Dear University of Cambridge,

In response to a previous Freedom of Information request[1] you have stated that the University agreed 4 post-dismissal compensation settlements in the period December 2008 to 13 December 2009. For the period December 2008 to date, please tell me how many post-dismissal compensation settlements were agreed where the amount paid the dismissed employee was in one of the following ranges:

* 0.01 pounds to 5,000 pounds

* 5,000.01 pounds to 10,000 pounds

* 10,000.01 pounds to 15,000 pounds

...and so on for all the 4,999.99 pound ranges up to the range that contains the largest amount(s) paid.

Also, if it is possible to provide the following information without revealing personal data in a way which would be unfair, for each range where the number of settlements is not 0, please indicate the categories of dismissed staff (academic, academic-related, etc.) with whom those settlements were made.

Recent correspondence with you regarding other Freedom of Information requests suggests that you may be holding the view that where any processing of raw data is required to provide the information requested, for instance where the specific figure asked for is not directly recorded but must be determined by summarising the raw data in some fashion, you consider the information not to be held for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act (2000). If you do indeed hold this view, you should be aware that both the Information Commissioner and the Information Tribunal (as was) do not agree, and are of the opinion that, in general, if the raw data is held then the information is held - see, for example, paragraphs 27-8 of the following ICO Decision Notice:

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

...and paragraphs 10-16 of the following Information Tribunal Decision:

http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/Do...

Yours faithfully,

Bruce Beckles

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

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 'Number of post-dismissal compensation settlements in bands of 5,000 pounds'.

The University has refused to provide the information requested on the grounds "that (to the extent, if at all, that it falls within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000) it comprises exempt information under section 40(2) (personal information) of the Act". However, the University has provided similar information in response to another of my Freedom of Information requests, namely the number of settlements whose financial value is in a particular 99,999.99 pound range [1]. If the University is prepared to divulge that information, it presumably does not think it is personal information.

It is not intuitively obvious how the number of settlements whose value is in one particular large range can not be personal data whilst the number of settlements whose value is in a smaller, but not unitary, range somehow is personal data. I therefore do not believe the University has properly applied Section 40(2) of the Act, and request that this be reviewed. Should the review uphold the University's current position, I would ask that the review provides an explanation of this apparent anomaly.

Furthermore, I believe the University to be in breach of Section 16 of the Act. If the problem with smaller ranges is that some ranges may hold only a single settlement, then, given that the University has revealed the aggregate of 4 of the 5 settlements in question is 104,820 pounds [2], it does not seem credible that there are not ranges smaller than 99,999.99 pounds that hold more than one settlement. Since there is no way I could determine such ranges for myself, the University should, as part of providing appropriate help and assistance (as required under Section 16 of the Act), have told me what the smallest ranges within which I could ask for the number of settlements and get a useful answer would be.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at these addresses:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/nu...
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fi...
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fi...

Yours faithfully,

Bruce Beckles

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

[2] http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/41...

Dear FOI,

On 17 September 2010 I received a response from the Administrative Secretary (dated 15 September 2010) regarding my request for an internal review, the relevant portions of which I reproduce below.

Yours faithfully,

Bruce Beckles

** Response from Administrative Secretary to my request for an internal review **

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-2010-134 and FOI-2010-135

By your emails of 11 August 2010, you have sought review of the University's responses to these requests (which are found in Dr Allen's letter of 5 August 2010). In particular, these two requests sought information about the number of post-dismissal compensation settlements within the period December 2008 to date falling within bands of £5,000 and £20,000 respectively.

I have considered the conclusion that disclosure of such information would (in respect of the total of five settlements in this time frame) amount to a breach of the first data protection principle, as would any further disclosure beyond what has already been disclosed, including the fact that all five settlements are within a range of 1p to £100,000.

I agree with the University's analysis that to provide the breakdown you seek in the particular circumstances of these five settlements and the individual amounts concerned would be a breach of the relevant individuals' rights to be treated fairly and lawfully by the University under the Data Protection Act 1998. In reaching this conclusion, I have taken the following factors into account: disclosure of information may be disclosure to the world at large; the circumstances of all five settlements; the individual amounts involved; the likely reasonable expectations of the individuals concerned as to what may happen to their personal data (references to their settlements even in bands); the size and nature of the University community; and the significance of compromise agreements and the mutual benefits of settling these in private. I note that you have been provided with aggregate information as to the first four of these five settlements.

In the circumstances, on review, I uphold the University's position as set out in Dr Allen's letter of 5 August 2010.

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