Further memorandum from the Refreshment
Department
STATISTICAL INFORMATION DRAWN FROM A SURVEY
OF LUNCH-TIME USAGE OF THE "DEBATE" AND TERRACE CAFETERIAS
ON WEDNESDAY 9 NOVEMBER 2005
OBJECTIVE AND
METHODOLOGY
1. The survey was conducted in order to
analyse and compare the peak-time usage of the "debate"
self-service restaurant in Portcullis House and the Terrace Cafeteria
in the Palace of Westminster. The latter in particular has been
identified as a pressure point in the Department's delivery of
catering services, where overcrowding at peak times impacts on
the quality of food and service provided.[6]
2. A survey was conducted to provide a snap-shot
of who is using each of these services and when
they are using it. This was done by recording details of all users
between the hours of 11.30 am and 3.00 pm on Wednesday 9 November
2005. The proportion of take-away meals was also recorded, as
this is pertinent when assessing pressure on the seating capacity.
The questionnaire format was similar to that used when the services
were last surveyed in 2002, so comparisons can be made against
the breakdown, by pass category of user, published in the Catering
Committee's report in 2002.[7]
ANALYSIS OF
USAGE BY
PASS CATEGORY
(a) Terrace Cafeteria (Refer to Annex 1, Chart
1)
3. Over 60% of the 1,009 customers using
the Terrace Cafeteria were MPs (10%), their staff (15%), or staff
of the House of Commons (34%). 10% of users were Members and staff
of the House of Lords. A relatively large number of police and
security staff use this venue (87, or 9% of total users). Usage
by members of the Press was low (12, or 1% of the total). 73 guests
(7% of total) used the facility, but it was not separately identified
how many of these were guests of Members and how many were guests
of staff. The remaining 143 customers (14% of users) fell into
other categories; these are detailed in paragraph 5 below.
(b) the "debate" (refer to Annex
1, Chart 2)
4. Generally, the customer base in the "debate"
tends to have a younger profile than the Terrace, and Member's
staff made up over 40% of the clientele. House staff, on the other
hand, made up only 17% of customers. The number of MPs was very
similar in both venues, with 107 using the "debate"
compared with 105 in the Terrace. As might be expected given its
location in Portcullis House, usage by Members and staff of the
House of Lords was lower than in the Terrace (5%, or 57 customers).
The "debate" was also less popular with police and security
staff (48, compared with 87 in the Terrace), but more popular
with the Press (22, compared with 12 in the Terrace). There were
more guests in this venue than in the Terrace (95 versus
73), which is surprising given that only Members and Officers
are permitted to entertain guests in the "debate" between
12.00 and 2.00 pm. Other users were similar in number to the Terrace
Cafeteria and are detailed below.
(c) Analysis of "other" users
5. As mentioned above, 14% of customers
in the Terrace Cafeteria and 12% in the "debate" did
not fit into the principal customer categories. A breakdown of
these other users is provided below:
|
| Pass Description | No Customers Terrace Cafeteria the "debate"
|
|
| Day pass holder (ie un-attributable) | 31
| 9 |
| Civil Servant (incl Govt Car Service) | 21
| 39 |
| Post Office/Telecoms/Gurneys/HMSO/TV | 26
| 23 |
| Other Contractors | 17
| 22 |
| Whips' Office Staff | 31
| 13 |
| Party HQ Staff | 0
| 2 |
| Members' Spouses | 4
| 15 |
| CPA/IPU/BAPG staff | 5
| 5 |
| Commonwealth/Overseas visitor | 1
| 2 |
| Parliamentary Counsel | 6
| 6 |
| Former Member | 1
| 0 |
| Total | 143
| 136 |
|
CUSTOMER THROUGHPUT
6. Usage levels were typical for a mid-week day when
the House is sitting, recording over 1,000 transactions during
the 3½-hour lunch period in both venues (1,102 in the "debate",
and 1,009 in the Terrace Cafeteria). Of these, 53% of the business
in the "debate" was take-away, compared with 45% in
the Terrace Cafeteria.
7. In both venues, around 60% of business took place
between 12.30 pm and 2.00 pm, with the peak period in the Terrace
Cafeteria being a little earlier than in the "debate".
The peak lunch-hour in both venues was 12.30-1.30 pm, when 413
covers were served in the Terrace Cafeteria compared with 499
in the "debate" (see Annex 2).
8. Although the "debate" handles more customers
than the Terrace during the peak lunch hour, it is pertinent that
the "debate" has three permanent cashier points, whereas
the third cashier point in the Terrace Cafeteria is unsuitable
for use over a sustained period. Assuming that the third cashier
point in the Terrace Cafeteria operates for around 50% of the
time during the peak hour, customer throughput at each cashier
point equates to 2.8 customers per minute in both venues. This
does not support the perception, voiced by some Members of the
Committee, that the "debate" handles its queues any
more effectively than the Terrace Cafeteria.
SEAT TURNOVER
9. In the "debate", 522 (47%) customers ate-in
and 580 (53%) had take-away meals. Given that the "debate"
has 200 seats, seat turnover over the 3½-hour lunch service
was 5.5 for all customers or 2.8 for customers eating in the venue.
During the peak hour (12.30-1.30pm) the seat turnover was 1.2
eat-in customers for every available seat.
10. In the Terrace Cafeteria, 552 (55%) customers ate
in and 457 (45%) had take-away meals. Based on 148 seats (Members'
and Strangers' sections), seat turnover was 6.8 for all customers
or 3.75 for customers eating in. This is considerably higher than
the 2.8 rate reported in the "debate".
11. However, in the Terrace Cafeteria, 70 of the 148
seats are reserved for use by Members and their guests. Even if
all Members ate-in and all guests were with Members, a minimum
of 374 customers used the 78 seats available in the Strangers'
section. This equates to a seat turnover rate (for eat-in customers
only) of 4.8 over the lunch-time period, compared with 2.8 in
the "debate". In reality, the rate is higher, as some
Members purchase take-away meals and some guests are with staff
and, hence, add to the strain on the Strangers' seating.
12. Although the seat turnover was lower and, hence,
more comfortable in the Members' section, Members would experience
the same overcrowding in the servery area and at the tills. This
undoubtedly affects their perceptions about the quality of service,
although we agree that customer care can be improved in this area.
CONCLUSION
13. Although usage of the "debate" is generally
up to 10% higher than usage of the Terrace Cafeteria, the problems
of overcrowding are more severe in the Terrace. The perception
that the "debate" handles customer throughput more effectively
than the Terrace is not borne out by the statistics, and the seating
capacity in the "debate" is adequate for the number
of users.
14. In contrast, the Terrace Cafeteria is older in design,
smaller in size and seating capacity, is constrained in its layout
by the conservation and heritage requirements imposed on accommodation
in the Palace and, generally, is less suited to handling the volume
of customers now using the facility. Although there are undoubtedly
things that can be done to improve the quality of food and service
in this venue, customers will inevitably be more inclined to form
a negative impression of their overall "meal experience"
in a venue that is ill-equipped to serve and seat them in comfort.
This reinforces our point, already made in our previous paper
to the Committee (para 48) that we would welcome discussion
of any scheme that could alleviate pressure on the Terrace Cafeteria,
whether this be by restricting access to the venue, or by finding
ways of introducing new services that will draw away some of its
custom.
6
Submission of Evidence to the Administration Committee by the
House of Commons Refreshment Department, paras 31-35. Back
7
Refreshment Facilities in the House of Commons, Catering Committee,
First Report 2001-02, Appendix 1, Charts 2 and 3, page Ev 36. Back
| 
