Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Nineteenth Report - Restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster
Public Accounts Committee
HC 549
Published 5 October 2020
Recommendations
6
The Sponsor Body has not engaged sufficiently with the public and other Palace users to...
Recommendation
The Sponsor Body has not engaged sufficiently with the public and other Palace users to understand what they want from a modern parliament building. The Palace of Westminster is symbol of British democracy. Around 5,000 people work in the Palace …
Read more
HM Treasury
View Details →
Conclusions (23)
2
Conclusion
We are concerned that re-opening decisions made earlier in the Programme risks further delays. In May 2020, the newly formed Sponsor Body announced a strategic review to re-examine options for the Programme to consider whether anything has changed, either politically, economically or environmentally since the Joint Committee report of 2016. …
3
Conclusion
Successful delivery of the Programme is heavily reliant on many factors which are still uncertain. The Programme is at an early stage and there are many uncertainties yet to be addressed. The Sponsor Body and Palace authorities have limited information on the structural condition of the Palace. We have repeatedly …
4
Conclusion
The Programme is also dependent on several factors outside the Sponsor Body’s control. The parliamentary estates team is currently responsible for the refurbishment of parliament’s Northern Estate, which includes the planned Commons decant chamber at Richmond House. No decision has been made on whether some, all or none of the …
5
Conclusion
The Sponsor Body has not made it clear how it will balance Parliament’s range of views on the Programme. The Sponsor Body will have to balance a wide variety of views from groups of Members within both the House of Commons and the House of Lords on what the Programme …
1
Conclusion
On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence about the Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal Programme (the Programme) from the Sponsor Body, the Delivery Authority, the Clerks of both Houses and the Director General of the House of Commons.2
7
Conclusion
Since the establishment of the Programme in 2012, it has taken 8 years to the establishment of the Sponsor Body. Each year that passes increases the risk to life, failure of key utilities or irreparable damage to the building itself, such as from a catastrophic fire.12 While waiting for the …
8
Conclusion
The Sponsor Body did not want to commit to when the Programme might commence construction work until the business case is complete.14 However, the Clerk of the House of Commons told us that “doing nothing is very expensive” and that any further unnecessary delay is costly to the taxpayer and …
9
Conclusion
In May 2020, the Sponsor body announced a strategic review; it expects to report in the autumn.16 The Sponsor Body told us that the object of the review was to test whether the assumptions of the Joint Committee’s work have changed “politically, economically or environmentally” since its 2016 report.17 While …
10
Conclusion
The continual re-opening of decisions risks delaying the Programme even further with the concomitant risks to personal safety, the Palace structure and taxpayer money. We asked the Clerk of the House of Commons on what basis decisions would be opened up once the business case had been put to Parliament, …
11
Conclusion
The Programme is at an early stage with a large number of uncertainties. The actual condition of the Palace, for which there is a lack of documentation, is unknown.22 For Parliament to return to the refurbished Palace in the 2030s as planned, a series of interdependent projects, currently under the …
12
Conclusion
The Sponsor Body considers that the current biggest risk to the Programme is uncertainty on the condition of the building, meaning that it is currently unclear as to the scale of the work required.25 The Sponsor Body told us that is undertaking as much survey work as possible, however this …
13
Conclusion
The current expectation is that during the Programme, the Commons will decant to Richmond House. The project to develop Richmond House, which the Sponsor Body told us is “absolutely key” in terms of delivering Restoration and Renewal, is part of the wider Northern Estates Programme (NEP) which aims to bring …
14
Conclusion
The Sponsor Body told us that there is currently no clarity “about whether some, all or none of [the NEP] comes across to the Sponsor Body” and if it does, at what stage of the Programme.33 It is vital that the independencies between projects are managed effectively in order for …
15
Conclusion
In addition to the NEP, the parliamentary estates team is currently managing other projects, such as the relocation of the archives from Victoria Tower, and the £100 million project to replace the Palace’s cast iron roofs.35 Day-to-day maintenance of the Palace is also the responsibility of the parliamentary estates team, …
16
Conclusion
The Director General of the House of Commons told us that the House and the Sponsor Body were working together to avoid spending on projects that would subsequently be replaced by the Programme.37 However, we heard from the Clerk of the House of Commons that the £140 million fire safety …
17
Conclusion
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 …
18
Conclusion
The Sponsor Body has not yet developed cost and time estimates as it is unclear what the Programme is delivering, or when. It expects to develop these as part of the business case, after building its understanding of uncertainties.43 The Sponsor Body felt that the costs and timeframe relating to …
19
Conclusion
While almost all Members of Parliament agree that restoration is necessary, there is not agreement on what should be done and how.45 The 2018 motion agreeing to a complete decant during the works passed by 16 votes, and did not cover what the Programme was actually going to deliver. There …
20
Conclusion
Most recently, in July 2020, the Prime Minister wrote to the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority to suggest that they consider York as a potential location for Parliament while the Programme is undertaken as the government was considering establishing a government hub in the city. In response, the Sponsor …
21
Conclusion
The Sponsor Body told us that it has established a challenge panel, as part of its strategic review. We heard from the Sponsor Body that it is intended as a “mechanism for us to test ideas, to mitigate the risk of group-think among those of us who are slightly more …
22
Conclusion
In May, the Sponsor Body published its Member consultation strategy as required under the legislation, to which Members, Members’ staff and staff of both Houses were invited to contribute. However, the Sponsor Body acknowledged that consultation and the achievement of buy-in from all interested parties was “an area that we …
23
Conclusion
The Sponsor Body has not finalised its overarching engagement strategy and has yet to develop a plan of how it will engage with members of the public on the Programme. The Palace of Westminster is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, a symbol of British 45 C&AG’s Report, para 9 46 …
24
Conclusion
The Sponsor Body is currently considering how it might best approach a public engagement strategy.53 As a key stakeholder, it is imperative that the public are involved as soon as possible in the discussion as to what a modern Parliament might look like in order to deliver the Programme’s vision …