Bishop Hill The hearings - The ICO
Mar 1, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Parliament FOI That's the end of that one
16:05 Ian Stewart has another bid to see if they couldn't maybe just withhold the data. Thomas not impressed.
16:02 Discussion of whether ICO should discuss statements of ICO that FoI was breached at UEA. Was this appropriate. Is this part of the terms of reference?
15:56 Stewart talks of mass of requests and abuse of process. Thomas says there exemption for these kinds of things. Says 60 requests is not many. Stewart says scientists were exasperated. Thomas says he understands this, but sympathy is the wrong word. Says proactive disclosure is probably easiest approach.
15:56 Evan Harris says Russell review can look at it if he wants. Thomas agrees.
15:54 Thomas says ICO should rule on whether UEA broke FoI law, not the Russell Review.
15:52 Discussion of duty of confidentiality get-out under FoI. Thomas says it may be relevant to UEA.
15:52 Thomas says potentially data and methodology are "information" under the Act. No obligation to create a record of the methodology. Boswell is searching hard for a get-out.
15:50 Thomas cites EIR and proactive disclosure requirements. Says pressure to disclose scientific data under EIR.
15:46 Boswell asks if there the Act allows for different treatment of scientific data. Thomas says no. Boswell trying to see if there's a get out for info not owned. Thomas says no, it's "held", not "owned". Says statistical information is more readily available than policy advice and opinion.
15:44 Willis asks if there would be a case to answer re UEA. THomas says he doesn't know. Well that's a complete waste of time then. Why did they not get someone who might know the answers to questions like this.
15:42 ICO says s77 is the only part where criminal prosecution possible. Three key issues: only info to which the applicant is entitled, intention to prevent disclosure, six month time limit. Says 6 month limit is not new issue. Amendment in House of Lords during Coroners' Act, to make it 6 months from the time the issue comes to the attention of the authorities. Government had said "wait and see".
15:41 Willis said that ICO had asked for FoI act to be amended to fix time limit issue. ICO agrees.
Reader Comments (10)
It's Richard Thomas, so ex-ICO rather than current ICO
re 15:44, might be the sub judice comment. ICO may still be looking into this and they've already made the prima facie point. Liked the way he introduced the EIA regs as being clearer duty to disclose than FOI
This panel are not forcing the issue letting Thomas waffle around the issue - the difference in attitude/atmosphere from lawson/Peiser is fascinating
Brief Thank-You, Bish, for the live blogging - fascinating!
The Stewart is getting shirty with him now that Thomas is sticking with his guns about
"Sympathy isnt the right word"
"defensive attitude"
"Why not Proactively disclosure?"
"Prim faci needs investigation"
More respect for Thomas now, Stewart has shown his colours clearly now. In fact the whole panel has
Hopefully they'll be asking the current ICO what their investigations revealed. Presumably they investigated up to a point prior to making their statement and stopping due to time limit on prosecution.
It is interesting to follow this as I don't know the politicians involved ... this Scottish (?) MP (Ian Steward?) seems especially annoying.
Apparently Stewart worked as a chemical plant operator. Given his casual regard to data integrity, perhaps it's just as well he changed his career.
If CRU had complied with the Act there would not have been so many FOI requests. Can't they understand that giving enquirers the runaround, obfuscation and lack of co-operation simply increased the number of FOI requests to try to get around their roadblocks?
One may ask who's investigated here?