Recommendations & Conclusions
7 items
2
Conclusion
Fifty-Second Report - Restoration &…
Deferred
There remains a lack of clarity over what a restored Palace will look like, and how it will be delivered, which makes the programme currently extremely difficult to cost with any certainty. In June 2022 we highlighted how critical value for money risks, which we had previously identified in October …
Read more
There remains a lack of clarity over what a restored Palace will look like, and how it will be delivered, which makes the programme currently extremely difficult to cost with any certainty. In June 2022 we highlighted how critical value for money risks, which we had previously identified in October 2020, remained. This included securing Parliament’s agreement on how work should be undertaken and what the restored Palace should look like. This had created considerable uncertainty and significantly contributed to delays over the years, and the programme’s top risk is the ability of politicians to take the necessary decisions. Further uncertainties remain around the Palace’s condition – the House Authorities spent nearly three times more than expected renewing the Elizabeth Tower as they did not understand its underlying condition and did not reflect this in cost estimates. During the last 12 months, the Delivery Authority has continued surveys and is considering a pilot to better understand uncertainties. Recommendation 2: The Delivery Authority should: a) Present cost and time estimates in ranges, which will narrow over time as uncertainties reduced, and set out the built-in assumptions behind how estimates have been generated. Restoration & Renewal of the Palace of Westminster – 2023 Recall 7 b) Report back on progress with the potential ‘R&R pilot’ and how this has impacted the assumptions underlying the programme.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government's response is irrelevant to the recommendation, discussing the cost of alcohol to society and related departmental work instead of the Palace of Westminster's R&R cost estimates and pilot progress.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
3
Conclusion
Fifty-Second Report - Restoration &…
Deferred
Transparency will be critical to facilitate accountability, and for Parliament and the public to gain confidence in the programme and its leadership. The current Client Board, alongside the Programme SRO, identified previous parliamentary engagement as having been insufficient. For example, in June 2022 we reported how the Commissions requested further …
Read more
Transparency will be critical to facilitate accountability, and for Parliament and the public to gain confidence in the programme and its leadership. The current Client Board, alongside the Programme SRO, identified previous parliamentary engagement as having been insufficient. For example, in June 2022 we reported how the Commissions requested further information and re-opened parliamentary decisions. But the detailed reasons behind this decision were not public. The R&R Client Team has committed to greater transparency over progress and decision- making through a more focused engagement approach with Members and, as agreed following our previous recommendations, publishing quarterly progress reports. It will increase engagement leading up to critical decisions that both Houses will need to make on how the works will be undertaken. These decisions will need to be made in the context of an approaching election and affordability constraints across government, and without fully understanding programme costs or where Parliament will move during the works. Recommendation 3: The Clerks must commit to: a) Fulfilling commitments made to this Committee in 2022 which include publishing an annual performance report providing a timely and accurate programme overview. b) Improving member engagement, which will include managing their expectations on the information that will be available to make decisions at these early programme stages.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government's response is irrelevant to the recommendation, discussing funding for drug and alcohol treatment services instead of the Clerks' commitments to transparency and member engagement on the R&R programme.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
4
Recommendation
Fifty-Second Report - Restoration &…
Deferred
It is unclear how the Clerks will manage their legal responsibilities to the programme alongside those to individuals working in and visiting the Palace. From January 2023 the Clerks, acting jointly, have overall responsibility for the parliamentary building works. They acknowledge their new legislative responsibilities which they will be required …
Read more
It is unclear how the Clerks will manage their legal responsibilities to the programme alongside those to individuals working in and visiting the Palace. From January 2023 the Clerks, acting jointly, have overall responsibility for the parliamentary building works. They acknowledge their new legislative responsibilities which they will be required to fulfil alongside existing responsibilities as corporate and accounting officers to Parliament. We have previously recommended that the Clerks should set out how they would approach the challenge of being asked to do something they considered to be unwise or not value for money, for example through laying a statement akin to a ministerial direction. The Clerk of the Commons told us the Speaker of the House of Commons would be content with such a process. However, no equivalent process has been identified for the Clerk of Parliaments and it is unclear how this process will practically work. The Clerks could be put in an untenable position if, for example, they were asked to ensure Members could access certain parts of the Palace during restoration and renewal works and they could not guarantee their personal safety. Recommendation 4: The Clerks of the House of Commons and House of Lords need to set out the: • circumstances in which they would use something akin to a ministerial direction; and 8 Restoration & Renewal of the Palace of Westminster – 2023 Recall • the practical process they would follow should they be asked to do something which causes a conflict between their respective legal responsibilities.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government's response is irrelevant to the recommendation, discussing drug strategy investment and alcohol treatment guidelines instead of the Clerks' process for handling conflicts of legal responsibility for the R&R programme.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
5
Conclusion
Fifty-Second Report - Restoration &…
Deferred
Compliance with health and safety protocols, in particular reporting asbestos incidents, remains unsatisfactory. The Clerks have personal responsibility for the health and safety of those working and using the Palace. To fulfil this responsibility, they will rely on others, such as contractors working within the Palace to follow expected processes …
Read more
Compliance with health and safety protocols, in particular reporting asbestos incidents, remains unsatisfactory. The Clerks have personal responsibility for the health and safety of those working and using the Palace. To fulfil this responsibility, they will rely on others, such as contractors working within the Palace to follow expected processes and meet any requirements. Following our June 2022 report, the Clerks agreed they needed to improve health and safety incident processes, and said they had reviewed and updated Parliament’s safety escalation arrangements. However, despite the Clerks’ reassurances, existing processes are not operating effectively. For example, in September 2022 a contractor did not inform the Clerks of an asbestos incident or limit the dangers as quickly as expected. Fortunately, the asbestos discovered on that occasion in a roof void was not dislodged, but it could easily have been broken up as the contractor drilled through to gain access. This would have resulted in a far more serious incident. To help mitigate these risks, the Clerks have appointed a new Health and Safety Director and have been compiling an incidents database. Recommendation 5: Before embarking on the more substantial R&R works, the Clerks must set out how they will reiterate the importance to contractors of their responsibilities and contractual requirements, particularly concerning the timeliness and accuracy of reporting, and what they will do to hold them to account for meeting these responsibilities. Restoration & Renewal of the Palace of Westminster – 2023 Recall 9 1 Progressing the works
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government's response is irrelevant to the recommendation, discussing a Local Outcomes Framework dashboard for drug and alcohol treatment instead of the Clerks' plans for reiterating contractor responsibilities for R&R health and safety.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
1
Conclusion
Fifty-Second Report - Restoration &…
Deferred
Following our previous reports on the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster (the Palace), we took evidence from the Programme SRO and Head of the R&R Client team, the Delivery Authority Chief Executive, the Clerk of the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments.
Read more
Following our previous reports on the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster (the Palace), we took evidence from the Programme SRO and Head of the R&R Client team, the Delivery Authority Chief Executive, the Clerk of the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government's response is irrelevant to the committee's conclusion, discussing strategies to tackle alcohol harm instead of the committee's evidence-gathering on the Palace of Westminster's R&R programme.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
6
Conclusion
Fifty-Second Report - Restoration &…
Deferred
The Clerks have legal responsibility for the safety of those working and using the Palace and the wider estate.9 The Clerk of the House of Commons told us he was very clear that eventually there will be ‘catastrophic and irreversible damage to the Palace’ if decisions continue to be deferred. …
Read more
The Clerks have legal responsibility for the safety of those working and using the Palace and the wider estate.9 The Clerk of the House of Commons told us he was very clear that eventually there will be ‘catastrophic and irreversible damage to the Palace’ if decisions continue to be deferred. Both Clerks were uncertain how long the Palace could continue to be used in its current condition.10 For example, the Palace does not have robust systems to stop fire spreading, and while the Clerks remain confident that the Palace could be cleared to minimise the risk to human life,11 the building itself would be unlikely to be preserved. Since 2016, there have been 44 fire incidents across the parliamentary estate, with fire described as the ‘foremost risk’ to preserving the Palace for future generation.12
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government's response is irrelevant to the committee's conclusion, discussing a substance misuse workforce strategic plan instead of the safety and fire risks within the Palace of Westminster.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
7
Conclusion
Fifty-Second Report - Restoration &…
Deferred
The House Administrations undertake maintenance works across the parliamentary estate. The Clerks told us maintenance costs totalled approximately £2 million per week, with the House Administrations spending around £100 million a year.13 The sheer quantity of building and maintenance work currently being undertaken was staggering with 4,000 maintenance or reactive …
Read more
The House Administrations undertake maintenance works across the parliamentary estate. The Clerks told us maintenance costs totalled approximately £2 million per week, with the House Administrations spending around £100 million a year.13 The sheer quantity of building and maintenance work currently being undertaken was staggering with 4,000 maintenance or reactive maintenance calls a month. Alongside this the House Administrations are managing 42 projects to repair the estate, 27 of which are in the Palace.14 Over recent years projects have included spending £140 million on temporary fire safety improvements and £8 million on temporary sewerage.15
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government's response is irrelevant to the committee's conclusion, discussing CDDO's legacy IT risk framework and remediation programmes instead of maintenance works on the parliamentary estate.
Read full response →
HM Treasury