Tenth Report - Restoration and Renewal of Parliament
Select Committee
Public Accounts Committee
HC 49
29 June 2022
Recommendations
1 results
3
Acknowledged
Critical value for money risks, which we have previously highlighted, have still not been addressed.
Recommendation
Critical value for money risks, which we have previously highlighted, have still not been addressed. The NAO’s January 2022 report found that risks we identified in our October 2020 report remained. This included the Sponsor Body managing factors outside its …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The Clerk of the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments agree with the Committee’s recommendation to ensure the relevant authorities address the recommendations made in previous PAC and NAO reports, though note it is for both Houses to ultimately agree the programme’s objectives and requirements, stating that the new two-tier governance structure is the proposed method.
HM Treasury
View Details
Conclusions (11) Observations and findings — click to expand
1
Conclusion
Acknowledged
On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence on the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster (the Palace) from the Sponsor Body Chief Executive Officer, the Delivery Authority Chief Executive, the Clerk of the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments.2 …
Government Response Summary
The government welcomes the Public Accounts Committee’s report of 29 June 2022 “Restoration and renewal of Parliament” and thanks the Committee for its consideration of the topic.
10
Conclusion
Acknowledged
In March 2022, the Delivery Authority had already lost some newly recruited staff and access to technical contractor expertise. Then, in May 2022, the CEO of the Sponsor Body announced her resignation, along with two other senior members of Sponsor Body staff.27 The Clerk of the House of Commons told …
Government Response Summary
The Clerk of the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments commit to implement this recommendation. The Delivery Authority will remain in place and independent and the CEO of the Delivery Authority will remain accountable for the skills and expertise to deliver the Programme.
11
Conclusion
Acknowledged
We questioned the Clerk of the House of Commons on the timeframes and Parliamentary processes required to make any changes and provide more certainty. He told us that the House Commissions had sought additional assurance work ahead of a June 2022 joint meeting to agree a report setting out their …
Government Response Summary
The Clerks commit to implement the recommendation where it is within their powers to do so. They note the timeframe for debates has been achieved, and that they are committed to meeting the indicative timeframe in the Commissions' Report, but that laying regulations is not within their control.
23
Conclusion
Acknowledged
In June 2022, the independent review panel recommended that bringing the sponsor function in-house should be viewed as a pragmatic measure – the sponsor body governance model could be made to work but was unlikely to be viable given the “extent of lost confidence and momentum for bringing the sponsor …
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledges the Panel's conclusion that the governance model for the delivery phase will need to be separately considered and confirmed after the scope and preferred delivery strategy is agreed, stating that governance structures will be considered in the development of the strategic case.
26
Conclusion
Acknowledged
The Clerk of the House of Commons recognised the challenge of the Programme’s clients—including Members and the Commissions—not having a single voice.66 In our view, until Parliament can provide a clear steer on what it wants, it is almost impossible for anything to be delivered.67 We are concerned that the …
Government Response Summary
The Clerks of both Houses agree with the Committee’s recommendation to achieve a single set of objectives and requirements, noting it is for both Houses to ultimately agree. The target implementation date for the new two-tier governance structure is the end of the calendar year, subject to endorsement by both Houses of Parliament.
28
Conclusion
Acknowledged
In our October 2020 report, we noted that success for the Programme depended on factors outside the Sponsor Body’s control.73 The NAO’s January 2022 report reported 64 Committee of Public Accounts, Restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster, Nineteenth Report of Session 2019–21, HC 549, 2 October 2020 65 …
Government Response Summary
The Clerks of both Houses agree with the recommendation to achieve a single set of objectives and requirements, noting it is for both Houses to ultimately agree. The target implementation date for the new two-tier governance structure is the end of the calendar year, subject to endorsement by both Houses of Parliament.
29
Conclusion
Acknowledged
When we last examined the Programme, the House of Commons planned to decant to Richmond House, creating a temporary chamber.78 We heard that of the £70 million written off when the Commons decided not to pursue this plan, most was related to the planning permission. The Clerk of the House, …
Government Response Summary
The Clerks of both Houses agree with the Committee’s recommendation regarding risks of interdependent programmes, and the target implementation date for implementing the new two-tier governance structure is the end of the calendar year, subject to endorsement by both Houses of Parliament. The programme board will be the primary instrument for managing risks to the R&R programme, including those related to interdependent programmes.
33
Conclusion
Acknowledged
The Delivery Authority has now been tasked with developing new options for undertaking the work that will involve some continued presence.87 We asked the Clerks if they could manage the risks to users of the building should the House of Commons maintain a presence in the Palace during the works. …
Government Response Summary
The Clerk of the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments agree with the Committee’s recommendation, and the articulation of threshold for risk during the works, acceptability of trade-offs and impact on the approach to works will accompany the strategic case that will be put to Parliament.
35
Conclusion
Acknowledged
Through our work we often see a lack of openness and transparency about programme progress, performance and decision-making. In January 2021, we concluded it was vital that Parliament’s own major project, the Restoration and Renewal Programme, was an exemplar of an open and transparent project which welcomes full scrutiny.93 84 …
Government Response Summary
The Clerk of the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments agree with the Committee’s recommendation regarding sponsor reporting, stating that quarterly R&R progress reports will continue to be published after the new two-tier governance structures are implemented.
36
Conclusion
Acknowledged
For government major programmes, Accounting Officers are expected to assess the delivery risks, publishing a summary of this assessment, and seek a ministerial direction should they consider a decision they are being asked to implement compromises value for money.94 In 2020 the Speaker of the House introduced a procedure, modelled …
Government Response Summary
The Clerks broadly agree with the Committee’s recommendation and are aware of the importance of their roles as Accounting Officers. The government commits to publishing the outcome of any future Independent Advice and Assurance Panels that they commission subject to the agreement of the Commissions.
38
Conclusion
Acknowledged
To work quickly, Parliament and the Sponsor Body agreed that parliamentary domestic committees, such as the finance committees for each house who support the Commissions, would not scrutinise and endorse the Programme’s assessment of the Programme costs and the impact of continued presence before this material was shared with the …
Government Response Summary
The CEO of the Sponsor Body and the CEO of the Delivery Authority accept this recommendation and state that the domestic committees of the two Houses are key stakeholders and they intend to build on previous positive examples of engagement with domestic committees and will integrate engagement with them into future planning schedules.