Supplementary written evidence from the
Department of Health
Thank you for your letter dated 27 June. I apologise
for the slight delay to my response. I have responded to your
questions in order below.
ADVANCE PAYMENTS
TO SUPPLIERS
1. Is this (press) report accurate?
I can confirm that the report referred to in your
letter is accurate.
2. Why was this payment was not reported to
the PAC, either during the hearing or in the subsequent memorandum?
This advance payment was not reported to the PAC
as the payment was made in April 2011 and the memorandum submitted
only covered advance payments up to the end of March 2011, the
most recent complete financial reporting period. The period covered
by the disclosure was made clear in the memorandum. I apologise
that this later payment was not disclosed as part of the memorandum
and I can assure you that there was no intention to mislead you
or the Committee on this point.
3. What was the justification for this payment
and what value does it represent to the NHS?
This advance payment was agreed by the DH Finance
and HM Treasury for an initial period of six weeks from 1 April,
given the exceptional circumstances and in the expectation that,
during that period, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) would
be signed. In the event, the Major Projects Authority review took
place and is under discussion between Cabinet Office, the Department
of Health, their officials and Ministers. The original period
of the advance payment has now been extended until 30 September
2011 again with HMT approval, whilst the deliberations and outcomes
of the MPA review are finalised.
4. What will happen in respect of this payment
if a new memorandum of understanding is not in fact signed with
CSC?
If there is no agreement and an MoU or other agreement
is not signed that allows CSC to retain the advance payment during
this financial year, then the payment will be re payable, save
for any amounts earned by CSC.
5. I would also be grateful if you would comment
on the CSC filing with the US Security and Exchange Commission
I would not wish to comment in detail on CSC's filing
which is an issue, rightly for them.
The Cost of deploying Cerner Millennium at North
Bristol.
6. Can you explain why the delivery date agreed
with BT at the contract "reset"
was 4 June 2011?
The original contract did not specify a particular
date for the Greenfield deployments. If by "reset" you
refer to the Greenfield's Contract Change Note of 1 April 2010
to formalise the date, then the agreed delivery date of 4 June
2011, was committed then.
The date was agreed between the local Trust and BT
based upon, amongst other things, the Trust's view of its own
readiness.
7. Why it was then revised to 2 July 2011?
The Trust requested that their deployment phase commence
a week later than originally planned and that their Design Review
Event be delayed by four weeks.
8. And why it now appears that there is no
agreed delivery date at all?
There is now an agreed date of 8 December 2011 based
on a meeting at the Trust on 15 June 2011 between the Trust, BT
(the supplier) and their subcontractor Cerner.
9. Can you also give your best comparison
of the cost of deploying the Cerner Millennium system at North
Bristol, with the cost to University Hospitals Bristol of deploying
the System C Healthcare Medway system outside the National Programme?
I am unable to answer this question at this stage
as we do not have information about the System C contract with
University Hospitals Bristol and are therefore unable to make
an appropriate comparison with the Cerner Millennium contract.
10. As the Senior Responsible Owner for the
National Programme, can you give your explicit undertaking that
the North Bristol contract represents value for money for taxpayers?
I believe the contract represents value for money
and will provide a valuable service for local clinicians. The
specific trusts were fully involved in defining the requirements
for, and conducting the reviews of, the BT Business proposal to
ensure alignment with their business needs and processes. The
trusts have concluded that the requirements and approach will
result in a deployable solution capable of meeting local needs.
Each trust has also provided a letter of intent, confirming their
commitment to the project and that they have the resources to
deliver it.
The Full Business Case was supported by the SPflT
Programme Board, chaired by the South East SHA Chief Executive
(and the Senior Responsible Owner for SPliT), and on 4 February
2010, the NPflT National Programme Board approved it for submission
to the Departments own Capital Investment Branch for a value for
money assessment. Following a rigorous assessment, the business
case was confirmed as affordable, and was approved by HM Treasury.
15 July 2011
| 
