date: Thu Sep 17 08:28:03 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request to: "Myles Allen" Myles, Never say you got this email from me! I probably shouldn't be passing this on - maybe it's protected under the Data Protection Act. Several other people have tried the same ploy he has used about what the agreements we had with Met Services mean. His response contains a very mild implicit threat, but it is very mild. Some others have been much more explicit. As an aside some of the papers published on the CRU dataset contain more information than you would get with the GISS or NCDC data. The web page we put up is here - this is what he's referring to. [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/ Good to see you again - and see you on Oct 15 at the UKCP09 meet. Cheers Phil From: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" To: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" , "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" Sender: "Baker Jane Mrs (LIB)" Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:33:59 +0100 Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Response Thread-Topic: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Response Thread-Index: AcocuvbRB/fNSyVpSGSv6dbZ6S0BIQKS1IxQADPsplA= Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Aug 2009 12:34:00.0686 (UTC) FILETIME=[D1EE58E0:01CA27DB] Dear All, We have received an appeal from Prof. Jonathan Jones regarding our response to his request for the following information: "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 June 25, 2009". I have sent out an acknowledgement letter. We have until 24th September 2009 to respond. Kind regards, Jane ***************************************************** Jane Baker LaRC Co-ordinator / Blackboard support Learning and Resources Centre (LaRC) Library UEA Norwich NR4 7TJ 01603 59 3483 For LaRC enquiries please email larc@uea.ac.uk For Blackboard enquiries please email the Staff or Student IT Helpdesk staff.help@uea.ac.uk or it.helpdesk@uea.ac.uk My office days are Wednesday to Friday Bob Heath is in the office Mondays and Tuesdays -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Jones [[2]mailto:Jonathan.Jones@qubit.org] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:10 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Cc: Heath Robert Mr (LIB); Baker Jane Mrs (LIB) Subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Response Dear Mr Palmer, Thank you for your letter dated 14 August, reference ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS 2004 - INFORMATION REQUEST (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) in response to my request for "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 June 25, 2009". I regret that I do not consider your response satisfactory, and am therefore appealing your decision. As I understand you are currently on holiday I am copying this to Bob Heath (r.heath@uea.ac.uk) and Jane Baker (jane.baker@uea.ac.uk) as you requested in your vacation message. You have refused my request on three grounds, all of which are incorrect. 1. Reg. 12(4)(b) - Request is manifestly unreasonable: Information is available elsewhere. You claim that "the requested data is a subset of data already available from other sources" namely the gridded data made available by the GHCN and the CRU. It is factually incorrect to claim that "the requested data is a subset of data already available from other sources" and your argument cannot stand. A "subset of data already available" would mean that the data I requested could be obtained from "the gridded data made available by the GHCN and the CRU" by downloading some or all of this data and deleting selected parts. The data I have requested cannot be obtained in this manner. I refer you to the discussion of the gridding process at [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/ . You further claim that "it is unreasonable for the University to spend public resources on providing information in a different format to that which is already available". However I asked for "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". I have only requested a copy of a data set which has already been prepared by the university, and so is already available. Once again your statement is factually incorrect and your argument cannot stand. 2. Reg. 12(5)(a) - Adverse effect on international relations: Release would damage relations with scientists & institutions from other nations 3. Reg. 12(5)(f) - Adverse effect on the person providing information: Information is covered by a confidentiality agreement I will take these two points together as they are in essence the same. I begin by noting that it is wholly perverse to claim simultaneously that the data is "already available" and that the data is "confidential". Clearly these two statements cannot simultaneously be true. With regard to Reg. 12(5)(a) you state that releasing this information "would damage the trust that other national scientists and institutions have in UK-based public sector organisations" and consequently "would damage the ability of the University and other UK institutions to co-operate with meteorological organisations and governments of other countries". I draw your attention to resolution 40 of the World Meteorological Organization which states that "WMO commits itself to broadening and enhancing the free and unrestricted international exchange of meteorological and related data and products". It is perverse to claim that acting in accordance with this resolution could endanger cooperation with meteorological organizations. With regard to Reg. 12(5)(f), the data I requested has already been provided to at least one other individual, namely Peter Webster at Georgia Tech. Clearly this data cannot be covered by a strict confidentiality agreement. It is, of course, true that this data could be covered by limited confidentiality agreements. The FOI and EIR are quite clear on the responsibilities of organizations claiming exemption on grounds of confidentiality. The exemption "only applies if a breach of confidence would be 'actionable'". Courts will only recognise that a person holds information subject to a duty of confidence in two types of situations: a) where that person expressly agrees or undertakes to keep information confidential: there is an express duty of confidence b) where the nature of the information of the circumstances in which the information is obtained imply that the person should keep the information confidential: there is an implied duty of confidence >From your letter it appears that UEA is claiming an exemption of the first kind, as you cite a number of supposed confidentiality agreements that you do hold, which are available at [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/ . In fact the great majority of these are not clearly confidentiality agreements: a) The 1994 FAX to the Met Office is simply a statement from Dr Hulme about the planned use of the data; there is no reply as to the conditions under which the data is provided. b) The 1993 letter from DNMI is a limited request for confidentiality not a formal agreement, and is almost certainly superseded by WMO Resolution 40. If UEA wishes to claim exemption under this clause it must first establish with DNMI that an express duty of confidentiality still applies. c) The form in Spanish simply states that the data should only be used for the specified purpose, and as no purpose was specified this cannot establish a duty of confidentiality. d) The web page is simply a statement by the Met Office of its own policies; this provides no evidence whatsoever of any duties under which UEA might hold data. It further notes that NERC data centres may make the data available under certain circumstances, so there is no absolute duty of confidence. e) The 1994 letter from Bahrain International Airport is a limited request for confidentiality not a formal agreement, and is almost certainly superseded by WMO Resolution 40. If UEA wishes to claim exemption under this clause it must first establish with Bahrain International Airport that an express duty of confidentiality still applies. I understand that in the past UEA has refused to release the data I have requested and related data because the request came from a person who was not an academic. I remind you that "No regard may be had to the identity of the person who is requesting the information nor to the purpose to which they will put the information." I also remind you that "When considering the balance of interests, public authorities must have regard to the interests of the person to whom the duty of confidence is owed; the public authority's own interests in non-disclosure are not relevant to the application of this exemption." I further remind you that "If you receive a request for information which, although it was confidential when it was obtained, was obtained a long time ago, you should consider carefully whether the disclosure of that information would still constitute an actionable breach of confidence within the meaning of section 41." At best UEA has limited evidence for the existence of limited confidentiality agreements covering part of the data I have requested. It is not clear to me that these documents in any way establish an express duty of confidence. However, even if they do, the responsibilities of UEA under Reg. 12(11) of the EIR are clear. Regulation 12 (11) says: (11) Nothing in these Regulations shall authorise a refusal to make available any environmental information contained in or otherwise held with other information which is withheld by virtue of these Regulations unless it is not reasonably capable of being separated from the other information for the purpose of making available that information. Thus UEA is certainly required to provide me with all the data I have requested with the possible exception of data held under an express duty of confidence (for data withheld it is required to establish that such an express duty of confidence does in fact exist). Please note that if it is not possible to identify which data is covered by supposed confidence agreements, then it is difficult to maintain that the release of this data will breach such agreements. I therefore appeal your decision, and reiterate my request for "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 June 25, 2009". -- Prof Jonathan A. Jones web page at [5]http://nmr.physics.ox.ac.uk Oxford Centre for Quantum Computation and Brasenose College Oxford ________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) [[6]mailto:David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 14 August 2009 09:41 To: Jonathan Jones Subject: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Response Prof. Jones Attached please find a response to your request received on 24 July 2009. If you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. Cheers, Dave Palmer ____________________________ 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------