Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 3
3
Critical value for money risks, which we have previously highlighted, have still not been addressed.
Recommendation
Critical value for money risks, which we have previously highlighted, have still not been addressed. The NAO’s January 2022 report found that risks we identified in our October 2020 report remained. This included the Sponsor Body managing factors outside its control, with the most significant interdependent projects delayed or paused. For example, the Clerk of the House told us the Commons does not yet have a plan to accommodate itself elsewhere during the work. It wrote-off £70 million when the Commons decided not to pursue the decant plans it had developed. Critically though, despite risks to building political consensus, the question on how to secure and retain consensus across Parliament on what a restored Palace will look like remains unanswered. There is disagreement among MPs on how the work should be done and this is a major cause of the delays on the project over many years. The Commissions’ recent decision to revisit the Programme’s mandate set by Parliament in 2018 demonstrates the challenges of building a single, long-term view. The Clerk of the House of Commons considers that bringing the client function in-house could help establish consensus on a way forward and mitigate risks. We see no evidence for why this will ensure continuity of purpose. In June 2022, the Commissions endorsed the independent expert panel’s recommendation to develop and agree a long-term vision and outcomes. Until Parliament decides what it wants, and sticks to it, it will be almost impossible for any sponsor to deliver any programme. Particularly as the composition and therefore the view of Parliament itself can change at least every five years, which is precisely why the Sponsor Body was set up by the Act to take the oversight of this huge project out of the political arena. Recommendation: The Clerks should set out how they will ensure the relevant authorities address the recommendations made in previous PAC and NAO reports, in particular: Restoration and Renewal of Parliament
Government Response
Not Addressed
HM Government
Not Addressed
First bullet - Structures to achieve a single set of objectives and requirements The Clerk of the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments agree with the Committee’s recommendation although note it is for both Houses to ultimately agree the programme’s objectives and requirements Target implementation date: subject to endorsement by both Houses of Parliament, the target date for implementing the new two-tier governance structure is the end of the calendar year. The Commissions’ report sets out a proposed new two-tier structure for the governance of the R&R Programme that would oversee the development of a single set of objectives and requirements guided by a long-term vision for the Palace. The Programme Board, as envisaged by the report, would support the long-term vision and oversee the process for engaging with the whole parliamentary community, which includes Members and parliamentary committees, to achieve a single set of requirements for both Houses. The Client Board, enabling the Commissions to act and make decisions jointly, would have overall ownership of the objectives and requirements. The Clerk of the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments will facilitate a move to these new structures if endorsed by both Houses of Parliament. Second bullet - Risks of interdependent programmes The Clerk of the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments agree with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: subject to endorsement by both Houses of Parliament, the target date for implementing the new two-tier governance structure – and therefore establishing the programme board – is the end of the calendar year. The programme board will be the primary instrument for managing risks to the R&R programme, including those related to interdependent programmes. The Commissions’ Report proposes a new two-tier governance structure that is part of, not separate from, Parliament’s decision-making structures. This allows for both the Palace works and related projects elsewhere on the Estate to be effectively co-ordinated going forward. Currently each of the two Houses and the Sponsor Body maintain their own strategic risk registers which capture risks to the achievement of each organisation’s corporate objectives. The new governance structure will allow for the programme risks to be captured in one place and scrutinised and monitored by the Programme Board. The Programme Board will also be able to manage dependencies and conflicts, including between R&R and Parliamentary-led estates work, and specifically arrangements for temporary accommodation and any moves of people and the collections that become necessary. As referenced in response to recommendation 1, there are governance structures in place at an official level to manage dependencies through the R&R Dependencies Group.