Committee publication · Correspondence · 27 April 2026
Letter to the Permanent Secretary to HM Treasury relating to Treasure Minute response - Government Services identifying costs, 27 April 2026
From: Public Accounts Committee
Inquiry: Government services: Identifying costs and generating income
Summary
The Public Accounts Committee Chair writes to the Treasury Permanent Secretary following the government's response to a December 2025 report on improving cost identification in government services. The Committee seeks assurance that a forthcoming 'Dear Accounting Officer' letter will include explicit accountability requirements for Permanent Secretaries on cost ownership, rather than merely setting expectations.
Key findings
- HM Treasury and the Government Finance Function are coordinating practical guidance production for departments on cost information.
- The Committee's December report recommended explicit accountability requirements via a 'Dear Accounting Officer' letter, but the government response indicates the letter will only 'set expectations' for Accounting Officers.
- The Committee views the current formulation as potentially falling short of its recommendation for 'specific and explicit requirement' language.
- The Committee requests written confirmation by 27 May 2026 that the final letter will include clarity over accountability requirements.
Tone
ProceduralTopics
Key actors
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, James Bowler, HM Treasury, Cabinet Office, Comptroller and Auditor General, Government Finance Function
Notable line
“… while the response refers to such a letter being issued, it states that this will 'set expectations' for AOs which may fall short of the Committee's recommendation”
Key Quotes
“Recommendation 1 asked HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office to set out what steps they will take to hold Permanent Secretaries and other senior leaders in departments to account for taking ownership of the identification of costs”
“I would be grateful if you could confirm that the final letter will include clarity over the requirement for accountability on this point.”
Source · parliament.uk record ↗