REPORT SUMMARY
Effective, reliable mobile communications are vital for police,
firefighters and ambulance crews to do their life-saving work.
But despite repeated warnings from this Committee and others, the
Home Office’s programme to create the new Emergency Services
Network (ESN) has been beset by problems. Delays to the delivery
of the programme have continued and costs have escalated. ESN is
now three years late and expected to cost the taxpayer at least
£3.1 billion more than planned. The Department’s original
approach was far too optimistic given the level of risk, and its
governance arrangements were insufficient to deal with problems
that emerged.
In 2018 the Home Office announced it was to ‘reset’ the
programme, but we are not yet convinced that it has done enough
to turn the programme around. The plan for delivering ESN is
still not sufficiently robust and the Department does not yet
have the skills to make it work. The programme faces substantial
levels of technical and commercial risk, and failures to date
have undermined the confidence of users that the programme will
deliver a system that is fit for purpose and meets their needs.
On current evidence it seems inevitable that there will be
further delays and cost increases. The department has put itself
in a position where the status quo is costly and leaves little
option but to progress with ESN. One company, Motorola, is
involved in both the new and the old contract leading to perverse
incentives and putting the department in a weak negotiating
position. The Committee has examined this programme on eight
occasions and we remain concerned about its progress and the Home
Office’s ability to meet the challenges ahead.
COMMENT FROM PAC CHAIR MEG HILLIER MP:
“The endless delay in delivering a new system for our
emergency services to communicate and share data is creating a
crisis of confidence as police, fire and ambulance on longer have
trust in the new system being delivered. Neither the emergency
services, nor the PAC, are convinced that the Home office has a
credible plan to deliver a reliable and effective service anytime
soon. In the meantime services are having to find work arounds
and buy new equipment to prop up the old Airwave system.
“The Home Office’s reset of the Emergency Services Network
programme has failed to deliver any more certainty. The financial
benefits originally predicted for this programme are rapidly
evaporating and it will not now realise cost savings, on the most
optimistic forecasts, for at least a decade.
“The key technology behind the ESN is not yet fully proven
and we were not convinced that the Home Office has the capability
and plans to deliver a coherent single system that provides the
functionality and dependability the emergency services
demand.”
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
-
Despite extending the Emergency Services Network (ESN)
by 3 years and increasing its budget by £3.1 billion, the
Department has still not got a grip on whether it can deliver
the programme. The Department announced it had
‘reset’ ESN in September 2018, but there are significant issues
to resolve if it is to meet its extended deadline. Emergency
services were meant to have started transitioning to ESN in
September 2017, but nearly two years later the Department still
does not yet have an integrated plan for how and when each
emergency service will deploy ESN. Technology for some parts of
ESN is still not yet ready, for example work to build a network
to enable emergency service aircraft to use ESN has not yet
started and coverage is not available everywhere it is needed,
including on underground railways. The Department has extended
the Airwave contract to December 2022 but is already describing
this as a “not before” date rather than a realistic target for
when ESN will be ready.
Recommendation: The Department should set out, by October
2019 a detailed, achievable, integrated programme plan including
a realistic date for turning off Airwave and the cost of any
extension of Airwave that may be needed and update the Committee
when this plan is ready.
-
An unhealthy, ‘good news’ culture in the Department
meant it failed to heed warning signs that the programme was
undeliverable. Many of the issues with the
Department’s original approach were foreseeable and should have
been challenged earlier. For example, the Department could have
taken a more incremental approach from the start and should
have allowed more time to get planning permission for sites on
which to build masts. We have been warning that ESN is a
high-risk programme since 2016, but only now does the
Department accept that it was too optimistic about how long it
would take to build ESN. The Department admits that where
problems had been identified, they were not escalated properly,
which meant the Department missed opportunities to correct its
approach earlier. For example, the Senior Responsible Owner for
the programme was not made aware of an early report which had
identified some of the issues and risks with the Department’s
approach. It is positive that the current Accounting Officer
quickly commissioned an independent review of the programme
when he took up post in 2017, and that, as a result, action was
taken to reset ESN, but it is concerning that such a report was
necessary.
Recommendation: The Department should write to the
Committee by October 2019 setting out the steps that it has taken
to: improve senior oversight of the programme; ensure assumptions
are subject to appropriate challenge; and to make sure the
findings of independent assurance reviews are widely shared and
taken seriously.
-
The Department’s mismanagement of the programme means
the emergency services do not yet have confidence that ESN will
provide a service that will meet their needs. Our
previous examinations of the Department’s e-borders programme
and the modernisation of the Disclosure and Barring Service
have shown that a lack of understanding of user needs can lead
to programme failure. The intended users of ESN have not yet
seen enough evidence that it would be ready to replace Airwave
by December 2022. The new incremental approach adopted by the
Department could improve users’ confidence in the programme.
But the initial test, the first version of ‘ESN Direct’, will
only be used by about 120 users in immigration enforcement, a
tiny fraction of the 300,000 potential ESN users. The
Department continues to say that it will not force users to
accept ESN until they all agree it is ‘as good’ as Airwave, but
it has not defined what this means with sufficient clarity. It
has also yet to confirm what happens if some users require
expensive changes before they will accept ESN.
Recommendation: The Department should, without delay,
agree with users a set of specific and detailed criteria that
will be used to determine when ESN is ready to replace Airwave,
and who will ultimately decide when those criteria are met.
-
We are not convinced that the Department has the plans
or the skills needed to integrate the different elements of ESN
into a coherent service. The Department’s first
attempt at integrating ESN was unsuccessful, with the ‘delivery
partner’ KBR failing to provide planning and collaboration
between the other contractors after its role was downgraded by
the Department. The critical role of making all the different
elements of ESN work seamlessly together has now passed to the
Department, but it does not yet have sufficient skills to
undertake this role. Its plans for testing ESN are not well
developed and the its track record of coordinating this
programme so far is poor. It failed to realise the implications
of EE and Motorola making plans based on different versions of
telecommunications standards. It similarly failed to ensure
suppliers worked together in the same location at the start of
the programme, which could have improved collaboration. The
Department intends to contract a new delivery partner, but this
has not yet happened.
Recommendation: Before contracting with a new delivery
partner, the Department should analyse the skills and tasks
needed to integrate ESN, how any skills gaps will be filled, and
how lessons from the failure of the KBR contract will be applied
to the new delivery partner contract.
-
Based on past failures to manage its contractors, we
are concerned about the Department’s ability to manage the
significant commercial risks facing the programme, including
those presented by Motorola’s position as supplier to ESN and
owner of Airwave. The Department failed to ensure
contractors delivered ESN to the timetable in the original
contracts. It admits that the commercial structure for ESN is
highly disaggregated and adds complexity to an already
difficult task, and is trying to improve the contracts by
changing them. But it signed the new Motorola contract 5 months
late and the new EE contract was still not signed when we took
evidence. The Airwave contract has been extended to end in
December 2022, but a further negotiation will be needed to
cover the additional delays which now seem inevitable given the
Department’s admission that it could take longer to build and
deploy ESN. It is vital that Airwave does not cease working
before ESN is fully ready but extending Airwave again is likely
to further increase the costs of the programme. Given its
previous negotiation to extend Airwave achieved only a 5%
discount, and given Motorola, which is a key supplier to ESN,
has a monopoly position as Airwave’s owner, we are concerned
that the Department has limited leverage to secure value for
money in any future extension of Airwave contract.
Recommendation: The Department should write to the
Committee by October 2019 setting out how it will manage the
risks presented by Motorola’s position and the possible need to
extend Airwave until it can be replaced by ESN.
-
Delays to the Department’s revised business case for
ESN and the prospect of further increases in cost raises doubts
over the value for money case for ESN. Although
the forecast cost of ESN has increased by £3.1 billion, the
Department still asserts that ESN will eventually be cheaper
than Airwave. But it no longer expects this to happen until
2029, a delay of 7 years compared to the 2015 business case.
Delivering ESN later than planned is also likely to create cost
pressures for emergency services who may need to buy new
Airwave devices while they wait for ESN to be ready. The
Department’s forecast costs for the programme are not finalised
as they are part of a business case which is not approved. The
business case is now expected to be approved in early 2020,
over a year late. Given it is likely that Airwave will need to
be extended further than December 2022 it seems inevitable that
the £9.3 billion cost of ESN will increase again. This will
further delay the point at which ESN is cheaper than Airwave,
weakening the argument for continuing with ESN.
Recommendation: The Department should ensure it delivers a
revised and approved business case, which both the emergency
services and the other funders of ESN support, by the end of 2019
at the latest. The business case should include an appraisal of
when continuing to spend money on ESN ceases to be value for
money and should set out a ‘plan B’ for what would happen if that
point was reached.