Written evidence from Sir Bernard Crick Centre University of Sheffield

By Matthew Flinders, Leanne-Marie McCarthy-Cotter & Alexandra Meakin,

Sir Bernard Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics,

University of Sheffield

Summary

• The proposed restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster is a major investment, not only in the fabric of the building, but also in our democracy.
• It is vital that the Delivery Authority is established without further delay, as recommended by the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster, so that a fully costed business case can be produced for scrutiny, by the Committee, and the two Houses more widely.
• The Committee may wish to consider whether the proposed governance arrangements have incorporated the lessons of the successful London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, as recommended by the PAC in the 2010-15 Parliament.

1. The Sir Bernard Crick Centre at the University of Sheffield is leading a major international research project into the Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster. We welcome the Committee’s interest in what will undoubtedly be an expensive and controversial project: as a Grade One listed building and part of a World Heritage Site, the Palace will demand a sophisticated blend of skills, materials and expertise. Controversy is also, to some extent, inevitable for the simple reason that spending large amounts of public money on political buildings is rarely popular with the public. However, as a number of internal reports have now documented at some length, the dilapidated state of the infrastructure of the building cannot continue to be ignored. The decision of the Public Accounts Committee to consider this issue could help to ensure that this major and vital project is managed in a way that prioritises value for money, both in the short and long term.

2. Although there are options with how the restoration and renewal works are undertaken, the need for fundamental infrastructure renewal can no longer be denied. The Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster has recommended that a Delivery Authority should be established to review and validate the feasibility of these options and provide a full, costed business case for each option. It will be at this point that the House will scrutinise the value for money of each proposal and vote on its preferred option. It is important to note that the Joint Committee stated that “It is not possible to set a precise budget for the Programme at this stage” (Italics in original).[1] It is vital that the Delivery Authority is established as soon as possible, so that the business case can be produced.

3. The estimated project costs are currently rising at a significant rate due to the decision of the Government not to schedule a debate and vote on the floor of each House on the Joint Committee’s recommendation on the creation of a Delivery Authority, in the five months since the Committee reported on 8 September 2016. The 2015 Independent Options Appraisal stated that the “delays to the decision in principle may add between £60m and £85m per year (at today’s real term prices at P50) to the capital cost in additional tender price inflation, based on current forecasts”.[2] The Committee may wish to consider whether it is a responsible use of public money for maintenance costs to increase at such a rate due to political inaction. Similarly, the Committee may wish to consider the potential costs of either a catastrophic failure, or successive failures of the infrastructure of the Palace, which the Joint Committee warned was an “impending crisis which we cannot responsibly ignore”.[3]

4. The Committee may also wish to consider the potential impact on the overall costs of the project arising from the level of risk in the delivery options. The Joint Committee concluded that a rolling programme of work “would involve taking considerable risks with public money, with the continuity of the work of Parliament, and with the future of the Palace itself”.[4] The Joint Committee further concluded that a partial decant “would also be extremely risky”.[5] In January 2017 the Restoration and Renewal Programme Team published a high-level review of the proposal produced for the Member for Gainsborough by Anthony Delarue Associates: that the Commons could move into the Lords chamber, and the Lords into the Royal Gallery. The review concluded that the risk profile of the proposed scheme would be higher than a partial decant, and the cost could be £900 million higher than a full decant.[6] All the available evidence suggests that the lowest cost and lowest risk option for the Restoration and Renewal Programme would be a full decant.

5. The Committee may also wish to consider how maximum value for money can be achieved through this project. The Joint Committee concluded:

[I]t would be a mistake to miss this one-off opportunity, while essential works are being conducted, to deliver other benefits. We therefore recommend that the scope of the works should be extended beyond the basic ‘do minimum’ option, as long as the marginal cost of the additional work is acceptable to Parliament in absolute terms, as well as relative to the total project.[7]

6. A critical role for Committee at this stage is not only to consider the financial elements of the proposed restoration and renewal but also to consider the future governance of this project in terms of transparency and appropriate scrutiny procedures. The Public Accounts Committee in the previous Parliament called for lessons to be taken from the successful governance of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games:

The success of the Games demonstrates that it is possible for government departments to work together and with other bodies effectively to deliver complex programmes. The government’s preparations were led by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (the Department); the Olympic Delivery Authority delivered the construction programme on time and within budget; and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) ensured that the events themselves were so well organised. We now expect the government to build on the success of the Games by putting the lessons learned from delivering the Games to the best possible effect in delivering other major projects.[8]

7. The Committee may wish to consider whether these lessons have been adopted in the management of the Restoration and Renewal programme to date. International research suggests that success in terms of projects being delivered ‘on time and at cost’ tend to demonstrate clear, transparent and robust governance frameworks. The history of the Palace of Westminster suggests these have not always been put in place for previous projects and to some extent this explains the scale of the challenge faced by the Houses of Parliament today.

Sir Bernard Crick Centre

University of Sheffield

February 2017