Your Right To Know

Identity and Passport Service
An Executive Agency of the Home Office
Headquarters
Globe House 89 Eccleston Square London SW1V1PN
Telephone (0870) 521 0410 Fax (0870) 336 9175

e-mail: hqenquiries@ukpa.gsi.gov.uk

Ms Heather Brooke
Our reference: FOI 4616/06
Date: 30 November 2006
Dear Heather Brooke
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST

I am writing further to my earlier letter of 1 November in response to your request for information. Some of your requested information was supplied to you but it was also explained that consideration was being given to the disclosure of the additional information under sections s35 and s 43 of the Freedom of Information Act. In addition to your question on the costings for the National ID Card, you also requested the Gateway review and a list of all those working on the ID card team and their employment status.

In respect of your request for the Gateway review. Section 35 is included in the FOI Act to ensure that the formulation and development of government policy and government decision making can proceed without detriment to either the policy making process, or the policy itself, whilst ensuring that there can be full and proper public participation in policy discussion and debate. The exemption is designed to protect the policy making process and ensure that this process remains able to deliver effective government. The Office of Government Commerce (OGC) Gateway reviews are conducted at the start-up of major programmes and repeated at critical points throughout their lifecycle. In this instance the purpose of the Gateway reviews was to examine the key points of the formulation of government policy in relation to ID cards and make recommendations to feed into the ongoing development of the ID cards policy.

In applying section 35 it is necessary to take a clear view of the public interest considerations that must be taken into account when considering whether or not the information requested should be released. The factors for releasing the information requested centre on the wide-ranging impact of the ID cards programme and the public interest in being able to assess the quality of advice being given to ministers and the subsequent decision-making. It is also in the public interest for greater transparency in all areas of policy development which will make the government more accountable to the electorate and increase trust.

The factors which weigh against disclosure revolve around the fact that Gateway reviews provided the Home Office with a significant contribution of ideas and considerations related to the ongoing policy formulation in this area which will improve the smooth running and development of the ID cards programme. There is significant public interest in non-disclosure when disclosure would (or would be likely to) inhibit the exchange of views and accordingly adversely affect the formulation and development of Government policy on ID cards programme. The information in the Gateway reviews contributed towards the still live policy development process and the disclosure of this information would reveal significant detail of the formulation of the Government policy. The extent to which the detriment to the formulation and development of Government policy is caused by undermining the Gateway process itself gives rise to further public interest considerations set out below in relation to section 33 and the arguments apply here with equal weight.

In addition Ministers and officials need to be able to conduct rigorous and candid risk assessments of their policies and programmes including considerations of the pros and cons without there being premature disclosure which might close off better options, and the Gateway review plays a vital part in this assessment. As a part of this process it must be possible to ‘think the unthinkable’ and use imagination, without the fear that policy proposals will be held up to ridicule.

Whilst the significant public interest in this particular policy is recognised, given the importance of the policy itself due to its potential impact on a large number of people, there is a stronger public interest in ensuring there is no prejudice to the development of this policy.

In relation to S33 (1) (b) and (2) the public interest arguments in favour of releasing this information are consistent with those outlined in the S35 arguments above.

In addition, the public interest factors against disclosure are considered as follows. The OGC Gateway Reviews are publicly promoted (via the OGC website) as being conducted on a confidential basis. This approach promotes open and honest exchanges between the programme/project teams and the review teams. The reviews are highly dependant on the candour and confidence of the project teams they review. The release of Gateway review reports would hinder this free and frank dialogue, undermining the effectiveness of the Gateway process to the detriment of the public interest.

The knowledge that this information would be released as a matter of course would be likely to hinder the OGC’s Audit process. There is potential for the OGC to provide less direct and unrestricted responses in Gateway reviews. There is an additional concern that projects likely to attract adverse recommendations may not request a review, or be as frank in provision of information to the review team, if there was a prospect of premature disclosure of such information. These projects are arguably those which benefit the most form these reviews. There is also potential for the responses to be more anodyne with the result that the Reviews are less effective. Both the above arguments suggest that the public interest in the effective use of public money is likely to be undermined by releasing this information and hindering the effective use of the Gateway review process.

I consider these factors against disclosure outweigh those factors in favour of disclosure. This exemption applies to the entirety of the documents reviewed.

You will wish to know that the Information Commissioner has issued a Decision Notice in respect of a previous request for the Gateway 0 report that was not disclosed by the OGC. The Decision Notice is on the Commissioner’s website at www.ico.gov.uk. The OGC are appealing against the Decision Notice. The Information Tribunal is likely to be in quarter one 2007.

You have also asked for a list of all those working on the ID card team and their employment status. For those on secondment you have asked for the names of their sponsoring firm. Some information on the staffing of the Identity Cards Programme was disclosed in response to a previous FOI request on 3 April (http://www.identitycards.gov.uk/downloads/foi/2006-04-03_URN_90_FOICR2743_Final_Reply.pdf ). However, the Identity and Passport Service (IPS) was formed on 1 April 2006 from the UK Passport Service and the Identity Card Programme Unit in the Home Office. An Identity Card Team does not exist as a separate unit within the Identity and Passport Service and therefore we do not hold the information in the format requested.

I realise that you will be disappointed with this response. However please be assured that we have considered the application of exemptions with great care, and that IPS always seeks to disclose as much information as it is able to.If you have any queries about the handling of your information request in the meantime then please contact me, quoting the reference number above.

If you are unhappy with the service that you have received in relation to your request and wish to make a complaint or request a review of our decision, you should write to:
Information Policy Team
Information and Record Management Service
The Home Office
4^th Floor Seacole Building
2, Marsham Street,
London, SW1P 4DF.
Quoting reference: FOICR 4616/06
The internal review will be conducted by someone other than the person who took the initial decision. If following the internal review you remain dissatisfied with the treatment of your request then you may refer your complaint to:

The Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF
Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by the Home Office on behalf of the Identity and Passport Service.
I would also like to apologise again for the initial problems around the receipt of your email and the delay that has caused in dealing with your request.
Yours faithfully,
Signed on behalf of the Identity and Passport Service