Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 29
29
When asked, the IPA stated that it could not see a reason why it could...
Conclusion
When asked, the IPA stated that it could not see a reason why it could not provide further assurance over the programme, if asked to by Parliament.59 When we reported on the programme in October 2020, we welcomed the decision of the Sponsor body to engage with the IPA and were keen that it continued to proactively seek the IPA’s advice.60 57 Letter from Infrastructure and Projects Authority dated 14 December 2020, page 1 58 Q 19 59 Qq 54, 55 60 Committee of Public Accounts, Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster, Nineteenth report of Session 2019–21, HC 549, 2 October 2020, Conclusions and recommendations para 4 16 Lessons from major projects and programmes
Government Response
Acknowledged
HM Government
Acknowledged
6.1 The government disagrees with the Committee’s recommendation. 6.2 The government recognises the importance of the Restoration and Renewal project and the complex challenge it presents. As the Committee acknowledges, R&R is a parliamentary rather than a government project. Therefore, it is not part of the GMPP and so not subject to HM Treasury Approval Points. While the IPA has provided informal advice at the request of the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority, the IPA is not part of the ‘Parliamentary Relationship Agreement’ or the ‘Programme Delivery Agreement’, which formalise the programme’s assurance regime. The IPA can continue to provide informal advice on the project where requested, but with respect for the sovereignty of Parliament, any responsibility for formally scrutinising or assuring the project must be based on an invitation from Parliament and amendment to the existing agreements.