Mr S Cross
[FOI #28499 email]
5 March 2010
Our Ref: FOI 2010/32 – F0085861
Dear Mr Cross,
Re: Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 – Request for Information
Thank you for your email which was received by the University on 6 February timed 23:50
hours, requesting the following information:
“I have just read in the Glasgow Herald that the Principal has accepted a total salary
package of £283,000 a rise of 8% on the previous year for the same post. At a time
when the rest of the staff are having to accept 0.5% pay packages this seems a bit off.
I have 2 questions that i would like to ask:
1) Are these figures true?
and
2) What are the total salary packages of the following directorate level staff, what pay
rises have they accepted this year and what are the terms and conditions of their
employment in respect of meeting performance targets. Or put bluntly how much do
they earn and if they are getting pay rises greater than 0.5% over last year, why?
Andrea Nolan - Deputy Vice Chancellor
Frank Coton - VP for Learning and Teaching
Steve Beaumont - VP R+E
Neil Juster - VP Strategy and Resources
Christine Lowther - Directory of Student Services
Susan Stewart - Director of Corporate Communications
Fiona Docherty - International Director
Sandy MacDonald - Director IT Services
and last but not least
David Newall - Secretary of Court”
DATA PROTECTION AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICE
Main Building, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ
Data Protection: Telephone: 0141-330-3111
E-Mail: [email address]
Freedom of Information: Telephone: 0141-330-2523
E-Mail: foi@gla.ac.uk
The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401
University’s Response
1. The figures to which you refer (which includes both annual salary and pension
contributions) and as reported in the Herald on 6 February 2010, relate to the previous
Principal of the University of Glasgow, Sir Muir Russell and not to Professor Anton
Muscatelli, the current Principal.
2. None of the directorate level staff noted below have accepted pay rises greater than
0.5%, those staff who are also members of the University’s Senior Management Group
(as indicated by *, below) are subject to a pay freeze during the current year.
Salaries of members of the Senior Management Group are reviewed annually by the
University's Remuneration Committee, which considers their performance over the
previous year, as assessed by their line manager. For senior managers who are not
members of SMG, the Professorial and Senior Administrative Review Board receives
an annual submission on performance which it uses as the basis for deciding on any
performance-related award that would be additional to the national salary award.
Please note, in common with all staff members eligible to join the Universities
Superannuation Scheme (USS), the named individuals receive 16% of their salary in
employer's contributions.
Salary
*Andrea Nolan
110,001 - 120,000
*Frank Coton
80,001 - 90,000
*Steve Beaumont
110,001 - 120,000
*Neal Juster
100,001 - 110,000
Christine Lowther
70,001 - 80,000
*Susan Stewart
90,001 - 100,000
Fiona Docherty
80,001 - 90,000
Sandy Macdonald
80,001 - 90,000
*David Newall
140,001 - 150,000
Please be advised salary details for the above posts have been released in £10,000
bandings as: (a) the individual salary information are considered as personal data as
defined in the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”); and (b) the release of such salary
information would be in breach of the data protection principles as set-out in the Data
Protection Act 1998. Therefore the exemption from release of such information applies
as specified under section 38(1) (b) and 38(2) (a) (i) of FOISA. The University takes
the view that disclosure of such personal data would breach the following Data
Protection Principles of the DPA:
Data Protection Principle 1:
Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully.
The release of the precise salary information, will undermine the expectation of the
individual that his/her personal data would not be released. In particular, the University
notes the decision of the Information Commissioner in the decision relating to
The
University of Cambridge (30 July 2007), in which the Information Commissioner states
that a key factor to consider is whether there would be an expectation of disclosure.
Data Protection Principle 6:
Personal data shall be processed in accordance with the rights of data subjects.
The release of personal data would not be in accordance with that individual’s rights to
privacy. If the data were disclosed, it would constitute processing for an unspecified
purpose.
Data Protection Principle 7:
Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against
unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data.
The release of personal data may breach the requirement to keep such personal data
secure.
Data Protection Principle 8:
Personal data shall not be transferred to a country or territory outside the European
Economic Area unless that country or territory ensures an adequate level of protection
for the rights and freedoms of data subjects.
The release of personal data may result in a real risk of personal data being displayed
on the internet and thus viewable outside the EEA.
Pursuant to Sections 38(1)(b) and 38(2)(a)(i) of FOISA there is an absolute exemption
if the disclosure would breach any of the Data Protection Principles of the DPA. For the
purpose of this exemption alone, the University is not obliged to consider the public
interest.
The supply of documents under the terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002
does not give the applicant or whoever receives the information any right to re-use it in such a
way that might infringe the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (for example, by making
multiple copies, publishing or otherwise distributing the information to other individuals and the
public). The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (Consequential Modifications) Order
2004 ensured that Section 50 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (“CDPA”)
applies to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (“FOISA”).
Breach of copyright law is an actionable offence and the University expressly reserves its
rights and remedies available to it pursuant to the CDPA and common law. Further information
on copyright is available at the following website:
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copy.htm
Your right to seek a review
Should you be dissatisfied with the way in which the University has dealt with your request,
you have the right to require us to review our actions and decisions. If you wish to request a
review, please contact the University Secretary, University Court Office, Gilbert Scott Building,
University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland G12 8QQ or e-mail: [University of Glasgow request email] within 40
working days. Your request must be in a recordable format (letter, email, audio tape, etc). You
will receive a full response to your request for review within 20 working days of its receipt.
If you are dissatisfied with the way in which we have handled your request for review you may
ask the Scottish Information Commissioner to review our decision. You must submit your
complaint in writing to the Commissioner within 6 months of receiving the response to review
letter. The Commissioner may be contacted as follows:
The Scottish Information Commissioner
Kinburn Castle
Doubledykes Road
St Andrews
Fife
KY16 9DS
Telephone: 01334 464610
Fax: 01334 464611
Website www.itspublicknowledge.info
E-mail: [email address]
An appeal, on a point of law, to the Court of Session may be made against a decision by the
Commissioner.
For further information on the review procedure please refer to
(http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/dpfoioffice/policiesandprocedures/foisa-complaintsandreview/ )
All complaints regarding requests for information will be handled in accordance with this
procedure.
Yours sincerely,
Data Protection and Freedom of Information Office
