Recommendation 28

In our October 2020 report, we noted that success for the Programme depended on factors outside the Sponsor Body’s control.73 The NAO’s January 2022 report reported 64 Committee of Public Accounts, Restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster, Nineteenth Report of Session 2019–21, HC 549, 2 October 2020 65 C&AG’s Report, Figure 1 66 HC1100 Qq 98–100 67 HC1100 Q 95 68 HC49 Q 26, 67 69 Joint statement from the House of Commons and House of Lords Commissions, 18 March 2022 70 HC1100 Qq 132, 142 71 HC49 Qq 55–7 72 Joint report from the House of Commons and House of Lords Commissions, 14 June 2022, pages 46 and 57 73 Committee of Public Accounts, Restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster, Nineteenth Report of Session 2019–21, HC 549, 2 October 2020 Restoration and Renewal of Parliament 17 that the most significant interdependent projects beyond the Sponsor Body’s control were delayed or paused.74 This included work to rehouse staff and heritage collection artefacts out of the House being paused for eight months and there being no viable option for a Commons decant location having been developed.75 The House of Commons currently has responsibility for providing accommodation for the House of Commons on the parliamentary estate during the works. To produce a credible business case, the sponsor will need to understand the costs, timing and risks of the decant project to house the House of Commons.76 The Clerk of the House told us he is confident that the Commons Chamber will need to be decanted for a significant period of time, but when the decant option is needed and where it will be is still to be determined.77