Committee publication · Correspondence · 27 March 2026
Finance Committee Chair to Clerk of the House on Norman Shaw North, 6 March 2026
Summary
Finance Committee Chair Steve Barclay writes to the Clerk of the House expressing serious concerns about the Norman Shaw North building project's cost management and governance. The Committee approved additional funding for statutory completion but demands urgent reviews of non-statutory spending, particularly catering costs, and seeks explanation for how project estimates doubled from £5 million to £10 million additional funding required within six months.
Key findings
- Committee unsatisfied with pace and rigour of non-statutory cost control; catering offer flagged for comprehensive cost-benefit review including space alternatives and equipment purchase timeline
- Additional funding requirement escalated from stated 'very worst-case scenario' of £5 million (September 2025) to £10 million actual requirement within six months, described as 'inaccurate information'
- Value engineering achieved £6 million in cost reductions and contractor cost pushback documented, but Committee questions why further trade-offs and scope changes were not considered earlier to maintain original budget
- Seeks clarification on timing and awareness of cost increases at Accounting Officer level, and application of lessons learned to Restoration and Renewal and other Strategic Estates projects
- Legal enquiries needed to establish liability of professional firms advising on or employed for the project regarding fire safety cost increases
Tone
CriticalTopics
public-financeparliamentary-estateproject-managementgovernance
Key actors
Steve Barclay, Tom Goldsmith, Marianne Cwynarski, Vicky Rock, Finance Committee
Notable line
“The Committee are deeply unhappy that this now appears to be inaccurate and the requirement is £10million.”
Key Quotes
“The Committee is not satisfied that non-statutory spending on the project has been tackled with the speed and rigour we would expect.”
“In September 2025 the Committee were told that, as a result of fire safety related costs, additional funding may be required, and with £2million in risk remaining in the budget, an additional £5million would be ' the very worst-case scenario ' .”
“The Committee are deeply unhappy that this now appears to be inaccurate and the requirement is £10million.”
“We would like to understand how this cost doubled over the course of six months and why the Committee was provided with inaccurate information?”
Source · parliament.uk record ↗