Bishop Hill Stern not related to environment
Jun 24, 2013 Back in February I asked the Treasury for correspondence it held related to the Stern Review. There is a 20-day time limit for public bodies to respond to requests under FOI and EIR, but as readers here know most public servants ignore the letter of the law and drag out requests for as long as humanly possible.
It was last week that I finally got my response, and as one might have expected it was negative. According to the Treasury they hold only a single email that could be construed as environmental information.
As advised, building on our previous searches related to your earlier requests, I can confirm that we hold one email as specified in your request. This email is dated 19 June 2006 before the publication of the Stern Review in the autumn and its subject is 'Review on the Economics of Climate Change: emerging storyline'. Sir Nicholas Stern sent it to the Chancellor with a wide copy list including Michael Jacobs. The information is a paper from the previous administration describing various options on how the government may choose to progress the policy initiative.
They have of course decided that this email is not disclosable, on one pretext or another.
I've appealed the decision.
Reader Comments (21)
One hopes that, being British, you've appealed against the decision. Harrumph harrumph.
The Freedom of Information Act.
Whatever it was about, it does not seem to relate to either Freedom or Information.
"with a wide copy list"
But still secret!
One is reminded of this scene from Yes Prime Minister........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5P34nJzsaY
So for the whole of 2005 and 2006, covering the period before and after the publication of the Stern Review, the Treasury received just one email from Nicholas Stern (and none from Gordon Brown or his advisers) concerning the environment, and they’re not telling you what’s in it because everything in it is either in the Stern Review, or concerns international relations and is therefore exempt from the FOIA.
Have I got that right?
The last exemption seems particularly handy. I imagine the emails going back and forth with titles like “MPs expenses and our relations with Swaziland”, “Government spying operations on climate sceptics in relation to cooperation with Mongolia” etc.
@Jack Savage: Whatever it was about ....
The act itself is the only piece of worthwhile legislation introduced under Blair.
Off topic but Boris Johnson has an article in today's Daily Telegraph. He suggest that climate forecasters should be sued in a class action by homeowners who invested in swimming pools in the expection of a string of ever hotter summers.
Andrew
With regard to the ability of public authorities to apply exemptions to the Environmental Information Regulations, you should read carefully the recently updated UNECE "Aarhus Convention An Implementation Guide", in particular what is established under Article 4(4) on page 80 onward:
http://www.unece.org/index.php?id=32764
The UK has already had a number of ruling against it in relation to failures to comply with the Convention. In Communication ACCC/C/2010/53 in relation to a situation in Edinburgh, the UK was found non-compliant with regard to releasing requested environmental data.
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/compliance/CC-40/ece.mp.pp.c.1.2013.3.pdf
The findings were that the UK as a Party to the Convention had failed to comply with its obligations under Article 4(1):
1. Each Party shall ensure that, subject to the following paragraphs of this article, public authorities, in response to a request for environmental information, make such information available to the public, within the framework of national legislation, including, where requested and subject to subparagraph (b) below, copies of the actual documentation containing or comprising such information:
(a) Without an interest having to be stated;
(b) In the form requested unless:
(i) It is reasonable for the public authority to make it available in another form, in which case reasons shall be given for making it available in that form; or
(ii) The information is already publicly available in another form.
See also Point 20 of the Compliance Committee report below relating to situations where they are confronted with what are allegations of noncompliance concerning a Party reflecting the same legal issues upon which it had already deliberated in a previous communication relating to the same Party (but not to the same facts).
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/mop4/Documents/ece_mp.pp_2011_11_eng.pdf
There are options therefore to be pursued if you do not achieve satisfactory compliance with the Environmental Information Regulations.
@jones
I used to like that program when I thought it was fiction!
Off topic but Boris Johnson has an article in today's Daily Telegraph. He suggest that climate forecasters should be sued in a class action by homeowners who invested in swimming pools in the expection of a string of ever hotter summers.
Jun 24, 2013 at 1:13 PM | Ron
/////////////////////
How about:
a class action against the relevant authorities by anyone involved in a car accident in winter or held up for hours or overnight due to lack of gritting (local authorities nort stockpiling sufficient quantities of grit and getting rid of gritting equipment due to forecasts for mild winters) on public roads, or perhaps missed flights due to avoidable runway closures
a class action against politicians/authorities by those who have had to pay increased energy bills on the back of steps taken by the government to stave off the forecasted warming due to that devil gas CO2.
qwerty
"the only piece of worthwhile legislation introduced under Blair"
And, tellingly, the thing he said he regretted most!
@qwerty/@jamesp
Probably the only worthwhile legislation since Blair came to power up to today.
'most public servants ignore the letter of the law and drag out requests for as long as humanly possible'
The whatdotheyknow site is a veritable feast of examples of what 'public servants' will try and pull to avoid, deny or ensure next to nothing gets out under inquiry transparency requirements/FoI or, if it does, shared.
After the BBC grudgingly released its redacted Pollard findings, even loyal Graun journos were knocked well offside by the material apparently being created on parchment in illuminated script.
There was a recent funny but farcical one being played out where the BBC insisted that what they have scanned gets sent as a 1,000 page package because.... what was scanned couldn't be sent electronically. All ended well, except for BBC credibility:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/rfi20130008_re_release
As with cover ups often being worse than the event being covered up, one has to wonder how well such reactions from officialdom serve trust in their commitment to integrity in public office (not a phrase heard on most public's lips of late).
I bet we have a plan to invade Greenland.
When I sent FOI/EIR requests to UEA, I was rejected on the basis that:
In accordance with Regulation 14 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 this letter acts as a Refusal Notice, and I am not obliged to supply this information and the reasons for exemption are as stated below:
Exception
Reason
Reg. 12(4)(a) – Information not held
Some of the requested information is not held by the University
Reg. 12(4)(b) – Request is manifestly unreasonable
Information is available elsewhere
Reg. 12(5)(a) – Adverse effect on international relations
Release would damage relations with scientists & institutions from other nations
Reg. 12(5)(f) – Adverse effect on the person providing information
Information is covered by a confidentiality agreement
In each and every case I showed these arguments to be spurious.
Go through the Internal Appeals (they too will reject), then take it to the ICO (they will reject). Then appeal to the ICO tribunal- I have found that they (and the courts) are less likely to take the above arguments at face value.
Lastly expect this to take up two years of your life.
Enjoy :-)
Don... you were lucky (in a Northern Pythonesque accent).
Joking aside... well aside... I am looking at this supposed mechanism of gaining answers avoided by all other means and it has great potential, but seems like so much these days to almost have been created with the express intention of looking like something is possible, but is actually designed to ensnare any tempted to try in a nightmare of funded (on their side) attrition to make it all go away.
My latest eyebrow crank is the Beware of the Leopardesque dodge (at least allowed for some) of permitting those being tasked to answer the opportunity to refuse up front on the basis that if they can make doing something they want so slow it goes past a certain time period (I think 2 and a half working days) in their minds, that is enough to refuse to try at all.
There seems a certain conflict of interest to this. Not to mention trust. Which is now in short supply.
Odd how so much secrecy and the use of so many smoke and mirrors are seen for what is claimed to be 'settled science ' , which if true means it cannot be successfully challenge so what's to lose , about the 'most important issues ever ', in which case they would really want the maximum number of people to see it because that is the only way to get the changes they say is needed and were 'there is no time to lose ' in which case they want the maximum people to see it now or that would mean lost time in which to take action.
Climate 'scientists' often come across as religion like figures. In this area they much like snake oil sales men, keen for people to buy 'without ' looking .
Could it be that the trouble is the selling of BS on this scaler is possible only when the buyer does not get to inspect it before hand ?
On behalf of myself and other 'fuel poverty' suffers please continue hammering at the closed doors of authority.
graphicconception
Yes Minister - seconded.
Don Keiller
Only two years ?
We've had the price adjustment tactic - upped by nearly x40 for ca. 1/5 of the information. The EA badly mis-priced the first tranche - i.e. we paid up enthusiastically :-)
The Sir Humphreys have been moving mountains to reduce FoIs teeth to soft gums.
I can't understand what you're complaining about. Surely one snippet of correspondence beteeen Lord Stern and Treasury is enough to write a seminal paper on the economics of climate change. And even that might be too complicated for the average bloke to get his teeth into.
Better to let the academics and the civil service get on with it.
Sounds as if the shredders have been hard at work!