Imperial College London’s FOI Refusal Sparks Transparency Debate in UK Higher Education

In the United Kingdom, the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000 plays a crucial role in ensuring transparency and accountability in public institutions. However, a recent case involving Imperial College London has raised important questions about the balance between transparency and administrative burden in UK higher education.

Background

On 23 May 2024, I submitted an FOI request to Imperial College London seeking details on legal fees paid to the law firm Farrer & Co for various matters, including Employment Tribunal cases, staff grievances, and research misconduct investigations. The request aimed to shed light on the college’s legal expenditures and use of public funds.

Imperial College’s Response

Imperial College’s initial response, dated 8 June 2024, refused the request citing Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act, deeming it vexatious. The college argued that the request lacked sufficient public interest to justify the resources required to produce the information.

In preparing this article, we reached out to Imperial College London for comment, following up three times to offer them the opportunity to provide their perspective. Unfortunately, they did not respond to our requests.

Key Points of Contention

Legitimacy of the Request: Imperial questioned the legitimacy based on its similarity to a previous request, despite the possibility of shared public interest. This raises questions about how institutions assess the motivations behind FOI requests.
Assumption of Personal Motives: The college assumed personal rather than public interest motives, contrary to FOI principles that the requester’s identity should not influence the request’s legitimacy. This highlights the delicate balance between protecting institutions from burdensome requests and maintaining the spirit of the FOI Act.
Information Gathering Burden: Imperial claimed providing the information would be unduly burdensome, raising questions about their information management systems and commitment to transparency.
Narrow Interpretation of “Public Interest”: The college’s definition appears to exclude scrutiny of public fund expenditures on legal matters, which many would argue is fundamentally in the public interest.
Application of Section 14: The use of the “vexatious request” exemption seems premature and potentially misapplied. Section 14 is designed to protect public authorities from unreasonable requests, but its application in this case warrants further scrutiny.
Lack of Partial Disclosure: No attempt was made to provide partial information or guidance on narrowing the request’s scope, which could have demonstrated a good-faith effort towards transparency.

The Broader Context of FOI in UK Higher Education

This case is not occurring in isolation. UK universities have faced increasing scrutiny over their handling of FOI requests in recent years. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has previously criticised some institutions for their approach to transparency, particularly in matters relating to financial expenditures and governance.

The case of Dransfield v Information Commissioner [2015] established key principles for applying Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act, highlighting the necessity of balancing the public interest against the burden placed on the institution. Nevertheless, the application of these principles continues to be a contentious issue in many FOI disputes.

Legal Analysis

The application of Section 14 in this case raises several legal questions:

What constitutes a “vexatious” request in the context of higher education institutions?

A “vexatious” request is typically one that causes an unjustifiable level of disruption, irritation, or distress, without a serious purpose or value. In the context of higher education institutions, a request may be considered vexatious if it:

Repeatedly seeks information on issues already addressed.
Places an excessive burden on the institution’s resources.
Appears intended to harass or annoy staff.
Lacks any apparent benefit to the public or academic community.

The Dransfield v Information Commissioner case highlighted factors such as the burden on the institution, the motive of the requester, and the value of the request’s intended outcome. Each case must be evaluated on its specific facts, considering the broader context of academic freedom and the institution’s operational capacity.

How should the public interest in university expenditures be weighed against administrative burden?

Balancing the public interest in transparency regarding university expenditures against the administrative burden involves assessing:

The significance and potential impact of the information requested. For example, details about significant expenditure or controversial financial decisions may have a higher public interest value.
The proportionality of the request, considering the volume and complexity of information sought.
The resources required to process the request, including staff time and financial costs.

Institutions must perform a careful analysis to determine whether the public benefit of disclosing the information justifies the resource expenditure. This often involves considering alternative means of fulfilling the request or partial disclosures that satisfy public interest without undue burden.

To what extent should past requests influence the handling of new, similar requests?

Past requests can significantly influence the handling of new, similar requests by:

Establishing a pattern of behaviour by the requester, which might indicate a vexatious intent if previous requests were repetitive and burdensome without yielding significant new information.
Helping institutions streamline responses to similar requests through the development of standard responses or the proactive publication of frequently requested information.
Allowing institutions to refuse new requests under Section 14 if they are demonstrably part of a persistent pattern of vexatious requests, especially if they offer no new value compared to past requests.

However, each new request must be considered on its own merits, ensuring that legitimate public interest requests are not unfairly dismissed due to past behaviour. Institutions must ensure that their approach remains fair, transparent, and compliant with legal obligations.

Clarifying Public Interest

Public interest in FOI requests generally involves the promotion of transparency and accountability, particularly concerning the use of public funds. In Kennedy v Charity Commission [2014], the Supreme Court emphasised that the public interest test should consider whether disclosure would contribute to transparency and accountability, thereby enhancing public debate and decision-making. In higher education, transparency about financial expenditures, including legal fees, is crucial for ensuring that public funds are used effectively and responsibly.

Recommendations for UK Higher Education Institutions

Improving Information Management Systems: Efficient information management systems can reduce the burden of responding to detailed FOI requests. UK universities should prioritise the organisation and maintenance of records in a manner that facilitates easy retrieval of information. This could involve adopting best practices from other sectors where FOI requests are common, such as local government.
Proactive Publication: By proactively publishing detailed financial information, universities can reduce the need for FOI requests. This approach not only aligns with the principles of the FOI Act but also builds public trust and enhances transparency in the use of public funds.
Engaging with Requesters: Rather than outright refusal, institutions should engage in dialogue with requesters to narrow the scope of broad requests. For instance, providing partial information or guidance on refining requests demonstrates a good-faith effort towards transparency. This practice can significantly reduce the administrative burden while still fulfilling the public’s right to know.

Implications for Transparency in UK Higher Education

This case has several potential implications:

It may discourage legitimate FOI requests, potentially limiting public scrutiny of university expenditures.
It could set a precedent for other institutions to use Section 14 more broadly.
It highlights the need for clearer guidelines on what constitutes public interest in university financial matters.

Next Steps

As the matter remains unresolved, I intend to file a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office for further review. This case serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges in ensuring public access to information and the importance of continued advocacy for transparency in public institutions.

Call to Action

As professionals in the UK, we all have a stake in the transparency and accountability of our public institutions. I encourage you to:

Familiarise yourself with the FOI process and your rights under the FOI Act.
Engage in discussions about transparency in higher education and public sector spending.
Support initiatives that promote open governance and data accessibility in public institutions.

What are your thoughts on this case? Have you had experiences with FOI requests in the UK? Share your perspectives in the comments below.

References:

Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). (2024). Freedom of Information Act 2000. Available at: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-freedom-of-information/
House of Commons Library. (2023). Freedom of Information: Key Issues and Statistics. Available at: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7186
Legislation.gov.uk. (2000). Freedom of Information Act 2000. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/contents
Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). (2024). When can we refuse a request for information? Available at: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-freedom-of-information/refusing-a-request/
Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). (2023). The Public Interest Test. Available at: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/foi/freedom-of-information-and-environmental-information-regulations/the-public-interest-test/
Dransfield v Information Commissioner & Devon County Council [2015] EWCA Civ 454. Available at: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/454.html
Kennedy v Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20. Available at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2012-0122.html

Public Interest Disclosure Statement

This statement outlines the principles guiding disclosures made in my articles, which aim to serve the public interest by promoting transparency and accountability.

Guiding Principles

Public Interest: Disclosures are made to serve the public interest, inspired by the principles underlying the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.
Ethical Reporting: I strive to adhere to ethical reporting practices to the best of my ability as a non-professional writer.
Factual Accuracy: All information disclosed is factual and evidence-based to the best of my knowledge.
Good Faith: Disclosures are made without malice and with a genuine belief in their truth and public importance.
Proportionality: The extent of disclosure is proportionate to the perceived wrongdoing or risk.
Confidentiality: Sources and sensitive information are protected where appropriate.

Legal Considerations

Disclosures are made with consideration of:

Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR: Personal data is processed in compliance with data protection principles.
Defamation Act 2013: Truth: Factual statements are true to the best of my knowledge. Honest Opinion: Opinions are clearly identified and based on facts. Public Interest: Publication is believed to be in the public interest.
Human Rights Act 1998: Disclosures exercise the right to freedom of expression, balanced against other rights.

Ethical Standards

While not a professional journalist, I strive to maintain high ethical standards in my reporting, including:

Verifying information to the best of my ability
Seeking comment from those involved where possible
Being transparent about my methods and limitations

Disclaimer

This statement does not claim legal protections specific to employee whistleblowers or professional journalists. Whilst every effort is made to ensure accuracy and ethical compliance, this is not legal advice. I am not a legal professional or a qualified journalist. Legal and ethical advice will be sought in cases of uncertainty.

By adhering to these principles, I aim to make responsible disclosures that serve the public interest whilst respecting legal and ethical obligations.