Tenth Report - Restoration and Renewal of Parliament

Select Committee

Public Accounts Committee HC 49 29 June 2022

Report Status Government responded

Conclusions & Recommendations 40 items (11 recs)

Source View on Parliament website

Government Response (AI assessment · 34 of 40 classified)

Accepted 17

Acknowledged 12

Deferred 4

Not Addressed 1

Recommendations

1 results

2 Deferred

The House of Commons Commission proposed to dissolve the Sponsor Body without considering why governance...

Recommendation

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 … Read more 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 Show less

Government Response Summary

The recommendation is directed to Parliament to consider appropriate governance arrangements. The Commissions have provided a report to both Houses in order to support their decision-making, taking into account advice from an Independent Advice and Assurance Panel.

HM Treasury

View Details

Conclusions (3) Observations and findings — click to expand

14 Conclusion Deferred

In February 2022, the House of Commons Commission proposed that the sponsor function should transfer to a “new, separate department serving both Houses”, with its head formally accountable to the Clerk of the House or the Clerks of both Houses and ultimately to the Commissions.37 The House of Lords Commission …

Government Response Summary

The Committee’s recommendation is for Parliament itself. It is therefore not for the Accounting Officers to give a substantive response.

View Details

15 Conclusion Deferred

On 14 June 2022, the Commissions published the areas where they sought the Houses agreement. This included that the Sponsor Body should be replaced, and that the sponsorship function, now termed client function, would be brought in-house to Parliament for these early programme stages. In practice, the Clerks of the …

Government Response Summary

The government states that this recommendation is for Parliament itself and that it is therefore not for the Accounting Officers to give a substantive response. They note that the Commissions have provided a report to both Houses in order to support their decision-making.

View Details

22 Conclusion Deferred

In proposing to replace the Sponsor Body, the Commission did not set out what options were considered for the revised governance and how they differed from existing arrangements.54 The Sponsor Body told us that it has not been involved in all the conversations that led to the Commission’s proposals.55 We …

Government Response Summary

This recommendation is for Parliament, and initial options relating to the governance arrangements for the delivery phase of the programme will be considered as part of the strategic case put to Parliament. The Commissions have provided a report to both Houses in order to support their decision-making.

View Details