Conclusions and recommendations
In house or outsourced
1. While
the peculiar nature of the parliamentary timetable and security
demands mean that it is highly unlikely that staffing costs could
be reduced to commercial levels, we consider that the current
level of staffing cost and management cost to income is excessive
and represents an unacceptably high cost to the taxpayer, especially
at a time of spending constraint in all public services. We urge
the Commission and the Board of Management to take positive steps
in the near future to address this issue and recommend that progress
be made by 31 December 2011 and a report made back to this Committee
by 31 March 2012 on whether a process to outsource the service
should commence. (Paragraph 56)
Staff efficiencies
2. HR
and finance costs attached to the House's Catering and Retail
Service appear to be three times the average expected in the commercial
sector. We recommend that steps be taken by the Department of
Facilities to find efficiencies in that area. (Paragraph 57)
3. We recommend that
the Department of Facilities seek to save £110,000 a year
by absorbing light cleaning duties into Catering and Retail staff
duties. (Paragraph 58)
Gross profit levels
4. We
recommend that steps be taken incrementally to even out disparities
identified in gross profit levels in outlets that are similar
in style of provision and purpose. (Paragraph 60)
Prices
5. We
recommend that the Members' Dining Room offer a mixture of fixed
price and a la carte prices. (Paragraph 65)
The impact on staff
6. We
recommend that the Catering and Retail Service monitor the impact
of price increases on footfall in staff cafeterias and identify
means of reclaiming some of the trade from staff that has clearly
been lost as a result of prices increasing. We recommend that,
until the new patterns of trading have become clear, the Commission
consider no short-term further increases in those cafeterias above
the rate of inflation. (Paragraph 71)
Staff loyalty schemes
7. We
recommend that the Catering and Retail Service introduce a staff
loyalty or discount scheme to benefit the lower-paid staff of
Members and the House, with the specific intention of encouraging
back customers who appear to have been lost as a result of price
increases. (Paragraph 74)
Quality
8. We
reject any proposal to reduce subsidy by lowering the quality
standards required for foodstuffs purchased by the House of Commons,
particularly in respect of animal welfare standards. (Paragraph
77)
Service
9. The
management of the service needs to respond more quickly and effectively
to complaints about poor service, and to manage poor service out
of the system. We recommend more comprehensive customer service
training be provided and that members of staff be enabled to spend
some time in the commercial sector to update and broaden customer
service skills. We support enhancement of the existing 'mystery
shopper' programme to enable the gathering of more customer data
about the quality of service offered across the Estate. (Paragraph
80)
Internal marketing
10. We
agree with the Executive Chef that much could be done more actively
to promote the service and what is on offer in individual cafeterias
on different days via dedicated intranet pages under the Chef's
own control. We recommend that these be provided to him. (Paragraph
81)
11. We recommend that
the Catering and Retail Service review product signage and labelling
in each outlet to ensure that customers may make better informed
decisions on the basis of price. Improved signage and labelling
would also enable the department to tell its own 'good news stories'
on the use of fresh seasonal ingredients, healthy cooking techniques
and sustainable, organic or Fairtrade produce. (Paragraph 82)
Made-to-order sandwiches
12. We
recommend that a made-to-order sandwich service be introduced
in Portcullis House, on a trial basis if need be to test demand.
Such a service might be provided within an enlarged Debate cafeteria,
with a separate queuing system, and some additional tables and
seating both within and outside the Debate. This could be done
by reducing the space presently occupied by the Members Centre
and by restricting that centre to use by Members, as was always
intended, and not as an overspill space for additional Members'
staff. The sandwich service and a premium coffee bar could be
placed in the additional space gained without any need to disrupt
or reconfigure the existing Debate service. (Paragraph 84)
VAT exemption
13. We
recommend that the Catering and Retail Service investigate with
HMRC whether VAT exemptions should apply to relevant takeaway
food items sold on the Estate, and pass on any saving to those
who purchase takeaway items. (Paragraph 85)
Members' Dining Room
14. We
recommend that the Catering and Retail Service identify means
to reduce staffing levels in the Members' Dining Room without
entirely removing the table service valued by many Members. We
recommend that the service seek to capture more of the untapped
demand among the Members for whom the room exists by offering
a wider range of simpler, lighter, inexpensive options as well
as a few main courses and the buffet currently provided, and we
welcome the positive response the Catering and Retail Service
has already made to this suggestion. (Paragraph 97)
15. With the caveat
that acceptable reciprocal use of Lords facilities should first
be negotiated, we agree that all Peers should be able to use the
Members' Dining Room at lunch times, and are open to the suggestion
that that access should be extended in the evenings, too, perhaps
with a limit on the number of Peers who may use the Room at that
time. (Paragraph 98)
Strangers' Dining Room, Adjournment and Churchill
Room
16. We
recognise that changing times, healthier lifestyles and stricter
working practices have reduced formal lunching, and that the four
main Dining Rooms which currently offer full table service lunches
on the House of Commons Estate collectively suffer from significant
under-occupancy. We acknowledge that the Catering and Retail Service
has proposed reducing their number to three in order to reduce
the cost of providing that service. (Paragraph 105)
17. We believe that
offering a wider range of food styles and less formal service
in the Churchill Room would help to raise revenues while also
reducing costs to some degree. We reiterate the nine-year old
suggestion of our predecessor Committee that the Churchill Room
might provide a lighter, quicker, cheaper style of service at
lunch time and a waiter service in the evenings, possibly including
a carvery service. (Paragraph 106)
18. We recognise that
remodelling the Adjournment would provide more space for the type
of food offer made to all parliamentary pass holders in the cafeterias
that are already overcrowded and most popular, but would be reluctant
to lose the lighter, more modern style of food and service that
has been achieved in that location. (Paragraph 107)
19. More can be done
to vary the food styles on offer. At present, customers may broadly
choose between cafeteria food or high-quality dining. There is
a gap for the provision of mid-level, high street type offers
such as pizza, pasta, Thai, Indian, Chinese or sushi, and we recommend
that the Catering and Retail Service produce proposals outlining
what might be achieved in that respect. (Paragraph 108)
20. We suggest that
widening access to the underused Dining Rooms might also help
raise more revenue and is an alternative to simply reducing the
variety and quality of what is on offer. To that end, we recommend
that members of the Press Gallery be granted access to the Adjournment
with the right to entertain three guests (and that the success
of that be reviewed 12 months from the date of the Commission's
response to this Report), that all Peers be granted access to
the Adjournment, the Strangers' Dining Room and the Churchill
Room, without guests on sitting Monday and Tuesday evenings but
with up to three guests at other times, and that full pass holders
be granted access to the Churchill Room and Adjournment Restaurant
at lunch time. (Paragraph 110)
21. We recommend that
an integrated booking system for the Dining Rooms be introduced
as soon as possible, in order that customers turned away from
one may be advised which others have tables available. (Paragraph
111)
22. We recommend that
Members retain full booking rights for the Churchill Room and
Adjournment, and that other user groups may book tables on a first-come,
first-served basis no more than two working days before dining.
We acknowledge that this may mean Members who seek to book late
or turn up without a booking may be turned away. This is an inevitable
consequence of widening access, and the Strangers' and Members'
Dining Rooms will continue to be available primarily to Members
as at present. (Paragraph 112)
Members' Tea Room
23. We
agree that it makes sense to close the Members' Tea Room on non-sitting
Fridays, and recommend that the Catering and Retail Service close
it earlier than 2013-14, as is presently proposed. (Paragraph
115)
24. We oppose any
proposal to reduce the service offered in the Members' Tea Room.
(Paragraph 116)
Terrace Cafeteria
25. We
see no reason why the Members-only area of the Terrace cafeteria
should not be opened to all users on days when the House does
not sit, including recesses and non-sitting Fridays. (Paragraph
118)
26. We suggest that
Members themselves be mindful, particularly at Tuesday and Wednesday
lunch times, that sitting in the 'public' section while Members-only
seating remains unused may be depriving someone else of somewhere
to eat. (Paragraph 118)
27. We recommend that
the Catering and Retail Service make an estimated saving of £81,000
a year by introducing self-clearing to the Terrace and Debate
cafeterias. We see no reason why this should not be done long
before the planned start date of 2013-14. (Paragraph 119)
Debate
28. We
recommend that consideration be given to closing the Debate in
the evenings owing to the much-reduced demand at that time of
day and the availability of sufficient capacity in the Terrace
cafeteria to absorb that custom. (Paragraph 123)
Bellamy's Cafeteria
29. We
agree that the Bellamy's Cafeteria should open only between 12
noon and 3 pm in order to reduce the costs of staffing an all-day
service by approximately £54,000 a year. (Paragraph 125)
7 Millbank
30. We
see no reason to retain the evening service at the Portcullis
Cafeteria in 7 Millbank given the small number of transactions
carried out there each evening, and we note that staff in the
building have previously been advised that they would lose the
service if it was not used. We support the proposal to save £10,000
a year by closing it at 5.30 pm. (Paragraph 129)
31. The case that
7 Millbank cannot support two full-scale cafeterias is a compelling
one and savings can clearly be made there. We support the Catering
and Retail Service's proposal to close the 6th floor cafeteria,
which will save an estimated £58,000 a year. (Paragraph 131)
Moncrieffs table service
32. The
Catering and Retail Service has proposed closing the table service
area of Moncrieffs as a savings measure, and we agree that it
should do so, with the proviso that members of the Gallery should
instead be able to dine in the Adjournment. (Paragraph 134)
Moncrieffs cafebar
33. We
recommend that Moncrieff's cafebar be renamed Annie's Bar and
promoted actively by the Catering and Retail Service to Members'
staff and staff of the House as an alternative to the bar lost
last year when the nursery was constructed in 1 Parliament
Street. We recommend that closing time in the bar return to matching
the rise of the House for a trial period of six months, from 10
October 2011, to see whether demand for an evening service exists
in that location. (Paragraph 141)
34. We note the various
proposals the Catering and Retail Service has made on altering
the service provided in Moncrieffs. We are not yet minded to agree
that the approach proposed is the correct one, and ask the service
to return to us with alternative proposals on the basis outlined
in paragraph 140. (Paragraph 142)
Despatch Box
35. We
are not convinced that the souvenir shop is the ideal location
for a new coffee bar, but see the force of arguments that there
is latent demand for such facilities and would support the creation
of more of them, either within existing facilities or in new locations,
including in the Palace of Westminster itself. (Paragraph 145)
36. Removal of the
gift shop in favour of a coffee bar would require replacement
of the gift shop elsewhere. The end of the Line of Route in Westminster
Hall is the best possible location for a gift shop. (Paragraph
146)
37. We note the Catering
and Retail Service suggestion that installing an espresso coffee
machine in the Strangers' Bar could raise footfall there during
the quieter daytime hours, and we recommend that that be done
regardless of whether the souvenir shop is converted to a coffee
bar. Provision of an espresso machine in the Smoking Room might
serve the same function. (Paragraph 147)
Pugin Room
38. We
reject the proposal that the Pugin Room should become only a bar.
The present range of service should continue to be provided. We
note the service's proposal to reduce opening hours because of
comparatively slack business before lunch time and later in the
evenings. We recommend as an alternative that access to the Pugin
Room be granted until midday to all Peers and staff of the House
for a trial period of a year to enable the service to test whether
demand may rise to fill the slacker early hours. Given the minimal
transactions recorded after 10 pm even when the House is sitting,
we see no reason why the Room should not close at no later than
10 pm on any night. (Paragraph 149)
Jubilee Cafeteria
39. We
recommend that more visible and more informative signage be erected
in Westminster Hall to ensure that visitors are more aware that
there is a cafeteria there, at the end of their tours, and that
they are welcome to enter it. (Paragraph 150)
Strangers' Bar
40. We
recommend that the security officer based at the entrance to the
Terrace be tasked with ensuring that those on the Terrace have
the right to be there, by challenging at the door and by ensuring
that patrolling officers monitor users of the Terrace regularly.
We further recommend that the Strangers' bar staff be encouraged
more vigorously to challenge those who do not have that right,
including guests of Members or of staff who are or may be present
in the bar without their host. (Paragraph 156)
41. We recommend that
access to Strangers' Bar be allowed at any time for Members and
up to three guests. Officers of the House and Peers should have
access without guests on Mondays and Tuesdays, and with up to
three guests for the remainder of the week. Other staff of the
House, staff of Members and members of the Press Gallery should
have access to the bar and the Terrace on non-sitting Fridays
and recess days. (Paragraph 157)
Smoking Room
42. We
recommend that the Catering and Retail Service offer options on
how to run the Smoking Room (which might usefully be given a new
name) with the minimum staffing necessary in order to reduce the
costs of the service, and taking into account our previous recommendation
on the possibility of introducing a premium coffee service. We
recommend that Members be able to entertain up to three guests
in the neighbouring Chess Room. (Paragraph 158)
Souvenirs
43. We
fully support moves to raise additional revenue by widening the
sale of souvenirs, and in particular moves to sell a full range
of souvenirs through the Parliamentary Bookshop. We also suggest
that the name of the shop be changed to reflect such wider use.
(Paragraph 163)
The public
44. It
is neither feasible or desirable to open the Strangers' Dining
Room to the public at times when the House is sitting. We are,
however, not opposed in principle, and so long as any concerns
raised by the Serjeant at Arms about security can be overcome,
to opening the Strangers' and other facilities to the public on
non-sitting days, including weekends and recesses, if all costs
can be covered and the service offered profitably. (Paragraph
169)
45. Again, so long
as any security concern is dealt with, we believe that allowing
public access to the Terrace Pavilion for an afternoon tea service
for those who have taken tours would raise revenue for the House
and contribute in a minor way to the strategic goal of promoting
public knowledge and understanding of the work and role of
Parliament through the provision of information and access.
(Paragraph 170)
Banqueting and events
46. Our
private sector witnesses unanimously argued that demand for such
a prime location would be considerable. Westminster Hall is, of
course, a space shared with the House of Lords, and is part of
a royal Palace, so considerable negotiation would be required
for such a proposal to be put into effect. Once again, though,
from the point of view of both revenue and wider public access
to a national asset, we support in principle the idea of hiring
out Westminster Hall on a limited number of occasions and for
events in keeping with the historic character of the location.
(Paragraph 173)
47. We accept in principle
that banqueting room hire fees should be brought into line with
commercial rates and that fees should be charged for all rooms
used for banqueting. (Paragraph 174)
48. We have recommended
elsewhere that banqueting restrictions be loosened so that members
of the public may sponsor and host events at times when the House
is not sitting. Regardless of whether that is agreed to, we believe
that the current restrictions on Peers should be lifted. We agree,
again so long as suitable reciprocal access is offered by the
Lords, that all Members of the House of Lords should be able to
host events in the House of Commons at off-peak times, and recommend
that the Catering and Retail Service identify the times at which
this policy might usefully apply. (Paragraph 175)
Co-operation
49. We
recommend that the Catering and Retail Service's proposal to save
an estimated £116,000 annually through closer co-operation
and more joint procurement with the House of Lords be pursued.
(Paragraph 179)
Joined-up thinking
50. We
recommend that the House of Commons Commission and the House Management
Board begin discussions with their counterparts in the House of
Lords on the feasibility of providing a joint catering service
for the two Houses. (Paragraph 182)
| 
