Dear Sir or Madam,

Please can you list the number of reviews into the working
practices (or effectiveness) of Ministerial Private Offices
(including the cost of each review and who was tasked with the
review) in the department which was responsible for education,
regardless of its name at the time, since September 1991.

Yours faithfully,

Roger Cook

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 2008/0061797
Department for Children Schools and Families

show quoted sections

Dear Sir or Madam,

I have not yet received a reply to my correspondence (your ref
2008/0061797).

I look forward to hearing from you including an explanation as to
why the deadline was missed.

Yours faithfully,

Roger Cook

Dear Mr Cook,

I am writing in response to your request for information dated 21 July,
and your subsequent email on 22 August. Your request has been dealt with
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and I apologise for taking so
long to send you a reply. We recognise that we should have sent you a
reply within 20 working days.

You requested details of the number of reviews into working practices
(or effectiveness) of ministerial private offices, including the cost of
each review and who was tasked with the review, since September 1991.

The information you requested is being withheld under Section 35(1)(d)
(information relating to the operation of a ministerial private office)
of the Freedom of Information Act.

This is a qualified exemption under the Act. This means that in
addition to considering whether the information that you have requested
is exempt information, there is a duty upon us to consider whether,
notwithstanding this, the public interest in disclosing it outweighs the
public interest in withholding it. This is referred to in this letter
as the "public interest test".

In looking at the factors in favour of release we considered that
release would demonstrate that private offices operate efficiently.
However, factors that weigh against release are that it could undermine
the important role of private offices in providing space around
ministers which needs to be protected so that good decision making is
not threatened. Disclosure of how private offices operate could have
security implications and affect the ability of officials to give advice
to ministers freely and frankly. Our conclusion is that the balance of
public interest is best served by withholding the information you have
requested.

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 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, however, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have
already exhausted the Department's complaints procedure.

Yours sincerely,

Emma Cottrell
PO Business Team (DCSF)

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number
2008/0061797.

show quoted sections

Dear Emma Cottrell

Reference number 2008/0061797

Thank you for your reply of 22 August.

I would like the decision to be reviewed. The information I asked
for was

1. Number of reviews; 2. Cost of those reviews; and 3. Who was
tasked with conducting the reviews.

I do not see how this could compromise the role of private offices
working freely with their ministers or indeed how there could be
any security implications or risk the advice that officials give to
ministers. That could only be the case if I were asking for
specific details on the outcomes/findings of the reviews or the
resulting action plans that would have been put in place. Therefore
I do not believe that the public interest is best served by
withholding the specific information that I have requested.

If no 3 is of specific concern to you, I would be happy to restrict
that part of the question to knowing whether each review was
conducted internally within the Department or externally (either
another part/Department of the Civil Service or external non public
sector consultants).

In summary, knowing that there were x number of reviews, at a cost
of x pounds and x were conducted internally and x externally could
not possibly invoke the concerns you raise.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Roger Cook

Dear Mr Cook,

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 2008/0071156

Thank you.

Central Allocation Team

Public Communications Team

Tel: 0870 0002288
www.dcsf.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Cook,

I am writing to inform you that the Department has now reconsidered
its decision following your complaint and revised request of 25 August.
The Department considers that the exemptions were correctly applied to
your initial request but, following our review, we are now of the
opinion that the public interest favours release.

Having searched our records we have established that we hold some
information relating to your request. We have information relating to 3
reviews into the working practices or effectiveness of Private Office.
Of these, one was conducted internally and two were conducted by
external organisations. We do not hold any information relating to the
cost of the reviews.

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 not content with the outcome of your complaint, you may
apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision.

The Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely,

Emma Cottrell
PO Business Team (DCSF)

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number
2008/0071156.

show quoted sections