ACTA Secrecy

Dear Mr Harding,

Thank you for your email of 22 January 2010.

Your request is being dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and will be answered within twenty working days.

Yours sincerely,

Julie Owen,
Information Manager

Dear Mr Harding,

Thank you for your request on 22nd January 2010 for information relating to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), in particular the names of the countries that were opposed to full accountability and transparency of the ACTA negotiations and the UK’s position on this.

The goal of the ACTA negotiations is to provide an international framework that improves the enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR) laws. It does not intend to create new intellectual property rights or laws, but to create improved international standards on how to take action against large-scale infringement of IPR. As is common practice in trade negotiations ACTA is taking place is confidence.

The European Commission (EC) and the Presidency of the Council of European Communities have been mandated to negotiate ACTA on behalf of the European Community and the Member States. As such UK interests, represented by the Intellectual Property Office, feed into the EU negotiating position.

I regret that the names of the countries you have requested are withheld as they are exempt under section s.27(2) (international relations) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

This is a qualified exemption and is therefore subject to a public interest test. After careful consideration of all the circumstances of the case, the conclusion reached is that the public interest in maintaining this exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

For your information, this is the argument taken into account in determining that the names of the countries that were opposed to transparency in the ACTA negotiations should be withheld. There is some public interest in the disclosure of information since greater transparency makes the Government more accountable to the electorate and increases trust, and also enable the public contribution to policy making to become more effective. However, we consider that there is greater public interest in maintaining the exemption provided in s.27(2) as we believe that disclosure at this stage of the negotiations, without the consent of the other negotiating partners might damage the United Kingdom’s relations with them and our ability to protect, promote and secure an outcome in the United Kingdom interest at the negotiations

The UK is sympathetic to the view that ACTA negotiations should be more transparent. Officials have been instructed by the Minister of State for Higher Education and Intellectual Property, David Lammy MP, to take every opportunity to press for more transparency and have consistently argued for this in the negotiations and in bi-lateral discussions with our partners. As a result of our calls, and those of like-minded countries, the negotiating parties have released a summary of the key elements being discussed. This document and all the information we are able to disclose at this stage can be found on the IPO website: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-crime-acta.htm.

If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me.

If you are unhappy with the way in which your request for information has been handled you may seek an internal review within 2 months of the date that our reply is sent to you. Requests will be dealt with in 20 working days and if at the end of this time we are unable to respond, we will write to you explaining the reasons and giving you a new date. Such a request should be sent to the address below.

Chief Executive
Intellectual Property Office
PO Box 49
Cardiff Road
Newport
South Wales
NP10 8YU

or email [email address]

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner’s Office,
Wycliffe House,
Water Lane,
Wilmslow,
Cheshire,
SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely,

Julie Owen
Information Manager
Intellectual Property Office

show quoted sections

The original message was received at Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:33:04 GMT
from smtp1.patent.gov.uk [212.100.0.44]

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
[email address]
(reason: 550 5.7.1 This system is configured to reject mail from 212.100.3.29 (DNS reverse lookup failed))
(expanded from: <[email address]>)

----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to mimesweeper.patent.gov.uk.:

show quoted sections

<<< 550 5.7.1 This system is configured to reject mail from 212.100.3.29 (DNS reverse lookup failed)
554 5.0.0 Service unavailable

Dear Mr Harding,

Release of the names of countries opposed to full accountability and transparency in the ACTA negotiations, and the UK Government’s own position on this.

Thank you for your email dated 22nd February 2010, in which you requested a review
of the Intellectual Property Office’s decision to withhold information on the above
subject.

A thorough review of the handling of your request and the decision to withhold
information under section 27 (2) of the Act has been carried out. The arguments you
set out in favour of release have also been carefully considered during the review.

The findings of the review are as follows:

Section 27 covers International Relations and is a qualified exemption. In carrying
out this review I have weighed the public interest in disclosure against the wider
public interest in protecting the United Kingdom’s international relations and interests aboard.

These negotiations are being carried out in confidence, which is common practice for
trade negotiations. Disclosure of the positions of other negotiating partners, without agreement by these partners, may significantly weaken the UK’s bargaining position
in these negotiations and undermine our reputation for honouring wider international obligations and commitments.

With this in mind I have decided that the public interest in maintaining this exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The decision to withhold this information
under Section 27 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act, relating to International
Relations, was and remains appropriate.

Although we are not prepared to disclose the positions of other negotiating partners,
we are happy to provide information on the UK’s position, and on recent developments
in the EU, to which the UK has contributed and which are on public record.

The UK remains sympathetic to the view that ACTA negotiations should be more transparent. Such disclosure would help dispel the speculation that has arisen and clarify what issues are being discussed. UK officials have argued and will continue to argue for more transparency.

Recently, the EU has agreed to work towards releasing consolidated drafts of the ACTA agreement at the earliest opportunity. The EU has also agreed to actively encourage other negotiating partners to support the EU line for disclosure of the draft text.

Concerted pressure from the UK and a wider group of EU Member States has led to this advance. The EU will now go to the next negotiating round, New Zealand on 12-16 April, arguing for much greater transparency.

Should you wish to pursue this any further, I suggest that you contact the
Information Commissioner at: The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe
House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely,

Louise Smyth.
Business Support Director

show quoted sections