Tuesday, April 3, 2012

3108.txt

cc: "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" <K.BriffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" <P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
date: Fri, 9 May 2008 09:10:05 +0100
from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" <David.PalmeratXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: FW: Freedom of Information Act 1998 / Environmental Information
to: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" <M.McgarvieatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

A response from Mr. Holland.

Essential point is that if we were to find that this request is 'vexatious', it doesn't
matter which Act we use; should, upon investigation, the appropriate limit be exceeded,
then FOIA provides that as an option that the EIR does not. I am happy to 'row back' to
FOIA (with the attendant bashing I am sure to take!) should that be correct in the
circumstances.

I believe the rest of the communication should come as no surprise.

Cheers, Dave
______________________________________________________________________________________

From: David Holland [mailto:d.holland@tesco.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 9:41 PM
To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act 1998 / Environmental Information Regulations 2004
request (FOI_08-23 ; EIR_08-01)

Dear Mr Palmer,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - INFORMATION REQUEST

(Your ref: FOI_08-23; EIR_08-01)


Thank you for your prompt reply to my request, which incidentally has brought an
acknowledgement from Dr Briffa for which I am grateful. I note that you say you must
consider the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR), rather
than under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I have no problem with that if it results
in the release of the information I wish to see. However, the email correspondence, of Drs
Briffa and Jones that I mentioned to you, was released to me under the Freedom of
Information Act - in my view quite properly, and is not Environmental Information per se
but entirely pertinent to my investigation of the IPCC AR4 process and I would, of course,
be disappointed if similar document at CRU were not released.


The legal status of the internationally agreed Principles Governing IPCC Work may not be as
clear and obvious as the FOI and EIR Acts, but in my view their clear and unambiguous
requirement for openness and transparency should, with the public interest in this area and
the importance attached to it by HMG, encourage you to presume disclosure of all IPCC
related information. Clearly, if case for policies that are causing such public concern is
solidly based, no disclosures will diminish it, while any attempt to avoid full disclosure
will provide ammunition for those that question the work of the IPCC.


Thanking you in advance,


David Holland


----- Original Message -----

From: [1]Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)

To: [2]d.holland@theiet.org

Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 6:08 PM

Subject: Freedom of Information Act 1998 / Environmental Information Regulations 2004
request (FOI_08-23 ; EIR_08-01)

Mr. Holland,

Attached please find a letter acknowledging your request received on 5 May 2008. It also
contains further information regarding the handling of this request under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000, and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. I will be in
contact with you further in due course.

Cheers, Dave Palmer

<<EIR_referral_letter_080506.doc>>
____________________________
David Palmer
Information Policy Officer
University of East Anglia
Norwich, England
NR4 7TJ
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.9/1419 - Release Date: 07/05/2008 07:46

No comments:

Post a Comment