Tenth Report - Restoration and Renewal of Parliament

Critical value for money risks, which we have previously highlighted, have still not been addressed. The NAO’s January 2022 report found that risks we identified in our October 2020 report remained. This included the Sponsor Body managing factors outside its … Read more Critical value for money risks, which we have previously highlighted, have still not been addressed. The NAO’s January 2022 report found that risks we identified in our October 2020 report remained. This included the Sponsor Body managing factors outside its control, with the most significant interdependent projects delayed or paused. For example, the Clerk of the House told us the Commons does not yet have a plan to accommodate itself elsewhere during the work. It wrote-off £70 million when the Commons decided not to pursue the decant plans it had developed. Critically though, despite risks to building political consensus, the question on how to secure and retain consensus across Parliament on what a restored Palace will look like remains unanswered. There is disagreement among MPs on how the work should be done and this is a major cause of the delays on the project over many years. The Commissions’ recent decision to revisit the Programme’s mandate set by Parliament in 2018 demonstrates the challenges of building a single, long-term view. The Clerk of the House of Commons considers that bringing the client function in-house could help establish consensus on a way forward and mitigate risks. We see no evidence for why this will ensure continuity of purpose. In June 2022, the Commissions endorsed the independent expert panel’s recommendation to develop and agree a long-term vision and outcomes. Until Parliament decides what it wants, and sticks to it, it will be almost impossible for any sponsor to deliver any programme. Particularly as the composition and therefore the view of Parliament itself can change at least every five years, which is precisely why the Sponsor Body was set up by the Act to take the oversight of this huge project out of the political arena. Recommendation: The Clerks should set out how they will ensure the relevant authorities address the recommendations made in previous PAC and NAO reports, in particular: Restoration and Renewal of Parliament Show less

View Details →

The Commissions have asked for further options to be explored but is unclear how the higher costs, greater duration and added risks, including extraordinary health and safety risks, of a continued presence during the building works can be managed. The … Read more The Commissions have asked for further options to be explored but is unclear how the higher costs, greater duration and added risks, including extraordinary health and safety risks, of a continued presence during the building works can be managed. The Delivery Authority told us in March that although it is technically possible to plan for options involving some element of continued presence, this would lead to higher costs, take an enormously longer time (an extra 15 to 48 years), and create extraordinary health and safety risks. It may also require changes to the way Parliament operates. Initial work found Parliament operating alongside a construction site would lead to potentially unacceptable disruption, noise and fire risk. It would also increase the potential for exposure to airborne asbestos which will require extensive works to remove. The Delivery Authority is currently letting the contracts for intrusive surveys, having undertaken initial investigations. The House of Commons Trade Union believes 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”. When asked, the Clerks could not clearly answer if they could manage the risks to users of the building should the House of Commons maintain a presence in the Palace during the works. The Clerk of the House of Commons recognises there will need to be a full decant for some time at least. Recommendation: The Clerks should set out the threshold of risk they are willing to accept during the works and report back on this level of risk, the trade-offs they feel are possible and how this impacts the potential approach to work. The Delivery Authority should progress the intrusive surveys during the summer to determine what the asbestos removal plan should be, including whether it is safe to remain in the Palace whilst these works take place. Show less

View Details →

To date, there has been a failure of transparency and accountability over work to restore and renew the Palace. This includes: the House administrations being three months late sharing, in line with expected standards, information on a recent asbestos incident … Read more To date, there has been a failure of transparency and accountability over work to restore and renew the Palace. This includes: the House administrations being three months late sharing, in line with expected standards, information on a recent asbestos incident with those impacted; the Sponsor Body choosing not to consult the domestic committees within Parliament; and Parliament not being clearly informed of the Sponsor Body’s CEO’s resignation. Our work across major programmes has illustrated the importance of establishing the right culture for transparency. The House of Commons Commission decided to propose dissolving the Sponsor Body directly after considering early cost and schedule information prepared by the Sponsor Body (which it found concerning). Unless the justification for this decision is now made clear, it could set a damaging ‘good news culture’. 8 Restoration and Renewal of Parliament Recommendations: To maintain effective transparency over the Programme: • Measures should be put in place by the Programme’s Accounting Officers to ensure the programme sponsor reports regularly to Parliament on progress, including information on the potential costs and risks estimates and any associated uncertainties. • The Commissions of both Houses should publish and place in their respective Libraries all minutes and advice documents supporting decisions relating to the programme, as well as the interdependent and wider works across the Parliamentary Estate. • The Delivery Authority should include engagement with parliamentary domestic committees as a critical stage in any future timetables. • Urgently, and at the latest before works commence, the Clerks of both Houses should review and improve processes to guarantee health and safety incidents are reported as soon as possible to those accountable for safety and those potentially affected by incidents. • The Government must be clearly engaged with the overall strategy and costs of the entire R&R project. Show less

View Details →

The Parliamentary Accounting Officers have not made clear whether the House authorities can deliver the work envisaged by Parliament. We are concerned that the Clerks may feel constrained in sharing their professional views as Accounting and Corporate officers on what … Read more The Parliamentary Accounting Officers have not made clear whether the House authorities can deliver the work envisaged by Parliament. We are concerned that the Clerks may feel constrained in sharing their professional views as Accounting and Corporate officers on what is deliverable. For government programmes, Accounting Officers must assess the delivery risks, publishing a summary of these, and seek a ministerial direction should they consider what they are being asked to do is undeliverable. In January 2020 the Speaker of the House established a new procedure, modelled on Accounting Officers’ ability to seek a ministerial direction, allowing the Clerk of the House to place a statement of his views in the House of Commons Library, if he feels a decision taken by the Speaker comprises either a substantial breach of the Standing Orders, or a departure from long-established conventions, without authorisation by the House itself.1 The Clerks have not shared their views on what work could be delivered. The Commissions convened an independent panel to provide them with advice and assurance on both the governance options and proposed approach to the work. The Commissions considered the independent panel’s review in June 2022, subsequently publishing this as part of a joint report setting out areas the Houses would be invited to vote on. Recommendations: Given their roles as Accounting and Corporate Officers, the Clerks should make available to Members their expert advice on the future programme governance and the viability of different approach to the works. Should the Clerks be tasked with delivering a programme which they cannot assure themselves is value for money, or the best use of taxpayers’ funds, then following the principle of transparency set out by the Speaker in January 2020, 1 Letter from the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, to the Clerk of the House, Dr John Benger, January 29, 2020 Restoration and Renewal of Parliament 9 they should write to the Commons and Lord Show less

View Details →

The House of Commons Commission proposed to dissolve the Sponsor Body without considering why governance arrangements did not work and potential alternatives, including whether the House administrations can satisfactorily oversee work. Following a discussion of the indicative cost and schedule estimates and a continued presence assessment, the Commission proposed that …

View Details →

On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence on the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster (the Palace) from the Sponsor Body Chief Executive Officer, the Delivery Authority Chief Executive, the Clerk of the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments.2 …

View Details →

The Clerk of the House told us that every year the restoration and renewal of the Palace is delayed adds risk and cost such as through nugatory spending.18 In 2014, an independent assessment found delays to the decision may add between £60 million and £85 million per year (in 2014 …

View Details →

Since the start of 2016, there have been 25 fire incidents within the Palace and 13 incidents of falling masonry.22 Nearly two hundred years ago, in 1834, the historic Palace was destroyed by a fire following delay restoring the building.23

View Details →

In May 2022, the Clerk of the House of Commons told us that this period of uncertainty was “highly corrosive and damaging” for retaining the vital expertise needed to develop the Programme.24 This echoed the Delivery Authority’s comments to us in March, that there was a significant risk it would …

View Details →

In March 2022, the Delivery Authority had already lost some newly recruited staff and access to technical contractor expertise. Then, in May 2022, the CEO of the Sponsor Body announced her resignation, along with two other senior members of Sponsor Body staff.27 The Clerk of the House of Commons told …

View Details →

We questioned the Clerk of the House of Commons on the timeframes and Parliamentary processes required to make any changes and provide more certainty. He told us that the House Commissions had sought additional assurance work ahead of a June 2022 joint meeting to agree a report setting out their …

View Details →

The Commissions intend to put indicative resolutions based on this report to Members and Peers before the summer 2022 recess. The Clerk of the House explained that formalising the Commissions’ proposal would require the Leader of the House of Commons to lay an affirmative instrument before both Houses to be …

View Details →

The Sponsor Body told us it has not estimated the costs associated with dissolving itself, which will depend on what the changes to the governance arrangements and proposed work look like. Depending on their grade, its staff have notice periods of between three and 12 months.35 The independent expert review …

View Details →

In February 2022, the House of Commons Commission proposed that the sponsor function should transfer to a “new, separate department serving both Houses”, with its head formally accountable to the Clerk of the House or the Clerks of both Houses and ultimately to the Commissions.37 The House of Lords Commission …

View Details →

On 14 June 2022, the Commissions published the areas where they sought the Houses agreement. This included that the Sponsor Body should be replaced, and that the sponsorship function, now termed client function, would be brought in-house to Parliament for these early programme stages. In practice, the Clerks of the …

View Details →

The Clerk of the House of Commons explained that the technical capacity needed to take on the Sponsor Body’s role was well beyond anything within the House administrations’ in-house resource. He suggested there will need to be a professional client function with the same mix of professional skills as the …

View Details →

In terms of the Clerks’ role, Members of both Houses value their expertise in terms of procedural knowledge, but they may not have the requisite skills to oversee the delivery function (the Delivery Authority) in a complex programme with multiple interdependences. There is no evidence that the Clerk of the …

View Details →

We questioned the Clerk of the House of Commons on the House administration’s performance managing similar programmes. The expected cost of the Elizabeth Tower refurbishment has roughly tripled, from £29 million set out in the outline business case in 2016 to £80 million in the revised business case approved in …

View Details →

We also questioned the House administrations’ protocols on how they to responded to safety incidents during works.46 On 19 November 2021, contractors working in the Speaker’s private apartments identified a release of asbestos between 23 October and 27 October 2021.47 We heard that, although the site was immediately closed when …

View Details →

The Clerk of the House of Commons explained the House administrations stood down all works on the parliamentary estate on 9 February, in part to check whether the right protocols were in place and understood by the relevant staff.50 He told us that the handling of the incident was not …

View Details →

The incident was formally reported to the Health and Safety Executive on 10 February 2022, with relevant trade unions informed on 15 February. The Clerk of the House of Commons acknowledged that the staff affected should have been contacted with greater urgency. The Clerk attributed the delay to disputes between …

View Details →

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 …

View Details →

In June 2022, the independent review panel recommended that bringing the sponsor function in-house should be viewed as a pragmatic measure – the sponsor body governance model could be made to work but was unlikely to be viable given the “extent of lost confidence and momentum for bringing the sponsor …

View Details →

The Clerk of the House told us that he expected the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) to assure the arrangements but recognised that the IPA had no formal role over the Programme.60 Following our March evidence session, the Clerk clarified that the IPA will not be providing assurance over the …

View Details →

When we reported on this Programme in October 2020, we found the Sponsor Body had not engaged sufficiently with Members, Peers, Officials, and staff to clarify how it would reconcile the range of individual views within Parliament. While the Sponsor Body should consider Members’ differing perspectives as much as is …

View Details →

The Clerk of the House of Commons recognised the challenge of the Programme’s clients—including Members and the Commissions—not having a single voice.66 In our view, until Parliament can provide a clear steer on what it wants, it is almost impossible for anything to be delivered.67 We are concerned that the …

View Details →

On 18 March, the Commissions issued a joint statement setting out nine parameters to guide forthcoming decisions. This included considering further options to undertake work without decanting and looking at doing work over a shorter period. The statement reaffirmed the Commissions’ commitment to health and safety.69 The Clerk of the …

View Details →

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 …

View Details →

When we last examined the Programme, the House of Commons planned to decant to Richmond House, creating a temporary chamber.78 We heard that of the £70 million written off when the Commons decided not to pursue this plan, most was related to the planning permission. The Clerk of the House, …

View Details →

Until February 2022, the Sponsor Body was preparing a business case based on Parliament fully moving out of the Palace during the works (known as a ‘full decant’). In December 2020, the House of Commons Commission agreed to ask the Sponsor Body to consider the implications of the Commons staying …

View Details →

The Sponsor Body returned to the Commissions with its initial analysis on the impact of a continued presence in January 2022.82 In the initial analysis, the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority assumed that the Commons Chamber, alongside other functions requested by the Speaker of the House such as a media …

View Details →

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 …

View Details →

The Delivery Authority has now been tasked with developing new options for undertaking the work that will involve some continued presence.87 We asked the Clerks if they could manage the risks to users of the building should the House of Commons maintain a presence in the Palace during the works. …

View Details →

In our May evidence session we asked the Delivery Authority whether, given its earlier analysis of continued presence options, it was comfortable developing these current options. The Delivery Authority told us that it had agreed a task brief to respond to a new and different question on the issue of …

View Details →

Through our work we often see a lack of openness and transparency about programme progress, performance and decision-making. In January 2021, we concluded it was vital that Parliament’s own major project, the Restoration and Renewal Programme, was an exemplar of an open and transparent project which welcomes full scrutiny.93 84 …

View Details →

For government major programmes, Accounting Officers are expected to assess the delivery risks, publishing a summary of this assessment, and seek a ministerial direction should they consider a decision they are being asked to implement compromises value for money.94 In 2020 the Speaker of the House introduced a procedure, modelled …

View Details →

Furthermore, the Commission has not yet set out its reason for suggesting the abolition of the Sponsor Body.99 The Sponsor Body had set out indicative cost and time estimates for the work, and then heard about plans to abolish it – we asked if this was a case of ‘shooting …

View Details →

To work quickly, Parliament and the Sponsor Body agreed that parliamentary domestic committees, such as the finance committees for each house who support the Commissions, would not scrutinise and endorse the Programme’s assessment of the Programme costs and the impact of continued presence before this material was shared with the …

View Details →

We reiterated that significant developments with the Programme should be fully in the public domain and received a commitment from the Clerk of the House, that the House will always be told when there is a significant development with the Programme.106 94 HM Treasury, Managing Public Money, May 2021, Box …

View Details →

Following the House administrations being three months late sharing information about a recent asbestos incident, the Clerk of the House acknowledged staff should have been notified earlier.108 We heard relevant trade union representatives were informed on 15 February, five days after the report to the Health and Safety Executive.109 The …

View Details →