Make and explore Freedom of Information requests
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid for FOI purposes (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this requestAct on what you've learnt
Similar requests
DfE's spending on the Bolingbroke Academy, Wandsworth
To Department for Education by John Webb 24 April 2012
Summary Data on Academies
To Department for Education by Andrew Walker 14 January 2011
FOI Requests regarding forced primary academies
To Department for Education by Matt Kane 12 March 2012
Copy of correspendance
To Department for Education by John Dwan 2 April 2011
Statistics required to uphold Mr Gove's conference statement about academy benefits
To Department for Education by J Downs 5 October 2011
Supply Spend for academies / PRU's and Free Schools for year 2010/11
To Department for Education by Amanda Walker 14 March 2012
Statement by Mr Gove re academy converters driving up standards
To Department for Education by J Downs 9 March 2012
Spending by LA's on behalf of schools
To Department for Education by Mike Harley 28 May 2010
The selection process for current and future academy sponsors of primary schools
To Department for Education by Eva Atkins 4 March 2012
CfBT and Academies in Lincolnshire
To Department for Education by Zoe Bunting 16 September 2011
Acadamies budget
Rupert Jones made this Freedom of Information request to Department for Education
The request was refused by Department for Education.
From: Rupert Jones
15 September 2011
Dear Department for Education,
Under the Freedom of Information Act, please provide me with any
correspondence to and from HM Treasury concerning the unexpected
numbers of new academies and any resulting pressure on DfE’s
budget.
Yours faithfully,
Rupert Jones
Department for Education
16 September 2011
Dear Mr Jones
Thank you for your recent email. A reply will be sent to you as soon as
possible. For information, the departmental standard for correspondence
received is that responses should be sent within 20 working days as you
are requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number
2011/0063932.
Thank you.
Central Allocation Team
Public Communications Team
Tel: 0370 0002288
www.education.gov.uk
show quoted sections
From: Rupert Jones
14 October 2011
Dear Department for Education,
No response I note. I believe one is due.
Yours faithfully,
Rupert Jones
Department for Education
17 October 2011
Dear Mr Jones
Thank you for your request for information, which was received on 15
September. You requested any correspondence to and from HM Treasury
concerning the unexpected numbers of new academies and any resulting
pressure on DfE’s budget. I have dealt with your request under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”).
The Department, like all Departments, is in regular correspondence with HM
Treasury. Correspondence has included discussions about different
scenarios in relation to the number of schools wishing to convert to
academy status. Like all organisations the Department regularly reviews
its budgetary position to ensure that it has sufficient contingency to
cover all potential commitments. The Department’s budget plans have been
the subject of correspondence with HM Treasury.
Copies of correspondence between the two Departments are being withheld
under the exemption in section 35(1)(a) of the Act: the information
relates to the formulation and development of government policy. The Act
requires that the Department balances the public interest in withholding
the information against the public interest in disclosing the information.
There is a general public interest in disclosing the information, on the
basis that greater knowledge of how policy is formulated and public money
is spent can lead to more effective challenge and awareness.
Non-disclosure of the information is in the public interest because the
correspondence relates to elements of policy that are still in
development. It is important that discussions between departments can take
place in a self-contained space, to ensure that they are effective.
Release of information may inhibit Ministers from taking decisions as to
the development of the policy in a free and frank environment. There is a
risk that decision-making would become poorer as a result.
On balance we have concluded that the public interest in maintaining the
exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure in this instance.
If you have any queries about this, please contact me. Please remember to
quote the reference number above in any future communications.
If you are unhappy with the way your request has been handled, you should
make a complaint to the Department by writing to me within two calendar
months of the date of this letter. Your complaint will be considered by
an independent review panel, who were not involved in the original
consideration of your request. If you are not content with the outcome of
your complaint to the Department, you may then contact the Information
Commissioner’s Office.
Yours sincerely
Russell Ewens
Academies Finance Unit
[1][email address]
[2]www.education.gov.uk
Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2011/0063932.
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.education.gov.uk/
From: Rupert Jones
17 October 2011
Dear Department for Education,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Department for
Education's handling of my FOI request 'Acadamies budget'.
The Department appears to have adopted a blanket approach to the
exemption. It seems unlikely that the exemption could apply to all
the information in question. It seems more likely that with
suitable redactions some material could be released.
Further, I question whether section 35 is engaged at all. That
there are far more academies than anticipated and that it is
costing the Department more is not the formulation or development
policy. The fact that the Department needs to discuss things with
the Treasury does make it formulation of government policy. I would
argue that it is just a consequence of government policy that money
may now be tighter than expected. DfE is not formulating or
developing anything.
Finally, even if I am wrong on that, the Department is wrong on how
it has balanced the public interest. It is fanciful to suggest that
the Department would be inhibited from having discussions with the
Treasury about its budget if it feared disclosure. The Department
has no choice but to discuss these things with the Treasury and
would do so anyway. There is a very strong public interest in
knowing what the consequences of the money being spent on academies
are. In particular, there would be a very strong public interest in
knowing whether there are discussions about taking money from
elsewhere (either within DfE or from other departments) to pay for
the unexpected number of academies and whether this represents
value for money.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ac...
Yours faithfully,
Rupert Jones
Department for Education
18 October 2011
Dear Mr Jones
Thank you for your recent email. A reply will be sent to you as soon as
possible. For information, the departmental standard for correspondence
received is that responses should be sent within 20 working days as you
are requesting and internal review under the Freedom of Information Act
2000.
Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number
2011/0070606.
Thank you.
Central Allocation Team
Public Communications Team
Tel: 0370 0002288
www.education.gov.uk
show quoted sections
Department for Education
9 November 2011
Dear Mr Jones,
I acknowledge receipt of your email requesting a review of the way your
original request for information was handled, which was received on the 17
October 2011.
I can confirm that the Department is in the process of arranging this
internal review. The review will be conducted by an independent review
panel, who were not involved in the original consideration of your
request.
The Department will aim to send a written response setting out the panel’s
decision to you by 25 November. If you are not content with the outcome of
your complaint to the Department, you may then contact the Information
Commissioner’s Office.
Yours sincerely,
Mark Bryant
Academy Funding
[email address]
[1]www.education.gov.uk
Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2011/0070606.
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.education.gov.uk/
Department for Education
25 November 2011
Dear Mr Jones,
I can confirm that the Department has now held an internal review into the
handling of your original request for information.
The Chair of the internal review panel is considering the outcome of the
review and substance of the subsequent letter that will advise you of the
panel's decision. An official will aim to send the response to you by
Friday 2nd December 2011.
Yours sincerely,
Mark Bryant
Academy Funding
[email address]
[1]www.education.gov.uk
Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2011/0070606.
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.education.gov.uk/
Department for Education
2 December 2011
Dear Mr Jones,
I refer to your request for an internal review which was received on 17 October 2011. You
requested an internal review of Department for Education's handling of your FOI request
'Academies budget'.
The Department has now completed its internal review process and has carried out a thorough
review of the case, chaired by a senior civil servant who was not involved with the original
request. The Department has decided to uphold the original decision not to disclose the
information concerned, for the same reasons set out in the letter of 17 October 2011.
In particular, correspondence with HM Treasury on the numbers and the budgetary implications
of those numbers have informed the development of government policy on the Academies
programme, the way Academies are funded and how that is reflected in funding for Local
Authorities.
In addition, the panel also determined that the Department should apply exemption under
section 35(1)(b) of the Act: in relation to any Ministerial communications between one
minister and another where the communications in question are between Ministers of the Crown
or between ministers of the same administration.
In determining that the exemptions under section 35(1)(a) and 35(1)(b) applied the Act
requires that the Department balances the public interest in withholding the information
against the public interest in disclosing the information.
The panel conducted a review of the general public interest test previously undertaken and
concluded that the original reasons for maintaining the exemption should be upheld. In
particular, a range of options on policy that were proposed to Ministers but not used on
this occasion may be considered in the future so we wouldn’t want to disclose the options if
they remain open for future policy development. This would inhibit future discussions and
curtail free and frank exchanges of views with HM Treasury.
The internal review panel took into consideration whether redaction could be applied to any
of the material requested between the two Departments. However, the panel found that
redacting the information that could not be disclosed would not leave any material that
would be meaningful.
However, some information included within the correspondence was released in the
consultation on Local Authority Central Spend Equivalent Grant (LACSEG). This is already
available and in the public domain and am happy to direct you to that document via this
[1]link.
Most documents published by the Department are protected by Crown Copyright. Most Crown
copyright information can be re-used under the Open Government Licence
([2]http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/o...). For information about
the OGL and about re-using Crown Copyright information please see The National Archives
website -
[3]http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/infor....
If you are unhappy with this decision, you have the right to appeal directly to the
Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
The Case Reception Unit
Customer Service Team
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Further information about the Information Commissioner’s complaints procedure can be found
on the Information Commissioner’s Office website:
[4]http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...
Yours sincerely,
Noreen Graham
Academy Funding
[5][email address]
[6]www.education.gov.uk
Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2011/0070606.
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/admi...
2. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/o...
3. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/infor...
4. http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...
5. mailto:[email address]
6. http://www.education.gov.uk/
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence