Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-99)
CABINET OFFICE
AND OFFICE
OF GOVERNMENT
COMMERCE
27 NOVEMBER 2006
Q80 Mr. Bacon: Could you just remind
us what gateway 5 is all about?
Mr. Watmore: My understanding
of gateway 5 is that it is the review at the end of a project
or programme. It looks back to see whether the business benefits
that were anticipated at the beginning were realised.
Q81 Mr. Bacon: I am reading from
the RPA study that the National Audit Office did in appendix 6.
It describes gateway 5's benefits evaluation as "to assess
whether expected benefits are being delivered"—not
"were" delivered, but "are being delivered",
so it is an ongoing process—and what is being done to "pursue
continued improvements". That suggests that gateway 5 is
something that happens before the end of the project, does it
not?
Mr. Watmore: My view would be
that, first, you need clear business objectives from the outset.
What I said earlier was that if you did not have that, you were
doomed to failure.
Secondly, there is a period in the life of projects
that involve a big change when it is necessary to secure the business
benefits from the change but also to go on improving. If you stand
still, you go backwards, so you continuously improve. Therefore,
over a 10 year contract and a 10 year programme, it is quite likely
that you may find several reasons to keep revisiting the business
case, as the situation may change dramatically in that period.
Mr. Oughton: May I say a few words
on this point as well? We have had some considerable encouragement
from this Committee to ensure that gateway 5 reviews are undertaken
speedily and no more than a year later than the gateway 4 reviews,
and we have been trying to up our momentum around that. Of course,
the consequence of that is that we are assessing benefits before
the full completion and delivery of those benefits—the point
that Mr. Watmore just made. Among the changes that I am contemplating
introducing is a repeatable gateway 5, so that we can start looking
at benefits very quickly after the implementation of new systems
but then keep coming back and revisiting them over the length
of the project.
Q82 Mr. Bacon: That makes perfect
sense. In fact, I would almost say that it is explicit, as opposed
to implicit, in the definition of gateway 5. Why is it, then,
that according to the chart in figure 11 on page 46, only 5% of
projects have had a gateway 5 so far? That means that 95% are
not being looked at properly, or, in Mr. Watmore's words, are
doomed to failure. I know that the situation is bad, but I cannot
believe that it is quite that bad.
Mr. Oughton: What the chart tells
you is that 5% of the totality of projects that were looked at
between April 2004 and June 2006 were reviewed at gateway 5. It
does not tell you that 5% of projects that get to the end of their
life were subject to a gateway 5 review.
If you to turn to the table in figure 12 on
the next page, you will see that of the projects that have passed
gateway 4—that are, therefore, towards the end of their
implementation—an increasing proportion are now subjected
to a gateway 5 within a year, or soon after gateway 4.
Q83 Mr. Bacon: Where in figure 14
is the information that you are referring to?
Mr. Oughton: It is in figure 12
on page 47.
Q84 Mr. Bacon: At the bottom?
Mr. Oughton: That is right. Indeed,
at the start of the Report, under paragraph 9 on page 19, figures
are set out that demonstrate that of the projects that have passed
gateway 4, an increasing number are now subjected to a gateway
5.
Q85 Mr. Bacon: In two years' time,
what percentage do you think will have gone through a gateway
5?
Mr. Oughton: I do not like to
speculate about the numbers. The answer has to be more than now.
The trend is increasing, and I want to keep the pressure up so
that more projects go through a gateway 5 when they reach the
end of their implementation, and then go through a gateway 5 again
and again if that is appropriate to the delivery of the benefits.
Q86 Mr. Bacon: You mentioned the
Information Commissioner and ID cards. Could you remind us what
it was that the applicant was seeking that you did not want to
give?
Mr. Oughton: The applicant's request
was for the release of the gateway reports on the national ID
card programme.
Q87 Mr. Bacon: In particular, did
not the applicant want to know what traffic light status the OGC
awarded to the ID scheme at gateway review stage 1?
Mr. Oughton: I think that the
applicant was asking for all the information relating to the gateway
reports.
Q88 Mr. Bacon: So you are not prepared
to tell anybody, other than your little coterie, what traffic
light status the ID card project received at gateway 1?
Mr. Oughton: That was the judgment
that we made in response to the Freedom of Information Act request.
We considered the public interest test for disclosure or withholding
of that information. We identified exemptions under the Act that
we believed were applicable, and we applied the public interest
test to them as well. The conclusion that we reached was that
we should not release the information. The Information Commissioner
disagreed with that judgment and we are currently engaged in an
appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Q89 Mr. Bacon: Is it right, Mr. Oughton,
that civil servants should "always act in a way that is professional
and that deserves and retains the confidence of all those with
whom you have dealings"?
Mr. Oughton: I should hope so.
Indeed, I recognise those words. I think that they are very appropriate.
Q90 Mr. Bacon: And do you think it
is right that civil servants should "make sure that public
money and other resources are used properly and efficiently"?
Mr. Oughton: I would hope so,
yes.
Q91 Mr. Bacon: And is it right that
they should "handle information as openly as possible within
the legal framework"?
Mr. Oughton: Yes, I agree with
that—as openly as possible.
Q92 Mr. Bacon: And is it right that
they must be honest and "set out the facts and relevant issues
truthfully, and correct any errors as soon as possible"?
Mr. Oughton: I can only agree
with you again, Mr. Bacon.
Q93 Mr. Bacon: I am glad that you
do, because that all comes from the Civil Service Code,
as I suspect you know.
Mr. Oughton: Indeed, it does.
That is why I recognise the words.
Q94 Mr. Bacon: If civil servants
have to do all those things and act professionally, it is hard
to see how disclosing the traffic light status could discourage
co-operation. The Commissioner has said that he "does not
accept that the officials responsible for gathering and collating
the requested information would cease to perform their duties
on the grounds that the information may be disclosed." He
also said that Government Departments, such as the OGC, "are
expected to provide accurate information when they are asked to
do so" and that he "does not accept that the release
of the requested information will result in government departments
failing to provide information, or in their providing incomplete
or inaccurate information to other government departments."
The Commissioner went on to say that: "Civil
servants would be in breach of their duty, and would damage their
integrity as servants of the Crown, should they deliberately withhold
relevant information or provide information other than the best
they believe they can give." There is a strong argument that
the information in the gate zero reports relates to the implementation
of the ID card policy and not to the development of Government
policy. What is the great problem with sharing with people how
things are going? I have never understood that. How do you have
learning if you have no learning curve?
Mr. Oughton: Well, I fear that
I might run out of time if I were to give you a long and considered
answer to that question, Mr. Bacon. My difficulty is that we are—
Chairman: We will give you extra time;
don't worry. You can have as long as you like.
Mr. Oughton: That is very kind,
Chairman. We are currently engaged in an appeal to the information
tribunal. We are acting entirely in accordance with the Act, so
at this point, the Civil Service Code is entirely pertinent. Under
the Act, we are entitled to judge the public interest in relation
to the disclosure or withholding of requested information. We
have reached a judgment. The Information Commissioner has chosen
to disagree with us, and we are entitled—again under the
Act—to appeal that judgment to the Information Tribunal.
That appeal is under way and we will set out our arguments at
the tribunal. I am in some difficulty, Chairman, in answering
this question further until we have allowed those proceedings
to run their course.
Mr. Bacon: I am running out of
time, so I shall quickly ask one or two more questions.
Chairman: Actually, you have run out
of time.
Mr. Bacon: May I ask one more
question?
Chairman: Of course you may.
Q95 Mr. Bacon: When a Minister has
responsibility for an IT project, is it good for that Minister
to meet with the IT supplier concerned?
Mr. Watmore: May I take that one?
Mr. Bacon: I would like to hear
answers from both of you, if possible.
Mr. Watmore: At the risk of repeating
myself, it needs to be a business project, and the Minister should
meet with all of the partners in the successful business part
of that project, including, in my experience, the IT suppliers
when they have been selected. In the procurement phase, you have
to be careful about who sees who in order to stay within—
Q96 Mr. Bacon: Yes, yes, but after
the procurement phase, if an IT supplier is attempting to communicate
with the ultimate management, and therefore with the Minister,
and is phoned up within 10 minutes of attempting to do so by a
Permanent Secretary who says, "You don't talk to Ministers;
that is something for civil servants," would you consider
that to be wrong?
Mr. Watmore: I would say that
the climate for that had not been sorted out at the beginning.
It should be possible for ministerial contact with all parties
involved in a programme to occur, as long as it is organised in
advance and in the right way, and it is not random after-hours
phone calls. It should be in a formal governance structure.
Q97 Mr. Bacon: You mean with civil
servants present taking notes.
Mr. Watmore: That is for the Minister
concerned to decide.
Chairman: I think Dr. Pugh has a supplementary
question.
Q98 Dr. Pugh: I want to clarify your
response to Mr. Mitchell's question about the Catalist—I
think that that is what you called it—and the pre-listing
of consultants. Assuming that consultants are pre-listed according
to their qualifications, abilities, talents and so on, and a choice
is made between them, is that choice in any sense contestable?
If so, how would the choice be justified?
Mr. Oughton: Under the new EU
Directives that came into force at the end of January, if a company
is selected and listed in the Catalist framework under any of
the headings, at the point when a Government Department wishes
to acquire the services of a supplier in that category, it would
go out to a competitive process and every company that is listed
in that category would be entitled to tender for the work.
Q99 Dr. Pugh: So, even in the Catalist
process, there is a tendering process?
Mr. Oughton: Absolutely right.
The point about Catalist is that it clears out of the way some
of the basic selection criteria before you get to the point where
the competition is run. However, it is still a contested process.
| 
