of Lords. This post will be part of the Commercial Services Directorate team in the Department of Resources, but will work closely with the Purchasing Manager in CRS.
7. Most contracts for the supply of food, beverages and other catering consumables are set up as framework agreements, generally with three suppliers appointed to the framework to ensure on-going competition and to obtain best value over the full lifetime of the contract. Some contracts are let on a sole supply basis, for example cleaning chemicals, laundry and many souvenir suppliers. This tends to be in cases where suppliers have a unique product or service, or where the commodity prices are relatively stable and unlikely to fluctuate wildly over the life of the contract.
8. Once a contract has been let, the CRS Purchasing Manager is responsible for monitoring supplier performance and holds regular review meetings with appointed suppliers. He works closely with the Executive Chef or another designated senior chef to manage food suppliers, and with the Operations Manager and other front-of-house managers for beverage and souvenir suppliers.
9. Purchasing of food, beverages, souvenirs and some other catering consumables is managed through a computerised system that is an off-the-shelf product designed specifically for use the in the hospitality industry (Check SCM). Other procurement for CRS is managed through the House-wide system (HAIS). Both systems are set up with agreed authorisation levels and system users are unable to carry out functions for which they are unauthorised.
10. The CRS Purchasing Manager is responsible for supplier management of appointed suppliers, ensuring that prices remain competitive in the market-place, monitoring supplier performance against contract, and performing periodic financial health-checks of suppliers. This latter task has been particularly necessary in the economic down-turn of the past two years, and despite this proactive checking there have been several instances when previously well-performing suppliers have ceased trading or suffered difficulties in servicing the contract.
11. Chefs and managers working in the CRS operation cannot do business with suppliers that have not been set up on the appropriate system, nor can they place orders directly with suppliers. Price re-negotiation is handled by purchasing staff. The only exception to this is that fresh fish prices are re-negotiated weekly by the Executive Chef’s office to check availability, obtain best market prices and plan menus for the next week accordingly. Ev 86 Administration Committee: Evidence
12. The CRS purchasing and stock management system, “Check SCM”, is managed by the facilities finance team to reduce the span of control of procurement staff. 13. Stores and cellar staff place orders for dry foods, disposables and souvenirs, to ensure that stock levels are adequate for the business; goods are issued to the kitchens and outlets against an authorised requisition. 14. In the case of fresh foods, daily orders are placed on the system by the sous chef for each kitchen or their authorised assistant. The system produces a consolidated order, which is then checked and placed by the purchasing team. The order is placed with the most cost effective supplier within the framework unless there is a recorded quality or other supplier performance issue for the required commodity, or unless the lowest price supplier is unable to fulfil the order. 15. Authorised Purchase Orders are then faxed to the supplier by the purchasing team to confirm the order. The system provides an audit trail of the procurement, and provides on-line documentation for staff checking deliveries. Goods are receipted on-line and charged to the appropriate kitchen or trading outlet if not delivered to store. This process automatically updates cost prices held in the system so that standard recipes and stock holdings are re-valued on a ‘latest cost’ basis. 16. Receipted invoices are checked by food and beverage control staff in the finance team to ensure costs have been allocated to the right area, and that invoices are correct against the purchase order. Credit notes are obtained for any overcharges, short deliveries or rejected goods (usually due to poor quality or wrong item delivered/charged) as noted by the person who has receipted the goods. Invoices are not authorised for payment until any credits due against them have been received. Invoices authorised for payment are transferred electronically from Check to the House-wide system and then paid by the central accounts payable team in the Department of Resources. 17. All other purchase orders are raised and authorised through the House-wide HAIS system. This works in a similar way to Check, but does not have the stock management and recipe costing functionality of the catering-specific software. 18. An IT project has been initiated by PICT in response to a request from CRS to review stock management and procurement software commonly used in the hospitality industry. This is being managed within the bi- cameral Facilities ICT Steering Group and any replacement system will be installed in both Houses. Alternatively, the House of Lords Catering and Retail Service may choose to install Check SCM and more closely align their purchasing systems with those used in the House of Commons.
Further written evidence submitted by the Director of Catering and Retail Services RETAIL SOUVENIR SALES—BEST SELLING LINES Purpose 1. As requested by the Committee, this paper provides further information about the market for souvenirs within the Parliamentary Estate and provides an analysis of the top-selling souvenir items sold by the House of Commons Catering and Retail Service. 2. Analyses of the top-selling House of Commons souvenir lines, are set out in Annexes A–D.
Market Profile 3. Historically, the main market for the House of Commons retail outlets has been Members (of both Houses), Members’ guests and pass holders. CRS defines this as the “internal market”. The House of Commons competes with the House of Lords for the internal market in particular. Although Members and other pass holders remain an important part of the business today, “the external market”, in the form of visitors to Parliament, represents an increasing market share. 4. Broadly speaking, Members and pass holders of both houses use both the main kiosk and St. Stephen’s Shop to purchase souvenirs. Visitors, unless escorted, are unable to access the main souvenir shop in the Medals Corridor, as this is located in a secure part of the Palace. However, since the shop opened in St Stephen’s Hall, there has been a noticeable drift of the internal market away from the main souvenir shop to the shop in St Stephen’s Hall. This trend appears to be largely due to the ease of browsing the goods on display in the larger shop area in St Stephen’s, indicating that there may be scope to combine the shops into one, if sufficient suitable space can be identified in an easily accessible location. 5. During the summer recess and on Saturdays, St Stephen’s Shop opens to visitors following the official Parliamentary Tour. Visitors are made up of a mix of constituent and educational visitors, plus a significant number of tourists.
Best-Selling Products 6. Dark chocolate mints remain the highest selling House of Commons souvenir item, contributing 8% of total sales. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 87
7. These are closely followed by House of Commons Whisky contributing 6.5% of sales, House of Commons Champagne at 3.7%, and Speaker Malt at 2.3%. Combined, these three own-label items wines and spirits contribute over 20% of total sales, generating a combined income of £226,000 and a profit contribution of £74,000. 8. Other top-selling product lines are: — Big Ben pencils 13,400 — House of Parliament Guidebooks 6,300 — Diaries 6,100 — Torch key ring 4,000 Combined, these four lines generate sales of £40,000 (7% of the total). 9. Overall the top 10 sellers contribute 30% of total sales.
Top Selling Products, by Venue 10. The main kiosk shares many of the top 10 sellers, but the kiosk is the only venue that sells the full range of souvenirs and own label wines and spirits. For this reason sales of whisky, champagne, red and white wine contribute over 14% of sales. The kiosk sells over 3,000 pencils of two styles as well as the luxury chocolate box, chocolate coin and chocolate bag selling over 2,800 items. The roller ball pen is the highest selling pen selling 715. The top 10 items contribute 36% of total sales for the kiosk. 11. St Stephen’s Shop top sellers closely reflect the global top sellers but sells less own label wine and spirits, in part due to size and storage constraints in the shop. However whisky remains a strong seller. Unsurprisingly, given its customer base, guidebooks are a very popular lines, and 6,300 were sod last year. The gross profit from sales of the guidebooks and some other product lines is transferred to the Speaker’s Art Fund. Other lines such as the executive jotter, bridge set, marble pen and tankard feature in the top sellers. The top 10 items contribute 24% of total sales for the shop.
Top Selling Products, by Profit Contribution 12. The top 10 sellers achieve healthy profit margins except for the own label spirit and wines, which yield high cash contribution profit but low profit margins. This is because they must remain affordable within a highly competitive market, where consumers value-for-money perceptions are strongly influenced by the supermarkets. 13. Globally, the Big Ben 3D pencil and pencil with eraser prove the biggest contributors to profit, followed by mint chocolates and the guide book. All these products represent the key characteristics of what is important to external buyers, namely; — Memento of visit. — Value for money. — Unique quality.
Price Positioning & Brand Image 14. A benchmarking exercise was conducted last year and some souvenir prices were increased. Benchmarking on retail lines is more challenging as like-for-like comparisons are not always possible. There is, therefore, an significant element of professional judgement based on observation of the customer behaviour and feedback. 15. The selling prices of the top 10 selling items range from £1.50 to £28.50. Excluding alcoholic beverages, the highest selling price comes down to £15.00. This is demonstrated in the relatively low spend per head, indicating that the market for House of Commons souvenirs is very different to that of, for example, the Royal Collection, which readily sells products of £25+. 16. With growing awareness of income generation and the possibility of an external shop there is scope to further develop a parliamentary range that delivers what visitors wish to buy but also engineers an improved profit margin. 17. Images of Big Ben and the façade of the Houses of Parliament are iconic, and, unsurprisingly, are unfailingly the best selling lines. Historical artefacts and merchandise drawn for the House of Commons works of art collection are less attractive to the broad market and are much more difficult to sell. The internal market more readily identifies with the portcullis logo and Pugin artwork, but the general public are less likely to purchase these products. January 2011 Ev 88 Administration Committee: Evidence
Annex A TOP SELLING SOUVENIR LINES, PROFIT CONTRIBUTION AND % OF SALES Selling Profit % of total price No. of sales Contribution sales
1 HoC Whisky £20.50 3,516 £23,600 6.5% 2 Dark Chocolate Mint (large) £6.95 7,159 £16,000 4.1% 3 Dark Chocolate Mint (small) £3.75 11,632 £17,100 3.8% 4 HoC Champagne £23.00 1,766 £9,800 3.7% 5 Speaker Whisky £28.50 906 £7,400 2.3% 6 Diary £3.99 6,127 £9,800 2.2% 7 Guide Book £5.00 6,373 £12,000 2.2% 8 Big Ben Pencil £1.50 13,453 £12,000 1.8% 9 Hoc Vintage Port £13.50 1,435 £7,000 1.7% 10 Luxury Chocolate Box £11.00 1,836 £8,000 1.7% 11 Pen £6.95 2,140 £6,100 1.3% 12 Torch Key ring £2.95 4,072 £5,200 1.1% 13 Christmas Mug £15.00 830 £4,200 1.0% 14 Bridge Set £8.00 1,417 £5,000 1.0%
Annex B TOP 10 SOUVENIR LINES BY VOLUME AND VALUE (INCLUDING PROFIT CONTRIBUTION)
Top Ten Sales by Volume - All Outlets
16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 Sales Count 2,000 0
Diary
ChamferPen Pencil w Eraser HOC Chamber BigBen 3D PencilDarkChocMint200DarkChocMint400HOP Guide BookHOC PenBookmark Magnox Leather Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 89
80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 Sales 30,000 Gross Profit 20,000 Cost 10,000 0
Diary
HOC Vint.Port SpeakWhkyBox DarkChocMint400DarkChocMint200HoC Champagne HOP GuideBigBen Book 3D PencilLuxury Chocolate HOC Whisky Boxed
Annex C TOP 10 SALES BY VOLUME AND VALUE MAIN KIOSK (INCLUDING PROFIT CONTRIBUTION)
Top Ten Sales by Volume - Main Kiosk
6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000
Sales Count 2,000 1,000 0
Diary
Pencil w Eraser New House Red New White Wine DarkChocMint200DarkChocMint400 BigBen 3D Pencil HoC ChampagneLuxury Chocolate HOC Whisky Boxed Ev 90 Administration Committee: Evidence
Top Ten Sales by Value - Main Kiosk 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 Sales £ 20,000 Gross Profit 15,000 10,000 Cost 5,000 0
HOC Vint.Port SpeakWhkyBox HoC Champagne New House RedNew White Wine DarkChocMint400DarkChocMint 200 Luxury ChocolateNew House Claret HOC Whisky Boxed
Annex D TOP 10 SALES BY VOLUME AND VALUE ST STEPHEN’S KIOSK (INCLUDING PROFIT CONTRIBUTION)
Top Ten Sales by Volume - St. Stephens
12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 Sales Count 2000 0
Diary
Pencil w Eraser HOC ChamberHOL Chamber BigBen 3D Pencil HOP GuideHOC Book Pen MagnoxBookmarkDarkChocMint200 Leather Hoc TorchKeyring Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 91
Top Ten Sales by Value - St. Stephens
30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000
Sales £ 10,000 5,000 0
Diary
Exec JotterBridge SetsPen Marble Gross Profit
HOP Guide BookBigBen 3D PencilDarkChocMint200DarkChocMint400Hoc TorchKeyring HOC Whisky Boxed Cost
Written evidence submitted by the Director General of Facilities STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE CATERING & RETAIL FUNCTION Introduction 1. The House Management Board is under remit from the Commission to reduce the operating cost of the House of Commons by at least 17%, in real terms, by the year 2014Ð15. A number of short term savings and income generation measures identified by House Departments have been reflected in the Administration Estimate for the year 2011Ð12. Catering & Retail proposals are, as an exception, being submitted to the Administration Committee’s Catering Inquiry for review and consequently are yet to be agreed. 2. Further short term savings may well be found, but the Commission expects the balance of the required 17% saving to be achieved through a service redesign programme, which will involve a fundamental and strategic review of our arrangements. The Board wishes to take this review as an opportunity not just to reduce costs, but also to make improvements in the way we do our business. A paper on the scope and proposed approach to this review is presently being prepared, and will be submitted to Member Committees and the Commission later this month.
Purpose 3. The purpose of this paper is to provide the Committee with early thoughts on redesign approaches likely to come under consideration, particularly in light of the Catering Inquiry.
New Parliament: Strategy for the House of Commons Service 4. The Management Board’s headline aim is that by 2015 the House of Commons will be valued as the central institution in the nation’s democracy. Working with and supporting Members, we will seek to earn respect for the House; to make it more effective; to make its administration more efficient; and to ensure that Members, staff and the public are well informed. A copy of the strategy document is attached.
Service Redesign 5. Service redesign will play an important part in delivering this vision, and will necessarily involve the development of our catering & retail operations. In practice, there is likely to be considerable overlap between the short term proposals presently under consideration and the more far reaching ideas expected to be explored under redesign. 6. Redesign is expected to start with a firm affirmation of the role, and importance, of Parliament, and therefore of the need to provide fully effective services to Parliamentarians. It will proceed to identify the scope for improved efficiency: by delivering services in different, more economical ways; by generating income in new ways; and where appropriate by reducing the scope or level of services. As with the short term savings, where these changes would impact on Member services the Commission, advised by the F&S and Administration Committees, will have the final say on implementation. Ev 92 Administration Committee: Evidence
7. In considering how best to deliver the vision, we anticipate that redesign will include the development of a number of themes having a bearing on the development of catering and retail services, including: (a) Joint Services We will explore the potential benefits of combining further services across the two Houses. A significant amount of joint procurement does though already occur, and ICT improvements (including improved electronic point of sales equipment, cashless payment, web based function and room bookings,; and refrigeration temperature monitoring) are already being delivered through a bicameral Facilities ICT programme. (b) Accommodation Policy The Board will consider a wide range of accommodation policy issues as part of the service redesign, covering issues such as staff numbers, space standards, home working, decant space provision and third party occupiers. (c) Market Testing Notwithstanding the Tebbit review5 recommendation that catering should be retained in house, the redesign work will examine whether CRS functions, either alone or in conjunction with other hotel type services such as reception staff, attendants, porters and our in house cleaning, should be subject to a market testing exercise. (d) Income Generation Further income generation opportunities will be considered, for instance through the sale of merchandise on or off site, both in shops and online; the marketing of spare capacity in catering facilities; hiring out spaces for corporate events; hiring out rooms for conferences; and taking a more robust line on occupancy charging for third party users of the estate. The savings programme will therefore take account of the fact that public demand exists for the use of our facilities (be they catering outlets or meeting rooms) for periods when they are presently empty or lightly used. Meeting this demand could generate additional income, but our approach will need careful consideration. We would not wish services to Members to be restricted; it would be easy to underestimate the management task (and therefore some of the costs) involved; Members may not agree that the public should have more access to our facilities; we would need to impose controls, on both security and reputational grounds; and we would want the purpose of such an income stream to be clearly understood, and recognised, by the public.
Action for the Committee 8. The Committee is not asked for any decisions at this early stage, but may wish to note that it will be consulted as these ideas are developed in the coming months. January 2011
Letter to the Chair of the Committee from the Director General of Facilities Sir Alan Haselhurst MP House of Commons 9 February 2011 Thank you for your letter of 2 February and its attached note. I am grateful for the Committee’s guidance concerning those catering and retail proposals that you have reached a conclusion on, and for the extremely helpful further suggestions that you have made. Sue Harrison is considering these in more detail and will attend your meeting on 14 February to discuss with your Committee. Pending her discussion, perhaps I might here make one or two initial observations. Firstly, I do agree that the pricing structure, and the food offer, in the Members’ Dining Room is an issue that we need to reconsider. As you know, our prices are based on benchmark figures, give or take a degree of latitude to encourage healthy eating and to provide affordable, nutritious food for our lower paid staff. Your Committee may come to the conclusion that prices in each venue should instead be more directly derived from costs, although you would first wish, I am sure, to establish what the impact on our customers, of all types, would be. In the meantime, the Members’ Dining Room is the one outlet for which we were unable to identify a meaningful benchmark comparator, and the Commission therefore accepted our recommendation for a simple, fixed charge. Perhaps the answer here is to look further afield than we have done to find a valid benchmark. At the same time, we will take forward your suggestion of an increased buffet service, and more restricted table service. I do take your point, too, about slow service in the Members’ Dining Room. We should be taking orders, getting them to the kitchen, and serving the food at a pace (and in a style) that suits Members needs: this is something we must simply do much. However, the system of placing orders via the tills has been in use for over a decade, and although the recent EPoS upgrade has undoubtedly had a few teething troubles, I’m not sure that it is entirely the EPoS system that is at fault. Turning to your notes for discussion, we shall take the items that you have approved as a basis for planning, noting that they are not yet an entirely settled position. Sue is working carefully through the various proposals and alternative ideas that you have given us, and will give you an oral progress report at your next meeting 5 HC 685—Review of Management and Services of the House of Commons, 25 June 2007 Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 93
followed by detailed costings as soon as she can. To pick out just one, I do agree that there would be benefits in a single parliamentary catering service, but in practical terms I wonder who would own it: it could be operated by one House but deliver to both (like Parliamentary Estates); it could be a separate entity altogether (like PICT); or it could be outsourced, with each House acting as a customer (like the security contract). There are arguments for and against each of these options. While we develop these ideas, the Lords Director of Facilities and I have agreed that the two catering services should act co-operatively, not competitively, in order to optimise our supply chain management and the use of facilities, in the interests of each House. Finally, I would just note that some of the matters that you raise involve areas of the House administration outside Catering itself: security restrictions are one obvious example; others are the timing, availability and pricing of visitor tours, and the restrictions on signage (for example, outside the Jubilee Cafe) that are probably inevitable within the heritage site. I will make sure that the various areas of the House are engaged as appropriate, so that these points do not get lost. Yours sincerely, John Borley Director General Department of Facilities
Written evidence submitted by Members and Peers Staff Association
Thank you for giving the Member’s and Peer’s Staff Association (MAPSA) the opportunity to submit evidence to the Catering Services Review; my apologies for the delay in getting this to you but, as you know, I have been away. We have received the following comments from our Members, by far the largest number were concerned with the price rises:
Price Rises There is general disappointment that the catering price increases, in an attempt to show that “MPs don’t have their snouts in the trough”, have disproportionately affected the staff, at a time when the MPs’ staffing budget has also been cut. “We should ensure that popular and busy staff restaurants do not cross-subsidise under-used restaurants reserved for Members. The recent price rises have put many items well above the prices available outside the Palace and we distrust the basis of their benchmark based prices.” “Prices should reflect the volumes sold and the utilisation of the outlet, which is invariably very high for those outlets open to staff.” “It is also worth mentioning that, in advance of the quality cuts and price hikes, the Refreshment Department removed the feedback section of their section of the intranet. Presumably therefore we are expected to like it or lump it?”
Opening Hours and Access “It’s a shame that Bellamy’s Café is closed during recess, as it’s always very popular during term time.” “Would it not be better for fewer outlets to remain open as long as they do, and then prices can be kept lower? Surely there is no need for both the Debate and the Terrace to be open into the evening?” “There should be wider access to the Adjournment and Members' dining room for staff and their guests when there is availability—not just on set days of the week.” “There is also an argument for allowing visitors into the Debate Cafeteria when Parliament is not sitting and the range of catering outlets is severely reduced.”
Staffing “...some of the catering staff on the tills/behind the food counters often look as miserable as if they are attending a funeral!”
Quality of Food “Food across the cafeterias is generally very good.” “The standard of food at the Terrace remains great and they should be complimented on their work!” “The depressing menus at the Debate are getting worse (cabbage and chorizo soup is appetising to no- one); quality at this outlet continues to decline as prices rise.” Ev 94 Administration Committee: Evidence
Misc Several people suggested making the Debate in PCH self-clearing, or as self-clearing as possible, along with tables outside the Debate. It was also felt that people should be reminded to restore their tables and chairs if they have combined them to party size.
Bellamy’s Bar There are many comments about the loss of a Bellamy’s Bar, the complete lack of consultation, and the “waste” of taxpayers’ money involved in turning it into a crèche. Other comments include: “With the closure of Bellamy’s, there is an argument for opening up access to one of the other bars in the House of Commons on peak nights (Thursday / Friday) to prevent overcrowding in the Sports and Social. As Parliament is rarely sitting at those times, I would suggest easing access restrictions in the Strangers Bar on Thursday/Friday nights would be in order.” We look forward to hearing your comments as a result of our consultation submission. October 2010
Written evidence submitted by House of Commons Trade Union Side (TUS) Catering and retail services does an excellent job in providing food and drink for the many people who work in the House of Commons, their guests, the press and members of the Civil Service. The range of food caters for different tastes and dietary requirements and the surroundings in which people dine are generally agreed to be first class. However, there are a number of long-standing concerns that have been raised by the Trade Union Side in previous inquiries into this subject; one is overcrowding in many of the House of Commons refreshment facilities, and another is access to those facilities. The Committee will be unsurprised to learn that the major concern currently among staff is the decision to increase prices in the catering facilities in the House of Commons. The concerns can be summarised as follows: that the decision had primarily political, as opposed to genuine cost-saving, motives; that it pre-empted and distorted the current House-wide savings programme; and that it financially penalised staff of the House of Commons, who are facing a two-year pay freeze. On the first point, in a speech on 8 September 2009, David Cameron—as leader of the Opposition—said the following: Under Labour, millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money has been wasted on funding what can only be described as a cushy lifestyle for politicians. And in the restaurants on the Parliamentary estate, you can treat yourself to a “Lean salad of lemon and lime marinated roasted tofu with baby spinach and rocket, home-roasted plum tomatoes and grilled ficelle crouton” for just £1.70. That’s all thanks to you—taxpayers’ cash subsidising a politician’s food and drink. We all have to eat, we all sometimes want a drink, there’s nothing about this job that forces us to eat or drink any more than if we did something else. So with the Conservatives, the cost of food and drink in Parliament will be increased to match the prices normal people pay in cafes, restaurants and bars around the country. There can be little doubt that an element of the public mood was being echoed in this statement, coming as it did in the wake of the expenses scandal. But the message that prices should be raised to end “a cushy lifestyle” for politicians was unfortunately incomplete. The provision of subsidised food to approximately 2,000 staff of the House of Commons and hundreds of MPs’ staff, secretaries and researchers—many of whom have little or no option as to where and when they eat and virtually all of whom are paid a great deal less than a Member of Parliament—can only on a very loose definition be described as a contribution to “a cushy lifestyle”. On the second point, the House of Commons—like most public bodies—is currently engaged in rigorous attempts to find substantial savings over the lifetime of this Parliament. The four Departments of the House, along with PICT, were originally asked to contribute individual savings proposals to achieve to: — deliver a saving of 9% by 2012Ð13 against the 2010Ð11 Estimate of £231 million. Each department was asked to submit an analysis of the impact of cuts of between 10 and 20%, along with an estimate of the likely impact on service provision of such cuts. Yet the imposition of price rises in an attempt to make a saving estimated at approximately £500,000 meant that there could be no scrutiny or analysis of the kind envisaged for savings proposals from all other Departments—and, indeed, for future savings programmes from the Department of Facilities itself. In addition, the terms of reference state that, in achieving this financial objective: Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 95
Staff will have been treated openly, fairly and with respect. Regrettably, it must be pointed out that at the time of writing the TUS has—despite requests—not received the benchmarking report used in determining the appropriate range of prices for bars, cafes and restaurants in the House, nor the names of the public and private sector organisations used in the benchmarking exercise, nor confirmation of whether an equality impact assessment was carried out as part of the process. Finally, and most importantly, the politically understandable aspiration to cut the cost of Parliament has in this instance led to House of Commons’ staff suffering a financial detriment. Many of the “normal people” to whom the Prime Minister referred last September do indeed eat in unsubsidised cafes and restaurants; we can only wonder as to how many of those “normal people” work in an environment whose working hours are as unpredictable of those of the House, or whether they are subject to the security restrictions that can prevent staff from choosing to eat elsewhere. Other issues of concern include overcrowding, particularly during recess. Overcrowding is exacerbated during recesses, particularly short ones, when some outlets are closed for the duration. While we appreciate that management has to make the best use of staffing levels available to them, could more be done to prevent the lengthy queues that can build up on these occasions? On access, the current rules exacerbate tensions between Officers of the House and other members of staff, as Officers have access to many refreshment facilities from which other staff are barred. We favour the opening of these refreshment facilities to staff across the House wherever possible, especially as a number of these facilities are currently under-used. October 2010
Written evidence submitted by GMB House of Commons Branch The House of Commons GMB Branch would like to make the following submission to the Administration Committee. On the current price rises, we do not believe that they were entirely appropriate or completely thought through; particularly for the cafeterias. While this should not financially affect the grades represented by the GMB, they will be in the firing line for unhappy customers. The increases should also be seen in the context of the potential pay freeze for many House Staff. We believe that the sole use of benchmarking as a methodology was flawed; benchmarking uses a combination of comparators, by only focussing on price the credibility is lost as one cannot be sure that the comparison is valid. The sole use of this methodology will inevitably give the impression that it was to ensure that custom is not lost purely on the basis of price, but, were the local competitors taken into account? Tesco is the nearest outlet for confectionery and sandwiches, but we are now more expensive than them, the various restaurants and takeaways in Strutton Ground are competition, particularly for the Portcullis Cafeteria in 7 Millbank, but were they compared? There is also the question of the purpose of the various outlets, if the cafeterias are meant to be providing wholesome, affordable meals for MPs, staff of the House and visitors, then this should be taken into account, as should the fact that most staff are unable to spare the time to leave the House precincts during their meal breaks. A combination of benchmarking and margin-setting may have been more appropriate. In this way, the outlets which provide non-essential services, such as the bars and banqueting areas, are differentiated from core areas, such as the cafeterias. The maintenance of the margin should also be stressed; price increases from suppliers should be passed on promptly without having to wait for approval from the Domestic Committees. It should not be acceptable to sell items at a loss. On savings, the supply of free snacks to users of the Pugin and Members’ Smoking Rooms should come to an end.
Access Members should be made to be aware that where access is restricted, they are likely to be challenged. Passes should be worn and shown readily if requested. Consideration might be given to opening up weekend access for weddings and civil partnerships. If this was not restricted to members, the profit gained would be higher because of the members’ discount now applied. Access to the Terrace and Strangers’ Bar should be retained at the current level, but more strongly enforced. Consideration might be given, however, to adding Members’ partners to the list of those allowed to buy drinks. The Members Only area on the Terrace should be reviewed. It appears to be much underused for its stated purpose. If it is to be retained, thought should be given as to its size and to policing so that guests are not taken into it. Consideration should be given to access to The Adjournment from Wednesday nights onwards. It is much underused. The pricing might also be looked at, should the price be the same at lunchtime as in the evening? Ev 96 Administration Committee: Evidence
Underuse of Facilities The Members’ Smoking Room could be let for Receptions at weekends. The furniture is presently looked upon as an obstacle, but maybe it could be an advantage. It gives the room a uniqueness that could give it a certain cachet as a venue, this could be reflected in the hire charge. Consideration could also be given to wider or different use during the week as it is a much underused facility.
Improvements Credit should be given for the hard work and achievements of the staff already, particularly in the kitchens. They have a current finalist in the National Chef of the Year competition (the holder of London Chef of the Year). Holders of the Grand Prix at Hotelympia. Their work in the community through outreach programmes, “Adopt a School” and work experience placements, give the work of the House a positive boost in the community. The operation of the Members’ and Strangers’ Dining Rooms should be reviewed; changes in the past have been resisted by some of the more traditional Members. The Department should be allowed to offer a more modern fine dining style, with some elements of the traditional. Ways of increasing use of these facilities should be examined so that use is maximised without increasing the cost to the Department. If it were easier to predict customer numbers; control of staffing levels would be simplified. Solutions might include set menus, taking into account expense limits, and examining different menus and price structures for quieter periods. Although not entirely cost neutral, thought should be given to reviving the plan to bottle water in the old “Annie’s Bar”. If undertaken with the House of Lords, this could result in long term savings in the cost of water supplied to Committees. The possibility of more direct selling to the public could be examined. This could be through an existing venue such as the Parliamentary Bookshop. This could be viewed as “weakening the brand” by members, but, if the range of goods available is different to that available internally, that should not be a concern. Use of the Terrace Pavilion Bar during the Spring and Summer should be examined. Commitment to it has been lacking in recent years. It could significantly help to relieve pressure on the Strangers’ Bar while developing its own identity. A cream tea service and ice creams could both be offered during the day as well as the drinks currently served. Daytime staffing should be possible from existing resources. Banqueting should be prepared to give up the venue for these months. Herbs could be grown in the containers on the Terrace. While this would be unlikely to be able to satisfy all the needs of the Department, it has peripheral advantages, in the perception of people and in the environment of the Terrace. Any savings would be likely to be quite small and dependent on the contract with the gardeners. Purchasing practices should be examined so that we are able to take advantage of suppliers’ offers, and to market them quickly, benefitting both customers, through better pricing, and the Department through increased margins.
House of Lords Consideration should be given to greater cooperation with the House of Lords in the areas of Stores and Purchasing. Greater discounts might be negotiated with suppliers, and complications arising from the off-site logistics centre could be eased. October 2010
Further written evidence submitted by GMB House of Commons Branch Having now received the proposals for savings and income generation, the GMB House of Commons are grateful for the opportunity to make this further submission to the Committee. On the document generally, it appears to have an incredible lack of coordination: — Savings are mixed up with increases in revenue. — None of the figures include inflation; as the targets we have been given are inclusive of it, surely so should the calculations proposed. The entire document is lacking in coherence and clarity suggesting that it has not been fully thought through. Figures in year one of 9% should equate to 17% by the end of the period. The methodology appears to just go for 17% at any period and that’ll do. — No mention of savings from capital outlay, in fact, capital outlay is not included in some of the figures. — No mention of maintenance or refurbishment, even in Sue Harrison’s slightly more detailed presentation. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 97
— Figures for income generation are static, this might be true for Rental income, but should not be true for sales; we should be presuming that growing expertise and inflation will make them increase. — The paper for the House as a whole says that any of the proposed cuts that are not taken forward will have to be replaced by others. Nobody should be under the impression that a 17% cut in one Department is equal to a similar percentage cut in another. The CRS subsidy is only 2% of the House budget; 17% of that is next to nothing. The federal way that this programme is being conducted fails to address this. The proposals include cuts of well over 17%, despite the year on year decrease in the Departmental budget already made. As I said to the Committee, this seems vastly unfair on the staff of the Department and threatens its ability to function properly. This would particularly apply when leave is being taken as it may leave us under resourced to cover. It is obviously for the Members to decide, through the Committees, which services they wish to change or do without, but the list looks like a massive kneejerk reaction. As a further result of the cuts in previous years; the overwhelming bulk of proposed savings are in staff, or human, costs. Because of the composition of the workforce in ethnic background and income; this may well have a negative equality impact if carried through. Many affected staff will be unlikely to find other positions in CRS, and almost impossible to accommodate Housewide. The proposal to close the Adjournment Restaurant service in favour of a coffee/ bespoke sandwich offering would require a capital spend of some £6 million (figure from Sue Harrison in response to staff question). As I said before, this figure is not mentioned in the document. Obviously, the Members must decide whether they wish to change the service provided as extremely as this proposal, but I am concerned about where this money would be otherwise spent. The Department needs investment into general replacement of equipment and refurbishment of some areas; is this money being taken from that budget? Is there a budget? There are other areas which look likely to incur sizeable capital spends, the proposals for the souvenir kiosk, Pugin Room and purchase of vending machines for 7 Millbank. The same questions apply. Generally, we take the view that it is for Members to decide which services they wish to keep or change, but would make the following observations on the detail of the proposals. Changing the Pugin Room to a bar service might, conceivably, produce an increase in revenue. Would a new bar be politically wise, or what the Members want or need? The proposal to make the Terrace Cafeteria self clearing seems ambitious. Recent attempts to encourage people have been ignored and the cost of installing a system similar to Bellamy’s or 7 Millbank would be very high. The proposal to use Moncrieff’s as a Staff Cafeteria has its attractions for many staff, but access would be difficult. At present CRS staff eat in large blocks, at the start of service generally. Could the lift servicing Moncrieff’s cope with the 100+ staff surge in use? What does “reduction in budget to reflect planned spend” mean in relation to the Training budget reduction? Would the Souvenir Kiosk make a decent site for a Coffee Bar? There is no space for seating anywhere near; it would mean those without access to the Terrace, disregarding the weather, having to go back to their offices. It has none of the advantages of the Despatch Box. The Terrace Pavilion Bar might be a better venue. If the proposal is that it is to be more of an express outlet for drinks and sandwiches, the problem of seating still applies, with the added problem of staff being pushed to eat meals at their desks. Staff are already compelled, for various reasons, to spend almost all their time in the precincts, they should at least be encouraged to have proper breaks away from their desks. The proposed increase in revenue from souvenir sales item appears particularly woolly; there is no figure for this or next year and the projected income does not increase year by year. As we already have an outlet and a reasonable line of goods, why are we not starting immediately and showing a bit more ambition. Mr Borley suggests that we can make more money by letting the Bookshop as a coffee shop, I doubt this, but it does not mean that we should delay the sale of goods. It is a great concern that the prospective income and employment from increased souvenir sales should be kept in-house as far as possible, or it could become something of a Trojan horse. The immediately available properties have the advantage of cellars, and one a first floor. These could be used for the preparation of internet sales. Delivery vans could then collect these goods after dropping off stock. This should create some vacancies at a suitable level for CRS staff. If the present bookshop were to be used for memorabilia, there would be little or no need for refurbishment. It could carry on its present dual role and income from book sales should increase purely because of increased footfall. There seems to be a problem in this because of interdepartmental wrangling, as the shop comes under the aegis of DCCS, this may need higher level direction. The income from catering price increases is a particular example of opaque accounting. The figures again ignore inflation, but they also ignore the projected (6% food, 5% drink, not in document) savings in procurement costs. These would have the potential to increase margins/income, or to freeze prices. It would Ev 98 Administration Committee: Evidence
be nice to know which. Given that the income of our core customers is likely to be frozen, or fall in real terms, and their numbers fall, there are a number of factors affecting these figures. This should be addressed. There is no mention of revenue from civil partnerships, although I know it is being actively pursued. Add- on revenue from catering and flowers should also be explored. November 2010
Written evidence submitted by Parliamentary Press Gallery The Parliamentary Press Gallery welcomes the Administration Committee’s review of catering and retail services in the House of Commons.
Access Whilst recognising the need of Members for a degree of privacy when dining, we believe that more open access to the various catering areas within the House of Commons is desirable. Our own experiences are a case in point. Having historically been reserved for members of the Press Gallery and their guests only, our own catering facilities were opened to all pass holders after a major refurbishment in 2006Ð07. Whilst it is true to say that some of our colleagues had reservations initially, our experience has been positive. We have not noticed any detrimental impact on our need for quick, well cooked meals on a day-to-day basis; Moncrieff’s has become a popular venue but at the same time continues to be available to us to hold regular events such as our monthly lunches. In addition, we understand that it has had a wider impact in helping to ease the load on the Terrace Cafeteria and Portcullis House at busy times and when renovations necessitated the closure of other facilities (eg the Terrace Cafeteria in the summer of 2009). The increased access has also helped to de-mystify a hitherto rather unknown area of the Palace—which can only be a good thing. The House is attempting to reduce the costs of catering in the current year and beyond and has recently introduced significant price increases in some areas. In the circumstances the economic argument for opening more facilities to more pass holders must be incontrovertible. It is surely incompatible with the objective of reducing costs and maximising income to restrict access to certain facilities for some or all of the time that the House is sitting—effectively turning away income and leaving facilities under-used and staff idle. Our own experience with the Churchill Room illustrates the point. During the closure of our dining facilities during the refurbishment in 2007 we were temporarily granted limited access to the Churchill Room. Last year, having made the case that the lack of any evening dining facilities in the Press Gallery was having a detrimental effect on the use of Moncrieff’s bar, we were also granted access on Monday and Tuesday evenings, although this arrangement ended at the election. Colleagues using the Churchill Room at these times often found that it was seriously under-used and that on some occasions they were the only people dining. The Churchill Room was very popular with members of the Press Gallery, who would readily use it again were it to be open to them. We also welcome the recent extension of access to the Terrace on non-sitting Fridays and during Parliamentary recesses. There seems little doubt that the change in the hours of the House has had the effect of changing the pattern of use of catering facilities across the Palace, and in particular of decreasing take-up in the evenings. Taken with the need to reduce costs and increase income, and the drive to make Parliament a more open and inclusive place, it seems logical to lift access restrictions such as those on the Churchill Room and Adjournment and open them up to a larger body of people. We would therefore suggest to the Committee that it gives consideration to opening, for example, the Churchill Room and the Adjournment to all pass holders at all times and that the restrictions on certain seating areas within other facilities (eg the Atrium in Portcullis House) be removed. We would also ask that the Committee publish a clear set of rules for access and that they be consistently applied.
Needs The needs of the various groups using the Commons catering outlets will necessarily vary, but undoubtedly there is a need across the board for the quick and efficient service of well cooked food from early morning until well into the evening. In addition there is a need for “grab and go” service and for places serving refreshments that can be used for informal meetings or for wi-fi access. The popularity of the Despatch Box and atrium areas in Portcullis House proves the point. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 99
Relationship between Lords and Commons Catering Services We have no strong views on the relationship between the House of Lords and the House of Commons catering services other than to suggest that there must at least be potential for closer collaboration to result in savings for both Houses. October 2010
Further written evidence submitted by Parliamentary Press Gallery As I mentioned to you at the end of your last committee meeting on Monday this week, members of the Press Gallery are extremely keen to come forward with suggestions for the greater use of Moncrieff’s self- service cafeteria. We understand you are considering options for cost saving and income generation across the House services. We also understand that it is the view of the House Catering & Retail Services that the self-service cafeteria and waiter service operation is uneconomic and consequently should be closed, although the café/bar would remain open. We regret this rather negative approach and would very much like the opportunity to discuss in more detail how we could co-operate with Sue Harrison and her team in increasing trade in Moncrieff’s. However, we do appreciate that the waiter service element of Moncrieff’s—the Bistro as it is known—is underused and might, with regret, accept that this should be discontinued. However, as this is the only place where members of the Press Gallery can entertain guests to lunch, closure would only be acceptable if we were able to have access to the Adjournment and the Churchill Room for lunch and dinner. Our members have a regular and genuine need to entertain as part of their jobs and without Moncrieff’s Bistro there is nowhere on the Parliamentary estate where they can do this. We feel it is imperative that the rest of the self service cafeteria should remain open. It is used not only by members of the Press Gallery, for whom quick and easy access to a hot meal is essential when working to deadlines, but as a welcome alternative to the queues at the “honeypot” venues in Portcullis House and the Terrace by other passholders, thereby easing the load on those venues. In addition, Moncrieff’s is a fundamental part of the working life of the Press Gallery. It is used for a wide variety of functions, including monthly lunches at which key Parliamentarians, including recently both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have been recent speakers, and regular receptions— for example: — the Press Gallery’s successful schools writing competition (run in conjunction with the Parliament Education Service); — an event to welcome the current Speaker as Hon President of the Press Gallery; — two events to welcome new Members to Parliament last May); — regular events for government and opposition advisers, political think tanks and so on; and — internal social events, such as a very popular quiz night. Were the cafeteria to close, alternative venues would have to be found for all these functions. I had a very productive meeting with Sue Harrison earlier this week during which we discussed her proposals for consideration by your committee. Mrs Harrison mentioned that in the event of closure, the space could be used as a venue for catering staff meals at lunchtime. It seems illogical to fire up the kitchens for meals taken between 11.00 and 12.00 and then not to keep the area open for normal lunch time service. We have a number of positive suggestions for increasing footfall through Moncrieff’s: — An additional “themed” lunch time to build on the success of the “fish and chip Fryday”. — A venue for political meetings, political book launches and signings, and club dinners. A number of Members have told us they would be unhappy with the Churchill Room being set aside for functions. Moncrieff’s could be considered as an alternative venue. — A place for Parliamentary groups to welcome visitors and delegations to Westminster. — That consideration be given to keeping the cafeteria open all year round accompanied by a serious marketing exercise in order to increase customer loyalty and habitual use amongst specific groups of passholders, eg the police and security staff. — Political breakfast briefings, such as we have undertaken in the past. The Press Gallery is an historic and integral part of Parliament, attributes which we are sure could be used as an effective marketing tool in a positive campaign to develop it as a venue and maximise revenue. We would welcome an opportunity to discuss these matters further with you before your committee reaches its final conclusions for recommendation to the House of Commons Commission. January 2011 Ev 100 Administration Committee: Evidence
Further written evidence submitted by Parliamentary Press Gallery Having had an opportunity to give the matter further consideration we remain convinced of the viability of Moncrieff’s cafeteria, although we are prepared to accept that the waiter service component is not economic. As discussed, we would accept the closure of this particular aspect of our catering facility if members of the Press Gallery are then able to reserve tables at another restaurant, for example the Churchill Room, both at lunch times and in the evenings. With regard to the self-service element I think you will be aware of how strongly we feel about the need to retain this at lunch times for all passholders, as at present. Apart from the obvious advantage for ourselves, Hansard and the Commons staff—such as our Attendants and Doorkeepers—who are based in this part of the Palace, Moncrieff’s has become a valued venue for staff from across the estate as an alternative to the long queues regularly experienced in the Terrace and in Portcullis House. Footfall has been increased by the introduction of feature days, eg the fish and chip Fridays, and we are sure there would be scope to develop other themed events. It is also the case that were any of the larger venues to close temporarily for refurbishment Moncrieff’s is ideally placed to stay open throughout recesses to take up the displaced custom, as has already happened in the recent past when the Terrace Cafeteria was renovated. We understand from Sue Harrison that she is considering using the cafeteria as a lunch venue for catering staff from across the Commons. Given that they need to eat their meals before 12.00 noon we can see no reason why the self-service cafeteria could not then continue as normal. In urging your committee to recommend the retention of Moncrieff’s we are of course aware of the financial pressures and have therefore been giving serious consideration to how it might be developed as a function room. As you know, Moncrieff’s is already used monthly for Press Gallery lunches to which senior Parliamentarians are invited as the guest speakers. There are other occasions; for example, it is used by the Newspaper Society for their annual lunch. In the evenings it is the venue for leaving parties, our “Chairman’s Pint”, and the variety of receptions we hold for—amongst others—new Members (after an election), the Speaker and special advisers. However, as a venue it could be attractive to external party or event organisers, given its location inside of the most famous buildings in the world. Companies such as Dods, which are intimately connected to Parliament and with whom we already work closely, organise dozens of parliamentary events every year, and are already keen to try to find ways to use the Moncrieff’s space. From their point of view the advantage of Moncrieff’s is that MPs are much more likely to attend an event if it is held on the parliamentary estate and the event would not need to be sponsored by a Member as is the case with all other function rooms. The Press Gallery has an extensive picture archive which could be extended to the entrance and staircase leading to the bar/restaurant, highlighting the historic associations for guests. We also have a number of fascinating artefacts which could be placed on display if secure units could be found them. In conclusion, we hope the Administration Committee would agree with us that Moncrieff’s is a venue with potential and that to close it would be an opportunity lost to develop a revenue stream which is of benefit to the Parliamentary budget as a whole. If we can provide any more information please don’t hesitate to let us know. March 2011
Written evidence submitted by Unite (T&G) Parliamentary Staff Branch The Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch is a trade union representing over 400 members of MP’s staff from all political parties, based in both Westminster and constituency offices. We have consulted our members and would like to bring the following issues regarding catering services in the House of Commons to the attention of the Administration Committee: 1. Annie’s Bar (a) The decision to place the House of Commons crèche on the site of the former Bellamy’s Bar means that one of the amenities available to staff has been removed. (b) One of the most under-used resources on the Parliamentary Estate is Annie’s Bar, which has been shut for many years and therefore does not provide any revenue for the Estate. This is a fully-fitted bar on prime real estate and it does not make sense to keep this amenity closed. (c) There is a clear market for another bar—following the closure of Bellamy’s Bar, the Sports and Social Bar is often filled to capacity. With bar prices on the Estate now increased in line with the high street, it is likely that this could be a profitable venture. (d) Therefore we recommend the Administration Committee look into bringing Annie’s Bar back into use for MPs’ staff, MPs and guests. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 101
(e) The bar could either be leased to the current managers of the Sports and Social or it could be operated as a workers’ cooperative. 2. Loyalty Scheme (a) The catering price increases have hit the staff of MPs’ particularly hard. Most of our members are on modest salaries—the average salary is around £20,000. This is far below the market-rate for the jobs that we do. Many staff have also had their salaries reduced because of the cut to MPs’ staffing budgets by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. (b) In the past, these lower-salaries were often off-set by cheaper food prices on the Estate. However, following the catering price increases, one of the few remaining perks for staff has been removed. This affects not only the staff of MPs, but also cleaners and other comparatively low-paid staff on the Estate. (c) Many of our members have told us that they are now purchasing their lunch off the Estate, at the nearby Tesco and other retail outlets. Indeed, some items of food and drink are now cheaper if bought off the Estate. For example, a bottle of Coke in the Debate costs £1.50 compared to £1.04 at the nearby Tesco. Over time, this will lead to a decline in the revenue collected on the Estate. (d) Therefore, we recommend the Administration Committee look into adopting a ‘loyalty card’ scheme for staff who work in Parliament. By offering modest discounts, staff will be encouraged to continue to purchase food on the Estate and this will halt any decline in revenue. 3. Publicising greater access for MPs’ staff (a) On certain days, MPs’ staff are able to access some services that are usually reserved for Members. For example, MPs’ staff may book tables in the Adjournment Restaurant on Thursday evenings. (b) However many of our members are unaware of these arrangements. We believe it would be in the Estate’s interest to more widely publicise opportunities like these, where staff can have greater access to catering services on the Estate. 4. Terrace access arrangements (a) Some of our members have expressed concern that the access arrangements on the Terrace are being applied inconsistently when staff try to take interns who are non pass-holders onto the Terrace. (b) MPs’ staff are grateful for the opportunity to access the Terrace for lunch on Fridays and during Recess periods. However, on some days staff with interns who are still waiting for their pass will be allowed access, and on other days they will not. (c) This is unfortunate because it means that many staff are unsure of their rights and it denies interns one of the benefits of working in Parliament. (d) Therefore, we would like House authorities to consider giving access rights to staff interning for Members. October 2010
Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited 05/2011 008851 19585 PEFC/16-33-622