Restoration and Renewal - Developments Since October 2019

By Richard Kelly

17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

Summary 1 Background 2 Sponsor Body, Delivery Authority and Estimates Commission 3 Strategic Review 4 Budget and Outline Business Case 5 Northern Estate Programme 6 NAO Report (April 2020) 7 Public Accounts Committee comment on the NAO report (October 2020) 8 Formal documentation 9 Future timetable

commonslibrary.parliament.uk

Number 08968 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

Image Credits CRI-1564 by UK Parliament/Mark Crick image. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 / image cropped.

Disclaimer The Commons Library does not intend the information in our research publications and briefings to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. We have published it to support the work of MPs. You should not rely upon it as legal or professional advice, or as a substitute for it. We do not accept any liability whatsoever for any errors, omissions or misstatements contained herein. You should consult a suitably qualified professional if you require specific advice or information. Read our briefing ‘Legal help: where to go and how to pay’ for further information about sources of legal advice and help. This information is provided subject to the conditions of the Open Parliament Licence.

Feedback Every effort is made to ensure that the information contained in these publicly available briefings is correct at the time of publication. Readers should be aware however that briefings are not necessarily updated to reflect subsequent changes.

If you have any comments on our briefings please email [email protected]. Please note that authors are not always able to engage in discussions with members of the public who express opinions about the content of our research, although we will carefully consider and correct any factual errors.

You can read our feedback and complaints policy and our editorial policy at commonslibrary.parliament.uk. If you have general questions about the work of the House of Commons email [email protected].

2 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

Contents

Summary 5

Maintaining a continued presence in the Palace of Westminster 6

1 Background 7

2 Sponsor Body, Delivery Authority and Estimates Commission 9

2.1 Sponsor Body 9 Annual report 10 2.2 Delivery Authority 10 Annual report 11 2.3 Estimates Commission 11

3 Strategic Review 13

3.1 The review 13 3.2 Publication of the Strategic Review 16 3.3 Debate in the House of Commons (16 July 2020) 19 3.4 Debate in the House of Commons (20 May 2021) 19

4 Budget and Outline Business Case 22

4.1 Scope of the Outline Business Case and maintaining a continued presence in the Palace of Westminster 23 Scheme objectives 24 4.2 Total cost of the Programme 25

5 Northern Estate Programme 27

6 NAO Report (April 2020) 29

7 Public Accounts Committee comment on the NAO report (October 2020) 31

7.1 Sponsor Body responses to the PAC report 32 7.2 Infrastructure and Projects Authority 33

8 Formal documentation 35

3 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

9 Future timetable 36

Approving the outline business case 36 The timing of decant 36 Covid-19 and R&R 37

Appendix: Before the Act 39

4 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

Summary

The Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 received Royal Assent in October 2019.

The Act creates the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body, which will have responsibility for the restoration of the Palace of Westminster. The Sponsor Body, which had operated in shadow form from July 2018, was established substantively on 8 April 2020, six months after Royal Assent.

The Sponsor Body will propose an Outline Business Case (OBC) for Restoration and Renewal, to be voted on and agreed by both Houses of Parliament, before the building works can begin. The target date for delivering the detailed and costed plan to both Houses of Parliament is "as early as possible in 2023".

Under the Act, the Sponsor Body is required to form a company limited by guarantee to formulate proposals relating to Palace restoration works and to carry out the Parliamentary building works in line with the requirements of the Sponsor Body. It will “procure and manage the contractors and supply chain”.

The Board of the Sponsor Body agreed to incorporate the Delivery Authority at its inaugural meeting on 8 April 2020.

On 24 April 2020, the National Audit Office (NAO) published Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal Programme, a review of the Restoration and Renewal Programme. The review was based on work carried out between January and March 2020 (whilst the Sponsor Body was still in shadow form).

The NAO expected “an outline business case planned to be ready in autumn 2021, and approval from Parliament expected to follow in 2022” but it noted that “Future dates may change as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing at the time of this report”.

On 19 May 2020, the Sponsor Body announced that it would “review options for how the restoration programme should be carried out, including new ways of working developed in response to the health crisis caused by Covid-19”.

The Strategic Review was published on 11 March 2021. A written statement on the same day noted that:

The review sets out clear proposed objectives for the restoration and the need for clearer governance and closer working with Parliament. Supported by the Delivery Authority, the Sponsor Body will continue to develop the detailed and costed restoration and renewal plan that will for the first time give an accurate sense of the costs, timescales

5 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

and full detail of the work needed. The detailed and costed restoration and renewal plan will be put before both Houses for a decision before the Parliamentary building works can commence.

Maintaining a continued presence in the Palace of Westminster Following the publication of the Strategic Review, the House of Commons Commission considered the question of a continued presence during R&R. Its minutes recorded that:

The Commission approved the requirements for maintaining a continued presence in the Palace of Westminster, during Restoration and Renewal, which will form part of the Sponsor Body’s outline business case work.

In its annual report, the Sponsor Body confirmed that it was exploring how a continued presence could be maintained.

The House of Commons Commission received an interim update on the Continued Presence Study at its meeting on 6 September 2021. The Commission noted that two scenarios were in development. It also took note of “the early findings and associated key risks and issues identified for the interim update”.

In a discussion on the Sponsor Body Progress Report at its June 2021 Board Meeting, it was noted that the “continued presence remained a big risk for the Programme”. In a discussion on the Programme’s Schedule, the minutes recorded that:

The absence of an approved decant strategy for the House of Commons presented a significant challenge for the Programme. This would be required withing the next six months.

6 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

1 Background

The Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 (PBRR Act) received Royal Assent in October 2019.

The Sponsor Body will propose an Outline Business Case (OBC) for Restoration and Renewal, to be voted on and agreed by both Houses of Parliament, before the building works can begin.

At the time of the Bill’s second reading in May 2019, these votes were expected during 2021. But in March 2020, the votes were expected in 2022. On 24 March 2021, Sarah Johnson, Chief Executive of the Sponsor Body, told the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission that the programme’s “target date for delivering the detailed and costed plan to both Houses of Parliament is as early as possible in 2023”. 1

In May 2020, the Sponsor Body announced that it would undertake a Strategic Review (see section 3.1). The Strategic Review was published on 11 March 2021 (see section 3.2). It recommends continued work to develop a “Do Minimum” option and a “Do Maximum” option to “’book end’ the development of two further options, the value for money of which can be assessed in the Outline Business Case”.

The House of Commons held debates on Restoration and Renewal soon after the Strategic Review was announced (on 16 July 2020 (see section 3.3)) and following its completion (on 20 May 2021 (see section 3.4)).

In his preview of parliamentary business for the week of the debate in July 2020, Mark D’Arcy, the BBC’s Parliamentary correspondent, reviewed the background to the debate. He noted that MPs had agreed to move out of the Palace of Westminster but then commented that some MPs had never been reconciled to this decision. He noted that although it was a “house matter”, the Government had a stake because of the costs of the scheme, adding that “there are suggestions that Downing Street is jittery about the cost”, which remained uncertain.2

1 Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission, Oral Evidence: Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body Main Supply Estimate 2021-22, 24 March 2021, Q15 2 Mark D’Arcy, “The week ahead in Parliament”, BBC News, 10 July 2020

7 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

When it discussed the Strategic Review, the House of Commons Commission agreed to ask the Sponsor Body to develop proposals to allow a continued presence (by the House of Commons) in the Palace of Westminster. The Sponsor Body is undertaking this work.

At Business Questions on 16 September 2021, the Leader of the House announced that the House would be considering a motion to appoint an external member of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body on Wednesday 22 September.3 Thangam Debbonaire asked the Leader of the House whether he now agreed that “we must press ahead with a full decant”. 4 Jacob Rees- Mogg told her that:

It is well recognised that work needs to be carried out and that we need to re-plumb and re-wire. We have already done a huge amount of work ensuring that the fire safety systems are improved, and we had a successful fire safety test earlier this week to ensure that the structure of the building and the lives within the building are safe. The work is planned and I am supporting it enthusiastically. 5

3 HC Deb 16 September 2021 c1132 4 HC Deb 16 September 2021 c1133 5 HC Deb 16 September 2021 c1135

8 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

2 Sponsor Body, Delivery Authority and Estimates Commission

2.1 Sponsor Body

The Shadow Sponsor Body was first appointed by the House of Commons Commission and the House of Lords Commission in July 2018. 6 The Sponsor Body was established substantively on 8 April 2020. The Hansard Society published a blog outlining the governance arrangements on 7 April 2020. 7

The PBRR Act provided that the external members of the Shadow Sponsor Body could continue as the initial external members of the Sponsor Body. Their appointments and those of the initial parliamentary members were confirmed by the two Houses on 23 and 24 March 2020. The current members of the Sponsor Body are:

• Parliamentary Members (Commons): Kirsty Blackman, Damian Hinds, Ian Levy, and Mark Tami; • Parliamentary Members (Lords): Lord Best, Lord Carter of Coles, Lord Deighton and Baroness Doocey; • External Members: Brigid Janssen, Elizabeth Peace (chair), Marta Phillips, Dr Simon Thurley and Simon Wright. 8 On 17 May 2021, the Sponsor Body announced that it was seeking new external members. 9 On 14 September 2021, a motion to appoint Paul Lewis as an external member of the Sponsor Body was approved by the House of Lords. 10 The House of Commons will be asked to approve Paul Lewis’ appointment on 22 September 2021. 11

6 WS861, 17 July 2018 7 “The new Restoration and Renewal governance arrangements”, Hansard Society Blog, 7 April 2020 8 HL Deb 23 March 2020 c1637; HC Deb 24 March 2020 cc315-318; HC Deb 7 December 2020 c671; HC Deb 21 April 2021 cc1090-1093; HL Deb 13 July 2021 c1715. Damian Hinds was appointed to the Government on 13 August 2021 [UK Government, Rt Hon Damian Hinds (last viewed 16 September 2021)] 9 Restoration and Renewal news, Sponsor Body seeks External Members (Non-Executive Directors), 17 May 2021 10 HL Deb 14 September 2021 cc1276-1277 11 HC Deb 16 September 2021 c1132

9 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

The Sponsor Body’s chief executive, Sarah Johnson, was appointed to the shadow Sponsor Body in October 2019. 12

Short biographies of the members of the Sponsor Body can be found on the Houses of Parliament – Restoration and Renewal website, see: The Sponsor Body.

Annual report The Sponsor Body’s annual report and accounts for 2020/21 were published on 19 July 2021. 13 In their foreword, the Chair and Chief Executive described 2020/21 as a “pivotal year for Restoration and Renewal”. They reported that “substantial progress” had been made “on the design, surveys of the Palace, the House of Lords and Heritage decant projects, and our commitments to create jobs, skills and social value”. The Strategic Review had considered how to minimise any period of decant and confirmed where the two Houses should move to while works were carried out – MPs to the Northern Estate and peers to the QEII Centre. 14

2.2 Delivery Authority

Under the PBRR Act, the Sponsor Body is required to form a company limited by guarantee to formulate proposals relating to Palace restoration works and to carry out the Parliamentary building works in line with the requirements of the Sponsor Body. It will “procure and manage the contractors and supply chain”. 15

The Board of the Sponsor Body agreed to incorporate the Delivery Authority at its inaugural meeting on 8 April 2020. 16

It also agreed to the appointment of Mike Brown MVO as the Delivery Authority Chair. 17 Two members of the Sponsor Body were appointed as non- executive directors of the Delivery Authority, Simon Thurley and Simon Wright.

The Chief Executive Officer of the Delivery Authority is David Goldstone, formerly Chief Operating Officer at the Ministry of Defence.

12 Board of the Shadow Sponsor Body, Minutes, 15 October 2019 13 Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body, Annual Report and Accounts 2020-21, 19 July 2021, HC 472 2021- 22 14 Ibid, p9 and p17 15 Houses of Parliament Restoration and Renewal, Learn more about the Delivery Authority [webpage] 16 Board of the Sponsor Body, Record of the Proceedings and Resolutions of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body, 8 April 2020, Item 19 17 Mike Brown was a commissioner of Transport for London at the time of his appointment – “Mike Brown to oversee Palace of Westminster restoration and renewal”, pbctoday, 18 October 2019

10 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

Short biographies of the members of the board of the Delivery Authority can be found on the Houses of Parliament – Restoration and Renewal website, see: The Delivery Authority.

Annual report The Delivery Authority’s Annual report and Financial Statements were published on 19 July 2021. 18 In his review of the Delivery Authority’s work between April 2020 and March 2021, David Goldstone reported that:

The Delivery Authority is embarked on a programme that will include more than a hundred surveys to properly understand the condition of the Palace of Westminster. We have made significant progress on the technical and non-technical aspects of the design of the future Palace as well as progressing plans for the decant of the House of Lords and of the Palace’s Heritage Collections. 19

He also outlined the importance of planning at this stage to ensure value for money throughout the project that:

The initial phases of any major project are the ones where the foundations for success are laid. Our careful planning, investigations into the Palace, progress on key decant projects and development of robust governance, assurance and scrutiny are essential in enabling us to deliver the Programme in line with Parliament’s wishes and with value for money in relation to the nation’s finances. 20

2.3 Estimates Commission

Under the PBRR Act, the Estimates Commission will consider and lay the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body’s estimates before the House of Commons for approval and assess the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body’s proposed expenditure. It has four members: two from the Commons and two from the Lords.

The House of Lords Procedure Committee recommended that the House of Lords Commission should nominate the Lords members and anticipated that the Senior Deputy Speaker, who is also the spokesperson for the House of Lords Commission, would be one of the two Lords members. 21 The House of Lords agreed to the report on 2 July 2020. 22

18 R&R Delivery Authority, Annual Report and Financial Statements for the perio9d ended 31 March 2021, 19 July 2021, HC 473 2021-22 19 Ibid, p9 20 Ibid 21 Procedure Committee [House of Lords], Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission, 25 March 2020, HL Paper 46 2019-21, para 2 22 HL Deb 2 July 2020 c804

11 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

The current members of the Estimates Commission are:

Dame Eleanor Laing, 23 Chair; Nicholas Brown; 24 Lord Gardiner of Kimble;25 and Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court. 26

The Estimates Commission held its first meeting on 8 December 2020. 27

On 24 March 2021, the Commission met to review the Sponsor Body’s Estimate for 2021/22. 28 In its report on the Estimate, the Commission noted a number of matters on which it sought reassurance from the Sponsor Body. It reported that “over 100 surveys and site investigations were planned, and that 30 had been completed so far” and commented that it was important to get a very clear understanding of the work that is required at the outset to avoid problems arising in the future.

The Commission also sought reassurances on the plans to ensure contracts from the project benefitted companies across the UK and sought quantifiable targets on the number of apprentices that the Delivery Authority planned to employ.

It commented on the average staff cost and sought information on the profile of staff, functions performed and pay bands. 29

It requested detailed spending profiles for the coming years.30

23 HC Deb 23 September 2020 c1075 24 HC Deb 8 June 2021 c926 25 HL Deb 30 June 2021 c790 26 HL Deb 23 September 2020 c1849 27 UK Parliament, Parliamentary Works Estimate Commission [webpage] 28 Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission, Oral Evidence: Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body Main Supply Estimate 2021-22, 24 March 2021 29 PQ 151884, 22 February 2021 reported that as of 31 January 2021, “there are 15 directly employed staff in the Sponsor Body, mainly at a senior level and the average costs per employee is £103,633” and that “there are 55 directly employed staff in the Delivery Authority, mainly at a senior level and the average costs per employee is £86,810”. The costs include National Insurance and Pension 30 Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission, Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body: Main Supply Estimate 2021-22: Comments from the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission and the Treasury, 27 April 2021, HC 1382 2019-21

12 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

3 Strategic Review

3.1 The review

In an article in the Daily Telegraph, Sarah Johnson, the CEO of the Sponsor Body outlined the reasons for conducting a strategic review:

… we are leading a review to consider and test all the evidence and assumptions made in the recent past. It has been five years since the plan was drawn up for all MPs and Lords to leave the Palace temporarily while the work was carried out. At the time it was chosen as the most cost-effective solution.

She noted it was expected that following their establishment, the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority would review the programme. But because of the “completely altered political and economic landscape”, the review needed to be “much more fundamental”. 32

The Strategic Review was led by the chief executives of the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority, Sarah Johnson and David Goldstone, with support from infrastructure and programme management experts drawn from both organisations. The chairs of the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority, Liz Peace and Mike Brown, would also provide input. It was expected to conclude in the autumn of 2020, when its findings would first be considered by the Sponsor Body Board and the Commissions of both Houses. 33

In her Daily Telegraph article, Sarah Johnson wrote that the review would make recommendations on “whether the current solutions offer value for money; what compromises would need to be made to save money; what opportunities exist for simpler, quicker and cheaper temporary accommodation and how new ways of working developed in response to Covid-19 affect Parliament’s requirements”. 34

31 Sponsor Body news, Sponsor Body launches review into plans, 19 May 2020 32 Sarah Johnson, “The Houses of Parliament need saving and restoration is urgent – but the timing must be right”, Daily Telegraph, 18 May 2020 33 PQ 55862, 16 June 2020 34 Sarah Johnson, “The Houses of Parliament need saving and restoration is urgent – but the timing must be right”, Daily Telegraph, 18 May 2020

13 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

On 1 July 2020, a written statement from Damian Hinds invited Members and Members' staff to give their views (by 7 August) on the following issues:How should political, economic, commercial, social, technological, environmental or other developments since the report of the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster in 2016 affect how the Houses of Parliament are restored and renewed? • In the interests of affordability and value for money, what compromises could be acceptable during the works? • What balance should be struck between spending the minimum required to prevent a catastrophic failure from flood and fire and taking the opportunity to renew Parliament for the future? • Any other matters which the review should take into account? 35

Sarah Johnson updated her Daily Telegraph article in the House Magazine to coincide with the written statement seeking the views of Members. 36

At its meeting on 14 September 2020, the House of Commons Commission noted the initial findings of the R&R Strategic Review and the outcome of stakeholder engagement. 37

In October 2020, the Sponsor Body Board anticipated that it would consider the draft recommendations of the review in mid-November (it did, see below). At that time, it expected that the report would be published after it had been discussed with both Houses in December and considered by Parliamentary authorities. 38

Baroness Scott of Needham Market, the Sponsor Body spokesperson in the House of Lords, expected that the Strategic Review would be “discussed by Members early in the new year”, after consideration by the Commissions of the two Houses and “the appropriate committees”. 39

In a letter to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in January 2021, the Sponsor Body said that it expected to publish its final report in January 2021. 40 The Sponsor Body gave a flavour of the Strategic Review, saying that:

The review provides the direction needed to deliver the restoration programme. It sets out the processes, required objectives and closer collaboration that is needed with Parliament, to continue developing an Outline Business Case that will for the first time give Parliamentarians a true and accurate sense of the range of time and costs involved and the full detail of the work that should be carried

35 WS328, 1 July 2020 36 “‘Parliament is falling apart faster than it can be fixed’ – what next for the Restoration and Renewal?”, TheHouse, 1 July 2020 37 House of Commons Commission, Decisions – 14 September 2020, Item 3 38 R&R Sponsor Body, Meeting Minutes – Sponsor Board, 5 October 2020, Item 4.2.2 39 HL Deb 24 November 2020 c127 40 Public Accounts committee, Houses of Parliament Restoration and Renewal Programme, letter from the Chief Executive Officer (dated 5 January 2021), 25 January 2021

14 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

out to save and protect Parliament. With a strong focus on a ‘do minimum’ option, the business case will continue to refine restoration plans before they are presented to Parliament for consideration. 41

It told the PAC that a full decant would be required and although it would be kept to a minimum, “the duration of decant will be in years and not months”. 42

Strategic Review: draft report The Commissions of the two Houses considered the draft report of the Strategic Review of the R&R Programme at their meetings in December 2020. The House of Commons Commission’s minutes recorded that, the Commission:

(1) Considered the draft report of the strategic review and provided steers on the main recommendations;

(2) Noted the proposed approach to the finalisation and publication of the strategic review’s report in the new year, followed by wider Member engagement; and

(3) Noted the assumptions regarding the consideration of the revised Phase 1 Expenditure Limit and Estimate for 2021–22.

The Commission agreed to request that, as part of its preparation for the outline business case, the Sponsor Body should carry out further work to fully understand the costs, time and other implications of carrying out the necessary works whilst a presence was maintained in the Palace. 43

At the Sponsor Body Board meeting on 16 November 2020, in a discussion on the Strategic Review and the development of options to form the basis of the Outline Business Case, it had been noted that:

whatever options were chosen, a partial decant could not be recommended and there would be a period when the Palace would need to be completely emptied. 44

In response to a question at Business Questions on 28 January 2021, the Leader of the House, Jacob Rees-Mogg, said that the strategic review would “enable the parties involved to consider options in the light of the economic effect of the coronavirus”. He told the House that it should be possible to get on with the works that were immediately possible and not use R&R as an

41 Ibid 42 Ibid 43 House of Commons Commission, Decisions 14 December 2020, Item 2 44 Houses of Parliament Restoration and Renewal Sponsor Body, Sponsor Board Meeting Minutes 16 November 2020, Item 9.3

15 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

excuse for delaying works that needed to take place. He noted that “the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority … are on schedule to prepare options for Parliament to consider in a timely fashion”. He stressed the need “to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent on vital works, not on a gold-plated scheme. We have to explain to our constituents when we spend money on ourselves, so the vital works test will be a key one. As we save the Palace, there must be no blank cheque”.45

3.2 Publication of the Strategic Review

The Strategic Review was published on 11 March 2021. In a written statement, Damian Hinds provided an overview of the conclusions of the Review:

The review recommends the adoption of a set of 'essential' and 'stretch' objectives, to be endorsed by the Commissions of both Houses. The essential objectives will form the core deliverables for the Programme, to inform a "do essential" option in the detailed and costed restoration and renewal plan. The stretch objectives will offer greater ambition.

The review found that by approaching the restoration in a new way, with a phased approach to the delivery of the works to the Palace of Westminster, the time Members and staff would spend in temporary accommodation could be kept to a minimum. Whilst the detailed and costed restoration and renewal plan will set out specific timescales, the period during which works are taking place in the Palace of Westminster should be thought of in terms of years and not months.

The review found that Parliament's northern estate, within the secure perimeter, is the best place for temporarily locating MPs. Specific plans for these arrangements will be drawn up in collaboration with Parliament's in-house team, respecting recent decisions from the House of Commons Commission regarding the sequencing of works on the northern estate and in line with the developing parliamentary masterplan.

Members of the House of Lords will be located in temporary accommodation at the QEII Conference Centre and proposals for this will have at their heart an objective to minimise costs.

[…]

45 HC Deb 28 January 2021 c568; see also HC Deb 4 February 2021 cc1133-1134

16 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

to develop the detailed and costed restoration and renewal plan that will for the first time give an accurate sense of the costs, timescales and full detail of the work needed. The detailed and costed restoration and renewal plan will be put before both Houses for a decision before the Parliamentary building works can commence.46

The Strategic Review’s conclusions related to “setting clear objectives for the R&R Programme; the delivery strategy; decant scope and locations; and governance and decision-making”. 47

It restated vision and themes and goals of the Programme. But it noted that “A refined and more meaningful set of ‘Essential’ programme objectives are needed that are consistent with the Themes and Goals to give clarity to the programme and form the basis of a true ‘Do Minimum’ business case option”. 48

Box 1: R&R vision

The current vision for the Restoration and Renewal programme is “To transform the Houses of Parliament to be fit for the future as the working home for our parliamentary democracy, welcoming to all and a celebration of our rich heritage”. Currently the programme has six Strategic Themes:

• Health, Safety and Security • Accessibility and Inclusion • Functionality and Design • Sense of History • Sustainability • Time and Value for Money 49

The Strategic Review concluded that a phased delivery strategy with “low disturbance” work taking place before the Palace was decanted, while taking slightly longer overall would reduce the length of that the Chambers could not be used:

Recognising the desire to minimise any period when the Palace is not occupied, the Delivery Authority has developed a proposed phased approach to deliver the works, potentially including an approach using river access. This remains an iterative process that will

46 HCWS839, 11 March 2021 47 Restoration and Renewal, Strategic Review, 11 March 2021 48 Ibid, para 52 49 Ibid, paras 49 and 54

17 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

continue to be developed and combined with further extensive surveys to help identify the opportunities for improvements in delivery. This method does however extend the overall timeline of the delivery work compared to a fully unoccupied Palace, but could include a potential early return of both chambers once main works are complete while work continues in other areas. 50

The Strategic Review reviewed alternative decant locations. It hoped that this would ensure adequate evidence prevented the revisiting of decisions already taken. 51 It confirmed that the best locations for decant were Richmond House for the Commons Chamber and other facilities; and the QEII Centre for the House of Lords. However, it commented that “The decision to use Richmond House as the decant facility during the renovation of the Norman Shaw North building will impact the R&R programme, delaying when work can commence to convert it to a decant facility”. It also noted that the House of Commons Commission recognised the need for engagement with the R&R programme in relation to Richmond House. It stressed that it was “imperative” that this engagement and cooperation “begin as soon as possible”. 52

The Strategic Review noted the importance of the governance arrangements in delivering the programme. It identified a number of areas that required greater clarity before the Outline Business Case was agreed:

The key areas that require greater clarity during Phase 1 are:

(1) Agreement of clear user requirements;

(2) The approval process for the Outline Business Case in both Houses;

(3) Roles and responsibilities, including management of interfaces, between the Programme and Parliament in relation to:

(a) The relationship with works on the Northern Estate;

(b) Ongoing works and services provided by the House administrations, including any early works as part of a phased approach; and

It also confirmed that it was producing (with input from both Houses) strategies for the approval of the Outline Business Case and for Parliamentary Engagement. 54

50 Ibid, para 68 51 Ibid, para 133 52 Ibid, para 164 53 Ibid, para 188 54 Ibid, para 214

18 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

3.3 Debate in the House of Commons (16 July 2020)

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Leader of the House of Commons, opened the debate. He told the House “that the Palace is now deteriorating faster than it can be repaired”. He said that three requirements had to be met if the R&R Programme was “to command the confidence of the House and of taxpayers”:

• “the proposal must be robust and evidence-based”; • “it must give value for money and we must cut out unnecessary spending”; and • “the plans need to be up to date”. 55

Damian Hinds, a member of the Sponsor Body, described the debate as an opportunity for MPs to express their views and reminded them of the deadline for submissions to the strategic review.

A number of MPs stressed the necessity of the R&R Programme and the security requirement that MPs remain within the secure perimeter of the parliamentary estate. There were suggestions that the plans for a temporary Chamber in Richmond House could be scaled back.

Although some MPs suggested that the work could be undertaken with a partial decant, others pointed to the practical problems this would involve, particularly the need for access; the lengthening of the programme; or the unlikelihood of the Lords accepting the Commons moving into its chamber.

MPs highlighted the opportunity to improve access to the building for people with any kind of disability but regularly returned to the need to ensure value for money. Some argued that a rolling decant would be cheaper than a full decant while others that a full decant would be more efficient.

3.4 Debate in the House of Commons (20 May 2021)

In opening a general debate on Restoration and Renewal, on 20 May 2021, the Leader of the House highlighted a number of projects that were ongoing in the Palace and the preparatory work that the R&R Programme was doing. He told the House that “the programme remains on track to begin its main phase as planned … in the mid-2020s”. 56 The debate was important because it would allow MPs to make their expectations for the Programme clear.

55 HC Deb 16 July 2020 cc1736-1737 56 HC Deb 20 May 2021 c908

19 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

He noted that the background to the Strategic Review, which was published just two months before the debate had changed again and some of the consequences of the pandemic might affect the conclusions of the Strategic Review:

Earlier this year, the Sponsor Body published its own initial thoughts on how to proceed in its strategic review. That reflected work completed in 2020, before the full extent of the pandemic’s implications for R and R could be appreciated. It recommended that a period of vacation of the Palace remained necessary and that the main temporary facilities for the Commons should continue to be provided on Parliament’s secure northern estate. However, the past 15 months have shown that we are able to function for a time without every facility and, indeed, without a full Chamber. Doing so will always reduce our effectiveness—I am no great fan of remote proceedings, and I am delighted that this Chamber will be back to its bustling norm once restrictions are lifted—but I recognise that during the pandemic we have seen that some of the ancillary services the Joint Committee considered essential to be physically present next to the Chamber have turned out not to be so. It also seems reasonable to consider how technology might be used on a stand-by basis—in case of an emergency recall, for example.57

He was encouraged by the consideration of how the House of Commons could maintain a continued presence in the Palace. 58

Thangam Debonnaire, the Shadow Leader of the House, noted that the Strategic Review had concluded that a full decant was necessary. She argued that MPs could not endlessly revisit decisions that had already been taken and should “get on with it”. 59 As did Meg Hillier, Dr Liam Fox and Sir Paul Beresford.

Damian Hinds identified three compromises that could reduce the cost of decant. He said that a smaller decant Chamber or reconfiguring of the voting lobbies; a willingness to rearrange committee business; and a smaller number of MPs’ staff on the Estate could all contribute. 60 Similarly, trade-offs could be accepted in the R&R Programme. Other MPs stressed the importance of securing value for money.

A number of MPs highlighted the difficulties associated with demolishing Richmond House, which had previously been required but is no longer anticipated.61 As it was identified as the decant location, they should accept that a converted rather than rebuilt Richmond House would be an

57 HC Deb 20 May 2021 c908 58 HC Deb 20 May 2021 c909 59 HC Deb 20 May 2021 c911 60 HC Deb 20 May 2021 c916 61 HC Deb 20 may 2021 c924

20 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

appropriate compromise. 62 Virtual voting would mean less space was required, for instance.

Sir Edward Leigh said that a replica Chamber could fit in the Richmond House courtyard. He also suggested how a continued presence could be maintained.63

Members again highlighted the wider effect the Programme would have with opportunities for apprentices and specialist masons and so on. They expected these opportunities to be shared across the country.

There was support for maintaining a continued presence in the Palace. Sir David Amess feared that MPs may never return, if they left, despite all the guarantees that had been given. Duncan Baker also believed it should be possible to do the work around a continued presence.

62 See Andrea Leadsom, Mark Tami 63 HC Deb 20 May 2021 c925

21 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

4 Budget and Outline Business Case

Under Schedule 4 of the PBRR Act, the House of Commons Commission is responsible for setting the Phase I Expenditure Limit for the Sponsor Body. Phase I expenditure is all expenditure before the outline business case is approved by both Houses of Parliament.64

At its meeting on 1 April 2020, rather than set a limit for the whole of Phase I it agreed to set an interim limit of £27.5 million. The House of Commons Commission noted that:

It is expected that the funding will support the work of the Sponsor Body for the first three months of its operation, and that the Commission will consider a revision to the Phase I Expenditure Limit and the associated Supplementary Estimate for the Body later in the Spring.

Its decision was communicated to the House of Lords Commission and it agreed the Estimate the following day.65

At its meeting on 8 June 2020, the House of Commons Commission agreed to the funding of the Sponsor Body for the remainder of the financial year. Its minutes recorded that the R&R Programme’s plans for 2020/21 had been amended in response to Covid-19 pandemic and the then forthcoming upcoming strategic review. It agreed funding for the period July 2020 to March 2021 of £98.7m. This meant that with the funding for the previous three months, “the first Annual Estimate for the R&R Programme is £126.2m”. It also reported that a Supplementary Estimate would be required. 66

On 24 November 2020, Baroness Scott of Needham Market, the Sponsor Body spokesperson in the House of Lords, responding to an oral question, confirmed that “in accordance with the annual estimate agreed by the commissions of both Houses, weekly spend to date has been £1.8 million”. 67

Phase 1 work continues and at its meeting on 22 February 2021, the House of Commons Commission endorsed the proposed funding of £155.6 million for the R&R Programme for 2021/22. This required the Commission to revise the Phase 1 Expenditure Limit from £126 million to £263 million, reflecting “the forecast outturn for 2020/21 of £107 million and the proposed funding for 2021/22”. The Commission also noted that it would be asked to revise the Phase 1

64 Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 (chapter 27), Schedule 4, para 1 65 House of Commons Commission, Decisions 1 April 2020, Item 1; House of Lords Commission, Minutes, 2 April 2020, Item 2 66 House of Commons Commission, Decisions 8 June 2020, Item 2 67 HL Deb 24 November 2020 c125

22 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

expenditure limit because further expenditure on the preparation of the Outline Business Case would be required in the 2022/23 financial year.68 Sarah Johnson, the Chief Executive of the Sponsor Body told the House of Lords Commission that the decision to agree the funding for only 2021/22 was disappointing. After further discussion the House of Lords Commission agreed the revised Phase 1 expenditure limit.69

4.1 Scope of the Outline Business Case and maintaining a continued presence in the Palace of Westminster

Judith Brooke, one of the Lords R&R Directors, told the House of Lords Commission that the Sponsor Body was taking steps to reduce the number of options to be assessed as part of the Outline Business Case.

Ms Johnson described the two options that would be developed: a ‘do- minimum’ option (essential objectives) or a ‘variant’ option (stretch objectives). The House of Lords Commission minutes recorded that:

[Ms Johnson] said that both options would presuppose a full decant delivery model, that both would involve a comprehensive refurbishment of the critical systems (electrical, heating, fire safety etc.) and that both would deliver increased accessibility.70

At its meeting on 19 April 2021, the House of Commons Commission considered the question of a continued presence during R&R. Its minutes record that:

The Sponsor Body received a formal mandate for this work on 26 April 2021. 72 In its annual report, the Sponsor Body confirmed that it was exploring how a continued presence could be maintained:

Following engagement with the House of Commons, we are now working to develop costs and feasibility of a scenario where the House of Commons retains a continued presence in the Palace

68 House of Commons Commission, Decisions 22 February 2021, Item 1 69 House of Lords Commission, Minutes 26 February 2021, Item 2 70 Ibid 71 House of Commons Commission, Decisions 19 April 2021, Item 2 72 Houses of Parliament – Restoration and Renewal, Quarterly Report R&R Programme, Q4 2020/21, para 13

23 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

throughout the building works. Working with our Parliamentary colleagues, this includes looking at options within the secure perimeter for short, medium and long term requirements for temporary facilities, including those needed to provide contingency for emergency situations. 73

The Commission received an interim update on the Continued Presence Study at its meeting on 6 September 2021. The Commission noted that two scenarios were in development. It also took note of “the early findings and associated key risks and issues identified for the interim update”. 74

In a discussion on the Sponsor Body Progress Report at its June 2021 Board Meeting, it was noted that the “continued presence remained a big risk for the Programme”. 75 In a discussion on the Programme’s Schedule, the minutes recorded that:

The absence of an approved decant strategy for the House of Commons presented a significant challenge for the Programme. This would be required withing the next six months. 76

Scheme objectives At its meeting on 17 May 2021, the House of Commons Commission agreed how to evaluate the R&R Scheme options:

The Commission endorsed the following principles as an appropriate framework for evaluating the R&R scheme options:

That the scheme options presented should:

(A) Adhere to Parliamentary strategies, agreed standards or policies that are relevant and set these as a minimum.

(B) Balance investment cost (capex) against long-term operational cost (opex).

(C) Deliver a building fit for purpose and future proofed to a specified time period and the programme should be explicit on the expected “warranty” period of deliverables, commencing at hand-back.

(D) Provide the environment which enables Parliament to carry out its range of desired Parliamentary business, visitor and heritage functions, and associated support functions.

73 Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body, Annual Report and Accounts 2020-21, 19 July 2021, HC 472 2021- 22, p17. See also, Houses of Parliament R&R Sponsor Body, Sponsor Board Minutes, 4 May 2021, Item 3.1.3-3.1.4 74 House of Commons Commission, Decisions – 6 September 2021, Item 2 75 Houses of Parliament R&R Sponsor Body, Sponsor Board Minutes, 7 June 2021, Item 3.2.5 76 Ibid, Item 5.2.2

24 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

(E) Align with the stated risk appetite of both Houses, to be met across all stated objectives (affects security, H&S corporate risk, fire, cyber security).

The Commission:

• Endorsed the “essential” and “stretch” objectives presented by the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body, subject to Sponsor Body adoption of the above principles as a framework for evaluation of the scheme options;

• Noted that these objectives would be used as the basis for development of two schemes which will be assessed through the R&R detailed and costed plan;

• Noted the initial draft scope of the two schemes (“essential” and “intermediate”) being worked up in more detail;

• Noted the current proposed timeline and key decision points until the R&R detailed and costed plan is debated on the floor of both Houses; and

• Noted the request by the Commons Executive Board and Lords Management Board to the Sponsor Body to have the opportunity to assess the scheme options in further detail, and to confirm the appropriate role of the Houses and their governance bodies during Phase 1 decision-making. 77

The House of Commons Commission endorsed the design assumptions for the R&R Programme at its meeting on 12 July 2021. 78

4.2 Total cost of the Programme

The Outline Business Case, which the Sponsor Body has to prepare, will provide fully costed estimates of the programme.

An Independent Options Assessment (IOA), produced by a Deloitte-led consortium in 2015, was considered by the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster which reported in 2016. For full decant, the IOA estimated indicative costs for comparative purposes at between £3.52 billion and £3.87 billion, and assumed a construction start date of 2020. In response to a parliamentary question, in March 2020, on the latest estimate of the costs of the R&R programme, the House of Commons Commission noted that the IOA “cautioned that no budget could be set until a detailed design brief and means of delivery were agreed, and that these figures should not be taken as

77 House of Commons Commission, Decisions – 17 May 2021, Item 4 78 House of Commons Commission, Decisions – 12 July 2021, Item 2

25 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

setting or estimating a budget for the Restoration and Renewal Programme”.79 This was reiterated by Jacob Rees-Mogg in the debate on 16 July 2020, when he said that “We cannot know how much the programme will cost in reality until the outline business case is published”. 80

79 PQ 21902, 3 March 2020 80 HC Deb 16 July 2020 c1738

26 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

5 Northern Estate Programme

In order to refurbish part of the parliamentary estate and in preparation for a potential decant from the Palace, the House of Commons Commission established the Northern Estate Programme (NEP). Initial proposals for a temporary House of Commons included “a new temporary House of Commons chamber and associated facilities within a substantially redeveloped Richmond House on Whitehall, together with workspace for all 650 MPs and staff within a single secure site”. Planning applications were submitted. 81

The NEP was the responsibility of the House of Commons. At its meeting on 9 March 2020, the Commission agreed to the inclusion of £112 million relating to the NEP in the House of Commons Estimate for 2020/21 “at this stage, subject to progress on the planning application for the Programme”.

The Commissions of both Houses and the Sponsor Body agreed in principle that the NEP should be designated as a part of the parliamentary building works. The Commons Commission noted that “Subject to the subsequent designation by the Commissions of NEP to the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority, the unspent portion of the 2020–21 Estimate and overall OBC [outline base cost] funding envelope would be transferred to the Sponsor Body”. 82

However, when the Sponsor Body gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee in July 2020, Sarah Johnson, told the Committee that:

There is a mechanism through which the Northern Estate could be transferred to the Sponsor Body; there is a mechanism in the Act that would allow that to happen, and that is something that we have said we will consider once the review has completed. We recognise that that there is a component of the Northern Estate—the Richmond House proposals—that is absolutely key to R&R, but that some of the other components of R&R are needed in any event, so we just need to make a proactive decision about whether some, all or none of that work comes across to the Sponsor Body. 83

At its meeting on 14 September 2020, the House of Commons Commission agreed that Richmond House would be used as accommodation for Members, to allow the decant of Norman Shaw North in summer 2021. 84

81 House of Commons, Northern Estate Programme [website] 82 House of Commons Commission, Decisions 9 March 2020, Item 3 83 Public Accounts Committee, Restoration and Renewal – Oral Evidence, 21 July 2020, Q58 84 House of Commons Commission, Decisions 14 September 2020, Item 3

27 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

At its meeting on 9 November 2020, the House of Commons Commission “approved the closure of the Northern Estate Programme and the new approach of a more agile portfolio of projects, with an initial portfolio of 1 Derby Gate, Richmond House, and Norman Shaw North and enabling building services and infrastructure works to facilitate the renovation of Norman Shaw North”. It noted that it would be asked to approve the cost and plans in more detail in February 2021 and that other projects would be added to the agile portfolio in future. 85

The Strategic Review noted that the Commission’s decisions of 9 November 2020 meant that “the House of Commons Commission confirmed that it did not intend to pursue designation as the current scope of the portfolio did not include any decant arrangements for the Palace of Westminster”. 86

The House of Commons Annual Report and Accounts for 2020/21 confirms that the NEP was wound up. It noted “the increased uncertainty over the scope and timing of the longer term plans for the Northern Estate”. As a result of a review of the accounting treatment of the expenditure incurred so far in developing plans for Richmond House to be used as a temporary Commons chamber, it recognised a constructive loss of £70.2 million in the accounts. 87

85 House of Commons Commission, Decisions 9 November 2020, Item 5 86 Restoration and Renewal, Strategic Review, 11 March 2021, para 206 87 House of Commons, Annual Report and Accounts 2020-21, 21 July 2021, HC 316 2021-22, pp36-37

28 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

6 NAO Report (April 2020)

On 24 April 2020, the National Audit Office (NAO) published a review of the Restoration and Renewal Programme. The review was based on work carried out between January and March 2020 (whilst the Sponsor Body was still in shadow form). 88

The NAO Review described the background to the Programme and the associated value for money risks. It recommended how the risks could be reduced and described the potential impact of not doing so.

The NAO noted that the Sponsor Body was focused on preparing the business case that has to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before the works begin. The NAO highlighted the importance of the relationship between Parliament and the Sponsor Body, including how to revisit decisions if programme requirements change.

The NAO noted that there were a number of uncertainties “at this early stage”, including the success of other projects, such as the Northern Estate Programme. It recommended that the Sponsor Body developed a clear understanding of its responsibilities for and the interdependencies of these projects. It stressed the importance of understanding these uncertainties before developing cost and time estimates. It commented that:

It is usually the case that estimates will be ranges early in a programme, the width of which will reflect the level of uncertainty to avoid creating value for money risks. For example, too wide an estimate range, with too much uncertainty, can mean teams do not focus on controlling costs and best value. Too specific, or certain, cost or time estimates at an early stage can lead to inefficient short- term decisions. Publishing these estimates, without a clear explanation as to what they cover, can create unrealistic expectations among stakeholders. 89

The NAO said that “Governance and assurance processes for the Programme are in their infancy”. It recommended that the Sponsor Body considered how to balance freedom and oversight of the Delivery Authority across different Programme stages, “ensuring it has the right controls in place to manage the

88 National Audit Office, Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal Programme, 24 April 2020, HC 315 2019-21 89 National Audit Office, Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal Programme, 24 April 2020, HC 315 2019-21, Summary, para 13

29 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

relationship as it evolves”. The NAO also recommended that the Sponsor Body developed an assurance plan.90

The Sponsor Body reports, on its website, that “Work has started on extensive surveys and inspections to better understand the condition of the building and these investigations will continue over the next two years”. It continued that:

This covers all aspects of the Palace, including fire risk, asbestos, mechanical and engineering services, sewage and drainage, heating and ventilation and accessibility. The work will inform detailed architectural designs on every aspect of the building. Once the scope has been determined, and all the investigations are complete and designs agreed, the proposed approach to the works and costs will be put before both Houses for a decision. 91

90 National Audit Office, Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal Programme, 24 April 2020, HC 315 2019-21, Summary, para 16 91 Sponsor Body, How the plan is progressing [webpage, last viewed 9 December 2020]; see Sponsor Body, A major infrastructure project [webpage, last viewed 11 February 2021, for an updated version of this text]

30 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

7 Public Accounts Committee comment on the NAO report (October 2020)

Following the publication of the NAO Report, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) held an oral evidence session, on 21 July 2020, with Sarah Johnson, Chief Executive Officer, Sponsor Body, David Goldstone, Chief Executive Officer, Delivery Authority, Ian Ailles, Director General of the House of Commons, Dr John Benger, Clerk of the House of Commons, and Ed Ollard, Clerk of the Parliaments. Its subsequent report, Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster, was published on 2 October 2020.

The Committee reported that “Every week of delay increases the risk to life and the integrity of the building and costs £2million”. It said that progress on R&R had been “unacceptably slow and cannot afford any further delays”. It recommended that the Sponsor Body should, within two months, provide the Committee with “an overview of the key milestones which need to be completed before building work can commence on restoring the Palace”. 92 It also called for greater clarity on how decisions would be revisited in the future. 93

PAC also expressed concern that the strategic review and re-opening previous decisions risked further delay. The Committee noted the uncertainties around the project and asked for details of the Sponsor Body’s plans for survey work on the condition of the Palace. The R&R Programme is also dependent on factors outside the Sponsor Body’s control – notably the NEP. The Committee noted that “No decision has been made” on whether some or all of the NEP will come under the remit of the Sponsor Body. The Committee recommended that the Sponsor Body inform it of the interdependencies with the NEP and its view on what should be brought under the Sponsor Body’s control. 94

PAC commented on the Sponsor Body’s engagement with parliamentarians and the public. It called for the Sponsor Body’s views on the main risks to building political consensus on the aims of the Programme and how it intended to engage with the public. 95

92 Public Accounts Committee, Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster, 2 October 2020, HC 549 2019-21, Conclusions and recommendations, para 1 93 Ibid, para 10 94 Ibid, Conclusions and recommendations, paras 2-4 95 Ibid, conclusions and recommendations, paras 5-6

31 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

7.1 Sponsor Body responses to the PAC report

Initial responses Sarah Johnson, CEO of the Sponsor Body, responded to the publication of the PAC report. The BBC reported that she had “said the review was aimed at securing value for money and providing ‘certainty about the way forward’”. She added that “The work to save our Parliament buildings for the nation is essential and urgent, and the Palace of Westminster continues to be at a high risk of catastrophic damage, be that a major fire, flood or falling masonry”. 96

Sarah Johnson then wrote to PAC on 15 October 2020. She outlined the project milestones before building work could start.

Work on the palace is essential and urgent, there are a number of key milestones to be met prior to building work commencing, these are:

• Recommendations from the strategic review and decisions on the agreed way forward

• Approval of the programme’s phase 1 expenditure limit

• Creation of outline business case

• Approval of outline business case and phase 2 expenditure limit by both Houses

• Public consultation for planning application

• Planning application submission and achieving planning consent

• Decant facilities construction/fit out

• Full business case approval

• Contract awards

• Decant

– People – Heritage assets

• Enabling works/ setting up the site.

96 BBC News, Parliament building work delays cost ‘£2m a week’, 2 October 2020

32 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

She confirmed that the Strategic Review would explain the issues it had considered and that it would “draw a line under various options so there is a clear way ahead”.

She confirmed that the Sponsor Body would write to the Committee with information on survey work and the interdependencies with the Northern Estates Programme. It would also provide details of its arrangements with the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) to provide programme assurance.

Sarah Johnson noted that strategic risks and mitigations were published and updated quarterly. She confirmed that the next report would consider the risks to building political consensus.

PAC called for an engagement strategy to be published within one month. Sarah Johnson told the Committee that the public engagement strategy should be approved by the Board by the end of the year.97

Further response On 25 January 2021, the PAC published a letter (dated 5 January 2021) from Sarah Johnson. 98 She described the progress the Sponsor Body had made in addressing points made by the Committee.

The Sponsor Body provided a summary of the survey work planned on the Palace’s condition, noting that work would continue to be affected by Covid- 19.

It noted the changes made to the Northern Estate Programme and that the House Services believed that “with the closure of the Northern Estate Programme, managing the interdependencies well can be managed through existing processes, and does not, at this stage, require designation of any of the projects in the portfolio to the R&R Programme”.

It outlined how the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) had supported the work of the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority despite it having no formal role.

The Sponsor Body also noted that the Public Engagement Strategy had been published in December 2020.

7.2 Infrastructure and Projects Authority

On 30 November 2020, PAC held an evidence session with the IPA. The IPA cannot examine the R&R Programme in a formal capacity. But it has been

97 Public Accounts Committee, Correspondence from the HoC Sponsor Body on the Restoration and Renewal Programme, 15 October 2020 (published 3 November 2020) 98 Public Accounts Committee, Houses of Parliament Restoration and Renewal Programme, letter from the Chief Executive Officer (dated 5 January 2021), 25 January 2021

33 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

consulted by the Programme.99 Nick Smallwood, the Chief Executive Officer of the IPA, also told the Committee that it had been asked by No 10 to “to give a view on what we thought the range of outcomes could be” for an R&R programme.100

Nick Smallwood told the Committee that he thought that the R&R Programme had “the hallmarks of being well set up”. 101

99 Public Accounts Committee, Oral evidence: Lessons from major projects and programmes, 30 November 2020, HC 694 2019-21, Q17 100 Ibid, Q19 101 Ibid, Qq27-28

34 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

8 Formal documentation

Under the terms of the PBRR Act, the Sponsor Body is required to develop a number of formal documents. In a written statement on 2 June 2020, Damian Hinds, the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body Spokesperson, gave details of the publication of three of these documents:

• Section 4 of the Act requires the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority to enter into a programme delivery agreement (PDA) regarding the arrangements for the definition, development and delivery of the works. The PDA was approved by the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority Boards on 18 May and it will be reviewed after six months. • • Section 5 of the Act requires the Sponsor Body to prepare a strategy for consulting Members of both Houses in relation to the works, which must be published by 3 June. The Sponsor Body Board approved the strategy on 23 April and the Commissions of both Houses took note of the strategy in May. The Act requires the strategy to be kept under review with subsequent versions published accordingly. • • Section 6 of the Act requires the Corporate Officers of both Houses to enter into a parliamentary relationship agreement (PRA) with the Sponsor Body. The PRA sets out the arrangements for how both Houses and the Sponsor Body will work together during the works, including their respective roles and responsibilities, and what they should expect of each other across a wide range of areas. The Commissions of both Houses and the Sponsor Body Board approved the PRA in April and it will be reviewed after six months. • Additionally, section 2 of the Act requires the Sponsor Body to make arrangements for seeking the views of people working for either House, staff of members of either House and members of the public. In December 2020, the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority published their Public Engagement Strategy:

• Public Engagement Strategy

35 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

9 Future timetable

Approving the outline business case The NAO expected “an outline business case planned to be ready in autumn 2021, and approval from Parliament expected to follow in 2022” but it noted that “Future dates may change as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing at the time of this report”. 102

That timescale was also noted by the House of Commons Commission on 3 March 2020:

Once the programme's scope, requirements and forecast benefits have been determined the proposed approach to the works, including a funding envelope and schedule, will be put before both Houses for decision in 2022 as required by section 7 of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019. 103

On 24 March 2021, Sarah Johnson, Chief Executive of the Sponsor Body, told the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission that the programme’s “target date for delivering the detailed and costed plan to both Houses of Parliament is as early as possible in 2023”.104

The Strategic Review identified five steps which “are required to enable the preparation of the Outline Business Case for consideration by both Houses and the milestones which must be met prior to the building work commencing”. The Sponsor Body gave indicative timings of Early 2021 (as part of the outcome of the strategic review) and Easter 2021 for the first two stages. No timescales were attached to the remaining steps. 105

The timing of decant In response to an oral question on when the Sponsor Body planned to commence the decant, in advance of the restoration and renewal works, Damian Hinds told the House that the decant is still expected to begin in the mid-2020s:

On current plans, decant would be in the mid-2020s and the proposed approach to the works and the schedule would be put to

102 National Audit Office, Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal Programme, 24 April 2020, HC 315 2019-21, Summary, para 4 103 PQ 21902, 3 March 2020 104 Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission, Oral Evidence: Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body Main Supply Estimate 2021-22, 24 March 2021, Q15 105 Restoration and Renewal, Strategic Review, 11 March 2021, para 226

36 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

both Houses for agreement before that. While the restoration work continues to be vital, we are currently reviewing the approach, and we of course welcome the views of the hon. Gentleman and all colleagues. 106

Covid-19 and R&R In its report on Covid-19 and Parliament, the House of Lords Constitution Committee considered that “Parliament’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic is pertinent to the long-running discussion about restoring the Palace of Westminster”. It noted that the Sponsor Body’s Strategic Review had considered whether working practices adopted during the Covid-19 pandemic could lead to alterations in decant requirements.

The Committee recommended and concluded that:

115. We recommend that the House administration consider how its temporary accommodation requirements during decant may change, given that remote working may be more common by the time that both Houses need to decant from the Palace of Westminster.

116. We recommend that the House administration should continue to develop its capacity to support virtual proceedings, in case this is required to support Parliament’s future business continuity arrangements or the restoration of the Palace of Westminster.

117. We welcome the House of Lords Commission’s ongoing support for proceeding with the Restoration and Renewal programme on the basis of the resolutions endorsed by both Houses, including a full decant of the Palace of Westminster as the quickest, cheapest and safest option. However, we regret the continued delays in delivering the programme. While some delays have inevitably resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic, the apparent lack of support from the Government for the programme is regrettable. Parliament has demonstrated resilience in the face of the pandemic, yet the continued deterioration of the Palace of Westminster increases the risk of both Houses being forced to resort to virtual methods of working in future. 107

Dehenna Davison has asked the House of Commons Commission if it had considered ways in which hybrid or virtual proceedings could reduce the cost of the restoration and renewal programme and minimise the need for decant during the programme. Sir Charles Walker, who answers questions on behalf of the Commission said that no formal assessment had been made and that it

106 HC Deb 25 June 2020 c1452 107 Constitution Committee, Covid-19 and Parliament, 13 May 2021, HL Paper 4 2021-22, paras 115- 117

37 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

would be for the House to determine whether to adopt different ways of working. 108

108 PQ 166308, 12 March 2021

38 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

Appendix: Before the Act

The introduction of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill 2017-19 followed a long drawn out process of assessing and reviewing the state of the Palace of Westminster and of determining how best to proceed.

• In autumn 2012, the authorities of the two Houses agreed that major works were required, following an internal review. They ruled out leaving the Palace of Westminster and finding a new site for Parliament. • In 2013, the authorities of the two Houses commissioned an independent options appraisal on how to conduct the works. • The resulting independent options appraisal, Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal Programme Independent Options Appraisal, was published on 18 June 2015. • A Joint Committee was established to consider how to proceed. In its report, Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster (September 2016), it concluded that there was “a clear and pressing need to tackle the work required to the Palace of Westminster and to do so in a comprehensive and strategic manner to prevent catastrophic failure in the next decade. We have also concluded that, in principle, a full decant of the Palace of Westminster presents the best option under which to deliver this work”. It also concluded that new governance arrangements needed to be put in place. It recommended that a Sponsor Board, including MPs and heritage and construction experts, should be established to oversee the delivery of the Restoration and Renewal Programme. • In January/February 2018, the House of Commons and the House of Lords endorsed the Joint Committee’s recommendations. They resolved that the work was pressing, a full decant was the best delivery option, the work should be undertaken by a statutory Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority, and immediate steps should be taken to establish them in shadow form. They required that both Houses return to their respective Chambers as soon as possible. • In July 2018, the Commissions of the two Houses confirmed the membership of the shadow Sponsor Body. • In October 2018, the Draft Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill (Cm 9710) was published by the Government. • A joint committee was appointed to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny. Its report, Governance of Restoration and Renewal, was published in March 2019.

39 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021 Restoration and Renewal - developments since October 2019

• The Government’s response was published on 7 May 2019. • The Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill 2017-19 was introduced in the House of Commons on 8 May 2019. For further background reading, see the Library Briefing Papers on:

• Restoration and Renewal: rebuilding the Palace of Westminster, Insight, 19 December 2019 • Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill 2017-19, CBP 8568, 6 September 2019; and • Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster, CBP 7898, 3 December 2018

40 Commons Library Research Briefing, 17 September 2021

The House of Commons Library is a research and information service based in the UK Parliament. Our impartial analysis, statistical research and resources help MPs and their staff scrutinise legislation, develop policy, and support constituents.

Our published material is available to everyone on commonslibrary.parliament.uk.

Get our latest research delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe at commonslibrary.parliament.uk/subscribe or scan the code below:

commonslibrary.parliament.uk

@commonslibrary