BEIS0000104
__ BEIS0000104
OFTHR-1IIS NEG PRU OHM To I P-@2
r } CONFIDENTIAL - POLICY AND COMMERCIAL
: Minutes of the first meeting of the
Horizon Project Review Group held on
Friday 6 March 1998
Present:
Harry Bush (HMT)
Adrian Montague (HMT-PFI Taskforce)
Joseph Halligan (HMT)
Adam Sharples (HMT)
David Sibbick (DTI)
Chris Martin - Secretary (HMT)
1. The group agreed that the purpose of the first meeting was to agree:
a. the process of the review
b. a work programme
c. a timetable.
2. Adam Sharples would be the Treasury lead for the group, Adrian Montague
would be closely involved in the project ralated aspects of the work.
3. All final papers would be agreed by and in the name of the group.
The Review Programme
4. In discussion it was agreed that the review broke down clearly in two
separate stages:
a. Project Assessment The first stage would be to determine the
viability and potential costs of continuing with the Horizon project. The
assessment would need to determine whether Horizon could be
delivered, when it could be delivered, what the total costs of delivery
would be and the level of risk associated with these assessments. The
Benefits Agency, POCL, and ICL would need to be involved in this
stage.
b. Contingency planning for cancellation. Stage two wouid determine
what alternatives there were to Horizon if it was decided to cancel.
This work could be carried out in parallel to project assessment. It
would involve a smaller group of officials. These would need to be
uninvolved with the project delivery.
CONFIDENTIAL - POLICY AND COMMERCIAL
¥ .
VIER A2IO 4047 PRU Pe
BEIS0000104
BEIS0000104
“P63 oxyoie
CONFIDENTIAL - POLICY AND COMMERCIAL
Project Assessment
5.
10.
11.
There was some discussion of how the project assessment stage should be
structured.
One approach to this work would have been to commission a firm of external
Consultants to perform the complete review. But because a decision was
needed quickly it seemed probable that PA, who had produced the last
report on Horizon, would be the only consultants able to undertake the work.
However, there was a significant risk that because of the subsequent work
that they had done for other parties involved in the Horizon project, PA would
not be in a position to make the Judgement required.
After discussion it was agreed that the best solution would be to appoint an
assessment board, under an independent chair, to conduct the project
review. The board would interview all the interested parties, commission any
further work it thought necessary, and then report back [with
recommendations). If necessary the panel could use external consultants to
do more detailed research under their direction. It was likely that PA might be
in a position to do this sort of work without compromising their position.
To be effective the board might need to be reassured that their work would be
immune from any possible legal process that might arise out of their
recommendations. .
DSS also had some concerns over the Current legal status of the project. ICL
were currently formally in breach of contract and ongoing work was being
undertaken on a ‘no-prejudice’ basis. It was not clear at this point how long
work could continue on these grounds. The group would need to be confident
that the review work would not Prejudice the government's legal of negotiating
position with ICL.
DSS agreed to ask their lawyers to clarify:
a. The current legal position of the Horizon contract.
b. The likely legal status of the review groups discussions and the work
of the review panel.
The Treasury agreed that they would contact CCTA to discuss potential
candidates for the assessment Panel early in the week beginning 9 March.
Adam Sharples would draft terms of reference for the assessors. These
would be based on the outline in the Chief Secretary's letter of [] March to
Harriet Harman. Adam agreed to provide a draft by lunchtime on Tuesday
CONFIDENTIAL - POLICY AND COMMERCIAL
BEIS0000104
BEIS0000104
P04 BEER
weyers gore our om wHARRE TO
CONFIDENTIAL - POLICY AND COMMERCIAL
10, for comments by close Tuesday. The group provisionally agreed to meet
at 9am on Wednesday 14 March to discuss the draft terms of reference and
anything that came out of the Treasury's discussions with CCTA.
Contingency planning for cancellation
12. The group further considered the information they would need to assess the
alternatives if Horizon proved to be unviable. The following programme of
work was agreed:
13. DSS would provide by close on Friday 13 March notes setting out:
a Their best alternative to Horizon - the elements, costs, and unknowns.
b. An assessment of the direct and indirect costs of cancellation.
Cc. An exit strategy taking account of legal and commercial aspects, if the
decision was taken to cancel.
14. In parallel, DTI will Provide a note, by close on Friday 13 March, setting out
how POCL might be affected by any decision to cancel Horizon. Further work
‘on this would be informed by the DSS assessment of alternatives to Horizon.
In the meantime it was agreed that DT! would produce an interim note on the
basis that:
i Horizon was cancelled
ii, Benefit Agency business declined by between 50 and 70 per
cent.
iti Continuing BA business was handled by POCL in the traditional
manner.
15. DTI will also produce a note, by close on Friday 13 March, setting out the
implications for wider government policy of any decision to cancel, for
example on the likely success of ‘Government Direct’. There would also need
to be an assessment in due course of the wider impact on the IT industry and
inward investment.
Timetable
16. DSS ministers had envisaged the project review being turned around ina
Period of two to three weeks. The group agreed that this timetable seemed
unrealistic - finding and appointing an external assessors might take two or
CONFIDENTIAL - POLICY AND COMMERCIAL
BEIS0000104
BEIS0000104
COPTER L IRS 187 RUPP
“TO
CONFIDENTIAL - POLICY AND COMMERCIAL
three weeks. The timetable would become Clearer once the review board had
been appointed. At this sta
ge the group’s best estimate was that the review
might take two months to
complete. DSS officials confirmed that once the
timetable was clear they would need to go back to their ministers with it.
Future Meetings
17. Itwas provisionally agreed to meet on Monday 16 at a time to be notified. If
the group did meet on Wednesday 11 March at 9am then the date of the
next meeting might be reviewed.
CONFIDENTIAL - POLICY AND COMMERCIAL
TOTAL P.@S