date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:01:41 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44; to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Phil, Ah, now we are getting somewhere.... (and I will turn you to the 'dark side' of FOIA/EIR yet! lol) I don't' think Reg. 12(4)(c) will hold water as I think we know exactly what he is asking for but it's our ability to provide it that is at issue. However, even if we think it is too general, Regulation 9 mandates us to provide advice and assistance to the requester and indeed, subsection (2) specifically notes that if we do feel that 12(4)(a) applies, we must ask the applicant to provide more particulars & to assist the applicant in providing those particulars. I would think it likely that the applicant in this case would simply ask for the entire base file....? As to point 1 below, if we don't have the original email nor any record of what was sent, then there may be a case for the application of 12(4)(a). However, being contrary (and that's part of the job description), Regulation 9 would also raise it's hoary head here and we would need to tell the applicant out problem in 'reassembling' the data. I suspect the outcome would be exactly the same as above; namely a request for the entire base data. However, point 3 has definite promise. We would have to demonstrate an adverse effect on the interests of the party providing the information/data, and then pass the public interest test, overcoming the presumption of public interest in disclosure. Clearly, if the data was given to us on terms that forbade its further disclosure to persons/instructions that would exclude the applicant (and we have evidence of that), then we can also assume some presumption of adverse effect (although once again, thinking ahead, evidence of this would be useful). We would have to overcome the obvious fact that some data was passed to a fellow academic so therefore would need to draw a distinction between that type of disclosure and that requested by the applicant. I do not disagree with your final point which is why I was drawing the potential distinction between data and private correspondence. Our case before the ICO is all about the confidentiality of information coming to us and the adverse effect its disclosure would have on the persons providing it, and the international relations we have with bodies such as the IPCC. (and I think we might have a case under EIR 'manifestly unreasonable' grounds as that definition is wider than that for 'vexatious' requests under FOIA). Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:19 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Subject: RE: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03] Dave, I've done something I thought I would never do - I've printed off the EIR for 2004! Here's a few thoughts. 1. I don't have the exact data that I sent in January 2009. I'd have to recreate it. The data are part of a larger database. What I'd recreate would be different from what I sent in Jan 2009 (12.4a). 2. The requester has no idea what I sent on January 2009 (12.4c). 3. If I do have to recreate it, then it will contain data where 12.5fi-iii apply. Some of the data was supplied to CRU on the grounds that we didn't pass it on. These conditions were put on it by some of the National Met Services around the World (including the UK). On a related matter and back to Michael's point. The next IPCC process will start in 2010. It is possible that UEA people will be involved in the author writing teams. The members of these teams will be available through IPCC. What is to stop people asking for emails I might write to some or all of these authors. This, in effect, is the purpose of the appeal in the other issue with Keith and Tim and IPCC correspondence. Cheers Phil At 10:39 30/06/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: Phil/Michael, I can understand your reluctance to deal with Mr. McIntyre's request but we do need to have justifiable grounds for claiming an exception under the EIR in order to do so... To address your point Michael, I think that there might be a difference seen between personal correspondence between academics and actual data which has a life/role outside that correspondence. In regards the public interest test that we have to address, once again, I would think that whilst there is a good argument for protecting the ability of academics to communicate freely and openly, the underlying data that may comprise part of that communication might well fall into another category. One only has to look at the JISC funded projects on national scientific data repositories and exchange to see that there appears to be a perception in the academic community that the exchange & re-use of data is a good thing. We also have to remember that, much like FOIA, the exception regarding 'confidentiality' is in relation to a person providing the information to the organisation - it does not touch upon correspondence from the organisation That is covered either by 'internal communications' exception, or as in the other case with the IPCC, an 'adverse effect' on international relations (which I believe to be entirely justifiable) As you are both quite busy over the next couple of weeks, I would be happy to discuss this further w/c 13 July with you, Michael and verify our approach the following week prior to the deadline of 24 July. Cheers,. Dave _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[1] mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:52 AM To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: RE: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03] Michael, Dave, I'm away part of next week (July 7-9 inclusive) and also not here at all the following week (July 13-17). I'm here all the week of July 20-24, with the exception of the Friday (24th) afternoon. Cheers Phil At 17:36 26/06/2009, Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\) wrote: Dave et al, As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that we decline this one (at the very end of the time period), with one of the valid reasons that you, Jonathan and I disucssed, and let him go through appeal. Happy to discuss further (but not for a couple of weeks since my diary is pretty full next week and the week after). Regards Michael Michael McGarvie Director of Faculty Administration Faculty of Science Room 0.22B University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ tel: 01603 593229 fax: 01603 593045 m.mcgarvie@uea.ac.uk _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 3:53 PM To: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Cc: Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV) Subject: RE: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03] Phil [et al], The fact that information is within an email that you consider 'personal' does not render the information itself personal. In order to not disclose information under EIR, we need to have a valid exception, and then also pass a public interest test that shows that the public interest is better served by non-disclosure than disclosure. I will have a think about what exceptions are available to us, but, at this moment I am having difficulty making a case for any that would apply here. The other issue is passing the public interest test - we would, I presume be relying on some sort of public interest in preserving the confidentiality of communications between academic colleagues but there is no guarantee that the ICO would uphold this. I will get back to you next week on this one.... Cheers, Dave _________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [ [2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 3:16 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Cc: Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV) Subject: Re: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03] Dave, I sent some of the station data to a Jun Jian at Georgia Tech on 15 Jan 2009. I see now that Peter Webster was a recipient on the email. I also see from looking at Climate Audit that this request results from Peter saying on CA that he's not had any difficulty getting data from CRU (see what he said below on June 24). I regard this as a personal email between me and this group at Georgia Tech. So, McIntyre has no right to request the data in a personal email. I only sent a small part of the dataset anyway. They asked for a specific set and said what they were going to do with the data. Cheers Phil Steve, We have asked Phil Jones for data so that we could compare the synthesized surface temperature with actual station data. Jones has provided everything that we have asked for. This is for our study of the 1930/40 climate bump that is ongoing. Alas, these things take time. But my experience has been quite different to yours. As you know, I have often complained that the right wing and the left wing (the absolutists of AGHW and those who do not have a bar of it) have forced us into corners in which we are not comfortable. If there is to be reasonable resolution of the climate GWH issues and the fidelity of data (both critical and reasonable questions?) I think that the questions and opinions can't be shouted from one corner or the other. BTW, we have a Science article coming out next week about the changes in form of El Nino (GHW or natural variability: no idea! But changes there are) and its impact on NATL hurricanes. Not sure if it will be of interest to C-A as it does not raise the question of GW. But the data set is short........ best regards Peter W At 13:57 26/06/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: Gents, A request from Mr. McIntyre under EIR that arrived today. Response due by 24 July. I have acknowledged the request and confirmed that we will be handling this under EIR. Any concerns with this request? Any need for clarification? Cheers, Dave ___________________________________________________________________ From: Steve McIntyre [ [3]mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 4:45 AM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: Environmental Information Regulations Dear Mr Palmer, Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations, I hereby request a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and Jun 25, 2009. Thank you for your attention, Stephen McIntyre Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------