But House of Commons leader Andrea Leadsom insists treasury will have a 鈥渇undamental role鈥� in costing scheme 

Parliament

Source: Alexey Fedorenko/shutterstock.com

The government has decided against appointing a minister to the board overseeing restoration works at parliament as it insists the treasury will be consulted on the cost annually.

It has also declined to mandate the refurbishment of educational facilities, and creation of new outreach space 鈥� as it said they may not be 鈥渧alue for money鈥�.

A report published in March by the joint committee scrutinising the bill for the restoration of the palace of Westminster said the treasury should be subordinate to parliament in setting costs for the scheme.

It said a draft term of agreement could establish what will be delivered for taxpayer鈥檚 money, and recommended a treasury minister sits on the sponsor board 鈥� the client on behalf of parliament 鈥� to ensure government buy-in for the scheme.

The committee said the move would 鈥渦nderpin the hierarchy of decision making鈥� and 鈥減rovide clarity to those delivering the project.鈥�

But in a response written by the leaders of the House of Commons and House of Lords 鈥� respectively, Andrea Leadsom and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park 鈥� the government has refused to put a minister on the sponsor board or to alter the bill to allow the treasury to take a take a more back-seat role.

It said value for money was a 鈥済uiding principle in establishing governance arrangements鈥� and pointed out parliament will still have a say over 鈥渟ignificant changes鈥� to design, cost or timing.

And it insisted on 鈥渁 fundamental role for HM Treasury in being consulted on the annual estimates for the funding of the programme鈥�.

Caroline Spelman, Labour MP and chair of the joint committee, said: 鈥淚t is disappointing that some important recommendations we made have been rejected, for example [鈥 having a treasury minister on the board would have ensured those responsible for taxpayers鈥� money would have a handle on the costs of the project.鈥�

The government, which mentioned 鈥渃ost鈥� and 鈥渧alue for money鈥� 13 times each in its 29-page response, also refused to compel the sponsor board to ensure education and other facilities were refurbished as part of the works.

It agreed with the joint committee that educational facilities were 鈥渋mportant,鈥� but said: 鈥淭his must be balanced against the need for the restoration and renewal programme to deliver good value for money.鈥�

Topics