The Office of Government Commerce has spent at least
£140,000 on legal fees to keep secret two early Gateway reviews on
thenational ID cards scheme.
Costs will rise further if government lawyers appeal against
a new order by the Information Tribunal to disclose the
reviews.
On Thursday last week the Tribunal ordered - for a second time -
that the reviews should be published. It gave the Office of
Government Commerce 28 days to release them.
But the OGC is likely to appeal the Tribunal's decision, which
means it can continue to keep the reviews secret.
If the OGC were to lose any High Court appeal, it could take the
case to the Law Lords. If it lost that too, ministers could veto to
stop the reviews being published.
The two gateway "zero" reviews in question are already more than
five years old. They were assessments of the ID cards scheme in
June 2003 and January 2004, and gave a view on the feasibility of
the ID cards scheme long before the Identity Cards Bill received
royal assent in March 2006.
The 60-page judgment of the Information Tribunal last week
revealed that the reviews contained some criticisms of the ID cards
scheme, but no details were given.
A spokesman for the OGC said, "The Information Tribunal has
concluded that neither they nor the information commissioner
believe all Gateway reviews should be disclosed. It has made clear
that its decision refers only to this specific request and does not
set any precedent. We are currently assessing the detail of the
Information Tribunal's decision and will respond in full in due
course."
Read
more about ID cards on the IT Projects blog >>
The OGC's fight for Gateway Review secrecy - how it has spent
£140,000
The determination of the Office of Government Commerce to keep
Gateway reviews secret can be seen from the history of the latest
judgment:
January 2005 Under
the Freedom of Information Act Mark Dziecielewski requests the two
Gateway reviews
February 2005 OGC
refuses to disclose them. It argues that candour of those whom it
interviewed for the reviews would be adversely affected by
disclosure. Dziecielewski requests an internal OGC review of the
decision.
March 2005 Peter
Fanning, then deputy chief executive of the OGC rejects the appeal.
The Gateway reviews remain confidential.
July 2006 The
information commissioner orders the OGC to disclose the reviews.
The commissioner says that those writing the reviews, and being
interviewed for them, would not cease to perform their public duty
properly on the grounds that the reviews would be disclosed.
August 2006 The
OGC appeals to the Information Tribunal. The Gateway reviews remain
confidential.
May 2007 The
Tribunal rejects the OGC's appeal and confirms the decision of the
information commissioner that the gateway reviews be disclosed. The
Tribunal finds that the grave consequences which the OGC's chief
lawyer, Robin Tam, maintains would result from even the remotest
possibility that reports would be disclosed, are "overstated". The
Tribunal doesn't believe the floodgates will open if the two
reviews on ID cards are published, because each request under the
Freedom of Information Act must be considered on its merits.
May 2007 The OGC
appeals to the High Court.
April 2008 The
High Court sends the case back to the Information Tribunal, and
orders the case to be heard by a separate panel at the Tribunal.
The OGC had cited the 1689 Bill of Rights in a set of arguments
designed to disparage the decision of the Information Tribunal.
February 2009 A
new panel of the Information Tribunal orders that the gateway
reviews are published. It reaches similar conclusions to the first,
entirely separate, Information Tribunal. The OGC had argued at
length for continued confidentiality of the reviews - but gave
little recognition to the Freedom of Information Act in its
arguments, the Tribunal found. The Tribunal concluded that the
public interest is served by "knowing how a project has bee
implemented and is being implemented". Disclosure of the two
reviews would "undoubtedly make an important contribution to the
debate" over ID cards.