Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 33
33
Accepted in Part
Unclear procedure for Clerks to record abuse and override decisions.
Conclusion
The Clerk of the House of Commons suggested that where there was a real abuse of procedure, there would be value to him being able to put this on record through placing a letter in the Library. He mentioned how the Speaker of the Commons recognised the value of introducing such a procedure.79 However, in response the Speaker does not have authority to provide the Clerk with a letter of direction, effectively authorising him to take action beyond his responsibilities. It remained unclear how decisions could be overridden. Also the Clerks had not considered how a similar process could be undertaken for the Clerk to the Parliaments.80
Government Response Summary
The government clarifies that an equivalent of a ministerial direction for Corporate Officers would be of limited value, but states they would record significant disagreements in formal Board minutes and correspondence for both Houses.
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.