communications with the information commissioner

Dear Sir or Madam,
On the 17th July 2009 you sent the letter copied below to the
Information Commissioner could you please supply the commissioners
response and any further communications relating to the said letter
and/or it's subject matter

Mr David Smith
Deputy Commissioner
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF

department for
children, schools and families
Sanctuary Buildings
Great Smith Street
Westminster
London, SWl P 3BT
Tel: 0870 001 2345
Fax: 020 7925 6000
[email address]
www.dcsf.gov.uk

Andrew Partridge
information Rights Manager, DCSF
Email: [email address]
Tel: [redacted under section 40 -personal information)

17 July 2009

DIFFICULTIES IN COMPLYING WITH THE FOI ACT: Review of Elective Home
Education

I am writing to let you know in advance of a campaign by some
supporters of home education which is threatening to inundate the
Department with FOI requests. This issue may at some stage reach
your office in the form of complaints about our responses. I am
aware that a few requesters wrote to the ICO a few months ago about
delays, which we dealt with.

The matter has over the last few months taken an unpleasant turn in
terms of harassment and a display of hostility towards Mr Graham
Badman (a former director of children's services at Kent County
Council) who recently completed a review of elective home education
on behalf of the Department, and also others who have been involved
in the review.

The Department of course recognises the right of requesters to seek
information in relation to matters of public interest such as this,
and the importance of meeting statutory deadlines. We have been
endeavouring to respond as helpfully as we can and to meet the
deadlines, but have not done as well as we would like. We are very
much aware of the reputational damage that can be done to public
authorities by untimely responses. So we shall continue to make
every effort to comply with the Act.

This year the Department has received some 80 requests about the
review, some 40 before its publication on 11 June and a similar
number since. The rate of requests has been increasing in recent
weeks, centred on the following site:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/dcsf

It may be helpful if I explain that one of the factors which led to
the review has been the safeguarding of children. There have been a
number of serious case reviews n which elective home education has
been a circumstance taken into consideration, [Redacted under
section 44 - prohibitions on disclosure}. Of course a few cases do
not characterise all home educators, and the review made this
absolutely clear. The review also addressed important educational
issues. Ultimately the review is leading towards legislation to
address the concerns it identified, and that in itself, it is
anticipated, will lead to an increase in FOI requests.

A number of links have been drawn to our attention. The following
small sample speaks for itself:
http://www.facebook.com/wall.php?id=4545...
&page=2&hash-Of2a77932b0633fb20f23cc27b7aOb09 The post of 13 June
23.45 suggests that Mr Badman will have a child's blood on his
hands.
http://grahambadman.blogspot.com/search/... On this blog (only
recently designated as a 'spoof by its author), the entry for
Saturday 13 June contains an image of Mr Badman manipulated to show
him reading Mein Kampf The profile suggests it is his favourite
book.
http://irdial.comlblogdial/?p=1972 This accuses Mr Badman of being
a liar.
http://youjotube.com/watch/t8df37BkKuk This animation shows Mr
Badman being crushed by a large foot, and contains a threat:
'Graham Badman step all over our rights and we'll step on you!'
. [redacted under section 38 (health and safety) and section 40
(personal information)]

It is the Department's view that, whilst dealing with each FOI
request on its merits, this situation will have to be taken into
account in dealing with any relevant requests. For example, we
would consider whether the exemption at section 38 of the Act might
be engaged, and in considering the public interest would anticipate
the need to consider whether it was in the public interest to
release information likely to intensify any such campaign, or to
lead to harassment or distress to individuals. A number of
individuals have participated in and responded to the review, often
in an official capacity on behalf of local authorities, charities
and other bodies.

The purpose of this letter is simply to inform you of these
circumstances, and to assure you that the Department will always
seek to meet the legitimate rights of requesters to information,
but that 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 safely and without
harassment.

Yours sincerely
Andrew Partridge
Information Rights Manager

Yours faithfully,

Elaine Walton