OGC Gateway Reviews of Home Office Identity Cards Programme - Information Tribunal rules in favour of full disclosure
It looks as if Spy Blog has won another round in the long running attempt to get some of the background information on the Home Office's Identity Cards Programme, which should have been made public before the Identity Cards Act 2006 was debated in Parliament. We suspect that what was missing from the initial project assumptions will be as important as what was actually considered.
See Information Tribunal dismisses OGC Appeal - finds in favour of full disclosure
Information TribunalAppeal Numbers:
EA/2006/0068 and 0080
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)Decision Promulgated
02 May 2007[...]
Between
OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT COMMERCE
AppellantAnd
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Respondent[...]
Decision
The Tribunal upholds the decision notices dated 31st July 2006 and 5th October 2006, except that we find that section 33 as well as section 35 FOIA is engaged, and dismisses the appeals.
[...]
90. The Tribunal has considered all the circumstances of this case and finds that the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. In other words we uphold the Commissioner’s Decision Notices in this case.
[...]
Remedies
92. The Tribunal orders that the disputed information is disclosed to the complainants. However before requiring this order to be carried out we are prepared to give the parties 14 days from the date of this decision to make written submissions to us as to whether the names of the individuals listed as Reviewers and Interviewees in the disputed information should be redacted. Once we have determined this matter we will then require the OGC to disclose the information in whatever format we determine within 14 days of that determination.
John Angel
Chairman
Date 02 May 2007
The only crumb of comfort for the OGC is that the Information Tribunal rejects the idea that the "floodgates will open" for the disclosure of all Gateway Reviews, they say that each case needs to be looked at on its merits, but they have rejected the OGC's attempt at what amounts to a blanket exemption from the Freedom of Information Act.
How much public money has this long running defence of secrecy and obscurity cost the taxpayer ?
Will Gordon Brown's Treasury waste even more money, by appealing against the Information Tribunal in the High Court ?
Comments
Well done!
Is the Government allowed to appeal this decision?
Posted by: ukliberty | May 3, 2007 6:19 PM
One thing which always confuses me about the ID card scheme is that in media reports it's often quoted that there is significant public support for the introduction of ID cards, yet everyone I know and everyone I've ever asked for an opinion has said that they think its a bad idea and an unjustifiable waste of public money.
I realise that my own experience may not be representative of the country as a whole, but it seems to me that there are a high percentage of people who don't want this.
Posted by: Bob Mottram | May 3, 2007 6:22 PM
@ ukliberty - the Freedom of Information Act does allow for appeals against decisions by the Information Tribunal, to the High Court
Given the number of expert barristers who have worked on this case, it is hard to see what else can be said in the High Court.
Anyone fancy a FOIA request about how much money has been spent in lawyers fees on this case ?
Posted by: wtwu | May 3, 2007 6:42 PM
@ Bob - there are plenty of people who do not object in principle to some form of voluntary or even biometric ID Card.
The more people learn about the centralised database monster that the Government is pretending to implement securely, the more people are turned against this particular scheme.
It is very telling that John Reid ("the Secretary of State") has broken the Identity Cards Act 2006 Section 37 law, by failing to submit, let alone publish, the 6 monthly report to Parliament, into the latest 10 year cost estimates for the scheme.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2006/60015--a.htm#37
Posted by: wtwu | May 3, 2007 6:53 PM
Am I right in thinking the first deadline has now expired? There seems to be an absence of published documents...
Posted by: Doctor_Wibble | May 17, 2007 7:01 PM
good gracious!thanks for this informative information.keep it up,goahead.
Posted by: Johnsons | June 12, 2007 11:27 AM