The Data Protection Commissioner would evaluate the controversial Acta agreement to see whether it impinged on individual rights, Finance Minister Tonio Fenech said yesterday, while admitting he had not been consulted.
What the government did not see, no one else saw- Finance Minister
The Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement – Acts – was discussed at Parliament’s Foreign and European Affairs Committee, where Mr Fenech explained why Malta had signed the agreement.
Several government advisers, including the Attorney General and legal experts from Customs and the Malta Communications Authority, provided explanations of the agreement and compared it to Maltese law.
Committee chairman, Nationalist MP Francis Zammit Dimech asked interested members of the public to give their input to the Committee, which must advise Parliament on whether or not to ratify the agreement once it is approved by the European Parliament.
The agreement must be ratified by each European member state since it impacts criminal procedure, making it no ordinary trade agreement.
The Committee decided to also seek clarifications from the European Commission – which was the EU’s main negotiator on Acta – and countries, primarily those that took positions against it.
Mr Fenech said Acta did not impose new responsibilities or obligations.
“In principle this agreement is good,” he said, arguing that it aimed to crack down on intellectual property theft, something which even Maltese law aimed to tackle.
“(But) we are in no hurry to ratify it,” he said, adding that Malta could decide not to ratify the agreement unless certain changes were made.
The original analysis by the government’s experts did not reveal any of the problems that were later raised internationally about Acta, he admitted. The initial advice was that it did not burden Malta with new obligations.
The agreement was primarily negotiated by the European Commission and many meetings were held in faraway places like New Zealand and Australia so, logistically, the government did not feel the need to send its own members to every meeting.
Although he confirmed that the Malta EU Steering and Action Committee did not discuss Acta, Mr Fenech said the agreement was sent to Meusac, the social partners and political parties for their reactions, though none were forthcoming.
“What the government did not see, no one else saw,” he said, stressing Malta had no obligation to blindly ratify the agreement.
Germany, which had a much stronger bureaucratic system, only postponed signing the agreement now, to review it following the public outcry.
The countries that did not sign the agreement had not objected to it and simply did not sign for logistical reasons.
The Prime Minister had now committed to safeguarding individual internet rights, which could be enshrined in the Constitution.
Labour MP Owen Bonnici asked whether these would be enshrined as enforceable or non-enforceable rights but Mr Fenech said he could not answer with certainty.
Shadow foreign minister George Vella said he was sure the government and its experts acted in good faith but he was surprised no one flagged the various concerns.
Labour MP Leo Brincat asked whether the government issued a press release after signing the agreement but Mr Fenech said it did not feel the need to because at the time the agreement seemed “innocuous”.
Mr Fenech said that although it would have been good to consult Parliament before signing the agreement, this was not necessarily practical or manageable in every case.
Much of the discussion dealt with how Acta changes Maltese legislation, with various experts explaining there would be no changes to legislation now in force.
Mr Fenech said Acta frequently used words like “may”, which sparked confusion about the obligations of signatory countries. But in such cases, he said, the domestic law would prevail.
He pointed out that it was not illegal to download a film and share it with someone, as long as this was not done for commercial purposes and in small consignments.
Labour MPs argued that there was no definition of what amounted to commercial use or big consignments.
Labour MP Michael Farrugia warned there was no definition of counterfeit medicines in the agreement, so it could relate to generics.
The committee adjourned for March 2.