Response to the 2017 and 2014 UUK USS valuation consultations
Dear Imperial College London,
Please provide a copy of your University’s response to the 2017 and 2014 UUK USS valuation consultations.
Yours faithfully,
Neil Davies
Dear Mr Davies,
This is to acknowledge receipt of your request below, made under the Freedom of Information Act. The College aims to respond to your request within twenty working days of receipt of your request.
We will contact you again in due course.
Kind regards,
Bryony Greenfield
Dear Imperial College London,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Imperial 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...
Dear Mr Davies,
Thank you for your recent Freedom of Information request.
Please find below the College's response to your original request made on 24 October, and to your email of 22 November in which you made additional representations on the application of certain exemptions to your original request.
Your original request was:
Please provide a copy of your University’s response to the 2017 and 2014 UUK USS valuation consultations.
A copy of the College’s response to the 2014 consultation is readily available on the College website: https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/college... .
As you are aware, the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) is currently undertaking a scheduled valuation of its pension scheme arrangements. As a result of this scheduled valuation and as part of its duties under UK pensions legislation, the USS has published a variety of potential changes to the way the scheme is run, with its object being to stimulate discussion among all of the USS participants and stakeholders about whether any of these changes should be adopted. This is a long-term process and is still continuing. No final decision has yet been taken about any changes to the scheme.
As part of the discussions around the proposed changes to the USS pension scheme, the College has participated in a consultation exercise prepared by Universities UK (UUK) in September 2017, which invited responses from all UUK members to comment on the proposed USS changes. UUK are still taking forward their role of proposing changes to the scheme, based on the responses they will have received. Using this broad range of responses will enable UUK to understand the sector’s position as a whole and participate in discussions with other interested parties, such as Trades Unions and the USS itself, to assist in determining which changes should be made and how they should be implemented.
As an employer within the USS, and a member of UUK, the College chose to participate in the UUK consultation exercise. In preparing its response to the consultation, the College was able to have its own internal frank and open discussions regarding the content of its response, and was able to set out its response to UUK in the free and frank spirit in which it was sought.
As with the previous consultation exercise in 2014, the College intends to publish its response to the current consultation exercise in full, once USS has finalised the current valuation. Consequently, the College has determined that the College’s response to the 2017 UUK USS valuation consultation is exempt from release under S.22 of the FOIA, which states:
Information is exempt information if—
(a) the information is held by the public authority with a view to its publication, by the authority or any other person, at some future date (whether determined or not),
(b) the information was already held with a view to such publication at the time when the request for information was made, and
(c) it is reasonable in all the circumstances that the information should be withheld from disclosure until the date referred to in paragraph (a).
The College recognises that there is a public interest in the release of this information so that College members, members of the USS at other universities, students, and members of the public can be better informed about the proposed changes to the USS scheme, and universities’ priorities and concerns in relation to the scheme. The College believes that this interest will be satisfied by the eventual publication of the College’s response at an appropriate time.
We believe that disclosure of the College’s response at the present time, when the valuation is still underway, would not be in the public interest. It would not be appropriate for the College to release into the public domain (and hence to the other parties involved) information which has been provided to UUK for the purpose of agreeing its position with USS and the University and College Union (UCU) while the valuation is still underway. The interests of UUK as a representative organisation, which is in part reliant on feedback and input from their members, could also be compromised by the release of this information into the public domain. The release of potentially sensitive information while discussions and negotiations on the changes to the USS are continuing could also establish a precedent that would mean that the College would be unable to withhold its responses to similar consultations and discussions in the future. There is a risk that this would have a chilling effect both on internal discussions, and on its submitted responses, due to the knowledge that at any time during the process the College’s discussions and responses could be released into the public domain. The effect that this could have would be to constrain the College’s discussions. In addition, there is a distinct possibility that any such future responses would then be tailored for release into the public domain, which would inhibit the free and frank exchange of views and advice.
On balance, therefore, the College has decided that it is reasonable to withhold the requested information until the valuation has concluded.
The College is aware that a small number of other universities have already published their responses, and that you have argued that this means other universities should also publish theirs. In relation to this, it is important to note that decisions in on FOI requests must be taken by individual institutions based on their specific circumstances. Just because one institution has decided that it can release a particular document or set of documents, it does not follow from this that all other institutions must follow suit, when their individual circumstances, and the information contained in their documents, may differ significantly. Indeed, although a few universities have decided to make this information publicly available at the present time, the vast majority have not.
You have also argued that publishing your College’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”. There is no basis for suggesting any such wrongdoing.
I am obliged, under the Freedom of Information Act, to inform you of our complaints procedures in case you are unhappy about the way in which your request has been dealt with. If you wish to complain about this response, you should contact the College Secretary at the address below.
The College Secretary
Imperial College London
Exhibition Road
London
SW7 2AZ
E-mail: [email address]
If you are unhappy about the way in which the College Secretary handles your complaint then you may have recourse to the official regulator for the Freedom of Information Act who is:
The Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
http://www.ico.gov.uk
Kind regards
Catherine Mitchell
Dear Imperial College London,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Imperial College London's handling of my FOI request 'Response to the 2017 and 2014 UUK USS valuation consultations'.
Please see my previous email for arguments for disclosure. I would also note that in 2014 Glynis Breakwell, as VC of Bath, refused an FOI request for Bath's response to the 2014 valuation. This was appealed to the ICO, the ICO did not even bother to formally hear the case, and merely sent an email to Bath stating that the appeal was almost certain to be upheld. Bath subsequently sent their response. In addition, Bristol, Exeter, Cardiff, Lancaster, LSE, and Queen Mary's have all published their responses. Thus there is a significant precedent for pushing these responses.
If I do not receive the requested information by the 21st of December I will appeal to the ICO.
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
Dear Mr Davies,
I am writing in response to your request for a review of your FOIA request
seeking information on the College’s responses to the UUK USS valuation
consultations in 2014 and 2017. I apologise for the delay in responding
to your request.
On 24 October 2017 you asked the College to provide you with:
“A copy of your University’s response to the 2017 and 2014 UUK USS
valuation consultations.”
On 22 November 2017 you sent a further email requesting a review of the
College’s handling of your request. In the email you referred to
exemptions which it had been suggested might apply to your original
request as follows:
“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.”
As the College was still at that stage preparing its response to your
original request, and was considering possible exemptions and the public
interest, the College took the view that this was not a request for an
internal review, but was rather a submission of additional public interest
arguments for the College to consider when handling your original request.
On 4 December 2017 the College responded to your request, and to the
addition public interest arguments set out in your subsequent email of 22
November. The College noted that its response to the 2014 consultation
exercise was publicly available as it had been published on the College
website. The College also provided you with the appropriate link:
“A copy of the College’s response to the 2014 consultation is readily
available on the College website:
[1]https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/college...
.”
With regard to the 2017 consultation exercise, which was still ongoing at
the time of the response, the College confirmed that it intended to
publish its response to the consultation exercise in full once the USS had
finalised the current valuation, and that the information was therefore
exempt from release under S.22 of the FOIA. This exemption is subject to
the public interest test, and the College’s response set out in detail the
public interest arguments both in favour of and against release. On
balance, the College had determined that there was a greater public
interest in withholding the information than in releasing it. As set out
in the response:
“We believe that disclosure of the College’s response at the present time,
when the valuation is still underway, would not be in the public
interest. It would not be appropriate for the College to release into the
public domain (and hence to the other parties involved) information which
has been provided to UUK for the purpose of agreeing its position with USS
and the University and College Union (UCU) while the valuation is still
underway. The interests of UUK as a representative organisation, which is
in part reliant on feedback and input from their members, could also be
compromised by the release of this information into the public domain.
The release of potentially sensitive information while discussions and
negotiations on the changes to the USS are continuing could also establish
a precedent that would mean that the College would be unable to withhold
its responses to similar consultations and discussions in the future.
There is a risk that this would have a chilling effect both on internal
discussions, and on its submitted responses, due to the knowledge that at
any time during the process the College’s discussions and responses could
be released into the public domain. The effect that this could have would
be to constrain the College’s discussions. In addition, there is a
distinct possibility that any such future responses would then be tailored
for release into the public domain, which would inhibit the free and frank
exchange of views and advice.”
On 8 December 2017 you asked for an internal review of the College’s
response. In the request, you did not advance any further public interest
arguments, but instead referred the College back to the arguments made in
your email of 22 November. You also noted that in 2014 a request to the
University of Bath for its submission to the 2014 consultation exercise
had been refused by the VC, Glynis Breakwell, and that Bath had
subsequently decided to release the information when this decision had
been appealed to the ICO.
As noted above, the College’s decision not to release its submission to
the 2017 consultation exercise was on the basis that this was exempt under
Section 22 of the FOIA. In your email of 22 November, you stated the
following with respect to Section 22:
“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?”
In its response, the College noted that its response to the previous
consultation exercise in 2014 had been made publicly available online, and
confirmed that the information would be published in full on its website
once the USS has finalised the current valuation exercise. The College
also acknowledged in its response that there was a public interest in the
release of this information so that College members, members of the USS at
other universities, students, and members of the public could be better
informed about the proposed changes to the USS scheme, and universities’
priorities and concerns in relation to the scheme. However, the College
believed that this interest would be satisfied by the eventual publication
of the College’s response at the appropriate time. The reasons for this
were set out in the College’s response and are repeated above.
With regard to the University of Bath’s decision in 2014 to release its
response, you do not state what exemptions it had applied, or the public
interest arguments that were considered in that case, although as the
decision was made by the VC, it would appear that the exemption applied in
that case was likely to have been Section 36 rather than Section 22.
Either way, in the absence of the arguments that were made in that case,
it is difficult to see how a decision made about the application of
potentially different exemptions in a different set of circumstances, and
at a different time is relevant to the College’s decision in this case and
at this time.
With regard to the decisions of Bristol, Exeter, Cardiff, Lancaster, LSE,
and Queen Mary's universities to publish their responses, as was set out
in the College’s initial response, just because a small number of other
universities have already published their responses, that does not mean
that other universities must also then publish theirs. It is important to
note that decisions on FOI requests must be taken by individual
institutions based on their own specific circumstances. Just because one
institution has decided that it can release a particular document or set
of documents, it does not follow from this that all other institutions
must follow suit, when their individual circumstances, and the information
contained in their documents, may differ significantly.
The public interest arguments you put forward in your email of 22 November
were all considered carefully by the College before it responded to your
initial request. You have not presented any additional public interest
arguments as part of this review request.
In order to complete this review, I have reconsidered the arguments you
put forward in November, even though these were considered and addressed
as part of the College’s initial response. Having done so, however, I am
satisfied that the College’s view that Section 22 was engaged was correct,
and also that the public interest in withholding the information at the
time of the response outweighed the public interest in disclosure.
Although this completes the consideration of your request for a review
under the FOIA, I must inform you that, as the consultation phase of the
process has been completed, and as the USS Joint Negotiating Committee
(JNC) reached a decision on a reform proposal for the USS pension scheme
in January 2018, the College has decided that it can now publish its
submission to the 2017 consultation exercise. The College’s submission is
now publicly available on the College website from the following links:
[2]Pension Scheme Changes
[3]Imperial College Consultation Response
If you are unhappy about the way in which I have handled your complaint
then you may have recourse to the official regulator for the Freedom of
Information Act who is:
The Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
http://www.ico.gov.uk Kind regards,
Regards,
Jon Hancock
Mr Jon B Hancock BA (Hons)
Head of Central Secretariat & Assistant Clerk to the Court and Council
Level 4, Faculty Building
Imperial College London
South Kensington campus
London SW7 2AZ, UK
(: + 44 (0)20 7594 5535
7: + 44 (0)20 7594 8802
8: [4][email address]
Before you print, think about the Environment
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now