- Burials
- Care proceedings reform
- Coroners
- Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007
- Cremation
- Data protection
- Devolution
- Elections
- EU funding
- Flu pandemic
- Forced labour
- Forced marriage
- Forms of address
- Freedom of information
- Funding for the victim and witness voluntary sector
- Human rights
- Justice impact test
- Mental Capacity Act 2005
- Mentally disordered offenders
- Pleural plaques former claimants payment scheme
- Referral orders
- Regulatory offences
- Rehabilitation of Offenders Act
Gateway Reviews
Please note: This guidance is currently being revised. An updated version will be published here when the revision process is complete.
What information does this cover?
Major acquisition programmes and procurement projects in civil central government are subject to OGC Gateway Reviews. These are carried out at key decision points in the programme/projects and look ahead to provide assurance that the programmes/projects can progress successfully to the next stage. Gateway Reviews are undertaken by a team of experienced people, independent of the programme/project team.
Gateway Reviews are broken into a series of stages from 0 to 5 (Gateway Reviews 4 and 5 are not covered by this working assumption):
- Gateway Review 0 - Strategic assessment
- Gateway Review 1 - Business justification
- Gateway Review 2 - Procurement strategy
- Gateway Review 3 - Investment decision
- [Gateway Review 4 - Readiness for service]
- [Gateway Review 5 - Benefits realisation]
You should note that the working assumption should not be used where the information relates to defence procurement, national security, the security services or international relations.
Working assumption
Information as to whether or not a Gateway Review had been carried out - release.
Basic Review information - version number, date of issue, department and review dates - release.
Names of Review Team Leader and Members - withhold (if specifically requested refer to Clearing House).
Background including aim of the programme/project, reasons/objective for the programme/project, etc. - release.
Purpose and conduct of the Review - release.
List of documents reviewed - release.
Conclusion and Summary of findings; Findings and Recommendations; Red Amber Green (RAG) Status; List of interviewees; Summary of recommendations -
- withhold citing section 33 - (information the release of which would, or would be likely to, prejudice the exercise by any public authority of its audit functions) where the public authority in receipt of the request has audit functions as defined under section 33. Depending on which authority has received the request it may be necessary to also use section 35 (formulation of Government policy) or section 36 (effective conduct of public affairs) in the alternative (see paragraph 11).
Reason for the assumption
The OGC Gateway Process examines a programme or project at critical stages in its lifecycle to provide assurance that it can progress successfully to the next stage; the process is based on techniques that lead to more effective delivery of benefits together with more predictable costs and outcomes.
There is a clear public interest in public authorities being robustly audited and examined by an external public authority to ensure that a public authority is discharging its functions in an efficient and effective way. The OGC process provides this function to government departments and other public authorities through the OGC Gateway Review process.
If information about/relating to Gateway Reviews is held by OGC, it falls within the ambit of section 33 (audit functions), which includes examinations into the efficiency, economy and effectiveness with which public authorities use their resources to discharge their public functions. OGC can be classified as a public authority with functions in relation to the examination of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which other public authorities use their resources in discharging their functions.
Public authorities, other than OGC, will also hold Gateway Information. These authorities are unlikely to have audit functions as defined in section 33. Where the reviewed department holds the Gateway information, it will be necessary to cite section 36. To the extent that the information relates to policy formulation, section 35 will need to be relied upon rather then section 36.
There is an overriding public interest in the continued robust assessment of major procurement projects in order to ensure that the maximum benefits are realised by the project.
There is a wider public interest in the transparency of the assessment of major projects, and knowing that this function is robustly performed. However, significant disclosure of the detail of the processes could work against the strong public interest in the unrestrained and unprejudiced audit and examination of the major projects of public authorities.
Referral points
If you propose not to handle a request in accordance with this working assumption, you should first refer the case to the Access to Information Clearing House.
This working assumption should only be considered to be valid in respect of requests for information less than two years old. For information over two years old the public interest in withholding is likely to have changed, meaning that a more careful argument is needed when refusing to release the information. In these circumstances, such cases should be referred.
