cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" <M.Mcgarvie@uea.ac.uk>
date: Fri Jul 11 10:54:58 2008
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: FW: Freedom of Information request (FOI_08-23) - Appeal
to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" <David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk>, "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" <K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk>, "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" <T.Osborn@uea.ac.uk>

    Dave et al,
       One minor comment on the letter, then some thoughts on the
    stance the Met Office might be or are taking.
       First, there is an extra 'be' on the 6th line of the para beginning 'Further,..'

     Now the issue of the specific functions of the Met Office. This argument
    would also apply to UEA and to CRU/ENV, probably more so, as UEA
    is more independent (of government) than the Met Office. I say this as DEFRA
    fund the Met Office to the tune of about 18M per year. I am on the Hadley
    Centre's Scientific Review Group and have reviewed the DEFRA proposal. Throughout
    the documents I get for the annual Review Group meetings and in
    the proposal, there is a constant thread of how the work they are doing is
    essential for IPCC. How this works though is that their scientists (just like us)
    write papers for the peer-review literature, and these get referred to in the
    IPCC Reports. DEFRA expects that their scientists will be involved in the
    IPCC Chapter writing. DEFRA has also funded the Met Office to run the
    Technical Support Unit of  Working Group 2 of IPCC.
       So, although IPCC work may not be a specific function of the Met Office,
    it is very much expected by DEFRA that they are heavily involved in IPCC.
    The Met Office and its Hadley Centre are happy to accept the kudos
    IPCC gets - especially the Nobel Peace Prize award in 2007 for IPCC itself.
    At least two people from the Met Office were at the award ceremony in Oslo
    - and only 25 in total were allowed to go.
       If the Met Office can or are using this argument, then UEA could as well.
    Whether we should is another matter. Individual scientists at UEA are free
    to get involved in IPCC writing teams, and from the VC downwards (through
    the Dean of Science and the Head of School in ENV) would expect us
    to get involved. It is not written in any job description, but it is one of
    the unwritten expected things academics ought to do. Keith and I use
    the involvement when we write letters each to the ENV promotion
    committee to get a pay increment, as I expect all the others in ENV
    who have been involved in IPCC do. UEA also takes the kudos from the
    report coming out and many in ENV have nice certificates recording the
    Nobel Peace prize award last year. Involvement in IPCC and the Nobel
    Peace Prize features strongly in the ENV Annual Report. Like the
    Met Office we also use the IPCC involvement when writing proposals.
      We're not paid to do IPCC, just like the Met Office scientists. We're
    paid expenses (by DEFRA) to go to the meetings and write the reports.
    Keith and I did much of this at weekends and evenings, but much also
    during work time and we used UEA resources to print out drafts. The work
    took time and we are paid by UEA, so UEA did subsidize us to do it.
      I have to admit that I like the argument, but would appreciate Michael's
    views and also Jonathan's as to whether we should. It might be worth
    discussing it with the Dean of Science of the HoS in ENV, as it could
    be construed by many to be a very odd argument to make. It certainly would close
    the door on this request, and set a precedent for any further requests when
    the next IPCC report comes along in 5-6 years time. Holland's requests are certainly
    different from those that came last year.
      If we do use this argument, then it ought to go where you say - after
    the re-assertion.
      A quick look at the Climate Audit web site would indicate that the Met Office
    have yet to respond in this way, but they may not have used such clear
    language (the blue) in your email. If we both respond in this way, CA will
    claim we have colluded!
      A final point. It is likely that a number of people in ENV will become involved
    in IPCC next time. I wouldn't want any disclosure to jeopardize future involvement,
    if others who are involved in IPCC future think working with UEA people
    could be a liability. This is sort of covered in your final principal paragraph.
    Cheers
    Phil

   At 16:02 10/07/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote:

     Gents,
     A copy of what was sent to Jonathan.  Please note that the opinion from the Met Office
     quoted below is subject to lawyer-client privilege and should not be shared outside the
     group that has now seen it.
     Cheers, Dave
     ______________________________________________
     From:  Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
     Sent:  Thursday, July 10, 2008 3:56 PM
     To:    Colam Jonathan Mr (ISD)
     Cc:    Mouland Lucy Dr (VCO)
     Subject:       Freedom of Information request (FOI_08-23) - Appeal resolution draft
     Importance:    High
     Jonathan,
     A draft response for your review and comment.  I have been in contact with the ICO who
     are of the opinion that, if we feel that there are exemptions that we 'missed' on the
     first review of the request, they should be raised at this stage.
     I have added a s.40 exemption on the assumption that, even if names of correspondents
     are redacted, there is enough information in what's left to reveal the identity of
     individuals.  If what is left is 'personal data', then s.40 clearly applies; it is
     whether what is left qualifies as personal data.
     Additionally, I have added a s.36 exemption on the basis that the disclosure of this
     information would clearly "in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person", "inhibit
     the free and frank provision of advice, or, the free and frank exchange of views for the
     purpose of deliberation" and "would otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public
     affairs".  This section, as I read it, does not limit the provision of advice or
     exchange of views to inside an organisation.  I have been in touch with Lucy to
     determine, in a rough way, the opinion of the 'qualified person' (i.e. the VC) in this
     case & she concurs.
     There is an additional argument that we might wish to make.  I have been in touch with
     the Met Office that have received a similar request.  They have been in touch with the
     ICO and are making the argument that the correspondence is not actually 'held' by them
     at all!  The argument is as follows: guidance from last year from the ICO indicates that
     information in which the institution has no interest but physically possesses, is not
     'held' by them for the purposes of the Act. Guidance states:
     "In these circumstances the public authority will have an interest in this information
     and will make disclosure decisions. This is because although
     ownership may still rest with the depositor, the public authority with whom the
     information has been deposited effectively controls the information and holds it in its
     own right. It will therefore be difficult to argue that the information is merely held
     on behalf of another person and consequently not held for the purposes of the public
     authority itself."
     And
     "There will be cases where such information is simply held on behalf of a third party,
     for example for preservation or security purposes. Perhaps the public
     authority may be holding the information as part of a service (whether for gain or
     otherwise) to the depositor. Although this information is in the possession of a public
     authority, it does not fall within the scope of the Act as the public authority has no
     interest in it."
     And finally in regards personal emails in general
     "In most circumstances private emails sent or received by staff in the workplace would
     not be held by the authority as it has no interest in them. It will be a
     question of fact and degree whether a public authority does hold them, dependent on the
     level of access and control it has over the e mail system and
     on the computer use policies. It is likely to be the exception rather than the rule that
     the public authority does hold them."
     I have also received some correspondence from the Met Office that sets out their
     argument along these lines; and further an assertion that the ICO has indicated that, on
     the facts of their particular case (emails not created by the organisation, or used by
     them).  To quote the internal briefing note
     "...the IPCC consultation exercise did not have a role in respect of the specific
     functions of the Met Office.  It was aligned with them but not a function of the Met
     Office.  The whole purpose of the IPCC is that it is independent and objective."
      The Met Office are arguing that their Director's involvement was in a
     pseudo-academic/personal capacity and not as a representative of the Met Office and the
     IPCC work was not Met Office work. What it comes down to is our corporate interest in
     this IPCC correspondence - if we have some, then it would be 'held' by us.  I have
     emailed Mssrs. Briffa, Osborn & Jones to assess this .. .but your feeling?
     Where we to make this argument, I would put it immediately after our re-assertion of our
     primary grounds of exemption; if the ICO does decide that we 'hold' this correspondence,
     we would need to have a position on it's disclosure.
     Cheers, Dave
     <<Appeal_review_draft.doc>>
     ____________________________
     David Palmer
     Information Policy Officer
     University of East Anglia
     Norwich, England
     NR4 7TJ

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