Select Committee on Administration Second Report


6  MEETING THE CHALLENGE

41. The challenge for the Refreshment Department is to meet the aims that we set out in part 4 of this Report within the context of the constraints described in part 5. In general those who responded to our request for evidence complimented the service provided:

  • "It is a pleasure to eat in the Adjournment".[29]
  • "…the banqueting service is outstanding and the refreshments are good".[30]
  • "I've noticed the price rises, but it's still good value".[31]
  • "…thank you for the underrated but truly excellent staff and restaurant at 1 Parliament St. The food is good, choice excellent, and staff really excellent".[32]
  • "Generally […] the services we receive are excellent".[33]
  • "the catering staff work very hard, are pleasant and accommodating".[34]
  • "We […] compliment the catering and restaurant staff for their cheerfulness and patience".[35]

42. However, it is evident from submissions to our inquiry and from feedback given to the Refreshment Department that a number of dissatisfactions highlighted in the past remain:

  • overcrowding
  • unimaginative menus
  • poor food quality and service in the outlets in the Palace
  • a lack of decent fresh coffee facilities
  • resentment towards the access regulations
  • dissatisfaction with the layout of the Terrace cafeteria
  • frustration with the provision of services during recess.

43. This section of the Report contains our recommendations for changes that we believe would help to improve the service provided by the RD and the framework within which it is provided, without making it less cost-effective. We look first at basic principles which could be applied across the service before suggesting changes to specific venues.

Basic principles

STRATEGY AND INNOVATION

44. It is usual practice in catering businesses to have a ten-year strategy document, which is considered an important tool in achieving change. The Refreshment Department's catering policies, in contrast, are reviewed annually as part of the preparation of a rolling three-year business plan. In view of the challenges it faces and the desirability of co-ordination with the ten-year works programme, we consider that the Department would benefit from a ten-year strategy document, with objectives clearly set out in areas such as: service levels, productivity, benchmarking, selling prices, quality of product and staff training.

45. The Refreshment Department has itself suggested developing and implementing a strategy along these lines, with a particular view to reviewing services that are not used to capacity:

46. The main thrust of the strategy should be to achieve the primary objectives that we have set out in section 4 of this Report. The strategy must identify and prioritise its key customers. It would need to dovetail with the Strategic Plan for 2006-2011 for the House Service as a whole. Catering currently forms part of one of the supporting tasks envisaged by the Plan: to "provide a healthy, safe and secure physical environment in which the business of the House can be effectively conducted".[37] It would also incorporate relevant commitments already included in the existing Departmental three-year business plan for 2005-06 to 2007-08.

47. We would be glad to be involved in helping to develop this strategy. As it would have financial and administrative implications, it would also subsequently need to be considered by the Finance and Services Committee and by the House of Commons Commission. We recommend that the Refreshment Department prepare a draft strategy document for us to consider within three months of the publication of this Report, with suggestions for revised specifications and with timescales and key performance objectives for each part of the service to deliver the strategy.

48. The development and introduction of new menus, keeping up with food trends and tastes, maintaining and improving the style of delivery are important factors in the strategy of any successful catering business. This kind of innovation will need to inform the Department's strategy. Currently, innovation within the RD is a team effort led by the Head of the Department, the Executive Chef (responsible for food development), the two Operations Managers (responsible for service delivery innovation), and including the Purchasing Manager, the team of Sous Chefs and Catering Managers: "the entire management team".[38] We support the promotion of innovation within the Department. It is in the nature of innovative ideas that the majority of them will not be taken up, but it is important this should not discourage such thinking.

49. The Department has, through no fault of its own, been without an Executive Chef for two years. It is unsurprising that in the absence of the chef responsible for food development, we have heard complaints that menus have become old-fashioned and cafeteria foods inconsistent. We recommend that an individual within the Refreshment Department should take responsibility for encouraging, gathering and analysing innovative ideas from both within and outside the Department that might help to improve service delivery.

50. We have heard that after cost-saving measures were implemented in the light of the subsidy review, the RD received "a flurry of complaints" which died down quickly.[39] The changes that we recommend in this Report aim to produce benefits of improved quality of food and service that should quickly become apparent. We recognise that there will opposition both from some Members and from some RD staff to innovative changes made to a style of service which they are used to and which they like. Changes have to be given time to work and to be accepted. Where changes have been suggested to us and approved by us, we will support the Department in seeing through any initial opposition. As a supportive employer, we are sure that the Department will give staff directly affected by the changes any necessary training and help them to adapt accordingly.

51. The RD has suggested to us that a user survey might help to assess customer reaction to any changed service; in general, the Department receives little quantifiable feedback.[40] Such a survey several months after any changes to the service might well be a useful way of monitoring customer satisfaction, as long as it has high visibility to all those affected.

PRODUCTIVITY

52. We noted in paragraph 32 that staffing accounts for a large proportion of the operating costs of the Department. According to our adviser, this proportion is higher than would be found in the private sector. We are proud of the fact that the House pays its staff fairly in a sector of the economy where pay is sometimes low, and that their terms and conditions generally are good. Unsurprisingly in this context, the Department has low levels of staff turnover compared to the private sector. Our adviser has suggested that this may have a negative effect on the Department's productivity levels and on its ability to adjust staffing to meet reasonable changes to the service which customers want. Other developments may also have an impact on the staffing requirement, such as the extent to which produce is bought in rather than produced in-house. We recommend that a productivity review of the Refreshment Department should be carried out once a strategy for the Department has been agreed to see if structural and operational changes would help it to reach its targets more efficiently.

PURCHASING

53. The Refreshment Department currently has 74 suppliers of souvenirs and 132 other suppliers (including food, beverage, sundries and services).[41] This total of 206 suppliers generates more than 2,500 invoices a month. Requests from outlet managers for products can only be met if existing suppliers stock those particular items. Most supplier contracts last for three years, with the option of a two-year extension.

54. Because the House does not sit in the morning on a Monday or a Tuesday, deliveries are concentrated on these days. 45 deliveries are made on a Monday, with only 20 deliveries on other days of the week. A significant proportion of the Department's deliveries have to be escorted by a member of staff from the RD because the driver lacks the appropriate security clearance.

55. We recommend that the Refreshment Department should investigate whether cost and labour efficiencies could be achieved by reducing the number of suppliers used. Given the difficulties of delivery to the Palace of Westminster and the constraints on storage on-site, and in the context of an ongoing study of the options for off-site security clearance of delivery vehicles, we further recommend that the Department should consider options for transferring some of its delivery operations off-site, for subsequent onward delivery to the Palace by a sole operator.

BENCHMARKING

56. It is important that the Refreshment Department understands what is available more widely outside the House in terms of service styles, menus and pricing, in order to promote innovation and better quality and to understand the alternative venues available to its customers. The Director of Catering Services and other managers regularly visit other staff restaurant facilities and benchmark House catering services against these. They are expected to "make regular visits to other food-service sites, mostly operated by contract caterers, and are expected to return from such visits with at least one innovation that can be incorporated into the Refreshment Department's business."[42] However, little appears to be done to benchmark against those high street venues that customers might use in preference to RD facilities. Some of those who responded to our request for evidence clearly prefer to eat outside the House:

    "I now invariably take guests to eat outside the estate because I do not believe the quality inside is satisfactory".[43]

    "Sandwiches, pre-packed salads and desserts whilst reasonable in price rarely appear fresh. Better value can be found outside the Palace from an independent sandwich shop".[44]

57. We are also unclear whether there is any involvement of staff below senior management level in benchmarking. Supervisors and staff both front-of-house and in the kitchens would benefit from the experience of seeing for themselves how service is delivered elsewhere. Benchmarking with the private sector as well as the public sector is essential to ensure quality of service. We recommend that the Department benchmark its services strategically and consistently against catering businesses elsewhere, including against high street venues that customers might use in preference to its own facilities. Benchmarking reports should be considered every six months as part of the Department's strategy. The Department might benefit from the use of an independent benchmarking service. Staff at all levels within the Department should be involved in this benchmarking exercise.

TRAINING

58. This benchmarking exercise might also assist staff training. In general, those responding to our inquiry have praised Refreshment Department staff for their efforts, and we echo this. Many staff have a deep understanding of their customers, Members in particular, developed over years of service. Staff training is crucial, however, to maintaining a customer-focussed service and to enabling staff to adapt to a changing environment. The RD has been seeking to develop a multi-skilled staff to help it to adjust to the changing pattern of demand over the parliamentary week and year. We have noticed, as have Members that responded to our inquiry, that at times the dining rooms appear over-staffed whilst the cafeterias struggle to cope with demand, and an ability to deploy staff more flexibly might help to deal with this kind of disparity.

59. The Refreshment Department is aware of the need to nurture a customer-focussed culture among its staff, and has been seeking to bring supervisors and kitchen staff into closer contact with the customer. The newer facilities in Portcullis House have been designed with kitchens visible to the customer; however, the layout of the facilities in the Palace does not allow for this kind of arrangement. There may nonetheless be ways in which more flexible duties would allow kitchen staff and front-of-house staff a greater experience of one another's roles.

60. It was unfortunate that in 2004-05 the RD underspent significantly on its training budget. It appears to us that there is significant scope for training, either conducted in-house or bought in, and we trust that the Department will ensure that it plans carefully how to improve its delivery in this important area.

OPENING HOURS

61. The times at which outlets are open depend on a balanced judgement of whether the demand for the service justifies the cost of providing it. Several responses questioned the current limited opening hours of outlets during recess, with one submission suggesting that "cut off times for the availability of hot food during the recess are based on the assumption that no-one works in the House of Commons when MPs are not in the building. This is not the case".[45]

62. The Department has told us that it is difficult to assess the likely demand for later opening hours during recess other than by offering a service on a trial basis. The reasoning behind the current cafeteria opening hours during recess is in order for the outlets to be staffed from a single shift from 8.30am to 4.30pm. There may be a shortage of RD staff to provide a second shift during recess, as this is when staff are required to take most of their leave.[46]

63. In recent years the Terrace Cafeteria has remained open until 5.30pm during September and 7pm during that part of October when the House is in recess. However, the demand is largely for teas and coffees rather than hot meals during these extended hours.

64. One option would therefore be to open the Terrace Cafeteria during August until 5.30pm, on a trial basis, serving hot and cold drinks and pre-packaged snacks only. The Refreshment Department has estimated that this service would cost an extra £115 a week to provide. Alternatively, the Despatch Box in Portcullis House could be kept open later during recess on the same trial basis "at modest additional cost".[47] Given the limited additional cost involved and the apparent demand for such a service, we recommend that the Refreshment Department should provide a limited service in either the Terrace Cafeteria or the Despatch Box until 5.30 pm in August 2006 on a trial basis to assess demand.

65. Conversely, other venues are currently open at times of apparently little demand, and there may be a case for closing them at these times: the Pugin Room with seating capacity of 55 served during a sample two-week period in October 2005 between six and thirty covers daily in the evening between 7.30 pm and closing time, while the Members' Tea Room is seriously underused on non-sitting Fridays.[48] The opening hours of other venues may also be worth reconsidering. The benefit of closing venues at times of least use would need to set any savings that would be made by closing them against the need of Members and other users for the service they provide.

66. We recommend that the Refreshment Department should review the opening hours of facilities that are underused at certain times, such as the service in the Members' Tea Room on non-sitting Fridays, and should consider a reduced service, in terms of menu, staff or space, if there would be a cost benefit in doing so.

Specific venues

PALACE DINING ROOMS

67. The Members' and Strangers' Dining Rooms are two fine rooms on the Principal Floor of the Palace. The Members' Dining Room (MDR) seats over 100 people; the Strangers' Dining Room (SDR) seats between 46 and 64. At lunchtime, the Members' dining service, which is exclusively for Members, is served in the smaller SDR, while the Strangers' dining service, which is for primarily for Members with guests, moves to the MDR. The Members' and Strangers' dining services are recognised as important facilities that need to be preserved, where Members can hold private conversations among themselves and entertain guests. In addition, the Churchill Room, with 70 seats, offers a fine dining service within the Palace for dinner on Monday to Wednesday and for lunch on Tuesday to Thursday. All three rooms are available for banqueting functions when they are not open for normal service.

68. The traditional service in these dining rooms is felt by some to create a rather stuffy atmosphere that compares unfavourably with the less formal service in the Adjournment restaurant in Portcullis House. We are aware of complaints about delays in service.[49]

69. This anecdotal evidence is reflected in the usage figures for the different venues. The Adjournment, with 64 seats, served 15,000 covers in 2004-05, an increase of 16 per cent on the previous year. The Churchill Room, with a similar number of seats, served only 6,800 covers in 2004-05, a fall of 14 per cent on the previous year.[50] This comparison is not entirely fair, as the Adjournment is open at times when the Churchill Room is not, but it gives an indication of changing customer preferences. The Members' Dining service served 6,200 covers in 2004-05, a decline of 14 per cent on the previous year. The Strangers' dining service served 14,700 covers in 2004-05, an increase of six per cent on the previous year, but still fewer covers than were served in the Adjournment. It seems clear to us from these statistics that the popularity of the Adjournment is increasing, while usage of the Palace dining rooms is falling away.

70. The subsidy cost of the dining rooms per cover is much higher than in the cafeterias. The Adjournment, however, is able to operate at lower cost per cover than the dining rooms in the main building by employing multi-skilled staff, by operating a less formal brasserie-style service and by offering more cost-effective menus consisting of dishes that are easy to prepare and which, as the statistics show, are popular with its customers.

71. The dining rooms in the Palace clearly have, as the RD suggests, "capacity to increase their business".[51] A virtuous circle could be established in that by improving the quality of food and service, more customers would use these venues, which would reduce the subsidy cost per cover, which should allow quality to be improved further. But for this to happen, both service and menus will need to be simplified.

72. The irregular pattern of demand (a direct result of the parliamentary timetable), the staffing structure and the style of service are the principle reasons that the Members' dining service is sporadically used and the most highly subsidised of the dining facilities. In customer feedback between October 2004 and October 2005, more than half of the comments received about the Members' dining service were complaints about food.[52] The Strangers' dining service is better used, but it has the same complex service and menu styles as the Members' service. Given the interdependency of the two services, which swap location daily, we are not convinced that it would be sensible to attempt to provide substantially different offerings in each.

73. 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. Similar changes have been made at venues such as the Members' restaurant at the RAC City Clubhouse. If carried out tastefully and in keeping with the heritage environment of the Palace, this would have a number of benefits. The simpler menus and service style should improve food quality and speed of delivery, and should also in the longer term free resources front of house and in the kitchens, some of which might go towards improving quality, some towards more attractive pricing, and some towards reducing the subsidy.

74. The offering in the Churchill Room needs to be kept distinct from that in the other Palace dining rooms. It was originally intended as a grill room, and this is a purpose it is well suited to fulfilling. Grilled food is both suitably traditional and reasonably healthy, in keeping with contemporary taste. Focussing on this offering should also help to improve speed of service. We recommend that the Churchill Room should offer a simple but excellent quality grill room menu. We understand that this change should not be complicated or expensive to implement.

75. We look forward to discussing with the House authorities how they envisage taking forward our proposals for improved offerings in the dining rooms in the Palace and expect to examine sample menus and draft timescales for conversion in the coming months.

76. Several submissions have raised the issue of increasing access, for both business and personal use, to the dining rooms. In particular, Peers have requested access to the Churchill Room which is adjacent to the Lords' own new café bar facility, and which is already open to those Peers who were formerly Members of this House. It is suggested that the Churchill Room could provide both a common meeting ground for Members of the two Houses and scope for increased usage.[53] We understand that as long as increased business can be met from within existing staff resources, the contribution from additional customers would reduce the overall cost of the subsidy.[54]

77. The Adjournment restaurant and the Strangers' Dining Room are already open to all pass-holders on Thursday evenings and Friday lunchtimes, when usage by Members is low, but they are rarely booked.[55] We are cautious of widening access to facilities at the peak times when Members are most likely to need the service, particularly as a significant proportion of Members do not make advance bookings.[56] Our intention is that our recommendations to improve the quality of service in the Palace dining rooms should help to increase their use by Members, thereby limiting the subsidy and alleviating the pressure on other outlets to which all passholders have access. The effect on usage of implementing the changes to the Palace dining rooms that we have recommended needs to become apparent before any changes to the access regulations for these facilities should be considered.

BANQUETING

78. The Refreshment Department operates a profitable banqueting service. All of the recorded feedback received by the Department between October 2004 and October 2005 was complimentary.[57] Our adviser has suggested, however, that the style of service and the menus on offer should be reviewed; and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA), in evidence to us, has suggested that the service they receive is sometimes "not quite of the standard which perhaps you might like it to be".[58] Specifically, the CPA has suggested that menus could be lighter and more modern to provide a faster, more efficient service.[59] A private function or banquet at the House of Commons should be memorable - the unique venue should be supported by stunning food and impeccable service no matter where on the Estate a function is held. The environment in the Astor Suite and Clubroom in 1 Parliament Street compare unfavourably in this respect to the four dedicated banquet rooms and the Palace dining rooms. We recommend that the banqueting service offered by the House should be benchmarked against the offerings of competitors at an early opportunity to ensure that customers' preferences are being catered for as effectively as possible.

MEMBERS' TEA ROOM

79. The Tea Room offers Members both privacy and close proximity to the Chamber and it is highly prized, as submissions to our inquiry show.[60] It is hampered, however, by its limited kitchen facilities and by its layout, including the 'spare' counter that is scarcely used. Feedback to the RD has included complaints about the slow service of hot food and the repetitive nature of the menus.[61] Improving the service for Members in outlets elsewhere might alleviate some of the pressure that the Tea Room is under at peak times. However, the Tea Room's customers would also be better served if more dishes could be prepared or made ready to serve in the Tea Room itself. Currently many dishes have to be prepared in very limited kitchen facilities on another floor of the Palace, and these dishes sometimes arrive rather more slowly than customers would like. This arrangement is far from ideal.

80. The quality of the cold counter could be significantly improved; a superior example is to be found at the RAC City Clubhouse. We also suspect that room could be found within the Tea Room for a dedicated counter serving a limited range of hot food. We recommend that the Tea Room should remain substantially as it is, but that its menu should be reviewed with an eye to improving the quality of the cold counter, introducing a counter for a limited range of hot food to be served within the Tea Room, and increasing the extent to which dishes can be prepared and plated within the Tea Room itself.

TERRACE MARQUEE

81. The Terrace Marquee, a temporary structure operating during the summer, currently provides buffet lunches with a bar service in the evening. Unusually for a catering outlet, it operates at a profit. Plans were previously drawn up for the replacement of the Marquee with a permanent structure, but they were not advanced following the subsidy review. The Marquee will need to be replaced within the next few years and serious thought must now be given as to what style of structure should replace it. The RD has suggested an all-weather glazed structure to create a new convivial space for a restaurant or brasserie for Members.[62] We recommend that the Parliamentary Estates Directorate prepare options for a replacement for the Terrace Marquee with indicative costs for our further consideration.

BARS

Strangers' Bar

82. The present location of the Strangers' Bar is unpopular due to the shape and layout of the room. In the longer term, it would be preferable if an alternative location could be found for the bar; the RD has suggested that it might be moved to a new Terrace structure or to the area currently occupied by the Churchill Room.[63] We recommend that any Refreshment Department longer-term plans for the relocation of facilities within the Palace should include looking for alternative locations for the Strangers' Bar which would allow it to realise greater potential. External advice should be sought on location and design.

83. There seems to be a missed opportunity for food sales such as sandwiches and snacks in the House's bars. In contrast, the Bishops' Bar in the House of Lords offers a made-to-order sandwich counter. A made-to-order counter would almost certainly not be practical in the Strangers' Bar given the limited bar space available. However, if space could be found to provide pre-packaged sandwiches and other snacks in the Bar, this might have the advantage of drawing some custom away from the overcrowded Terrace Cafeteria at lunchtimes. We recommend that detailed consideration be given to options for introducing sandwiches and other light pre-packaged snacks into the Strangers' Bar.

Smoking Room Bar

84. This outlet is currently the only refreshment facility which is reserved solely for Members, and as such it is highly valued. It is a fine room in the Palace, used as a bar serving hot and cold drinks. As its name suggests, it is one of the few facilities in which smoking is allowed. Viewed from a purely economic standpoint, the current use of such a large and architecturally distinguished space cannot readily be justified. The salary costs of running the bar exceed its takings. Under current policy decided by the House of Commons Commission following advice received from the Catering Committee towards the end of the last Parliament, smoking is not allowed in any refreshment facility in which food is served. This limits the possible uses to which the Smoking Room could be put. We recommend no change to the Smoking Room.

Annie's Bar

85. It is generally accepted that Annie's Bar is under-used: takings in the bar have halved over the past ten years.[64] It now costs two and half times as much to run as it takes in sales.[65] During the Catering Committee's inquiry in 2002, the Chairman warned the Press Gallery and Members that they should "use it or lose it",[66] but to little effect. The unappealing location has evidently had a negative effect on usage, and, according to the RD, the original purpose of the bar - as a meeting place for Members and Press Lobbyists - "has become largely obsolete".[67] It is clear that the time has come for the bar should be shut and the space used for another, more useful purpose. Previous suggestions for the space have included: a take-away coffee bar, a dry cleaning service or Members' Dressing Rooms (thereby freeing up the Gentlemen Members' Dressing Rooms to be converted into Members' offices).[68] We recommend that Annie's Bar should be closed, and the pool table suitably relocated. Options should then be put to us for alternative uses of the space.[69]

CAFETERIAS

86. The RD operates four cafeterias which are open to all full passholders: the Terrace Cafeteria in the Palace, the Debate in Portcullis House, Bellamy's in 1 Parliament Street, and the Portcullis Cafeteria in 7 Millbank. We have little to say about the facilities in 7 Millbank, which is a building separated from the rest of the Parliamentary Estate, which occupied almost entirely by House staff, and where no Members have offices. The main issue which we seek to address here is how to manage overcrowding in the two most heavily used cafeterias. However, there are also issues concerning sandwiches, special diets and recycling, which are of particular relevance to the cafeterias.

Sandwiches and salads

87. Sandwiches and salads in the cafeterias are often keenly priced, but the freshness and quality compare unfavourably with products available at premium chain stores locally.[70] Customers increasingly prefer to buy take-away food that can be eaten in the office. Encouraging this trend would also help to relieve overcrowding at tables in the cafeterias. The only made-to-order sandwich bar in the House is in the cafeteria in 7 Millbank. We recommend that the Refreshment Department should seek to improve the quality and freshness of sandwiches and salads served in the cafeterias.

Providing for special dietary needs

88. Responses to the Committee from sufferers of nut allergies and Coeliac Disease highlighted the difficulty of obtaining basic information on the ingredients of food currently available in RD outlets.[71] Several submissions to the Committee suggested making available a wider and more imaginative range of vegetarian food.[72] Responses from House staff and Members' staff suggested making halal and kosher food available.[73]

89. The House of Commons Trade Union Side and the Public and Commercial Services Union have queried why fried breakfasts and chips are significantly less expensive than vegetable and salad options and have suggested that, as a responsible employer, the House "should encourage the consumption of fruit, salad and vegetables."[74] Whilst we acknowledge that the Refreshment Department has a visible policy of presenting 'healthy' options on its menus, we agree that in general the House should aim to provide healthier food in its catering outlets. The Department has already expanded the range of food over the years in response to demand, and we accept that it would be impossible to accommodate the tastes and diets of all passholders. However, there may be a case for closer consideration of dietary needs in particular by those responsible for menu and food development. We recommend that the Refreshment Department should ensure that pricing in its outlets is based on a consistent model and does not act as an artificial disincentive to the purchase of healthier food and drink. We further recommend that the Department should examine the feasibility of providing foods to meet special requirements such as gluten-free, kosher and halal diets.

Recycling

90. Facilities to recycle food packaging are also of increasing importance to users. One of our respondents has commented that "the lack of recycling facilities is very disappointing. Several outlets sell large glass bottles of water, yet there is no obvious way to return them for recycling".[75] This is a fair point, which is currently being addressed by the RD. The Department is preparing to introduce a pilot scheme for collection of glass, plastic and cans used in the Terrace and Debate cafeterias, which, if it proves successful, could be rolled out across the Estate.[76] The Department already recycles water bottles from its restaurants, bars and banqueting rooms. We welcome the introduction of a pilot recycling scheme in the cafeterias, and look forward to this being rolled out as swiftly as possible to outlets across the Parliamentary Estate.

Overcrowding

91. With a much wider customer base than the dining rooms, cafeterias account for most of the transactions undertaken by the Refreshment Department. Annual statistics collated by the Refreshment Department on the usage of cafeterias indicate that, as noted by previous Catering Committee,[77] the most popular cafeterias are the Terrace Cafeteria in the main building and the Debate Cafeteria in Portcullis House. Usage of the Debate overtook that of the Terrace in 2003-04.[78] Although, according to Refreshment Department surveys, proximity to the workplace is the single most important determinant of choice of lunch venue,[79] the two cafeterias also cater for different tastes—the Terrace cafeteria serves heavier, more traditional food, while the Debate serves healthier, more modern cuisine.

92. Members and senior staff of the House (Officers) are allowed to bring up to 3 guests to the Terrace Cafeteria; other full passholders are allowed up to 2 guests. Temporary passholders are allowed to use the cafeteria, but not between 12 pm and 2 pm. In the Debate cafeteria rules on access are stricter with Members and senior staff allowed only 2 guests, whilst other full passholders are allowed to bring up to 2 guests, but not between 12 pm and 2 pm. Temporary passholders are not allowed to use the Debate at all.

93. The Department are aware that the two key pressure points in the catering service are lunchtimes (12.30pm to 1.30pm) in these cafeterias. The numbers of House staff and Members' staff have steadily increased over recent years adding to the pressure on catering facilities. Both the Terrace and Debate cafeterias regularly service over 2,000 transactions a day against a design capacity of 1,400 in the Terrace and 1,500 in the Debate.[80] Although there were several criticisms of the quality of food in the Terrace cafeteria, the main concern for users of both cafeterias was the overcrowding suffered at lunchtimes.[81]

94. To help us assess usage of the Terrace and Debate cafeterias we asked the Refreshment Department to undertake a survey on our behalf to identify those categories of passholder using the two cafeterias and whether they bought to eat in or to take-away. The survey was conducted at lunchtime (11.30am to 3pm) on Wednesday 9 November 2005. The survey results are appended to this Report.[82]

95. The largest group of users was House staff in the Terrace cafeteria (34 per cent), but Members' staff in the Debate (41 per cent). Members, who constitute about eight per cent of full passholders, were ten per cent of the customers in both cafeterias. 'Others' were an important category of user in both cafeterias (14 per cent in the Terrace and 12 per cent in the Debate). There is a perception amongst users that the number of permitted guests is regularly exceeded by some customers of the Debate cafeteria.[83] The larger proportion of guests recorded by the survey in the Debate (nine per cent) than in the Terrace (seven per cent), despite more restrictive rules on guests in the Debate, seems to support this perception.

96. In order to address the overcrowding in the two main cafeterias, two main problems need to be addressed:

    i.  Numbers: All (8,000) full passholders have access to these facilities, and an additional 5,000 temporary passholders have access to the Terrace cafeteria at non-peak times.

    ii.  Abuse: Access regulations are not actively enforced in either outlet.

97. When examining these two problems, we were aware of the following considerations:

    a)  For many passholders in the main building, the Terrace cafeteria is the only convenient outlet.

    b)  For Members, the cafeterias are the only outlets to which they can take guests for informal, quick and cheap meals.

Bellamy's cafeteria: an underused alternative

98. Drawing customers away from the Terrace and the Debate Cafeteria might be one way of alleviating the pressure on the two outlets. We make recommendations below on widening access to the Press Cafeteria within the Palace as a way of providing full passholders with a nearby alternative to the Terrace Cafeteria.[84]

99. Bellamy's cafeteria in 1 Parliament Street is an obvious alternative to the Debate, as it is located very close to Portcullis House. Since the Catering Committee Report of 2002, the refurbishment of Bellamy's has been completed. Responses to the Committee and feedback to the Refreshment Department indicate that the outlet is a popular one—

  • "This is the best of the outlets […] in terms of choice, quality and price".[85]
  • "I regularly eat at Bellamy's as I feel that the quality of food and the quantity and variety are exceptional".[86]

100. Spare capacity there at peak times could relieve pressure on the nearby Debate cafeteria. The RD has recognised this and has tried a number of ways to encourage customers to use Bellamy's, including offering dishes in a lower price spend range than the Debate, and a daily spicy dish, as recommended by our predecessors. The Department has told us that these efforts have been successful in building custom.[87]

101. We consider that the Department should continue its more pro-active methods. For example, adverts for Bellamy's prominently displayed outside the Debate cafeteria might be effective in luring custom away during crowded lunchtimes. In particular temporary passholders, who are unable to use the Debate during the peak hours at lunchtime, should be made aware that they are allowed to use Bellamy's. However, the most effective way of increasing the popularity of Bellamy's will be to ensure that standards of food and service—and pricing—compare favourably with other venues on the Estate. We recommend that the Refreshment Department should continue their proactive approach to promoting Bellamy's cafeteria in 1 Parliament Street.

Access regulations

102. The current access regulations are complicated. They vary from venue to venue in terms of who is allowed access, and in their rules on guests. Where existing access regulations are not followed, this may be caused by confusion rather than by wilful neglect. As one of our witnesses told us: "From the Members' staff points of view, the turnover of staff that come in, I do not think [the access regulations] are terribly well understood".[88]

103. We see three possible solutions to this problem:

    a)  Greater communication of the access regulations.

    b)  More effective enforcement of the access regulations.

    c)  Possible revision of the rules.

Greater communication of access regulations

104. Better signage has been suggested to communicate the regulations more effectively.[89] We recommend that the Refreshment Department erect clearly visible signage outside all outlets indicating the appropriate access rules and showing sample passes for the avoidance of doubt.

105. Information on the RD intranet pages is currently the main tool for communicating access regulations. There is also a booklet containing the access rules which has been given to all new House staff as part of their induction course and also to new Members following the last two general elections.[90] It does not, however, appear to have been circulated to Members' staff or to other passholders. We recommend that the Refreshment Department make available through the Pass Office to all new passholders on arrival a simple guide to the rules on access to its facilities, as well as electronically on the Parliamentary Intranet.

Enforcement of access regulations

106. We have been told by the RD told us that they lack the resources to enforce the existing access regulations. One user of the Debate told us: "When I raised these points once with a Manager, I was told that he had several times tried to enforce the Access Regulations and had been subjected to verbal abuse".[91] Abuse of House staff is unacceptable. Those who breach access regulations, even inadvertently, should expect to be challenged. However, enforcement of rules is more easily and authoritatively carried out by a designated member of staff. There are of course cost implications to this, but the current situation in which the rules are not effectively enforced at all cannot be allowed to continue. We recommend that a designated member of staff should be posted outside the Debate and Terrace cafeterias at lunchtimes on Mondays to Wednesdays for two weeks running and then at regular intervals afterwards, tasked with controlling access and advising passholders of the regulations.

Revision of the rules

107. The freedom to entertain guests is highly prized by Members and staff alike. We do not currently recommend changing the rules on the numbers of guests allowed in the cafeterias. However, simplifying the rules, by allowing only two visitors per passholder in both the Terrace and the Debate, might assist in the enforcement of rules, and this is a step we might consider in future if the current rules prove unenforceable.

108. We have considered reducing the categories of passholder given access to the Terrace cafeteria, as the perception is that overcrowding is caused by the use of the facility by large numbers of civil servants and contractors rather than by too many guests. Most civil servants and contractors have temporary passes and are already not allowed to the use Terrace cafeteria between 12 pm and 2 pm. However, it is not clear why civil servants, with their own catering facilities nearby in Whitehall, should be allowed to use catering facilities in the House at all. There may be a genuine case for a small number of civil servants on any given day who are attending business in the House or its Committees and who do not have time to eat elsewhere. But the impression users have is that civil servants are simply using the House as a lunchtime alternative to Whitehall. We recommend that civil servants should only have access to the House's catering facilities when on specific parliamentary business, and that they should be required to obtain special passes to enable them to have this access.

109. Mobile canteens are generally provided for temporary works contractors during the summer recess, but these contractors often prefer to eat in the Terrace cafeteria. Other temporary contractors' staff have the option of eating in the Jubilee Cafeteria in the Palace or Bellamy's cafeteria in 1 Parliament Street. We do not, however, wish to restrict the access enjoyed by longer-term contractors' staff working in the House. Because existing passes do not distinguish effectively between these two categories, such a distinction might currently be difficult to enforce. Nonetheless, we recommend that temporary works contractors should not be allowed to use the Terrace Cafeteria, and should be advised of the alternatives available to them.

Other measures to alleviate pressure on the two cafeterias

110. Queues often form in the Terrace cafeteria servery area. We are advised that this is because of the inefficient layout of the serving counters, the hot drink machines and the tills. The design of the Terrace cafeteria is nine years old and we are advised that modern equipment would be a more efficient use of the space and could be designed to comply with listed building requirements. We recommend that the redesign and refurbishment of the Terrace cafeteria servery area should be an early priority for the Refreshment Department and that external advice should be sought on this redesign, incorporating best practice from providers of similar facilities elsewhere.

111. The House of Commons Trade Union Side and the Secretaries' and Assistants' Council have suggested that Bellamy's Clubroom and the Gift Kiosk are underused facilities that could be put to better use as take-away sandwich bars also serving hot drinks.[92] The Clubroom is currently a lunchtime seating area reserved for Members who can bring food from Bellamy's cafeteria to eat there. It had previously contained a servery for Members and their guests but this was removed following the subsidy review. In its current purpose it has been described as "grossly under used".[93]

112. The gift kiosk in 1 Parliament Street is one of the House's profitable retail outlets, but in this case the level of profit is very small. We recommend that all full passholders be allowed to use Bellamy's Clubroom and that in the longer term the use of the Clubroom and the gift kiosk in 1 Parliament Street should be reconsidered.

113. The implementation of other recommendations made below in this Report would also be likely to alleviate pressure on the Terrace and Debate cafeterias.

PRESS GALLERY FACILITIES

114. The Press Gallery has three facilities in the main building to which its members and staff from the Department of the Official Report have access: the Press Dining Room, the Press Cafeteria and the Press Bar. Doorkeepers of the Gallery are also allowed to use the cafeteria and bar.

115. The Press facilities are relatively highly subsidised compared to most other outlets, largely due to their under-use.[94] The cafeteria has a seating capacity of 63. In a sample two week period in October 2005 the highest number of transactions, including take-away food and drink, over the busiest lunchtime period on a Wednesday (12.30 pm to 1.30 pm) was 57.[95] The dining room has a seating capacity of 56. During a sample three-week period, the average number of covers served at lunch and dinner was 12.[96] In 2004-05 each customer served in the Press Gallery cafeteria cost the taxpayer more than six times as much as each customer served in the Debate cafeteria.

Access

116. In evidence to the Catering Committee in the last Parliament, the Press Gallery said that they "would be quite happy for our canteen to be open to other people".[97] We understand that subsequent concerns amongst Press Gallery members over security and confidentiality led to a withdrawal of that offer. Mr Hurst has told us that the Press Gallery would now again agree to access being widened, but "on the understanding that [passholders] will not access other areas of the Press Gallery and will respect the confidentiality of documents and private working areas in the Press Gallery".[98] The Refreshment Department is sceptical whether a relaxation of the access rules before the current facilities are refurbished would attract more custom from other passholders due to the rather awkward location of the Press Gallery facilities.[99] However, evidence from both House staff and Members' staff suggests that other passholders would be interested in using the facilities, even in their current form.[100]

117. We appreciate the special relationship between the House and the Press and the need to provide facilities for the Press on the premises. However, the current situation, in which facilities are made available at considerable public expense only for use by the Press and by a small number of House staff, is an anomaly. We recommend that the Press Gallery Cafeteria should be made available to all full passholders as soon as possible, but that only those categories of passholder currently permitted to use it should be allowed to bring guests.

118. There would apparently be "great resistance" from the Gallery to the prospect of widening access to the Press bar.[101] We would not propose widening access to the bar in its current form. Access to the bar and dining facility are matters that we are minded to look at again once plans for refurbishment have become clear.

Refurbishment

119. Whilst the severe under-use of the press facilities may be due to the limited number of people allowed to access the facilities (only 170 members of the press have permanent desks at Parliament), the age and condition of the kitchen equipment affect the quality of the food served. Members of the press gallery have clearly chosen to eat elsewhere.[102] According to Greg Hurst, the Honorary Secretary of the Parliamentary Press Gallery: "I am sure if, as planned, the kitchens are replaced, the quality of the food will improve and I hope, therefore, my colleagues will use the facilities. I imagine revenue will increase and the subsidy will go down."[103]

120. Design work on refurbishment has now commenced and a project team is at an advanced stage of considering the detailed options for the facilities.[104] The Gallery has told us that they are particularly concerned to retain a dining room facility for monthly press lunches at which up to 100 covers are served.[105] As Mr Hurst told us: "We would be very loath to give up our press dining room under any circumstances."[106] The monthly press lunch is a valued event which needs to be able to continue, but it is scarcely justification for the continued running at public expense of a separate dining facility for the press.

121. Refurbishment of the Press Gallery catering facilities has been considered in detail by the Finance and Services Committee. It is vital that the catering facilities that emerge after the Press Gallery refurbishment should be provided at a significantly lower level of subsidy than those that exist at the moment, and that the business case for their provision at this expense should be capable of standing up to detailed public scrutiny. A refurbished press gallery should not contain a separate press dining room.

RETAIL OUTLETS

122. The House's retail activities make a significant profit, on sales of a little under £1 million,[107] making an important contribution towards reducing the subsidy. They deserve further consistent development.

123. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) purchases gifts for visiting delegations from the main gift shop on a frequent basis. They are also well placed to provide feedback from visiting overseas Parliamentarians. According to Andrew Tuggey from the CPA, "the comments which come back […] are not frightfully kind".[108] He has suggested that the location of the shop, the range and quality of the goods and the style of customer service need to be improved. The current location is awkward. A larger area would allow a free flow of customers around the merchandise, improve the presentation of souvenirs and would therefore increase sales and profits. Alternative accommodation is considered below in paragraph 125.

124. Souvenirs need to reflect an appropriate use of the House of Commons 'brand' and the image of Parliament, and they must also must be perceived as special, attractive, affordable and good value for money if they are to sell. Not all the products within the House's range achieve these goals. Products should be benchmarked against the souvenirs of other Parliaments, the House of Lords gift shop and outside organisations and venues with a reputation for good quality merchandise. We recommend that the range and pricing of retail items sold on behalf of the House should be subject to benchmarking and that there should be internal and external review of the range of products available.

REORGANISATION OF PALACE FACILITIES

125. There is clearly potential in the longer term for reviewing how the existing Refreshment Department accommodation could be better used to serve Members' needs. Suggestions the Department has already given us include converting the Churchill Room into a combined bar and brasserie; relocating the souvenir shop to the area currently occupied by Strangers' Bar to create a more substantial and impressive retail space which would increase revenues; and providing a take-away facility offering speciality coffees in the current souvenir shop or where Annie's Bar is currently situated.[109] We have already made recommendations for the change in style of the Churchill Room in the short term as we are aware that any structural works to change the use of rooms in the Palace need a minimum lead time of 18 months to two years due to the need for planning consents.[110] We recommend that the Refreshment Department's strategy should have a longer-term perspective, and that the Department should bring suggestions to us for ways in which its accommodation might usefully be reconfigured.



29   Ev 43 [Meg Hillier MP] Back

30   Ev 43 [Susan Kramer MP] Back

31   Ev 43 [Dr Nick Palmer MP] Back

32   Ev 44 [Mr Barry Sheerman MP] Back

33   Ev 47 [Mrs Christine Heald] Back

34   Ev 47 [Christine Hemming] Back

35   Ev 11 [Commonwealth Parliamentary Association] Back

36   Ev 35 Back

37   House of Commons Corporate Business Plan 2006, p 5 Back

38   Ev 37 Back

39   Ev 22 Back

40   Ev 23 Back

41   Ev 37 Back

42   Ev 44 Back

43   Ev 44 [Mr Andrew Slaughter MP, see also Mr Barry Sheerman MP] Back

44   Ev 10 [Secretaries' and Assistants' Council] Back

45   Ev 43 [Alison Seabeck MP] Back

46   Ev 37 Back

47   Ibid. Back

48   Ev 28, 30 Back

49   Q 49 Back

50   RD evidence, Schedule 6 [not printed] Back

51   Ev 35 Back

52   RD evidence, Schedule 17a [not printed] Back

53   Ev 36 Back

54   Ibid. Back

55   Ibid. Back

56   Ev 37 Back

57   Ev 23 Back

58   Q 48 Back

59   Ev 11 Back

60   Ev 44 [Dr Phyllis Starkey MP], 45 [Mr Andrew Turner MP] Back

61   RD evidence, Schedule 17 [not printed] Back

62   Ev 23, 24 Back

63   Ev 24 Back

64   Ev 23 Back

65   RD evidence, Schedule 5 [not printed] Back

66   Catering Committee, Refreshment Facilities in the House of Commons, Q 137 Back

67   Ev 23 Back

68   Ibid.  Back

69   We discuss a possible reorganisation of the facilities in the Palace at paragraph 125 below. Back

70   Qq 56-58 Back

71   Ev 42 [Gordon Banks MP] Back

72   Ev 43 [Kali Mountford MP], 46 [Portia Dadley], 51 [June Hart] Back

73   Ev 45 [Yasmin Ataullah, Asad Rehman, Lara Sami], 51 [Mashood Ahmed] Back

74   Ev 9 [House of Commons Trade Union Side] Back

75   Ev 46 [Ingrid Davidson] Back

76   House of Commons Commission Spokesman's response to a report from Norman Baker MP, paragraph 12. Available online at http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/NBGreenRepRes.pdf Back

77   Catering Committee, Refreshment Facilities in the House of Commons, para 5 Back

78   Ev 21 Back

79   Ev 35 Back

80   Ev 21 Back

81   Q 45 Back

82   Ev 38-42 Back

83   Ev 47 [Mrs Christine Heald], 50 [Diana Thompson] Back

84   See paragraph 117 Back

85   Ev 45 [Mr Anthony Steen MP] Back

86   RD evidence, Schedule 17 [not printed] Back

87   Ev 35 Back

88   Q 81 Back

89   Q 82 Back

90   Ev 35 Back

91   Ev 47 [Mrs Christine Heald] Back

92   Ev 9, 10 Back

93   Q 75 Back

94   Ev 20, 37 Back

95   During the same period, with a seating capacity of 148, the Terrace cafeteria served 236 covers. Figures provided by the Refreshment Department, schedule 12 Back

96   Ev 31, 32 Back

97   Catering Committee, Refreshment Facilities in the House of Commons, Q 121 Back

98   Q 40 Back

99   Ev 36, 37 Back

100   Ev 9 and Q 51 Back

101   Q 10 Back

102   Ev 1 Back

103   Q 3 Back

104   Ev 37 Back

105   Q 35 Back

106   Q 15 Back

107   RD evidence, Schedule 7 [not printed] Back

108   Q 85 Back

109   Ev 23 Back

110   Ev 35 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 14 February 2006