cc: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" <A.Ogden@uea.ac.uk>
date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:39:03 +0100
from: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" <David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk>
subject: EIR requests for CRUTEM data - Additional exception?
to: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" <P.Jones@uea.ac.uk>, "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" <s119@uea.ac.uk>, "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" <k364@uea.ac.uk>

   Folks,



   I am working on draft responses to the array of requests and will provide copies in the
   near future for your review.



   I have noted that one of the grounds that the Met Office used to reject a request for the
   data provided to them by Phil  was Regulation 12(5)(a), adverse effect on international
   relations. Their reasoning is as follows:



   Consideration of Exception Regulation 12 (5) (a)
   Much of the requested data comes from individual Scientists and Institutions from several
   countries. The Met Office received the data information from Professor Jones at the
   University of East Anglia on the strict understanding by the data providers that this
   station data must not be publicly released. If any of this information were released,
   scientists could be reluctant to share information and participate in scientific projects
   with the public sector organisations based in the UK in future. It would also damage the
   trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public
   sector and could show the Met Office ignored the confidentiality in which the data
   information was provided.

   We considered that if the public have information on environmental matters, they could hope
   to influence decisions from a position of knowledge rather than speculation. However, the
   effective conduct of international relations depends upon maintaining trust and confidence
   between states and international organisations. This relationship of trust allows for the
   free and frank exchange of information on the understanding that it will be treated in
   confidence. If the United Kingdom does not respect such confidences, its ability to protect
   and promote United Kingdom interests through international relations may be hampered.
   Competitors/ Collaborators could be damaged by the release of information which was given
   to us in confidence and this will detrimentally affect the ability of the Met Office (UK)
   to co-operate with meteorological organisations and governments of other countries. This
   could also provoke a negative reaction from scientist globally if their information which
   they have requested remains private is disclosed.



   I wonder if it would be wise for us to cite the same exception under EIR in order to both
   bolster the Met Office case and our own in regards requests for either all the data CRU
   has, or for the subset that he provided to Georgia Tech?  This also provides a route to
   raise the argument regarding academic freedom and the need for academics to be able to
   conduct discussions and the need to share information in order to do so.



   I am not sure whether the ICO will see any merit in this argument but I doubt they would
   consider it if we don't raise it.....



   Cheers, Dave



   ____________________________

   David Palmer

   Information Policy & Compliance Manager

   University of East Anglia

   Norwich, England

   NR4 7TJ

   Information Services
   Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523
   Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010
