Breaking news from the UK: Inquiries by Jonathan Leake at The Sunday Times have revealed new developments in the Climategate affair.
I previously reported about the current predicament:
Loophole in UK FOIA law will apparently allow CRU to avoid prosecution
Now, news from ICO shows that they will seek a change in the law. This communications from the ICO shows what they plan to do.
The actions of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit to thwart Freedom of Information inquiries has prompted the UK Information Commissioner’s Office to seek a change in the law so that it could seek prosecutions against researchers who commit similar offences.
Graham Smith, Deputy Commissioner, said in an emailed press release:
“Norfolk Police are investigating how private emails have become public.
The Information Commissioner’s Office is assisting the police investigation with advice on data protection and freedom of information.
The emails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland’s requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information. Mr Holland’s FOI requests were submitted in 2007/8, but it has only recently come to light that they were not dealt with in accordance with the Act.
The legislation requires action within six months of the offence taking place, so by the time the action taken came to light the opportunity to consider a prosecution was long gone. The ICO is gathering evidence from this and other time-barred cases to support the case for a change in the law. It is important to note that the ICO enforces the law as it stands – we do not make it.
It is for government and Parliament to consider whether this aspect of the legislation should be strengthened to deter this type of activity in future. We will be advising the University about the importance of effective records management and their legal obligations in respect of future requests for information. We will also be studying the investigation reports (by Lord Russell and Norfolk Police), and we will then consider what regulatory action, if any, should then be taken under the Data Protection Act.”
If you need anything further please contact us.
Kind regards,
Gemma
ICO Press Office
020 7025 7580
icopressoffice@xxxx.xxx
www.ico.gov.uk
==========================
But wait there’s more!
Here’s the release on the new Parliamentary inquiry.
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
Select Committee Announcement
22 January 2010
NEW INQUIRY
THE DISCLOSURE OF CLIMATE DATA FROM THE CLIMATIC RESEARCH UNIT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA
The Science and Technology Committee today announces an inquiry into the unauthorised publication of data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). The Committee has agreed to examine and invite written submissions on three questions:
– What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
– Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate (see below)?
– How independent are the other two international data sets? (footnote 1)
The Committee intends to hold an oral evidence session in March 2010.
Background
On 1 December 2009 Phil Willis, Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, wrote to Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor of UEA following the considerable press coverage of the data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The coverage alleged that data may have been manipulated or deleted in order to produce evidence on global warming. On 3 December the UEA announced an Independent Review into the allegations to be headed by Sir Muir Russell.
The Independent Review will:
1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.
2. Review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.
3. Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’) and the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) for the release of data.
4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds. (footnote 2)
Submissions
The Committee invites written submissions from interested parties on the three questions set out above by noon on Wednesday 10 February:
Each submission should:
a) be no more than 3,000 words in length
b) be in Word format (no later than 2003) with as little use of colour or logos as possible
c) have numbered paragraphs
d) include a declaration of interests.
A copy of the submission should be sent by e-mail to scitechcom@parliament.uk and marked “Climatic Research Unit”. An additional paper copy should be sent to:
The Clerk
Science and Technology Committee House of Commons
7 Millbank
London SW1P 3JA
It would be helpful, for Data Protection purposes, if individuals submitting written evidence send their contact details separately in a covering letter. You should be aware that there may be circumstances in which the House of Commons will be required to communicate information to third parties on request, in order to comply with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Please supply a postal address so a copy of the Committee’s report can be sent to you upon publication.
A guide for written submissions to Select Committees may be found on the parliamentary website at: www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/witguide.htm
Please also note that:
– Material already published elsewhere should not form the basis of a submission, but may be referred to within a proposed memorandum, in which case a hard copy of the published work should be included.
– Memoranda submitted must be kept confidential until published by the Committee, unless publication by the person or organisation submitting it is specifically authorised.
– Once submitted, evidence is the property of the Committee. The Committee normally, though not always, chooses to make public the written evidence it receives, by publishing it on the internet (where it will be searchable), by printing it or by making it available through the Parliamentary Archives. If there is any information you believe to be sensitive you should highlight it and explain what harm you believe would result from its disclosure. The Committee will take this into account in deciding whether to publish or further disclose the evidence.
– Select Committees are unable to investigate individual cases.
Notes to Editors
Media Enquiries: Becky Jones: 020 7219 5693
Committee Website: http://www.parliament.uk/science
They can’t be prosecuted for past failures which are too old. But any past failed requests can be made again, to see if the new request is processed correctly.
In the requirements for comments: “be in Word format (no later than 2003)”
That is curious. I fear that I know why. I hope nothing good is lost due to not being in the properly undocumented file format.
Herewith the body of an email submission made via a form on the UK ICO site.
I’ll post any worthwhile response.
Dear Sirs,
I understand from the WUWT website* that you claim that an FOI prosecution of UEA’s CRU cannot be mounted because the offence was committed more than 6 months ago. As we are talking about information itself, surely the offence can only have been committed when the information about the deliberate withholding of information was made known only when the CRU FOI file was leaked in December 09.
As this issue has become internationally important, the reputation of your own office itself is at stake ( apart from the reputation of the UK as a place within which to do business), and so I would be grateful if you could publish the legal advice on which your decision depends.
* The link to the WUWT website is given below. (Please note that the site has an international readership in excess of 33 million)
In the instructions for submissions to the parliamentary inquiry. the last item is “d) include a declaration of interests.”
Is this something along the lines of disclosure of conflicts of interest?
Is there a WUWT reader familiar with this particular term in regards to parliamentary inquiries?
It looks like the investigators found what they were looking for – a loop-hole.
What about conspiracy?
Dave, UK.
I thought the significant part of the Beddington story was political. As the chief science adviser his statements will be regarded as signals from the government. At the IPCC and CRU his words won’t cheer anyone up.
I have no problem with his CO2 remark. I think it does warm the Earth. Whether CO2 from our activities is at all important when compared to other factors is what should concern us.
Veronica
Being familiar with both sysadmins and academics, I am making the assumption that an academic would already have been caught and hung out to dry. You have caught me stereotyping both groups.
However, if choosing between a sysadmin and an academic (who is not a computer academic), which would you choose as being more apt to get away with releasing such data? It has been long enough since the files went into the wild, that the person would have been discovered by now, if at all possible.
And, though it would appear to be good advice to consult a lawyer (or whatever the person would be in the UK), that action alone could be construed as being an admission of guilt. I think it would be better to simply lay low, face any accusations with calmness, and wait for the storm to blow over. Perhaps get their resume updated. And maybe start working on that book about this (and I know they’ll be keeping the working copies of that on a fully encrypted drive).
Charlie,
The declaration of interests is used to see if you have “standing”. See the thread on CA it should help.
It’s unlikely that you can assert “standing” by claiming “hey Im a citizen and your climate science will impact me”
When “they” are looking out for your best interst and the best interest of your children, then you matter. When you are questioning the nanny state about how well they are looking out for your interest, then you do not matter.
get it?
Here’s another link to the Prince Charles visit:
http://www.itv.com/anglia/royal-climate-research48555/
It looks better in full screen – maybe readers will be able to identify some of the faces?
The Hockey Stick graph is certainly present and correct, unfortunately if you pause this feed it gets partially blanked, so it’s difficult to read the accompanying text. I have not been able to “grab” the video stream – they have made it difficult to find.
The UK royals are rather inbred so for Charles to behave like a village idiot is not exactly unexpected and he has a plethora of sycophants to suggest ideas. Even ones to put his exact required amount of toothpaste on his toothbrush!
In the past [and maybe now?] there was a position in the royal household that was called “The Keeper of the Stools”
Now we have a live stool talking up the CRU!
Charlie A (10:05:24) :
In the instructions for submissions to the parliamentary inquiry. the last item is “d) include a declaration of interests.”
Is this something along the lines of disclosure of conflicts of interest?
Is there a WUWT reader familiar with this particular term in regards to parliamentary inquiries?
Mosher above doesn’t quite have it right. It isn’t about standing, as such, nor is it really about conflict, but might be. Its more about identifying bias in the submitted material. Its used to “assess” the neutrality of the submission, and in part to ascertain if there is a packing of responses favouring one outcome or another. Its a somewhat ad hoc means of measuring bias. Bureaucratese for “your opinion, their opinion, and finding the truth between”.
Brian Johnson uk (11:11:46) :
The UK royals are rather inbred so for Charles to behave like a village idiot is not exactly unexpected and he has a plethora of sycophants to suggest ideas. Even ones to put his exact required amount of toothpaste on his toothbrush!
Hopefully Charles’ sycophants are of better quality than Michael Jackson’s!
Apparently the great body of AGW scyophants are not.
Is Price Charles interferring with the investigation? Are there laws in the UK to prevent a Royal from attempting to influence an investigation?
Mike Jonas (00:42:37) wrote :
“I don’t think the coppers are trying hard enough to nick the rascals, but I don’t doubt they’ll bring a case against the whistle-blower if they find her.”
What makes you think that the whistle-blower is a woman?
mpaul
No there are no rules, he can say what he likes. But for every person persuaded of an argument because it’s Charlie boy who is making it, there will be half a dozen who are persuaded against, for the same reason. He’s a well known reactionary, wife-abusing, talker-to-plants and his credibility is limited. It’s clear to most of us that he doesn’t live in the real world so should probably not get any credit for making pronouncements about it.
Janice
Tidying up the resume is indeed a good idea. Whoever it was will lose their job for sure, if identified, but will ultimately do ok for themselves if they can stick to the moral high ground. I’ve seen relatively little speculation as to who it was.
@Frederick James (07:32:23) and many others in this thread. The six-month limitation on the bringing a prosecution is not limited to the FOIA, it is common throughout English Law for cases which are to be heard before a Magistrate rather than a Judge. Traffic Law (speeding and careless driving for instance) have a legal ‘life’ of only six months from the time of the commission of the offence.
The FOIA was not written with secret trapdoors built in to allow malefactors to wriggle out of prosecution. It adopted a long-standing legal quirk which, after over thirty years of invovement with the application of The Law, I still fail to understand!
Apologies. The parentheses in the above are an error on my part.
@veronica (07:51:32) :
My apologies for my mistake. I am getting too twitchy.
Paul Coppin (11:32:29) :
I’m not so sure. Jim edwards, who has guided us before on such matters,
has a slightly different take on the matter.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/22/uk-parliamentary-inquiry-into-cru/#comment-217258
Having used the ICO some time ago, I have to say that I found them very helpful to the case I was investigating so I am a little less cynical about them than many here.
Having read the articles concerning the allegation that refusal was in some way sanctioned by the ICO, it struck me that I may have an answer. The CRU people will be very familiar with how civil servants operate and how they react to questions. I believe that I could, by phrasing a question in the right way, get the answer I wanted. Barristers do it all the time in court.
Imagine the scene:-
Jones to CRU lawyer “Get them off our backs please!”
Lawyer to ICO “We’ve had a whole bunch of requests from a lot of politically motivated ignoramuses, constantly asking the same questions and never giving us a moment’s peace. It’s seriously interfering with the valuable work we’re doing, helping that nice Prime Minister save the world from frying. Could we regard these repeated requests as vexatious do you think?”
ICO to lawyer “Well, under the circumstances you’ve outlined to me, on the face of it there may be a case for using Section 14 of the Act* and not complying with these repeated requests.”
Lawyer to Jones “There you are, we can ignore the requests, the ICO confirm it.”
*14 Vexatious or repeated requests
(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.
(2) Where a public authority has previously complied with a request for information which was made by any person, it is not obliged to comply with a subsequent identical or substantially similar request from that person unless a reasonable interval has elapsed between compliance with the previous request and the making of the current request.
So, there you are – how to get the answer you wanted. In a criminal court it would be called leading the witness and disallowed. When speaking to a relatively junior civil servant, it is how to do it.
This is a very strong statement for a major newspaper
“Scientists in stolen email scandal hid climate data”
Timesonline
The link for the Times story
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece
The ICO finding that the University of East Anglia did not meet its legal obligations under FOIA was just reported on the BBC Radio 4 midnight news so bit by bit this story is getting into the mainstream.
I was a civil servant when FOIA first came into force and we took it very seriously, as indeed we were obliged to do by the Civil Service Code. The university authorities will not be best pleased to be publicly criticised like this, even if they are not actually being prosecuted.