Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 31
31
Accepted
Clerks could face untenable positions if asked to implement unwise or unsafe decisions.
Conclusion
The Clerks recognise the significance of the responsibilities they now hold and the complexities they face when fulfilling and balancing these respective responsibilities. 67 C&AG’s report, Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal Programme, HC 315, Session 2019–2021, 24 April 2020 68 Q 60 69 Qq 60–63, 115 70 Qq 115 – Q120 71 The Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body (Abolition) Regulations 2022 72 Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 73 C&AG’s report, Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal Programme, HC 315, Session 2019–2021 24 April 2020 74 Committee of Public Accounts, Tenth Report of Session 2022–23, Restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster, HC 49, 29 June 2022 75 Q 38 18 Restoration & Renewal of the Palace of Westminster – 2023 Recall They felt it was conceivable that they would be asked to do something they felt unwise or disastrous value for money,76 and in such an event the Clerks could be put in an untenable position. For example, we were told that the Clerks would have powers to close parts of the Palace from the general public should safety concerns escalate to the point that it was no longer viable to allow access. They could not however, prevent Members from accessing the Palace but may retain corporate responsibility if an incident occurred. Should Members access the building while Corporate Officers had closed the site to all other users, they could seek only to resist any claim for compensation on the grounds that a Member had acted voluntarily at their own risk and contrary to advice given.77
Government Response Summary
The Clerks acknowledge their significant responsibilities and state they would record disagreements in formal minutes or correspondence if asked to undertake unwise or high-risk works. They also confirm they would not support construction presenting unmitigated risk.
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government
Accepted
The Clerk of the House and Clerk of the Parliaments agree with this recommendation. The Corporate Officers acknowledge that the legal responsibility for decisions relating to the Parliamentary building works is theirs under the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, subject to the requirements set out in the Act to consult with Members and others. They also have other statutory responsibilities, such as the responsibility for fire safety in the Palace. The House of Commons already has a limited process equivalent to a ministerial direction, which applies only in the context of a disagreement with the Speaker or other Members about procedure. In that situation, the Clerk of the House would place a note in the Library recording the disagreement. The House of Lords has an agreed Lords governance framework which states that “Where the Accounting Officer objects to a proposed course of action by the Commission on grounds of propriety, regularity, value for money or feasibility such that they are bound by their statutory duties to reject that course of action, they shall present a memorandum to that effect to the Commission which will be minuted.” In this context, an equivalent of a ministerial direction would be of very limited value, as there is no-one with the authority to “direct” the Corporate Officers in relation to the building works. Therefore, in the event of a significant disagreement on appropriate schemes for the Restoration and Renewal works, the Corporate Officers would instead record their disagreement in formal Board minutes and through correspondence (which could be laid in the Libraries of both Houses). The Corporate Officers have already put on record at the R&R Programme Board on 5 June that they would be unable to support a construction scenario for the works if they felt that it presented an extraordinary level of unmitigated risk to anyone on the Estate, including staff, contractors and visitors.3 In other statutory contexts, similar mechanisms would be used to record the Corporate Officers’ disagreement with a decision taken by either House.