To date, there has been a failure of transparency and accountability over work to restore and renew the Palace. This includes: the House administrations being three months late sharing, in line with expected standards, information on a recent asbestos incident with those impacted; the Sponsor Body choosing not to consult the domestic committees within Parliament; and Parliament not being clearly informed of the Sponsor Body’s CEO’s resignation. Our work across major programmes has illustrated the importance of establishing the right culture for transparency. The House of Commons Commission decided to propose dissolving the Sponsor Body directly after considering early cost and schedule information prepared by the Sponsor Body (which it found concerning). Unless the justification for this decision is now made clear, it could set a damaging ‘good news culture’. 8 Restoration and Renewal of Parliament Recommendations: To maintain effective transparency over the Programme: • Measures should be put in place by the Programme’s Accounting Officers to ensure the programme sponsor reports regularly to Parliament on progress, including information on the potential costs and risks estimates and any associated uncertainties. • The Commissions of both Houses should publish and place in their respective Libraries all minutes and advice documents supporting decisions relating to the programme, as well as the interdependent and wider works across the Parliamentary Estate. • The Delivery Authority should include engagement with parliamentary domestic committees as a critical stage in any future timetables. • Urgently, and at the latest before works commence, the Clerks of both Houses should review and improve processes to guarantee health and safety incidents are reported as soon as possible to those accountable for safety and those potentially affected by incidents. • The Government must be clearly engaged with the overall strategy and costs of the entire R&R project.