The House of Commons Commission proposed to dissolve the Sponsor Body without considering why governance arrangements did not work and potential alternatives, including whether the House administrations can satisfactorily oversee work. Following a discussion of the indicative cost and schedule estimates and a continued presence assessment, the Commission proposed that the sponsor function should transfer to a “new, separate department serving both Houses”. This Department will in effect become the client sponsor for the entire project. The CEO of the Sponsor Body does not know why the Commission proposed dissolving the Sponsor Body. There is no evidence alternative options were considered. It is unclear whether the House administrations have the capacity and skills to sponsor the works. Their poor management contributed to the Elizabeth Tower refurbishment cost almost tripling from £29 million and their response to the recent asbestos incident was not managed to the standard we expect. There is no 6 Restoration and Renewal of Parliament evidence that the Clerk of the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments have either the expertise or the capacity to successfully oversee a large infrastructure project of this cost and complexity. In June 2022, an independent review panel, convened by the Commissions, recommended other governance options be considered for the programme delivery phase, although bringing the sponsor function in-house “should be viewed as a practical measure” in the short-term. It also recommended any new client or sponsorship function should retain the necessary capability and capacity alongside a distinct identity. It should have a dedicated leader appointed as Senior Responsible Owner reporting to the Clerks of both Houses as Accounting Officers. Recommendation: Given the lack of time to consider the viability of options, Parliament should consider appropriate governance arrangements for the delivery phase and ensure they have evidence to support deci