Corporate report

DSIT accounting officer system statement 2026

Published 14 July 2026

This was published under the 2024 to 2026 Starmer Labour government

1. Scope of the system 

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT or the department) was established on 7 February 2023, bringing together functions from the former Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and the former Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Since its creation, the department has undergone a number of Machinery of Government (MOG) changes.

During FY2025-26, several MOG changes took place affecting DSIT. These included the transfer of responsibility for Cyber Security from the Cabinet Office to DSIT in June 2025, the integration of Building Digital UK (BDUK) into DSIT in November 2025, and the transfer of Severe Space Weather from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) to DSIT in December 2025.^{[footnote 1]}

The Department’s mission is to fuel scientific and technological breakthroughs that improve people’s lives across the UK and ensure the benefits from new technologies are spread across the country so we can build a future that works for all.

The department will achieve our priorities by: 

• Driving economic growth and prosperity for people and places by harnessing science, technology and innovation. 

• Modernising public services and government through digital transformation and AI. 

• Creating opportunities and help people access jobs through support for tech adoption and upskilling. 

• Keeping people (and particularly, children) safe online by managing risks and ensuring technology they can trust.

The Secretary of State for DSIT and other departmental ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held accountable, for the policies, decisions and actions of this department and its Arm’s Length Bodies (ALBs) and wider network bodies. Nothing in this document is intended to be, nor should be interpreted as, inconsistent with this constitutional principle of Parliament holding the executive to account. Instead, this document is intended to explain how this principle of accountability is exercised in practice through the operational landscape of DSIT.

Machinery of Government changes  

During 2025 the government announced the following four MOG changes impacting the department:  

• On 3 June 2025, the government announced that responsibility for Cyber Security would transfer from the Cabinet Office to DSIT, within the Government Digital Service (GDS).  

• On 20 August 2025, the government announced that the UK Space Agency (UKSA) would be integrated into DSIT on 1 April 2026.  

• On 13 October 2025, the government announced that BDUK would be integrated into DSIT on 1 November 2025.  

• On 17 December 2025, the government announced that responsibility for Severe Space Weather would transfer from DESNZ to DSIT on 1 December 2025.

These MOG changes and related changes to accountability arrangements are reflected in this Accounting Officer Systems Statement (AOSS), alongside the DSIT 2025-26 Annual Report and Accounts.

The integration of UKSA into DSIT from 1 April 2026 will be reflected in the DSIT 2026-27 Annual Report and Accounts.

Principal Accounting Officer’s statement

As Permanent Secretary, I am appointed by HM Treasury as the Principal Accounting Officer (PAO) for the department. I am personally accountable to Parliament for safeguarding the public funds for which the department is responsible and for ensuring that they are used with regularity, propriety, and value for money.

I was formally appointed as PAO for DSIT on 2 July 2025.

This AOSS describes the accountability relationships and processes within my department, making clear who is accountable for what at all levels of the system, including where I have appointed additional Accounting Officers (AO), who will have in place their own systems of accountability.

It covers my core department, its ALBs and wider network bodies. It describes accountability for all expenditure of public money through my department’s Supply Estimate, all public money raised as income, and the management of shareholdings, financial investments, and other publicly owned assets for which I am responsible. It helps me ensure that I am fulfilling my responsibilities as an AO in accordance with HM Treasury guidance as set out in ‘Managing Public Money,’ particularly Chapter 3.

The Secretary of State for DSIT and other departmental ministers look to me as the department’s PAO to delegate within the department and its ALBs (and wider network bodies, where appropriate) to deliver their decisions and to support them in making policy decisions and handling public funds. This is a role that involves personal responsibility and accountability on my part.

Parliament is rightly concerned to know not only where public money is spent but who is accountable for it at all levels of the system from the PAO down. In large government departments this is not always obvious, so this system statement is an attempt to clarify that position in DSIT and its network bodies.

Within the core department the line of accountability follows a traditional management cascade of authority from me, as Permanent Secretary, to Directors General (DG) and the Chief Financial Officers and then onwards through Directors and Deputy Directors as appropriate. Special arrangements exist under the so-called ‘Osmotherly Rules’ for Senior Responsible Owners of major projects to account directly to Parliament.

DSIT has a large and diverse range of ALBs and wider network bodies. Some have been created specifically by Acts of Parliament, often with statutory provisions as to the degree of independence from government and operational autonomy. Some are simply administrative forms of separation from the core department, created in the interests of organisational focus, specialisation, or administrative efficiency.

Unless providing a purely advisory function, each DSIT ALB has a board or executive responsible for the proper operation of that entity. The permanent heads of these organisations will normally be appointed by me as a delegated accounting officer with responsibility for stewardship of that organisation’s resources. This is the primary tier of accountability for the use of public money in these organisations. However, in most cases, I remain ultimately responsible to Parliament for the use of resources allocated to DSIT even if these are administered through ALBs (and wider network bodies, where appropriate).

This statement describes the accountability and governance systems which are in place at the date of this statement, and which will continue to apply until a revised statement is published.

Emran Mian
Permanent Secretary and Principal Accounting Office, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

2. The accountability system

UK Space Agency ceased to exist as an Executive Agency on 31 March 2026 and joined the core department from 1 April 2026 

Figure 1: A diagram showing all parts of the accountability system

Public sector: consolidated department

Core department

• Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

Executive agencies

• Intellectual Property Office
• Met Office

Executive NDPBs

• Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA)
• Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)
• UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)
• UK Shared Business Services Limited (UKSBS)
• British Technology Investments
• Copyright Tribunal

Public sector: public corporations

• National Physical Laboratory (NPL)
• Ordnance Survey Limited (OS)

Public sector: central government

• Office of Communications (Ofcom)

Public sector-private/voluntary sector: joint ventures

• OneWeb
• Francis Crick Institute

Private/voluntary sector: contract for services

See section ‘Major contracts and outsourced services’

Private/voluntary sector: grant recipients

• See section ‘Grants to private and voluntary sector bodies’

3. Responsibilities within the core department

This section sets out accountability for the spending, resources and outcomes of DSIT and how I gain assurance.  

Governance framework 

As required by the Corporate Governance in Central Government Departments: Code of Good Practice 2017 (‘the corporate governance code’), the Board operating framework document (‘the framework’) is published on gov.uk and explains:  

• the department’s purpose  

• the roles and responsibilities of our Departmental Board (the Board) and its members 

• how the Board delegates responsibility to other committees including mechanisms for feedback and assurance 

• a threshold and mechanism for seeking the advice of the Board on the operation and delivery of policy proposals 

• any activities of the Board that are undertaken by its non-executive board members 

• the wider corporate governance framework of the department 

The framework will be reviewed by the Board in the first meeting of each financial year.  

In addition to these arrangements, BDUK has an Advisory Board which operates solely in an advisory capacity and does not formally report into DSIT’s governance structures. BDUK works with the department’s Audit, Risk and Assurance Committee (ARAC) to ensure that material risks and issues identified through the Advisory Board are escalated appropriately.

The department is compliant with the expectations set out in the corporate governance code. A diagram showing the relationships between governance tiers is given below.

Figure 2: DSIT Board operating framework

Risk management  

The Risk and Issue Management Framework sets out how risks are managed in DSIT, including the risk management process, assurance, escalation and closure. The framework aligns with government best practice, including HM Treasury (Orange Book), HM Treasury (Green Book) and Cabinet Office: Management of Risk in Government – A Non-Executive’s Review.  

This approach entails:  

• Formalised the use of the ‘three lines of assurance’ approach to risk management.  

• A published Risk Appetite Statement and refreshed principal risks    

• A structured approach to risk ownership and risk awareness across the department.  

Senior Leadership Team (SLT) is responsible for managing the principal risks and issues that affect the whole department and the overall achievement of its objectives. DGs are ultimately accountable for risk management, but all staff are responsible for identifying and raising risks where they see them, generating a culture of risk management from top to bottom. Groups and Senior Responsible Owners (SROs) are, in turn, accountable for risks in our projects, programmes and portfolios. They have a duty to ensure their staff are fully aware of the importance of risk and issue management and receive a proportional level of training.  

The risk appetite statement has been defined and in place throughout the year and all individual risks are required to have risk controls in place to reflect the risk appetite range and mitigate it to the target level. This is documented within departmental Risk Registers with escalation and de-escalation as necessary to Principal or Group Registers for agreement through DGs and/or SLT and notified to the ARAC.

Risk management for Arm’s Length Bodies  

DSIT ALBs identify and manage their own risks.  They have their own governance structure where risk management is embedded, and their own Risk Management Framework which is underpinned by the Orange Book.  

ALBs work in partnership with DSIT to identify risks which may impact delivery of the aims of the department.  Policy Sponsors, the Partnerships team, and the DSIT central risk team work with ALBs to ensure that they have appropriate risk management frameworks in place.  Regular discussion on risk appetite both within the department and ALBs take place to ensure they are aligned.  

ALBs have their own agreed governance processes aligned to their size and structure.  If a risk is deemed to need escalating to the department, this will be managed though the appropriate DG/Sponsor team and discussed at SLT. ARAC has its own arrangements to engage and support several ALBs.  

Project, programme and portfolio management

There are a number of sources of assurance to ensure that projects and programmes are being delivered as planned, and that commitments made deliver outputs and outcomes that are achievable.  

There are various levels of assurance:  

1. Project and programme level assurance  

2. Portfolio level assurance  

3. Assurance of the systems and processes of ALBs, delivery partners and other third parties.  

An Integrated Assurance and Approval Plan (IAAP) sets out the planning, coordination and provision of assurance activities and approval points through the policy to delivery lifecycle of a project. Projects seeking investment are required to develop an IAAP and include it as a business case annex when a business case is submitted for approval.   

All projects are categorised into a tier as outlined below:

Tier	Contents	Selection Criteria
1	DSIT Major Projects  Portfolio, Programmes and Projects	This includes the top tier of projects and includes all DSIT Government Major Projects Portfolio (GMPP) projects, as well as other major and priority projects. Projects are classified based on their whole life cost (WLC):   - £100 million or more for DSIT-managed projects    - £500 million or more for ALB projects   Additionally, any projects deemed high-risk by the Investment Committee (IC) are also included in the DSIT major projects portfolio.
2	Projects in the DSIT’s Outcome Delivery Plan (ODP), and other high‑profile programmes and projects, not in the DSIT Major Projects portfolio but within the DSIT IC financial threshold.	Those having been through the Investment Committee, and those requiring senior (DG) oversight and reporting because of an increased risk profile, spend, or where there is a ministerial commitment, and/or where poor delivery would lead to significant reputational harm.
3	Below the DSIT IC financial threshold. Directorate / ALB level projects, which are important, but where lead oversight can be delegated to directors / ALBs	Defined by DGs, directors and project managers – these could be projects for legislation, delivering spending reviews, local change programmes.

All tiers are subject to assurance based on the three lines of project assurance, see Annex A.   

Audit and assurance 

The department’s system of internal control is based on the ‘Three Lines Model’ as described in Annex 2 of the HM Treasury Orange Book. It defines roles and responsibilities and the assurance mechanisms that support senior management, the Principal Accounting Officer and the ARAC in their assessment of the effectiveness of risk management: 

DSIT management forms the first line having primary ownership, responsibility and accountability for identifying, assessing and managing risk. 

The second line includes DSIT’s risk, assurance and functional teams and provides oversight and expert support by monitoring, challenging and facilitating effective risk management, ensuring that risk information is reported accurately and consistently across the department. 

Independent assurance is provided by the Government Internal Audit Agency (GIAA) as the third line with the Group Chief Internal Auditor reporting annually to the ARAC on the effectiveness of governance, risk management and control. 

Alongside these internal mechanisms, the department also draws on external sources of assurance provided by the National Audit Office (NAO), Government Functional Standards, the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA), and HM Treasury/Cabinet Office/Parliamentary activities that provide scrutiny and approval processes. The NAO scrutinises public spending auditing financial statements and carrying out value-for-money examinations to support Parliament to hold government to account and improve public services.  

Government functions are working together to embed the use of functional standards. These set expectations for the governance, roles and accountabilities, and practices needed for effective operation of the functional model.  Compliance with Government Functional Standards is assessed annually, with improvements incorporated into business plans.   

Additional assurance comes from Integrated Corporate Services (ICS), which supplies shared corporate services to DSIT and provides an annual assurance letter outlining any risks that may affect the services delivered to the department. The department also conducts an annual governance assurance exercise to support the Governance Statement and provide assurance to the PAO on governance, control and risk management arrangements operated by Directors and Director Generals.

Financial delegations   

HM Treasury agrees budget control totals and issues ‘Delegation Authority Limits’ to each department and is subsequently reviewed on annual basis by HM Treasury. This gives me, as the department’s PAO, standing authorisation to commit resources or incur expenditure from money voted by Parliament without specific approval from HM Treasury, within the agreed framework. This includes a delegation for expenditure on new and on-going projects, programmes, policy proposals and financial transactions. 

As the PAO, I delegate within these parameters to the departmental Directors General and Chief Financial Officers. DGs then delegate authority and budget allocations letters, on my behalf for our ALBs, to the Accounting Officer of those organisations. The Delegated Authority Letter details the authority limits, responsibilities, accountabilities and expectations associated with budget management that budget holders are required to comply with. 

ALB delegations sit within the department’s own approved limits, with any that fall outside its authority requiring HM Treasury consent in line with the rules of Managing Public Money. Therefore, DSIT has the authority to approve expenditure proposals from ALBs where they do not exceed DSIT’s own delegated authority, without requiring HM Treasury consent.

4. Relationships with Arm’s Length Bodies

The DSIT group of ALBs vary considerably in size, type, and level of independence, and operate in a complex and often changing environment. These organisations are essential to the successful delivery of the department’s objectives.  

As DSIT Permanent Secretary, I am the PAO and may, where relevant, delegate accounting officer responsibility under ‘Managing Public Money’ to the chief executive officer (or equivalent) of the organisation in question. Or, as Principal Accounting Officer I may retain accountability directly.   

All newly appointed accounting officers receive a letter from me confirming their appointment. This sets out their accountabilities and responsibilities. To support them in their role, on appointment, all accounting officers are recommended to attend the Civil Service-Learning course, an ‘Introduction to Accounting Officer Responsibilities,’ which provides a thorough understanding of propriety and regularity issues, as they affect those in public service. In addition, newly appointed accounting officers can also discuss their roles and responsibilities with the DSIT Chief Financial Officer.  

Each ALB is overseen by a sponsor team in the core department which agrees and captures the organisation’s remit in a framework document. The sponsor teams also monitor and challenge performance and work with the ALBs to support their high-level aims. All ALBs are established with governance arrangements that are appropriate to both their mission and legal form, and with processes for engagement with the department that allow them to function and deliver with the appropriate balance of autonomy and accountability.  

DSIT has adopted the ‘Arm’s Length Body sponsorship code of good practice’ which provides common standards for good sponsorship arrangements between government departments and ALBs.   

ALBs fall into a few different classification groups, many share similar funding and monitoring arrangements. The following categories provide, as far as possible, an account of the broad arrangements in place.

Executive Agencies  

Executive Agencies have an accounting officer responsible to Parliament. They are appointed by me or in the case of the Met Office and the Intellectual Property Office by HM Treasury. I receive assurance on the Executive Agency’s delivery through a sponsor team in the core department, which monitors financial and performance data. Executive Agencies are operationally independent of DSIT, with the chair or chief executive officer having accountability for the operation and budget of the organisation.  

Our  2 Executive Agencies, the Met Office and the Intellectual Property Office are trading funds and produce separate accounts as they receive most or all of their funding from receipts.

Non-departmental public bodies  

Non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) receive grant-in-aid from the core department and may charge for the services they provide to their customers. They vary significantly in size and scope, from organisations with thousands of employees and multi-billion-pound budgets (such as UK Research and Innovation), to small organisations that receive minimal funding (such as British Technology Investments). Therefore, their sponsorship and engagement with DSIT also vary greatly.  

Each NDPB has an independent board to oversee its delivery and provide assurance of financial probity and an accounting officer (normally the chief executive officer) who is formally responsible to Parliament for the funds allocated to them. This provides the primary tier of accountability for the organisation’s use of public funds. In addition, respective sponsor teams in the core department monitor financial and performance data, engaging as necessary in matters relevant to the DSIT Principal Accounting Officer.  

Central government but not ALBs  

Some bodies are classified to central government but are not administratively classified as Executive Agencies or NDPBs. Ofcom is a central government body but has distinct characteristics set out in its Framework Document. Ofcom’s board is independent with the chair and NEDs appointed by the Secretary of State.

Public corporations  

Any public entity that is at least 50% funded through commercial activities may be classified in the ONS National Accounts system as a Public Corporation. These have substantial day to day operating independence and should be seen as an institutional unit separate from its parent department. The chair of the board is appointed by the Secretary of State. There is a sponsor team in DSIT which oversees the department’s engagement with each of its public corporations and the department has a shareholder representative on the board. UK Government Investments acts as the department’s shareholder representative on the board of Ordnance Survey.

5. Local funding arrangements

Devolved Government Higher Education Research Capital (DG HERC) is a core science capital contribution provided by DSIT from the R&D Budget. DG HERC supports the maintenance of university research infrastructure associated with the overall Research Council grant portfolio at individual Higher Education Providers (HEPs) in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland 

DSIT provides a funding contribution via DG HERC which is match-funded by the devolved government in each nation. Allocations for each of the devolved funding bodies are underpinned by a memorandum of understanding (MoU) which requires that each devolved government at least matches the DSIT annual capital allocation and reports to DSIT on how HERC has been allocated to individual HEPs. 

Devolved funding bodies are; 

• Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland (NI DfE) 

• Medr – the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research in Wales 

• Scottish Funding Council (SFC) in Scotland 

The MoUs outline how the PAOs for DSIT and the respective devolved funding bodies are liable to answer questions from Parliament and Public Accounts Committees covering the management of DG HERC. 

The MoUs set out various requirements including that the devolved funding bodies have to provide a yearly report to DSIT on how DG HERC has been allocated to individual HEPs, that they must participate in any DSIT commissioned evaluation, and to provide any information required for DSIT AOs, Ministers etc. In addition, because they are also required to “match fund,” they have to report and are accountable to their respective Accounting Officer and Ministers. 

The MoUs also state that if devolved administrations are unable to match-fund DSIT’s DG HERC contribution, the remaining balance will be deducted from their DG HERC payments for that financial year, or from their DG HERC allocation for the following financial year. 

In order to ensure that all budget management, forecasting and monitoring arrangements set out in the MoU are followed, DSIT’s Research Funding policy team engages regularly with devolved administration policy leads and devolved funding bodies who have individual processes and requirements to follow.

Department for the Economy, Northern Ireland (NI DfE) 

NI DfE’s Finance Division is responsible for the overall management and reporting actual spend against budget for NI DfE. NI DfE Higher Education Finance Branch is the named budget holder for DSIT income and HERC spend and is required to submit monthly forecasting returns to Central Finance to monitor spend against these budget lines. The HERC budget is administered to the HEPs via Higher Education Research and Knowledge Exchange Branch.  

Medr – the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research 

Operational responsibility for the HERC budget is within Medr’s overall budget. It sits with a responsible officer who manages the funding on a day-to-day basis, including liaison with DSIT, Welsh Government and higher education providers, and a budget holder who oversees the funding line and approves payments. As part of Medr’s budget, HERC allocations are approved by Medr’s Council, and accountability to Welsh Government as Medr’s sponsor body sits with the Interim Chief Executive as Medr’s Accounting Officer.

Scottish Funding Council, Scotland (SFC) 

SFC is a Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) of the Scottish Government. The SFC board are appointed by Scottish Ministers and have a collective responsibility for the proper conduct of SFC’s affairs. The Chief Executive as accountable officer has responsibility for maintaining a sound system of internal control that supports the achievements of SFC’s objectives. The Director of Research & Innovation oversees the internal control arrangements relating to the HERC funding. Funding is distributed to HEPs in line with the payment profile set out in the MoU. This is confirmed to DSIT on a quarterly basis and in the annual report to DSIT which confirms all funds have been allocated to HEPs, the method of allocation and total amounts received by each HEP.

6. Grants to private and voluntary sector bodies

The department publishes the grant schemes it operates on the government grants information system (GGIS) which is published annually by the Cabinet Office. The department provides grants in a range of sectors including Telecommunications, Artificial Intelligence, Cyber and Research and Development.  

Grants are awarded for specific purposes to a diverse range of organisations including research institutions, universities, community interest companies, charities, local authorities, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) private sector businesses, and voluntary sector organisations by the department including ALBs. These are made under statute and with specific conditions through, grant funding agreements.   

This section sets out the accountability and assurance arrangements in place to ensure that I, as Principal Accounting Officer, gain certainty over regularity, propriety and value for money.  

Grants form a significant part of the department’s expenditure at circa £12.8 billion, the annual budget for 2025-26 financial year. This is made up of £3.8 billion delivered within DSIT and £9.0 billion by our ALBs. As Principal Accounting Officer, I am responsible for ensuring that:   

• any grant awarded contributes to and achieves value for money on behalf of the taxpayer.   

• the recipient is competent to manage the grant.   

• the funds are allocated and spent as per the grant funding agreement.   

• the department has evidence that the works or services provided have been completed satisfactorily.   

A governance process is in place as part of a framework including the completion of a business case to determine the processes for how a grant should be awarded and what the aims and objectives of the grant are. The business case process helps determine how the grant will work and includes other key considerations such as value for money, subsidy control, match funding and leveraging and fraud risk checks. This includes a delegation of authority depending on the value of grants i.e. where a grant is required to be approved by a committee. A Grants Commercial Assurance Board launched in April 2025 requiring all grants with a whole life cost over £10 million to attend the board for approval. Grants over £40 million continue to require to be approved by the Investment Committee.  

All grants are signed with standard grant funding agreements/ MoU in place and are delivered in accordance with the approvals given. Should delivery deviate materially from this, subsequent re-approval is required. ​  

Each letter of award sets out the responsibilities and conditions under which the applicant can make a claim, including approved activities and categories of eligible and ineligible expenditure, along with the documentation required as supporting evidence. The letter also contains a statement about the weight the department places on investigating and dealing with any actual or suspected fraud.  

The Cabinet Office has issued a Government Grant Functional Standard (GovS015), which promotes effective grant making in central government grant schemes. The standard focuses on gaining assurances of regularity, propriety and value for money before awarding any grant, and monitoring of outcomes against the purposes for which it was awarded. Grants within the department are issued in line with the Functional Standard and these grant minimum standards are applied to our grant schemes, where possible.

7. Major contracts and outsourced services

The Commercial Director is responsible for oversight of commercial procurement on behalf of the department. The commercial framework is based on securing goods and services through compliant contracting routes, or relevant grant funding models to ensure effective management of the contract or agreement is in place, and to ensure value for money is achieved. ICS work with the DSIT commercial team and provide a shared service commercial policy, due diligence, L&D, systems and assurance provision.  

DSIT has robust processes in place for entering major contracts. These have been assessed against the Government Commercial Function Commercial Continuous Improvement Assessment Framework (CCIAF), which cover the lifecycle from identifying the need, through procurement and contracting to subsequent management. CCIAF drives continuous improvement in our commercial practices, including ensuring value for money is achieved through several ways:   

• Market engagement prior to large contracts ensures that the market is understood and requirements for goods and services that are fit for purpose can be set without attracting undue cost.   

• Procurement regulations require competitive procurement wherever possible. Depending on the requirement, this may be by use of a Crown Commercial Service or other framework that has been pre-competed or by undertaking a Find a Tender Service (FTS) procurement. FTS is the publication in which all tenders valued above a certain financial threshold from the UK’s public and utilities sectors must be published.   

• If it is proposed instead to extend a contract, this requires specific commercial and financial approval depending on value to ensure that this is the most appropriate option.   

• Commercial transactions with a value of £10m or above or deemed novel, contentious, or repercussive are subject to scrutiny by the Commercial Assurance Board (CAB). CAB seeks to ensure best practice and alignment to procurement policies and DSIT strategy, as well as to manage commercial risk and maximise commercial outcomes. Both core DSIT cases and in-scope ALBs are required to seek CAB approval.  

• HM Treasury approval is required for all project and programme spend that meet or exceed the DSIT Delegated Authority Limit (DAL) of £300m Capital Departmental Expenditure Limit (CDEL), and/or are considered novel, contentious, or repercussive (including at £0). 

• Any commercial transaction between £10k and £10m in DSIT core department is approved by DSIT Commercial Team in line with commercial delegations.  

The DSIT Commercial Team utilise the Government Commercial Function’s best practice advice, including the Sourcing Playbook.  

DSIT has implemented the Government Commercial Function’s contract and supplier tiering approach, which categorises the necessary levels of contract management based on a risk/value assessment. Each tier (gold, silver, and bronze) features tailored processes and due diligence criteria outlined in the DSIT contract management toolkit, drawing from public sector and Cabinet Office standards. The objective is to ensure appropriate levels of management oversight and resources are assigned to each contract.  

A Commercial Business Partner model is in place within the DSIT core commercial teams, aligned to business areas to provide directorates with appropriate levels of commercial support to drive and enable strategies and policy delivery priorities for the directorates and the department as a whole.  

On 28 February 2025 the new Procurement Regulations 2024 came into force as a result of the Procurement Act 2023. This will mean that for a period of time DSIT commercial teams will be required to operate under both Public Contract Regulations 2015 (PCR15) and Procurement Regulations 2024 (PR24) as appropriate to the procurements being undertaken. At present the time for this dual running is unknown as it is dependent on existing Crown Commercial Services frameworks being replaced to meet the PR24 obligations.

8. Investments, joint ventures and other assets

As the Principal Accounting Officer for the department’s investment portfolio, I am ultimately accountable for oversight of the department’s financial exposures. The original reasons for establishing these companies and retaining these stakes vary but were broadly: 

• to enhance value for money by facilitating the transformation and commoditisation of existing services 

• to improve service price and quality by aggregating demand for services across the public sector; and  

• to unlock value by enabling greater commercialisation of services and their sale to a wider customer base. 

The department recognises its investments in subsidiaries, associates and joint ventures and these investments are managed through the lead sponsor teams.

Subsidiaries  

• UK Shared Business Services Limited (UKSBS): The company is a specialist business services organisation that provides finance, procurement, grants, information systems and HR and payroll services to the public sector. Its main objective is to provide economic, efficient and effective corporate services to its owners and customers. 

• Ordnance Survey Limited (OSL): The principal objective of OSL is to produce mapping products and mapping data information. 

• National Physical Lab Management Limited (NPLML): NPLML has been set up to manage and operate the National Physical Laboratory. 

Joint Ventures  

A joint venture is a joint arrangement whereby the parties that have joint control of the arrangement have rights to the net assets of the arrangement. 

• OneWeb: Provider of low-latency connectivity services to government and enterprise customers worldwide. 

• Francis Crick Institute: To deliver a world class interdisciplinary biomedical research centre. 

• Harwell Science and Innovation Campus Limited Partnership: Pioneering advances in energy, space, health and quantum computing.

Associate  

An associate is an entity where the department has “significant influence” but not control over the entity.  

• Eutelsat Group: Geostationary Equatorial Orbit-low Earth orbit (GEO-LEO) operator in satellite communications that provides connectivity service. 

Public Dividend Capital 

• Intellectual Property Office: Responsible for intellectual property rights in the UK 

• The Meteorological Office: The United Kingdom’s national weather service 

Assurance  

The relationship between DSIT, subsidiaries, associates and joint ventures are provided for in shareholder agreements and articles of association. The Principal Accounting Officer receives assurance from the delivery of the internal audit plan by GIAA and the statutory audit by NAO for each company respectively. Assurance is also provided through the Framework Document for public entities which sets out the relationship with the department.

9. Annex A: project assurance

Accessible table 1: Annex A: project assurance

1.  In August 2025, the government also announced that the UK Space Agency would be integrated into DSIT from 1 April 2026. ↩