26 August 2022
Your questions
- how many pupils aged 5 - 18, do not currently have any educational provision?
- how many pupils aged 5 - 18 on the SEND register, do not currently have any educational provision?
- how many pupils aged 5 - 18 with an EHCP or statement, do not currently have any educational provision?
Our response
- 0, the nil response references that all CME cases have tuition support in place therefore they have provision. They did not request details of those without any school placement or physical provision in which case there are a number which are in receipt of tuition but do not have a school place
- 0
- fewer than 5. We can confirm that the precise information is held. We have not provided the precise figure as the low-level data, in conjunction with data collated from other sources, could lead to the identification of specific individuals. We have therefore concluded that the precise information you requested is exempt from disclosure in accordance with S40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act - Personal Data.
The definition of personal data is set out in provision 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 as follows:-
(2)“Personal data” means any information relating to an identified or identifiable living individual.
(3)“Identifiable living individual” means a living individual who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to—
(a)an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data or an online identifier, or
(b)one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of the individual.
We have noted the ICO’s Decision in the Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council case. This case involved appeals relating to Special Educational Needs cases but we consider it analogous as the council successfully argued that information relating to fewer than 5 individuals should be withheld.
The ICO accepted this was personal data as per paragraph 16:
The Commissioner does however note that the chances of any member of the public being able to cross-reference this information to identify specific individuals is not high but given the low numbers involved there is a risk that specific individuals could be identified by a person with knowledge of special educational needs and appeals in the area. The council has stated that the complainant in this case is an individual who has knowledge of this. In addition, the Commissioner recognises that other individuals, such as parents at schools or council employees may be able to identify individuals. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, the Commissioner accepts the information is personal data.
Similarly, we consider that other individuals with knowledge of these cases may be able to use specific figures per category to attempt to identify individuals.
I have concluded that the information does therefore constitute third party personal data. I have considered whether it would be fair to disclose the requested data, including whether disclosure would cause any unnecessary or unjustified damage or distress to the individual concerned; the individual’s reasonable expectations of what would happen to their information; and balancing the rights and freedoms of the data subject with legitimate interests.
I do not consider that the individuals would expect the Council to disclose any information which may allow them to be identified. Although I acknowledge the legitimate interest in disclosing specific information relating to educational provisional, I consider that the interest has been met by the information already disclosed.