This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_politics/7901383.stm

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
ID card reviews 'to be published' ID card reviews 'to be published'
(30 minutes later)
The government has been ordered to publish two reviews into the ID cards scheme after a four-year battle. Ministers have been ordered to publish two reviews into the controversial ID cards scheme after a four-year Freedom of Information battle.
"Gateway" reviews are carried out on government projects by independent assessors who look at their progress and likely success. The independent "Gateway" reviews look at the progress and likely success of government projects at various stages.
The government has been fighting Freedom of Information attempts to get the reviews into the controversial scheme published. Critics say the government has a poor track record in delivering big IT projects and publishing them would allow better scrutiny.
It argues that confidentiality is essential to the reviews' process. The government says confidentiality is a crucial part of the reviews' process.
In a judgement published on Friday, the Information Tribunal - which hears appeals against FOI rulings - ordered both reports be disclosed within 28 days.In a judgement published on Friday, the Information Tribunal - which hears appeals against FOI rulings - ordered both reports be disclosed within 28 days.
Decision making
But it said the names of contributors to the reports could be withheld.But it said the names of contributors to the reports could be withheld.
The Tribunal said it endorsed the view that there was public interest in disclosing the reviews.The Tribunal said it endorsed the view that there was public interest in disclosing the reviews.
In its ruling, it said: "First, there is an undoubted debate as to the merits of the scheme, second, there are the practicalities involved and third, there is the history as to the decision-making which underlies the scheme and which continues even today."In its ruling, it said: "First, there is an undoubted debate as to the merits of the scheme, second, there are the practicalities involved and third, there is the history as to the decision-making which underlies the scheme and which continues even today."
The reviews were carried out in 2003 and 2004 - before the publication of the draft Identity Cards Bill. The Information Tribunal has concluded that neither they nor the information commissioner believe all Gateway reviews should be disclosed Office of Government Commerce
The two reviews were carried out in 2003 and 2004 - before the publication of the draft Identity Cards Bill.
In January 2005 Mark Dziecielewski, a member of the NO2ID campaign, made an FOI request to see them, before MPs were due to debate the Identity Cards Bill.In January 2005 Mark Dziecielewski, a member of the NO2ID campaign, made an FOI request to see them, before MPs were due to debate the Identity Cards Bill.
The Office of Government Commerce was ordered to publish the documents in 2006 but the OGC appealed against the ruling, which has since been considered by the Information Tribunal and the High Court, before being sent back to the tribunal.The Office of Government Commerce was ordered to publish the documents in 2006 but the OGC appealed against the ruling, which has since been considered by the Information Tribunal and the High Court, before being sent back to the tribunal.
An OGC spokesman said: "The Information Tribunal has concluded that neither they nor the information commissioner believe all Gateway reviews should be disclosed. During the hearings Sir Peter Gershon, the first chief executive of the Office for Government Commerce, argued that disclosing the reviews would undermine their core principles of confidentiality and objectivity.
He said the Gateway reviews process had saved the government about £1.45bn of wasted or avoidable costs between 2003 and 2005 - and people would be put off from participating, or more inclined to offer "bland and anodyne reports" if they thought they would be published.
Speaking after the tribunal's ruling, an OGC spokesman 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.""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."