Department for International Trade 1 Victoria Street London SW1H 0ET Kyla Mandel kyla@desmog.uk T +44 (0)20 7215 5000 E Foi.requests@bis.gsi.gov.uk W www.gov.uk/dit Our ref: FOI2016/20779 07 November 2016 Dear Kyla Mandel, INTERNAL REVIEW OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST FOI2016/20779 I am writing in response to your request for an internal review of the above case. I have now reviewed the information which was withheld by the Department in its response to your original request, and set out my decision below. Your original request was made on 23 August where you requested the following information: I am seeking information on Secretary of State for International Trade Liam Fox’s trip to the United States at the end of July 2016. Specifically, could you please provide me with the following: - SoS Fox’s full itinerary / itemised agenda for the trip which included stops in Chicago, Washington D.C. and Los Angeles - Information on all meetings and correspondence between Fox and those U.S. organisations, government bodies, corporations, NGOs, think tanks, and individuals etc. arranged during this trip. This should include, but not be limited to, the following • BP America, as referenced in a 26 July 2016 tweet by British Consul General Antonia Romeo3 • The Heritage Foundation, as referenced in a 25 July 2016 Tweet by Luke Coffey, director of Heritage’s Allison Centre for Foreign Policy I would also like to have confirmed whether Fox met with any of the following organisations during the trip: • The American Legislative Exchange Council • The CATO Institute • The American Enterprise Institute • The Heartland Institute • The Competitive Enterprise Institute • The American Petroleum Institute • Americans for Prosperity For each meeting could I be supplied with the: - Date / Location - Names and titles of the people in attendance - Agendas / Minutes / Briefings / Presentations Similarly, for each item of correspondence, to include but not be limited to, telephone calls, letters, emails or text messages, could I be supplied with the: - Time / Date - Names and titles of other people party to the correspondence - Any attachments to emails or supplementary documents included - Any associated documents generated as a direct result of this conversation e.g. briefing notes, minutes, mems, transcripts or summaries The Department responded to your request on 13 September 2016 explaining that it did hold information within scope of your request but it was withholding it under Section 27 (1) (a), international relations, of the FOI Act. In compliance with guidance set out in the FOI Act, I have conducted an internal review of the original response. In performing this review I have considered whether the original response to your request was correct. Having re-examined the handling of your request, I have concluded that the Department should release in part some of the previously withheld information in order to deal with your request appropriately. The particular focus of your request for an internal review is focused on the following section of your request and the related answer: Your request 1) SoS Fox’s full itinerary / itemised agenda for the trip which included stops in Chicago, Washington D.C. and Los Angeles 2) Information on all meetings and correspondence between Fox and those U.S. organisations, government bodies, corporations, NGOs, think tanks, and individuals etc. arranged during this trip. 3) This should include, but not be limited to, the following • BP America, as referenced in a 26 July 2016 tweet by British Consul General Antonia Romeo • The Heritage Foundation, as referenced in a 25 July 2016 Tweet by Luke Coffey, director of Heritage’s Allison Center for Foreign Policy I can confirm that the Department holds information falling within scope of these requests. This information is withheld in accordance with Section 27(1) – international relations. The Department’s response Section 27(1) (a) recognises the need to protect information that would be likely to prejudice relations between the UK and other states if disclosed. The application of Section 27(1) (a) requires us to consider public interest arguments in favour of releasing and withholding the information. The disclosure of the information held could potentially damage the bilateral relationship between the UK and United States. This would reduce the UK government's ability to protect and promote UK interests through its relations with United States, which would not be in the public interest. For these reasons we consider that the public interest in maintaining this exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing it. Internal review decision Having reviewed the Department’s response I have concluded that it would be appropriate to release further details of the records held relating to your request. 1) The Department does hold a record of the itinerary of the trip but this is withheld under Section 22 of the Act as this information intended for future publication. 2) The department does hold the notes of meetings held during this trip and a redacted copy relating to meetings attended by the Secretary of State is attached at Annex A. Within this document some details of meetings with US government organisations are redacted under Section 27 (1) (a) of the Act and meetings with commercial organisations under Section 43. This document also contains the record of the meeting with the Heritage Foundation. Section 27 Section 27(1)(a) of the Act recognises the need to protect information that would be likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and other states if it was disclosed. In this case, the release of information relating to this meeting could harm the UK’s relations with the USA. Section 27(1)(a) is a qualified exemption and as such we have considered where the greater public interest lies. Disclosure could meet the public interest in transparency and accountability. However, the effective conduct of international relations depends upon maintaining trust and confidence between governments. If the UK does not maintain this trust and confidence, its ability to protect and promote UK interests through international relations will be hampered, which will not be in the public interest. The disclosure of information on our relationship with various states could potentially damage the relationship between the UK and those states. These relationships are on-going and the release of the details of certain meetings could reduce the UK Government's ability to protect and promote UK interests which would not be in the public interest. For these reasons we consider that the public interest in maintaining this exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Section 43 In relation to the withheld information, we recognise that the use of Section 43, commercial interests, is subject to a public interest test: in this context, we recognise that there is a general public interest in the disclosure of information as greater transparency makes Government more accountable. We appreciate that there is a public interest in understanding the nature of the work of Government and how it interacts with business. However, in this case it is also important that Government protects commercially sensitive information to allow these particular organisations to continue to operate in anonymity to limit the exposure of their business strategy; the disclosure of which may be advantageous to competitors operating in the same sector. 3) The department also holds a list of attendees for the meeting with the Heritage Foundation and a letter of thanks to its president Jim de Mint; these are attached at Annex B and C respectively. 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, Emma Squire Head of Ministerial Strategy Directorate Annex A Visit to the USA: Dr Liam Fox, Secretary of State Washington US Chamber of Commerce Roundtable discussion at the US Chamber of Commerce with member companies. The event was hosted by John Hopkins, CEO of Nuscale, and Myron Brilliant, Vice President at the US Chamber of Commerce. • Major economic interdependencies between the UK and US. US business respected the referendum outcome and wanted to work with us on the policy choices ahead. • Agree on the need to strengthen the US-UK trade relationship. The possibility of a bilateral FTA warranted serious consideration. • The overall tenor of the trade debate in the US was worrying. Passage of TPP in the lame duck was far from certain and failure could mean it sliding for 2+ years. • There is a strong appetite for a consultation mechanism with the business community – including US business - as our EU negotiations evolve. The Secretary of State invited a written submission from US business. • Companies raised the following issues: • Hope UK can be an even stronger force for services liberalisation (Microsoft) • The importance of immigration policy given large numbers of non-UK nationals to the workforce of US companies in the UK • Interest in the status of the European Medical Agency (HQ’d in London) and participation in the EU’s unitary patent system (Abbvie); • Importance of access to and cost of inputs to UK operations (Dow Chemical). US Trade Representative • • • • • • • The SoS and Lord Price met Ambassador Mike Froman, US Trade Representative. Froman asked about the structure of the new department, whether our trade relationship with the EU would be negotiated concurrently to exit talks, whether we expected the arrangement to be in place upon exit and what kind of sovereignty (tariffs, single market regulation) we aimed for. USTR was focused on passing TPP in the lame duck session. 13 other countries, not all public, were keen to join TPP. The next tranche would have to wait until after ratification. Froman was still pushing TTIP hard. He was leaving for a “heart to heart” with Malmstrom immediately afterwards; negotiations needed to break from the current pattern. Merkel remained “all-in” politically to TTIP, but despite some wobbles from other Ministers he credited the German coalition with keeping the debate in check. Froman keen for the UK to continue to play an active role in TTIP and welcomed the SoS’s continued commitment to the negotiation. Brexit had reduced the size of the TTIP prize for the US. The UK represents 25% of US exports to Europe, 25% of EU procurement opportunities and up to 60% of US exports to the EU for some services. The US had to walk a delicate line in talking to the UK. We were obviously close partners. We will have ongoing conversations on trade and investment. But the US Administration does not want to be seen to interfere. Asked for specific areas in TTIP where the UK could be helpful, Mullaney highlighted services, in particular data flows and digital services, agricultural tariffs and their ongoing difficulty understanding the scope of the audio-visual carve out (“movie theatres is one thing, but if it covers every moving picture on the internet we have a problem”). • Brief discussion of China/Market Economy Status. Froman said the key issue was the methodology used for anti-dumping measures. He noted a new Commission proposal was under consideration but that a recent WTO ruling had complicated the picture. ACTION: Lord Price offered to share analysis which suggested that existing trade remedies were sufficient to block the majority of dumped products. Heritage Foundation The Secretary of State spoke at a Heritage Foundation lunch to explain the formation of the Department and UK priorities on trade and our EU renegotiation. • Questions ranged across foreign and defence policy, the challenges posed by ITAR to UK defence industry collaboration and appetite to push for improvements to operation of the UK-US defence cooperation treaty. • Participants highlighted the political significant of chlorine-washed chicken (banned in the EU) to US agriculture (COMMENT: a long-standing restriction that the US argues is without scientific basis) White House • The SoS met Jeff Zients, Chairman of the National Economic Council. He was accompanied by Mike Froman (USTR), Jason Furman (Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors) and Charlie Kupchan (Senior Director for European Affairs, NSC). • The US asked about the formation of the new department, the economic impact of the referendum result, plans for our EU negotiation, prospects for securing financial services passporting and what we could and would do on trade policy whilst EU exit negotiations were ongoing. Froman reiterated that he was confident a way could be found to continue talking in parallel to TTIP though highlighted complications given the Commission was the US’s negotiating partner. • Zients concluded there remained appetite to be in regular contact over the remaining six months of the administration. Trade Lawyers. • • • • Roundtable discussion with US trade experts. Stuart E. Eizenstat, Former US Ambassador to the EU, Carla Hills, Former US Trade Representative, Warren Maruyama, former USTR General Counsel, Andy Shoyer, former legal advisor to the US Mission to the WTO, Pablo Bentes, Former Legal Advisor to the WTO appellate body. Carla Hills gave TPP less than 50% chance of ratification in the lame duck, but still thought it possible. TTIP negotiations should include Canada and Mexico as wlel as the UK. Immediate prospects for multilateral deals not promising, but NAFTA’s ratification had prompted a flurry of deal-making in the early 90s. Eizenstat noted Trump’s suggestion of withdrawal from the WTO as an especially bad omen. He lamented the current US political discourse on trade. A bilateral UK-US deal was politically attractive, but he questioned USTR negotiating bandwidth. The decision that CETA was mixed competence was worrying for EU trade liberalisation. • • Maruyama sceptical on future prospects of multilateral trade rounds. Doha was dead and needed to be declared so. Plurilaterals were a better bet. TPP passage in the lame duck at less than 25%. In the WTO, the UK might want to look to standstill arrangements to protect current practice whilst future arrangements are negotiated. Shoyer argued that the UK’s negotiating position in the WTO was stronger than observers suggested. Third countries were obliged to offer the UK Most Favoured Nation (MFN) privileges. But the UK has no schedule of its own and no obligations. WTO waiver process could be deployed to buy time (possible fixed 10-year limit). The UK services schedule offered considerable leverage. Annex B List of attendees for Heritage Foundation lunch Jim DeMint President Bret Bernhardt Executive Vice President James Carafano, Ph.D. Vice President for the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, and the E. W. Richardson Fellow Luke Coffey Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy Ed Corrigan Group Vice President, Policy Promotion James Dean Manager, International and Diplomatic Programs Steven Groves Bernard and Barbara Lomas Senior Research Fellow, Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Kim Holmes, Ph.D. Distinguished Fellow, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy Anthony Kim Research Manager, Index of Economic Freedom, and Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Trade and Economics Daniel Kochis Policy Analyst in European Affairs, Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Walter Lohman Director, Asian Studies Center Ambassador Terry Miller Director, Center for Data Analysis and the Center for Trade & Economics and Mark A. Kolokotrones Fellow in Economic Freedom Bryan Riley Jay Van Andel Senior Analyst in Trade Policy, Center for Trade and Economics Jack Spencer Vice President, Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity James Wallner, Ph.D. Group Vice President, Research Host: Nile Gardiner, Ph.D. Director, Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Annex ?me at Bow: Liam F9: ?g . Washington DC i iccik forward to working with you as the new UK Government deveiops its trade poiicy priorities, inciuding in high value areas that we discussed such as defence. Cc: Nile Gardiner Luke Coffey