Further written evidence submitted by
GMB House of Commons Branch
Having now received the proposals for savings and
income generation, the GMB House of Commons are grateful for the
opportunity to make this further submission to the Committee.
On the document generally, it appears to have an
incredible lack of coordination:
- Savings are mixed up with increases in revenue.
- None of the figures include inflation; as the
targets we have been given are inclusive of it, surely so should
the calculations proposed. The entire document is lacking in coherence
and clarity suggesting that it has not been fully thought through.
Figures in year one of 9% should equate to 17% by the end of the
period. The methodology appears to just go for 17% at any period
and that'll do.
- No mention of savings from capital outlay, in
fact, capital outlay is not included in some of the figures.
- No mention of maintenance or refurbishment, even
in Sue Harrison's slightly more detailed presentation.
- Figures for income generation are static, this
might be true for Rental income, but should not be true for sales;
we should be presuming that growing expertise and inflation will
make them increase.
- The paper for the House as a whole says that
any of the proposed cuts that are not taken forward will have
to be replaced by others. Nobody should be under the impression
that a 17% cut in one Department is equal to a similar percentage
cut in another. The CRS subsidy is only 2% of the House budget;
17% of that is next to nothing. The federal way that this programme
is being conducted fails to address this.
The proposals include cuts of well over 17%, despite
the year on year decrease in the Departmental budget already made.
As I said to the Committee, this seems vastly unfair on the staff
of the Department and threatens its ability to function properly.
This would particularly apply when leave is being taken as it
may leave us under resourced to cover. It is obviously for the
Members to decide, through the Committees, which services they
wish to change or do without, but the list looks like a massive
kneejerk reaction.
As a further result of the cuts in previous years;
the overwhelming bulk of proposed savings are in staff, or human,
costs. Because of the composition of the workforce in ethnic background
and income; this may well have a negative equality impact if carried
through. Many affected staff will be unlikely to find other positions
in CRS, and almost impossible to accommodate Housewide.
The proposal to close the Adjournment Restaurant
service in favour of a coffee/ bespoke sandwich offering would
require a capital spend of some £6 million (figure from Sue
Harrison in response to staff question). As I said before, this
figure is not mentioned in the document. Obviously, the Members
must decide whether they wish to change the service provided as
extremely as this proposal, but I am concerned about where this
money would be otherwise spent. The Department needs investment
into general replacement of equipment and refurbishment of some
areas; is this money being taken from that budget? Is there a
budget? There are other areas which look likely to incur sizeable
capital spends, the proposals for the souvenir kiosk, Pugin Room
and purchase of vending machines for 7 Millbank. The same questions
apply.
Generally, we take the view that it is for Members
to decide which services they wish to keep or change, but would
make the following observations on the detail of the proposals.
Changing the Pugin Room to a bar service might, conceivably,
produce an increase in revenue. Would a new bar be politically
wise, or what the Members want or need?
The proposal to make the Terrace Cafeteria self clearing
seems ambitious. Recent attempts to encourage people have been
ignored and the cost of installing a system similar to Bellamy's
or 7 Millbank would be very high.
The proposal to use Moncrieff's as a Staff Cafeteria
has its attractions for many staff, but access would be difficult.
At present CRS staff eat in large blocks, at the start of service
generally. Could the lift servicing Moncrieff's cope with the
100+ staff surge in use?
What does "reduction in budget to reflect planned
spend" mean in relation to the Training budget reduction?
Would the Souvenir Kiosk make a decent site for a
Coffee Bar? There is no space for seating anywhere near; it would
mean those without access to the Terrace, disregarding the weather,
having to go back to their offices. It has none of the advantages
of the Despatch Box. The Terrace Pavilion Bar might be a better
venue. If the proposal is that it is to be more of an express
outlet for drinks and sandwiches, the problem of seating still
applies, with the added problem of staff being pushed to eat meals
at their desks. Staff are already compelled, for various reasons,
to spend almost all their time in the precincts, they should at
least be encouraged to have proper breaks away from their desks.
The proposed increase in revenue from souvenir sales
item appears particularly woolly; there is no figure for this
or next year and the projected income does not increase year by
year. As we already have an outlet and a reasonable line of goods,
why are we not starting immediately and showing a bit more ambition.
Mr Borley suggests that we can make more money by letting the
Bookshop as a coffee shop, I doubt this, but it does not mean
that we should delay the sale of goods.
It is a great concern that the prospective income
and employment from increased souvenir sales should be kept in-house
as far as possible, or it could become something of a Trojan horse.
The immediately available properties have the advantage of cellars,
and one a first floor. These could be used for the preparation
of internet sales. Delivery vans could then collect these goods
after dropping off stock. This should create some vacancies at
a suitable level for CRS staff.
If the present bookshop were to be used for memorabilia,
there would be little or no need for refurbishment. It could carry
on its present dual role and income from book sales should increase
purely because of increased footfall. There seems to be a problem
in this because of interdepartmental wrangling, as the shop comes
under the aegis of DCCS, this may need higher level direction.
The income from catering price increases is a particular
example of opaque accounting. The figures again ignore inflation,
but they also ignore the projected (6% food, 5% drink, not in
document) savings in procurement costs. These would have the potential
to increase margins/income, or to freeze prices. It would be nice
to know which. Given that the income of our core customers is
likely to be frozen, or fall in real terms, and their numbers
fall, there are a number of factors affecting these figures. This
should be addressed.
There is no mention of revenue from civil partnerships,
although I know it is being actively pursued. Add-on revenue from
catering and flowers should also be explored.
November 2010
| 
