Committee publication · Correspondence · 27 March 2026
Letter from Chair of the Committee to the Clerk of the House on the Commons Building and Infrastructure Portfolio (CBIP), 24 February 2026
Summary
The Finance Committee Chair writes to the Clerk of the House expressing concerns about a £15.6m funding request for the Commons Buildings and Infrastructure Portfolio (CBIP). The Committee questions whether budget lines and overall costs represent value for money, particularly regarding legal and design fees for MoD car park negotiations, and demands detailed cost breakdowns prepared for public release.
Key findings
- Committee concerned about size of budget lines and overall £15.6m cost, plus lack of public domain information
- Legal and design fees for MoD car park negotiations flagged as problematic, covering legal costs, logistics, design work, and liaison with PFI partner Modus
- Committee questions whether costs comply with Chapter 3 of Managing Public Money guidance on value for money
- Detailed cost breakdown requested including consultant numbers, rates, contract lengths, to be prepared for publication
- Committee notes frustration that negotiations between two public sector bodies incurred such high legal costs
Tone
CriticalTopics
public-financegovernment-spendingparliamentary-administration
Key actors
Steve Barclay MP, Tom Goldsmith, Finance Committee, CBIP team, Ministry of Defence, Modus
Notable line
“It is frustrating that negotiating between two public sector bodies could incur such high legal costs.”
Key Quotes
“Overall, the Committee noted its concern with the size of some of the budget lines presented as well as the overall cost, and the lack of information available in the public domain on it.”
“It is frustrating that negotiating between two public sector bodies could incur such high legal costs.”
“Specifically, whether the costs presented offer value for money, particularly around the car park, and whether they are in line with Chapter 3 of Managing Public Money.”
Source · parliament.uk record ↗