Committee publication · Correspondence · 27 April 2026
Letter to the Permanent Secretary to HM Treasury relating to Treasury Minute response - Government Services: generating income, 27 April 2026
From: Public Accounts Committee
Inquiry: Government services: Identifying costs and generating income
Summary
The Public Accounts Committee responds to the Treasury's response to its December report on generating income from government services. While welcoming some commitments, the Committee finds the Treasury's answer inadequate on three key recommendations: it rejects the Treasury's position that annual review cycles are too frequent, questions whether Spending Reviews alone provide sufficient scrutiny of cost recovery, and demands clearer reporting on fee costs and cross-subsidies to strengthen transparency and accountability.
Key findings
- Committee rejected Treasury's argument that structured annual review cycles for fee-charging services are too frequent; Spending Reviews alone are insufficient oversight mechanism
- Treasury's approach to standardised reporting on fee costs, cross-subsidies and cost recovery targets falls short; proportionality rationale does not address erosion of public trust and accountability
- Treasury response conflates identified efficiencies with delivered efficiencies in fee-charging services; lacks concrete examples of improvements achieved and clarity on how current incentive structures operate
- Committee requested Treasury provide greater detail on how its proposed approach will deliver deeper, more consistent scrutiny of cost recovery performance
Tone
CriticalTopics
Key actors
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Public Accounts Committee, HM Treasury, Comptroller and Auditor General, Treasury Officer of Accounts
Notable line
“… without an additional systematic cycle, there is no clear reason to expect improved performance on cost recovery or oversight.”
Key Quotes
“… unclear information on fee costs, cross-subsidies and cost recovery targets and variances erodes public trust and weakens accountability”
“… your response appears to conflate identified efficiencies with delivered efficiencies, and it does not provide examples of improvements achieved in fee charging services specifically”
Source · parliament.uk record ↗