Badman Review - submissions from Glos. LA

Dear R J McGruther

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
2009/0070814.

Thank you.

Central Allocation Team

Public Communications Team

Tel: 0870 0002288
www.dcsf.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear RJ McGruther

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
2009/0078787.

Thank you.

Central Allocation Team

Public Communications Team

Tel: 0870 0002288
www.dcsf.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear R J McGruther,
Thank you for your email of 15 September about your earlier
correspondence, reference 2009/0070814. I should like to apologise for
the delay in replying. The Department is aware that it has missed the
statutory deadline for reply and is in breach of its obligations under the
Act. I very much regret this - the Department should meet its obligations
under the Act.

While I appreciate that it is in no way a justification I should like to
explain that the Department makes every effort to meet deadlines, but the
delay in responding in this case has been due to the unusual volume of
requests the Department has received in recent months. The Information
Commissioner has been informed of the situation.

The Department normally considers requests for an internal review
following a response being sent to you. I can assure you that your
correspondence is currently being considered and a reply will be sent to
you as soon as possible. If you are unhappy with that reply please
contact me in writing and an internal review will be considered.

Yours sincerely,

Jill Clark
Independent Schools
[email address]
[1]www.dcsf.gov.uk

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0078787.

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/

Dear Sir or Madam
Thank you for your email request which we received on 10 August. Before
informing you of the outcome of the internal review I should like to
apologise for the delay in replying. The Department is aware that there
has been a very considerable delay. I very much regret this. The
Department should meet its obligations under the Act. While I appreciate
that it is in no way a justification I should like to explain that the
Department makes every effort to meet deadlines, but the delay
in responding in this case has been due to the unusual volume of requests
the Department has received in recent months.

You requested -

I would appreciate copies of any written or electronic submissions
to the Review of Home Education from the Gloucestershire Local
Authority, including those from Jo Davidson and Tim Browne. If
there were meetings or telephone contact between Glos. LA (and/or
Jo Davidson and/or Tim Browne) and Graham Badman then I would also
appreciate receiving copies of written notes and/or minutes and/or
records of the meetings.

The Department has considered your request under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 ("the Act"). The Department holds information within
scope of your requests but it is being withheld because the following
exemptions apply to this information:

- Section 36 (2) (b and c)

- Section 38 and

- Section 40

Section 36 is engaged because the disclosure of the information would, or
would be likely to, prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs and
inhibit the free and frank provision of advice and exchange of views for
the purposes of deliberation. As required under the Act, the opinion of
the Department's `qualified person' (a Minister) has been obtained to the
effect that the exemption is engaged.

The Department considers that section 36 is engaged in respect of the
whole of the information you have requested. This exemption requires
public interest balancing tests and we have considered the arguments for
and against release and in our view the balance of public interest falls
in favour of withholding this information.

The Department recognises that there is a high public interest in holding
public authorities accountable for their performance, particularly in the
protection of the most vulnerable members of society, and there are strong
arguments that scrutiny of public sector performance drives up standards.
It also recognises that rather than inhibiting the frank provision of
advice, disclosure may under certain circumstances enhance the quality of
advice, and the Department also takes the view that an informed public
debate has the potential to influence policy and perhaps to result in the
reprioritisation of resources.

Conversely the paramount public interest lies in ensuring that the review
process is an effective method of identifying the lessons that need to be
learned as swiftly as possible, and this can only be done when
participating professionals have the necessary space and assurance of
confidentiality in order freely and frankly to provide advice, information
and exchange views.

In particular the Department considered that:

. Local authorities, including Gloucestershire, were under no
obligation to provide us with responses to the questionnaires. Were we to
release the information requested, they might not be willing to provide us
with information in the future and our ability to understand the real
picture as experienced by home-educated children and the parents and
professionals supporting them would be greatly reduced. Future
policy-making would be based on an incomplete understanding of actual
practice, and its effectiveness would be greatly reduced.

. The relationship between the Department and local authorities is
based on trust and the ability to have a frank dialogue about important
issues. We believe that releasing Gloucestershire's responses could
result in the local authority feeling that this had broken the trust that
they have with the Department.

. Disclosure of information is likely to inhibit the participation
of professionals in future cases who may have worries that the information
could be used to direct public criticism or worse at individuals.

. The publication of this information in whole or in part may be
seen as a precedent in other cases, and this is likely seriously to
inhibit the free and frank provision of advice with the consequences that
future independent reviews will be unable to fulfil their original purpose
and secure open and full participation of relevant agencies and their
staff;

.

. Release is also likely to prejudice the free and frank exchange
of views for the purpose of deliberation with the consequences that
submissions and reviews of this nature will be unlikely to fulfil their
purpose of improving education provision and safeguarding, and ensuring
that lessons can be learned.

. Release would also mean that it would be necessary to create new
processes for commissioning, carrying out and drafting submissions and
reviews of this nature. This would attract significant resource and
administration pressures.

Section 38(1)(a) and (b), 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. In particular
the Department considered:

. The circumstances of the information suggests a strong likelihood
of risk to the health and safety of individuals from release of the
information.

. The release of anonymised information could mislead individuals
or the public at large.

. Through misunderstanding, there is a likely risk to the health
and safety of individuals in no way connected with the cases or the events
considered.

. Perceived risk to the health and safety of those concerned, is
likely to have a deterrent effect on families registered at risk and may
deter participation in and cooperation with the appropriate safeguarding
process, leading in the longer term to increased risk to vulnerable
children.

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 the release of any information
which might lead to the identification of the families of those registered
as at risk might result in a deterrent effect to participation in, and
co-operation with, the appropriate safeguarding processes in the future,
leading to increased risk to vulnerable children. It is also reasonable
not to release information that may lead to the identification or possibly
to misidentification of individuals. The most effective precaution which
could be taken to prevent anticipated danger to individuals lies in not
disclosing information which could put them at risk.

Having carried out the public interest balancing tests in respect of the
exemptions at sections 36 and 38, the Department takes the view that it is
not in the public interest for any of the information you have requested
to be released.

Section 40. Having carefully reviewed the information in scope of your
request, the Department considers that the absolute exemption at section
40 of the Act is engaged because some of information requested constitutes
personal data, disclosure of which would contravene the data protection
principles. Data are `personal data' if, taken with `other information'
they enable a living individual to whom the data relates to be identified.

If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please
remember to quote our reference number in any future communications.

If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your
request and wish to make a complaint or request a review of our decision,
you should write to me within two calendar months of the date of this
letter.

If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint, you may apply
directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Generally, the
ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted our complaints/review
procedure.
Yours sincerely,

Josephine Bell
Independent Schools Partnerships and Strategy Team
[email address]
[1]www.dcsf.gov.uk

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0070814.

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/

Dear R J McGruther

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 an internal review under the Freedom of Information Act
2000.

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number
2009/0099728.

Thank you.

Central Allocation Team

Public Communications Team

Tel: 0870 0002288
www.dcsf.gov.uk

show quoted sections