Details of K, 5 regarding the General Board's TLSS review

The request was successful.

Bruce Beckles

Dear University of Cambridge,

In December 2009, a representation was made to the Vice-Chancellor under Statute K, 5 of the University regarding the General Board's handling of its Review of Teaching and Learning Support Services and related matters. Please supply, in electronic form, all documents, as well as any other information, regarding this representation, the investigation into it, and the final decision regarding it.

Yours faithfully,

Bruce Beckles

FOI, University of Cambridge

Dear Mr Beckles,

This is to acknowledge receipt of your Freedom of Information Request. Your reference number is FOI-2010-131. We will respond on or before 4 August 2010.

Regards,

FOI Team

University of Cambridge
Secretariat, The Old Schools
Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TN

T: (01223 7)64142
F: (01223 3)32332
[email address]

show quoted sections

FOI, University of Cambridge

Dear Mr Beckles,

Further to your recent request for information, please find enclosed the University's response.

Regards,
FOI Team

University of Cambridge
Secretariat, The Old Schools
Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TN

T: (01223 7)64142
F: (01223 3)32332
[email address]

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

Thank you for your e-mail. Unfortunately, it does not actually contain the University's response, either in the body of the e-mail itself, or as an attachment. Please could you send me the University's response as soon as possible?

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Beckles

FOI, University of Cambridge

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Beckles,

I apologise that the University's response was not attached to our earlier email. I now attach that response.

Regards,
FOI Team

University of Cambridge
Secretariat, The Old Schools
Trinity Lane
Cambridge
CB2 1TN

T: (01223 7)64142
F: (01223 3)32332
[email address]

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

Thank you for your e-mail. You have said that some of the information I requested is exempt under section 42 of the Act. However, section 17(3) of the Act requires the University to state its reasons for claiming that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. Therefore, please state the reasons why, in all the circumstances of this case, the public interest in maintaining the Section 42 exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

You have also said that the information you are willing to disclose comprises about 500 pages and it would not be reasonably practicable to supply this information to me in my preferred format (i.e. in electronic format) as it is not held "in scanned format". However, I am aware that the University has a number of high quality networked scanners with sheet feeders, which should be perfectly capable of converting the information to electronic format.

Furthermore, I believe that even a cheap scanner which does not have a document feeder can be operated by a human to scan documents at a rate of about 1 scanned page per minute. So even with a cheap scanner it would only take about 9 hours to scan the information the University is willing to disclose. Awareness guidance 29 (Means of communication):

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

from the Information Commissioner's Office says:

"What other considerations may a public authority take into account when considering whether it is reasonably practicable to provide the information in the form preferred by the applicant?

An authority may take account of all the circumstances when deciding whether it is reasonably practicable to agree to the preference, for example:

* The information is contained in a particularly old or fragile document and to provide a copy of the document may have a detrimental effect on it.

* The amount of work required to meet the applicant's request would exceed the appropriate fees limit.

* Whether the information is available elsewhere, under section 21 or otherwise.

* Whether there are security or other issues which may prevent members of the public entering a building. Such barriers would not be sufficient to justify refusing the information requested. The authority would need to provide the information in another form."

It is clear that none of the examples given above apply in this case, and, in particular, it would not exceed the appropriate fees limit to supply the information I have requested in electronic format. Furthermore, given that the University already possesses high quality networked scanners with document feeders, it should take considerably less than 9 hours to turn the information into electronic format. It therefore seems to me that it is reasonably practicable for this to be done.

I am therefore requesting that you honour my original preference and provide the information in electronic format as I requested.

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Beckles

FOI, University of Cambridge

Dear Mr Beckles,

Your email has been passed to the Administrative Secretary who will undertake a review of our handling of FOI-2010-131. You will receive a response on or before 2 September 2010.

Regards,
FOI Team

University of Cambridge
Secretariat, The Old Schools
Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TN

T: (01223 7)64142
F: (01223 3)32332
[email address]

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

On 17 September 2010 I received a response from the Administrative Secretary (dated 15 September 2010) regarding his internal review of the University's handling of this request, the relevant portions of which I reproduce below. In accordance with his decision regarding supplying the information to me in my requested format, please could you indicate when I could expect to receive that information in electronic format (to this e-mail address), as requested?

Yours faithfully,

Bruce Beckles

** Response from Administrative Secretary regarding his internal review of the University's handling of this request **

15 September 2010

Dear Mr Beckles,

Internal review of your requests FOI-2010-130, FOI-2010-131, F01-2010-134 and FOI-2010-135

I am responsible for reviewing, at your request, 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-2010-130, FOI-2010-131, FOI-2010-134 and FOI-2010-135. My independent review is about whether the University's responses complied with its obligations under the Act.

I am sorry it has taken some time to complete these reviews. As you know, I have been away from Cambridge, and I also wished to deal with all four cases together.

FOI-2010-130: Legal Professional Privilege and Section 42 of the Act

I have consulted the Information Commissioner's Guidance Note about this exemption. I have considered also the explanation provided in Dr Allen's letter to you of 4 August 2010. You have asked for clarification as to why, in the circumstances of this case, the University is not prepared to disclose information to which a claim to legal professional privilege attaches.

In her letter Dr Allen adopted the reasons identified by the Information Commissioner as to why the University considers that the public interest in withholding privileged information outweighs any public interest in disclosure. As Dr Allen stated, the starting point is that legal advice and legally privileged information engages a "strong" public interest "inherent" in maintaining this exemption. This case is no exception.

Having reviewed the provision and reception of the privileged information and having seen the withheld information, I agree with Dr Allen's decision to withhold the legally privileged information. I believe that the exemption is properly engaged, because:

* the University sought legal advice in relation to its correspondence with the ICO, as disclosed to you on 4 August 2010. There is no basis to suggest (let alone any "sound evidence") that this matter involves any reasonable suspicion of illegality or misrepresentation, nor has there been a lack of transparency given the correspondence that has been disclosed to you on 4 August 2010;

* the University does, however, safeguard its ability to ensure in all communication between it and its legal advisers access to full and frank legal advice. Nothing in this case should override that and there is no equal or stronger countervailing consideration to override what the Information Tribunal has described as an "inbuilt public interest" in the exemption; and

* this is not a case concerning large amounts of public money, nor are significant groups of people affected by the legal advice in question.

Taking all of the above into account in the particular circumstances of this request, I uphold on review the University's reliance on Section 42 of the Act and I agree that, after assessing the various considerations, the public interest in favour of the exemption outweighs any public interest in disclosure.

FOI-2010-131

Your email of 4 August 2010 raises two issues:

1. Legal Professional Privilege and Section 42 of the Act

I have followed the same procedure as above in respect of the information withheld in response to this request which the University considers exempt from disclosure by virtue of being subject to legal professional privilege.

I adopt all of the explanation above to explain the factors taken into account by the University and I uphold the University's reliance on the exemption because the public interest in the exemption outweighs any public interest in disclosure of such privileged information in the particular context of this case.

2. Electronic Format

The University has gathered together the information in this request which is not exempt from disclosure and this information has been available to you in hard copy since 3 August 2010. The information comprises about 500 pages which are not currently held in a scanned format. As of 3 August 2010, you have been at liberty to collect this information from The Old Schools reception; or alternatively you have been asked to provide an address to which the University will send, post or courier the information (without charge to you). I understand that you have not taken up any of these options for providing the information to you.

Your preferred format is to receive the information electronically. The University has previously taken the view that in relation to this volume of material this is not reasonably practicable and therefore no obligation arises in this respect. I have reviewed this position and I have come to the conclusion that, in light of recent functionality improvements, it should now be reasonably practicable to provide the information in question in your preferred format and I am asking Dr Allen to do so.

Conclusion

Having completed my review across all of these requests, I have concluded that, save in respect of your complaint about format in respect of request FOI-2010-131, in each case the University has properly complied with its obligations under the Act and there is no further action to be taken, other than for the information requested by you under the latter request to be provided to you in your preferred format.

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, whose address is The Information Commissioner's office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF. Tel: 0303 123 1113. Website: www.ico.gov.uk.

Yours sincerely

FOI, University of Cambridge

Dear Mr Beckles,

The information requested will be forwarded to you in eight subsequent emails due to the size of the files.

Regards,
FOI Team

University of Cambridge
Secretariat, The Old Schools
Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TN

T: (01223 7)64142
F: (01223 3)32332
[email address]

show quoted sections

FOI, University of Cambridge

1 Attachment

FOI, University of Cambridge

1 Attachment

FOI, University of Cambridge

1 Attachment

FOI, University of Cambridge

1 Attachment

FOI, University of Cambridge

1 Attachment

FOI, University of Cambridge

1 Attachment

FOI, University of Cambridge

1 Attachment

FOI, University of Cambridge

1 Attachment