Public Accounts Committee

The Committee scrutinised how DSIT and UKRI decide on research infrastructure investment, whether spending is aligned to national priorities, and how they manage cost pressures, regional distribution, estate condition, supercomputing, and commercialisation. Witnesses said the STFC budget is flat rather than cut, that UKRI is moving to portfolio-based management with clearer objectives and metrics, and that DSIT has accepted more flexibility between years plus some long-term funding where there is a strong case. They also stressed stronger links to industrial strategy, a bigger role for private co-investment and procurement, and ongoing work on IP terms, equity stakes, decommissioning, and estate modernisation.

Public Accounts Committee scrutiny of Sizewell C focuses on value for money, risk management, decommissioning liabilities, and the financing/governance model. Witnesses from DESNZ and Sizewell C defend a mature design, a Regulated Asset Base (RAB) financing structure with minority private investment, and governance designed to combine private investment discipline with public-interest protections. The committee probes decommissioning costs, UK content and jobs, SMRs vs large-scale nuclear, and contingency risks, while demanding more transparent reporting to Parliament. Key government commitments include continued use of the RAB model with private capital, a plan to expand UK content and skills, and an explicit commitment to provide a detailed note on UK jobs, UK sourcing, and leverage for Sizewell C and SMRs. The session also surfaces concerns about potential cost overruns, the risk of over-reliance on private investors, and the need to avoid HS2-like governance failures. The evidence signals ongoing government oversight via Ofgem-regulated mechanisms and a push for clearer parliamentary reporting on project spend and contingencies.

The Public Accounts Committee grilled senior civil servants and delivery bodies on how the government designs, funds and administers compensation schemes (Horizon, Windrush, infected blood and LGBT-related schemes). Key themes included the dangers of opening schemes without sufficient delivery capacity, the primacy of co-design with claimants to build trust, and the balance between speed and fairness (including fixed-sum options). Witnesses highlighted independence (IBCA as an example), and ongoing work to improve transparency, accountability and learning across schemes. The Committee pressed for lessons to be applied to future schemes, queried how and when an independent body might oversee design and delivery, and sought assurance on timely reform and repayment where liabilities arise. A substantive government statement on independent delivery options was signalled for summer 2026.

During the Public Accounts Committee session on 2026-06-01, MPs and Lords scrutinised government compensation schemes (Windrush, LGBT veterans, infected blood, and Post Office Horizon-related schemes). Witnesses including Reverend Clive Foster, Sir Alan Bates, Peter Gibson, and Kate Burt highlighted fragile trust, governance flaws, and lengthy processing times; academics Sir Jonathan Montgomery and Shaila Pal stressed independence, accessible expert advice, and trauma-informed design. The evidence urged co-design with affected communities, funded legal and psychological support from the outset, transparent communications, and the creation of an independent, standing delivery/redress body to design and oversee future schemes. It also pointed to a balance between acknowledging harm, expedient redress, and avoiding a protracted, adversarial process.

The Public Accounts Committee examined MHCLG and Homes England arrangements for unlocking land to boost housing delivery, focusing on the National Housing Delivery Fund (NHDF), the scale of land unlocked, and how outputs will be tracked. Key government positions include: a) NHDF is designed as a flexible fund, not ringfenced to a single outcome, to enable a range of interventions (grants, loans, guarantees, and financial transactions) to drive both short-term housing delivery and longer-term enabling works; b) Homes England aims to deliver 240,000 homes by the end of the Parliament, with 80,000 already delivered and 160,000 to come, comprising legacy and new NHDF-funded schemes; c) the NAO’s earlier figures are being updated with a retrospective measurement approach, including geospatial mapping (the “red line”), to count completions, starts, and unlocked land; d) governance and evaluation are being strengthened with an NHDF-specific board, a delivery board, and a commitment to publish evaluation results and maintain a live pipeline rather than rely on a single bidding window; e) delegates emphasised local delivery through 10 strategic place partnerships, greater SME participation, and blended finance via the NHDF bank, with ongoing lessons from prior funds incorporated into NHDF design.

The Public Accounts Committee scrutinised HMRC’s approach to large‑business tax compliance, focusing on the intensive co‑operative compliance model, governance of enforcement powers, and the use of the 2016 special measures regime. Witnesses outlined expansion plans for co‑operative compliance (three pilot tests from September 2026), investments in IT and data tooling, pillar 2 implementation, and measures to improve customer service and transparency. The session also covered loan charge settlements, unclaimed child trust funds, and IT transformation milestones, including staffing growth and digitalisation of HMRC processes.