Project Cost Escalation from Delays

#9 —

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The £1.9 billion estimated cost increase consisted of £1,510 million of Crossrail Ltd costs, and £390 million of Network Rail costs. Schedule delay was the largest category of cost increase of Crossrail Ltd costs, accounting for £934 million. This was …

Not Addressed

#8 —

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The estimated cost of Crossrail has increased by £1.9 billion since we last reported and now stands at £18.9 billion.18 This excludes the £1.1 billion cost of the new trains and the depot at Old Oak Common which have historically …

Gov response: 2021. This is the government’s response to the Committee’s report. Relevant reports • NAO report: Investigation into the British Business Bank’s accreditation of Greensill capital – Session 2021-22 (HC 301) • PAC report: Lessons from …

Under Consideration

#58 —

Scottish Affairs Committee

Recommendation: The award of the contract to build five additional Type 26 frigates to BAE Systems is welcome news for Scottish shipbuilding, and importantly continues the shipbuilding ‘drumbeat’ into the medium-term. We note that, partly as a consequence of global challenges, …

Gov response: The MOD welcomes the committee’s interest in the construction of Type 26 and will consider its request when providing updates to Parliament on key Defence programmes.

Not Addressed

#56 —

Scottish Affairs Committee

Recommendation: Prior to the announcement of the Batch 2 contract, the Defence Secretary informed the House in a Written Ministerial Statement that there would be a 12-month delay to the Batch 1 frigates becoming operational, from October 2027 to October 2028. …

Gov response: The importance of maintaining the shipbuilding ‘drumbeat’ in respect of the Type 26 frigates is fully appreciated and it was for this reason that the contract for the second batch of Type 26 ships was …

Not Addressed

#15 — GCAP must break the mould of previous multilateral defence programme failures.

Defence Committee

Recommendation: Whilst progress to date has been positive, previous multilateral defence programmes have frequently seen costs spiral and delays pile up and GCAP will have to break the mould if it is to achieve its ambitious target date. Decisions made at …

Gov response: We are grateful to the Committee for its report and the conclusions and recommendations within. GCAP has been designed from the outset to learn lessons from previous programmes, to deliver one of Defence’s most important …

Under Consideration

#23 — Home Office asylum accommodation plans consistently rated 'red' by Infrastructure and Projects Authority.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The Home Office had initially planned to be using the Northeye site to accommodate asylum seekers by March 2023, but this was delayed due to issues around the remediation costs and challenges getting the site operational. In March 2023, the …

Under Consideration

#18 — Department made slow progress and scaled back initial carbon capture ambitions

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: However, the Department has made slow progress in getting the first tranche of projects running. It had initially hoped to sign contracts with the first carbon capture projects in the second quarter of 2022, but this has been repeatedly pushed …

Gov response: Introduction from the Committee Carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS) technologies capture carbon before it is released into the atmosphere and store it permanently underground. They can be applied to a range of industrial applications, …

Not Addressed

#50 — Clear project scope definition essential to prevent cost escalation in infrastructure plans

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The Department reflected that a key lesson from the experience of HS2, and which needs to inform all the Department’s future infrastructure plans, is that the Department needs to be very clear when it sets out on a large project …

Gov response: The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Summer 2025 The department is committed to learning lessons on the programme and has worked closely with HM Treasury and the National Infrastructure and Service …

Accepted

#48 — HS2 Euston exemplifies department's failure to learn from past major rail projects

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The previous Public Accounts Committee also concluded in its 2023 report on HS2 Euston that it was another example of the Department making the same mistakes and failing to learn lessons from its management of other major rail programmes, highlighting …

Gov response: The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Summer 2025 The department is committed to learning lessons on the programme and has worked closely with HM Treasury and the National Infrastructure and Service …

Not Addressed

#38 — HS2 Ltd spent £592 million on land for cancelled Phase 2 route

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: Up to the end of March 2024, HS2 Ltd had spent £3.7 billion on buying land and property along the HS2 route, of which £592 million relates to the cancelled Phase 2.66 The types of land and property include agricultural, …

Gov response: 7.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Summer 2025 7.2 Preparatory work on a disposal programme for Phase 2 is already underway. As part of these preparations, the department is undertaking …

Accepted

#36 — Euston tunneling confirmed, but completion date for HS2 services remains unknown.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: In the 2024 Autumn Budget, the government confirmed that HS2 would terminate at Euston, announcing that it would fund the work to tunnel from Old Oak Common in west London to Euston.61 The previous Public Accounts 57 Qq 78–80 58 …

Gov response: 6.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Summer 2025 6.2 The department’s next six-monthly update to Parliament is expected to be published in Summer 2025 and will include an update on …

Accepted

#25 — Bat protection structure increased specific railway section costs from £73 million to £168 million.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: In follow–up evidence, the Department confirmed that the total cost of building the structure will be £95 million (in 2019 prices). The Department also reported that the cost of building that section of the railway, irrespective of any mitigation works, …

Gov response: 4.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Summer 2025 4.2 The department intends to provide the Committee with a preliminary response in its letter to the Committee before the Summer recess …

Not Addressed

#24 — Department and HS2 Ltd recognise need for improved balance between environmental compliance and cost.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The Department strongly agreed, however, about how the balance between compliance and cost should be considered when delivering national infrastructure in the future.41 HS2 Ltd also recognised that it was a complex issue and a sensitive area, telling us that …

Gov response: 4.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Summer 2025 4.2 The department intends to provide the Committee with a preliminary response in its letter to the Committee before the Summer recess …

Not Addressed

#23 — HS2 Ltd concluded £95m bat tunnel was most efficient option after considering 15 alternatives.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: HS2 Ltd confirmed that it was its decision to build the structure and not one required by Natural England. However, the Department and HS2 Ltd told us that, despite its cost, that they had concluded the ‘tunnel’ structure was the …

Gov response: 4.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Summer 2025 4.2 The department intends to provide the Committee with a preliminary response in its letter to the Committee before the Summer recess …

Not Addressed

#22 — Ensure environmental legislation requirements do not disproportionately increase major public infrastructure project costs.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: We challenged the Department on the balance in legislation that needs to be taken between meeting environmental obligations and costs, raising the example of the £100 million cost of a protective ‘bat tunnel’.36 In order to mitigate HS2’s impact on …

Gov response: 4.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Summer 2025 4.2 The department intends to provide the Committee with a preliminary response in its letter to the Committee before the Summer recess …

Not Addressed

#18 — HS2 Ltd acknowledges suboptimal contract risk management contributed to a £6 billion cost increase.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: HS2 Ltd acknowledged that it has not managed these contract risks in an optimal or coherent way.30 In September 2023, HS2 Ltd estimated that the forecast cost of main civil construction work alone had increased by £6 billion (2019 prices) …

Gov response: 3.1 The government disagrees with the Committee’s recommendation. 3.2 The department agrees with the substance of the recommendation but will require more time before it can update the Committee. HS2 Ltd has concluded the first …

Not Addressed

#16 — HS2 Ltd revised Phase 1 construction contracts in 2020, increasing its liability for cost overruns.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: In July 2017, HS2 Ltd let contracts with four joint venture companies for the main civil construction work on Phase 1. However, in 2020, once the cost of building the railway became clearer, it revised the terms of the contracts …

Gov response: 3.1 The government disagrees with the Committee’s recommendation. 3.2 The department agrees with the substance of the recommendation but will require more time before it can update the Committee. HS2 Ltd has concluded the first …

Not Addressed

#13 — HS2 cost estimates in 2019 prices are unsatisfactory, projected to reach £80 billion.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: We expressed to the Department how unsatisfactory we found it that the cost estimates for completing the programme are still in 2019 prices. The Department agreed, telling us that it expects that any funding agreed at the spending review will …

Gov response: 2.1 The government agrees with the Committee's recommendation. Target implementation date: Spring 2026 2.2 The Secretary of State has commissioned the CEO of HS2 Ltd to undertake a comprehensive review of the programme, including HS2's …

Not Addressed

#12 — HS2 Ltd's latest Phase 1 cost estimate significantly exceeds prior figures and funding envelope.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: Prior to the October 2023 announcement, HS2 Ltd estimated that the total costs of Phase 1 would be £49 billion to £57 billion. The Department’s estimate was lower, at £45 billion to £54 billion but still above the funding envelope …

Gov response: 2.1 The government agrees with the Committee's recommendation. Target implementation date: Spring 2026 2.2 The Secretary of State has commissioned the CEO of HS2 Ltd to undertake a comprehensive review of the programme, including HS2's …

Not Addressed

#10 — Department and HS2 Ltd disagree on total programme cost estimates and methodology.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The Department and HS2 Ltd still disagree on the estimated total costs for completing the programme. Despite using the same data, the Department and HS2 Ltd told us that estimates differ because they disagree over a range of technical factors …

Gov response: 2.1 The government agrees with the Committee's recommendation. Target implementation date: Spring 2026 2.2 The Secretary of State has commissioned the CEO of HS2 Ltd to undertake a comprehensive review of the programme, including HS2's …

Accepted

#9 — HS2 programme reset to take until mid-2026 for assured contractual baseline.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: We were told by HS2 Ltd that it would take time to implement the changes needed as part of the programme’s fundamental reset, with all of 2025 needed to ensure the organisation’s activities are all orientated towards delivering Phase 1. …

Gov response: The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Summer 2025 Following the former Secretary of State’s written ministerial statement on 20 October 2024, work is well underway within the Department for Transport to …

Accepted

#6 — Update Parliament on HS2 Euston progress, funding, risk management, and costs

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The Department’s plans for Euston carry huge risks given the uncertainties about its scope, cost, funding, schedule and delivery model. In the 2024 Autumn budget, the government confirmed that HS2 would terminate at London Euston rather than Old Oak Common …

Gov response: The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. in Summer 2025 and will include an update on progress on Euston. The department is also responding to the Committee’s letter of 6 March 2025 requesting an update …

Accepted

#4 — Assess new nature restoration fund's impact using HS2 bat tunnel case study

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: HS2 Ltd’s efforts to reduce the environmental impact of HS2 are not delivering value for money, with the c.£100 million cost of a protective ‘bat tunnel’ more than doubling the cost of that section of railway alone. The Committee does …

Gov response: The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. letter to the Committee before the Summer recess begins in July 2025. The proposed measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill which would inform a re-assessment of this …

Accepted

#3 — Report progress on HS2 contract renegotiations and plans for achieving cost savings

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: HS2 Ltd’s construction contracts are unacceptable to the public purse and it is imperative that HS2 Ltd deliver on its assurances to us that it can renegotiate these and deliver significant cost savings. The terms and operation of these contracts …

Gov response: The government disagrees with the Committee’s recommendation. The department agrees with the substance of the recommendation but will require more time before it can update the Committee. HS2 Ltd has concluded the first phase of …

Not Accepted

#2 — Publish agreed HS2 cost estimate methodology and update programme costs regularly

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The Department and HS2 Ltd’s failure to work together effectively is starkly illustrated by them not being able to agree how much HS2 will cost. The Department and HS2 Ltd have still not agreed on how much it will cost …

Gov response: The government agrees with the Committee's recommendation. comprehensive review of the programme, including HS2's current cost position and the capability and culture of HS2 Ltd, and to make recommendations to inform the programme reset. The …

Accepted

#20 — Planning processes remain a bottleneck for charge point installation, increasing costs and delays

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: Similarly, many planning processes were not designed with charge point operators in mind, causing unnecessary additional cost and time. The Department explained that it had recently announced a series of changes to ease planning barriers and make it easier to …

Gov response: 6.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendations. Recommendation implemented 6.2 The government’s vision is that all drivers can charge conveniently for both daily and long-distance driving and that there is a compelling, and visible, …

Accepted

#12 — Ensure ongoing support for local authorities to conduct successful, good-value charge point procurements

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: These issues have led to delays; by October 2024 only 10 out of 78 projects had been approved for delivery against a March 2025 deadline. These delays have meant that many local authorities are going to market at similar times, …

Gov response: 2.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: September 2025 2.2 The department will write to the Committee within six months to provide an update on the progress and delivery of the …

Accepted

#2 — Update committee on LEVI programme progress, spending, procurement outcomes, and local authority support

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: Delays to the Local Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (LEVI) programme mean that local authorities need further support. The £450m LEVI programme supports local authorities in England to install charge points where they identify they are most needed. In setting up the …

Gov response: The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. the progress and delivery of the LEVI programme, including the areas specified in the recommendation. Since publication of the Committee’s report, a further 28 projects have been approved. …

Accepted

#11 — Planning permission for Garth prison faces judicial review; HMPPS seeks centralised approvals

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: HMPPS also acknowledged that while 95% of the remaining places had outline planning permission, permission for one of its new prisons, Garth, is currently under judicial review.35 MoJ and HMPPS explained that they are relying on proposed policy changes to …

Gov response: 2.4 The vast majority of the 20,000 prison place programmes now have planning permission, can proceed under Permitted Development Rights, or do not require planning. For future prison builds, where appropriate, the MoJ and HMPPS …

Accepted

#8 — Rapid Deployment Cell costs significantly increased due to design changes and unforeseen site issues

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: We asked HMPPS why the costs of its Rapid Deployment Cells (RDCs) had risen so significantly.25 HMPPS said that increases were due to three factors: design changes as it developed its understanding of what was needed; site–specific costs due to …

Gov response: 2.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Recommendation implemented: April 2025 2.2 The 20,000 prison place programmes undertook a robust re-baselining exercise between December 2023 and December 2024. The process used Quantitative Schedule Risk …

Accepted

#2 — Outline realistic plans for delivering 14,000 prison places, managing risks and gaining permission.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: MoJ’s and HMPPS’s plans to deliver the remaining 14,000 places by 2031 are still fraught with risk and uncertainty. MoJ and HMPPS acknowledge that they have not delivered prison places on time. We accept that they faced several challenges expanding …

Gov response: The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. between December 2023 and December 2024. The process used Quantitative Schedule Risk Analysis alongside Reference Class Forecasting methodology to gain additional assurance. Lessons learned are being applied as …

Accepted

#45 — Building Safety Levy raises concerns about impact on new housing delivery and smaller developers.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: In its written evidence to us, the Home Builders Federation (HBF), which represents the home building industry, told us of its concerns about the possible impact of the Building Safety Levy on new housing delivery. MHCLG currently expects to raise …

Gov response: 7.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: December 2025 7.2 The government will write to the Committee before the end of 2025 to provide an update on the interaction between remediation …

Accepted

#44 — MHCLG acknowledges remediation spending by social housing providers reduces new home building commitments.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: We asked MHCLG about its understanding of the impact that £3.8 billion of self–remediation costs might have on social sector housebuilding, and whether it had undertaken any assessment of how many houses would not be built because money was being …

Gov response: 7.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: December 2025 7.2 The government will write to the Committee before the end of 2025 to provide an update on the interaction between remediation …

Accepted

#43 — Social housing providers diverting funds for cladding remediation impacts new home construction significantly.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The Government has pledged to build 1.5 million homes during this Parliament and expects social housing to be at the heart of the UKs’ housing supply. Against a backdrop of the construction sector reporting workforce shortages (paragraph 20), we asked …

Gov response: 7.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: December 2025 7.2 The government will write to the Committee before the end of 2025 to provide an update on the interaction between remediation …

Accepted

#24 — Delayed government guidance and existing litigation hinder resolution of remediation disputes

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: MHCLG’s Remediation Acceleration Plan (the Plan) commits to publishing guidance to help where disputes between parties are delaying remediation. However, in written evidence, the Home Builders’ Federation (HBF) noted that MHCLG made this commitment over 18 months ago and it …

Gov response: 3.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Summer 2025 3.2 The government will write to the Committee annually from Summer 2025, until Summer 2029 when, in alignment with the RAP, all …

Not Addressed

#9 — Persistent and new barriers hinder accelerated progress of cladding remediation efforts.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The Plan identified several barriers to remediating at pace and outlined the steps MHCLG was taking to address them. Some of these barriers are those MHCLG told the previous committee about in 2020, including landlord reluctance to come forward, limited …

Gov response: 2.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: July 2025 2.2 The government agrees to update the Committee on the work it is doing to increase capacity and skills across the building …

Accepted

#8 — MHCLG's cladding remediation targets considered too slow and incomplete, with works extending to 2035.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: We asked MHCLG how its new plan would speed up the remediation process. MHCLG told us that its Ministers were committed to speeding up the pace of remediation. The Plan introduced a target that by the end of 2029 all …

Gov response: 1.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Autumn 2025 1.2 The government is working to publish an update of the Remediation Acceleration Plan in Summer 2025; however, this is dependent on …

Accepted

#5 — Uncertainty remains regarding dangerous cladding remediation scope, costs, and completion timelines.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: Eight years on from Grenfell, we are concerned that MHCLG still does not know how many buildings have dangerous cladding, how much it will cost to address, or how long it will take. MHCLG’s latest estimate, that 9,000 to 12,000 …

Gov response: The government disagrees with the Committee’s recommendation. The government is currently consulting on redress routes as part of the Construction Products Reform Green Paper. Moreover, leaseholders and tenants are protected from the cost of cladding …

Not Accepted

#28 — Development of small modular nuclear reactors globally faces significant delays.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: We asked the Department why it was taking so long to get small modular nuclear reactors “up and going”.85 We also asked how it was going to make sure that a high percentage of the content of a modular nuclear …

Not Addressed

#13 — Department spending additional £300,000 to resolve loan management system functionality issues

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The Department recognised, at the time of the system going live, that it had to resolve a small number of issues to ensure the system was operating as intended, and it planned further improvements to functionality around, for example, automatic …

Gov response: 2.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Recommendation implemented: March 2025 2.2 The full Loan Management System (LMS) Version 2 (V2) functionality, as scoped by the department, was implemented in March 2025 for under …

Accepted

#12 — Loan management system launched 15 months late with ongoing functionality concerns.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The Department planned to have the original data platform in place in March 2023. However, the loan management system only went live in June 2024, 15 months later than originally planned. The Department’s decision to increase the scope of PwC’s …

Gov response: 2.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Recommendation implemented: March 2025 2.2 The full Loan Management System (LMS) Version 2 (V2) functionality, as scoped by the department, was implemented in March 2025 for under …

Accepted

#24 — Initial BECCS plant target of 2030 will not be met, future support unclear.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The government had initially planned for BECCS plant to begin operating at scale in 2030 as part of its broader CCUS programme.68 However, as the first phase of the CCUS programme (known as Track 1) does not include a BECCS …

Gov response: 4.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Autumn 2025 4.2 The department’s analysis suggests power BECCS technologies are part of a cost- effective pathway to meeting the UK’s climate change targets. …

Not Addressed

#4 — Map critical path for BECCS deployment and develop contingency plans for decarbonisation goals.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The deployment of BECCS has been repeatedly delayed, even though it remains a key part of the government’s plans to decarbonise the UK. The Climate Change Committee (CCC) and DESNZ both see BECCS as essential to the UK achieving its …

Gov response: The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. effective pathway to meeting the UK’s climate change targets. Greenhouse Gas Removal technologies (GGRs) like BECCS can support net zero targets by delivering negative carbon emissions and producing …

Accepted

#13 — Harlow health campus project plagued by spiralling costs, delays, and substantial written-off expenditure.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The need for a planned replacement to these facilities was initially identified in 2006 and Public Health England (UKHSA’s predecessor public body) was given approval to purchase the land in 2017. However, in February 2024 the NAO found that work …

Gov response: 3.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: April 2026 3.2 The government recognises that an urgent decision is needed on the future location of UKHSA’s high-containment laboratories. A thorough assessment of …

Accepted

#28 — Geological Disposal Facility project experiences significant delays and slow progress.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The NDA also needs to construct a ‘Geological Disposal Facility’ (‘GDF’) to store waste permanently – including that currently at Sellafield. This project is still at a very early stage: it needs to drill boreholes before it can even start …

Not Addressed

#24 — Sellafield decommissioning costs have significantly risen, potentially compromising long-term value for money.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The forecast cost of decommissioning Sellafield has risen considerably since we last reported. It now stands at £136 billion, an increase of 18.8% since March 2019.68 We challenged the witnesses about the adequacy of the NDA’s budget as we are …

Gov response: 5.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: December 2026 5.2 To provide improved visibility of the uncertainty associated with the Sellafield Ltd mission which spans 100+ years, scenario planning will be …

Accepted

#18 — Replacement Analytical Project faced significant cost increases and delays due to inadequate planning.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: A notable exception to this positive trend is the ‘Replacement Analytical Project’ (RAP) – which Sellafield Ltd now believes should be abandoned.44 This project would have refurbished a laboratory on the site so Sellafield Ltd would be able to continue …

Gov response: 3.1 The government agrees with the recommendation. Target implementation date: June 2026 3.2 Future analytical capability is required at Sellafield to test the properties of materials such as nuclear fuels and waste, and Special Nuclear …

Accepted

#13 — Major project delays and costs at Sellafield significantly escalated since 2018 due to poor planning.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: When it last took evidence on Sellafield, the previous Committee was told that major project delivery was improving.32 The NDA told it that “cost forecasting is improving” while the Department said that “for the first time now, the estimates of …

Gov response: 3.3 The 2024 NAO report noted positive progress had been made in major project delivery at Sellafield, identifying that more recent projects are expected to be completed in line with business case assumptions. It recognised …

Not Addressed

#11 — Addressing RAAC risks in government estates diverted resources from other civil service initiatives.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The NAO reported that civil service resources for other initiatives have been diverted to deal with risks relating to reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) across government.18 We asked the Cabinet Office about RAAC and how it has impacted the delivery …

Gov response: 2. PAC conclusion: The poor condition of some property and the failure to maintain it is regularly affecting the provision of key public services.

Not Addressed

#33 — Rising nuclear costs may restrict funding for critical non-nuclear defence needs, like military accommodation.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The increase in nuclear costs may restrict the money available for other important needs.76 For example, improving poor accommodation is crucial in addressing the military’s recruitment and retention problems.77 The Department recognises that this is an area where there has …

Gov response: 6.1 The government disagrees with the Committee’s recommendation. 6.2 The annual update to Parliament has never been a vehicle for detailed financial reporting on the Defence Nuclear Enterprise (DNE). The government believes it is better …

Not Accepted