Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 32
32
Accepted in Part
No formal process exists for Clerks to challenge misaligned restoration programme decisions.
Conclusion
There is currently no formal process in place should the Clerks be requested to do something they felt did not align with their respective responsibilities. For example, the Clerks cannot overrule the restoration and renewal Client Board or the Programme Board, but retain accountability for any decisions taken (whether or not they disagree). We have previously reported how government has in place processes for accounting officers to assess delivery risks, and seek a ministerial direction should they consider what they are being asked to do is undeliverable.78 There is no procedure akin to the Ministerial Direction the Clerks could apply.
Government Response Summary
The Clerks agree with the conclusion, noting existing limited processes for disagreement and stating that in significant disagreements concerning the R&R works, they would formally record their disagreement in Board minutes and correspondence, rather than implementing a ministerial direction equivalent.
Government Response
Accepted in Part
HM Government
Accepted in Part
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.