EURIM Working Party Minutes

EURIM Working Group Minutes

*Working Party:*	Theme 01/ Working Group
*Ref:*	03-T02-Min01
*Minuter:*	Emma Fryer
*Date:*	21/01/03
*Circulation:*	Attendees and Apologies
*Queries to:*	Emma Fryer, Tel: 0191 384 0282 Mob: 07714 803 650 Emma.fryer@eurim.org

Notes of a planning meeting for EURIM’s Modernising Government Activity heme

21^st January 2003, kindly hosted by LogicaCMG

Summary

Main points of agreement

1. The format of Theme Leaders meetings should be reconsidered

2. The proposal for a joint event with Intellect should be revised in the light of feedback from OGC

3. This revised proposal for a joint event with Intellect would be presented for discussion at the group meeting on 6^th Feb

4. The PI group should be restructured

5. The subject of e-Government strategy should be raised at the group meeting on 6^th Feb

6. The NHS delivery group would take not dramatic action until consultations had been held with politicians. Richard Allan MP should be approached as a starting point.

Actions Arising

JT to discuss amended proposals for a joint event with intellect – 4.8
JT to draw up a very brief proposal on this joint event to sound out MPs – 4.9
PV to approach suitable individuals to chair and drive the PI group – 5.5

Next Meeting Date

6^th February 2003

Meeting Notes

			Action
1		Objective of meeting
	1.1	For the chairman to catch up with the latest activity of the sub-groups.

2		Parliamentary involvement
	2.1	PV noted that Brian White and Margaret Moran were political monitors but were keen to share this responsibility with other MPs because their work loads prevented them from being active.
	2.2	EF observed that EURIM has always had problems getting parliamentarians actively involved in working parties. Lack of an active parliamentary sponsor did not necessarily invalidate the work of the group and there was a chicken and egg situation – if EURIM wanted to engage MP’s attention they had to do some work first in scoping and presenting the issues.
	2.3	EF added that working party chairs could not be expected to forge all the political links. This is where they needed help from EURIM council.
	2.4	PV noted that Peter Mandelson was likely to become interested in Broadband and social inclusion, because his interest was delivering mod gov in the regions. The other possibility was Richard Allan.

3		Group leaders meetings
	3.1	EF remarked that the Group leaders’ meetings had originally been introduced to cross-reference between groups, let the chairs touch base and update the parliamentarians. E-mail now enabled continuous cross-referencing between groups yet the meeting format had not changed. The chairs no longer seemed to be getting much value out of it. Would an alternative way of touching base with parliamentary members be better – eg discussion over tea in the House?
	3.2	JT replied that the meetings seemed to be aimed at fulfilling complex reporting structures and considering the cost of attendance round the table, were not very productive.
	3.3	TA agreed and noted that more direct contact with MPs would be welcome.
	3.4	PV suggested changing the format to evening meetings or dinners with MPs. Since the house sat from 11 – 1, breakfast meetings were also a possibility for out-of-town MPs.
	3.5	TA and JY agreed that a breakfast meeting from 8.30 to 10.30 could work well.

4		Programme Management
	4.1	TA reported that the sub-group produced a paper, distributed it and planned an event with intellect to reinforce the messages. The event was currently on hold pending support from OGC.
	4.2	JT reported that OGC were initially very positive, then John Higgins raised it with Peter Gershon and explained the background, focus and target audience. PG felt that it was OGCs job to educate the public sector and that Intellect / EURIM should concentrate on industry and parliamentarians. OGC would then be happy to support such an event.
	4.3	PV noted that the IPF ran workshops to show those in the public sector how to get their projects through gateway reviews. Suppliers also had to be aware that the rules of the game had changed and projects were failing gateway reviews so there was scope for similar events. This event could work well if aimed at Intellect members but with invitations to the public sector.
	4.4	There could be a problem attracting intellect members when their clients were not a major part of the audience.
	4.5	It was agreed that attracting the political community would be the hardest. PV suggested that Ian Cairns at IPPR was a good contact for this.
	4.6	TA reported that the group objectives were clear – to make modernising government more successful, educate civil servants, inform politicians on the issues and the questions they should ask, and to raise awareness in industry of the correct approach. So far, the group had been pushing at an open door with OGC, OeE and similar bodies. However, the Departments were a different matter and there was a lot of work still to be done with industry, so they had not yet delivered on their objectives.
	4.7	It was agreed that while a conventional event would suit industry members, a breakfast briefing might be a more appropriate event for parliamentarians, to set out why things go wrong and ensure they were sufficiently well informed to ask the right kinds of questions in Select Committee. The target audience would necessarily be PAC and Public Administration Select Committee members, and political advisors.
	4.8	It was agreed that JT would discuss this amended event with intellect. It would also be raised at the 6^th Feb meeting to establish whether the group supported it with revised objectives and target audience.	JT
	4.9	JT noted that before committing resource it was necessary to sound out some politicians. He agreed to put together a very short proposal to table at Council on 28^th Feb. PV advised that the best MPs to target would be Brian White, Ian Stewart, Andrew Miller, Andrew Lansley and Richard Allan.	JT

5		Personal Identity
	5.1	EF queried the inclusion of personal identity under modernising government. Administratively it seemed to operate independently (although this could be addressed), it attracted a very different set of people from the rest of the mod gov theme and discussion tended to focus away from the main concerns of the group.
	5.2	PV replied that Personal Identity runs to heart of e-government – identification, authorisation, entitlement cards and now identity theft.
	5.3	EF observer that if this was the case it should have the same status as the broadband group and be a theme in its own right – the mod gov agenda depended as much on effective broadband as on PI.
	5.4	PV agreed that the EURIM PI group needed restructuring, a coherent chair and a driving team.
	5.5	PV agreed to approach suitable individuals to chair and drive the group.	PV

6		Medical records
	6.1	IT was agreed that this group was performing well as an independent sub-group, and a report was in draft form.

7		Open Source
	7.1	EF reported that the group had agreed their objectives- which were mainly de-mystifying the “open source vs proprietary” arguments, had produced a structure for a glossary and an outline for a status report. Activity was in hand and the group was working well towards its objectives.

8		e-Government Strategy
	8.1	PV reported that Margaret Moran’s e-futures group was struggling for lack of parliamentary time to drive it and this was an excellent opportunity to get involved in what was effectively an e-strategy group at the heart of government. JT was concerned that this EURIM group should not get too involved in the e-futures group initiative because it was too overtly political.
	8.2	JT recalled that Brian White had suggested reviewing e-strategy in the light of the e-summit, and although the latest UK Online report purported to have a subsection on strategy this area still needed attention and was a worthwhile topic.
	8.3	It was agreed that the subject would be raised at the Mod Gov group meeting on 6^th Feb to identify interested parties, and a scoping meeting would be held (if appropriate) as soon as possible afterwards.

9		NHS Delivery
	9.1	TA noted that WCIT, BCS and e-Centre UK were keen to sign up to a letter from EURIM’s NHS Delivery group to Alan Milburn confirming their willingness to help government get the health reforms right. The letter had been written but not approved by EURIM for despatch so things had stalled. He asked for clarification on EURIM’s stance regarding the political sensitivity of NHS reform and how best to take things forward.
	9.2	PV replied that Brian White saw the NHS as a political minefield and wanted to consult MPs who understood it. With advice from MPs it would be possible to collate useful inputs to help the NHSIA consultation. Scope needed to be kept within manageable limits. MPs did accept this was a very important area.
	9.3	It was agreed that nothing dramatic would be attempted until consultations had been held with politicians who understood the situation. It was agreed that they would start by approaching Richard Allan.

10		Next Meeting Date
	10.1	A theme review meeting was scheduled for 6^th Feburary 2003

Attendance – 21^st January 2003

F name	Surname	Organisation
Tom	Abram	Mantix
Emma	Fryer	EURIM Rapporteur
Jonathan	Tamblyn	CMG
Philip	Virgo	EURIM

EURIM Working Group Minutes

Summary

Main points of agreement

Objective of meeting

For the chairman to catch up with the latest activity of the sub-groups.

Parliamentary involvement

It was agreed that JT would discuss this amended event with intellect. It would also be raised at the 6th Feb meeting to establish whether the group supported it with revised objectives and target audience.

PV agreed that the EURIM PI group needed restructuring, a coherent chair and a driving team.

PV agreed to approach suitable individuals to chair and drive the group.

Medical records

IT was agreed that this group was performing well as an independent sub-group, and a report was in draft form.

Open Source

EF reported that the group had agreed their objectives- which were mainly de-mystifying the “open source vs proprietary” arguments, had produced a structure for a glossary and an outline for a status report. Activity was in hand and the group was working well towards its objectives.

e-Government Strategy

JT recalled that Brian White had suggested reviewing e-strategy in the light of the e-summit, and although the latest UK Online report purported to have a subsection on strategy this area still needed attention and was a worthwhile topic.

It was agreed that the subject would be raised at the Mod Gov group meeting on 6th Feb to identify interested parties, and a scoping meeting would be held (if appropriate) as soon as possible afterwards.

NHS Delivery

It was agreed that nothing dramatic would be attempted until consultations had been held with politicians who understood the situation. It was agreed that they would start by approaching Richard Allan.

Next Meeting Date

F name

It was agreed that JT would discuss this amended event with intellect. It would also be raised at the 6^th Feb meeting to establish whether the group supported it with revised objectives and target audience.

It was agreed that the subject would be raised at the Mod Gov group meeting on 6^th Feb to identify interested parties, and a scoping meeting would be held (if appropriate) as soon as possible afterwards.