Skip to main content
Menu

IT projects (2015)

Request

  1. Could you please provide me with a report showing the various IT projects / programmes that are currently being conducted by your IT department. Has the department begun or completed any IT projects in 2015, or shall it begin any IT projects in 2015?
  2. If so, what shall the projects entail, who is responsible for project delivery, and what is the budget?
  3. I would also like to request the names of each project leader / provider.
  4. Furthermore, could you please provide me with the start and completion date of these projects?

 

 

Response

Please note that the House of Commons and the House of Lords are separate public authorities for the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). 

  1. Could you please provide me with a report showing the various IT projects / programmes that are currently being conducted by your IT department. Has the department begun or completed any IT projects in 2015, or shall it begin any IT projects in 2015?
    And
  2. If so, what shall the projects entail, who is responsible for project delivery, and what is the budget?
    And
  3. I would also like to request the names of each project leader / provider.
    And
  4. Furthermore, could you please provide me with the start and completion date of these projects?

Table containing the requested information (pdf 271KB)  (CSV version).  Please note the following points about the data supplied:

  • The Parliamentary Digital Service (PDS) is a bicameral service that supports both Houses of Parliament. It is not always possible to break the data down by House and some of the data supplied covers both Houses.
  • You requested details of the person responsible for the project’s delivery which we have interpreted to mean the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO), either of the individual project or of the programme within which that project sits. The SRO role is that of a single accountable executive who is responsible for ensuring a project or programme of change meets its objectives and delivers its benefits. In some cases, programmes or projects have two SROs, one from each House of Parliament. Some of the names of staff have been withheld (shown as not SCS staff). It is our policy only to release names of staff in the Senior Commons or Lords Service, a category into which these roles do not fall. Please refer to the Section 40 exemption paragraph below.
  • You also requested details of the project leader which is not a position held by any member of staff within the Parliamentary Digital Service.  Individual projects do have project managers and these have been listed for the House of Lords.  For staff of the House of Commons, it is our policy only to release names of senior staff of grade SCS2 or above; all names of Commons staff have been redacted under Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as follows: Section 40 Personal Information - It is the view of the House of Commons that the information withheld as indicated above is exempt by virtue of section 40 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the exemption for personal information), as disclosure of this information to the public generally would not be consistent with data protection principles in the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). This is an absolute exemption and the public interest test does not apply.
  • Where we have been able to provide budget details for the individual projects, please be aware this will usually include the cost of the staff delivering the project. For some projects, the only cost involved is that of the staff delivering the benefits – information which we do not hold broken down by project. For website and intranet projects, unlike other projects on the list, the staff managing and delivering these projects are not included in the project budgets. These projects are noted as “staff costs only” where budget information is concerned.
  • In the case of the Cyber Security project – The disclosure of detailed information regarding what the project entails, its cost and the timeframe for its delivery is being withheld in accordance with Section 31 (1) (a) and (b) (the exemption for law enforcement) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  Section 31 Law Enforcement - Publishing more detailed information related to this project would provide those who wish to launch cyber-attacks against Parliament with specific information that would help them carry out those attacks more effectively. This is not an absolute exemption and requires a public test to be performed. We have considered our obligation to assist the public in understanding how we conduct our business and the legitimate interest in the use of resources funded by the taxpayer. These obligations and legitimate interests are outweighed by the risk of the prejudice that might arise in relation to the prevention of crime by disclosing the measures we have in place to prevent criminal activity being undertaken against our systems, estate and any persons thereon. Disclosure of such information would fail in our duty to assist those services providing us with law enforcement as it would hinder their work in preventing and detecting crime and apprehending offenders.
  • In the case of one further project, the House of Commons considers that the disclosure of any information at this time would be prejudicial to the House’s and a third party’s commercial interests. Therefore, we have concluded that information on this project is exempt under section 43(2) of the FOI Act.  Section 43 Commercial Interests - We have considered the public interest in transparency in the decision making process relating to the spending of public money, in public money being used effectively, public authorities getting value for money and in procurement processes being conducted in an open and honest way. However, whilst there may be a public interest in access to this information, we consider that in this case it is not in the wider public interest to disclose as there is a risk that the House's bargaining position for the future will be prejudiced and commercial organisations may become reluctant to enter into discussions which could undermine the House’s ability to fulfil its role effectively.