Dear Sir or Madam,

I am requesting, under the Freedom of Information Act, the cost of
the Review into Home Education by Graham Badman, launched in
January 2009.

Yours faithfully,

Jayne Richardson

Dear Ms Richardson,

Thank you for your recent email. A reply will be sent to you as soon as
possible (where a response is required). For information, the
departmental standard for correspondence received is that responses
should be sent within 15 working days or 20 working days if you are
requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0059500

Thank you.

Central Allocation Team

Public Communications Team

Tel: 0870 0002288
www.dcsf.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Richardson

Our Ref 2009/0059500

Thank you for your request for information, which was received on 30 June
2009. You requested *

the cost of the Review into Home Education by Graham Badman,
launched in
January 2009.

I have dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(*the Act*). I can confirm that the Department holds the information you
request. You will see however from what I say below that there are issues
of serious concern which have caused us to rethink our original intention
to release relevant information to you.

The Department is aware that attempts are being made on the Internet to
vilify and harass the author of the review, and others who have
participated, in ways which clearly go beyond the bounds of reasonable
criticism and debate. It is the Department*s view that, whilst dealing
with each request on its merits, this situation will have to be taken into
account in dealing with any relevant FOI requests. We therefore consider
that section 38 is engaged in respect of your request. The Department is
not suggesting that you have participated, or are participating, in such a
campaign. As far as we are concerned you are a bona fide requester under
the Act and we have treated your request accordingly. It is unfortunate
that the activities of a minority of people on the Internet have caused
us to engage section 38.

Section 38(1) provides that information is exempt if its disclosure under
the Act would, or would be likely, to

(a) endanger the physical or mental health of any individual; or

(b) endanger the safety of any individual.

This exemption is subject to the public interest test which means that
even where prejudice or likely prejudice can be demonstrated, it is still
necessary to consider whether in all the circumstances of the case the
public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public
interest in disclosure. This exemption covers events that could reasonably
be expected but do not have to be definitely foreseeable.

The case for disclosure of information protected by this exemption rests
mainly on the desirability of greater openness for the purposes of
increasing public understanding and trust, and on encouraging greater
accountability.

Conversely, it is reasonable to expect that no information should be
released which might lead to harassment or harm to individuals. The
Department has strong reason to expect that this would be the result from
release because of the campaign that is being mounted on the Internet
against the author of the review, and others. The most effective
precaution which can be taken to prevent anticipated harm to individuals
lies in not disclosing information which could put them at risk.

The Department will always seek to meet the legitimate rights of
requesters to information, but under section 2 (2) (b) of the Act (*in all
the circumstances of the case*) it will also take into account the need
for public servants and other individuals to be able to conduct legitimate
business in the public interest without harassment or harm.

Having carried out the balancing test, the Department takes the view that
it is not in the public interest for the information to be released at
this time. What I can say at this stage is that the Department regards the
costs incurred in the review as entirely reasonable and consistent with
the costs of work of similar complexity and sensitivity. Should
circumstances change, and the prospect of harm, harassment or distress to
individuals no longer be a factor, the Department will be prepared to
reconsider its use of section 38. I would however draw your attention to
an earlier response from the Department at:

[1]http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bu...
which indicates that the original estimate for the total cost of the
review was £72,000.

If you have any queries about this email, 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

Andrew Partridge

Information Rights Manager, DCSF

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bu...

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Department for
Children, Schools and Families's handling of my FOI request 'Badman
Home Education Review'.

I fail to see how releasing this information could put those who
conducting the view at risk of harm. This Review has been paid for
by taxpayer's money and we have a right to know how it is being
spent.

As well as requesting an internal review, I will be taking this
refusal up with my MP

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ba...

Yours faithfully,

Jayne Richardson

Dear Jayne

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
2009/0075331.

Thank you.

Central Allocation Team

Public Communications Team

Tel: 0870 0002288
www.dcsf.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Sir or Madam,

The time limit for a response to this has now expired. What is the
outcome of this Internal Review?

Yours faithfully,

Jayne Richardson

Dear Ms Richardson,
I refer to your request for an internal review which was received on 31 August 2009 (reference 2009/0075341).

Before informing you of the outcome of the internal review, I should like to apologise for the delay in replying.
While I appreciate it is in no way a justification, I should like to explain that the Department makes every effort to
respond quickly to requests for internal reviews, but the delay in responding in this case has been due to the unusual
volume of requests the Department has received in recent months.

On 30 June 2009 you requested:

under the Freedom of Information Act, the cost of the Review into Home Education by Graham Badman, launched in January
2009.

A response was sent to you on 22 July 2009.

The Department has now completed its internal review process and has carried out a thorough review of the case,
chaired by a senior officer who was not involved with the original request.

The purpose of the internal review was to re-examine the Department's response to your FOI request and to decide
whether the provisions of the Act have been applied correctly. The panel reviewed the information and noted the
following points -

o The type of harassment and vilification that had taken place on a number of websites against Mr Badman and others
who have participated in the review of elective home education.
o That this harassment was continuing and that based on current website evidence, there were no grounds to
reconsider the use of section 38 at present.
o That a letter had been written from the Department to the ICO, dated 17 July 2009, about the campaign of
harassment and vilification and advised the Department's views/reasons for possibly not releasing information
under section 38 which the Department considered might intensify the campaign. A copy of this letter was
subsequently released in response to another FOI request, and can be found at:

[1]http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/foischeme/subPage...

o That another FOI request about the cost of the review had also caused us to engage section 38, however, we had in
that case released the printing costs. This non-personal information was not considered to require exemption
under section 38. The panel agreed to disclose the printing costs in this case also.

The panel discussed whether release of remuneration invoices was still likely to provoke harassment. It concluded
that this was, sadly, in the light of the campaign, still the case.

The panel noted that the response had made clear that should circumstances change, and the prospect of harm,
harassment or distress to individuals no longer be a factor, the Department would be prepared to reconsider its use of
section 38.

It was agreed that the balance of public interest - both at the time of the request and at the time of internal
review - remained in withholding the information, but that printing costs should be disclosed, and that the decision
to withhold the information under section 38 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 would remain.

A copy of the information which can be disclosed is attached.

The information supplied to you is protected by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Any documents produced by
government officials will be covered by Crown Copyright. You are free to use the information for your own purposes,
including any non-commercial research you are doing and for the purposes of news reporting. Any other reuse, for
example commercial publication, would require the permission of the copyright holder and is regulated by the Reuse of
Public Sector Information Regulations 2005. You can find details on the arrangements for re-using Crown Copyright at:

Office of Public Sector Information
Information Policy Team
Kew
Richmond
Surrey
TW9 4DU

Email: [2][email address]

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: [3]http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...

A copy of this letter has been sent to the Information Commissioner's Office.

Yours sincerely,

Penny Jones
Deputy Director
Independent Education and Schools Governance Division

[4]www.dcsf.gov.uk

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0075341.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/foischeme/subPage...
2. mailto:[email address]
mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...
4. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/