Recommendation 8

Witnesses admitted there should have been stronger governance and more scrutiny of the programme from the Ministry of Justice. In late 2019, HMPPS prepared an 6 Q 90 7 Q 17 8 Qq 21, 26; C&AG’s report, para 3 9 Q 20; C&AG’s report, para 3.4 10 Q 22; C&AG’s report, para 2.4 11 C&AG’s report, para 3.4 12 Q 78 10 Transforming electronic monitoring services ‘addendum’ to its business case for the programme, as Capita’s delays in developing Gemini would require a further extension to its interim contract. Although this approach to extending the programme complied with rules in place at the time, the NAO found that this approach required more limited support and less challenge than if the programme had been formally reconsidered through a revised business case.13 HMPPS told us that as the changes fell within the scope of the business case and the then Senior Responsible Owner’s delegated authority, the programme team asked the Ministry’s investment committee “only to note the decision”.14 It also told us that had the programme pursued a termination of Capita’s contract at that point, this would have involved more detailed governance and scrutiny. HMPPS told us that it believed that its decision to extend the programme was right, as changes it made to its systems and moving them to the cloud enabled its plans to expand tagging services over the previous 18 months.15