FOI85

WrittenevidencefromtheCollegesintheUniversityofCambridge Thissubmission 1. Thissubmissionismadeonbehalfofthe31CollegesintheUniversityofCambridge,allof whomaredefinedtobepublicauthoritiesforthepurposesoftheFreedomofInformation Act.

TheinclusionoftheCollegesaspublicauthorities 2. TheinclusionoftheColleges(onwhichtheywerenotconsultedbeforethepassageofthe Act)isanomalous.Theyareregisteredcharitiesnotinreceiptofpublicfunding.Theyare not higher educational institutions as defined in the Further and Higher Education Act 1995.TheyaresubjecttotheregulatoryjurisdictionoftheCharityCommission,andare notwithintheremitoftheHigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland. Totheextentthatcharitieshaveapublicpurposeanditmightbearguedthatinformation heldbyallcharitiesshould(subjecttoappropriateexemptions)beinthepublicdomain, theCollegeswouldacceptthatprinciple.ButthatisnottheprincipleonwhichtheActis based. To the extent that bodies providing education have a public purpose and it might be argued that information held by all such bodies should (subject to appropriate exemptions)beinthepublicdomain,theCollegeswouldacceptthatprinciple.Butthatis nottheprincipleonwhichtheActisbased.Therearesubstantialeducationalbodieswith degreeawardingpowers(suchasTheCollegeofLaw)notwithinthescopeoftheAct. The Act throws expenditure onto the charitable resources of the Colleges without any supportfrompublicfundsforthat(oranyother)purpose.TheCollegespointwouldbe simplyaddressedbytheamendmentofparagraph53(1)ofSchedule1totheAct,which currentlyincludesasapublicauthority: Thegoverningbodyof (a) aninstitutionwithinthefurthereducationsector, (b) a university receiving financial support under section 65 of the Further andHigherEducationAct1992, (c) aninstitutionconductedbyahighereducationcorporation, (d) a designated institution for the purposes of Part II of the Further and HigherEducationAct1992asdefinedbysection72(3)ofthatAct,or (e) any college, school, hall or other institution of a university which falls withinparagraph(b). Theremovalof(e)wouldleavethepositionthatacollege,school,hallorotherinstitution thatisinreceiptofpublicfunding,ofauniversitywhichfallswithinparagraph(b),would continue to be classified as a public authority under paragraph (b)see section 90(3) of

3.

4.

5.

the Further and Higher Education Act 1992; but the Cambridge Colleges would not. (A consequentialremovalofparagraph53(2)(d)wouldbedesirable.) DoestheFreedomofInformationActworkeffectively? 6. The principle of the Act itself (as opposed to its application to the Colleges) is not questionedbytheColleges.However,manyrequestsarefromjournalistsandareinthe natureofspeculativeenquiriesseekingastorybyusingthepublicauthorityconcernedas afreeresearchresource.Thatisinappropriateanditshouldbeopentopublicauthorities tolevyasufficientchargetocoveritscostsinrespondingtoinformationrequests.

WhatarethestrengthsandweaknessesoftheFreedomofInformationAct? 7. The suggested improvements listed below arise from the experience of the Colleges in relationtotheoperationoftheAct: (a) The cost of redacting information in order to respond to a request should be included within the scope of section 12 of the Act. Its exclusion is irrational and appearstobeunintentional. Anabsoluteexemptionshouldbeprovidedexplicitlytocoverinformationsubmitted to the Information Commissioner by a public authority in connection with an applicationmadetohimundersection50oftheAct. TheoperativetimeatwhichanexemptionistoapplyshouldbedefinedintheAct, justasthetimeatwhichinformationisconsideredtobeheldisdefined. The decision dated 31 May 2006 of the Information Commissioner in Case FS50099755(CabinetOffice)shouldbeconfirmedbylegislativeamendment,namely that the decision of a public authority to apply the section 14 exemption can properlyhaveregardtorequestsmadetootherpublicauthorities.

(b)

(c)

(d)

IstheFreedomofInformationActoperatinginthewaythatitwasintendedto? 8. Having regard to what is said in Memorandum to the Justice Select Committee Post Legislative Assessment of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Colleges do not believe that their inclusion as public authorities was within the stated objectives of the Act.

February2012