Examination of Witnesses (Questions 56-59)
15 SEPTEMBER 2004
MR ROGER
SANDS AND
MR ANDREW
WALKER
Q56 Chairman: Roger and Andrew, I hope
you do not mind if I address you informally. Thanks very much
for coming, we are very grateful for your written evidence on
behalf of the House, it has been very valuable in terms of just
thinking through some of the practicalities. May I invite you
to give an overall summary of the impact of the new sitting hours
on staff and, as a subsidiary of that, I would also be grateful
if you could specifically address for us the impact on the catering
area, which has come up a lot in questions and correspondence
on this point?
Mr Sands: Thank you, Chairman.
I have got Andrew Walker who, as you know, among his other functions,
is the House's principal Establishments Officer and is much involved
in negotiations with our representative trade unions on these
matters. When the Board of Management reported to the House of
Commons Commission on the impact of the revised sitting hours,
what it said was that for most staff the revised sitting hours
had had no impact or been beneficial—that is beneficial
from a personal point of view—although the working day is
often more intensive than before and work is increasingly concentrated
in the middle of the week. I think we would stick by that overall
assessment. You will no doubt want to test that against the perception
of the trade unions who I believe you are going to hear from,
and of course it has to be said that for quite a high proportion
of our 1,600 plus staff, the sitting hours do not have an impact
because their work is not linked to them—people who work
in the Works Department, for example—on a routine basis.
The proportion of staff who are intensively and directly affected
by the sitting hours is comparatively small.
Q57 Chairman: On the catering issue,
for example, it has been alleged that some of the reduction in
the catering staffing resources has been due to the change in
the hours rather than a decision to reduce subsidies. I wonder
if you can help us on that.
Mr Sands: It is true that the
major impact has come from the decision by the Finance and Services
Committee and the Commission to at least put a ceiling on the
subsidy and then to try to reduce it by a modest degree. Of course,
once that decision is made and the management of the Refreshment
Department have to work out how to achieve those savings, they
obviously look at the facilities that are being less used than
they were 10 years ago. Undoubtedly the sitting hours have had
an impact on the usage of some facilities, but it is very difficult
to disaggregate the effect of the sitting hours from other longer
term trends. For example, even before the change in sitting hours
there was a well-noted tendency for the silver service dining
room to attract less custom than it used to, and that is because
rival facilities have been brought on stream and people want to
eat more quickly.
Q58 Chairman: So the Adjournment Restaurant
is packed compared with the Members' Dining Room?
Mr Sands: That is right. I think
those are longer term trends which were observable before.
Q59 Mr McLoughlin: When you say that
both the Finance and Services Committee and the Commission took
the decision to reduce the deficit or the subsidy, what bearing
did the commitment by the then Leader of the House of Commons,
Robin Cook, in saying that there would be no diminution of service
to Members as a result of the change in hours have on the matter?
What notice was taken of that, or was that totally ignored as
just something that was said on the floor of the House that you
did not need to be bothered about?
Mr Sands: I am not a member of
the Finance and Services Committee. Andrew attends it and he may
be able to throw some light—
| 
