Financial value of post-dismissal compensation settlements

Dear University of Cambridge,

In response to a previous Freedom of Information request[1] you
have stated that the University agreed 4 post-dismissal
compensation settlements in the period December 2008 to 13 December
2009. For the period December 2008 to date, please supply the
following information:

(a) the number of post-dismissal compensation settlements agreed

(b) the minimum amount paid in any of these settlements

(c) the maximum amount paid in any of these settlements

(d) the total amount paid in these settlements

(e) the arithmetic mean amount paid in these settlements

(f) the median amount paid in these settlements

In the case of (b) and (c) (and (f) if the number of settlements is
odd), if the exact amount cannot be revealed due to data protection
concerns, I am happy to accept the amounts to the nearest
appropriate figure (provided you indicate this figure in your
response), cf. the "When should salaries be disclosed?" guidance
note[2].

Also, if it is possible to provide the following information
without revealing personal data in a way which would be unfair, for
any of (b), (c) and (f) which correspond to a single settlement,
please indicate the category of dismissed staff (academic,
academic-related, etc.) with whom that settlement was made.

Recent correspondence with you regarding other Freedom of
Information requests suggests that you may be holding the view that
where any processing of raw data is required to provide the
information requested, you consider the information not be held for
the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act (2000). If you do
indeed hold this view, you should be aware that both the
Information Commissioner and the Information Tribunal (as was) do
not agree, and are of the opinion that, in general, if the raw data
is held then the information is held - see, for example, paragraphs
27-8 of the following ICO Decision Notice:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/d...

...and paragraphs 10-16 of the following Information Tribunal
Decision:

http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/Do...

Yours faithfully,

Bruce Beckles

[1]
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ap...

[2]
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

Dear FOI,

Thank you for your e-mail. Please provide, in electronic form, the
standard deviation of the arithmetic mean of the amounts paid in
the 4 post-dismissal compensation settlements between December 2008
and 13 December 2009 (i.e. for the 4 settlements whose aggregate
value you have said is 104,820 pounds). Please also provide, in
electronic form, the median amount of these 4 amounts. I observe
that the median value of 4 values will not allow me to determine
any of the individual values and so should not inadvertently reveal
any data which the University believes is exempt by virtue of
Section 40(2) of the Act.

In the University's response to my request, you have stated that
the figure of 104,820 pounds is "a gross figure and includes
payments which were not related to dismissal, as well as payments
in consideration of restrictive clauses". Please explain the nature
of the "payments which were not related to dismissal" that have
been included in this total, and please also provide the total
value of these payments. I am happy for the explanation of the
nature/purpose of these payments to be at a sufficiently general or
abstract level that avoids any release of personal data.

In the University's response you also informed me that, between 14
December 2009 and 8 July 2010, there has been an additional
post-dismissal compensation settlement. Was this settlement made
prior to 12noon on 12 March 2010?

Finally, you also informed me that each of the 5 settlements made
between December 2008 and 8 July 2010 were between 1p and 100,000
pounds in value. Please explain why you are not willing to divulge
the number of settlements made in bands of 5,000 pounds or 20,000
pounds as I asked (in requests FOI-2010-134 and FOI-2010-135
(respectively)), but are willing to divulge the number of
settlements made in bands of 100,000 pounds.

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Beckles

Dear FOI,

Thank you for your e-mail. In the University's response it has said
that it "does not hold the figure for the standard deviation from
the arithmetic mean". I would therefore like to draw the
University's attention to paragraphs 10-16 of the following
Information Tribunal Decision:

http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/Do...

...which I believe make clear that, for the purposes of the Act,
the University does hold this information, regardless of the fact
that it may need to process the "raw data" it holds to provide the
requested information.

The University's response goes on to say that "Alternatively, this
information is exempt information under section 40(2) (personal
information) of the Act on the ground that its disclosure would
contravene the first data protection principle. After careful
consideration, the University has concluded that the information
relating to individual values, which could potentially be derived
from the information in question, would not be sufficiently general
in nature to avoid the application of the exemption."

At this time I do not wish to comment on, or contest, the validity
of the University's conclusion, but I reserve the right to do so at
a later date. Instead I request (in electronic form) the standard
deviation of the arithmetic mean of the four values in question to
the nearest 10 pounds, as I believe that, mathematically speaking,
such a figure would not enable me to deduce very much about the
four individual values.

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Beckles

Dear University of Cambridge,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of University of
Cambridge's handling of my FOI request 'Financial value of
post-dismissal compensation settlements' (your references
FOI-2010-133, FOI-2010-154 and FOI-2010-175).

With regard to some of the information requested, the University
has argued that it does not hold that information. However, all
such information can be derived from the amounts of the
post-dismissal compensation settlements (which the University does
not dispute that it holds). It therefore seems that the University
is adopting the position that whilst it holds the "raw data" from
which it could easily produce the requested information, it does
not hold the information itself.

This position does not seem compatible with paragraphs 10-16 of the
following Information Tribunal Decision:

http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/Do...

I therefore believe that the requested information (that has not
been supplied) is indeed held (in the sense of The Freedom of
Information Act 2000).

Furthermore, Section 11(1)(c) of the Act provides for applicants to
request a summary or digest of the information they seek. The
minimum, maximum, median and standard deviation are all statistical
summary information. Thus, even if the University is correct that
these statistics are not held (in the sense of the Act), then, if
it is reasonably practical for it to supply them to me, then it
should do so as they are summaries of information it does hold. I
submit that, as the number of data points in question is 4 or 5, it
clearly is practical for the University to supply this information.

The University has also stated that some of the requested
information is exempt by virtue of Section 40(2) of the Act. Given
that the identities of the persons with whom the University has
reached post-dismissal compensation settlements are not generally
known, and that the University has confirmed that neither the
University nor the individuals in question are permitted to
disclose the terms of the settlement [1], I do not see how the
amounts by themselves can be legitimately regarded as personal data
(in the sense of the relevant Acts of Parliament). If the amounts
themselves are not personal data then statistical summary
information about those amounts certainly cannot be personal data.

However, even if those amounts are personal data, some of the
statistical summary data clearly is not, since it does not refer to
any particular individual amount nor does it allow individual
amounts to be determined from its disclosure. Further, since I have
said that I do not require some of these statistical summary
figures to be exact, it is hard to see why they cannot be supplied
with a sufficient degree of vagueness (e.g. to the nearest 5,000 or
10,000 pounds (or some other figure) in the case of the maximum or
minimum, or to the nearest 10 pounds for the standard deviation)
that would prevent the determination of the individual amounts.
Such inexact figures clearly would not be personal data and so
Section 40(2) should not apply to them.

I therefore believe that the information I requested should be
supplied by the University unless it is exempt, but that the
exemption in Section 40(2) of the Act is not engaged. The
University should therefore supply the requested information (to
the nearest appropriate figure if necessary).

Finally, the University has, for reasons of its own, disclosed in
its response of 5 August 2010 the aggregate total figure for 4 of
the 5 settlements made prior to 12 February 2010 [2], although this
figure was never requested. Having done so, it is now relying on
Section 40(2) to prevent it from having to disclose the aggregate
total for all 5 settlements (since, having disclosed the aggregate
total of 4 of these figures, disclosing the aggregate total of all
5 of them would also reveal the 5th figure).

Whether intentional or not, this has the effect that, by releasing
information in response to a request that was not actually
requested, the University now cannot legally fulfil its obligations
regarding that request under the Act (assuming its application of
Section 40(2) of the Act is correct). At best such behaviour is not
in keeping with the spirit of the Act, and is difficult to
reconcile with the University's duty to provide help and assistance
(Section 16 of the Act).

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

Yours faithfully,

Bruce Beckles

[1] See p. 14-15 of
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/40...

[2] Although the response of 5 August from the University:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fi...

talks about the aggregate total for 4 settlements from December
2008 to 13 December 2009, this later e-mail of 16 September 2010
from the University:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/de...

...confirms that all 5 settlements in question were actually
reached prior to 12 February 2010 and so all 5 settlements should
have been considered with regard to earlier Freedom of Information
requests from myself (such as your reference FOI-2010-33) related
to these settlements, as well as in associated correspondence with
the Information Commissioner's Office.

Dear FOI,

On 13 October 2010 I received a response from the Administrative
Secretary (dated 12 October 2010) regarding my request for an
internal review, the relevant portions of which I reproduce below.

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Beckles

** Response from Administrative Secretary to my request for an
internal review **

12 October 2010

Dear Mr Beckles,

Internal review of your requests FOI-2010-173and FOI-2010-175

I am responsible for reviewing the University's response to your
requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
("the Act"), which have been allocated the references FOI-2010-173
and FOI-2010-175. I have carried out an independent review as to
whether the University's existing responses comply with its
obligations under the Act.

Turning to each of the requests under review in turn:

FOI-2010-175

Derivation of statistical information

Your original request, "Financial value of post-dismissal
compensation settlements" (our reference FOI-2010-175) was to
receive:-

(in electronic form) the standard deviation of the arithmetic mean
of the amounts paid in the 4 post-dismissal compensation
settlements between December 2008 and 13 December 2009 (i.e. for
the 4 settlements whose aggregate value you have said is £104,820
pounds). Please also provide, in electronic form, the median amount
of these 4 amounts. I observe that the median value of 4 values
will not allow me to determine any of the individual values and so
should not inadvertently reveal any data which the University
believes is exempt by virtue of Section 40 (2) of the Act.

I note your reference to the Information Tribunal Decision in the
case of Home Office v Information Commissioner. I have some
sympathy with the Freedom of Information Officer's proposition that
the carrying out of the arithmetical calculations required to
comply with your request is not equivalent to the automated
totalling exercise with which that case was concerned and is
tantamount to the creation of new information. However, I have
noted judicial encouragement to public authorities to construe this
part of the statutory regime in as a liberal manner as possible,
and I have concluded that the University ought not to persist in
contending that it does not hold the information sought either in
the case of the standard deviation of the arithmetic mean or the
median value.

Section 40 (2)

The response to your request also stated that this information was
exempt from disclosure by virtue of s 40 (2) of the Act. Given that
you have the number of settlements and the aggregate amount of the
settlements, the median and standard deviation will give details of
the distribution of the amounts. Given the small number of
settlements, either of these figures is likely to show whether
there is a disparity between the amount of the settlements, or that
they are substantially the same. If the latter is the case, then if
it becomes known that an individual has had the benefit of a
settlement, the scale of that settlement is immediately known. Even
though the figure would not be exact, I consider that this would be
personal data which the individual would not expect to be disclosed
and which would be exempt from disclosure under S 40 (2).

Accordingly I uphold the University's Freedom of Information
Officer's decision that the exemption in s 40 (2) applies and that
the information should not be provided. The public interest does
not fall to be considered.

Disclosure of aggregate figure for four out of the five settlements

I am surprised at your assertion that the disclosure of the
aggregate figure for four of the five settlements in the letter of
5th August was not in the spirit of the Act and difficult to
reconcile with the University's duty to provide help and
assistance.

A reading of that letter implies that you had previously made the
point to the Information Commissioner that the University's failure
to volunteer this figure was also inconsistent with the duty to
provide help and assistance. The suggestion that the subsequent
provision of the figure is a deliberate attempt to be unhelpful is
not one I am prepared to consider.

Leaving aside the question of helpfulness, it is clear from the
letter of 5th August that in the course of responding to your
complaint FS50321032, the aggregate of the four settlements had
already been disclosed to the Commissioner with confirmation that
there was no objection to its being disclosed to you. Having made
that disclosure the University could not then disclose a figure
which included the fifth payment as the aggregate of the four
payments would have been available from the Commissioner. This
would then have provided the amount of the fifth payment.

Conclusion

Having completed my review across both these requests, I have
concluded that there is no further action to be taken. I hope this
further explanation will assist your understanding of the
University's position.

The Information Commissioner

If you remain dissatisfied with the University's handling of these
requests or with the outcome of this Review, you may raise the
matter by way of appeal with the Information Commissioner:

The Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113

Website: www.ico.gov.uk

Yours sincerely

Administrative Secretary