Recommendations & Conclusions
4 items
6
Recommendation
Thirty-Ninth Report - Lessons from majo…
Rejected
It is vital that Parliament’s own major project, the Restoration and Renewal programme, is an exemplar of an open and transparent project which welcomes scrutiny. The restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster is a highly complex programme with a number of uncertainties that underpin it, including the condition …
Read more
It is vital that Parliament’s own major project, the Restoration and Renewal programme, is an exemplar of an open and transparent project which welcomes scrutiny. The restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster is a highly complex programme with a number of uncertainties that underpin it, including the condition of the building, interdependencies with other Parliamentary building projects, and the lack of consensus over the scope of the programme and how to relocate staff. Since the programme and the body overseeing it are Parliamentary, the programme does not fall within the GMPP and the IPA’s formal remit, though it has offered advice informally on the programme when invited to. Given the complexity and difficulty of the programme, it would benefit from all available expertise on major programmes and from the additional transparency that could be brought from the IPA reporting on the programme. Recommendation: The government and Parliament should work together to establish a framework for how the IPA will scrutinise and assure the R&R project. 8 Lessons from major projects and programmes 1 Major programme delivery
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation for the IPA to formally scrutinize the R&R project, stating it is a parliamentary project outside the GMPP and any formal involvement would require a specific invitation from Parliament and amendment to existing agreements.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
27
Conclusion
Thirty-Ninth Report - Lessons from majo…
Rejected
Since the IPA’s remit covers the government major programmes portfolio, it does not extend to the restoration and renewal of the Houses of Parliament, or the associated Northern Estates programme.54 The Restoration and Renewal programme is overseen by a Sponsor body and a Delivery authority, both of which are ultimately …
Read more
Since the IPA’s remit covers the government major programmes portfolio, it does not extend to the restoration and renewal of the Houses of Parliament, or the associated Northern Estates programme.54 The Restoration and Renewal programme is overseen by a Sponsor body and a Delivery authority, both of which are ultimately accountable to Parliament, and the IPA were not given a role in The Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 (the Act) which set out how the Programme would be managed. The programme is highly complex with a number of uncertainties that underpin it, including the condition of the building, its interdependencies with other Parliamentary building projects, and the lack of consensus over the scope of the programme, and how to relocate staff as the programme is underway.55
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the implicit recommendation for formal IPA scrutiny of the R&R project, explaining that as a parliamentary project, it is not part of the GMPP and formal involvement would require an invitation from Parliament and amendments to existing agreements.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
28
Conclusion
Thirty-Ninth Report - Lessons from majo…
Rejected
Whilst the IPA has provided support and advice in an advisory capacity to the programme, it does not currently fall within the IPA’s formal remit. The IPA was engaged in implementing the recommendations of the Joint Committee report on the Palace of Westminster of September 2016, and did support the …
Read more
Whilst the IPA has provided support and advice in an advisory capacity to the programme, it does not currently fall within the IPA’s formal remit. The IPA was engaged in implementing the recommendations of the Joint Committee report on the Palace of Westminster of September 2016, and did support the Cabinet Office in preparing the Act, which set up the Sponsor Board and Delivery Authority, after which the IPA ceased to have formal involvement with the project.56 The IPA has provided further advice when invited to, such as in March 2020, when asked by the Cabinet Office to give advice concerning the status of the project. At this time, the IPA they confirmed that the rationale for the programme is clear, and that since the programme did not have an agreed scope, budget or programme at the strategic level and is therefore subject to considerable challenges 49 Q 65 50 Qq 65, 66 51 Q 66 52 Q 65 53 Committee of Public Accounts, Oral Evidence: Delivering Major Projects in government, HC 710, January 2016, Qq 83–89 54 Q 27 55 Committee of Public Accounts, Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster, Nineteenth report of Session 2019–21, HC 549, 2 October 2020, Summary 56 Q 17; Letter from Infrastructure and Projects Authority dated 14 December 2020, page 1 Lessons from major projects and programmes 15 to prepare a deliverable Outline Business Case.57 The IPA told us that it approved of the recent pause to review the programme, for the programme to refine the boundaries of how it will be delivered and what the optimum minimum scope will be.58
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the implicit recommendation for formal IPA scrutiny of the R&R project, explaining that as a parliamentary project, it is not part of the GMPP and formal involvement would require an invitation from Parliament and amendments to existing agreements.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
29
Conclusion
Thirty-Ninth Report - Lessons from majo…
Rejected
When asked, the IPA stated that it could not see a reason why it could not provide further assurance over the programme, if asked to by Parliament.59 When we reported on the programme in October 2020, we welcomed the decision of the Sponsor body to engage with the IPA and …
Read more
When asked, the IPA stated that it could not see a reason why it could not provide further assurance over the programme, if asked to by Parliament.59 When we reported on the programme in October 2020, we welcomed the decision of the Sponsor body to engage with the IPA and were keen that it continued to proactively seek the IPA’s advice.60 57 Letter from Infrastructure and Projects Authority dated 14 December 2020, page 1 58 Q 19 59 Qq 54, 55 60 Committee of Public Accounts, Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster, Nineteenth report of Session 2019–21, HC 549, 2 October 2020, Conclusions and recommendations para 4 16 Lessons from major projects and programmes
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the implied recommendation, explaining that the Restoration and Renewal project is parliamentary, not governmental, and therefore not subject to formal IPA assurance under the GMPP or HM Treasury. Formal IPA scrutiny would require an invitation from Parliament and amendments to existing agreements.
Read full response →
HM Treasury