This is a guest post by David Holland.
BH readers may recall my reporting of Peter Wadhams' unprofessional IPCC Review Editor's report, which featured his spat with MP Peter Lilley. At the time I had received in confidence, from outside the UK, a copy of his then unpublished report. I had also been reliably advised that Thomas Stocker had no intention of releasing any of the Working Group One Review Editors’ reports. For this reason I had made FOI requests at the Universities of Reading and Cambridge.
Reading promptly and fully disclosed the reports of the two Review Editors affiliated to it. Wadhams' university, however, deployed the 'Mitchell' defense, namely that he worked for the IPCC on a personal basis. Stocker did eventually release some, but not all, of the RE reports but the names of Lilley and Paxman which had been shown to government representatives were redacted from Wadhams'.
In a sign that the Information Commissioner's Office appears to have tired of climate change FoI complaints, on Friday, I received its blunt Decision Notice FS50527006. Basically the ICO asked Cambridge if Wadhams had worked for the IPCC in a personal capacity and Cambridge asked Wadhams if he had. That appears to be the extent of the due process. So far as can be seen no examination of Wadhams’ files took place to establish whether or not the information held was relevant to his University duties. In paragraph 11 of its Decision Notice the ICO states:
11. As regards part 1 of the request for the ARS WG1 Review Editors Reports ("the reports) the University explained that it had made proper enquiry of the professor referred to by the complainant and that he stated that the work undertaken for the IPCC had been undertaken by him personally on a voluntary basis and that he considered the reports to be confidential to the IPCC secretariat. It went on to say that the work does not form any part of his University duties and consequently, even if the information were held within the University, it is not held to any extent for its own purposes. The University concluded that the reports were not in the University's possession under the EIR because the information was not held to any extent for the purposes of the University.
This is reminiscent of Brian Hoskins’ repeated claim that the University of Reading did not hold any information relating to his work as a Review Editor of AR4. In that case the university’s FoI manager admitted that he had never been allowed to see Hoskins’ files and make his own jugment. Following Climategate and the ICO’s embarrassment over its lack of vigour Hoskins decided that he had misinterpreted what was being asked and released some 368 emails.
If unchallenged, the Cambridge decision notice could spell the end of many FoI requests for important information on the IPCC process, as almost anyone can claim that they work for for the IPCC in a personal capacity. The fact remains that Wadhams and virtually all British participants in the IPCC process are nominated by the British government, which also pays all their expenses. They also continue to draw their normal salaries almost invariably from the public purse.