UK Intellectual Property Office RejectsFreedom of Information RequestOn the 8th of November one of our members, Gordon Harrison, submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO). The request was for a complete list of the organisations that made submissions for the report 'The Way Ahead; A Strategy for Copyright in the Digital Age', together with a copy of each submission. The IPO had already published some of the submissions but according to their website a number of submissions were made in confidence. Gordon asked that they be made public under the the terms of the Freedom of Information Act. The IPO replied on the 4th of December 2009 refusing to release the submissions made in confidence on the grounds that they are exempted from disclosure under Section 40 and Section 41 of the Freedom of Information Act. Section 40 is concerned with the release of personal data and Section 41 is concerned with information provided in confidence. A full copy of the IPO reply is published at the end of this story. The reason Gordon asked that all submissions be released is that public scrutiny of the governments plans as set out in the Digital Economy Bill can only be conducted fully by having access to all the information the government had available to it while determining its policy. We now know from the reply that Gordon received from the IPO that four organisations made confidential submissions, as did two individuals. We asked him how he planned to proceed. He said "The next step in this process is to write to the Chief Executive of the Intellectual Property Office to seek a review of the decision to reject the Freedom of Information request. The argument will be that public policy as proposed by the government in the Digital Economy Bill can only be subject to proper scrutiny by publishing all the documents it had available to it when drafting the legislation." "I would accept that sensitive commercial information may be redacted, but there is no good reason to keep recommendations on public policy, and naming organisations who made them, secret. Guidance on section 41 of the Freedom of Information Act is lengthy and the legal nuances are complex with regard to exemptions. However, section 41 of the act does allow information supplied in confidence to be published where it is in the public interest, providing it is not breaching a confidence that is actionable, such as information derived from a patient/doctor relationship." "In this particular case we are not considering sensitive information such as in patient/doctor, client/lawyer, penitent/priest, etc., relationships. We are considering organisations and individuals making recommendatons to government that can influence public policy with regard to copyright and the digital economy in general. These are matters of public interest, the Digital Economy Bill will impact on 10% of the UK's GDP and is of huge importance to the creative industries. Similar considerations apply to the submissions made by individuals, in these cases it is simply a matter of redacting any information that would personally identify the individual. There can be no overriding reason why the public should not be aware of what these recommendations to the government are, and in the case of organisations, who made them." "The fact that they are being kept secret is a serious concern. It is unacceptable for some organisations to be making recommendations on public policy 'behind the scenes' that cannot be subject to normal public scrutiny. Will the committee stages in the House of Lords and the House of Commons also be denied access to these submissions? The decision taken by the IPO in this case is prejudicial to the effective conduct of public affairs. This is an important matter that goes right to heart of how our democracy is supposed to work." We have looked at the list of organisations that made public submissions, such as the BBC and Microsoft, but there are some surprising ommissions from that list, such as Google and Yahoo. Pro-Imaging agrees that it is against the public interest for any organisation to submit secret reports to the government on matters of public policy. Gordon will be submitting his request to the Intellectual Property Office for a review of their decision. Further news will be published by Pro-Imaging as this story unfolds, in the neantime we have published below the full transcript of the email Gordon received from the UK Intellectual Property Office.
Dear Mr Harrison Thank you for your email of 8 November 2009 in which you requested a list of the organisations that made submissions for the report 'The Way Ahead; A Strategy for Copyright in the Digital Age', together with a copy of each submission. I can confirm that the Department holds this information and you are already aware that most of the submissions have been published on our website at: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-copy/c-policy/c-strategy/c-strategy-responses.htm In addition to the published responses we received six from individuals and corporate organisations who requested confidentiality. Whilst confidentiality cannot be guaranteed in the event of a freedom of information request, after considering this matter carefully we have concluded that this information should be exempted from release under section 41 of the Freedom of Information Act. Section 41 is concerned with information provided in confidence. The reasons for this decision are as follows: 1) None of these six participants have given consent to the release of their submissions and therefore they still have an expectation that confidentiality will be maintained. The four corporate respondents have all been made aware of your request, but we have not made your identity known. 2) There appears to be no overriding public interest in favour of disclosing this information. With regard to the responses from private individuals, they are also exempt under section 40 of the Act, which allows personal information to be withheld. Sometimes it is possible to release information with the names and address details redacted, but on this occasion we considered it best to withhold the entire responses as they contain information that may identify the people concerned. These are absolute exemptions and there is therefore no requirement to consider the public interest in this matter. I realise that all this reply adds to the sum of your knowledge is the number of confidential responses, but if you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the date of receipt of the response to your original letter and should be addressed to: Chief Executive E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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 Yours sincerely,
xxxxxx xxxxx Records officer |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
