In a
speech in
May 2007 accepting his nomination as leader of the Labour
Party, Gordon Brown promised a "different type of politics - a more
open and honest dialogue: frank about problems, candid about
dilemmas, never losing touch with the concerns of
people".
Brown has also said, "Government must be more open and
accountable to parliament."
We agree. As Lord Falconer, the lord chancellor, said in a
speech in
Newcastle on 18 October 2004, "The more there is a culture of
openness, the better decision making will be. If decisions have to
be publicly explained, they will be better taken. Real, informed
accountability improves standards."
All this is inconsistent, however, with a decision by the
Treasury, when under Brown's stewardship, to fund an expensive
legal action in the
High Court to protect government IT secrets.
The Treasury's Office of Government Commerce (OGC) is going to
the High Court to try to countermand an order by the information
commissioner and the Information Tribunal that early
Gateway reviews on ID cards be published. Gateway reviews are
assessments by the OGC of medium and high-risk IT and other
projects.
If the OGC wins, those who try to discover how well risky
IT-based projects worth billions of pounds are progressing will
continue to be blocked. If Falconer is right, and a culture of
openness improves decision making, it could also follow that a
culture of secrecy impedes good decision making.
And if Falconer is also right that real, informed accountability
improves standards - accountability, for example, to MPs and
potential end-users of major public sector IT systems - it could
also follow that a lack of accountability over IT projects retards
improvement in standards.
The Treasury argues that there is already enough accountability
on IT projects. And it is true that there are occasional reports
from the
National Audit Office (NAO).
But the NAO will typically publish fewer than 10 one-off reports
on major IT projects in a year, and there are more than 100 major
IT-based projects within government.
It is also true that MPs can ask parliamentary questions. But
IT-related answers from ministers usually use facts selectively to
reinforce political messages.
The clear advantage of Gateway reviews is that they designed to
be independent and apolitical. They are an authoritative source of
information on the strengths and weaknesses of mission-critical
technology-based projects such as the
NHS's National Programme for IT, ID cards and
systems for the Olympics.
This could in part explain why some ministers and the OGC want
the results of Gateway reviews to remain hidden.
We hope that Brown will rise above the small-minded,
self-interested introspection of the Treasury and the OGC's Sir
Humphries.
Brown cannot claim to be open and accountable to parliament and
frank about Whitehall's problems while allowing the OGC to do all
it can to stop MPs finding out what Gateway reviews say on the
projects that soak up some of the £12bn spent each year on public
sector IT systems, services, and programmes.
NHS IT: an
open letter to Gordon Brown >>
Decision not to publish Gateway reviews does not bear scrutiny -
and here's why >>
Tony Collins'
IT projects blog >>
Against the current: exploring the challenges of complex IT
projects
Comment on this article:
computer.weekly@rbi.co.uk