Richard Hirst, Director Of Finance And Corporate Services
Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW)
Dear Mr Hirst

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Complaint that you failed to comply with my request made on the 28th of April 2009 to provide the information to which I am entitled under the above Act, a full copy of the report into the finances of the University of Wales Lampeter by the consultants Haines Watts.

You do not have Absolute Exemption

Section 2 (3) clearly states that you do not have absolute exemption and therefore you must explain and justify your decision which you have failed to do.

‘Section 2 (2) (b) in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.’

Your claimed exemptions under sections 36 and 43 are flawed and do not outweigh the Public Interest

While there is no specific definition, it is generally agreed that public interest includes the following:

• Detecting or exposing crime or a serious misdemeanour.
• Protecting public health and safety.
• Preventing the public from being misled by some statement or action of an individual or organisation.
• Exposing misuse of public funds or other forms of corruption by public bodies.
• Revealing potential conflicts of interest by those in positions of power and influence.
• Exposing hypocritical behaviour by those holding high office.

The Public are being Misled by HEFCW with regard to the Corruption in Welsh Universities.

Your claims for exemption are a clear admission of the existence of financial irregularity and failure by Lampeter to comply with its articles of government. The HEFCW website claims it has a responsibility for financial mismanagement, so what action have you taken over Lampeter?

The answer is none as you have also claimed that you have no jurisdiction to intervene in these circumstances. The Auditor General for Wales has also confirmed that under the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 there is no public scrutiny of accounts or corruption. The public should be made aware of this fact so that any failings in regulation can be addressed with the introduction of OFSTED/ESTYN style University inspections.

You claim

‘i) Section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which states that release of this information “would inhibit free and frank provision of advice and exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation”.

Having duly considered the Report contents, I have concluded that disclosure would affect current deliberations taking place regarding the future of University of Wales, Lampeter. ‘

You are clearly making the absurd but true suggestion that the merger of the University of Wales Lampeter with Trinity College Carmarthen would be put in jeopardy if the full extent of the corruption were made public. Nobody in their right mind would get involved with Lampeter if they knew what was going on; you are simply concealing corruption for fear of opposition to a face saving merger.

Moreover, there is no public consultation on this issue, everything is done in secret, and if the public knew what was going on then any reasonable person would call for a full inquiry.

Exposing misuse of public funds or other forms of corruption by public bodies.

The public would not only want an inquiry into the corruption at Lampeter it would also want a full inquiry into the failure of HEFCW to act in these circumstances. In that respect, your failure to regulate Welsh Higher Education has led to a situation that unlike your English counterpart HEFCE, the Charity Commission will act as regulator under the Charity Act 2006 and as such a complaint on these issues will be made later on this year.

The public have a right to know what went wrong before you throw away another £18 million pounds of our money in to a failed university.

Revealing potential conflicts of interest by those in positions of power and influence.

Your decision was more to do with concealing your own incompetence and failure to safeguard the public purse than any concern for the public interest. You should have declared an interest to that effect and that you are simply protecting the old boys.

Detecting or exposing crime or a serious misdemeanour

There is clear evidence of fraud or a serious misdemeanour with regard to the use of public funds to conceal the corruption of officers and staff and the University of Wales Lampeter. Moreover, as far as standards in public life are concerned nobody knows what they mean.

Evidence for this is that nobody has been held to account for this unprecedented disaster. Instead, those responsible have been rewarded for what is at best failure and incompetence, and at worse public fraud and corruption.

Exposing hypocritical behaviour by those holding high office.

The Church in Wales has strong connections to the Federal University of Wales, the University of Wales Lampeter, and Trinity University College Carmarthen, which is governed by the Church. The conduct of high-ranking Church figures in official roles as such President and Visitor would bring to light matters of abusing public office and financial irregularity with a serious loss of moral authority.
You also claim.

‘ii) Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which states that “release of the information is likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person” (where the person may be an individual, a company or any other legal entity).

Having duly considered the Report contents, I have concluded that disclosure would have a direct impact on the current commercial activities of the University of Wales,’

You are making another absurd suggestion that the commercial activities of the University of Wales Lampeter would be prejudiced if the public knew the full extent of the corruption that has gone on.

It is a statement of fact that all corrupt institutions suffer because of being caught out; it is a concept known as consequences and accountability. It does not outweigh the public interest in bringing these people to account for their actions given your failure to do so.

I fail to see how you can justify letting this situation continue unless you are acting in your own interests to do so.

Protecting public health and safety – Unacceptable Suicide Risk

When the rules breakdown then deviant behaviour and suicide are more likely, for this reason the University of Wales Lampeter poses an unacceptable suicide risk to its staff as well as students. The institutionalised bullying and abuse of both to conceal the corruption is wholly unacceptable in any civilised society. Moreover, the failure of HEFCW to act means that these matters can only come to light with openness and transparency.

Your Decision does Not Comply with the Requirements of the Act

‘1 General right of access to information held by public authorities

(1) Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled—
(a) to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request, and
(b) if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.’

You say you have considered the public interest, I disagree, you have only considered your own position and likelihood of HEFCW being taken into public ownership if the public knew the truth about what was going on at Lampeter. In support my complaint, I attach a copy of a memorandum to the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Select Committee that has been accepted as evidence and is now the property of the House of Commons.

I must insist that you comply with the requirements of the Act as soon as possible, concealing the corruption at Lampeter will only result in further damage to the credibility of Welsh Higher Education, you are obliged to act in the public interest to prevent that from happening.

Yours sincerely

Trevor Mayes