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:
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
