Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 9
9
Accepted
Both the Ministry and HMPPS told us that they had learnt lessons from weaknesses in...
Recommendation
Both the Ministry and HMPPS told us that they had learnt lessons from weaknesses in governance and scrutiny in the programme. The Ministry explained that a lack of scrutiny can be the nature of big departments with a small corporate centre and multiple agencies. Often project teams did not know at what point issues should be escalated as tolerances had not been explicitly agreed. The Ministry told us that recent work in both the Ministry and HMPPS had improved governance, risk controls and thresholds for escalation. The Ministry explained that it had introduced additional governance for its portfolio of major projects and programmes with a whole-life cost of at least £30 million. This additional governance included a delivery board and thresholds on affordability, delivery timetables, benefits slippage and risks and issues.16 The consequences of relying on legacy systems
Government Response Summary
The government states that the Investment Committee has delegated powers to make decisions on portfolio projects. It also states that an improved control framework was introduced in November 2021 and governance structures were strengthened during 2021-22.
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government
Accepted
1.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Recommendation implemented 1.2 The roles and structure of the Ministry of Justice’s (the department’s) boards and committees is provided on Gov.uk. The department’s Investment Committee has delegated powers to make decisions on its Executive Committee’s behalf on portfolio projects from inception through to implementation, ensuring they remain strategically aligned, affordable and deliverable. This includes scrutiny and approval of business cases of £30 million whole‑life cost and above; setting permissible tolerances for costs, benefits, schedule, quality, scope and performance; and acts as gatekeeper in respect of the release of gated funding. 1.3 An improved control framework was introduced in November 2021, whereby the Investment Committee approves both the permissible tolerance levels and early warning indicator controls for time, cost, quality and risk when approving a business case. These are reconsidered at each subsequent business case stage. 1.4 Additionally, the department’s governance structures were strengthened during 2021- 22 with additional Executive Committee sub-committees, including the Delivery Board, to provide assurance that strategic outcomes and commitments are on track to be delivered and the Portfolio Committee, to provide project portfolio oversight. Early warning indicator controls identify metrics at risk of variance from agreed baselines between business case stages, enabling implementation of corrective action(s) and reporting to the Investment Committee when permitted tolerance levels are breached. The improved controls and metrics overseen by this strengthened governance framework deliver positive outcomes through earlier intervention, increased departmental scrutiny and utilisation of defined escalation pathways. 1.5 The department considers that these arrangements provide an effective framework to prevent significant losses to the taxpayer across its portfolio of major projects and programmes.