We welcome the IPA’s plans to strengthen how it assures government’s major projects and the recent clarification of it roles and responsibilities, but it remains to be seen whether the IPA will be able to effectively ensure those delivering projects make the level of improvement required. In the past, we have raised concerns that the IPA is not sufficiently independent of government to confidently challenge it, being both a champion of government project delivery as well as being responsible for assuring it. The IPA recognises that while its gateway review process for assuring projects at key decision points is good, it has not always been applied with the rigour needed. Programmes with significant issues have proceeded through Gateways even when they were rated as amber/red. It is now resetting its assurance of the GMPP, to ensure that departments address issues identified at gateway reviews before a programme can proceed, and points to having already made meaningful impact on the Lower Thames Crossing programme. The IPA is working to have a systemic view of what impact it has on programme performance, though it also told us that it was implementing a system to do this when we spoke to them in 2016. We note that government has reinforced IPA’s mandate, alongside clarifying what the responsibilities of departments are in acting on the IPA’s recommendations. Recommendation: Within six months IPA must write to us setting out the changes it has made to its assurance of major programmes in its reset, and how this will improve project delivery. It should also set out what action it took in relation to those projects on the GMPP currently rated as red/red-amber, and what the result has been. The Cabinet Office and HM Treasury should also write to us detailing the actions taken to ensure that Departments act on the IPA’s recommendations.