Recommendations & Conclusions
12 items
3
Recommendation
Tenth Report - Restoration and Renewal …
Acknowledged
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. …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI 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 …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
1
Conclusion
Tenth Report - Restoration and Renewal …
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 …
Read more
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.
Show less
Government response AI 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.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
10
Conclusion
Tenth Report - Restoration and Renewal …
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI 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.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
11
Conclusion
Tenth Report - Restoration and Renewal …
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI 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 …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
23
Conclusion
Tenth Report - Restoration and Renewal …
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI 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.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
26
Conclusion
Tenth Report - Restoration and Renewal …
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI 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, …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
28
Conclusion
Tenth Report - Restoration and Renewal …
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI 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 …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
29
Conclusion
Tenth Report - Restoration and Renewal …
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, …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI 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 …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
33
Conclusion
Tenth Report - Restoration and Renewal …
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. …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI 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 …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
35
Conclusion
Tenth Report - Restoration and Renewal …
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI 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.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
36
Conclusion
Tenth Report - Restoration and Renewal …
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI 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.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
38
Conclusion
Tenth Report - Restoration and Renewal …
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI 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 …
Read full response →
HM Treasury