30 September 2020
Request & response
|
For each |
Children in the care of the local authority (s.31 Children Act 1989) |
Children accommodated by the local Authority (s.20 Children Act 1989) |
Young people entitled to leaving care support (para.19B of Schedule 2 Children Act 1989; s.23A(2) Children Act 1989; and s.23C(1) Children Act 1989) |
|
Total number |
183 – s31 of the CA 74 – s38 of the CA |
105 |
464 |
|
Are EU, EEA or Swiss national citizens |
6 |
5 |
20 |
|
have made applications to the EU Settlement Scheme |
22 (total number across all categories) |
N/a |
N/a |
|
have made applications for British Citizenship |
5 (total number across all categories) |
N/a |
N/a |
|
have received settled status |
14 (total number across all categories) |
N/a |
N/a |
|
have received pre- settled status |
<5 |
0 |
0 |
Where there were fewer than 5 individuals in a category, we have not provided the exact figure as we consider that to do so may allow individuals to be identified. We therefore engage an exemption relying on Section 40(2): Personal Data to this request.
The definition of personal data is set out in provision 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 as follows:-
- “Personal data” means any information relating to an identified or identifiable living individual
- “Identifiable living individual” means a living individual who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to—
-
- an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data or an online identifier, or
-
- 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 exact figures 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.
In this case, I can confirm that it would not be fair to the individuals to the disclose information requested as it could cause distress to the individual(s). I do not consider that the individual(s) would expect the Council to disclose any information which may allow them to be identified. Although I acknowledge the legitimate interest in disclosing general information, I consider that the interest has been met by the information already disclosed.
In accordance with Section 17 FOIA this letter represents a Refusal Notice for this part of the request.