Select committee inquiry
Restoration and renewal of Parliament
Closed
What the inquiry looked at
“Over a year ago the Committee reported that every week of delayed repairs to crumbling Parliament was costing the taxpayer another £2 million . The Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal Programme, widely endorsed as a necessity to preserve a historically and politically significant building, is at a critical stage: its next formal milestone is for the Sponsor Body to present Parliament with a Programme business case, currently expected in early 2023, for its approval. To develop the business case, the Sponsor Body and Parliament need to agree what should be included, and the Sponsor Body needs more clarity around critical supporting projects, the condition of the Palace and the desired result of the restoration. Without these, there is a risk that Parliament will spend money without the Programme progressing. Further delays to the start of critical restoration work will only increase the risk of incidents, which will not always be possible to mitigate, affecting the functions and safety of the Palace of Westminster itself and those that use it. The Committee will question senior executives at the formally established Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority, as well as the Clerk of the House of Commons and Clerk of the Parliament, on current progress in the programme . If you have evidence on any aspect of the Restoration and Renewal programme, please submit it here by Monday 7 March 2022 18:00.”
The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.
What it found
In the committee's words, from the summary of Tenth Report - Restoration and Renewal of Parliament ↗
For decades there has been broad consensus around the critical need to restore and renew the Palace of Westminster, an iconic UNESCO world heritage site of great historical, cultural and political significance. This is our second report on this essential, multi-billion pound, infrastructure programme.
Progress is not only unacceptably slow, but the likely start date for major works has been pushed back by many years because of repeated attempts to revisit the basis of the programme. Although some urgent works could be undertaken earlier, there is still no clear indication of when major works may start. Recent decisions to remove the Sponsor Body have created significant uncertainty and value for money risk. Nugatory spending, including £140 million to install temporary fire safety systems, is already evident. The uncertainty over progress and the lack of clarity over what will replace the Sponsor Body means skills and expertise critical to the Programme are already being lost.
Recent events have not demonstrated the transparency, openness, accountability, or evidence-based decision-making we expect. There is an unacceptable cloak of secrecy around the programme. The House authorities’ failure to manage asbestos incidents transparently, or with alacrity, underlines an approach which does not welcome scrutiny.
Added to this, we saw no evidence to justify the House of Commons Commission’s initial proposal to abolish the Sponsor Body, a decision which reverses decisions made by both Houses of Parliament. Its suggestion that the House authorities oversee the works does not seem viable given their historical performance with Portcullis House and more recently the Elizabeth Tower renovation, which is almost triple its original £29 million budget.
Given this backdrop, and the question of what a restored Palace will look like still unanswered, the programme is at a critical juncture. Parliament’s Accounting Officers need to fulfil their role by setting out publicly what they can feasibly deliver. Transparent, evidence-based decisions must be made quickly to avoid further unnecessary cost to the taxpayer and prevent putting the safety of this iconic building and those that work in it and visit it at even greater risk. Nearly 200 years ago a fire destroyed part of this building – we do not want it to take another catastrophic incident to finally galvanise action and focus minds.
What the government said
The government responded on 2 September 2022. The deadline was 29 August 2022.
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response.
The four Accounting Officers welcome the Public Accounts Committee's report and respond to each recommendation, agreeing with several, noting that others are for Parliament, the Commissions or the Government, and commit to specific dates where they can.
- On short-term value for money, the four Accounting Officers "agree with the Committee’s recommendation" and state that it "has been implemented", citing existing processes to avoid nugatory spend.
- On governance, the Clerks agree on a single set of objectives but note it is for both Houses to agree them. "Subject to endorsement by both Houses of Parliament", the target for the new two-tier structure is the end of the calendar year.
- On the recommendation about governance options, the response says it "is for Parliament itself" and "not for the Accounting Officers to give a substantive response". Governance structures will be considered in developing the strategic case.
- The Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority CEOs "accept" the intrusive surveys recommendation, with plans "on track to start in July 2022". The Clerks raise publication of Commission minutes as a matter for the Commissions and "undertake to raise" the request with them.
Read the government's response ↗ Read the report ↗ Report an error
How the inquiry ran
Each dot is a dated item listed on this page, from the inquiry's opening on 26 January 2022 to its close on 2 September 2022. The dashed mark is the deadline Parliament records for the government's response.
- Oral evidence 2 sessions
- Report 29 Jun 2022
- Government response 2 Sep 2022
- Correspondence 4 letters
What it recommended 11 recommendations · 29 conclusions
2The House of Commons Commission proposed to dissolve the Sponsor Body without considering why governance...
Recommended (the committee's words)
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
3Critical value for money risks, which we have previously highlighted, have still not been addressed.
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 control, with the most significant interdependent projects delayed or paused. For example, the Clerk of the House told us the Commons does not yet have a plan to accommodate itself elsewhere during the work. It wrote-off £70 million when the Commons decided not to pursue the decant plans it had developed. Critically though, despite risks to building political consensus, the question on how to secure and retain consensus across Parliament on what a restored Palace will look like remains unanswered. There is disagreement among MPs on how the work should be done and this is a major cause of the delays on the project over many years. The Commissions’ recent decision to revisit the Programme’s mandate set by Parliament in 2018 demonstrates the challenges of building a single, long-term view. The Clerk of the House of Commons considers that bringing the client function in-house could help establish consensus on a way forward and mitigate risks. We see no evidence for why this will ensure continuity of purpose. In June 2022, the Commissions endorsed the independent expert panel’s recommendation to develop and agree a long-term vision and outcomes. Until Parliament decides what it wants, and sticks to it, it will be almost impossible for any sponsor to deliver any programme. Particularly as the composition and therefore the view of Parliament itself can change at least every five years, which is precisely why the Sponsor Body was set up by the Act to take the oversight of this huge project out of the political arena. Recommendation: The Clerks should set out how they will ensure the relevant authorities address the recommendations made in previous PAC and NAO reports, in particular: Restoration and Renewal of Parliament
4The Commissions have asked for further options to be explored but is unclear how the...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Commissions have asked for further options to be explored but is unclear how the higher costs, greater duration and added risks, including extraordinary health and safety risks, of a continued presence during the building works can be managed. The Delivery Authority told us in March that although it is technically possible to plan for options involving some element of continued presence, this would lead to higher costs, take an enormously longer time (an extra 15 to 48 years), and create extraordinary health and safety risks. It may also require changes to the way Parliament operates. Initial work found Parliament operating alongside a construction site would lead to potentially unacceptable disruption, noise and fire risk. It would also increase the potential for exposure to airborne asbestos which will require extensive works to remove. The Delivery Authority is currently letting the contracts for intrusive surveys, having undertaken initial investigations. The House of Commons Trade Union believes that “the ongoing viability of the Palace of Westminster as a safe workplace is at stake and … anything less than the full decant envisaged under the Act would put that at risk”. When asked, the Clerks could not clearly answer 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. The Clerk of the House of Commons recognises there will need to be a full decant for some time at least. Recommendation: The Clerks should set out the threshold of risk they are willing to accept during the works and report back on this level of risk, the trade-offs they feel are possible and how this impacts the potential approach to work. The Delivery Authority should progress the intrusive surveys during the summer to determine what the asbestos removal plan should be, including whether it is safe to remain in the Palace whilst these works take place.
5To date, there has been a failure of transparency and accountability over work to restore...
Recommended (the committee's words)
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.
6The Parliamentary Accounting Officers have not made clear whether the House authorities can deliver the...
Recommended (the committee's words)
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
1On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence...
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 We took evidence over the course of two committee sessions; on the 14 March 2022 and then on 11 May 2022.
7The Clerk of the House told us that every year the restoration and renewal of...
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 prices) to the capital costs in additional tender price inflation.19 He explained that the House administrations have undertaken works to mitigate health and safety risks, including spending around £140 million on temporary fire safety improvements and around £8 million on temporary sewerage. They have also started repairs to the outside of the Victoria Tower.20 The Clerk of the Parliaments told 11 Joint statement from the House of Commons and House of Lords Commissions, 18 March 2022 12 HC1100 Q 88; HC49 Q 27 13 HC49 Qq 27–28 14 Joint report from the House of Commons and House of Lords Commissions, 14 June 2022 15 C&AG’s Report, paras 7, 9, 3.10 and Figure 4 16 HC1100 Q 135; HC49 Q 45 17 Main Estimate Memorandum: Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body, page 2 18 HC1100 Qq 110, 153, 214 19 HC1100Q 162; Deloitte, Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal Programme Independent Options Appraisal, 8 September 2014, section 1.9 20 HC1100 Qq 110, 153, 214 12 Restoration and Renewal of Parliament us that, even prior to the statement of the Joint Commission, all internal works had been subject to an “R&R test” to determine whether they would become nugatory under the restoration and renewal plans.21
8Since the start of 2016, there have been 25 fire incidents within the Palace and...
Concluded (the committee's words)
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
9In May 2022, the Clerk of the House of Commons told us that this period...
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 lose the expertise, capability and skills built up over the last 18 months. This includes those working within the organisations and contractors who have worked on the programme for an extended period and built-up expertise of the Palace’s unique challenges.25 Since May 2020, both the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority have expanded with staff increases of 40% and 74% respectively, which includes a fall in the number of interim staff used.26
10In March 2022, the Delivery Authority had already lost some newly recruited staff and access...
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 us that retaining some of the Sponsor Body’s “very considerable expertise” was vital to successfully restoring the Palace.28 He told us that should the Sponsor Body be abolished under the Act, the legislation requires staff to be transferred to any successor body when the statutory instrument came into effect.29 In its June 2022 report, the Commissions recommended that all Sponsor Body staff be transferred to the in-house team “with all reasonable speed in order to end the current period of uncertainty”.30 As no decision has yet been taken, neither the House of Commons nor House of Lords plan to include contingent liabilities in their accounts to reflect these future costs.31 On 26 May 2022, the Sponsor Body announced that an interim Chief Executive, Dr Patsy Richards, would take up post in the “coming weeks”.32
11We questioned the Clerk of the House of Commons on the timeframes and Parliamentary processes...
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 reasoning to Members of both Houses. On 14 June, the Commissions published their joint report setting out the issues to be voted on by the Houses. This considered the findings of the assurance work, with the independent expert review panel’s report as an annex. 21 HC49 Q31 22 Letter from Dr John Benger, 29 March 2022 23 HC 49 Qq 92–93; C&AG’s Report, Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal Programme, Session 2019–21, HC 315, 24 April 2022 24 HC49 Q 18 25 HC1100 Q 49 26 C&AG’s Report, para 2.4 27 HC1100 Q 157, HC49 Q 20 28 HC49 Q 18 29 HC49 Q 21 30 Joint report from the House of Commons and House of Lords Commissions, 14 June 2022, page 11 31 Joint correspondence from the Clerk of the House of Commons and Clerk of the Parliaments, 20 May 2022 32 Press notice from the Sponsor Body 26 March 2022 Restoration and Renewal of Parliament 13
12The Commissions intend to put indicative resolutions based on this report to Members and Peers...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Commissions intend to put indicative resolutions based on this report to Members and Peers before the summer 2022 recess. The Clerk of the House explained that formalising the Commissions’ proposal would require the Leader of the House of Commons to lay an affirmative instrument before both Houses to be debated.33 The Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 requires the Leader of the House of Lords to agree for the instrument to be laid and certain parties, including both Clerks and both Commissions, to be informed.34
13The Sponsor Body told us it has not estimated the costs associated with dissolving itself,...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Sponsor Body told us it has not estimated the costs associated with dissolving itself, which will depend on what the changes to the governance arrangements and proposed work look like. Depending on their grade, its staff have notice periods of between three and 12 months.35 The independent expert review reported that making structural changes to major programmes, such as revising governance, often introduced new risks. Care needed to be taken to avoid decisions simply compounding issues that already existed.36 Changing the Programme’s governance
14In February 2022, the House of Commons Commission proposed that the sponsor function should transfer...
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 supported this proposal but not until further considerations on what should replace the Sponsor Body, based on independent advice and assurance, had taken place.38 A meeting of both Commissions in March 2022 agreed this approach.
15On 14 June 2022, the Commissions published the areas where they sought the Houses agreement.
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 two Houses would take over responsibility for the sponsor function as Accounting Officers, with the Delivery Authority unchanged. They proposed a two-tier governance structure including a client board, bringing together the two Commissions, and a small programme board as a joint board of the two Houses with delegated authority from the Client Board.39
16The Clerk of the House of Commons explained that the technical capacity needed to take...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Clerk of the House of Commons explained that the technical capacity needed to take on the Sponsor Body’s role was well beyond anything within the House administrations’ in-house resource. He suggested there will need to be a professional client function with the same mix of professional skills as the Sponsor Body’s current team.40 We heard that the House administrations were not resourced to take on the Sponsor Body’s role, which included overseeing the Delivery Authority’s performance and providing Programme sponsorship.41 33 HC49 Q 28 34 HC1100 Q 88 35 HC1100 Qq 47, 159 36 Joint report from the House of Commons and House of Lords Commissions, 14 June 2022 37 House of Commons Commission, Decisions, 1 February 2022 38 House of Lords Commission, Minutes, 8 February 2022 39 Joint report from the House of Commons and House of Lords Commissions, 14 June 2022 40 HC1100 Qq 96–97 41 HC1100 Q 96 14 Restoration and Renewal of Parliament
17In terms of the Clerks’ role, Members of both Houses value their expertise in terms...
Concluded (the committee's words)
In terms of the Clerks’ role, Members of both Houses value their expertise in terms of procedural knowledge, but they may not have the requisite skills to oversee the delivery function (the Delivery Authority) in a complex programme with multiple interdependences. There is no evidence that the Clerk of the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments have either the expertise or the capacity to successfully oversee such a large and complicated infrastructure project. The Clerk of the House described it as, in cost terms, sitting “somewhere between the London Olympics and Crossrail”. When asked, the Clerks could not set out how they would manage these responsibilities alongside their full-time roles.42
18We questioned the Clerk of the House of Commons on the House administration’s performance managing...
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 2020. The Clerk of the House acknowledged that initial cost forecasting of the Elizabeth Tower in 2016 was deficient, citing reasons including that the project did not do intrusive surveys and that the project did not have a dedicated team.43 The Northern Estate Programme was closed, with £70 million written off, without a new plan in place for how to decant the House of Commons.44 Also, House officials previously managed the construction of Portcullis House, opened in September 2000. This committee found that although aspects of the project were managed well, the final cost was 18% higher than the original budget and statutory procurement rules were not followed when letting the contract for the building’s fenestration. This resulted in legal fees and damages payable by the House of almost £10 million.45
19We also questioned the House administrations’ protocols on how they to responded to safety incidents...
Recommended (the committee's words)
We also questioned the House administrations’ protocols on how they to responded to safety incidents during works.46 On 19 November 2021, contractors working in the Speaker’s private apartments identified a release of asbestos between 23 October and 27 October 2021.47 We heard that, although the site was immediately closed when the incident was identified and staff directly working on the site were informed, staff who may have come into contact with asbestos were not informed until February 2022.48 The Clerk of the House of Commons became aware of the incident on 10 December 2021 but told us it then appeared less serious with indications three staff were potentially affected. The House administrations now believe this to be 117 staff.49
20The Clerk of the House of Commons explained the House administrations stood down all works...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Clerk of the House of Commons explained the House administrations stood down all works on the parliamentary estate on 9 February, in part to check whether the right protocols were in place and understood by the relevant staff.50 He told us that the handling of the incident was not a defensible position and that it should not have happened as it happened.51 42 HC49 Q 80–90 43 HC1100 Q 145; UK Parliament: Written answer, UIN 96953, 11 January 2022Letter from Dr John Benger, 29 March 2022 44 HC1100 Qq 138–139; C&AG’s Report, para 1.13 45 Public Accounts Committee, Construction of Portcullis House, the new Parliamentary building, Sixty-Third Report, Session 2001–02, HC 861, 24 July 2002 46 HC1100 Q 27 47 HC1100 Qq 2, 4 48 HC1100 Qq 5–6 49 HC 1100 Q10 50 HC1100 Qq 14, 27 51 HC1100 Q 15; HC49 Qq 1–5 Restoration and Renewal of Parliament 15
21The incident was formally reported to the Health and Safety Executive on 10 February 2022,...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The incident was formally reported to the Health and Safety Executive on 10 February 2022, with relevant trade unions informed on 15 February. The Clerk of the House of Commons acknowledged that the staff affected should have been contacted with greater urgency. The Clerk attributed the delay to disputes between the House administration team and its contractor and subcontractor, for example on whether the incident crossed the threshold at which notification is required, and over who had a duty to report the incident.52 The Health and Safety Executive are investigating the incident. The Clerks committed to respond to the inquiry’s recommendations.53
22In proposing to replace the Sponsor Body, the Commission did not set out what options...
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 heard how work on what a replacement client function could look like, beyond a tentative paper, was set up after the proposal.56 The Sponsor Body told us it did not know the Commission’s reason for proposing its dissolution.57 The Clerk of the House told us that this reasoning will be set out in a report prior to the tabling of the indicative resolutions to the Houses.58
23In June 2022, the independent review panel recommended that bringing the sponsor function in-house should...
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 function in-house…attempting to retaining the current model is unlikely to be viable”. Looking ahead, the expert panel recommended that “The governance model for the delivery phase will need to be separately considered and confirmed after the R&R scope and preferred delivery strategy is agreed”.59
24The Clerk of the House told us that he expected the Infrastructure and Projects Authority...
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 proposed governance and approach to the works. Instead, in response to the Commissions’ request for independent advice in March 2022, a panel of “independent experts with experience of major infrastructure projects” has been established to provide assurance over both the new governance arrangements and the approach to the works.61 The Clerk of the House told us he was confident a report would be ready for the Joint Commission in the middle of June.62 The joint report was considered by the Commissions on 13 June 2022 and published on 14 June.63 52 HC1100 Qq 9–10 53 HC49 Q2 54 House of Commons Commission, Decisions, 1 February 2022 55 HC1100 Q 45 56 HC1100 Qq 85–87 57 HC1100 Q 119 58 HC1100 Qq 98, 102; HC49 Q 78 59 Joint report from the House of Commons and House of Lords Commissions, 14 June 2022, pg 23 60 HC1100 Qq 70–74; C&AG’s Report, para 2.6 61 Letter from Dr John Benger, 29 March 2022; HC49 Qq 77–78 62 HC49 Q 91 63 Joint report from the House of Commons and House of Lords Commissions, 14 June 2022 16 Restoration and Renewal of Parliament 2 Approach to the Programme works Deciding the approach
25When we reported on this Programme in October 2020, we found the Sponsor Body had...
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 realistically possible, excessive political interference may muddy the waters, making progress more difficult. We reported that re-opening decisions risked delaying the Programme with increasing risks to personal safety, the Palace structure and taxpayer’s money.64 In January 2022 the NAO found that these risks remained.65
26The Clerk of the House of Commons recognised the challenge of the Programme’s clients—including Members...
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 House authorities currently have no answer to the “multibillion-dollar” question of how to identify and future-proof a shared understanding across multiple clients with multiple views of what will be delivered. The Clerk told us that in his opinion bringing the functions of the Sponsor Body into the House service or in a joint department of both Houses could allow for better engagement with stakeholders and a better chance at achieving consensus than the current arrangements have secured.68
27On 18 March, the Commissions issued a joint statement setting out nine parameters to guide...
Concluded (the committee's words)
On 18 March, the Commissions issued a joint statement setting out nine parameters to guide forthcoming decisions. This included considering further options to undertake work without decanting and looking at doing work over a shorter period. The statement reaffirmed the Commissions’ commitment to health and safety.69 The Clerk of the House and the Delivery Authority Chief Executive told us they have re-opened the scope and approach to the works by starting to consider other ways to restore and renew the Palace. This includes switching to a series of ‘agile’ projects.70 The Chief Executive of the Delivery Authority told us they had been asked to look at a completely different set of options.71 In June 2022, the Commissions endorsed the independent expert panel’s recommendation to develop and agree a long-term vision and outcomes for the Programme.72 Managing interdependent programmes
28In our October 2020 report, we noted that success for the Programme depended on factors...
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 C&AG’s Report, Figure 1 66 HC1100 Qq 98–100 67 HC1100 Q 95 68 HC49 Q 26, 67 69 Joint statement from the House of Commons and House of Lords Commissions, 18 March 2022 70 HC1100 Qq 132, 142 71 HC49 Qq 55–7 72 Joint report from the House of Commons and House of Lords Commissions, 14 June 2022, pages 46 and 57 73 Committee of Public Accounts, Restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster, Nineteenth Report of Session 2019–21, HC 549, 2 October 2020 Restoration and Renewal of Parliament 17 that the most significant interdependent projects beyond the Sponsor Body’s control were delayed or paused.74 This included work to rehouse staff and heritage collection artefacts out of the House being paused for eight months and there being no viable option for a Commons decant location having been developed.75 The House of Commons currently has responsibility for providing accommodation for the House of Commons on the parliamentary estate during the works. To produce a credible business case, the sponsor will need to understand the costs, timing and risks of the decant project to house the House of Commons.76 The Clerk of the House told us he is confident that the Commons Chamber will need to be decanted for a significant period of time, but when the decant option is needed and where it will be is still to be determined.77
29When we last examined the Programme, the House of Commons planned to decant to Richmond...
Concluded (the committee's words)
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, Accounting Officer for these works, emphasised the importance of other work to refurbish the Northern Estate and his concerns that the compromises required of Members under the Richmond House plan would have proved unacceptable.79 He told us the Commons does not yet have another plan to accommodate itself during the work.80 Continued presence approach
30Until February 2022, the Sponsor Body was preparing a business case based on Parliament fully...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Until February 2022, the Sponsor Body was preparing a business case based on Parliament fully moving out of the Palace during the works (known as a ‘full decant’). In December 2020, the House of Commons Commission agreed to ask the Sponsor Body to consider the implications of the Commons staying in the Palace during works (known as continued presence). In April 2021 the Speaker formally set out what this analysis should cover and asked the Sponsor Body to return before the end of the financial year for advice on whether to take this further. This followed the House of Lords Commission’s endorsement of the approach.81
31The Sponsor Body returned to the Commissions with its initial analysis on the impact of...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Sponsor Body returned to the Commissions with its initial analysis on the impact of a continued presence in January 2022.82 In the initial analysis, the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority assumed that the Commons Chamber, alongside other functions requested by the Speaker of the House such as a media viewing gallery, would remain in the Palace. They looked at two scenarios: staying in the Commons Chamber or moving the Chamber to a different location within the Palace. In both cases, they considered delivering the same scope as the full decant option.83
32In March 2022, the Delivery Authority explained to us that initial analysis showed that, although...
Concluded (the committee's words)
In March 2022, the Delivery Authority explained to us that initial analysis showed that, although technically possible, continued presence would lead to higher costs and 74 C&AG’s Report, para 3.24 75 C&AG’s Report, Figure 12 and para 3.27 76 C&AG’s Report, para 3.25 77 HC1100 Qq 141–142, HC49 Q59 78 Committee of Public Accounts, Restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster, Nineteenth Report of Session 2019–21, HC 549, 2 October 2020 79 HC1100 Q 139 80 HC1100 Q 143 81 C&AG’s Report, para 7 82 C&AG’s Report, para 8 83 HC1100 Q 126; C&AG’s Report, Figure 5 18 Restoration and Renewal of Parliament take an enormously longer time (an extra 15 to 48 years). It would create extraordinary health and safety and fire safety risks, with a large array of temporary services required to maintain a continued presence. Parliament would also need to change how it operated although continued presence could still lead to potentially unacceptable disruption and noise for those working in the Palace and increase the potential for exposure to airborne asbestos which would take significant work to remove.84 The Delivery Authority told us that it is in the process of letting the contracts for intrusive surveys, having undertaken initial investigations into where asbestos might be located.85 The House of Commons Trade Union told us in written evidence that “the ongoing viability of the Palace of Westminster as a safe workplace is at stake and…anything less than the full decant envisaged under the Act would put that at risk”.86
33The Delivery Authority has now been tasked with developing new options for undertaking the work...
Concluded (the committee's words)
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. The Clerks did not clearly state whether they could but told us they would want to assess the level of risk very carefully and recognised the greater risk of work undertaken with the Palace occupied. They would not sign-off any plans which included an unacceptable level of risk.88 The House of Commons Clerk implied that while continued presence may not seem viable, a full decant may prove to be politically unacceptable.89 In June 2022, the Commissions set out their plans to undertake work in stages, focusing first on priority areas such as fire safety and protection, replacing old and obsolete building services and addressing asbestos. They wanted to develop a new approach that would reduce the time Members would need to move out of the Palace.90
34In our May evidence session we asked the Delivery Authority whether, given its earlier analysis...
Concluded (the committee's words)
In our May evidence session we asked the Delivery Authority whether, given its earlier analysis of continued presence options, it was comfortable developing these current options. The Delivery Authority told us that it had agreed a task brief to respond to a new and different question on the issue of decant.91 In May 2022, the Clerk told us that whatever option was ultimately decided upon, some form of decant for a “significant period of time” would be required in order to restore and renew the services in and around the two Chambers.92 Transparency and accountability
35Through our work we often see a lack of openness and transparency about programme progress,...
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 HC1100 Q 116; Sponsor Body, Restoration and Renewal Programme: Essential Scheme: initial assessment of cost and schedule; and continued presence: impact study, DEP2022–0145, 23 February 2022 85 HC49 Q4 86 RRP0003 87 HC49 Q 38 88 HC1100 Qq 106, 108–109 89 HC1100 Q 132 90 Joint report from the House of Commons and House of Lords Commissions, 14 June 2022, pg 23 91 HC49 Qq 55–57 92 HC49 Q 59 93 Public Accounts Committee, Lessons from major projects and programmes, Thirty-Ninth Report, Session 2019– 21, HC 694, 29 January 2021 Restoration and Renewal of Parliament 19
36For government major programmes, Accounting Officers are expected to assess the delivery risks, publishing a...
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 on this, for parliamentary work where the Clerk of the House could place a statement of his views in the Library.95 The Clerk of the House would become Accounting Officer for restoration works should the House administrations oversee this work. The current Accounting Officer for the Programme is the CEO of the Sponsor Body.96 We noted our concern that the Clerks might feel hampered in making their professional views clear because of the complex governance structures of the UK Parliament.97 Neither the Clerk of the House nor the Clerk of the Parliaments have made clear publicly their own views on what programme of work could be delivered.98
37Furthermore, the Commission has not yet set out its reason for suggesting the abolition of...
Recommended (the committee's words)
Furthermore, the Commission has not yet set out its reason for suggesting the abolition of the Sponsor Body.99 The Sponsor Body had set out indicative cost and time estimates for the work, and then heard about plans to abolish it – we asked if this was a case of ‘shooting the messenger’ as the Commission did not want to hear the bad news. The Sponsor Body said “it can feel like that a little, yes”.100 In its written evidence, the House of Commons Trade Union Side noted that “Creating an arm’s length sponsor body was intended to allow the very objectivity and independence that has apparently now led to its own abolition”.101
38To work quickly, Parliament and the Sponsor Body agreed that parliamentary domestic committees, such as...
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 House Commissions.102 The Sponsor Body does not have a statutory obligation to engage these committees.103 The Sponsor Body explained the intention was to share its analysis of the continued presence option with the domestic committees after an initial discussion with the House Commissions.104 The domestic committees do not have a statutory role, but whatever succeeds the Sponsor Body may still need their endorsement to progress work on the Programme and supporting projects.105
39We reiterated that significant developments with the Programme should be fully in the public domain...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We reiterated that significant developments with the Programme should be fully in the public domain and received a commitment from the Clerk of the House, that the House will always be told when there is a significant development with the Programme.106 94 HM Treasury, Managing Public Money, May 2021, Box 3.2, paragraphs 3.4.3. and 3.6.2. Available at: MPM_ Spring_21__without_annexes_040322.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk) 95 Hansard HC, 29 January 2020, vol. 670, col 781 96 HC1100 Qq 68–69 97 HC1100 Q 107 98 HC1100 Qq 103–109 99 HC1100 Qq 98, 102, 119 100 HC1100 Qq 119–120 101 RRP0003 102 C&AG’s Report, para 2.16 103 Letter from Dr John Benger, 29 March 2022 104 HC1100 Q 41 105 C&AG’s Report, para 2.13 106 HC1100 Q 29 20 Restoration and Renewal of Parliament However, we were concerned that the House was not properly informed of the resignation of the Sponsor Body CEO. The resignation was posted on the Parliamentary intranet, but that is not sufficient for news as significant as this departure.107
40Following the House administrations being three months late sharing information about a recent asbestos incident,...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Following the House administrations being three months late sharing information about a recent asbestos incident, the Clerk of the House acknowledged staff should have been notified earlier.108 We heard relevant trade union representatives were informed on 15 February, five days after the report to the Health and Safety Executive.109 The Clerk of the House informed non-affected staff working in the Palace of the incident through an intranet article but also recognised that many staff do not tend to read the intranet.110 Given the location of the incident, the House administrations were not required to inform the trade unions for Members or third-party contractors.111 107 HC49 Q 17 108 HC1100 Q 28 109 HC1100 Q 43; Letter from Dr John Benger, 29 March 2022 110 HC1100 Qq 30 to 33 111 Letter from Dr John Benger, 29 March 2022 Restoration and Renewal of Parliament 21
Evidence
Oral evidence sessions 2
- 11 May 2022Restoration and renewal of Parliament recall; DfE recall7 witnesses: David Goldstone CBE, Dr John Benger, Indra Morris, Sarah Johnson, Simon Burton, Stephanie Brivio, Susan Acland-Hoodparliament.uk ↗
- 14 Mar 2022Restoration and renewal of Parliament4 witnesses: David Goldstone, Dr John Benger, Sarah Johnson, Simon Burtonparliament.uk ↗
Who gave evidence 8 witnesses
- Dr John BengerClerk of the House, House of Commons2 sessions
- Sarah JohnsonChief Executive, Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal Sponsor Body2 sessions
- Simon BurtonClerk of the Parliaments, House of Lords2 sessions
- David GoldstoneIndependent Chair at The Office for Value for Money, HM Treasury
- David Goldstone CBEChief Executive, Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal Delivery Authority
- Indra MorrisDirector General, Children’s Services, Communications & Strategy Group
- Stephanie BrivioDirector, Safeguarding and Children’s Social Care, Department for Education
- Susan Acland-HoodPermanent Secretary, The Department for Education
Correspondence 4 letters
- 6 Jul 2022Correspondence from the House of Commons, House of Lords, Restoration & Renewal Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority to the Committee of Public Accounts on the Tenth report Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster from Session 2022-23
- 24 May 2022Joint Correspondence from Simon Burton, Clerk of the Parliaments, House of Lords and Dr John Benger, Clerk of the House, House of Commons, re Further information following the oral evidence session, Restoration and Renewal: Progress Update, held on Wednesday 11 May 2022, dated 20 May 2022
- 25 Apr 2022Public Accounts Committee—follow-up update on the Restoration and Renewal Programme, March 2022
- 30 Mar 2022Correspondence from Dr John Benger, Clerk of the House of Commons Palace of Westminster, re Further information following the oral evidence session: Restoration and Renewal, held on Monday 14 March 2022, dated 29 March 2022