Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 22
22
In proposing to replace the Sponsor Body, the Commission did not set out what options...
Conclusion
In proposing to replace the Sponsor Body, the Commission did not set out what options were considered for the revised governance and how they differed from existing arrangements.54 The Sponsor Body told us that it has not been involved in all the conversations that led to the Commission’s proposals.55 We heard how work on what a replacement client function could look like, beyond a tentative paper, was set up after the proposal.56 The Sponsor Body told us it did not know the Commission’s reason for proposing its dissolution.57 The Clerk of the House told us that this reasoning will be set out in a report prior to the tabling of the indicative resolutions to the Houses.58
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 39 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.