On top of its earlier recommendations, we now recommend that the project be moved to a department with greater experience in complex IT systems because of failures by the Home Office to incorporate feedback into its designs. We recommend the Treasury as the primary candidate.
The second sentence of that follows rather oddly on the first – there can’t be much doubt that the Home Office experience of major IT projects is rather greater than that of the Treasury, but the LSE team clearly feels that the Home Office approach is not all that it might be:
Dozens of questions about the scheme’s architecture, goals, feasibility, stakeholder engagement and outcomes remain unanswered. These questions are outlined in this report. The security of the scheme remains unstable, as are the technical arrangements for the proposal. The performance of biometric technology is increasingly questionable. We continue to contest the legality of the scheme. The financial arrangements for the proposals are almost entirely secret, raising important questions of constitutional significance.
Apart from that, they are pretty supportive.