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

6 Not Addressed

The Parliamentary Accounting Officers have not made clear whether the House authorities can deliver the...

Recommendation

The Parliamentary Accounting Officers have not made clear whether the House authorities can deliver the work envisaged by Parliament. We are concerned that the Clerks may feel constrained in sharing their professional views as Accounting and Corporate officers on what … Read more The Parliamentary Accounting Officers have not made clear whether the House authorities can deliver the work envisaged by Parliament. We are concerned that the Clerks may feel constrained in sharing their professional views as Accounting and Corporate officers on what is deliverable. For government programmes, Accounting Officers must assess the delivery risks, publishing a summary of these, and seek a ministerial direction should they consider what they are being asked to do is undeliverable. In January 2020 the Speaker of the House established a new procedure, modelled on Accounting Officers’ ability to seek a ministerial direction, allowing the Clerk of the House to place a statement of his views in the House of Commons Library, if he feels a decision taken by the Speaker comprises either a substantial breach of the Standing Orders, or a departure from long-established conventions, without authorisation by the House itself.1 The Clerks have not shared their views on what work could be delivered. The Commissions convened an independent panel to provide them with advice and assurance on both the governance options and proposed approach to the work. The Commissions considered the independent panel’s review in June 2022, subsequently publishing this as part of a joint report setting out areas the Houses would be invited to vote on. Recommendations: Given their roles as Accounting and Corporate Officers, the Clerks should make available to Members their expert advice on the future programme governance and the viability of different approach to the works. Should the Clerks be tasked with delivering a programme which they cannot assure themselves is value for money, or the best use of taxpayers’ funds, then following the principle of transparency set out by the Speaker in January 2020, 1 Letter from the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, to the Clerk of the House, Dr John Benger, January 29, 2020 Restoration and Renewal of Parliament 9 they should write to the Commons and Lord Show less

Government Response Summary

The government's response provides lists of Treasury Minutes responses for previous sessions without addressing the specific recommendation about the Clerks making their expert advice available and writing to the Commons and Lords should they be tasked with delivering a programme which they cannot assure themselves is value for money.

HM Treasury

View Details

Conclusions (6) Observations and findings — click to expand

7 Conclusion

The Clerk of the House told us that every year the restoration and renewal of the Palace is delayed adds risk and cost such as through nugatory spending.18 In 2014, an independent assessment found delays to the decision may add between £60 million and £85 million per year (in 2014 …

View Details

8 Conclusion

Since the start of 2016, there have been 25 fire incidents within the Palace and 13 incidents of falling masonry.22 Nearly two hundred years ago, in 1834, the historic Palace was destroyed by a fire following delay restoring the building.23

View Details

9 Conclusion

In May 2022, the Clerk of the House of Commons told us that this period of uncertainty was “highly corrosive and damaging” for retaining the vital expertise needed to develop the Programme.24 This echoed the Delivery Authority’s comments to us in March, that there was a significant risk it would …

View Details

18 Conclusion

We questioned the Clerk of the House of Commons on the House administration’s performance managing similar programmes. The expected cost of the Elizabeth Tower refurbishment has roughly tripled, from £29 million set out in the outline business case in 2016 to £80 million in the revised business case approved in …

View Details

24 Conclusion

The Clerk of the House told us that he expected the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) to assure the arrangements but recognised that the IPA had no formal role over the Programme.60 Following our March evidence session, the Clerk clarified that the IPA will not be providing assurance over the …

View Details

25 Conclusion

When we reported on this Programme in October 2020, we found the Sponsor Body had not engaged sufficiently with Members, Peers, Officials, and staff to clarify how it would reconcile the range of individual views within Parliament. While the Sponsor Body should consider Members’ differing perspectives as much as is …

View Details