Subjects: The road to reopening, the hypocrisy police and countering contradictions with common sense
Authors: Adam Jones, Paul Chase and Ted Schama
The road to reopening by Adam Jones
After weeks and weeks of challenges that have taken their toll on all of us professionally and emotionally, it would seem there may be a hint of light at the end of the tunnel for restaurants. There’s genuine optimism some hospitality businesses will be able to reopen sometime in July, as lock-down measures change.
While we feel excitement and immense relief about this, we remember the importance of maintaining perspective. Many people have lost loved ones during the coronavirus pandemic and the value of life will never come close to anything on a balance sheet. While this will never change for us and many others in hospitality, we also recognise the importance of the livelihoods our restaurants support through employment and revenue generation for a far-reaching supply chain.
We also realise and truly appreciate the value of dining out to the social fabric of society. Spending time with family and friends, while enjoying a meal out, is something people really treasure. It’s for these reasons we’re so relieved we’re heading towards some form of reopening.
However, like many others, we also recognise the challenges of the pandemic are far from over, and with the optimism of reopening comes much more hard work to create restaurants that are safe places to work and socialise in.
This can feel like you’ve reached the summit, only to find there’s further to go. After all, we’ve already adapted to new ways of surviving, whether that’s through furlough, business interruption loans or finding other ways to save jobs, cover costs and pay suppliers.
Now we have to think about changing working practices and dining areas to fit with social distancing. This takes a lot of consideration, time and energy, and it’s with this in mind – and the spirit of collaboration we’ve seen thrive in the hospitality sector – we’ve decided to share our standard operating procedure (SOP) for how Tattu is adapting and planning to reopen.
Our SOP addresses all of the key operating areas – from personal hygiene, personal protective equipment and site hygiene to team well-being, deliveries and the importance of social distancing. It’s a work-in-progress and will continue to evolve as the situation changes. There’s still much uncertainty around final government guidelines for cafes, bars and restaurants for reopening, and it’s important to note our plans are designed for our particular business and operations specifically. They have been built using risk assessments for each of our restaurants and with the intention to be fully compliant with current government guidelines.
Our major concern, like most operators, is gaining clarity on the government’s justification for its two-metre distancing guidance. If our country chose to follow the guidance from the World Health Organisation – allowing guests and staff to be one metre apart – it would change things dramatically. As Kate Nicholls, chief executive of UKHospitality, said earlier this week: “Up to one million jobs could be saved if the distance is halved. It would allow restaurants and pubs to reopen at between 60% to 70% of normal revenues compared with 30% at two metres.”
We will not hesitate to comply with any government guidelines that are published, but it will significantly impact our own operations reducing capacity by more than 50%. To counter this, we have built into our SOP the introduction of a takeaway service for guests who might feel more comfortable dining in their own homes. While this may create an additional revenue stream, it won’t come close to making up the revenue shortfall from reducing our capacity so much. We are doing our best with only good intentions and will continue to monitor the latest guidance closely and will adjust our own SOP where it is necessary to do so.
We have a duty to all our team members to do everything we can to protect their jobs so they can afford to live and operate in the industry \they have given so much to over the years. I’m certain we won’t get everything right straight away, and lessons will be learned, but we will give careful consideration to every decision we make to maintain trust and ensure the protection and well-being of others.
Trust is something that our industry must continue to uphold. According to NPD Group’s Covid-19 British Foodservice Sentiment Study, almost two-thirds (63%) of British consumers have said they will return to restaurants, bars or cafes in the first month they reopen but trust will be an important issue. Our only goal is to create a safe and hospitable environment for our loyal teams and customers, so we can return to a place of normality and enjoy doing what we do best.
By sharing our process of working towards reopening, explaining how we foresee Tattu operating in this “new normal”, we hope to encourage other operators to share their learnings and use our collective voice to inform the government of how we intend to adhere to guidelines, and where there may be challenges, on the road to reopening safely.
Tattu’s SOP guidelines are available to view
here.Adam Jones is managing director of Tattu Restaurants
The hypocrisy police by Paul Chase
In the absence of football, hypocrisy policing has become our new national sport. Everyone’s playing it. You have only to watch Newsnight, read the Daily Mirror or the Guardian, or go on Twitter and you can see this. I am of course referring to the Dominic Cummings saga that has obsessed the nation over the past week. I should make it clear I have no brief to defend Cummings – he was the architect of the “Leave” victory in the Brexit referendum, and I voted “Remain”. But this is a classic “them and us” row that engages the class consciousness of the British in a very raw way. Did Cummings break the rules, the guidance, or the law – and if so, is there one rule for “them” and another rule for “us”? It’s not just the rule-breaking that has incensed people but the sense of double standards – those that help write the rules are expected to be exemplars of compliance with them.
The requirement that we mustn’t leave the house without a “reasonable excuse” is a law, not a piece of guidance. There is a non-exhaustive list of reasonable excuses and it is recognised there are exceptions where strict compliance may not be possible – including a childcare emergency, which is the exception Cummings relies on. So, if the allegation is he broke the law, then the proper place to decide that is a court of law, but meanwhile he’s entitled to a presumption of innocence. But he hasn’t even been interviewed by the police, let alone charged. So, what we’re witnessing instead is a trial by media in the court of public opinion where the presumption of guilt has replaced the presumption of innocence.
I don’t want to appear naïve; I understand the best way to tell a lie is to stick to the truth until you reach the incriminating bit – and then you make something up! The “drive 60 miles eye-test” comes to mind. But if the charge is he has committed a moral crime, as opposed to a crime against the law, then I take the view there are no crimes without victims. Who was victimised by what he did? Who was harmed? There has been plenty of speculation, but absolutely no evidence, he met anyone outside his family during this whole period. His child went to hospital and presumably would have done so if the family had remained in London. Despite two months of investigative journalism, the press has failed to identify anyone he has interacted with that he might have transmitted the virus to.
Then there are the emotional arguments. It has been pointed out not everyone has access to a cottage in a nice rural location to self-isolate in. And what about a single mum with kids living in a tower block? I take the point there are people who don’t have his level of income or his choices, but Cummings isn’t personally responsible for social inequality.
But what about the argument his actions, and Boris Johnson’s failure to sack him, undermines the “stay home” message, and that people will now follow Cummings’ example and break the lock-down? The charge is this irresponsibility could actually cause deaths – and this is the answer to the question: “Who are the victims?” Well, Cummings is not some handsome, sun-tanned Premier League footballer who is idolised by millions; he’s a man with a deeply unattractive personality who is roundly disliked. And yet, overnight he has been transformed in the media from hate-figure to pied-piper – the black sheep that all the white sheep suddenly want to follow – if you’ll pardon the mixed metaphor. This is quite a leap, and in my view a wholly implausible proposition.
I think Cummings just decided he and his family would be better off at his dad’s farm where there was childcare support on tap, rather than in London, so he went there. The rest is just “gotcha” journalism. Is it any wonder we find it difficult to attract high-calibre people into politics and public life when any offence, no matter how small, is a hanging offence?
My plea to people who are angry about this is to get angry about something that matters. I’m angry the lock-down has been extended beyond its original purpose of flattening the curve and buying time for the NHS, which was achieved in about four weeks, and is now causing the destruction of thousands of businesses and millions of jobs in our sector and beyond. I’m angry that even when we reopen, we will be required to comply with physical distancing and hygiene protocols that are a charade – a pantomime that will do little or nothing to shield the whole population from coronavirus.
We hear a lot about the “R number” – the rate of infection. If this stays below one there won’t be a second wave. If it rises to two then 80% of the population will be exposed to the virus. No one knows what percentage has already been infected, which is what will determine the size of any second wave, but the idea physical distancing, direction arrows on floors, policing the queue to the toilet and Perspex screens are anything more than performative rituals designed to reassure people, simply indicates how little the public or the politicians understand risk.
These are the things that make me angry – not the antics of one man who finds himself in the unfortunate position of being the lightning rod for much deeper public concerns.
Paul Chase is director of Chase Consultancy and a leading industry commentator on alcohol and health
Countering contradictions with common sense by Ted Schama
I have mentioned before we are very much in the eye of the storm, and the biggest challenges still ahead of us are the reopening and sustainability phases of the recovery. Yet as operators plan their reopenings, there seems to be a raft of regional, national and international contradictions.
Albeit limited, you could board a plane today and it is possible you will have your temperature checked and even be handed a face mask and hand sanitiser. You could also jump on a bus, train or the tube relatively freely and, as pictures circulating on the internet indicate, without any realistic problems of social distancing being imposed upon you.
Continuing the contradictions, the World Health Organisation’s guidelines are for one-metre social distancing, but the UK government continues with its two-metre rule. And if that seems confusing, when it comes to restaurants and bars, there is potentially a whole different set of rules to tackle. Unlike transport, you cannot operate except for takeaway and of course all of the innovative home delivery kits.
Awaiting the green flag to reopen, restaurants are desperately space planning to see how they can possibly work the two-metre rule. Sadly, in the vast majority of cases it will be incredibly hard to do with capacities halved or worse. I am still not sure how you can be served at all if you cannot come within a certain distance from each other – a point pilloried brilliantly in an amusing viral video currently doing the rounds.
The industry is in a huge muddle – not of its making – as to what is both legal and acceptable. Since Boris allowed sitting in the sun, unlimited exercise and recreation, we have seen coffee shops and bars make their own interpretations of the rules. For example, there are bars that we know with large terraces adjoining parks and beaches that have opened on a takeaway basis. In reality, many of their customers are eating and drinking alongside, creating what looks like an overnight return to normal. This effectively is an open restaurant and one can imagine the concerns of local councils. Where exactly does this sit?
In the meantime, overseas, there is somewhat of a rebellion. Owners of several bars and restaurants in Tel Aviv decided to open their businesses on the night of 19 May, despite the coronavirus regulations that prohibit gatherings in public spaces. Raz Avidan, the owner of the Concierge bar, said: “This disrespect towards bar owners and self-employed people in general cannot continue. The [Dizengoff] square is full to the brim with people, the beaches are full of people and I am just serving takeaway using one-off dishes so people can eat in my own yard.”
There were about 30 customers present at the bar at the time, all keeping a reasonable distance from one another. And they were enjoying it. “It’s fun to hang out and I hope it continues,” said one customer who went for a drink at the Spicehouse Bar. “We missed it.”
This leaves me wondering what restrictions, if any, are really needed for UK hospitality to open up? Temperature checks before entry? Perhaps. Common sense? Definitely. It seems to me regardless of legislation, the younger generation will be super keen to get back to the restaurants and bars, and others – some older and some at their own discretion – will give it a wide berth.
Maybe controversial, but, now the NHS has capacity, perhaps it is time to let the restaurants open and the public to make a judgement call whether to go back to places they enjoy so much. We have to balance the health of the nation with the health of the economy.
Tough decisions lie ahead, and we have to be alert, but now is the time for some common sense and pragmatism too.
Ted Schama is managing director of Shelley Sandzer