Dear Sir or Madam,

     Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
     Information reviews.

     I am writing to request an internal review of University of
     Birmingham's handling of my FOI request 'The Russell Group of
     Universities - minutes'.

     A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
     available on the Internet at this address:
     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_russell_group_of_universitie

     The internal review should consider every aspect of the way my
     request was dealt with including the following matters:

     (1) The University applied a public interest test and not explained
     why it considers the public interest in maintaining the exemption
     outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. ICO
     Freedom of Information Good Practice Guidance No. 1 states that:

     "A public authority should make it clear why it considers the
     public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public
     interest in disclosing the information. It will not be sufficient
     for an authority simply to state that it is not in the public
     interest to disclose information in any particular instance."

     (2) The University's response to my internal review did not
     explicitly state that the University had broken the law by failing
     to respond in the time-scale set out in the Freedom of Information
     Act 2000. It is my view that the law was broken.

     (3) The University relies heavily on the Section 41 exemption and
     refers to information provided in confidence.

     This exemption is can only be used where "the disclosure of the
     information to the public (otherwise than under this Act) by the
     public authority holding it would constitute a breach of confidence
     actionable by that or any other person."

     In my view the University has failed to demonstrate that releasing
     the information I have asked for would constitute an actionable
     breach of confidence.

     I therefore believe that the information should be released.

     (4) The Freedom of Information Act 2000 imposes a general duty on
     public authorities to the duty to inform the applicant whether or
     not information is held by the authority in most circumstances. As
     regards the minutes of the Russell Group held by the Vice
     Chancellor you have stated that these are not held by the
     University. It is my view that the University had in this situation
     a legal obligation to confirm that it held the information and
     therefore it was very unhelpful to state that the information was
     not held by the University.

     Please acknowledge receipt.

     Yours sincerely,

     John Cross

     -------------------------------------------------------------------
     Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
     published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about#officers
     -------------------------------------------------------------------