Cookie policy: This site uses cookies to simplify and improve your usage and experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information on how we use and manage cookies please take a look at our privacy and cookie policies. Your privacy is important to us and our policy is to neither share nor sell your personal information to any external organisation or party; nor to use behavioural analysis for advertising to you.

Bad and mad: the FOI requests undermining our independence

Universities need exemption from the time-wasting - and costly - absurdities of the Freedom of Information Act, argues Jon F. Baldwin

Universities are communities that love finding answers to questions. Those answers may save lives, help a business, overthrow a paradigm, or they can simply be interesting and inspiring.

Although that is what they were created and funded to explore, we now live in an age where this is not enough. Now there is a law that obliges universities to address even more questions.

But what more could our legislators want universities to answer? What powerful but supposedly neglected questions could there be that require the law itself to bend university resources to the task of answering them? Welcome to the strange world of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act request.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 has opened up a whole new, and often bizarre, world in which questions are put to universities. These questions are considered so important that we are under threat of legal action if we fail to answer them.

Now that we have a few years' experience in dealing with these new questions, what vital new areas of knowledge have they unlocked?

One key theme so far has been requests for information that will bring a company a commercial advantage.

The University of Warwick has been one of higher education's most passionate advocates of the advantages of working with industry. We have helped to create new processes and products, bringing new insights to managers and technologists. But the FOI Act has brought us nearer to a much less attractive, parasitical type of commercial contact. For example, the legislation has been used to demand detailed information about our current suppliers and contractors.

The aim often seems to be to give an advantage to questioners' own supply bids. Companies that have failed in a tender use the process to mount lengthy inquests into their loss, while marketing bodies require us to supply endless details on student numbers.

Of course we can use FOI rules to refuse some of these commercial requests, but the mere existence of the legislation creates expectations from questioners that embroil us in unnecessary, fractious and time-consuming confrontations.

Bad requests run in parallel with the simply mad. For centuries, universities have attracted - and cheerfully answered - all manner of questions from the public. The FOI Act has done little to change the flow of such questions except in one small but very depressing way.

If the question suggests that the university is part of some vast international conspiracy, or makes some other equivalent assertion, you can be pretty sure that the questioner will choose to clothe their inquiry with the full glory of the FOI process.

Of course some of the most staunch defenders of the FOI legislation - journalists - must now be expecting me to turn my fire on them. While I do defend the benefits that FOI can bring to a journalist seeking to pin down the facts about a matter of public interest, it is surely reasonable for me to be vexed by the frequent round-robin FOI requests made by a small number of journalists.

These trawl large lists of universities with questions in hope of a story. These requests are so sweeping in scope that I almost expect the next one to be "please simply list the three things you would least like us to publish in our next edition".

I have a question of my own that I would like to pose about the FOI process, although sadly the law will not force anyone to provide me with an answer. Why does FOI legislation include universities within its remit when it so obviously undermines the whole idea of universities being independent, self-governing organisations?

If I go to the Directgov website, I am told: "The FOI gives you the right to ask any public body for all the information they have on any subject." But why are we considered one of those public bodies?

One could argue that it is because universities are in receipt of public money, but so are a vast number of other charities and organisations that remain exempt from the Act.

There is one question that we at Warwick have yet to be asked through the FOI process: roughly how much a year does it cost us to process and respond to FOI questions? The answer is £50,000 a year. If that is typical of the sector (and I suspect the figure is low), UK universities are spending in excess of £5 million a year on this process.

Is there a legislator who also feels that it is time for a simple amendment to the Freedom of Information Act that would free up £5 million for UK universities? Now there is a question.

Readers' comments (3)

  • Universities must, like all public bodies, answer to the public. This includes answering questions that might reveal public corruption and acts of bullying, discrimination and victimization at these institutions. Were universities free to ignore FOI requests from the public, corruption would go even more undetected than it already does.

    The way in which public institutions spend countless amounts of money fighting legal battles with former employees is shameful. Instead of worrying about the token amount it takes to comply with FOI requests, we ought to be submitting more FOI requests to UK HE institutions to find out how much they are really spending on legal fees to defend against employment tribunal claims and to fund pay-offs of ex-employees to bribe them into dropping legitimate cases in order to avoid a public finding of unfair dismissal, discrimination or other similarly nefarious acts by the institution.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The Freedom of Information Act 2000 was one, perhaps the only, step towards increased democracy that came from the Blair years. The fact that Jon Baldwin (Registrar of Warwick) wants to exempt universities from it merely leads one to wonder what it is he has to hide.

    If there are genuine commercial reasons then he is exempt already, but in my experience the commercial exemption is often claimed by universities when the real reason is simple embarrassment.

    As universities become increasingly run by managers rather than academics, the PR ethos (i.e. lying on behalf of the client) becomes more predominant and the need for Freedom of Information increases, not decreases.

    My own attempts to discover what is being taught on certain courses have been refused again and again (it is being judged by the Information Commissioner now). Some has leaked out anyway –in one first year course on “vibrational medicine” (which is of course a non-existent subject anyway) it turns out that students are taught that “amethysts emit high yin energy”. I think that the taxpayer should know that. Recently it came to light that a university complained that its lawyers were being kept “fruitlessly busy” because I had asked to see teaching materials from 32 lectures. Of course it would have cost very little if they had simply sent them. The expense lay in their extensive efforts to avoid complying with the Act.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "There is one question that we at Warwick have yet to be asked through the FOI process: roughly how much a year does it cost us to process and respond to FOI questions? The answer is £50,000 a year."

    Well, that's just shy of the amount that the Government estimates that it costs to employ one person to deal with Freedom of Information requests.

    In setting the cost limit above which requests can be refused at £450, the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 state a cost of £25 per person per hour in dealing with a request.

    For 35 person-hours a week that's £45k.

    This complaint about the cost comes four years too late.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Print
  • Share
  • Save
  • Print
  • Share
  • Save