Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 32
32
In March 2022, the Delivery Authority explained to us that initial analysis showed that, although...
Conclusion
In March 2022, the Delivery Authority explained to us that initial analysis showed that, although technically possible, continued presence would lead to higher costs and 74 C&AG’s Report, para 3.24 75 C&AG’s Report, Figure 12 and para 3.27 76 C&AG’s Report, para 3.25 77 HC1100 Qq 141–142, HC49 Q59 78 Committee of Public Accounts, Restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster, Nineteenth Report of Session 2019–21, HC 549, 2 October 2020 79 HC1100 Q 139 80 HC1100 Q 143 81 C&AG’s Report, para 7 82 C&AG’s Report, para 8 83 HC1100 Q 126; C&AG’s Report, Figure 5 18 Restoration and Renewal of Parliament take an enormously longer time (an extra 15 to 48 years). It would create extraordinary health and safety and fire safety risks, with a large array of temporary services required to maintain a continued presence. Parliament would also need to change how it operated although continued presence could still lead to potentially unacceptable disruption and noise for those working in the Palace and increase the potential for exposure to airborne asbestos which would take significant work to remove.84 The Delivery Authority told us that it is in the process of letting the contracts for intrusive surveys, having undertaken initial investigations into where asbestos might be located.85 The House of Commons Trade Union told us in written evidence that “the ongoing viability of the Palace of Westminster as a safe workplace is at stake and…anything less than the full decant envisaged under the Act would put that at risk”.86
Government Response
Not Addressed
HM Government
Not Addressed
Risk threshold The Clerk of the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments agree with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: risk management processes are already in place. 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 articulation of threshold for risk during the works, acceptability of trade-offs and impact on the approach to works will accompany the strategic case that will be put to Parliament. The Clerk of the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments have legal responsibilities relating to the safety of those who work in or visit the Palace and are therefore responsible for the prevention of avoidable serious incidents. In discharging their duties, the Clerks receive advice from experts and have risk, audit and assurance processes in place. Risk management is part of the internal control and assurance arrangements of both Houses. The approach to managing risk is aligned to the Treasury Orange Book and underpinned through professional risk training delivered in partnership with the Institute of Risk Management. The effectiveness of risk as a management control is overseen through the corporate governance arrangements of both Houses. The most significant risks identified are managed directly by the Boards of each House and are recorded in the principal risk register. Whilst each House maintains their own principal risk register a number of risks are managed bicamerally, to increase the effectiveness of controls. This has included a bicameral safety principal risk: both Boards, using the risk management framework, have agreed a cautious risk appetite in this area. The safety risk is subject to regular reviews throughout the year to assess the effectiveness of agreed mitigations. A key mitigation is the role of the Parliamentary Safety Assurance Board (PSAB) who provide leadership and proactive strategic direction in relation to the management of safety, fire and food safety risks for both Houses. Paragraph 18 of the Commissions’ Report recommends that the “the evaluation criteria for the delivery method should explicitly include health and safety risks to building users, including during the works”. The Clerks will ensure that this is a primary criterion for the options assessment and associated Member consultation and other engagement leading up to debates and decisions on the strategic case which will be put to Parliament. Under the new governance arrangements, the Clerk of the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments will have a legal responsibility relating to the R&R works. The two Clerks, supported by the head of the Client Team, will report to the Programme Board and Client Board on levels of risk. However, risk management is not a static activity: risks may change over time and vary depending on the options proposed by the Delivery Authority. The Clerk of the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments will consider the risks on a regular basis, determine whether appropriate mitigations are in place or available, take into account all relevant considerations and advice, and then form a judgment based on all the evidence. There will be trade-offs to consider regarding any potential approaches to the works, some of which may be for Members of both Houses to determine. However, the responsibility for health and safety cannot be delegated and the Clerk of the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments must always act in accordance with their statutory responsibilities. Intrusive surveys The Sponsor Body CEO and the Delivery Authority CEO accept this recommendation. Target implementation date: This recommendation is already being implemented, with plans for commencing intrusive surveys on track to start in July 2022. The plans for commencing intrusive surveys in the upcoming recess periods, which will continue to run over the next few years, are on track to start in July 2022. These surveys will provide the Delivery Authority with key structural and ground condition information as well as adding to the existing records of asbestos. This additional information will provide further details on the quantity, type and location of asbestos in the areas being surveyed. Determining how asbestos will be treated within the future R&R works, and implications for safe working zones, will be significantly influenced by the scale and scope of the programme which will be subject to future decisions by the Houses. A range of options for future programme scope, and approaches to how works will be delivered, are currently being developed to inform those decisions. The risks in relation to the House of Commons remaining in the Palace during the works were outlined within the Continued Presence Impact Study published in February 2022.