date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:01:41 +0100
from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" <David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk>
subject: RE: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44;   
to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" <P.Jones@uea.ac.uk>, "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" <k364@uea.ac.uk>

   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
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

