Recommendation 17

As a Parliamentary rather than government project, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) has no formal role in reviewing the Programme. However, in February 2020 the Sponsor Body and Parliament commissioned an independent review of the Sponsor Body’s readiness to become substantive. This involved reviewers accredited by the IPA and followed the IPA’s best-practice guidance.39 The Sponsor Body told us that it had, in addition, sought the IPA’s advice on what lessons it could learn from the delivery of major infrastructure projects, in order to benefit from its UK-wide experience of complex projects with multiple interfaces. We welcome the Sponsor Body’s proactive engagement with the IPA and the assurance that the Sponsor Body will continue to consult the IPA throughout the life of the Programme.40 We have seen how there can be a significant time lag between project inception, approval and start of works. Portcullis House was built to increase space for Members and was first considered in its current form in 1989 by a Sub-Committee of the House. It took a further three years until the House of Commons Commission approved the project, and six more years until construction began in 1998. We would not expect the Programme to take any longer than this between 31 C&AG’s Report, para 2.23 32 Q 92 33 Q 58 34 Q 59 35 Qq 17, 58 36 Qq 5, 17 37 Qq 17, 18 38 Q 93 39 C&AG’s Report, para 2.7 40 Q 32 Restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster 13 business case approval and start of construction.41 Where there is political consensus and clearer governance arrangements programmes can often move ahead more quickly. In 2005, London was announced as the host of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games and construction work at the Olympic Park site began in 2008.42