The Russell Group of Universities - minutes

Dear Mr Cross

Thank you for your enquiry which was received on 14 July 2008. You ask for copies of the minutes of all the meetings of the Russell Group of Universities since 1 January 2007.

It should be noted that The Russell Group of Universities is a company limited by guarantee.

Please can you re-phrase your question and thus clarify what information you are requesting. Are you asking for information relating to the limited company and if so, please can you confirm what types of information you looking for?

Please note we are not able to process your request further without this clarification.

Yours sincerely

FOIA
The University of Birmingham

The Contents of this email may be priviledged and are confidential. It may not be disclosed to or used by anyone other than the addressee, nor copied in any way. If received in error please notify the sender and then delete it from your system. Should you communicate with me by email, you consent to The University of Birmingham monitoring and reading any such correspondence.

Dear Mr Cross

Thank you for your email dated 17 July 2008 clarifying the nature of your request for information. I am sorry that due to staff absences the response to your request has been delayed.

I am in the process of checking within the University for the sources of information covered by your request and will respond in more detail as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely

FOIA
The University of Birmingham

The Contents of this email may be priviledged and are confidential. It may not be disclosed to or used by anyone other than the addressee, nor copied in any way. If received in error please notify the sender and then delete it from your system. Should you communicate with me by email, you consent to The University of Birmingham monitoring and reading any such correspondence.

Dear Mr Cross

I refer to my previous email. I am sorry that we are still checking for sources of the information that you have requested.

In additiion to Board Meetings, we have had to identify University representatives holding minutes of other relevent meetings and this information was not all held centrally.

When information has been compiled I will then be able to assess the extent to which I can disclose this. I anticipate being able to to reply to your response in another ten working days.

Yours sincerely

FOI
The University of Birmingham

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Cross

Please find attached the University of Birmingham's response to your request.

Yours sincerely

FOI
University of Birmingham

The Contents of this email may be priviledged and are confidential. It may not be disclosed to or used by anyone other than the addressee, nor copied in any way. If received in error please notify the sender and then delete it from your system. Should you communicate with me by email, you consent to The University of Birmingham monitoring and reading any such correspondence.

Dear Mr Cross

Thank you for your request for review of the University's response to your request for information.

In accordance with University procedures, the review will be conducted by the Director of Legal Services, who will therefore write to you in due course.

Yours sincerely

FOIA
The University of Birmingham

________________________________

From: John Cross [mailto:[FOI #1118 email]]
Sent: Sun 12/10/2008 18:10
To: FOI
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request - The Russell Group of Universities - minutes

Dear Sirs,

I have previously requested an internal review into the handling of
a request made under the Freedom of Information Act. I would be
grateful if you could:

(a) provide the information I asked for or explain what exemptions
you intend to rely on, and

(b) let me know the outcome of the internal review

You can see a full trail of correspondence relating to my request
here:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/th....

My initial request was made on 12 July 2008, I hope you will
understand my frustration with this process. I am still trying to
avoid taking this matter to the Information Commissioner as I see
this as a last resort. If however I do not receive a full and final
response to my request on or before Friday 17th October 2008 I
intend to contact the Commissioner as I can see no other means of
obtaining a response.

many thanks,

John

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Cross

Further to the University's email of 13 November 2008 acknowledging your appeal for internal review dated Sunday 9 November 2008.

Your request for appeal is still being considered by the Director of Legal Services and a response will be issued in due course.

Regards

FOIA
University of Birmingham

Dear Mr Cross

Thank you for your email.

Your appeal is still being considered.

The Director of Legal Services has indicated that you should receive the Univeristy's response by 19 December 2008.

Yours sincerely

FOIA
University of Birmingham

________________________________

From: John Cross [mailto:[FOI #1118 email]]
Sent: Tue 09/12/2008 21:43
To: FOI
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request - The Russell Group of Universities - minutes

Dear FOI, You have previously acknowledge receipt of my request for
an internal review dated 9 November 2008, that request was made one
month ago today.

According to guidance issued by the Information Commissioner:

"...the Commissioner considers that a reasonable time for
completing an internal review is 20 working days from the date of
the request for review."

My initial request for information was made on 12 July 2008. Please
can you let me know when I will receive a full and final response
from the University.

Yours sincerely,

John Cross

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Cross

Unfortunately the Director of Legal Services has not been able to respond to your request for internal appeal as this is still being considered but will endeavour to respond to you before the University finishes for Christmas on 23 December 2008.

Regards

FOIA
University of Birmingham

Dear Mr Cross

Re FOI Appeal

Thank you for your FOI Appeal dated 9th November 2008 (attached).
Firstly may I apologise for the fact that it has taken slightly longer
than normal in order to review the matter.

Your original request submitted on 14th July 2008 was:-

"please can you provide me with the minutes of all meetings of the
Russell Group of Universities taking place on or after 1 January 2007".

This was clarified in correspondence on 17th July 2008:-

"I am writing to clarify a request of 14th July 2008. I would like to
receive a copy of all minutes held by the University of meetings called or
administered by the Russell Group of Universities ("Russell Group") for
the specified period.

As you stated this organisation is a limited company. Any minutes of
general meetings (including Annual General Meetings) of the company or
meetings of the Company's Directors, Managers or staff would fall within
my request. The request would also include minutes of meetings of the
Universities in the Russell Group to discuss Russell Group policy.

To answer your questions:-

Yes I am requesting the information relating to the limited company.

The types of information I am looking for are the contents of minutes of
meeting for the period specified in my request."

The University provided a response on 4th November 2008 which included a
Refusal Notice stating its reasons for non-disclosure Section 41 of the
Freedom of Information Act (information provided in confidence) and
Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Commercial Interest).

In your email of 9th November 2008 you requested a review in accordance
with the University's Complaints and Appeals Procedure.

You asked that the internal review considered 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."

In accordance with the University's Complaints and Appeals Procedure I
confirm that I have sought further information from the members of staff
involved in dealing with the original request and considered the
documentation submitted.

I confirm that the Refusal Notice distinguishes between meetings of the
Russell Group Ltd and meetings of working groups consisting of members of
Russell Group Universities with particular areas of interest or expertise.

In answer to your question (1). The public interest test is to enable the
public to have greater transparency and accountability of public bodies.
However, the Russell Group Ltd is not a public body and the disclosure of
the information may have direct consequence on the ability of the Russell
Group to consider and formulate strategy and policies for wider
consideration by Hefce, UUK, the Government and the Russell Group
Universities.

In order for the research and discussions undertaken by the Russell Group
to fully support and inform the public bodies who are their members,
funders etc. it is essential that within the confines of the Russell Group
itself the public bodies are able to share and discuss confidential,
commercially sensitive and privileged information. This is also
necessary for the Working Groups. The ability for the Russell Group to
develop and progress strategies on behalf of its members would be
significantly damaged if the information discussed during the course of
development could not remain in confidence. The detrimental effect on
the UK Universities as a whole would be significant and therefore it is in
the public interest to retain confidentiality.

In relation to your question (2) I confirm the response provided in the
initial correspondence "it is regretted that this has been a lengthy
process and we have been unable to complete it within the 20 days of
receipt of your request."

In answer to your question (3) and in regard to meetings of the Russell
Group Ltd the Refusal Notice indicates that the University considers that
the meetings of the company are private and the proceedings
confidential. I also concur with the original view that any information
provided to the Vice Chancellor of the University was provided in his
personal capacity. The University does not therefore hold the
information itself.

In so far as the information is held by the Vice Chancellor, it is
information provided in confidence. It should also be noted that the
Russell Group Ltd is not a public authority for the purposes of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 and that any information provided to the
Vice Chancellor was provided on the mutual understanding that the
information was confidential and should not be passed beyond the immediate
recipients or used for purposes beyond those it was initially supplied
for. The Russell Group have indicated to members of the University staff
that they would not consent to the release of the information.

With regard to information in respect of the Working Groups attended by
staff of the University, not all groups produce minutes because of the
nature of the groups. In so far there are Working Group minutes, these
were produced in confidence for the attendees, and not for wider
circulation. Any information was provided on the mutual understanding that
the information was confidential and should not be passed for wider
circulation or used for purposes beyond those it was initially supplied
for.

The information itself has the necessary quality of confidence in that it
relates to commercial, legal and financially sensitive information.
Release of the information has the potential to prejudice the commercial
interests or affect the wider interests of the Company and its members.
Breach of the duty of confidence would be actionable. It is more in the
public interest to allow free exchange of communication within the group
than to inhibit free and frank discussion by publication.

In relation to question (4) your point is noted, however, the University
does not hold the information as the University information was provided
to the Vice Chancellor in his personal capacity as the Director of the
Company.

Disclosure of the information by the Vice Chancellor as an individual is
not required under the Freedom of Information Act, would breach the trust
an confidence which exists between Directors and would impinge upon the
normal commercial and financial interest of a private company.

It is essential that the Vice Chancellor is able to receive information
pertaining to these matters on a confidential basis without fear that such
information would be disclosed as a result of a Freedom of Information
request.

As set out in our Complaints and Appeals procedure, if you remain
dissatisfied with this response you may appeal to the Information
Commissioner.

Yours sincerely

FOI Appeal Reviewer

With best wishes.

Carolyn Pike

Legal Services

University of Birmingham

B15 2TT

Tel: 0121 414 3195 (Direct)

Tel: 0121 414 3916 (Legal Services)

Fax: 0121 414 3200

[1][email address]

[2]www.bham.ac.uk

The contents of this e.mail may be privileged and are confidential. It
may not be disclosed to or used by anyone other than the addressee, nor
copied in any way. If received in error please notify the sender and then
delete it from your system. Should you communicate with me by e.mail, you
consent to The University of Birmingham monitoring and reading any such
correspondence.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.bham.ac.uk/