03.04.07
Look
out for updates on this subject
By Bill Goodwin
Publishing reviews of the government’s IT projects would provoke clashes
between departments of state, the information tribunal was told.
Peter Gershon, the former civil servant responsible for introducing
“gateway reviews” of government information-technology programmes,
made the claim during testimony defending secrecy for such reports on the
identity-cards project. Requests under the freedom of information act (FOIA)
for gateway reviews have routinely been refused.
He was speaking during a four-day hearing before the information tribunal,
which must decide whether the government should release gateway reviews into
the business case for ID cards. The decision could force the disclosure of
all reviews of government IT projects under FOIA.
Gershon, former chief executive of the office of government commerce
(OGC), said that publishing the ID-cards reviews would set a precedent leading
to open confrontation between government departments.
Confidentiality was essential to the success of gateway reviews, he
argued, because publication of criticisms in reports would spark a backlash
from the department under scrutiny.
“They will say, 'We will go public and make it clear that we
don't agree with the report,’” he said. “The whole department
will muster its defences and resources, so it becomes public that we don't
agree with it.”
He said that the government could either be open or have an effective
scrutiny process – not both.
Gateway reviews offered government officials the opportunity to speak
candidly and unguardedly, he said, and this trust would be seriously undermined
if officials thought that their views could become public.
The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, who regulates FOIA in
the UK, has already ruled that the reports should be disclosed. He argues
that there should be no blanket exemption for gateway reviews under FOIA.
The OGC is appealing the commissioner’s dec-ision. As reported
previously by the FOIA Centre, government
lawyers attacked the commissioner for not living in the “real world”
after ordering disclosure.
Tim Pitt Payne, counsel for the commissioner, suggested to the tribunal
that civil servants were more likely to be worried about how their comments
might affect their careers when managers read them rather than the risk of
a report becoming public.
The tribunal heard that civil servants were already protected by anonymity
in gateway reports, because any views included were not attributed to individuals.
A decision by the tribunal is awaited.
Another version of this article first appeared in Computer Weekly.
FOIA Centre commentary
This case is a stark demonstration of how the culture of government remains
one of finding comfort in secrecy. It is one that senior civil servants find
hard to transcend. Peter Gershon, a former senior civil servant, exemplifies
this.
The government fears that its departments would argue openly about
gateway reviews if they were published. We certainly hope so. Let us let in
the light at long last.
However, long experience of reports into spending by government departments
published by the national audit office suggest that the prediction is exaggerated.
In any event, the government must have noticed by now that its processes
for scrutinising IT projects are failing. Huge amounts of tax-payers’
money is being wasted. Lessons are not being learnt properly.
Gershon claims that we cannot have both effective scrutiny and open
government. He is wrong. We can only have effective scrutiny if we have open
government.
Comment on this article
Government attacks FOIA
watchdog over order
NHS
neutered NAO’s criticisms of IT scheme
With
obsessive official secrecy, is FOIA any use?
Headlines
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||
 |
 |
|
|||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||