1-15 of 15 results for subject:Buildings
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.3 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.007 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Buildings
- We searched for
- subject_t:Buildings OR subject_ses:90394
Department
X
Public Accounts Commission
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
More
Public Accounts Commission (15)
Member
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
Publisher
The NAO has given us an absolute assurance on all those points. It will deliver on time next year, and within the new budget.
The NAO has given us an absolute assurance on all those points. It will deliver on time next year, and within the new budget.
Answered by
Alan Williams
(Labour)
Asked by
Philip Hollobone
(Conservative)
Answering body
Public Accounts Commission
Type
Oral answers to questions
In view of the extra funding, can we be sure that the project will still deliver its original aims and meet its 2009 deadline? Will the revised budget of £83.24 million be the final figure?
Subjects
Buildings; National Audit Office
Date
11 December 2008
Reference
485 c670
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
We do rotate the auditors, and I cannot envisage that they will have any problem with these budget increases.
We do rotate the auditors, and I cannot envisage that they will have any problem with these budget increases.
Answered by
Alan Williams
(Labour)
Asked by
Peter Bone
(Conservative)
Answering body
Public Accounts Commission
Type
Oral answers to questions
The right hon. Gentleman will know of the John Tiner report into the governance of the NAO. What does he think that the auditors will say about the refurbishments? Are there any plans to rotate the auditors?
Subjects
Buildings; National Audit Office
Date
11 December 2008
Reference
485 c670-1
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
In view of the extra funding, can we be sure that the project will still deliver its original aims and meet its 2009 deadline? Will the revised budget of £83.24 million be the final figure?
In view of the extra funding, can we be sure that the project will still deliver its original aims and meet its 2009 deadline? Will the revised budget of £83.24 million be the final figure?
Asked by
Philip Hollobone
(Conservative)
Answering body
Public Accounts Commission
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
11 December 2008
The NAO has given us an absolute assurance on all those points. It will deliver on time next year, and within the new budget.
Subjects
Buildings; National Audit Office
Date
11 December 2008
Reference
485 c670
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
The right hon. Gentleman will know of the John Tiner report into the governance of the NAO. What does he think that the auditors will say about the refurbishments? Are there any plans to rotate the auditors?
The right hon. Gentleman will know of the John Tiner report into the governance of the NAO. What does he think that the auditors will say about the refurbishments? Are there any plans to rotate the auditors?
Asked by
Peter Bone
(Conservative)
Answering body
Public Accounts Commission
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
11 December 2008
We do rotate the auditors, and I cannot envisage that they will have any problem with these budget increases.
Subjects
Buildings; National Audit Office
Date
11 December 2008
Reference
485 c670-1
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
For what reasons the Public Accounts Commission recently approved additional funding of £5.8 million for the project to refurbish the headquarters of the National Audit Office.
For what reasons the Public Accounts Commission recently approved additional funding of £5.8 million for the project to refurbish the headquarters of the National Audit Office.
Asked by
Philip Hollobone
(Conservative)
Answered by
Alan Williams
(Labour)
Answering body
Public Accounts Commission
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
Tabled on
8 December 2008
For answer on
11 December 2008
Answered on
11 December 2008
We approved extra funding because the initial work identified problems with asbestos, structural defects and, unexpectedly, construction-cost inflation. Those problems could not have been anticipated at the outset.
Subjects
Buildings; National Audit Office
Date
11 December 2008
Reference
485 c670; 242324
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
We approved extra funding because the initial work identified problems with asbestos, structural defects and, unexpectedly, construction-cost inflation. Those problems could not have been anticipated at the outset.
We approved extra funding because the initial work identified problems with asbestos, structural defects and, unexpectedly, construction-cost inflation. Those problems could not have been anticipated at the outset.
Answered by
Alan Williams
(Labour)
Asked by
Philip Hollobone
(Conservative)
Answering body
Public Accounts Commission
Type
Oral answers to questions
For what reasons the Public Accounts Commission recently approved additional funding of £5.8 million for the project to refurbish the headquarters of the National Audit Office.
Subjects
Buildings; National Audit Office
Date
11 December 2008
Reference
485 c670
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when the National Audit Office plans to publish its report Building Capacity in the Third Sector; and what the reason is for the time taken to publish the report.
To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when the National Audit Office plans to publish its report Building Capacity in the Third Sector; and what the reason is for the time taken to publish the report.
Asked by
Greg Clark
(Conservative)
Answered by
Alan Williams
(Labour)
Answering body
Public Accounts Commission
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
6 October 2008
For answer on
9 October 2008
Answered on
9 October 2008
The Public Accounts Commission is responsible for oversight of the National Audit Office's funding and governance, but the Comptroller and Auditor General has complete discretion in the discharge of his work programme. The hon. Member may wish to write directly to the C and AG about the report referred to.
Subjects
Building Capacity in the Third Sector
Date
9 October 2008
Reference
480 c797W;480 c791W; 225346
House
House of Commons
To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what progress the Commission has made in considering the proposal by the National Audit Office for the refurbishment of its headquarters building in London.
To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what progress the Commission has made in considering the proposal by the National Audit Office for the refurbishment of its headquarters building in London.
Asked by
Edward Leigh
(Conservative)
Answered by
Alan Williams
(Labour)
Answering body
Public Accounts Commission
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
13 July 2006
For answer on
17 July 2006
Answered on
17 July 2006
At its meeting in December 2005 the Commission gave outline approval to the NAO's proposed refurbishment of its headquarters building in Buckingham Palace Road, London, subject, however, to three conditions. First, that the NAO should produce a detailed, fully costed business case for the project. Second, that the NAO should carry out a cost-benefit analysis of an alternative approach to its accommodation requirements, namely moving its headquarters to a North of England location. And third, that the NAO should provide a fuller explanation of its decision to rule out the possibility of acquiring alternative accommodation in London as part of the Government estate.At its meeting on 4 July 2006, the Commission considered the NAO's response under each of those headings.The Business CaseThe business case produced by the NAO gives the total cost of the project as £77.44 million, spread over five years starting in 2006-07. In the longer term, there will be a small increase in annual resource costs to the NAO, resulting from higher business rates, capital charges and depreciation, partially offset by reduced running costs through greater building efficiency. Since submitting its original proposals the NAO has revised its approach to the decanting of staff which will be necessary while the building work is in progress. It is now hoped to carry this out in a single rather than a two or three stage process, depending on the availability of suitable decant accommodation. On the basis of the business case, the NAO made a persuasive argument in support of refurbishment as the most cost-effective way of avoiding what would otherwise be—because of the building's current deficiencies—an unacceptable risk to the Office's continued ability to function efficiently. The Commission was, however, conscious of the sensitivity surrounding the timing of the project, since, under the NAO's plans, the bulk of the expenditure would occur in the year's covered by the next, and potentially difficult, comprehensive spending review. We therefore pressed the NAO on the implications of deferring the project (which, because of the need to avoid coinciding with the competing demands on the construction industry from Olympics-related activity, would entail a delay until 2013). The NAO satisfied the Commission that, given the deteriorating condition of the current building, waiting a further seven years before undertaking remedial work would pose an unacceptable risk to the NAO's operations and therefore to the service it provides to Parliament.The Possibility of Relocating to the North of EnglandIn response to the Commission's request, the NAO examined Manchester as a possible location for a provincial headquarters building. Of a number of cities considered, Manchester was judged to come nearest to meeting the Office's principal requirements: good transport connections; and a sufficiently large local pool of qualified accountants to enable the NAO to recruit and retain key professional staff. On the latter count, the available pool in Manchester, though large in comparison with other provincial cities, is much smaller than London's and is insufficient to support the NAO's requirements. The cost-benefit analysis carried out by the NAO indicated that the basic costs associated with relocating would be broadly similar to those for the option of staying on in a refurbished Buckingham Palace Road. On the other hand, the analysis suggested that the uncertainty over the number of staff who would be willing to relocate posed a risk both of additional, but unquantifiable costs of redundancy and resettlement packages, and of disruption of core business activity. The Commission was satisfied that, for these reasons, relocation was not a realistic option. The NAO is, however, proposing to expand its presence in the North, concentrating on its existing team in Newcastle.Alternative Accommodation in LondonAs part of its consideration of alternative sites in London for its headquarters building, the NAO has examined the portfolio of vacant, or about to become vacant, properties maintained by the Office of Government Commerce. The NAO's assessment, which the Commission accepted, is that there is at present no building available of a size and configuration to meet the NAO's requirements on a long term basis, and at a cost competitive with the headquarters refurbishment option, taking account of the resultant loss of the current peppercorn rent. Taking all these factors into account, and having carefully considered the NAO's business case, the Commission gave its formal approval to the proposed refurbishment of the Buckingham Palace Road building. The Commission noted that, depending on how quickly the refurbishment work can begin, it may be necessary for the NAO to submit a supplementary estimate for the financial year 2006-07. The Commission will consider any such request if and when it is received. In the meantime, the Commission looks to the Treasury to make room within the public expenditure envelope for the relevant years for the resources needed for the refurbishment. For its part, the Commission will monitor carefully the progress of the project against both time and budget.
Subjects
Buildings; National Audit Office
Date
17 July 2006
Reference
86119; 449 c106-8W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will make a statement on the Commission's consideration of the NAO's future workspace requirements.
To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will make a statement on the Commission's consideration of the NAO's future workspace requirements.
Asked by
Edward Leigh
(Conservative)
Answered by
Alan Williams
(Labour)
Answering body
Public Accounts Commission
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
19 December 2005
For answer on
9 January 2006
Answered on
20 December 2005
At its meeting on 13 December the Public Accounts Commission considered a memorandum from the National Audit Office setting out its proposals for securing its future workspace requirements. These had been drawn up taking into account the views expressed during informal discussions between the NAO and myself, as Chairman of the Commission, and the hon. Member for Gainsborough, in his capacity as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.The NAO acquired its existing headquarters building in Buckingham Palace Road, London SW1 in 1984 for £11 million, based on a 127 year lease at a peppercorn rent. Its interest in the building is now thought to be worth about £22 million.The NAO's case for a significant upgrading of its headquarters accommodation rests on two main factors:"the partial refurbishment of the NAO's current building in Buckingham Palace Road, carried out prior to their taking occupancy in 1986, will shortly reach the end of its 20-year life expectancy""a full condition survey of the building in 2003 concluded that the NAO ““needed to invest significant expenditure in terms of the necessary, and in some cases urgent, renewal of existing elements of the building fabric and services, including the heating and cooling systems, windows, much of the roof covering and other features of a health and safety concern””; these remedial works would need to be carried out within the constraints imposed by the listed status of the central core of the building."Faced with these conclusions, the NAO has reviewed the options available to it to meet its future accommodation needs, including:"a programme of restoration and repair of the building in its existing configuration""a full refurbishment of the building designed to produce ““a more modern, flexible and efficient workspace””, based on open plan principles conducive to flexible team-working""the sale of the NAO's interest in the current building, and relocation to another site."Taking all these options into consideration, the NAO has concluded that a phased programme of refurbishment will provide the best value for money solution, and has approached the Commission both for approval in principle for such a course and for authority to incur expenditure on preparing a detailed design and firm costings.The cost of the refurbishment is provisionally estimated at £150 million over 30 years, as against relocation options ranging from £155 to £250 million. The NAO points out, however, that these figures would need to be offset against current annual expenditure on maintaining and operating the existing BPR building of some £4.4 million, which, discounted over 30 years, would equate to about £81 million. So the net cost of all the options should be reduced by that amount.Expressed in terms of additional net resource requirements (and thus the direct impact on the NAO's Estimate) the NAO's preferred option of refurbishment of the BPR building produces the following estimated figures for years 1 to 3 (although the breakdown between capital and revenue may well change following detailed planning):
By contrast, the relocation options would involve an initial negative capital expenditure, as the cost of any necessary works would be more than offset by the proceeds of the NAO's interest in the current building. Thereafter, however, the stream of annual costs arising from relocation would be significantly greater than those for refurbishment—reflecting mainly the difference between the current peppercorn and future commercial rents.In preparation for the Commission's meeting on 13 December, both the hon. Member for Gainsborough and myself visited the Buckingham Palace Road site. We saw not only the current cramped layout and run-down condition of the building, but also the results of a trial refurbishment and conversion to open plan operation of part of the sixth floor. This reorganisation of the workspace represents a stark contrast with the rest of the building and we understand it has already shown tentative results in terms of improved staff morale and efficiency.We reported these findings to the Commission. Having taken oral evidence from the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Assistant Auditor General responsible for the building project, the Commission accepted the NAO's case for a substantial upgrade of its workspace. Specifically, the Commission agreed:"(i) to approve in principle the NAO's plans to refurbish its Buckingham Palace Road headquarters, subject to project costs being confirmed""within a reasonable range of the estimates and projections contained in the NAO's memorandum to the Commission;""in time for submission to the Commission for consideration as part of the NAO's next Corporate Plan, for 2007–08 to 2009–10;""(ii) to authorise the NAO""to incur expenditure of approximately £500,000 on the preparation of detailed costings for the refurbishment project""to include provision in its Estimate for 2006–07 for any of the relevant expenditure falling in that year."In order to ensure that the NAO's business case is as robust as possible against other options, the Commission has asked it to carry out a cost/benefit analysis of the option of relocating the headquarters building to a north of England location. We have also asked for a detailed explanation of the NAO's reasons for rejecting the option of relocating to a building of similar age on the Civil Estate in London SW1.The NAO's memorandum setting out its case for the refurbishment option, and the transcript of the evidence given by the Comptroller and Auditor General at the meeting on 13 December are available on the Commission website, at www.parliament.uk
| £ million | ||||
| Year l(2007–08) | Year 2(2008–09) | Year 3(2009–10) | Totalfor years | |
| Capital | 30 | 15.25 | 15.25 | 60.50 |
| Revenue | 9.05 | 7.07 | 8.78 | 24.90 |
| Total | 39.05 | 22.32 | 24.03 | 85.40 |
Subjects
Buildings; National Audit Office; Working conditions
Date
20 December 2005
Reference
440 c2810-2W; 39413
House
House of Commons
Answered by
Lord Sheldon
(Labour)
Asked by
Jeremy Corbyn
(Labour)
Answering body
Public Accounts Commission
Type
Oral answers to questions
To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, what discussions he has had with the National Audit Office on the resource implications of examining public expenditure on Archway Tower N19.
Subjects
Central government; Buildings; Expenditure; Empty property; Government departments
Date
19 July 1999
Reference
335 c785-6
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, what discussions he has had with the National Audit Office on the resource implications of examining public expenditure on Archway Tower N19.
To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, what discussions he has had with the National Audit Office on the resource implications of examining public expenditure on Archway Tower N19.
Asked by
Jeremy Corbyn
(Labour)
Answered by
Lord Sheldon
(Labour)
Answering body
Public Accounts Commission
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
Tabled on
5 July 1999
For answer on
19 July 1999
Answered on
19 July 1999
Subjects
Central government; Buildings; Expenditure; Empty property; Government departments
Date
19 July 1999
Reference
90235; 335 c785-6
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
1st supplementary on defence offices including MOD headquarters Whitehall.
1st supplementary on defence offices including MOD headquarters Whitehall.
Asked by
Ian Bruce
(Conservative)
Answering body
Public Accounts Commission
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
24 October 1994
Subjects
Audit; Central government; Buildings; Capital investment; Expenditure; National Audit Office; Ministry of Defence
Date
24 October 1994
Reference
248 c623
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
To comment on the National Audit Office expenditure on value for money inquiries relating to capital spending on buildings. -
To comment on the National Audit Office expenditure on value for money inquiries relating to capital spending on buildings. -
Asked by
Ian Bruce
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Sheldon
(Labour)
Answering body
Public Accounts Commission
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
For answer on
23 October 1994
Answered on
24 October 1994
Subjects
Audit; Central government; Buildings; Capital investment; Expenditure; National Audit Office; Ministry of Defence
Date
24 October 1994
Reference
248 c623
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Answered by
Lord Sheldon
(Labour)
Answering body
Public Accounts Commission
Type
Oral answers to questions
Subjects
Audit; Central government; Buildings; Capital investment; Expenditure; National Audit Office; Ministry of Defence
Date
24 October 1994
Reference
248 c623
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Answered by
Lord Sheldon
(Labour)
Asked by
Ian Bruce
(Conservative)
Answering body
Public Accounts Commission
Type
Oral answers to questions
To comment on the National Audit Office expenditure on value for money inquiries relating to capital spending on buildings. -
Subjects
Audit; Central government; Buildings; Capital investment; Expenditure; National Audit Office; Ministry of Defence
Date
24 October 1994
Reference
248 c623
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons