10:38 And that's it.
10:35 Miller asks if the panel have anything else to add. Acton welcomes panel's involvement and government response.
10:35 Mosley asks what changes have been made at UEA. Acton says CRU drawn closer into ENV, to ensure no repeat of FOI problems. Encouraging closer involvement with statisticians. Davies says investing in data archiving.
10:34 Mosley asks if UEA was involved in the IAC report. Davies said not as a university, but individuals may have been.
10:32 Russell says Holland's evidence was taken into account.
10:29 Was there indirect evidence that Briffa had used his position inappropriately to include late papers? Russell says Mitchell says it was OK.
10:24 Metcalfe: Is it possible to correct papers though? Davies says clear refs in Jones 2008 to the original paper (odd wording). Davies says a correction can be issued. Says Jones thinking about it, decided that 2008 paper addressed the issue. Russell says he doesn't know about this. Says it can come up at conferences.
10:19 Who should be responsible for investigating allegation of fraud? Russell waffles. How do you ensure amendments are made? Davies says Albany exonerated Wang. Says Keenan has made same allegations made at Jones. Says Keenan did not numerical analysis. Says Jones had no access to the Wang info at the time (?) Keeps mentioning GWPF. Says results confirmed. This all needs checking!!
10:!6 Asking about Keenan's fraud allegation. Russell says this was discussed. Was the movement of the Chinese paper discussed? Says without China, little difference to results.
10:15 Miller asks about Jones comment ("forget this email when you reply").
10:14 Is discussion of papers common in peer review? Davies says yes, but without revealing details of data or results.
10:11 Did review look at the question of breach of peer review confidentiality? Russell - no. Says didn't ignore advice of Horton. Says different interpretation possible.
10:10 Nash asks if there was an adverse culture re peer review within CRU.
10:06 Pamela Nash asks about the 3 instances of peer review ubversion. Russell says these were the 3 solid examples. Footnote in my report saying not clear what allegation was (?). Russell referring to Horton's work on peer review.
10:05 Miller says that ICO has said suitable steps being taken at UEA to improve FOI procedures.
10:04 Acton says all the relevant emails are now available.
10:03 Stringer asks Acton how he feels about the question not being asked. Acton says he has asked Jones. Stringer asks if he was asked under caution. Asks about taking emails home. Acton says Briffa very ill at the time. Acton says therefore reasonable behaviour.
10:01 Stringer says had he decided not to ask the question last time he was in front of the committee. Russell says he told Boswell. Cites para 171?
9:57 Stringer asking about Jones email inciting deletion. Russell says review did not come to a conclusion on deletion of emails (???). Couldn't get involved in quasi judicial work. Didn't ask the question. Stringer surprised.
9:56 Davies says CRU has no case to answer on the science.
9:53 Stringer asking about lack of multiproxy papers. Davies says I am partisan. Refers to a list on McIntyre's site. Says this postdated Oxburgh. What list is this? Not disputing lack of multiproxy papers.
9:49 Stringer asks about my report and Davies emaiil to Royal Soc asking to use their name. Davies says papers sent on 10th, but asked Rees on 12th. Davies flannelling.
9:48 Davies sidelines it into discussion of "experiments". Davies says true that work couldn't be replicated, but says that with a few weeks work, it would be possible.
9:47 Stringer says science has to be reproducible. Acton agrees. So why weren't Kelly's comments in the report? Acton says panel was independent and he can't change it.
9:44 Stringer asks about Acton's comment that he was happy with Oxburgh report. Asking about Kelly's notes - CRU science not science as Kelly understood it. "Briffa couldn't reproduce his own work". Why weren't Kelly's comments in it?
9:43 Why weren't interviews done publicly. Russell says they wanted to reference everything because of the scientific nature of the thing.
9:40 Roger Williams asking about how much time was spent on the interviews. Russell saying it was not possible for everyone to attend all interviews. Russell says he wouldn't do things differently next time. This is pathetic stuff.
9:35 Russell says they read all the emails. Russell waffling. He is trying to use up time. Why is Miller not stopping this?
9:34 Davies says process was open and transparent with Royal Soc. Anyone could suggest papers (how!!!)
9:32 When were RS asked to assess list. Davies says discussed verbally with Rees end Feb. List sent to RS on 4th March, responded 12 March. Says allegations that they responded in 20 mins not true. Jones not involved in selection of papers for Oxburgh panel. This needs checking.
9:28 Metcalfe asks who chose the papers. Acton says they all appear in UEA evidence to S&TC. Says they are "bang on" the issues. Says can't control the inquiry. Davies said he was responsible for liaison with Oxburgh and Royal Society. Says Oxburgh sent other info including UEA submissions to other inquiries.
9:28 Acton says CRU science constantly being looked at.
9:27 Acton says word science is protean. Says happy with way Oxburgh did inquiry was fine.
9:26 Acton citing an NAS report?? Also EPA assessment. Says it's forensic. Says they conclude no problem with UEA emails.
9:25 Miller says panel told Oxburgh looking at science. Now saying this not so. What was the purpose of Oxburgh inquiry (to Acton). Acton says no changes made to terms. Says Oxburgh says CRU science was "scientifically justified".
9:23 Parliament coverage is live now
9:20 Nothing from either BBC or Parliament yet...
9:14 As far as I can tell there's a single panel of three witnesses - Russell, Acton and Davies. Beddington is up in front of the committee later on (10:45) but this appears to be about other matters rather than his role in the UEA inquiries.
9:13 OK, I think we're nearly ready to go. Live coverage should be available from Parliament itself, or from the BBC. The BBC is normally better as they tell you who's who.