Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 2
2
The House of Commons Commission proposed to dissolve the Sponsor Body without considering why governance...
Conclusion
The House of Commons Commission proposed to dissolve the Sponsor Body without considering why governance arrangements did not work and potential alternatives, including whether the House administrations can satisfactorily oversee work. Following a discussion of the indicative cost and schedule estimates and a continued presence assessment, the Commission proposed that the sponsor function should transfer to a “new, separate department serving both Houses”. This Department will in effect become the client sponsor for the entire project. The CEO of the Sponsor Body does not know why the Commission proposed dissolving the Sponsor Body. There is no evidence alternative options were considered. It is unclear whether the House administrations have the capacity and skills to sponsor the works. Their poor management contributed to the Elizabeth Tower refurbishment cost almost tripling from £29 million and their response to the recent asbestos incident was not managed to the standard we expect. There is no 6 Restoration and Renewal of Parliament evidence that the Clerk of the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments have either the expertise or the capacity to successfully oversee a large infrastructure project of this cost and complexity. In June 2022, an independent review panel, convened by the Commissions, recommended other governance options be considered for the programme delivery phase, although bringing the sponsor function in-house “should be viewed as a practical measure” in the short-term. It also recommended any new client or sponsorship function should retain the necessary capability and capacity alongside a distinct identity. It should have a dedicated leader appointed as Senior Responsible Owner reporting to the Clerks of both Houses as Accounting Officers. Recommendation: Given the lack of time to consider the viability of options, Parliament should consider appropriate governance arrangements for the delivery phase and ensure they have evidence to support deci
Government Response
Not Addressed
HM Government
Not Addressed
This recommendation is for Parliament. Target implementation date: this recommendation is for Parliament; the relevant date is that of the debates in each House later this month, and subsequently the date of debates on the required regulations. Initial options relating to the governance arrangements for the delivery phase of the programme will be considered as part of the strategic case put to Parliament. The Committee’s recommendation is for Parliament itself. It is therefore not for the Accounting Officers to give a substantive response. However, the Commissions have provided a report to both Houses in order to support their decision-making. In preparing this report the Commissions sought advice from an Independent Advice and Assurance Panel on what would be the best sponsorship model— in-house or a different arm’s length body—for the R&R programme during the remainder of the definition stage (the period from now up to agreement of the strategic case) and during the subsequent programme delivery phase. The Panel’s advice on this matter is included in paragraphs 6-16 of their report, which was published in full at Annex D of the Commissions’ June Report. The Commissions, taking into account the Panel’s report, set out their reasoning and recommendation in paragraphs 27-31 of their report. The Panel concluded that the governance model for the delivery phase will need to be separately considered and confirmed after the scope and preferred delivery strategy is agreed. In line with HMT Green Book processes, governance structures will be considered in the development of the strategic case, to be decided on by the two Houses.