Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 14
14
Accepted
Current mega-project definition excludes numerous complex and strategic government initiatives and programmes.
Recommendation
The OVFM and Treasury’s selection criteria for mega-projects excludes a number of complex projects, such as the Lower Thames Crossing and the Oxford-Cambridge arc.27 The exclusion of repeatable and scalable projects also means that the New Hospitals Programme is not classified as a mega-project, a project this committee has previously examined.28 Similarly, technically complex and innovative projects, such 23 C&AG’s Report, paras 1.1-1.7 24 Q 72 25 Q 7 26 Q 46 27 Q 72 28 Q 7; Committee of Public Accounts, The New Hospitals Programme, First Report of Session 2023–24, HC 77, 9 November 2023 11 as digital transformation and artificial intelligence (AI), also do not fit the OVFM and Treasury’s definition of a mega project, despite government’s clear focus on these to deliver its ambitions for public service reform.29 Developing a coherent strategic approach
Government Response Summary
The Treasury has written to the Committee setting out the rationale for the £10 billion cost criterion for mega projects.
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government
Accepted
2. PAC conclusion: There are many strategically important projects that will not fall within the OVFM and Treasury’s definition of a mega project. 2. PAC recommendation: Alongside its Treasury Minute response, the Treasury should write to us setting out the rationale for the £10 billion cost criterion for mega projects, and under what circumstances a project’s complexity and importance could justify it being a mega-project even where the £10 billion cost threshold is not met. 2.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Recommendation implemented 2.2 The Treasury has written to the Committee alongside this report.