Committee publication · Correspondence · 27 April 2026
Letter from the Permanent Secretary to the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology relating to Treasury Minute response - Government Services: Identifying costs
From: Public Accounts Committee
Inquiry: Government services: Identifying costs and generating income
Summary
The Public Accounts Committee Chair writes to the Permanent Secretary of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology regarding the government's response to the Committee's December report on cost identification in government services. The Chair expresses concern that the Department has not committed to prioritising legacy system investigations within six months as recommended, and requests clarification on why the Department believes it lacks sufficient information to identify priority areas.
Key findings
- HM Treasury and the Government Finance Function are co-ordinating production of practical guidance for departments on cost information.
- DSIT committed to share a list of legacy systems with the Committee by end of March 2026.
- The Department's response rejected the proposed six-month timeframe for identifying priority legacy systems, citing wider ongoing work to establish the extent of legacy across government.
- The Committee believes the Department already possesses sufficient information from previous work to prioritise legacy system investigations.
- Cyber security risks and reduced capacity to support AI development are cited as reasons why legacy system prioritisation should not be delayed.
Tone
ProceduralTopics
Key actors
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Emran Mian, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, HM Treasury, Government Finance Function, Public Accounts Committee, Comptroller and Auditor General, Treasury Officer of Accounts
Notable line
“I would have thought that you already had sufficient information from previous work to have an indication of where this work could be usefully prioritised …”
Key Quotes
“I would have thought that you already had sufficient information from previous work to have an indication of where this work could be usefully prioritised, and would be grateful if you could clarify why you think this is not the case, especially given the cyber security risks associated with legacy systems and the lack of capacity to support AI development and opportunities.”
Source · parliament.uk record ↗