42 In recent years, the government has chosen to manage many programmes by retaining the role of programme sponsor and creating a bespoke organisation to deliver the programme. It chooses this model for various reasons, including separating delivery from potential political interference from within the government of the day, and to recruit and retain specialist skills in key industries. This separation becomes more apparent as a programme moves away from its early development as a policy and into day-to-day delivery. Ultimately, regardless of delivery arrangements, responsibility for spending taxpayers' money, and delivering the programme as intended, remains with the sponsoring department.
43 The relationship between the sponsor and delivery bodies is often set out in an agreement that delineates the roles and responsibilities of both parties, describes arrangements for reporting information and outlines when the sponsor can intervene if the programme begins to falter.
44 However, once a programme is underway, we have found that these governance arrangements tend to remain similar throughout the remainder of the programme. This is despite the fact that the different stages - for example civil engineering, systems testing and preparing for use - all have different risk profiles, require different skills to oversee, and might require engagement with different stakeholders. While we occasionally see efforts to refresh the skills available at a senior decision-making level, a more thorough examination of what structures and skills are needed to oversee a programme often occurs too late. We have also found that mechanisms in agreements between sponsor and delivery bodies, which might be useful at an early stage of the programme, become less so as the programme develops, reducing a sponsor body's options for overseeing or intervening.