Cost of Reviews into Home Education in England

Dear Ms Simpson,

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 2009/0074793

Thank you.

Central Allocation Team

Public Communications Team

Tel: 0870 0002288
www.dcsf.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Rachel

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
2009/0088691.

Thank you.

Central Allocation Team

Public Communications Team

Tel: 0870 0002288
www.dcsf.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Simpson,
Thank you for your email of 21 October requesting an internal review on
your Freedom of Information request of 28 August, titled 'Cost of Reviews
into Home Education in England'.

I would 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 2009/0088691.

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 Ms Simpson,
Thank you for your request for information, which was received on 28
August and your further emails dated 8 and 21 October about the delay in
responding. Before answering your request I should like to apologise for
the delay in replying. The Department is aware there has been a very
considerable delay and that it has missed the statutory deadline for
reply and is in breach of its obligations under the Act. As you may be
aware, the Department experienced an unusual volume of requests last year
about home education. 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 volume of requests received. Please accept my sincere
apologies for the delay.

You requested -

Could you please tell me the total cost of each Review and
Consultation relating directly to Elective Home Education since the
year 2005?

I have dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
("the Act").

Only one review has taken place since 2005, that is, the review conducted
by Graham Badman commencing January 2009. I can tell you that the
original estimate for the total cost of the review was -L-72,000. Also,
that the Department regards the actual costs incurred in the review as
entirely reasonable and consistent with the costs of work of similar
complexity and sensitivity. However, we are currently withholding the
actual total cost under section 38 of the Act because it includes
remuneration costs which could provoke harassment.

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. 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.

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.

Having carried out the balancing test, the Department takes the view that
it is not in the public interest for the total cost of the review to be
released at this time. 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.

In addition, two consultations about home education have taken place since
2005 - the Consultation on Home Education Guidelines ending 31 July 2007
and the recent consultation "Home Education - registration and monitoring
proposals" which ended 19 October. Spend on consultations will include
not only staffing costs but also potentially printing and distribution
costs, web site design, venue hire, professional facilitators etc. No
central record is kept of the total spend on consultations; this
information could only be obtained by researching each individual
consultation across a number of budget lines. It is also doubtful that
comprehensive records are available in all cases.

The Department is unable, therefore, to confirm whether it holds the
information you have requested because it estimates that the cost of
determining whether it holds the information would exceed the cost
threshold applicable to central Government. This is -L-600 and represents
the estimated cost of one person spending 3 1/2 working days in
determining whether the Department holds the information. I should
explain that in estimating whether responding to a request would cost more
than the threshold we take account of the cost of:

- determining whether we hold the information (holding means we created
it, another body created it but we hold it, or someone else holds it on
our behalf);

- identifying and locating the information;

- retrieving and collating the information;

- extracting the information that is relevant to the request from a
document containing it (including only the first time an individual reads
the information for this purpose); and

- writing to the requester summarising the information.

Under section 12 of the Act the Department is therefore not obliged to
comply with your request and will not be processing it further. I have
considered ways in which your request might be narrowed or limited in
order to reduce the cost of complying with it. However, due
to the decentralised way in which the information is held I do not
consider that the Department would be able to provide the information you
have requested without exceeding the cost limit.

If you have any queries about this letter, 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,

Josephine Bell
Independent Education and School Governance
[email address]
[1]www.dcsf.gov.uk

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0074793.

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/