The head of the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA) has defended the decision to remove more than half of the Ministry of Defence’s largest projects from the Government Major Projects Portfolio (GMPP), telling MPs that the move is intended to improve accountability and streamline oversight.
Appearing before the Treasury Committee, NISTA chief executive Becky Wood responded to concerns raised over the reduction in the number of MoD programmes included within the portfolio, which fell from 47 to 20 from April this year.
Conservative MP John Glen questioned the timing of the decision, noting that 39 of the 47 defence projects previously included in the GMPP had been rated either amber or red, indicating significant delivery challenges or serious doubts about successful completion.
“Given the tension that exists between the Treasury and the MoD, can you explain to the committee why NISTA has chosen this time to remove 27 complex military-capability programmes from the Government Major Projects Portfolio (GMPP)?” he asked.
“Who is accountable for improving the expectations on these projects?
“You’re tasked as an organisation to deal with these most-complex infrastructure projects and beyond. And yet you are expressly removing oversight of a significant tranche of highly contested projects back into a department that hasn’t really had a good track record overall of delivering.”
Wood acknowledged the concerns raised by MPs, replying: “I understand the concern.”
She said the decision had been informed by lessons identified through the James Stewart Review and work undertaken by the Office for Value for Money.
“Part of what we drew on from the James Stewart Review and part of the reflection from the Office for Value for Money is there is a balance to be struck in terms of a sense of oversight and true, targeted and active oversight,” she said.
The James Stewart Review, published in 2025, examined the management and governance arrangements surrounding major infrastructure projects, including the relationship between the Department for Transport and HS2 Ltd.
Wood argued that excessive layers of assurance can sometimes undermine effective decision-making.
“There is a bit of a risk where there is a sense of overlaying of assurance where really effective oversight isn’t able to cut through. We’ve read about that in a number of lessons-learned reports.
“I’m not suggesting removal of oversight is proper or appropriate – these are huge and very significant projects. What I am suggesting is [that] giving that clarity of accountability and also streamlining decision-making should be more efficient and effective.”
Her comments come after Stewart concluded that previous ministers had approved major HS2 contracts without sufficient scrutiny, contributing to escalating costs and programme difficulties on the high-profile rail project.
Wood stressed that the removal of projects from the GMPP was not being undertaken in isolation and involved detailed engagement with the Ministry of Defence.
“Part of the job for me in making this change is working with MoD colleagues to make sure we’ve had that conversation about how their assurance is going to work and how their governance structures need to work.
“There are a lot of highly capable people across many different governance boards and senior leaders across the MoD who need to be part of that conversation, and I welcome their willingness to work with me on it.”
She added that the scale and complexity of defence programmes required governance arrangements that reflected the way the department itself was structured.
“These are huge, broad programmes we know are highly interconnected.
“As I work with colleagues in the MoD to understand how they structure themselves, that needs to determine how I help them make sure that governance works as it should.”
NISTA was created in April 2025 to strengthen oversight of government projects and programmes, with Wood taking up the chief executive role two months later. The organisation is responsible for leading the government’s assurance function across major economic, social and digital programmes, while overseeing the most strategically significant schemes through its stewardship of the GMPP.
Earlier this year, NISTA reduced the size of the major projects portfolio from 213 schemes to 81. At the time, Wood said the move would “simplify oversight, sharpen responsibility in departments and focus expert support where it will have the greatest impact”.
During the Treasury Committee session, she also revealed that NISTA had experienced notable staff turnover since its formation, with around one in seven employees, including a director, leaving the organisation during its first 15 months of operation.
The committee hearing highlighted the continuing debate over how government should monitor and manage major projects, particularly those involving defence capabilities and other highly complex programmes. While NISTA argues that a more focused portfolio will improve accountability and governance, MPs continue to question whether reducing central oversight risks weakening scrutiny of some of the government’s most challenging projects.
