T 71 licensing agreement - commercial licensing partner

Request

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I write to request specific information concerning The National Archives’ response to two changes of ownership of its commercial licensing partner for Collection T71 — the Office of Registry of Colonial Slaves and Slave Compensation Commission Records 1812-1851, documenting 780,993 enslaved people.

The Licence Agreement dated 15 February 2007 between The National Archives and The Generations Network Inc, now disclosed to me, contains at clause 9.1.2(iii) an explicit obligation requiring the Publisher to notify the Licensor of any change of control within 5 Business Days of that change taking effect. Clause 9.1.3 provides that The National Archives may terminate the agreement within 60 days of receiving that notification. To the extent that the Framework Licence Agreement dated 20 December 2017 contains equivalent or successor provisions to clause 9.1.2(iii) of the 2007 agreement, I request the same information in respect of those provisions.

Ancestry.com was acquired by Permira in December 2012. Ancestry was subsequently acquired by Blackstone in August 2020.

I request:

1. Whether The National Archives received notification from Ancestry or any related entity of the Permira acquisition in December 2012 as required under clause 9.1.2(iii) of the 2007 agreement or any equivalent provision of the 2017 Framework, and what action The National Archives took in response.
2. Whether The National Archives received notification from Ancestry or any related entity of the Blackstone acquisition in August 2020 as required under clause 9.1.2(iii) of the 2007 agreement or any equivalent provision of the 2017 Framework, and what action The National Archives took in response.

These questions concern The National Archive's own conduct as a party to a commercial agreement governing Crown records. They do not engage section 43(2). They concern whether a public authority exercised its contractual rights when records of 780,993 enslaved people passed successively into private equity ownership.

The internal review decision of 20 May 2026 under reference CAS-322451-M6D0Q2 acknowledged that The National Archives' previous application of section 43(2) to the 2007 Licensing Agreement was wrong in significant proportion — directly contradicting the assertion made in The National Archives' response of 7 January 2026 that only a small amount of information was being withheld. That admission of unlawful withholding is directly relevant to any commercial confidentiality claim advanced in response to this request. A public authority that has acknowledged it unlawfully withheld information about the commercial framework governing these records cannot credibly invoke the same exemption to shield its own institutional conduct within that framework.

I request disclosure in electronic form within the statutory 20 working days.

Outcome

Information provided.

Response

I can confirm that The National Archives holds information relevant to your request, and we are pleased to be able to provide this information to you.

Please note that the previous decision to withhold information from the 2007 Licensing Agreement was made in consultation with the third party commercial provider (as directed by the ICO’s guidance on section 43(2)), which in this instance was Ancestry, and the determination to exempt information was made upon the basis of advice provided at that time by Ancestry concerning prejudice to their commercial interests.

We do not consider this to have been an unlawful decision, as the lower threshold of the prejudice test was considered to be met for the withheld information (meaning the disclosure of information would have a less than 50% chance of causing prejudice, although the risk was still considered to be substantial). Furthermore, the subsequent Public Interest Test arrived at a reasonable determination with the advice we had available at the time, in determining that the balance of the test lay in favour of non-disclosure. This was a lawful decision made in line with the requirements of the FOI Act.

The decision to voluntarily release further information after additional consultation with Ancestry is a legitimate reconsideration of the original decision, and not unlawful conduct in the processing of the FOI request. A reconsideration of the original decision is the purpose behind the internal review process, and a public authority is allowed to change aspects of its original decision; particularly, in terms of considering the application of section 43(2), in the light of fresh advice from our commercial partners. In response to your questions:

1. The National Archives received a notification of ‘Consent to possible change of control of Ancestry.com Inc’ in November 2012, which was duly agreed and acknowledged by The National Archives ahead of the completion of the acquisition by Permira in December 2012. The notification was signed by both parties.
2. The National Archives received a ‘Notice and consent to change of ownership’ in November 2020, which was duly agreed and acknowledged by The National Archives ahead of the completion of the acquisition by Blackstone in December 2020. The notification was signed by both parties.