Justice CommitteeWritten evidence from the 31 Colleges in the University of Cambridge

This submission

1. This submission is made on behalf of the 31 Colleges in the University of Cambridge, all of whom are defined to be public authorities for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act.

The inclusion of the Colleges as public authorities

2. The inclusion of the Colleges (on which they were not consulted before the passage of the Act) is anomalous. They are registered charities not in receipt of public funding. They are not higher educational institutions as defined in the Further and Higher Education Act 1995. They are subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Charity Commission, and are not within the remit of the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

3. To the extent that charities have a public purpose and it might be argued that information held by all charities should (subject to appropriate exemptions) be in the public domain, the Colleges would accept that principle. But that is not the principle on which the Act is based.

4. 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) be in the public domain, the Colleges would accept that principle. But that is not the principle on which the Act is based. There are substantial educational bodies with degree-awarding powers (such as The College of Law) not within the scope of the Act.

5. The Act throws expenditure onto the charitable resources of the Colleges without any support from public funds for that (or any other) purpose. The Colleges’ point would be simply addressed by the amendment of paragraph 53(1) of Schedule 1 to the Act, which currently includes as a public authority:

The governing body of E+W+S+N.I.

(a)an institution within the further education sector,

(b)a university receiving financial support under section 65 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992,

(c)an institution conducted by a higher education corporation,

(d)a designated institution for the purposes of Part II of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 as defined by section 72(3) of that Act, or

(e)any college, school, hall or other institution of a university which falls within paragraph (b).

The removal of (e) would leave the position that a college, school, hall or other institution that is in receipt of public funding, of a university which falls within paragraph (b), would continue to be classified as a public authority under paragraph (b)—see section 90(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992; but the Cambridge Colleges would not. (A consequential removal of paragraph 53(2)(d) would be desirable.)

Does the Freedom of Information Act work effectively?

6. The principle of the Act itself (as opposed to its application to the Colleges) is not questioned by the Colleges. However, many requests are from journalists and are in the nature of speculative enquiries seeking a story by using the public authority concerned as a free research resource. That is inappropriate and it should be open to public authorities to levy a sufficient charge to cover its costs in responding to information requests.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Freedom of Information Act?

7. The suggested improvements listed below arise from the experience of the Colleges in relation to the operation of the Act:

(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 appears to be unintentional.

(b)An absolute exemption should be provided explicitly to cover information submitted to the Information Commissioner by a public authority in connection with an application made to him under section 50 of the Act.

(c)The operative time at which an exemption is to apply should be defined in the Act, just as the time at which information is considered to be held is defined.

(d)The decision dated 31 May 2006 of the Information Commissioner in Case FS50099755 (Cabinet Office) should be confirmed by legislative amendment, namely that the decision of a public authority to apply the section 14 exemption can properly have regard to requests made to other public authorities.

Is the Freedom of Information Act operating in the way that it was intended to?

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.

February 2012