Response to the 2017 and 2014 UUK USS valuation consultations

The request was successful.

Dear University College London,

Please provide a copy of your University’s response to the 2017 and 2014 UUK USS valuation consultations.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Davies

Finance.FOI Requests, University College London

Thank you for your message.
If you have submitted a Freedom of Information request please accept this
email as acknowledgement that your request has been received. You should
expect a response from us within 20 working days.
Data Protection & FOI
Legal Services
UCL

Finance.FOI Requests, University College London

Dear Mr Davies,

Apologies for the delay in responding to your below request. Your request is being dealt with and you will receive a response shortly.

Kind regards,

Mehwish Sultan
Data Protection and Freedom of Information Adviser

show quoted sections

Dear University College London,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of University College London's handling of my FOI request 'Response to the 2017 and 2014 UUK USS valuation consultations'.

Four potential exemptions to our request have been suggested. Below we discuss each in turn. All of these exemptions are subject to a public interest test which we later address.

Section 22 (1) Information intended for future publication
This exemption is for information that will be published at some future date. As part of the review, could you confirm your plans for when and how the response will be published? Please could you confirm whether it is reasonable and fair to USS members, students and tax payers, who ultimately pay for the many of the services of universities, to withhold this response under Section 22?

Section 36 (2) Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs
This exemption is for information that if released, would inhibit the free and frank exchange of views. The current discussion around the USS valuation and potential changes to the scheme are being widely discussed by many individuals, both in the press and privately in university campuses across the UK. The opinion of employers is an extremely pertinent factor in this discussion. Employees need to know and understand their employer’s position about what is reasonable for employer contributions to the USS and future benefit structure of the scheme.

In addition, Exeter and Lancaster universities have published their responses in full. This suggests that they do not believe that publishing their responses would inhibit a free and frank exchange of views. This suggests that publishing the response is unlikely to severely prejudice your institution’s ability to conduct a free and frank exchange of views.

Section 43 (2) Commercial interests
This exemption is for information that if released, would harm your institution’s commercial interests. Could you clarify how releasing your institution’s response could harm its commercial interests? For example, would it be less likely to: attract students, win research contracts, or recruit and retain staff? None of the information requested relates to competitive contracts. All Russell group universities offer the same pension. Therefore how can publication of the response affect your institution specifically?

Furthermore, Exeter and Lancaster Universities have published their responses. They face the same commercial pressures as your institution, yet have published their responses without harming their commercial interests. This suggests that publishing the response is unlikely to severely harm your institution’s commercial interests.

Public interest test
Transparency and openness
There is a substantial public interest in full transparency and openness around the process of agreeing on the valuation for the USS and potential changes to the scheme. Providing a copy of your university’s response would inform USS members, students, and members of the public about the pressures facing your institutions, its position, and its rationale for the changes it would like to see for the scheme. This would allow ordinary USS members to be involved in this process and aid collaborative decision making.

Scrutiny of spending public money
Furthermore, significant concerns have been raised about the valuation method and the process for agreeing to any changes to the scheme. Publishing your institution’s response would enable the public to better scrutinise how public money is being spent. It would also ensure that the valuation and reform process was fully open and transparent. It would provide clarity about your institution’s position, and ensure that the valuation was handled in a fair, equitable way that maximised value for money.

Suspicion of wrongdoing
Publishing your institution’s response would alleviate any suspicion of wrongdoing. For example that an institution was lobbying the USS to protect its private interests, rather than USS members’ interests. Publishing the response would provide a full picture of the pressures facing your institution and would remove any suspicion of manipulating facts or engaging in ‘spin’.

The fact that some of the responses and many universities’ summaries of their responses are available in the public domain strengthens the case for disclosure.

In the public interest
There is a strong public interest in transparency and accountability. This is particularly important to improve the public and USS members’ understanding about the pressures facing the scheme and their employers. Publishing your institution’s response will help reinforce good decision making with respect to the USS. It will uphold standards of integrity and will ensure justice and fair treatment for all. Finally, publishing the response will help secure the best use of public resources for recruiting and retaining the staff at our universities.

Of public interest
There have been numerous articles in the press about the ongoing discussions around the USS. This issue is undoubtedly of public interest.

In 2015-16 there were nearly 2.28 million students in the UK. These students have a major interest in having a well conducted pensions scheme for their tutors. There are almost 400,000 USS members who have an interest in understanding their employer’s position on the USS. All these individuals, and more, have an interest in universities in the UK maintaining a competitive and well managed pension scheme. The public at large has an interest in ensuring that public money is being well spent. Publishing the response may help achieve this.

In summary, there are unlikely to be major detrimental effects of publishing the response. There are very large potential public benefits from publishing the response. It is vital that the valuation and reform of the USS are conducted in a totally open and transparent way. Withholding the response could lead to an erosion of members’ trust. Many of the 160 signatories below have published a letter in the Financial Times calling for greater transparency over the USS. We very much hope you would be able to help achieve this.

We look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Neil Davies, University of Bristol

On behalf of:

Dr Jeff Round, University of Bristol
Prof Richard Morris, University of Bristol
Dr Eileen Sutton, University of Bristol
Dr Richard Parker, University of Bristol
Dr Theresa Redaniel, University of Bristol
Dr Kyla Thomas, University of Bristol
Miss Emma Cox, University of Bristol
Dr Matthew Suderman, University of Bristol
Dr Kate Northstone, University of Bristol
Dr Joanna Crichton, University of Bristol
Dr Deborah Caldwell, University of Bristol
Mr Hugh Garner, University of Bristol
Dr Emma Anderson, University of Bristol
Dr Gemma Lasseter, University of Bristol
Dr Amy Taylor, University of Bristol
Dr Andrew Wills, University of Bristol
Dr Joanna Thorn, University of Bristol
Dr Hayley Jones, University of Bristol
Dr Jon Heron, University of Bristol
Dr Alison Teyhan, University of Bristol
Dr Diana Santos Ferreira, University of Bristol
Dr Melanie Chalder, University of Bristol
Dr Raquel Granell, University of Bristol
Dr Niamh Redmond, University of Bristol
Dr José López, University of Bristol
Dr Josephine Walker, University of Bristol
Dr Esther Walton, University of Bristol
Miss Rowena Ferguson, University of Bristol
Mr Matthew Quaife, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Mr Tim Morris, University of Bristol
Dr Stephen Clark, University of Bath
Dr Sam Marsh, University of Sheffield
Prof Charles Taylor, University of Leeds
Prof Gene Feder, University of Bristol
Dr Andrew Crawford, University of Edinburgh
Dr Helen Cramer, University of Bristol
Ms Catherine Pitt, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Dr Becky Mars, University of Bristol
Mr David Troy, University of Bristol
Dr Robyn Wootton, University of Bristol
Dr Ben Cislaghi, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Ms Kate Rowley, University of Bristol
Dr Natasha Howard, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Mr Michael Crawford, University of Bristol
Dr Sarah Sullivan, University of Bristol
Prof Dennis Leech, University of Warwick
Dr Stephen Burgess, University of Cambridge
Mr Gareth Gough, University of Bristol
Dr Jemima Dooley, University of Bristol
Ms Hannah Schubert, University of Bristol
Dr Alexander Corbishley, University of Edinburgh
Prof James Davenport, University of Bath
Dr Kamie Kitmitto, The University of Manchester
Dr Hynek Pikhart, University College London
Dr Duleeka Knipe, University of Bristol
Prof Saul Jacka, University of Warwick
Dr Luisa Zuccolo, University of Bristol
Prof David Wild, University of Warwick
Prof Wilfrid Kendall, University of Warwick
Dr Laura Howe, University of Bristol
Dr Padraig Dixon, University of Bristol
Dr Ewart Shaw, University of Warwick
Prof David Firth, University of Warwick
Dr Jere Koskela, University of Warwick
Dr Murray Pollock, University of Warwick
Dr Julia Brettschneider, University of Warwick
William Hollingworth, University of Bristol
Prof Yoav Ben-Shlomo, University of Bristol
Leanne Kupers, University of Bristol
Dr Patricia Lucas, University of Bristol
Dr Rachael Hughes, University of Bristol
Prof Bianca De Stavola, University College London
Dr Dario Spano, University of Warwick
Miss Daisy Gaunt, University of Bristol
Dr Suzanne Ingle, University of Bristol
Mrs Anne Rennie, University of Bristol
Dr Maria Clara Restrepo Mendez, University of Bristol
Dr Ana Luiza Soares, University of Bristol
Ms Alison Denny, University of Bristol
Dr Charlotte Davies, University of Bristol
Miss Amy Davies, University of Bristol
Dr Lotte Houtepen, University of Bristol
Mr Michael Holmes, University of Edinburgh
Dr Martin Lopez-Garcia, University of Leeds
Prof Alastair Rucklidge, University of Leeds
Dr Carmen Molina-Paris, University of Leeds
Dr Vladimir Kisil, University of Leeds
Dr Nicola Gambino, University of Leeds
Dr Jan Palczewski, University of Leeds
Prof Steven Tobias, University of Leeds
Dr Michael Dalili, University of Bristol
Dr Robert Aykroyd, University of Leeds
Dr David Carslake, University of Bristol
Dr Alun Coker, University College London
Prof James Speight, University of Leeds
Dr Mike Evans, University of Leeds
Dr Ruth Colson, University of Bristol
Prof Steven Julious, The University of Sheffield
Dr Laura Johnson, University of Bristol
Dr Miranda Armstrong, University of Bristol
Dr Johannes Nordstrom, University of Bath
Dr Tiziano De Angelis, University of Leeds
Dr Derek Harland, University of Leeds
Ms Kerry Humphries, University of Bristol
Dr Suzanne Trill, University of Edinburgh
Dr Clare England, University of Bristol
Dr Shereen Benjamin, University of Edinburgh
Dr Saladin Meckled-Garcia, University College London
Miss Kate Banfield, University of Bristol
Dr James Woodcock, University of Cambridge
Ms Ruth Dar, University College London
Dr Éamonn Murray, Imperial College London
Prof Sian Harding, Imperial College London
Dr David Briggs, Imperial College London
Prof Paul Luckham, Imperial College London
Mrs Michele Foot, Imperial College London
Prof Matthew Jackson, Imperial College London
Dr David Clements, Imperial College London
Dr David Wilson, Imperial College London
Dr Eduardo Coutinho, University of Liverpool and Imperial College London
Dr Huw Williams, Imperial College London
Prof Ben Sauer, Imperial College London
Prof Klaus Hellgardt, Imperial College London
Dr Shahin Tavakoli, University of Warwick
Ms Kay Hancox, Imperial College London
Dr Valerie Good, Imperial College London
Prof Martin Buck, Imperial College London
Dr Andrew Shevchuk, Imperial College London
Dr Robert Zimmerman, Imperial College London
Prof Daniel Elson, Imperial College London
Miss Joanne Chaffin, Imperial College London
Prof Ian Hodkinson, Imperial College London
Dr Bradley Ladewig, Imperial College London
Mr Peter Haycock, Imperial College London
Prof Paul Kelly, Imperial College London
Dr Roberto Rinaldi Sobrinho, Imperial College London
Miss Silvana Zappacosta, Imperial College London
Mr Stephen Condliffe, University of Bristol
Ms Trudy Breuss, Imperial College London
Prof Tim Cole, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health
Mr Denis Murphy, Imperial College London
Dr Joao Cabral, Imperial College London
Dr Laura Griffin, Imperial College London
Prof Matthew Foulkes, Imperial College London
Dr Simak Ali, Imperial College London
Mr Andrew Thomas, Imperial College London
Mrs Sibylle Moulin, Imperial College London
Mr Roddy Slorach, Imperial College London
Mr Ronny Pini, Imperial College London
Dr Robert MacCallum, Imperial College London
Prof Yannis Hardalupas, Imperial College London
Dr Peter DiMaggio, Imperial College London
Dr Gemma Taylor, University of Bristol
Mr Martin Eden, Imperial College London
Dr Yann Sweeney, Imperial College London
Dr Ruth Misener, Imperial College London
Prof Ulrik Egede, Imperial College London
Prof Jenny Nelson, Imperial College London
Dr Adam Johansen, University of Warwick

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

Finance.FOI Requests, University College London

Dear Neil,

 

We have completed the compilation of information in response to your
request.

 

Q1) Please provide a copy of your University’s response to the 2017 and
2014 UUK USS valuation consultations.

 

A1) We can confirm that we do hold the information you have requested for
the 2014 consultation but not the 2017 version. We have withheld the
requested information for the 2014 consultation under section 36(2)(b)(i)
and (ii) of the FOIA.
 
This section states:

 

(2) “Information to which this section applies is exempt information if,
in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person, disclosure of the
information under this Act—

(b) would, or would be likely to, inhibit—

(i) the free and frank provision of advice, or

(ii) the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of
deliberation”.
 
For information held by the University to be exempt under section 36 it
must, in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person (in this case the
President & Provost of the University), be capable of inhibiting the free
and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation. In view of
this provision we sought and obtained the view of the President & Provost,
Professor Michael Arthur. The conclusion reached is that the exemption at
section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) is engaged. It is his opinion that disclosure
of the requested information would be likely to inhibiting UCL staff (and
others) from being able to express themselves openly and fully when giving
their views for the purposes of deliberation.

Section 36 is a qualified exemption. We must therefore consider whether
the public interest in withholding the information outweighs that in
disclosing it.

 

Public Interest Test for the application of Section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii):

 

Arguments for disclosure:

-       There is a general public interest in transparency. The public
have a right to know how public authorities are making decisions and how
these impact upon their lives.

-       Disclosure of this information would contribute to a more open and
knowledgeable debate concerning the USS reform options and any decisions
made in respect of how to move forward in this regard.

 

Arguments against disclosure:

-       Negotiations and bargaining in relation to benefit reform are
still ongoing and information in the 2014 is still pertinent today. If
consultations are published while this process is still being deliberated
and evaluated, it would be likely to set a precedent for the disclosure of
similar information in the future. Setting such a precedent would have the
effect of potentially censoring and/or limiting UCL’s responses to similar
future consultations. Indeed it may be likely to stop the University from
assisting with such consultations in a full, frank and open manner in
future, for risk of disclosure into the public domain under the FOIA.
Furthermore, disclosing the information could delay or otherwise adversely
affect the progress of the discussions and such delays would cause harm to
the financial interests of the University and those in the sector.
Disclosures may, depending on their content, risk worsening
employer-employee relations and prolong strike action or frustrate any
worthwhile negotiations between the parties.

 

-       Disclosing the Consultation Response at this time would be likely
to inhibit not only the free and frank provision of advice and/or the free
and frank exchange of views from universities, but also as between UCEA
and its Members or between UCEA and the UUK / other relevant organisations
for the purposes of deliberation in this area. Therefore in each case the
interests of UCEA as a representative organisation, in part reliant on the
feedback and input from its Members, may also be impacted.

 

-       Universities and institutions in the higher education sector have
not made their consultation responses accessible to the general public.

 

Outcome of public interest test:

 

Having considered all of the above arguments, we have decided that the
public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public
interest in disclosing it.

 

If you are unhappy with our response to your request and wish to make a
complaint or request a review of our decision, please email
[1][email address]. Emails should include the words ‘Internal
Review’ in the subject and be marked For the Attention of the Vice Provost
Operations, alternatively you should write to:

 

Vice Provost Operations

University College London

1-19 Torrington Place

London WC1E 7HB

 

Please note, complaints and requests for internal review received more
than two months after the initial decision will not be handled.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you may
apply directly to the Information Commissioner at the address given
below.  You should do this within two months of our final decision.

 

If you have any queries or concerns, please contact me using the details
provided in this letter and including the request reference number.

 

Further information on the Freedom of Information Act is available from
the Information Commissioner’s Office:

 

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

SK9 5AF

 

Telephone: 01625 545700

W: [2]www.ico.org.uk

 

Kind regards,

 

Mehwish Sultan

Data Protection and Freedom of Information Adviser

University College London

Legal Services, Finance and Business Affairs

External address: Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT

Internal address: 6th Floor, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB

E: [3][email address]

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.ico.org.uk/
3. mailto:[email address]

Dear University College London,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of University College London's handling of my FOI request 'Response to the 2017 and 2014 UUK USS valuation consultations'.

Please see my previous message for more detail.

In addition, I would note that Bristol, Cambridge, Exeter, Lancaster, and Queen Mary's have all forwarded their responses to the 2017 valuation.

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

Yours faithfully,

Neil Davies

Shailer, Lee, University College London

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Davies,

Please find UCL's response to your request for an internal review.

Yours sincerely,

Lee Shailer
Data Protection and Freedom of Information Officer
University College London
Legal Services, Finance and Business Affairs
6th Floor, 1-19 Torrington Place
London, WC1E 7HB

020 3108 8726 (internal ext 58726)
[email address]

show quoted sections

Shailer, Lee, University College London

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Davies,

Further to your request please find attached UCL's response to the UUK USS valuation consultation in 2014.

Some of the information you have requested is exempt under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) section 40(2) – Personal Information by virtue of Section 40(3)(a)(i). The disclosure of these personal data would breach the first data protection principle of the Data Protection Act 1998:

1. Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and
2. Personal data shall not be processed unless at least one of the conditions in DPA schedule 2 is met.

In particular disclosure of the personal data does not satisfy a relevant DPA Schedule 2 condition because it does not meet the test of necessity in Shedule2(6) and would be beyond the reasonable expectations of the data subject to have their personal data disclosed in this way.

Please note, complaints and requests for internal review received more than two months after the initial decision will not be handled.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner at the address given below. You should do this within two months of our final decision.

If you have any queries or concerns, please contact me using the details provided in this letter and including the request reference number.

Further information on the Freedom of Information Act is available from the Information Commissioner’s Office:

Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
SK9 5AF

Telephone 01625 545700
www.ico.org.uk

Yours sincerely

Lee Shailer
Data Protection and Freedom of Information Officer
University College London
Legal Services, Finance and Business Affairs
6th Floor, 1-19 Torrington Place
London, WC1E 7HB

020 3108 8726 (internal ext 58726)
[email address]

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Shailer,

Many thanks for the sending the response. Please could you also send the response to the 2017 consultation?

Yours sincerely,

Neil Davies

Shailer, Lee, University College London

Dear Mr Davies,

Thank you for your email.

As we mentioned in our response of 27 November 2017, we do not hold a copy of the 2017 response to the UUK USS valuation consultation. This consultation was submitted via an online web page and no copy of the submission was kept.

Yours sincerely,

Lee Shailer
Data Protection and Freedom of Information Officer
University College London
Legal Services, Finance and Business Affairs
6th Floor, 1-19 Torrington Place
London, WC1E 7HB

020 3108 8726 (internal ext 58726)
[email address]

show quoted sections

Shailer, Lee, University College London

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Davies,

We have considered your request further and decided to disclose the attached draft 2017 consultation response.

This was not disclosed to you previously because it is not a copy of the actual response that was submitted as part of the consultation. We do not have a copy of that because, as we said earlier, the submission was done via an online survey form and no copy or receipt was kept. However the attached is a draft of the response; this was circulated to the Senior Management Team for comment and although there may have been some changes to the final submission these are likely to have been minor.

We trust that this satisfies your request.

Yours sincerely,

Lee Shailer

Lee Shailer
Data Protection and Freedom of Information Officer
University College London
Legal Services, Finance and Business Affairs
6th Floor, 1-19 Torrington Place
London, WC1E 7HB

020 3108 8726 (internal ext 58726)
[email address]

show quoted sections