In 2006, our Committee found that there was insufficient evidence available to determine whether tagging helped to reduce re-offending or promote rehabilitation. We recommended that the Home Office—which previously managed tagging services— should carry out research to establish the role that electronic monitoring could play in minimising reoffending and make the results available to courts and prisons.23 In its response to our report, the Home Office committed to conduct analysis of the reconviction rates of offenders on tagging curfew orders and make its analysis available in 2007.24 In its 2022 report, the NAO found that the evidence base for tagging still remained weak 16 years later. HMPPS did not assess the impact of tagging on demand for prison places or reoffending in its GPS location monitoring pilots due to limited resources. More broadly, HMPPS did not monitor its planned benefits in its transformation programme, which included involving diverting offenders from custody and modifying offenders’ behaviour.25