Dear University of Cambridge,

In response to a previous Freedom of Information request[1] you have stated that, at least from the period December 2008 to 13 December 2009, "[post-dismissal compensation settlements] included confidentiality clauses, in accordance with standard practice". I take this to mean that these settlements have included some sort of restriction on the individual dismissed.

Without revealing any personal data, please provide, for all post-dismissal compensation settlements from December 2008 onward, the following:

1. Details of each of the different types of restriction any of these settlements placed on the individual dismissed (e.g. forbidding them from entering University property, forbidding them from communicating with current University employees, etc.) - note that the examples I've given are not intended to be exhaustive but merely to indicate the level of detail which I seek; and

2. For each restriction detailed in 1, the number of times that restriction has been used in these settlements.

Yours faithfully,

Bruce Beckles

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

Dear FOI,

You will no doubt be aware of the timetable given in the "Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on disciplinary, dismissal, and grievance procedures: Notice and announcement of ballot" as printed on page 552 of the Reporter, No 6179:

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2009...

This gives 12 March 2010 as the deadline for the receipt by the Registrary of fly-sheets to be circulated with the voting papers for this ballot. As you are probably also aware, one of the issues in the discussion of the proposed reforms that are the subject of this ballot is the University's use of "confidentiality clauses" in post-dismissal settlement agreements.

Consequently I would strongly encourage you to provide the requested information sufficiently far in advance of 12 March 2010 that those contemplating writing fly-sheets have adequate time to consider any information unearthed by this request. I would also observe that the Information Commissioner is likely to view such a delay as grounds for issuing a Decision Notice against the University ("the effect of delay or other non-compliance served the purposes of the public authority and requires censure in an adverse Decision Notice (e.g. avoiding disclosure at a critical time)"):

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

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 'Details of post-dismissal compensation settlements'.

In the University's refusal of my request, it has said the information I require is exempt under Sections 40(2) and 40(3) of the Freedom of Information Act (2000). However, in order for these exemptions to be engaged the information in question must be (or contain) "personal data" in the sense of Section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998, the relevant part of which reads:

"personal data" means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified—
(a) from those data, or
(b) from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller,

The only data I have about the individuals in question is that they left the University at some point in the past and at some point since their departure, reached a settlement with the University that may have placed some sort of restriction on them. I have deliberately asked for the University to provide the requested information "[w]ithout revealing any personal data" and at a level of detail:

"(e.g. forbidding them from entering University property, forbidding them from communicating with current University employees, etc.) - note that the examples I've given are not intended to be exhaustive but merely to indicate the level of detail which I seek"

which does not require any personally identifying information to be revealed. I therefore cannot see how it would be possible for me to associate the information I have requested with any identifiable individuals. Consequently I do not believe that this information is personal data (in the sense specified above) and so Section 40(2) (and consequently Section 40(3)) of the Freedom of Information Act (2000) are not engaged. Therefore the University should supply the relevant information.

I also wish to complain that the University has failed to comply with Section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (2000) as its response has not been "prompt" (as is required by Section 10(1)). The arguments used by the University as to why Sections 40(2) and 40(3) apply are reasonably general arguments that are concerned with the general nature of the information requested rather than the specific data that made up that information. Making those arguments therefore should not have required the University to actually retrieve that information. It is difficult, therefore, to see why this refusal could not have been communicated to me much sooner.

In addition, as was communicated to the University in my e-mail of 22 February 2010, there were particular circumstances which meant that it was particularly important that the information requested was received before 1pm on 12 March 2010. (Note that this deadline was set by the University itself on 17 February 2010, which was after I had made my original request.) In light of this, the University's decision to communicate its refusal to provide the requested information to me at about 2:30pm on 12 March 2010 could be construed as an attempt to delay providing the requested information (or reasons why that information could not be provided) that served the purposes of the University authorities, namely to prevent that information being used in fly-sheets for the upcoming ballot on the proposed reforms to the University's Statute U:

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2009...

Finally, I would remind you that the Information Commissioner's Office has already had occasion to communicate with the University regarding its failure to carry out internal reviews of FOI requests in a reasonable time period (ICO Case Reference Number FS50246295). I would hope, therefore, that this request for an internal review would be handled in accordance with the Information Commissioner's
guidance regarding the time limits on carrying out internal reviews:

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

I would also hope that, taking into account that voting in the aforementioned ballot is expected to commence around 23 April 2010, the review will be held (and its results communicated to me) promptly.

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

Yours faithfully,

Bruce Beckles

Dear FOI,

On 30 June 2010, the Information Commissioner's Office informed me that you have supplied them with the information requested in my original request of 12 February 2010. They also said that you have stated that you have no objection to the information being provided to myself and that, furthermore, "no exemption in respect of this information is, or has ever been, claimed".

I am therefore asking you to supply me with the information requested, namely:

"Without revealing any personal data, please provide, for all post-dismissal compensation settlements from December 2008 onward, the following:

1. Details of each of the different types of restriction any of these settlements placed on the individual dismissed (e.g. forbidding them from entering University property, forbidding them
from communicating with current University employees, etc.) - note that the examples I've given are not intended to be exhaustive but merely to indicate the level of detail which I seek; and

2. For each restriction detailed in 1, the number of times that restriction has been used in these settlements."

as soon as possible since, if "no exemption in respect of this information is, or has ever been, claimed" then you should have supplied this information to me by 12 March 2010 and it is now 2 July 2010.

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Beckles

Dear Dr Allen,

I am somewhat surprised that you appear to have judged it to be less trouble to yourself and the University to ask what information the Information Commissioner's Office may have passed on to me rather than to simply supply me with the requested information. (Given that the University now claims not to claim any exemption in relation to that information, why not simply supply it?)

I had been given to understand that the burden to the University of handling Freedom of Information requests was significant and increasing, and so I am surprised that you appear to have chosen to deliberately make more work for yourself. It might be worth considering that, by failing to release the information here, you may be encouraging others who are also interested in this information to make similar Freedom of Information requests of the University. As I'm sure you are aware, the requested information is of considerable interest to other members of the University.

I also find it hard to reconcile your handling of this with the duty of public authorities under Section 16 of the Act.

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Beckles

Dear FOI,

In response to the Freedom of Information request here:

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

you have made available a document containing the information I requested on 12 February 2010 (pp. 14-15 of the PDF file "FOI 2010 130 Beckles scan.pdf"). For the avoidance of doubt, I reproduce the relevant information below, re-formatted to be more readable in plain text:

Type of restriction: No of times

No disclosure by either party of terms and existence of settlement: 4
No derogatory statements: 3
No holding out as employee or having any connection: 1
No applying for re-engagement for specified period: 1

I continue to be perplexed as to why you could not have made this information available to me, by 12 March 2010, in response to my original request of 12 February 2010 (or, failing that, in reply to my request of 2 July 2010). I am afraid that I can only conclude that the University wished to withhold the information for as long as possible and to restrict its distribution once it was forced to disclose it. I hope that in future the University will do a better job of fulfilling its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Beckles

Dear FOI,

The University's response to a subsequent Freedom of Information request[1] reveals that, in the period 14 December 2009 to 8 July 2010, an additional post-dismissal compensation settlement has been reached. This means that the information I requested on 12 February 2010 must have changed. Therefore, please supply, in electronic form to this e-mail address, the following information again:-

Without revealing any personal data, please provide, for all post-dismissal compensation settlements from December 2008 onward, the following:

1. Details of each of the different types of restriction any of these settlements placed on the individual dismissed (e.g. forbidding them from entering University property, forbidding them from communicating with current University employees, etc.) - note that the examples I've given are not intended to be exhaustive but merely to indicate the level of detail which I seek; and

2. For each restriction detailed in 1, the number of times that restriction has been used in these settlements.

For the avoidance of doubt, please note that the phrase "from December 2008 onward" means "from December 2008 to the date at which you provide the information requested".

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Beckles

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