cc: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:08:53 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" subject: RE: FW: FOIA meeting documentation [FOI_09-117; EIR-09-14] - to: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" Phil, I'm back! I have to get a draft response to Prof. Jones to JCF for review - we have an issue with whether one would be able to work back from what is available currently to what was sent to GaTech - in our original response we stated that the request was 'manifestly unreasonable' due to the fact that "the requested data is a subset of data already available from other sources; namely the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), and the Climate Research Unit already makes requested information available on it's website in a gridded format". I believe that the request for the data falls on other grounds but if the requester can't 'go back' from what is available currently, it makes this particular argument very shaky. We also have the additional problem of the requester not having any idea of how to define what was sent to GaTech. Ergo - is there any way in which we can still maintain that the GaTech data is available to the requester? Given your comments below, we can legitimately state that we no longer hold the data set and are under no obligation to 'create' information that no longer exists. However, as a policy matter, are you comfortable with this statement going out and being circulated publicly? Regardless of the above, our argument under Reg 12(5)(a) (adverse effect on international relations) and Reg. 12(5)(f) (adverse effect on person providing information where no consent for disclosure) still technically stands in my view as the confidentiality of the agreement is somewhat irrelevant - it's the effect that matters.... We still have the hurdle of the 'public interest test' to pass but hopefully all this will be approved and published by the time any appeal gets considered by the ICO. As an addendum to our efforts to secure consent, I should note that DEFRA guidance states that "Suppliers of volunteered information should be encouraged to consent to release where appropriate. Such consent can be sought in advance, when the information is collected, but can be sought later in response to a particular request or in order to proactively disseminate the information. There may however be circumstances where to obtain information the public authority wish to provide reassurance that the information, once supplied, will not be made available to a third party on request. Public authorities can undertake to consult with the volunteers of sensitive information in the event of a request for this information being received. [emphasis mine] I think that JCF can make the argument that we are doing exactly what DEFRA are asking us to do..... The response that we discussed in our meeting on 1 October I believe is to be utilised for incoming requests that follow this one - this case (and the appeal of Mr. McIntyre) are setting the precedent that we will be citing in future requests.... Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 2:25 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Cc: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Subject: Re: FW: FOIA meeting documentation [FOI_09-117; EIR-09-14] Dave, I agree with a lot of what you've said in your attachment - your annotated commentary. There is the issue of wasting our time, which is the main one. The other issue is that Met Services putting conditions for the use of the data was common in the mid-1980s and 1990s. We were just quite adept at getting around the conditions. We went into discussions with the Met Services assuming these would exist. The world was a very different place in 1990 than it is now. What I sent GaTech was station data - not the gridded. I don't have this file, but I could recreate what was sent. It won't be exactly the same, unless I strip off the last couple of years. I would have done it in mid Jan 2009 - some back data fro 2007 and 2008 has come in recently. I've been talking with the Met Office. If they do send a letter around, then the normal 'allowed' time to respond is 12 months. I knew it was long, but didn't realise it was this long. Also, you don't chase up on non responders. To avoid much admin at their end, they are considering only releasing the data for countries which say yes. If some yes/but, no or don't respond then we don't release it. As an aside I'm attaching a paper I'd forgotten. This gives a comparison of the CRU and GHCN datasets (Figure 2) for the period from 1900 (the red and blue lines). There are no significant differences between the datasets! If only people would read the literature and realize this. This just shows that the requests are all politically motivated. Cheers Phil At 12:14 23/09/2009, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) wrote: Phil, Please note the document 'Appeal internal assessment' - what we have decided to do is immediately proceed to a review by JCF on this one as I don't think an 'informal review' will yield any results. Our meeting was to do some preliminary work on what that response will be... In my discussion with JCF, two questions of fact arose that I'd like your opinion on... 1. Is it possible, knowing the parameters of what was sent to GaTech, to work back from the gridded data to what was sent? I'm sure you have told me this before in a meeting but with all the requests flying about, I simply can't remember 2. Do we have a copy of the dataset sent to GaTech still in existence? (I thought not but once again, couldn't remember - must take better notes at meetings!) I'll ensure that you all see a draft of the response when completed.... Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 5:25 PM To: Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) Subject: FOIA meeting documentation Jonathan, A couple of things for our meeting 1. FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03 - Copy of referral letter sent to Mr. McIntyre - went 'late' but works to our advantage as it gives us/you more time & puts a response due after our meeting with Phil, Michael & Annie. If Mr. McIntyre wanted to be picky, he could maintain that our referral should have happened 2 weeks ago. However, I think he realises the limitations of FOIA and is probably playing a 'longer game'.... 2. FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14 - Annotated response to Prof. Jones' assertions. I suspect we will get more of these so we should have our arguments at the ready! Cheers, Dave PS. Got a request for agreements with the Mef Office in Australia today - wonder if this is a new tack? ____________________________ 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 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------