The government¡¯²õ ÖйúAƬ Green Paper is all in favour of providing more consumer-style information about universities and their courses to students.

Information is a good thing in the Green Paper. But one type of information is bad: Freedom of Information.

In the Green Paper, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills notes that private providers are not classed as public bodies and not subject to FoI. In rather coy wording, it raises the prospect of making universities exempt from FoI, seemingly by ensuring they would no longer be classed as public bodies for the purposes of the FoI Act.

The passage is on page 68 of the . The proposed change would be in line with the government¡¯²õ wider plan to water down the FoI Act.

ÖйúAƬ

Universities have a poor track record on voluntarily making public information about how they are run. Making them FoI exempt would reduce the scope for public scrutiny even further.

The Green Paper doesn¡¯t mention the source of its estimate that FoI costs universities ?10 million a year. But it comes from a report by Universities UK (page 66?), which I imagine has been lobbying the government on this.?

ÖйúAƬ

If I worked in a university dealing with FoI requests, I¡¯m sure I would feel angry at some of the pointless requests asking for vice-chancellors¡¯ inside leg measurements, etc. Universities also have concerns about FoI requests for research data.

But perhaps there is a way to cut down on time-wasting requests while retaining the important principles underpinning the FoI Act relating to transparency and accountability in the decision-making of public bodies.

The FoI Act is, of course, used by journalists in researching stories. Some of which will be of the inside leg measurement variety.

But media use of FoI can be an important way of bringing to light issues of public interest that would otherwise remain hidden.

Times ÖйúAƬ has used FoI requests to universities to report that:

• UK universities spent ?86.7 million on commission payments to overseas recruitment agents in 2013-14
• universities could spend in excess of ?2 million a year on the salaries of staff recruited to handle the impact element of the REF
• as many as 200 applicants were chasing every early career post at research-intensive universities
• legal bills of over ?100,000 were incurred by Plymouth University in its dealings with its former vice-chancellor, Wendy Purcell, and by the University of Warwick in the case of the professor it suspended and later reinstated, Thomas Docherty
• England¡¯²õ funding council put an observer on the University of Northampton¡¯²õ board and revised its risk rating after the institution set out plans to take on nearly ?300 million of debt

THE reporter David Matthews also secured a win in a ruling by the Information Commissioner, when he appealed against London Metropolitan University¡¯²õ refusal to publish minutes from its governing body until 12 months after meetings.

ÖйúAƬ

The university was ordered by the Information Commissioner¡¯²õ Office to release minutes of meetings held shortly after it temporarily lost its licence to sponsor international students in 2012. It was also told to consider reducing the 12-month waiting period.

That highlights the reluctance, or refusal, of many universities to voluntarily provide information about how they are run.

ÖйúAƬ

The meetings of university governing bodies are held in private. There is no requirement on universities even to publish minutes of governing body meetings. Predictably, some don¡¯t.

Many others delay publishing minutes until they have lost all relevance. For example, Coventry University¡¯²õ latest governors¡¯ minutes come from , the University of Birmingham¡¯²õ latest council minutes and the University of Exeter¡¯²õ

There are also examples of better practice by universities, Newcastle University and the University of Cambridge among them, with respect to publishing papers and reports of discussions from their governing bodies.

But generally, if you were a member of the public wanting more information about why or how a university made a particular decision, FoI would be one of your only options.

Scrutiny by the public or the media can, on occasion, lead to embarrassing coverage for universities. But, as many working in universities would agree, it can also be a positive ¨C improving the quality of decision-making.

Some universities were established by local authorities. All have buildings created by public funding. The sector as a whole relies on billions of pounds a year in direct public funding and student funding coming via the public loans system. Universities are institutions of vital importance to their regions and to the nation.

ÖйúAƬ

FoI is used by only a fraction of the population. But if universities take the chance to cease being classed as public bodies so they can become FoI exempt, they will be sending out a message that might be heard more widely.

john.morgan@tesglobal.com