Asbestos in Queen Mary Medical Library

The request was partially successful.

Ann-Marie Christie

Dear Queen Mary University of London,

I would like to request access to the below information:

- Who is the legally appointed asbestos Duty Holder for Queen Mary University of London in accordance with the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012?
- A Copy of the asbestos register for the University’s Medical Library Building at Whitechapel, Church of St Augustine with St Philip, Newark Street, London
- Copies of any documents, surveys, reports and certificates relating to asbestos testing, asbestos removal and asbestos encapsulation works which took place in the building from 2014 onwards

Yours faithfully,

Ann-Marie Christie

Queen Mary, University of London FOI, Queen Mary University of London

We acknowledge receipt of your request.

QM FOI Enquiries, Queen Mary University of London

5 Attachments

FOI 2021/F18

 

Dear Ann-Marie Christie,

 

Thank you for your email of 7th January.

 

I am pleased to provide the following responses.

 

- Who is the legally appointed asbestos Duty Holder for Queen Mary
University of London in accordance with the Control of Asbestos
Regulations 2012? 

Prof. Colin Bailey.

 

- A Copy of the asbestos register for the University’s Medical Library
Building at Whitechapel, Church of St Augustine with St Philip, Newark
Street, London

Please see attached spreadsheet.

 

- Copies of any documents, surveys, reports and certificates relating to
asbestos testing, asbestos removal and asbestos encapsulation works which
took place in the building from 2014 onwards

There have been no asbestos removal or encapsulation works in the period
in question. A reception desk was removed in 2015 and the documents
relating to this work are attached (‘Completion Certificate 20150826.pdf’
and ‘Test QMUL - BL - 13.08.15 - AFM B.pdf’).

Please find attached two other reports. Some parts of these have been
redacted. This information consists of personal data, such as the names of
employees of the third party contractor, information on the methodologies
used by the contractor, and detailed floorplans. Nevertheless, the
information that remains is the main information you seek on asbestos
testing that has taken place.

 

The personal data is withheld under s.40(2) of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 by virtue of s.40(3A)(a). This is because it relates to
identifiable individuals and since they have neither consented nor would
reasonably expect this to be disclosed in to the public domain, it would
not be fair or transparent and thus breach the first data protection
principle. The Information Commissioner states, “If disclosure would not
be fair or transparent, you must not disclose the information”(1). This is
an absolute exemption.

 

The information on the methodologies and other report structure is
withheld under s.43 of the FOIA. We believe disclosure would be likely to
prejudice the commercial interests of the external organisations who
produced these reports for a fee. These companies provide similar services
for a variety of institutions and clients in a competitive market. Their
work product is intended for the paying client and not for the public
domain and could lead to rival firms taking that information to modify
their own approaches and techniques or tender against an incumbent
supplier.

 

The detailed floorplans are withheld under s.31(1)(a) of the FOIA applies.
Such information could be utilised in order to perpetrate acts against
QMUL, say to break in, possibly without detection. For example, this
information could be useful to parties to show ingress/egress points of
the building and perhaps where items of value may be found, if released to
the world at large. This would then be likely to prejudice QMUL’s ability
to prevent or detect crime.

 

These latter two exemptions are subject to the public interest test. We
recognise that on the one hand there is always a public interest in the
transparency of an authority. This would be in favour of the public
interest and releasing. However, given that this disclosure would be to
the world at large, information which could affect an organisation’s
commercial interests or provide details giving individuals useful
knowledge to take advantage of any weaknesses, to Queen Mary’s detriment,
would not be in the public interest, especially at the current time.

 

Regarding s.43,  we believe that the possible prejudice to the commercial
interests of the companies who have produced these reports is not in the
public interest disclosed information could be used by their competitors
to their detriment. The documents as supplied provide enough detail of the
testing that has been undertaken in the period in question in the
Whitechapel Library.

 

Regarding s.31, the Information Commissioner also recognises that “There
is a very strong public interest in protecting the law enforcement
capabilities of public authorities”(2). We contend that some of the
information you have requested could allow individuals to commit crime and
make it more difficult to detect this and prosecute them as it may give
them useful knowledge of the layout of the buildings. This would not be in
the public interest.

 

On balance we believe that the public interest in withholding this
information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it.

 

If you are dissatisfied with this response, you may ask QMUL to conduct a
review of this decision.  To do this, please contact the College in
writing (including by fax, letter or email), describe the original
request, explain your grounds for dissatisfaction, and include an address
for correspondence.  You have 40 working days from receipt of this
communication to submit a review request.  When the review process has
been completed, if you are still dissatisfied, you may ask the Information
Commissioner to intervene. Please see [1]www.ico.org.uk for details.

Yours sincerely

 

Paul Smallcombe

Records & Information Compliance Manager

 

 1. [2]https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...
 2. [3]https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...

 

 

The information supplied to you in response to this freedom of information
request may be subject to copyright owned by Queen Mary University of
London or a third party. You are free to use information supplied for your
own use, including non-commercial research purposes. The information may
also be used for the purposes of news reporting. However, any other type
of re-use, for example by publishing the information or issuing copies to
the public will require the permission of the copyright holder. 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.org.uk/
2. https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...
3. https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...

Ann-Marie Christie

Dear Queen Mary University of London,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Queen Mary University of London's handling of my FOI request 'Asbestos in Queen Mary Medical Library'.

-The Queen Mary Medical Library is a public access building, open to researchers and all visitors who wish to view the stained glass windows. So withholding the floor plans of the public access areas seems unreasonable. Can you please release the floor plans of the public access areas?
-The asbestos surveys inform me that there is high risk asbestos within the building. According to the surveys, Queen Mary University had been advised by the surveyors to 'remove' some asbestos. If this dangerous material is still present in public access areas and it's friable, then the public should know about its exact location. Public health is more important than the University's commercial interest. Under the circumstances, the potential risk of asbestos to the health of building users outweighs the potential risk of criminal activity, such as break in.
-The file '36430 St Augustine Library Re inspection Report.pdf' is missing whole pages. It would be good practice if you had redacted the restricted access areas of the floor plans, instead of removing whole pages. For example, you can redact some of the floor maps (excluding the public access areas) but I would like access to any text that may exist on the same page as the redacted floor maps.
-The file '36430 St Augustine Library Re inspection Report.pdf' is a re-inspection report. It quotes previous surveys, for example the survey 26/07/2018 J-03179. If the University had been undertaking annual asbestos re-inspections from 2014 onwards, then I would like access to the relevant report for each year (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018). I believe these surveys and/or re-inspection reports, including information an asbestos samples, should exist in pdf format and would be easy to find and upload.

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

Yours faithfully,

Ann-Marie Christie

QM FOI Enquiries, Queen Mary University of London

Dear Ann-Marie Christie,
 
Thank you for your email.
 
I am writing to let you know that we shall deal with the following as a
fresh request and will respond separately:
'The file  '36430 St Augustine Library Re inspection Report.pdf' is a
re-inspection report. It quotes previous surveys, for example the survey
26/07/2018 J-03179.  If the University had been undertaking annual
asbestos re-inspections from 2014 onwards, then I would like access to the
relevant report for each year (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018). I believe
these surveys and/or re-inspection reports, including information an
asbestos samples, should exist in pdf format and would be easy to find and
upload.'
 
Yours sincerely
 
Paul Smallcombe
Queen Mary University of London
 
 
 

QM FOI Enquiries, Queen Mary University of London

1 Attachment

FOI 2021/F102   

 

Dear Ann-Marie Christie,

 

This email serves as a response to the following:

'If the University had been undertaking annual asbestos re-inspections
from 2014 onwards, then I would like access to the relevant report for
each year (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018). I believe these surveys and/or
re-inspection reports, including information an asbestos samples, should
exist in pdf format'.

 

Please see attached. As with your previous request, there are some
redactions that have been made. Personal data, such as names and
signatures of external surveyors, is withheld under s.40(2) of the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 by virtue of s.40(3A)(a). This is because it
relates to identifiable individuals and since they have neither consented
nor would reasonably expect this to be disclosed in to the public domain,
it would not be fair or transparent and thus breach the first data
protection principle. The Information Commissioner states, “If disclosure
would not be fair or transparent, you must not disclose the
information”(1). This is an absolute exemption.

 

The information on the methodologies and other report structure is
withheld under s.43 of the FOIA. We believe disclosure would be likely to
prejudice the commercial interests of the external organisations who
produced these reports for a fee. These companies provide similar services
for a variety of institutions and clients in a competitive market. Their
work product is intended for the paying client and not for the public
domain and could lead to rival firms taking that information to modify
their own approaches and techniques or tender against an incumbent
supplier.

 

The detailed floorplans are withheld under s.31(1)(a) of the FOIA applies.
Such information could be utilised in order to perpetrate acts against
QMUL, say to break in, possibly without detection. For example, this
information could be useful to parties to show ingress/egress points of
the building and perhaps where items of value may be found, if released to
the world at large. This would then be likely to prejudice QMUL’s ability
to prevent or detect crime.

 

These latter two exemptions are subject to the public interest test. We
recognise that on the one hand there is always a public interest in the
transparency of an authority. This would be in favour of the public
interest and releasing. However, given that this disclosure would be to
the world at large, information which could affect an organisation’s
commercial interests or provide details giving individuals useful
knowledge to take advantage of any weaknesses, to Queen Mary’s detriment,
would not be in the public interest, especially at the current time.

 

Regarding s.43,  we believe that the possible prejudice to the commercial
interests of the companies who have produced these reports is not in the
public interest disclosed information could be used by their competitors
to their detriment. The documents as supplied provide enough detail of the
testing that has been undertaken in the period in question in the
Whitechapel Library.

 

Regarding s.31, the Information Commissioner also recognises that “There
is a very strong public interest in protecting the law enforcement
capabilities of public authorities”(2). We contend that some of the
information you have requested could allow individuals to commit crime and
make it more difficult to detect this and prosecute them as it may give
them useful knowledge of the layout of the buildings. This would not be in
the public interest.

 

On balance we believe that the public interest in withholding this
information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it.

 

Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding.

 

If you are dissatisfied with this response, you may ask QMUL to conduct a
review of this decision.  To do this, please contact the College in
writing (including by fax, letter or email), describe the original
request, explain your grounds for dissatisfaction, and include an address
for correspondence.  You have 40 working days from receipt of this
communication to submit a review request.  When the review process has
been completed, if you are still dissatisfied, you may ask the Information
Commissioner to intervene. Please see [1]www.ico.org.uk for details.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Paul Smallcombe

Records & Information Compliance Manager

 

 1. [2]https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...
 2. [3]https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...

 

The information supplied to you in response to this freedom of information
request may be subject to copyright owned by Queen Mary University of
London or a third party. You are free to use information supplied for your
own use, including non-commercial research purposes. The information may
also be used for the purposes of news reporting. However, any other type
of re-use, for example by publishing the information or issuing copies to
the public will require the permission of the copyright holder. 

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.org.uk/
2. https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...
3. https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...