Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
in the United Kingdom
2010 to 2012
A Review of the first 3 years of operation
Christopher Corbin
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Acknowledgments
The Author wishes to thank Howard Davies, Marcia Jackson and Jim Wretham who checked the report
for factual accuracy. The views and opinions contained in this report are, however, entirely the
author’s.
Author Information
Christopher Corbin was an expert member (Europe) of the UK Advisory Panel for Public Sector
Information 2008-2010. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/appsi%5Cdefault.htm
He was a facilitator for the European Commission PSI Group initiative on Public Sector Information
Economic Indicators & Economic case study on charging models 2009-2010.
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/facilitating_reuse/economic_analysis/index_en.htm
He has also played an active role in EU funded projects that have included:
The ePSIplus Thematic Network, the European Public Sector Information Platform
http://www.epsiplatform.eu/
MEPSIR
(Measuring
European
Public
Sector
Information
Resources)
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/mepsir/index_en.htm
GINIE (Geographic Information Network in Europe) http://www.ec-gis.org/ginie/
He has played an active role in workshops on public sector information at the United Nations Internet
Governance Forum meetings in Hyderabad (2008), Vilnius (2010), and Nairobi (2011).
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/
Brighton
East Sussex
UK
Legal Disclaimer
This document and all material therein has been compiled with great care; however, the author cannot be held liable in any
way for the consequences of using the content of this document and/or any material referenced therein.
© Christopher Corbin 2013
This report is licensed under the Open Government Licence. To view the terms of the Open
Government Licence visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence . Any enquiries
regarding this publication should be sent to: Standards Department, The National Archives, Kew,
Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; standards@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk; telephone 020 8876 3444.
2
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Contents
Review Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Key attributes of the Exception Procedure .......................................................................................... 6
Procedure Overview ............................................................................................................................ 7
Key Statistics ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 8
Impact Assessment .............................................................................................................................. 9
Improvements to the current Exception Procedure ............................................................................ 10
Towards a Mandatory Exception Procedure ...................................................................................... 11
Adaption of Current Procedure for 2015 ........................................................................................... 12
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 12
List of abbreviations .......................................................................................................................... 13
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 14
2. Background Information..................................................................................................................... 15
2.1 Overall Policy Objective .............................................................................................................. 15
2.2 Cross Cutting Review of the Knowledge Economy Review of government information ........... 15
2.3 Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations ........................................................................ 15
Charges ......................................................................................................................................... 15
Exclusive arrangements ................................................................................................................ 16
2.4 Power of Information ................................................................................................................... 16
2.5 Implementation of Recommendation 10 ...................................................................................... 17
2.6 Charging Standards ...................................................................................................................... 17
2.7 Information Fair Trader Scheme .................................................................................................. 17
2.8 HMSO Delegations of Authority ................................................................................................. 19
3. Overview of the Procedure Implemented ........................................................................................... 20
3.1 Public Consultation ...................................................................................................................... 20
3.2 Informing Public Bodies .............................................................................................................. 20
3.3 Overview of the Procedural Stages implemented ........................................................................ 20
Stage 1........................................................................................................................................... 21
Stage 2........................................................................................................................................... 21
Stage 3........................................................................................................................................... 21
Stage 4........................................................................................................................................... 21
3.4 Published Guidance information and documents ......................................................................... 22
TNA Web site ............................................................................................................................... 22
TNA Documents ........................................................................................................................... 22
Related Documents ....................................................................................................................... 22
Raising and maintaining Awareness ............................................................................................. 23
3.5 The Application Assessment Framework .................................................................................... 23
3.6 Application Assessment Framework correlation with UK PSI Policy Framework ..................... 25
3.7 Application Assessment Framework Timeline ............................................................................ 26
4. Review of Applications ...................................................................................................................... 27
4.1 Stage 1 – Exploratory approaches to TNA .................................................................................. 27
Public Sector Body “A” ................................................................................................................ 27
Public Sector Body “D” ................................................................................................................ 27
Public Sector Body “J” ................................................................................................................. 28
Public Sector Body “K” ................................................................................................................ 28
4.2 Stage 2 – A review of formal applications received by TNA ...................................................... 28
Public Sector Body “B” Application............................................................................................. 29
Public Sector Body “C” Application ............................................................................................. 31
Public Sector Body “E” Application ............................................................................................. 33
Public Sector Body “F” Application ............................................................................................. 36
Public Sector Body “G” Application ............................................................................................ 38
Public Sector Body “H” Application ............................................................................................ 40
Public Sector Body “I” Application .............................................................................................. 42
Public Sector Body “L” Application ............................................................................................. 44
3
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Public Sector Body “M” Application ............................................................................................ 46
5. Summary of Review of Applications ................................................................................................. 48
Key Statistics ..................................................................................................................................... 48
Summary tabulations ......................................................................................................................... 49
6. Review of the Procedure..................................................................................................................... 56
6.1 Assumptions ................................................................................................................................ 56
6.2 The Procedure .............................................................................................................................. 56
6.3 Application Processing times ....................................................................................................... 60
6.4 Delegations Granted .................................................................................................................... 63
6.5 Delegation granted - IFTS pre-requisites (Test 6.1) .................................................................... 63
Statement of Commitment ............................................................................................................ 63
Joining the IFTS ............................................................................................................................ 63
6.6 Implications arising from Machinery of Government changes .................................................... 64
Public Sector Body “C” ................................................................................................................ 64
Public Sector Body “I” .................................................................................................................. 65
6.7 Delegation not granted – Public Sector Body reaction ................................................................ 66
Public Sector Body “F” ................................................................................................................. 66
Public Sector Body “H” ................................................................................................................ 67
6.8 Application Assessment Framework – The Verification process ................................................ 67
Transparent objective assessment criteria ..................................................................................... 67
Verification ................................................................................................................................... 67
Missing test for Exclusive Arrangements ..................................................................................... 67
6.9 Availability of raw data (Tests 1.4 and 2.3) ................................................................................. 69
Publishing data on data.gov.uk ..................................................................................................... 70
6.10 Public Sector Body commitment to the Exception Procedure ................................................... 70
6.11 Seamless procedural boundaries within TNA ............................................................................ 71
6.12 Delegations granted – consistency between database and TNA Web site ................................. 71
6.13 Delivering Transparency............................................................................................................ 72
6.14 Impact of Public Sector budget constraints (UK Government austerity measures) ................... 74
6.15 Value Added in the context of the exception procedure ............................................................ 75
6.16 TNA Resources .......................................................................................................................... 75
6.17 Impact Assessment of the Exception to Marginal Cost Pricing Procedure ................................ 75
A Reality Assessment ................................................................................................................... 76
7. Potential Improvements to the current Exception Procedure.............................................................. 79
7.1 Summary of Proposals 1 .............................................................................................................. 79
7.2 Summary of other issues that need to be addressed ..................................................................... 80
Proposal 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 81
Proposal 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 82
Proposal 3 .......................................................................................................................................... 82
Proposal 4 .......................................................................................................................................... 82
Proposal 5 .......................................................................................................................................... 83
Proposal 6 .......................................................................................................................................... 84
Proposal 7 .......................................................................................................................................... 84
Proposal 8 .......................................................................................................................................... 85
Proposal 9 .......................................................................................................................................... 85
Proposal 10 ........................................................................................................................................ 86
Proposal 11 ........................................................................................................................................ 86
Proposal 12 ........................................................................................................................................ 87
Proposal 13 ........................................................................................................................................ 87
Proposal 14 ........................................................................................................................................ 88
8. Changes in the Environment ............................................................................................................... 89
8.1 INSPIRE ...................................................................................................................................... 89
8.2 Data.gov.uk .................................................................................................................................. 90
8.3 Administration Change ................................................................................................................ 90
8.4 UK Government Licensing Framework ....................................................................................... 91
8.5 Public Bodies Reform Programme .............................................................................................. 91
8.6 Public Task .................................................................................................................................. 92
8.7 Government Consultation: Making Open Data Real ................................................................... 93
4
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
8.8 Open Government Partnership ..................................................................................................... 94
8.9 Amending Directive 2003/98/EC ................................................................................................ 94
8.9 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ................................................................................................ 97
8.10 Charged Licence ........................................................................................................................ 98
8.11 The Shakespeare Review ........................................................................................................... 98
8.12 PSI Policy change Timeline ..................................................................................................... 100
9. Towards a Mandatory Exception Procedure ..................................................................................... 101
9.1 Exception procedure implementation options 2015 ................................................................... 102
9.2 The Reporting Challenge ........................................................................................................... 103
9.3 Proposals for the period 2013-2015 ........................................................................................... 104
9.4 Summary of Proposals 2 ............................................................................................................ 104
10 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 106
List of abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. 107
List of Diagrams, Figures and Tables ................................................................................................... 108
List of DIAGRAMS ........................................................................................................................ 108
List of FIGURES – Graphs .............................................................................................................. 108
List of TABLES ............................................................................................................................... 108
Annex A: Information reviewed as part of the Audit ........................................................................... 110
Annex B: Exceptions to marginal cost pricing – PerSpectIves blog .................................................... 111
Annex C: Awareness & Consultation ................................................................................................... 114
Licensing Forum .............................................................................................................................. 114
TNA Reports.................................................................................................................................... 115
APPSI .............................................................................................................................................. 115
OPSI Letter: Changes to Crown copyright Licensing ...................................................................... 116
Annex D Consistency of Delegation database and published lists ....................................................... 120
5
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Introduction
It is UK Government policy to maximise the social and economic value from the re-use of public sector
information (PSI) held by public sector bodies (PSBs) all across the UK. Since 2000 successive
Governments have continued to develop and refine a portfolio of initiatives and delivery vehicles that
assist deliver this policy. These initiatives and delivery vehicles in part are designed to help reduce and
remove any impediments that restrict the re-use of PSI.
The UK is not alone in wishing to maximise the social and economic value from PSI. The European
Union (EU) Directive on the re-use of PSI came into force in the European Union in January 2003 and
in all European Member States in July 2005.
Both the UK and the EU recognise that charges levied for the re-use of PSI are a significant
impediment that can stand in the way of maximising the benefits from re-using PSI.
In 2009 UK government policy was adapted to maximise the re-use of most PSI by:
(a) Making PSI available at no charge or at marginal cost; or
(b) In exceptional circumstances to charge at cost plus an appropriate rate of return.
In January 2010 it became mandatory that all PSBs that hold Crown copyright materials that wished to
deviate from the marginal case model have to justify such departures against pre-defined independently
set criteria and that this would be verified by the Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) on behalf
of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO). OPSI and HMSO operate from within
The National Archives (TNA). This forms part of the process under which certain Crown bodies may
apply for authority from HMSO to license the re-use of Crown copyright information that they hold
and/or originate. This legal authority is granted in the form of a delegation of authority from the
Controller of HMSO. Delegations are granted subject to the organisation joining the Information Fair
Trader Scheme (IFTS) and complying with IFTS principles. In addition any PSB that operates under a
delegation which wishes to charge above marginal cost pricing must go through the Exceptions to
Marginal Cost Pricing process that is explained in detail in this report.
Key attributes of the Exception Procedure
The key attributes of the exception to marginal cost pricing process are that:
The criteria are set independently of the PSB that wishes to apply a charge above marginal
cost – that is the separation is visible;
The rules for setting a charge are set by a separate Financial body so ensuring a transparent
and objective process;
Both the criteria and the financial rules are published in the public domain – that is they are
transparent;
The PSBs business case is independently assessed against the criteria – that is verified;
If the business case is accepted the PSB is granted an exception and the independent body
publishes a public announcement that an exception has been granted – that is the business case
has been verified and the decision is transparent;
If the PSBs business case is granted an exception it is subject to the PSB complying with the
IFTS principles. The exceptions process runs alongside the IFTS and compliance with the
IFTS principles;
The PSB that joins the IFTS is independently assessed, accredited and re-accredited at regular
intervals to ensure compliance. The reports from the accreditation and re-accreditation
processes are published in the public domain – that is the fair trading compliance has been
verified and the assessment is transparent;
OPSI sets the criteria, administers and operates the exception procedure and the IFTS. HM Treasury
sets the financial rules.
The process is designed to:
6
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Provide assurance to the re-user of the PSI;
Under pin the re-users right of challenge;
Demonstrate that the PSB is complying with PSI Policy and trading fairly.
In summary the process is objective, transparent, verifiable and open.
In January 2013 TNA commissioned an independent review of the first three years of operation of the
exception process. The review was undertaken over the period February to April 2013.
Procedure Overview
The procedure was designed and implemented during 2009. During 2009 TNA:
Undertook a public consultation on the proposed Criteria
Consulted the Advisory Panel for Public Sector Information (APPSI)
Raised awareness with Crown bodies that the procedure would be mandatory as of 1 st January
2010
Produced and published the supporting documentation
The procedure implemented has four stages
Stage 1 – a mandatory PSB-TNA consultation process
Stage 2 – the formal application assessment process undertaken by TNA
Stage 3 – PSB post decision formal actions process
Stage 4 – TNA post decision formal actions process
If an exception is granted it only comes into being once both parties have signed the Delegation of
Authority Agreement. This action takes place during Stage 3 and 4 of the procedure.
PSBs granted an exception must submit an application to join the IFTS and they must publish in the
public domain an IFTS Statement of Commitment. These two actions take place during Stage 3. Once
completed the exception procedure ends and the IFTS procedure takes over.
The responsibility for driving an application through the procedure lies with the PSB that seeks an
exception.
The procedure has been amended once by TNA after the first 18 months of operational experience.
The change was to improve the assessment record documentation.
Key Statistics
1.
2.
Exception statistics for the three year period:
12 PSBs approached TNA regarding an exception
2 PSBs after the informal discussion with TNA withdrew
2 PSBs are still in process and intend to submit a formal application
8 PSBs submitted a formal application
1 PSB submitted two formal applications
9 applications were assessed
2 were refused an exception
6 were granted an exception and one exception was reconfirmed following a pilot
5 PSBs signed the Delegation of Authority Agreement
1 PSB had not signed the Delegation of Authority Agreement by the time the PSB closed
down
1 PSB has published the statement of commitment
3 PSBs have applied to join the IFTS all of which have been accepted
1 PSB has fully completed the procedure.
Time PSB spends in key stages of the procedure
Average time PSB spends in Stage 1 is 17.7 calendar weeks. Range 1.1 to 49.7
Average time PSB spends in Stage 2 is 1.5 calendar weeks. Range 1.5 to 4.6
7
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
3.
4.
Average time PSB spends in Stage 3 to sign the Delegation of Authority Agreement is
14.7 calendar weeks. Range 4 to 26.7
Annual arrival rate
2010 – 1
2011 – 5
2012 – 6
TNA Resource statistics: Average time to process a formal application from end to end is 2.9
days. Range 2.1 to 3.7
FIGURE S.1
Effectiveness of the Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
2010-2012
1
4
3
Normalised
Granted
Refused
2
2
Withdrew
In process
Key Findings
The number of PSBs entering the procedure has been small estimated to be of the order of 3%
of all PSBs that hold Crown copyright materials.
The formal applications received have been varied. The two dominant items for which an
exception is sought are for providing training courses and training materials. A close second
is to provide professional services. Only two applications dealt with data and two involved a
database.
The number of exceptions granted is low estimated to be in the region of 2% of all PSBs that
hold Crown copyright materials.
The procedure is working well especially Stage 2.
With the experience gained TNA have significantly improved the time taken to process a
formal application. As a result TNA are responsive when ever the PSB makes contact. The
delays are all on the PSB side.
One area of minor weakness is apparent within TNA and this is related to the backend stage of
the procedure with respect to the tasks that involve updating of the TNA web pages. This
minor issue grows in importance if the PSBs are not able to be transparent. That is TNA
provides fallback transparency.
The commitment by PSBs to drive their exception application through the procedure in all but
one case has been poor.
The commitment by PSBs granted an exception to complete the post decision actions in all but
one case has been poor.
Two applications have been impacted by Machinery of Government changes.
Four PSBs that submitted an application were already charging above marginal cost pricing as
such the procedure has helped normalise the situation.
8
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
The operational experience gained shows that the criteria have been sound and in most cases
understood by the applicants following the dialogue with TNA during stage 1 of the
procedure.
One application involved an exclusive arrangement that demonstrated that an extra test should
be added to the application assessment procedure to check that the establishment of the
exclusive arrangement is in accordance with the PSI Regulations 2005.
A major issue is the lack of transparency by PSBs. There are a number of possible reasons as
to why this is occurring. As transparency is a key attribute of the exception procedure there is
a need to consider how transparency can be achieved in practice especially in the context of
central government web site policy and the role of GOV.UK. There is also an indication that
the success of the Open Government Licence and the growing provision of data via
data.gov.uk may also be a contributing factor.
There is some evidence that public sector budget constraints are triggering applications and
that this is most noticeable from Ministerial Departments and their Executive Agencies
operating from within the Department. The indication is that individual Departmental
objectives take precedence over pan government policies such as the PSI policy.
Two PSBs that withdrew or were refused an exception have made the information available
under the Open Government Licence and in one case via data.gov.uk.
The exception procedure has not resulted in increasing the amount of PSI that is available.
Of the PSBs that were granted an exception one has set an excellent example of what is
intended and is worth considering for publication as a case study subject to the PSBs
agreement.
There is evidence that in one case the PSB approached TNA at the tail end of establishing a
commercial activity. As a consequence the licence developed by an external private sector
organisation for the PSB contained terms and conditions that were not compliant with the
IFTS principles.
Impact Assessment
The presence of the procedure and that it is mandatory for Crown copyright holders has encouraged
PSBs to come forward and make contact with TNA. After due consideration (Stage 1) PSBs have
proceeded to submit a formal application. Not all applications have been granted an exception. A
number of the applications were normalising an existing position. Although the numbers are small
there has been an impact. The presence of the procedure has helped set a base line from which future
measurements can be made and has highlighted a number of issues that need to be considered and
addressed as such the procedure has had an impact and shown to be beneficial.
FIGURE S.2
9
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Exception Procedure impact assessment
Procedure transparent
Normalised
Increased availability of
PSI
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Criteria transparent
PSBs applying
PSBs Fair Trading
PSBs granted exception
PSB Transparency
PSBs refused
Where: No impact = 0, High impact = 5. For example - a small number of PSBs have entered the
procedure – 12 over 3 years out of a potential 300 PSBs - as such is assigned as HIGH impact.
Improvements to the current Exception Procedure
A number of proposals for TNA’s consideration for improving the current exception procedure have
been put forward. The expected benefits to be gained from implementing these proposals would be to:
Reduce the number of applications entering the system;
Improve the effectiveness of the procedure;
Improve the requirement for transparency;
Prepare for the transposition of the revised Directive under which marginal cost pricing will
be the established default for most PSI.
Proposal
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TABLE S.1
Summary of Proposals to current procedure
Description
Introduce a questionnaire that applicants must complete prior to making a request for an
exception.
Update published documentation to make it explicit as to the responsibilities of the
applicant.
Generic applications should not be accepted.
Applications from applicants in the midst of Machinery of Government changes should
not be accepted.
Applications that involve exclusive arrangements should not be accepted unless justified.
Applications that involve copyright infringements should not be accepted.
Publish a small set of case studies to assist potential applicants.
TNA to improve the internal back end processes of the procedure.
Applications from a PSB that are not compliant with the basic transparency requirements
of the PSI Regulations 2005 should not be accepted.
Applications that involve the creation of core data sets from a set of disparate data sets
should not be accepted.
10
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Proposal
Number
11
12
13
14
Description
TNA to consider, consult and report as to how transparency is delivered in practice.
Following this consideration to adjust the exception procedure requirements where
necessary.
TNA to review the categories of Crown copyright delegation to ensure the delegation
process has not compromised the exception procedure
TNA to consider the establishment of a base line to identify all PSBs that are currently
charging above marginal cost have been identified. In normalising the situation to ensure
applications for an exception come within the PSI Regulations
TNA together with HM Treasury take action where necessary to ensure all the pertinent
documents are aligned and current with respect to PSI policy
In addition to the proposals detailed in TABLE S1 a number of issues have been identified that are not
specific to the Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure that require TNA consideration. A number
of these issues undermine the principles of the Exception procedure and the IFTS and as such need to
be addressed.
Towards a Mandatory Exception Procedure
The amendment of the EU Directive on the re-use of PSI as of April 2013 is now in the final stages of
entering the EU statute book. As a result the amended Directive will be adopted in the EU in the
summer of 2013 for implementation by EU Member States within two years.
The agreed text shows that the amended PSI Directive will require PSI to be made available for re-use
either for no charge or charges limited to marginal costs (this rule will not be the case for Museums,
Libraries and Archives). Exceptions will be permitted to marginal cost pricing but these must be preestablished and published. The exception criteria will be objective, transparent and verifiable.
Member States to report on the impact of the exceptions every 3 years.
The requirements of the amended Directive are closely aligned with the existing UK PSI policy. The
mandatory exception procedure that has been in operation since January 2010 in the UK for PSBs
holding Crown copyright materials will need to be extended to all PSBs in the UK.
The amended PSI Directive sets a number of challenges for Member States that include:
Establishing a baseline as of July 2015 as to how many PSB’s already set charges above
marginal cost. This has relevance for the Member State report to the European Commission
in the summer of 2018 and to options that a Member State may choose to implement
compliance with the exception criteria.
The large number of PSBs involved.
Quantifying the economic value of the lost opportunity when PSI is not re-used due to setting
charges above marginal cost pricing.
At the time of the review the option that the UK may adopt in 2015 was not known. TABLE S.2
considers a number of implementation options that might be deployed. The list is not exhaustive but
indicative of possible combinations of approaches that might be used to comply with the amended
Directive in the context of exceptions to marginal cost pricing.
Option
1
2
3
4
TABLE S.2
Possible Implementation Options 2015
Method
Regulations + Current Exception process + IFTS Online + Documentation + PSI re-user
right of challenge
Regulations + Current Exception process + Documentation + PSI re-user right of
challenge.
Regulations + Mandatory Online questionnaire that documents case with a back end
register that is online and in the public domain + Documentation + Random use of
current exception process + PSI re-user right of challenge
Regulations + Mandatory online registration with register online + Documentation +
11
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Option
5
6
7
Method
Random use of current exception process + PSI re-user right of challenge
Regulations + Documentation + PSI re-user right of challenge
Regulations + Mandatory use of a standard licence + Documentation + PSI re-user right
of challenge
Regulations + Documentation + Mandatory certification process + PSI re-user right of
challenge
Adaption of Current Procedure for 2015
TABLE S.1 proposes a number of improvements to the current procedure. TABLE S.3 puts forward a
number of proposals that build upon those in TABLE S.1 that may help prepare the way forward to
2015. The reviewer is mindful that the proposals summarised in TABLE S.3 would become irrelevant
if the decision is taken to withdraw the current exception procedure when implementing the amended
EU PSI Directive in the UK. If a decision is taken to withdraw the current exception procedure then
this also raises the question: Is there any value in implementing the TABLE S.1 proposals?
Withdrawing the current exception procedure does raise a further question as to whether TNA will
continue to use the exception procedure as part of Crown copyright management. In putting forward
the proposals in TABLE S.3 the reviewer is also mindful that:
TNA as the UK PSI lead will be very busy with amending the UK PSI Regulations.
At the current time there is no regulator within the UK that has the delegated power to enforce
compliance by PSBs with a mandatory exception procedure.
data.gov.uk will continue to advance and may include far more data from the PSBs that
operate at the local level by the summer of 2015 – for example local government.
The Charged Licence will in due course be added to the UK Licensing Framework
Proposal
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
TABLE S.3
Summary of Proposals: Preparing for 2015
Description
To establish the baseline of PSBs that currently set prices above marginal cost – under
take a survey using a paper questionnaire
To establish the baseline of PSBs that currently set prices above marginal cost – using an
online registration facility that creates a register
To further adapt questionnaire (TABLE S.1 Option 1) to provide a self-assessment
facility that produces documentation that has inbuilt checks that the exception criteria
have been met.
To maintain the current exception procedure (plus TABLE S.1 amendments) but to
overcome the lack of transparency by TNA publishing the documents that a PSB needs to
make transparent.
TNA to undertake randomly selected PSBs to establish the level of compliance with the
exception criteria
TNA to explore the feasibility of licensing organisations to under take a certification
process on behalf of TNA
To consider making it mandatory that any PSB that sets charges above marginal cost
must become a Member of the Online IFTS.
Conclusion
The exception to marginal cost pricing procedure is operating as designed. After the first year of
operation the number of applications entering the procedure has remained steady at around 5 or 6 per
annum. The number of applications granted an exception to charge above the marginal cost price has
12
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
been low for categories of PSI that closely match those described in the HM Treasury document
Managing Public Sector Money Annex 6.3.
The review of the first 3-years of operation has identified a number of issues even though the number
of applications processed has been low. PSBs have demonstrated a remarkable lack of commitment to
drive their application forward and to ensure that if they are granted an exception that they are
compliant with the conditions set down by the procedure. Only one application granted an exception
has completed the process fully and is compliant with the procedures requirement to comply with the
IFTS principles as required by the PSI Regulations 2005.
A major issue the review has identified is that PSBs appear to be experiencing increasing difficulty
with respect to delivering and sustaining online transparency and this is particularly noticeable with
Ministerial Departments. The archived web sites of PSBs show that there has been a regression with
respect to transparency over recent years. A number of reasons maybe contributing to this situation
that include lack of clarity in the published documentation, central government web site policy, the
implementation of GOV.UK and public sector financial constraints. The full report lists other potential
contributing reasons.
The exception procedure has been mandatory for all PSBs that hold Crown copyright materials. One
consequence of this is that the operation of the procedure has merged the management of Crown
copyright with that of re-use of PSI under the PSI Regulations. As a consequence care needs to be
taken when reporting on the impact of the exception procedure and in preparing for transposition of the
revised PSI Directive.
The procedure has had a beneficial impact in that it has helped normalise the base line of how many
PSBs that hold Crown copyright material set charges above the marginal cost.
A number of improvements have been proposed that would help further streamline and improve the
robustness of the procedure. If these proposals are accepted and implemented then this will help
prepare the way for future extensions of the procedure.
The exception procedure that has been in operation since 2010 can be considered as a pilot for July
2015 when the revised PSI Regulations will come into force within the UK. The experience gained
albeit limited due to the small number of applications has put the UK in a unique position that will help
prepare for 2015. Exactly how the UK will implement the exception procedure in 2015 is not known at
the time this review was undertaken. A number of possible options have been considered and briefly
explored as to the challenges that each option may face and what role if any the current exception
procedure will play. Based on the consideration of the challenges a number of proposals have been put
forward that would assist whatever option is eventually chosen.
List of abbreviations
APPSI
EU
HMSO
IFTS
OPSI
PSB
PSBs
PSI
TNA
Advisory Panel on Public Sector Information
European Union
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, part of TNA
Information Fair Trader Scheme
Office of Public Sector Information, part of TNA
Public Sector Body
Public Sector Bodies
Public Sector Information
The National Archives
13
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
1. Introduction
The National Archives (TNA)1 is responsible for the development, implementation and operation of the
Exception to Marginal cost pricing procedure. A number of sections of TNA are involved in the
operation of the procedure that includes amongst others:
The Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI)
The Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO)
TNA’s Director of Information Policy and Services is also the Director of OPSI, the Controller of
HMSO and Queen's Printer (the Controller). The Controller has responsibility for the management of
all copyrights and database rights owned by the Crown. This authority is conferred by Letters Patent.
The Controller also has responsibility for the publication of legislation, official materials and the
management of Crown copyright.
Within this document the abbreviation TNA has been used to cover all the sections involved within
TNA with the administration of the procedure and the consequential actions.
This report reviews the Exception to marginal cost pricing process that has been operational for 3 years
as of the 31st December 2012. TNA have requested that the review report be anonymous. TNA
initiated the review in the latter half of January 2013 and the review has taken place over the period
February through to April 2013. During the review process the procedure and the outcomes have been
continually monitored and as such the report covers the period from 1st January 2009 through to April
2013. As the review has progressed there have been regular information exchanges via email between
the reviewer and the TNA team as well as one meeting held on the 9th April 2013 at TNA in Kew.
The review undertaken is wider than just reviewing the actual process undertaken within TNA once an
application for an exception is received. The review also considers the wider aspects as to whether the
procedure has helped meet and deliver the UK’s public sector information (PSI) policy.
Within the UK the government policy with respect to PSI has continued to evolve since 2009 and the
review also considers whether the exception procedure and process should be updated to reflect the
richness of the PSI policy tools and facilities that now exist in April 2013.
Section 2 of the report provides background information that sets the context as to why the procedure
was implemented on the 1st January 2010.
Section 3 of the report documents the procedure that has been implemented over the period 2009
through to the end of 2012.
Section 4 reviews the applications that TNA has received from PSI holders using a standardised
template.
Section 5 summarises the applications reviewed.
Section 6 reviews the procedure, its implementation and the operational experience.
Section 7 considers potential improvements to the procedure, the implementation of the procedure and
supporting documentation based on the experience gained from the first three years of operation.
Section 8 reviews pertinent developments within the PSI policy domain since January 2010.
Section 9 considers potential amendments to the procedure in preparation for when the exception
procedure will be mandatory for all public sector bodies (PSBs) in the UK.
Section 10 provides brief concluding remarks.
1
14
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
2. Background Information
This section provides pertinent background information that sets the context as to why the exception to
marginal cost pricing procedure was implemented on the 1st January 2010.
2.1 Overall Policy Objective
To maximise the re-use of Public Sector Information held by public sector bodies by:
(a) Making PSI available at no charge or at marginal cost; or
(b) In exceptional circumstances to charge at cost plus an appropriate rate of return.
2.2 Cross Cutting Review of the Knowledge Economy Review of government information
The UK Government as part of the 2000 Spending Review published a report titled: Cross Cutting
Review of the Knowledge Economy Review of government information2. The report introduction states:
A Review of Government Information was carried out during the Government's Spending Review 2000
as part of the Cross-Cutting Review of the Knowledge Economy, co-chaired by Andrew Smith, the
Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and Patricia Hewitt, DTI Minister for Small Businesses and eCommerce. It was concerned particularly with the availability of information subject to Crown
copyright for reproduction and reuse by the information industry.
On the 6th September 2000 the E-Minister Patricia Hewitt announced new plans to boost the
Knowledge Economy3. The announcement states:
2.3 Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations
The European Union Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector information came into force
in all Member States on the 1st July 2005. The UK transposed the Directive via Statutory Instrument
2005 No. 1515 - Public Sector Information - The Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations
2005 which came into force on the 1st July 2005.
Charges
Article 6 of the Directive 2003/98/EC sets out the principles governing charges.
2
3
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/spend_sr00_ccr.htm
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/spend_sr00_ad_ccrappa.htm
15
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Where charges are made, the total income from supplying and allowing re-use of documents shall not
exceed the cost of collection, production, reproduction and dissemination, together with a reasonable
return on investment.
Regulation 15 of SI 2005 No. 1515 sets out the principles governing charges.
Charging
15.—(1) A public sector body may charge for allowing re-use.
(2) The total income from any charge shall not exceed the sum of —
(a) the cost of collection, production, reproduction and dissemination of documents; and
(b) a reasonable return on investment.
Exclusive arrangements
Article 11 of the Directive 2003/98/EC sets out the principles governing exclusive arrangements.
1. The re-use of documents shall be open to all potential actors in the market, even if one or more
market players already exploit added-value products based on these documents. Contracts or other
arrangements between the public sector bodies holding the documents and third parties shall not grant
exclusive rights.
2. However, where an exclusive right is necessary for the provision of a service in the public interest,
the validity of the reason for granting such an exclusive right shall be subject to regular review, and
shall, in any event, be reviewed every three years. The exclusive arrangements established after the
entry into force of this Directive shall be transparent and made public.
3. Existing exclusive arrangements that do not qualify for the exception under paragraph 2 shall be
terminated at the end of the contract or in any case not later than 31 December 2008
Regulation 14 of SI 2005 No. 1515 sets out the principles governing exclusive arrangements.
Prohibition of exclusive arrangements
14.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a public sector body shall not enter into an exclusive arrangement
with any person including an applicant.
(2) A public sector body may, where necessary for the provision of a service in the public interest,
enter into an exclusive arrangement.
(3) The validity of the reason for granting the exclusive arrangement under paragraph (2) shall be
reviewed at least once every three years.
(4) Any exclusive arrangement permitted under paragraph (2) and entered into on or after 31st
December 2003 shall be published by the public sector body.
(5) Any exclusive arrangement which exists on the date of entry into force of these Regulations and to
which paragraph (2) does not apply shall be terminated at the earlier of (a) the date on which it comes to an end in accordance with its terms; or
(b) 31st December 2008.
(6) In this regulation, "exclusive arrangement" means a contract or other arrangement granting an
exclusive right to re-use a document.
2.4 Power of Information
The Power of Information Review was published on the 7th June 2007. The UK Government in
response established a Power of Information Taskforce announced on the 31st March 2008. The
Taskforce published the final report in February 2009. The Power of Information Taskforce report
contained 25 recommendations. Recommendation 10 of the report states:
Public information should be available at marginal cost, which in practice means for free online.
Exceptions to this rule should pass stringent tests to ensure that the national benefit is actually served
16
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
by charging for information and thus limiting its reuse. OPSI (part of The National Archives) should
define and consult publicly upon such tests which they then enforce.
2.5 Implementation of Recommendation 10
The implementation of the Power of Information Taskforce report recommendation 10 led to TNA
developing and implementing the procedure for regulating whether a PSB that produces or is a
custodian of Crown copyright materials may receive a delegation from HMSO for an exception to
marginal cost pricing.
2.6 Charging Standards
HM Treasury is responsible for standards and guidance on charging for information. These standards
are set out in the HM Treasury document titled: Managing Public Money - October 2007 version;
Chapter 6 Fees, Charges and Levies and in particular Annex 6.3 Charging for information.
Annex 6.3 Charging for Information states:
Information carrying charges
A.6.3.6 A number of public sector organisations supply information for which charges are made. These
include:
services commissioned in response to particular requests;
services where there are statutory powers to charge;
information sold or licensed by trading funds (trading funds are free to choose how they
allocate their fixed costs to their various products when pricing their information services);
publications processing publicly gathered data for the convenience of the public, through
editing, reclassification or other analysis;
retrieval software, e.g. published as a key to using compiled data.
A.6.3.7 The terms on which this information are made available should be made clear at the point of
sale or licensing. There is a clear public interest in maximising access to much public sector material,
and this should be borne in mind when deciding what charges should be levied. For this reason many
publications can be reused by others free of charge. However, public sector organisations should take
a careful policy view of the copyright issues, using legal advice as necessary.
A.6.3.8 However, public sector organisations can charge for supplying some information which
recipients intend to process, e.g. for publication in another format. The norm is:
Raw data: license and charge at marginal cost;
Value added data and information supplied by trading funds: charge at full cost plus an
appropriate rate of return (see paragraph A.6.2.6).
Licenses supplied in this way may take a number of forms, including royalties on each additional copy
sold in the case of the most commercial applications.
The exception to marginal cost pricing procedure implemented by TNA includes a test for compliance
with these standards.
2.7 Information Fair Trader Scheme
The Information Fair Trader Scheme (IFTS)4 came into force in the summer of 2002. At that time the
principles featured in IFTS were:
4
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/ifts/principles.htm
17
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Openness - maximising the re-use of public sector information
Transparency - non-discrimination between re-users
Fairness - clear licensing terms and conditions and charging
Compliance - internal processes to meet the IFTS Commitment
Challenge - a robust complaints process
As a consequence of a number of reports from the Office of Fair Trading (The Commercial Use of
Public Sector Information), the Cabinet Office (Power of Information) and the HM Treasury (Trading
Funds Assessment) TNA revised the IFTS principles and introduced a new Performance Management
Framework. The revised and expanded IFTS principles came into force at the beginning of April 2009.
These principles identify the following elements:
Maximisation – an obligation to allow re-use
Simplicity – of processes, policies and licences
Transparency – of licence terms and conditions and charging information
Fairness – the public sector information holder should not use its market power to compete
unfairly. All customers to be treated the same for the same type of re-use.
Challenge – a robust complaints process in place to reconsider licensing decisions. OPSI can
investigate public sector information holder’s decisions if they appear to be wrong.
Innovation – the public sector information holder explores new methods to help re-users
innovate
The Information Fair Trader Scheme takes two forms:
1. Full IFTS Accreditation5
Full IFTS accreditation is aimed at major public sector information traders and trading funds. Any
public sector body may apply to become IFTS accredited.
Accreditation is based on a full audit of information trading activities and is intended for bodies who
wish to meet a very high standard of compliance with IFTS principles and the Re-use of Public Sector
Information Regulations 2005 (SI 1515/2005).
However, all Crown bodies that have a full licensing delegation (see frequently asked questions for
information about delegated authority) from the Controller of HMSO must become IFTS accredited.
What accreditation means
To be recognised as an accredited Information Fair Trader, a public sector body will:
make a commitment6 to information fair trader principles
have the commitment independently verified
investigate complaints that the commitment has not been met
2. IFTS Online Accreditation Scheme7
IFTS Online is an accreditation scheme that measures how effectively public sector organisations
manage the re-use of their information. It is also a valuable tool for public sector organisations to
demonstrate that they are meeting their legal responsibilities under the Regulations on the Re-use of
Public Sector Information 2005 (referred to as the 'PSI Regulations' within the assessment process).
IFTS Online is available to all public sector organisations. It is also the means by which we assess the
performance of Crown bodies that have a limited delegation of authority to license their own
information.
5
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/ifts/full-accreditation.htm
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/ifts/statement-of-commitment.htm
7
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/ifts/ifts-online.htm
6
18
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
2.8 HMSO Delegations of Authority
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO) that operates within TNA has for many years granted
delegation of authority from the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO) to government
departments, to enable them to license the re-use of Crown copyright material that they produce. The
delegations granted are made transparent on the TNA web site8.
The National Archives Delegation of Authority web page states:
Delegations of authority are granted from the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO) to
government departments, to enable them to license the re-use of Crown copyright material which they
produce.
Anyone wishing to re-use information produced by a department with a delegation of authority should
contact the organisation directly for advice and guidance.
Most of the organisations with a delegation of authority have their activities regulated by the
Information Fair Trader Scheme (IFTS).
There are certain non-Crown bodies which have been granted a licence from the Controller to sublicense the Crown copyright material which they hold. These bodies can be identified by an asterisk
(*).
The following TNA document provides an overview of Crown copyright.
Title: Crown copyright - An overview for government departments
Dated: August 2011
Version: 1.0
Pages: 7
Published in Public Domain? Yes
Page 3 of the documents states:
What is Crown copyright?
2.1 Copyright is part of the family of intellectual property rights (IPR) that also includes trademarks,
designs and patents. It protects literary, dramatic and artistic works. It also protects the typographical
arrangement of published works.
2.2 Works made by officers or servants of the Crown in the course of their duties qualify for Crown
copyright protection under section 163 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
It is mandatory that PSBs that hold Crown copyright materials should apply for an exception to
marginal cost pricing should they wish to charge above marginal cost pricing. At the current time the
procedure is optional for PSBs that hold PSI that is not Crown copyright should they wish to charge
above marginal cost pricing.
8
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/delegations-of-authority.htm
19
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
3.
This section briefly documents the procedure that has been implemented over the period 2009 through
to the end of 2012.
3.1 Public Consultation
The Power of Information Taskforce report recommendation 10 states OPSI (part of The National
Archives) should define and consult publicly upon such tests which they then enforce.
TNA held an online consultation on the PerSpectIves blog from the 28th July 2009 through to the 22nd
October 2009. As the PerSpectives blog is no longer accessible online the relevant pages of the Blog
have been included at Annex B of this report.
TNA also consulted the Advisory Panel on Public Sector Information (APPSI) during 2009.
3.2 Informing Public Bodies
TNA wrote to all departments and agencies late in 2009 that gave notification of its intention to cease
licensing directly at the end of 2009. Therefore departments whose material TNA directly licensed at
that point were invited to express their interest in applying for a delegation under the exceptions policy.
3.3 Overview of the Procedural Stages implemented
DIAGRAM 3.1
Stage 1
Preparation
Process
Stage 2
Formal
Application
Process
Stage 3
Applicant
Post Decision
Processes
Stage 4
TNA
Post Decision
Processes
20
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Stage 1
During this stage a PSB considers whether to submit a formal application for an exception to marginal
cost pricing process.
To support stage 1 TNA have:
- Published a number of documents designed to assist the potential applicant.
- Published an application form.
- Offer a consultation and advisory service. The consultation maybe by telephone, emails
and/or face-to-face meetings.
Stage 2
This stage is initiated when the PSB submits a formal application.
TNA then assesses the application using the Application Assessment Framework. Upon completion of
the assessment TNA management then sign off the assessment and the Applicant is informed.
Stage 3
This stage is initiated by TNA informing the Applicant on the outcome of the assessment.
If the application has been refused then the PSB considers what action to take and this may result in:
- The PSB withdrawing the application.
- Returning to stage 1 of the process to make a further application in which missing information
is provided, a revised application is prepared for submission.
If the application has been accepted then the PSB needs to implement the actions required by TNA
when granting the delegation. These actions include amongst others:
- Signing the Delegation of Authority Agreement provided by TNA.
- Applying to join the Information Fair Trader Scheme
- Publish the statement of Commitment to Fair Trading on the organisations web site and for the
statement to be in the public domain.
Stage 4
This stage is initiated by TNA granting an exception and a delegation. A number of actions need to be
taken by TNA that include amongst others:
- Sending two copies of the Delegation of Authority Agreement to the applicant for signing.
- Signing the Delegation of Authority Agreement once signed by the applicant PSB and
returning one signed copy to the PSB concerned.
- Update the TNA delegation database.
- Update the relevant pages on the TNA web site.
- Initiate the IFTS process.
- Check that the applicant has implemented the required actions.
- Arrange for the PSB to be invited to attend the next Licensing Forum meeting.
21
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
3.4 Published Guidance information and documents
The following information and documents have been published in the public domain.
TNA Web site
The relevant information is published under the IFTS that is on the third and fourth levels of the TNA
web site. (Home > Information management > Information Fair Trader Scheme)
At the third level of the web site one of the options on the IFTS front page is:
Exceptions to marginal cost pricing
Find out how, by establishing a business case, government departments and agencies can charge for
the re-use of their data.
At the fourth level (Home > Information management > Information Fair Trader Scheme > Exceptions
to marginal cost pricing) a number of documents maybe selected for download.
TNA Documents
The following documents deal with the Exception to Marginal Cost Pricing procedures.
Title: Criteria for Exception to Marginal Cost Pricing
Dated: December 2009
Version: 1
Pages: 4 (not including front cover)
Published in Public Domain? Yes
Title: How to apply for exception to marginal cost pricing assessment
Dated: August 2010
Version: 1
Pages: 5 (not including front cover)
Published in Public Domain? Yes
Title: How we deal with an application for exception to marginal cost pricing
Dated: The document contains no date but it is assumed to be August 2010
Version: 1
Pages: 1
Published in Public Domain? Yes
Title: Application template - Exceptions to Marginal Cost Pricing
Dated: August 2010
Version: 1
Pages: 4
Published in Public Domain? Yes
Related Documents
The following TNA document refers to the exception to marginal cost pricing assessment.
Title: Guide to drawing up a statement of public task information for public sector bodies on producing
a statement of public task under the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005
22
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Dated: August 2011
Version: 1.0
Pages: 18 (not including front cover)
Published in Public Domain? Yes
Raising and maintaining Awareness
TNA has since the procedure came into force in January 2010 has regularly briefed the Advisory Panel
on Public Sector Information and the Licensing Forum. TNA has initiated an RSS Feed for re-users and
licensees, which posts about successful Exceptions to Marginal Cost Pricing applicants and
organisations looking to join IFTS.
In addition to the above TNA has included brief reports on the procedure in reports that TNA produce
that report on the implementation of the Re-use of the Public Sector Information Policy framework in
the UK.
As outlined in this section of the report TNA also make information and documents available in the
public domain.
3.5 The Application Assessment Framework
The following document is not in the public domain and is for internal use within TNA.
Title: Charging for Information Reuse: Application Assessment Framework
Dated: August 2011
Version: 1.0
Pages: 10
Published in Public Domain? No
The reason why the above document is not in the public domain is that the Power of Information
Taskforce recommendation 10 states:
Exceptions to this rule should pass stringent tests to ensure that the national benefit is actually served
by charging for information and thus limiting its reuse.
In the spirit of this recommendation TNA has adopted the approach of encouraging the PSB wishing to
apply for an exception to make the case them self. As such TNA limits the amount of information in
the public domain on the internal processes that TNA follow when undertaking an assessment; in
particular the specific tests used during assessment. However TNA does offer during stage 1 of the
procedure a consultancy and advisory service that the applicant may use if they wish.
Stage 2 of the procedure is initiated when TNA receive the application from the applicant PSB at which
point TNA then assess the application using the formal Application Assessment framework. In order
to assist this process the Applicant is required to complete the formal application document. The
application form sets out each of the criteria against which information must be provided.
The final action of stage 2 is for TNA to inform the applicant on the outcome of the assessment along
with a brief summary to provide feedback to the applicant. A formal report of the assessment is not
sent to the applicant to maintain the spirit of recommendation 10.
The formal assessment framework was developed for internal use after 18 months of operational
experience gained from processing the early applications submitted by PSBs seeking a marginal cost
exemption. The assessment framework is set out as a two dimensional colour coded matrix (19 by 5)
similar to that used in the Information Fair Trader Scheme reports.
Column one and two set out the assessment criteria and are consistent with the criteria set out in the
guidance document titled: Criteria for Exception to Marginal Cost Pricing. Not all cells in the matrix
23
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
contain a test as shown by the shading in the framework table below.
Parameter
Context &
Setting of
Information
Funding/costs of
production
Availability from
other sources
Market
Conditions
Effects of
Charging
Business tests
Criteria
TABLE 3.1
Does Barely
not
meets
meet
Adequately
partially
meets
Good
partially
meets
Meets
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5.1
2.5.2
2.5.3
3.1
3.2
4.1
4.2
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
6.1
6.2
Where the criterion is mandatory the criterion number is highlighted in bold in the above matrix.
For each row in the matrix there can only be one cell that reports on the outcome of the TNA
operative’s assessment. Although criteria 2.5 has two sub-criteria that are dependent on the applicants
answer to the main question the process results in only one outcome for criteria 2.5. Criteria 4.2 is not
assessed, as it is contextual information that supports the application. Once the overall assessment has
been completed the matrix will contain a maximum of 18 entries. I.e. contains a YES or a tick. If the
applicant has not provided sufficient information to undertake the assessment then no entry will be
made and the criteria concerned will be noted as “insufficient information provided”. In such cases
TNA may contact the applicant body by email requesting further information. If the information is not
forth coming then the test outcome will remain as “insufficient information provided”.
The final outcome of the assessment process results in a table that sets out the totals for the mandatory
and non mandatory criteria. The maximum score are as shown in the following table.
Criteria
Mandatory criterion
Non Mandatory criterion
Overall total
Maximum
Score
5
13
18
The final stage of the assessment process is the formal sign off by the TNA Standards Manager and the
TNA Head of Standards.
24
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
The applicant is then informed of the outcome of the assessment via email that sets out whether the
application was successful or not. Where the application is unsuccessful, details are provided of which
criteria were failed and the reasons for TNA’s overall assessment.
3.6 Application Assessment Framework correlation with UK PSI Policy Framework
The Application Assessment Framework does not exist in isolation but is part of the wider UK PSI
policy framework. TABLE 3.2 correlates the exception criteria with other parts of the wider UK PSI
framework. Although these components are not part of the Exception to marginal cost pricing
procedure assessment they do provide a checklist that tests whether applications to TNA for an
exception are compliant with the UK PSI policy.
Parameter
Context &
Setting of
Information
Funding/costs of
production
Availability from
other sources
Market
Conditions
Effects of
Charging
Business tests
Criteria
Public
Task
1.1
*
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
*
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5.1
2.5.2
2.5.3
3.1
TABLE 3.2
Open
Exclusive
Govt.
Arrangements
Licence
IFTS
data.gov
*
*
*
*
3.2
4.1
Charged
Licence
*
4.2
5.1
*
5.2
5.3
5.4
6.1
6.2
*
25
*
*
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
3.7 Application Assessment Framework Timeline
Month-Year
June-2007
February-2009
April 2009
July-2009
August-2009
Event
Publication
Publication
Publication
Consultation
Awareness
September-2009
October 2009
December 2009
December-2009
January-2010
August-2010
Awareness
Consultation
Awareness
Publication
Awareness
Publication
March-2011
April-2011
July-2011
August-2011
August-2011
November-2011
March-2012
June-2012
July 2012
October-2012
January-2013
Application
Application
Awareness
Publication
Application
Application
Organisational
Application
Application
Application
Review
Brief description
Power of Information report published
Power of Information Taskforce (POIT) report published
Revised IFTS principles came into force
Invitation inviting feedback published on the PerSpectIves blog
related to implementing POIT recommendation 10
Letter to Crown Organisations Important Charges to Crown
copyright Licensing (Refer Annex C)
APPSI briefed
Consultation on the PerSpectIves blog closed
TNA write letter to all Departments and Agencies
Criteria for Exceptions to Marginal Cost Pricing published
Presentation to Licensing Forum
How to apply for exception to marginal cost pricing assessment
published
Public Sector Body “C” formal application received by TNA
Public Sector Body “B” formal application received by TNA
APPSI briefed on Public Sector Body “B” application
Public Task Guide published
Public Sector Body “F” draft application received by TNA
Public Sector Body “G” formal application received by TNA
Public Sector Body “C” closed down
Public Sector Body “L” formal application received by TNA
Public Sector Body “E” formal application received by TNA
Public Sector Body “M” formal application received by TNA
TNA initiate a review of the exceptions procedure – phase 1
26
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
The Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure has two front-end stages9:
Stage 1: Where a PSB enters into a dialogue about the possible submission of a formal
application.
Stage 2: Where a PSB submits a formal application for an exception.
This section of the report reviews the:
Stage 1 The PSBs that had approached TNA but have not progressed to the submission of a
formal application over the period 1st January 2010 through to the 10th April 2013.
Stage 2 the formal applications that TNA has received over the period 1 st January 2010
through to 31st December 2012.
4.1 Stage 1 – Exploratory approaches to TNA
The PSBs within this section appear in date order when the PSB first made contact with TNA.
Public Sector Body “A”
Pertinent Dates
Date draft Application First Received
Date formal Application Received
Date TNA Assessment against Framework completed
Date Applicant informed on outcome of application
20 July 2010
Considering Delegation for
Data
Does the public sector body have an existing delegation: YES
Pertinent IFTS Information
Is the public sector body an existing IFTS Member?
If YES what is the category of IFTS Membership
Yes
Online
Additional Information:
Data was not within the scope of the existing delegation.
Data has since be made available on data.gov.uk
Public Sector Body “D”
Pertinent Dates
Date draft Application First Received
Date formal Application Received
Date TNA Assessment against Framework completed
Date Applicant informed on outcome of application
6 June 2011
Considering Delegation for
Images, films and documents
Does the public sector body have an existing delegation: NO
Pertinent IFTS Information
Is the public sector body an existing IFTS Member?
If YES what is the category of IFTS Membership
9
NO
Reference Section 3.3 DIAGRAM 3.1 of this report
27
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Additional Information:
A draft business case has been submitted to TNA during March 2013.
Public Sector Body “J”
Pertinent Dates
Date draft Application First Received
Date formal Application Received
Date TNA Assessment against Framework completed
Date Applicant informed on outcome of application
10 April 2012
Considering Delegation for
Data
Does the public sector body have an existing delegation? NO
Pertinent IFTS Information
Is the public sector body an existing IFTS Member?
If YES what is the category of IFTS Membership
NO
Additional Information:
The PSB is considering the options as to whether to proceed with an exception application to
license data supplied to it on a voluntary basis by users at participating offices, that maybe of
interest to data re-users such as insurers, mail list administrators that might wish to license the
information.
Public Sector Body “K”
Pertinent Dates
Date draft Application First Received
Date formal Application Received
Date TNA Assessment against Framework completed
Date Applicant informed on outcome of application
14 May 2012
Considering Delegation for
Software and source code
Does the public sector body have an existing delegation? NO
Pertinent IFTS Information
Is the public sector body an existing IFTS Member?
If YES what is the category of IFTS Membership
NO
Additional Information:
Since the initial contact there has been no further contact made with TNA.
4.2 Stage 2 – A review of formal applications received by TNA
A standardised template has been used when reviewing the formal applications that TNA received.
The applications within this section appear in date order when the PSB first made contact with TNA
regarding submitting a potential formal application for an exception to marginal cost pricing.
28
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Public Sector Body “B” Application
Executive Agency
Pertinent Dates
Date draft Application First Received
Date formal Application Received
Date TNA Assessment against Framework completed
Date Applicant informed on outcome of application
20 October 2010
8 April 2011
9 May 2011
10 May 2011
Delegation Requested for
Consultancy materials
Products
Training
Software
Does the organisation already hold an HMSO Delegation? NO
Delegation granted? YES – for the duration of the pilot
If YES has TNA updated the Delegations of authority web page? NO
Is the Applicant establishing an Exclusive Arrangement? YES
If YES has TNA updated the Exclusive Arrangement web page? NO
Parameter
Context &
Setting of
Information
Funding/costs of
production
Availability from
other sources
Market
Conditions
Effects of
Charging
Business tests
Check totals
Criteria
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.1
TNA Framework Assessment summary
Mandatory? Does Barely Adequately
not
meets
partially
meet
meets
YES
5.2
5.3
5.4
6.1
6.2
19
Meets
Check
Total
YES
1
YES
YES
1
1
1
1
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
3.2
4.1
4.2
5.1
Good
partially
meets
YES
YES
YES
YES
0
3
1
1
1
YES
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
13
1
1
1
1
1
18
Notes:
1. Criteria 4.2 - contextual information only and is not assessed.
29
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Pertinent IFTS Information
A Member of IFTS prior to submitting application?
Does the application refer to the IFTS?
Has the applicant agreed to join IFTS if delegation granted?
If granted has the IFTS application been received?
If YES has the IFTS Application been accepted?
If Delegation was granted has the statement of Commitment been published by the
applicant and is in the public domain?
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
Compliance with UK and EU Law (Test 2.1)
Does the Application refer to UK and/or EU Law?
NO
Does the Application name the laws?
Not Applicable
Law(s) Referenced in Application
None.
Statutory Power to Charge (Test 2.2)
Does the Application refer to a Statutory Power to Charge?
If YES does the application name the Act?
NO
Not Applicable
Raw Data (Test 1.4 & 2.3)
Does the Application mention raw data?
Does the Application state that the raw data is available?
If YES is the raw data available for re-use?
If YES is the raw data available at no charge or at marginal cost?
Data publishing test on data.gov.uk
Does the Application mention data.gov.uk?
If Yes is data available via data.gov.uk
Review check: Has data been published on data.gov.uk?
If YES how many datasets?
Public Task
Does the Application refer to the organisations public task?
If Yes is the Public Task published in the public domain?
YES
YES
NO
Not applicable
NO
Not Applicable
YES
10
NO
Not applicable
Licences
Does the Application refer to the UK Government Licensing framework?
Does the application refer to the Open Government Licence?
Does the application refer to the non-commercial government licence?
Does the application refer to the Beta Charge Licence?
Does the application refer to the click-use licences?
Framework Document test
Does the PSB have a Framework Document?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to the PSI Regulations?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to the PSI Re-use?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to Commercial Activity?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to Charged Services?
30
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Public Sector Body “C” Application
An Executive Agency that closed down on the 31st March 2012.
New Agency established that has taken over some of the functions of PSB C.
Pertinent Dates
Date draft Application First Received
Date formal Application Received
Date TNA Assessment against Framework completed
Date Applicant informed on outcome of application
17 February 2011
17 March 2011
31 March 2011
Delegation Requested for
Training course (L&D programme) handouts
elearning packages
Specialist publications
Does the organisation already hold an HMSO Delegation? NO
Delegation granted? YES
If YES has TNA updated the Delegations of authority web page? NO
Is the Applicant establishing an Exclusive Arrangement? NO
If YES has TNA updated the Exclusive Arrangement web page? Not Applicable
Parameter
Context &
Setting of
Information
Funding/costs
of production
Availability
from other
sources
Market
Conditions
Effects of
Charging
Business tests
Totals
Criteria
1.1
TNA Framework Assessment summary (Note: 1)
Mandatory? Does Barely Adequately
Good
not
meets
partially
partially
meet
meets
meets
YES
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
YES
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.1
YES
Meets
Check
Total
3.2
4.1
4.2
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
6.1
6.2
19
YES
YES
Notes:
31
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
1.
2.
The application was assessed before the assessment process was revised, and so data is not
held in this format.
Criteria 4.2 - contextual information only and is not assessed.
Pertinent IFTS Information
A Member of IFTS prior to submitting application?
Does the application refer to the IFTS?
Has the applicant agreed to join IFTS if delegation granted?
If granted has the IFTS application been received?
If YES has the IFTS Application been accepted?
If Delegation was granted has the statement of Commitment been published by
the applicant and is in the public domain?
NO
NO
YES
NO
Not applicable
NO
Compliance with UK and EU Law (Test 2.1)
Does the Application refer to UK and/or EU Law?
YES
Does the Application name the law(s)?
YES
Law(s) Referenced in Application
Data Protection Act 1998
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Statutory Power to Charge (Test 2.2)
Does the Application refer to a Statutory Power to Charge?
If YES does the application name the Act?
NO
Not Applicable
Raw Data (Test 1.4 & 2.3)
Does the Application mention raw data?
Does the Application state that the raw data is available?
If YES is the raw data available for re-use?
If YES is the raw data available at no charge or at marginal cost?
Data publishing test on data.gov.uk
Does the Application mention data.gov.uk?
If Yes is data available via data.gov.uk
Review check: Has data been published on data.gov.uk?
If YES how many datasets?
Public Task
Does the Application refer to the organisations public task?
If Yes is the Public Task published?
YES
NO
Not applicable
Not applicable
NO
Not Applicable
NO
Not applicable
NO
Not applicable
Licences
Does the Application refer to the UK Government Licensing framework?
Does the application refer to the Open Government Licence?
Does the application refer to the non-commercial government licence?
Does the application refer to the Beta Charge Licence?
Does the application refer to the click-use licences?
Framework Document test
Does the PSB have a Framework Document?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to the PSI Regulations?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to the PSI Re-use?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to Commercial Activity?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to Charged Services?
32
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Public Sector Body “E” Application
PSB E gave TNA permission to include the information in the review on the 12 th February 2013.
Permission was required, as the application dated the 24 th July 2012 was marked as RESTRICTED.
PSB E submitted a generic application covering four scenarios of which only Scenario 1 and 4 were
considered under the exception procedure.
An Executive Agency
Pertinent Dates
Date draft Application First Received
Date formal Application Received
Date TNA Assessment against Framework completed
Date Applicant informed on outcome of application
Scenario 1
11 August 2011
24 July 2012
26 July 2012
11 August 2012
Scenario 4
11 August 2011
24 July 2012
26 July 2012
26 July 2012
Delegation Requested for
Professional Services
Does the organisation already hold an HMSO Delegation? NO
PSB E Scenario 1
Delegation granted? Granted - retrospectively
If YES has TNA updated the Delegations of authority web page? NO
PSB E Scenario 4
Delegation granted? Granted in principle pending the receipt of a live case for TNA to consider under
the exception procedure. PSB E has so far not provided a pertinent business case.
If YES has TNA updated the Delegations of authority web page? Not Applicable
Is the Applicant establishing an Exclusive arrangement? NO
If YES has TNA updated the Exclusive Arrangement web page? Not Applicable
Parameter
Context &
Setting of
Information
Funding/costs
of production
Availability
from other
sources
Market
Conditions
Effects of
TNA Framework Assessment summary (Scenario 1)
Criteria Mandatory? Does Barely Adequately
Good
not
meets
partially
partially
meet
meets
meets
1.1
YES
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.1
Meets
Check
Total
YES
1
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
1
1
1
1
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
1
1
1
1
1
YES
YES
1
1
3.2
4.1
4.2
5.1
YES
YES
33
1
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Parameter
Criteria
Mandatory?
Does
not
meet
Barely
meets
Adequately
partially
meets
Good
partially
meets
Meets
Check
Total
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
17
1
1
1
1
1
18
Charging
Business tests
Totals
5.2
5.3
5.4
6.1
6.2
19
YES
0
0
1
0
Notes:
1. Criteria 4.2 - contextual information only and is not assessed.
Pertinent IFTS Information
A Member of IFTS prior to submitting application?
Does the application refer to the IFTS?
Has the applicant agreed to join IFTS if delegation granted?
NO
NO
YES – but see notes
2 and 3 below
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
If granted has the IFTS application been received?
If YES has the IFTS Application been accepted?
If Delegation was granted has the statement of Commitment been published by
the applicant and is in the public domain?
Notes:
2. The delegation granted for Scenario 1 is not considered to be trading and as such TNA have
decided that PSB E does not need to apply to join the IFTS.
3. The delegation granted for Scenario 4 has been placed on hold until PSB E identifies a value
added product that fits Scenario 4. As such there is no requirement to join the IFTS at this
stage.
Compliance with UK and EU Law (Test 2.1)
Does the Application refer to UK and/or EU Law?
YES
Does the Application name the law(s)?
YES
Law(s) Referenced in Application
INSPIRE Directive 2007/2/EU
Marine & Coastal Act 2009
Statutory Power to Charge (Test 2.2)
Does the Application refer to a Statutory Power to Charge?
If YES does the application name the Act?
NO
Not Applicable
Raw Data (Test 1.4 & 2.3)
Does the Application mention raw data?
Does the Application state that the raw data is available?
If YES is the raw data available for re-use?
If YES is the raw data available at no charge or at marginal cost?
Data publishing test on data.gov.uk
Does the Application mention data.gov.uk?
If Yes is data available via data.gov.uk
Review check: Has data been published on data.gov.uk?
If YES how many datasets?
Public Task
Does the Application refer to the organisations public task?
If Yes is the Public Task published?
34
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
Not applicable
YES
13
NO
Not applicable
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Licences
Does the Application refer to the UK Government Licensing framework?
Does the application refer to the Open Government Licence?
Does the application refer to the non-commercial government licence?
Does the application refer to the Beta Charge Licence?
Does the application refer to the click-use licences?
Framework Document test
Does the PSB have a Framework Document?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to the PSI Regulations?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to the PSI Re-use?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to Commercial Activity?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to Charged Services?
35
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Public Sector Body “F” Application
Ministerial department
Pertinent Dates
Date draft Application First Received
Date formal Application Received
Date TNA Assessment against Framework completed
Date Applicant informed on outcome of application
15 August 2011
15 October 2011
Delegation Requested for
Catalogue data
Does the organisation already hold an HMSO Delegation? NO
Delegation granted? NO
If YES has TNA updated the Delegations of authority web page? Not applicable
Is the Applicant establishing an Exclusive Arrangement? NO
If YES has TNA updated the Exclusive Arrangement web page? Not applicable
Parameter
Context &
Setting of
Information
Funding/costs of
production
Availability
from other
sources
Market
Conditions
Effects of
Charging
Business tests
Totals
TNA Framework Assessment summary (Note: 1)
Criteria Mandatory? Does Barely Adequately
Good
not
meets
partially
partially
meet
meets
meets
1.1
YES
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
YES
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.1
YES
Meets
Check
Total
3.2
4.1
4.2
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
6.1
6.2
19
YES
YES
Notes:
1. No formal application was received from PSB F and as such no formal assessment was
undertaken.
36
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
2.
Criteria 4.2 - contextual information only and is not assessed.
Pertinent IFTS Information
A Member of IFTS prior to submitting application?
Does the application refer to the IFTS?
Has the applicant agreed to join IFTS if delegation granted?
If granted has the IFTS application been received?
If YES has the IFTS Application been accepted?
If Delegation was granted has the statement of Commitment been published by
the applicant and is in the public domain?
NO
NO
NO
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Compliance with UK and EU Law (Test 2.1)
Does the Application refer to UK and/or EU Law?
NO
Does the Application name the law(s)?
Not Applicable
Law(s) Referenced in Application
None
Statutory Power to Charge (Test 2.2)
Does the Application refer to a Statutory Power to Charge?
If YES does the application name the Act?
NO
Not applicable
Raw Data (Test 1.4 & 2.3)
Does the Application mention raw data?
Does the Application state that the raw data is available?
If YES is the raw data available for re-use?
If YES is the raw data available at no charge or at marginal cost?
Data publishing test on data.gov.uk
Does the Application mention data.gov.uk?
If Yes is data available via data.gov.uk
Review check: Has data been published on data.gov.uk?
If YES how many datasets?
Public Task
Does the Application refer to the organisations public task?
If Yes is the Public Task published?
YES
YES
Not known
Not known
NO
Not applicable
YES
10+
NO
Not applicable
Licences
Does the Application refer to the UK Government Licensing framework?
Does the application refer to the Open Government Licence?
Does the application refer to the non-commercial government licence?
Does the application refer to the Beta Charge Licence?
Does the application refer to the click-use licences?
Framework Document test
Does the PSB have a Framework Document?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to the PSI Regulations?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to the PSI Re-use?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to Commercial Activity?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to Charged Services?
37
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Public Sector Body “G” Application
Executive Non Departmental Public Body
Pertinent Dates
Date draft Application First Received
Date formal Application Received
Date TNA Assessment against Framework completed
Date Applicant informed on outcome of application
15 August 2011
8 November 2011
14 November 2011
15 November 2011
Delegation Requested for
All Crown copyright material in the collection and future
deposits
Does the organisation already hold an HMSO Delegation? NO
Delegation granted? YES
If YES has TNA updated the Delegations of authority web page? NO
Is the Applicant establishing an Exclusive arrangement? NO
If YES has TNA updated the Exclusive Arrangement web page? Not applicable
Parameter
Context &
Setting of
Information
Funding/costs
of production
Availability
from other
sources
Market
Conditions
Effects of
Charging
Business tests
Totals
Criteria
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.1
TNA Framework Assessment summary
Mandatory? Does Barely Adequately
not
meets
partially
meet
meets
YES
Good
partially
meets
5.2
5.3
5.4
6.1
6.2
19
Check
Total
YES
1
YES
1
YES
YES
1
1
YES
YES
1
1
YES
1
YES
YES
1
1
YES
1
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
15
1
1
1
1
1
18
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
3.2
4.1
4.2
5.1
Meets
YES
YES
1
0
0
2
Notes:
1. Criteria 4.2 - contextual information only and is not assessed.
38
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Pertinent IFTS Information
A Member of IFTS prior to submitting application?
Does the application refer to the IFTS?
Has the applicant agreed to join IFTS if delegation granted?
If granted has the IFTS application been received?
If YES has the IFTS Application been accepted?
If Delegation was granted has the statement of Commitment been published by the
applicant and is in the public domain?
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
Compliance with UK and EU Law (Test 2.1)
Does the Application refer to UK and/or EU Law?
YES
Does the Application name the law(s)?
YES
Law(s) Referenced in Application
Legislation specific to PSB G
Charity Act 1993
Statutory Power to Charge (Test 2.2)
Does the Application refer to a Statutory Power to Charge?
If YES does the application name the Act?
NO
Not Applicable
Raw Data (Test 1.4 & 2.3)
Does the Application mention raw data?
Does the Application state that the raw data is available?
If YES is the raw data available for re-use?
If YES is the raw data available at no charge or at marginal cost?
Data publishing test on data.gov.uk
Does the Application mention data.gov.uk?
If Yes is data available via data.gov.uk
Review check: Has data been published on data.gov.uk?
If YES how many datasets?
Public Task
Does the application refer to the organisations public task?
If Yes is the Public Task published?
NO
Not Applicable
YES
2
NO
NO
Licences
Does the application refer to the UK Government Licensing framework?
Does the application refer to the Open Government Licence?
Does the application refer to the non-commercial government licence?
Does the application refer to the Beta Charge Licence?
Does the application refer to the click-use licences?
Framework Document test
Does the PSB have a Framework Document?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to the PSI Regulations?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to the PSI Re-use?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to Commercial Activity?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to Charged Services?
39
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Public Sector Body “H” Application
Executive Non Departmental Public Body (NDPB) - Regulatory
Pertinent Dates
Date draft Application First Received
Date formal Application Received
Date TNA Assessment against Framework completed
Date Applicant informed on outcome of application
27 September 2011
24 October 2011
31 October 2011
7 November 2011
Delegation Requested for
Training materials
Does the organisation already hold an HMSO Delegation? NO
Delegation granted? NO
If YES has TNA updated the Delegations of authority web page? Not applicable
Is the Applicant establishing an Exclusive Arrangement? NO
If YES has TNA updated the Exclusive Arrangement web page? Not applicable
Parameter
Context &
Setting of
Information
Funding/costs
of production
Availability
from other
sources
Market
Conditions
Effects of
Charging
Business tests
Totals
Criteria
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.1
TNA Framework Assessment summary
Mandatory? Does Barely Adequately
not
meets
partially
meet
meets
YES
5.2
5.3
5.4
6.1
6.2
19
Meets
Check
Total
YES
1
YES
YES
1
1
1
1
YES
YES
YES
YES
1
1
1
0
1
YES
1
1
YES
YES
YES
YES
3.2
4.1
4.2
5.1
Good
partially
meets
YES
YES
0
1
YES
YES
YES
YES
6
0
1
2
YES
YES
7
1
0
1
1
1
16
Notes:
1. Criteria 4.2 - contextual information only and is not assessed.
2. Criteria 5.3 – not enough information provided by PSB H to undertake an assessment.
40
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Pertinent IFTS Information
A Member of IFTS prior to submitting application?
Does the application refer to the IFTS?
Has the applicant agreed to join IFTS if delegation granted?
If granted has the IFTS application been received?
If YES has the IFTS Application been accepted?
If Delegation was granted has the statement of Commitment been published by
the applicant and is in the public domain?
NO
NO
YES
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Compliance with UK and EU Law (Test 2.1)
Does the Application refer to UK and/or EU Law?
YES
Does the Application name the law(s)?
YES
Law(s) Referenced in Application
Legislation specific to PSB H
Statutory Power to Charge (Test 2.2)
Does the Application refer to a Statutory Power to Charge?
If YES does the application name the Act?
NO
Not Applicable
Raw Data (Test 1.4 & 2.3)
Does the Application mention raw data?
Does the Application state that the raw data is available?
If YES is the raw data available for re-use?
If YES is the raw data available at no charge or at marginal cost?
YES
NO 1
Not applicable
Not applicable
Notes:
1. Not available yet
Data publishing test on data.gov.uk
Does the Application mention data.gov.uk?
If Yes is data available via data.gov.uk
Review check: Has data been published on data.gov.uk?
If YES how many datasets?
Public Task
Does the application refer to the organisations public task?
If Yes is the Public Task published?
NO
Not Applicable
YES
5
NO
Not applicable
Licences
Does the application refer to the UK Government Licensing framework?
Does the application refer to the Open Government Licence?
Does the application refer to the non-commercial government licence?
Does the application refer to the Beta Charge Licence?
Does the application refer to the click-use licences?
Framework Document test
Does the PSB have a Framework Document?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to the PSI Regulations?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to the PSI Re-use?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to Commercial Activity?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to Charged Services?
41
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Public Sector Body “I” Application
An Executive Agency. On the 1st April 2013 the agency merged with another Agency to form a new
PSB that will become fully integrated and operational by September 2013.
Pertinent Dates
Date draft Application First Received
Date formal Application Received
Date TNA Assessment against Framework completed
Date Applicant informed on outcome of application
23 February 2012
4 July 2012
6 July 2012
9 July 2012
Delegation Requested for
Learning modules
Course Material
Does the organisation already hold an HMSO Delegation? NO
Delegation granted? YES
If YES has TNA updated the Delegations of authority web page? NO
Is the Applicant establishing an Exclusive Arrangement? NO
If YES has TNA updated the Exclusive Arrangement web page? Not applicable
Parameter
Context &
Setting of
Information
Funding/costs
of production
Availability
from other
sources
Market
Conditions
Effects of
Charging
Business tests
Totals
Criteria
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.1
TNA Framework Assessment summary
Mandatory? Does Barely Adequately
not
meets
partially
meet
meets
YES
5.2
5.3
5.4
6.1
6.2
19
Meets
Check
Totals
YES
1
YES
YES
1
1
1
1
YES
YES
YES
YES
1
1
1
1
1
YES
1
1
YES
YES
1
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
1
1
1
1
1
18
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
3.2
4.1
4.2
5.1
Good
partially
meets
YES
YES
2
1
2
1
12
Notes:
1. Criteria 4.2 - contextual information only and is not assessed.
42
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Pertinent IFTS Information
A Member of IFTS prior to submitting application?
Does the application refer to the IFTS?
Has the applicant agreed to join IFTS if delegation granted?
If granted has the IFTS application been received?
If YES has the IFTS Application been accepted?
If Delegation was granted has the statement of Commitment been published by
the applicant and is in the public domain?
NO
NO
YES
NO
Not applicable
NO
Compliance with UK and EU Law (Test 2.1)
Does the Application refer to UK and/or EU Law?
NO
Does the Application name the law(s)?
Not applicable
Law(s) Referenced in Application
None
Statutory Power to Charge (Test 2.2)
Does the Application refer to a Statutory Power to Charge?
If YES does the application name the Act?
NO
Not Applicable
Raw Data (Test 1.4 & 2.3)
Does the Application mention raw data?
Does the Application state that the raw data is available?
If YES is the raw data available for re-use?
If YES is the raw data available at no charge or at marginal cost?
YES
NO 1
NO 2
Not known
Notes:
1. Some raw data available. Most raw data will not be available.
2. The available raw data will be provided in the future.
Data publishing test on data.gov.uk
Does the Application mention data.gov.uk?
If Yes is data available via data.gov.uk
Review check: Has data been published on data.gov.uk?
If YES how many datasets?
Public Task
Does the application refer to the organisations public task?
If Yes is the Public Task published?
NO
Not Applicable
NO
Not applicable
Licences
Does the application refer to the UK Government Licensing framework?
Does the application refer to the Open Government Licence?
Does the application refer to the non-commercial government licence?
Does the application refer to the Beta Charge Licence?
Does the application refer to the click-use licences?
Framework Document test
Does the PSB have a Framework Document?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to the PSI Regulations?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to the PSI Re-use?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to Commercial Activity?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to Charged Services?
43
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Public Sector Body “L” Application
Police Authority
Pertinent Dates
Date draft Application First Received
Date formal Application Received
Date TNA Assessment against Framework completed
Date Applicant informed on outcome of application
3 May 2012
8 June 2012
11 June 2012
11 June 2012
Delegation Requested for
Training Courses
Databases
Still and Moving Images (Current and Historical)
Materials produced from Professional Services provided
Does the organisation already hold an HMSO Delegation? NO
Delegation granted? YES
If YES has TNA updated the Delegations of authority web page? NO
Is the Applicant establishing an Exclusive Arrangement? NO
If YES has TNA updated the Exclusive Arrangement web page? Not applicable
Parameter
Context &
Setting of
Information
Funding/costs
of production
Availability
from other
sources
Market
Conditions
Effects of
Charging
Business tests
Totals
Criteria
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.1
TNA Framework Assessment summary
Mandatory? Does Barely Adequately
not
meets
partially
meet
meets
YES
5.2
5.3
5.4
6.1
6.2
19
Meets
Check
Total
YES
1
YES
1
1
1
1
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
1
1
1
1
1
YES
1
1
YES
YES
YES
3.2
4.1
4.2
5.1
Good
partially
meets
YES
YES
1
YES
YES
1
1
1
5
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
10
1
1
1
1
1
18
Notes:
1. Criteria 4.2 - contextual information only and is not assessed.
44
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Pertinent IFTS Information
A Member of IFTS prior to submitting application?
Does the application refer to the IFTS?
Has the applicant agreed to join IFTS if delegation granted?
If granted has the IFTS application been received?
If YES has the IFTS Application been accepted?
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES, with a reservation
requiring publication of
various documents
NO
If Delegation was granted has the statement of Commitment been
published by the applicant and is in the public domain?
Compliance with UK and EU Law (Test 2.1)
Does the Application refer to UK and/or EU Law?
YES
Does the Application name the law(s)?
YES
Law(s) Referenced in Application
Police Reform and Social Responsibilities Act 2011
Statutory Power to Charge (Test 2.2)
Does the Application refer to a Statutory Power to Charge?
If YES does the application name the Act?
YES
YES
Raw Data (Test 1.4 & 2.3)
Does the Application mention raw data?
Does the Application state that the raw data is available?
If YES is the raw data available for re-use?
If YES is the raw data available at no charge or at marginal cost?
YES
NO
Not applicable
Not applicable
Data publishing test on data.gov.uk
Does the Application mention data.gov.uk?
NO
If Yes is data available via data.gov.uk
Not Applicable
Review check: Has data been published on data.gov.uk?
If YES how many datasets?
Review check: Has data been published on
YES
If YES how many datasets?
13
Public Task
Does the application refer to the organisations public task?
If Yes is the Public Task published?
YES
Licences
Does the application refer to the UK Government Licensing framework?
Does the application refer to the Open Government Licence?
Does the application refer to the non-commercial government licence?
Does the application refer to the Beta Charge Licence?
Does the application refer to the click-use licences?
Framework Document test
Does the PSB have a Framework Document?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to the PSI Regulations?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to the PSI Re-use?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to Commercial Activity?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to Charged Services?
45
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Public Sector Body “M” Application
Executive Agency
Pertinent Dates
Date draft Application First Received
Date formal Application Received
Date TNA Assessment against Framework completed
Date Applicant informed on outcome of application
29 August 2012
31 October 2012
6 November 2012
8 November 2012
Delegation Requested for
Consultancy materials
Products
Training
Software
Does the organisation already hold an HMSO Delegation? YES for previous pilot duration
Delegation granted? YES
If YES has TNA updated the Delegations of authority web page? NO
Is the Applicant establishing an Exclusive Arrangement? YES
If YES has TNA updated the Exclusive Arrangement web page? NO
Parameter
Context &
Setting of
Information
Funding/costs of
production
Availability from
other sources
Market
Conditions
Effects of
Charging
Business tests
Check totals
Criteria
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.1
TNA Framework Assessment summary
Mandatory? Does Barely Adequately
not
meets
partially
meet
meets
YES
5.2
5.3
5.4
6.1
6.2
19
Meets
Check
Total
YES
1
YES
YES
1
1
1
1
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
1
1
1
1
1
YES
1
1
YES
YES
YES
YES
3.2
4.1
4.2
5.1
Good
partially
meets
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
3
0
1
3
YES
YES
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
18
Notes:
1. Criteria 4.2 - contextual information only and is not assessed.
46
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Pertinent IFTS Information
A Member of IFTS prior to submitting application?
Does the application refer to the IFTS?
Has the applicant agreed to join IFTS if delegation granted?
If granted has the IFTS application been received?
If YES has the IFTS Application been accepted?
If Delegation was granted has the statement of Commitment been published by the
applicant and is in the public domain?
YES
NO
YES
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
NO
Compliance with UK and EU Law (Test 2.1)
Does the Application refer to UK and/or EU Law?
NO
Does the Application name the laws?
Not Applicable
Law(s) Referenced in Application
None.
Statutory Power to Charge (Test 2.2)
Does the Application refer to a Statutory Power to Charge?
If YES does the application name the Act?
Raw Data (Test 1.4 & 2.3)
Does the Application mention raw data?
Does the Application state that the raw data is available?
If YES is the raw data available for re-use?
If YES is the raw data available at no charge or at marginal cost?
Data publishing test on data.gov.uk
Does the Application mention data.gov.uk?
If Yes is data available via data.gov.uk
Review check: Has data been published on data.gov.uk?
If YES how many datasets?
Public Task
Does the application refer to the organisations public task?
If Yes is the Public Task published?
NO
Not Applicable
NO
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
NO
Not Applicable
YES
10
NO
Not applicable
Licences
Does the application refer to the UK Government Licensing framework?
Does the application refer to the Open Government Licence?
Does the application refer to the non-commercial government licence?
Does the application refer to the Beta Charge Licence?
Does the application refer to the click-use licences?
Framework Document test
Does the PSB have a Framework Document?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to the PSI Regulations?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to the PSI Re-use?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to Commercial Activity?
If YES – Does the Framework Document refer to Charged Services?
47
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
This section summarises the applications reviewed in Section 4 of this report.
Key Statistics
1.
2.
3.
4.
Exception statistics for the three year period:
12 PSBs approached TNA regarding an exception
2 PSBs after the informal discussion with TNA withdrew
2 PSBs are still in process and intend to submit a formal application
8 PSBs submitted a formal application
1 PSB submitted two formal applications
9 applications were assessed
2 were refused an exception
6 were granted an exception and one exception was reconfirmed following a pilot
5 PSBs signed the Delegation of Authority Agreement
1 PSB had not signed the Delegation of Authority Agreement by the time the PSB closed
down
1 PSB has published the statement of commitment
3 PSBs have applied to join the IFTS all of which have been accepted
1 PSB has fully completed the procedure.
Time PSB spends in key stages of the procedure
Average time PSB spends in Stage 1 17.7 calendar weeks. Range 1.1 to 49.7
Average time PSB spends in Stage 2 1.5 calendar weeks. Range 1.5 to 4.6
Average time PSB spends in Stage 3 to sign the Delegation of Authority Agreement is
14.7 calendar weeks. Range 4 to 26.7
Annual arrival rate
2010 – 1
2011 – 5
2012 – 6
TNA Resource statistics: Average time to process a formal application from end to end is 2.9
days. Range 2.1 to 3.7
48
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Summary tabulations
Year
2010
2011
2012
Totals
TABLE 5.1
Applications per Calendar Year (Stages 1 & 2)
Number of Informal
Number of Delegation
Approaches
Applications
Granted
(Stage 1)
(Stage 2)
1
1
1
1
4
2
2
4
4
4
9
7
Delegation
Refused
0
2
0
2
TABLE 5.2
Public Sector Body considered an exception (Stage 1 only)
Public Sector Body
Stage 1
Stage 1 Dialogue
Elapsed time
Started
Ended
Still in
(weeks) since
Process?
first contact*
Public Sector Body “A”
26.07.10
No
Not applicable
Public Sector Body “D”
6.06.11
Yes
96.1
Public Sector Body “J”
10.04.12
Yes
52.1
Public Sector Body “K”
14.05.12
No
Not applicable
* Up to 10th April 2013
TABLE 5.3
Public Sector Body Analysis
Public Body Category
Stage 1
Number
Delegation
Only
of
granted
Applicants
Stage 2
Executive Agency
1
4
4
Executive NDPB
1
2
1
Ministerial Department
2
1
0
Police Authority
0
1
1
Total
4
8
6
49
Delegation
refused
0
1
1
0
2
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
TABLE 5.4
Assessment Totals for each application
PSIH
Does Barely Adequately
Good
not
meets
partially
partially
meet
meets
meets
Public Sector Body “B”
1
0
3
1
Public Sector Body “C”
Public Sector Body “E”
0
0
1
0
Public Sector Body “F”
Public Sector Body “G”
1
0
0
2
Public Sector Body “H”
6
0
1
2
Public Sector Body “L”
1
1
1
5
Public Sector Body “I”
2
1
2
1
Public Sector Body “M”
3
0
1
3
Check Total
14
2
9
14
Parameter
Context & Setting
of Information
Funding/costs of
production
Availability from
other sources
Market Conditions
Effects of
Charging
Business tests
Check Total
Meets
Check
Total
13
17
15
7
10
12
11
85
18
18
18
16
18
18
18
124
TABLE 5.5
Assessment Totals for each criterion for all applications
Criteria Mandatory? Does Barely Adequately
Good
not
meets
partially
partially
meet
meets
meets
1.1
YES
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.1
3.2
4.1
4.2
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
6.1
6.2
19
YES
1
1
2
1
Meets
Check
Total
7
7
6
5
3
6
7
7
7
7
1
4
3
6
4
4
2
3
7
7
7
6
7
4
3
3
7
7
4
3
7
1
6
6
5
7
6
85
7
6
7
7
7
124
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
YES
1
4
YES
2
YES
1
14
2
9
14
Notes:
1. Criteria 4.2 - contextual information only and is not assessed.
2. Review of applicant assessments – only 7 tabulated so far with the information provided by
TNA
50
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
PSIH
Public Sector Body “B”
Public Sector Body “C”
Public Sector Body “E”
Public Sector Body “F”
Public Sector Body “G”
Public Sector Body “H”
Public Sector Body “I”
Public Sector Body “L”
Public Sector Body “M”
Totals
TABLE 5.6
Analysis of items requesting an exception to charge
Data
DataProf
Products Publicbase
Services
ations
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Software
Training
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
5
1
4
1
2
1
TABLE 5.7
Application processing date analysis – Stages 1 & 2
PSIH
Began
Ended
Elapsed Elapsed
Days
Weeks
Public Sector Body “B”
20.10.10 10.05.11
200
28.6
Public Sector Body “C”
17.02.11 31.03.11
40
5.7
Public Sector Body “E”
11.08.11 11.08.12
365
52.1
Public Sector Body “F”
15.08.11 15.10.11
59
8.4
Public Sector Body “G”
15.08.11 15.11.11
90
12.9
Public Sector Body “H”
27.09.11
7.11.11
8
1.1
Public Sector Body “I”
23.02.12
9.07.12
138
19.7
Public Sector Body “L”
3.05.12 11.06.12
38
5.4
Public Sector Body “M”
29.08.12
8.11.12
69
9.9
TABLE 5.8
Application date analysis by Stage
PSIH
Stage 1
Stage 1
Stage 2
Began
Ended
Began
Public Sector Body “B”
20.10.10
7.04.11
8.04.11
Public Sector Body “C”
17.02.11 17.03.11 18.03.11
Public Sector Body “E”
11.08.11 24.07.12 26.07.12
Public Sector Body “F”
15.08.11 15.10.11
Public Sector Body “G”
15.08.11
8.11.11 14.11.11
Public Sector Body “H”
27.09.11 24.10.11 31.10.11
Public Sector Body “I”
23.02.12
4.07.12
6.07.12
Public Sector Body “L”
3.05.12
8.06.12 11.06.12
Public Sector Body “M” 29.08.12 31.08.12
6.11.12
TABLE 5.9
Application Time analysis for Stage 1 & 2
PSIH
Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 2
Elapsed Elapsed Elapsed Elapsed
Days
Weeks
Day
Weeks
Public Sector Body “B”
168
24
32
4.6
Public Sector Body “C”
27
39
13
1.9
Public Sector Body “E”
348
49.7
17
2.4
Public Sector Body “F”
59
8.4
Public Sector Body “G”
84
12
4
0.6
Public Sector Body “H”
8
1.1
Public Sector Body “I”
135
19.3
3
0.4
Public Sector Body “L”
37
5.3
1
0.1
Public Sector Body “M”
67
9.6
2
0.3
51
Stage 2
Ended
10.05.11
31.03.11
11.08.12
15.11.11
7.11.11
9.07.12
11.06.12
8.11.12
Check
Total
Days
200
40
356
59
88
8
138
38
69
Check
Total
Weeks
28.6
5.7
52.1
8.4
12.5
1.1
19.7
5.4
9.9
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
TABLE 5.10
Post delegation actions analysis – (Procedural Stages 3 & 4)
PSIH
Delegation PSIH Completed
TNA Completed
granted
Stage 3 actions?
Stage 4 actions?
Public Sector Body “B”
YES
NO
NO
Public Sector Body “C”
YES
NO
NO
Public Sector Body “E” Scenario 1
YES
NO
NO
Public Sector Body “E” Scenario 4
NO
Not applicable
Not applicable
Public Sector Body “F”
NO
Not applicable
Not applicable
Public Sector Body “G”
YES
YES
NO
Public Sector Body “H”
NO
Not applicable
Not applicable
Public Sector Body “I”
YES
NO
NO
Public Sector Body “L”
YES
NO
NO
Public Sector Body “M”
YES
NO
NO
TABLE 5.11
Post delegation time analysis
PSIH
Calendar Months Impacted by Machinery
Elapsed*
of Govt. Changes?
Public Sector Body “B”
23
NO
Public Sector Body “C”
24
YES
Public Sector Body “E”
8
NO
Public Sector Body “F”
Not applicable
Not applicable
Public Sector Body “G”
17
NO
Public Sector Body “H”
Not applicable
Not applicable
Public Sector Body “I”
10
YES
Public Sector Body “L”
11
NO
Public Sector Body “M”
5
NO
* As at 2nd April 2013
Public Body
Public Sector Body “B”
Public Sector Body “C”
Public Sector Body “E”
Public Sector Body “F”
Public Sector Body “G”
Public Sector Body “H”
Public Sector Body “I”
Public Sector Body “L”
Public Sector Body “M”
TABLE 5.12
Raw Data Analysis (Tests 1.4 & 2.3)
Applicant Applicant
Available
refers to
states raw for re-use?
raw data?
data is
Test 1.4
available?
NO
Not
Not
Applicable
Applicable
YES
NO
Not
Applicable
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
Not
Applicable
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
Not
Applicable
NO
Not
Not
Applicable
Applicable
7
3
2
2
4
1
0
2
5
0
0
1
9
9
9
Total YES
Total NO
Total Not Applicable
Total No known
Check total
Notes:
1. Subject to online tests to check statements are correct
52
Free or
Marginal
Cost?
Test 2.3
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
YES
Raw data
tests met?
YES
Not
Applicable
YES
NO
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
2
0
5
2
9
1
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
TABLE 5.13
Analysis of the Signing of the Delegation of Authority Agreement (Procedural Stages 3 & 4)
Post delegation time analysis*
PSIH
Date Notified
Date Agreement
Elapsed
Delegation
signed off
weeks
Granted
Public Sector Body “B”
10.05.2011
5.07.2011
8
Public Sector Body “C”
31.03.2011
**
**
Public Sector Body “D”
11.08.2012
14.02.2013
26.7
Public Sector Body “F”
Not applicable
Public Sector Body “G”
15.11.2011
13.12.2011
4
Public Sector Body “H”
Not Applicable
Public Sector Body “I”
9.07.2012
18.12.2012
23.1
Public Sector Body “L”
11.06.2012
3.10.2012
11.9
Public Sector Body “M”
8.11.2012
As at 8th April 2013
st
** Closed down 31 March 2012 not signed by close down – 48 weeks had elapsed
TABLE 5.14
Statement of Commitment (Test 6.1) (Procedural Stage 3)
PSIH
Provision of a
Statement of
Statement of
Commitment
Commitment
Published?
Public Sector Body “B”
YES
NO
Public Sector Body “C”
YES
NO
Public Sector Body “D”
YES
NO
Public Sector Body “F”
NO
Not applicable
Public Sector Body “G”
YES
YES
Public Sector Body “H”
NO
Not Applicable
Public Sector Body “I”
YES
NO
Public Sector Body “L”
YES
NO
Public Sector Body “M”
YES
NO
TABLE 5.15
Commitment to the IFTS (Procedural Stage 2)
PSIH
A Member
Does the
Has the
of IFTS
Application
Applicant
At time of
Refer to
Agreed to join
Application
IFTS?
IFTS?
Public Sector Body “B”
NO
NO
YES
Public Sector Body “C”
NO
NO
YES
Public Sector Body “E”
NO
NO
YES
Public Sector Body “F”
NO
NO
NO
Public Sector Body “G”
NO
YES
YES
Public Sector Body “H”
NO
NO
NO
Public Sector Body “I”
NO
NO
YES
Public Sector Body “L”
NO
NO
YES
Public Sector Body “M”
YES
NO
YES
53
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
TABLE 5.16
Delegation Granted – Joining IFTS (Test 6.1) (Procedural Stage 3)
PSIH
DelegatHas IFTS
Full Member
Online
ion
application
Member
granted been received?
Public Sector Body “B”
YES
YES
YES
Public Sector Body “C”
YES
NO
Public Sector Body “E”
YES
Not Applicable
Public Sector Body “F”
NO
Not Applicable
Not applicable Not applicable
Public Sector Body “G”
YES
YES
YES
Public Sector Body “H”
NO
Not Applicable
Not applicable Not applicable
Public Sector Body “I”
YES
NO
Public Sector Body “L”
YES
YES
YES
Public Sector Body “M”
YES
Already a
YES
Member
Date TNA
Announced
8th June 2012
Not applicable
Not applicable
19th June 2012
8th November
2012
TABLE 5.17
Data publishing test on data.gov.uk and/or data.london.gov.uk
PSIH
Application
Has data been
How many data
mentions
published on
sets *
data.gov.uk?
data.gov.uk? and/or
data.london.gov.uk?
Public Sector Body “B”
NO
YES
10
Public Sector Body “C”
NO
NO
Not Applicable
Public Sector Body “E”
NO
YES
13
Public Sector Body “F”
NO
YES
10+
Public Sector Body “G”
NO
YES
2
Public Sector Body “H”
NO
YES
5
Public Sector Body “I”
NO
NO
Not applicable
Public Sector Body “L”
NO
YES
13
Public Sector Body “M”
NO
YES
10
* Some of the data sets published are to meet the Governments transparency criteria
TABLE 5.18
Public Task
Number of Applications that refer to the organisations public task
1
TABLE 5.19
Licences
Number of applications that refer to the UK Government Licensing framework
Number of applications that refer to the Open Government Licence
Number of applications that refer to the non-commercial government licence
Number of applications that refer to the Beta Charge Licence
Number of applications that refer to the click-use licences
0
3
0
0
1
TABLE 5.20
Statutory Power to
Number of
Charge
Applicants
YES
1
NO
8
54
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
TABLE 5.21
Act/Regulation/Directive named
Data Protection Act 1998
FOI Act 2000
EU INSPIRE Directive
Marine and Coastal Act 2009
Legislation specific to Public Sector Body “G”
Charity Act 1993
Legislation specific to Public Sector Body “H”
EU Directive specific to Public Sector Body “H”
Regulations specific to Public Sector Body “H”
Regulations specific to Public Sector Body “H”
Police Reform and Social Responsibilities Act 2011
* Three applications make no reference to Laws
TABLE 5.22
Number of times an application refers to
Application
Tax
Additional
HMT
Payer
Income
Standards
and Policy
Public Sector Body “B”
3
3
1
Public Sector Body “C”
1
1
Public Sector Body “E”
1
2
8
Public Sector Body “F”
Public Sector Body “G”
4
1
Public Sector Body “H”
1
Public Sector Body “I”
1
3
Public Sector Body “L”
1
1
Public Sector Body “M”
3
5
2
PSB
Public Sector Body “B”
Public Sector Body “C”
Public Sector Body “E”
Public Sector Body “F”
Public Sector Body “G”
Public Sector Body “H”
Public Sector Body “I”
Public Sector Body “L”
Public Sector Body “M”
Total
Number of
Applicants*
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Funding
Cuts
TABLE 5.23
Framework Document test: Summary
FD
Mentions
Mentions
Mentions
Exists
PSI
PSI Re-use?
Commercial
?
Regulations?
Activity?
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
5
1
0
2
55
1
-
Mentions
Charged
Services?
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
1
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
This section provides observations on the exception to marginal cost pricing procedure and the
implementation of that procedure.
6.1 Assumptions
The review has assumed that:
As the Government policy is for PSI to be available either at no charge or at marginal cost
charge for Crown copyright materials – except in the case of approved trading funds the
Exception procedure is initiated and driven forward by the PSB seeking an exemption. That
is it is down to the PSB to be proactive when they make their case and ensure that if they are
granted an exception that they then conform to fair-trading principles.
The procedure is mandatory for PSBs that hold Crown copyright materials.
Once a formal application has been received, i.e. Stage 2 of the procedure; that the process is
based upon the contents of the application received together with any attachments and that
TNA does not undertake any additional research or initiate other cross checks. The reason in
part for this is due to the two-stage approach of the front-end of the procedure where during
Stage 1 applicants are actively encouraged to discuss the business case prior to submitting a
formal application that triggers Stage 2 of the procedure. As such TNA feel that where a PSB
has actively engaged in Stage 1 of the procedure there is no immediate need to undertake
further research. TNA have acknowledged that should a PSB submit a formal application
without engaging in Stage 1 of the procedure then further research maybe undertaken.
TNA does not consider whether the business case submitted by the applicant PSB is
justifiable, cost-effective and sustainable apart from ensuring the case conforms to the HM
Treasury guidance and standards with respect to the charges set.
A delegation does not come into effect until both parties have signed the Delegation of
Authority Agreement.
TNA has limited power apart from refusing a delegation with respect to ensuring that a PSB
that has been granted a delegation delivers the subsequent actions required to ensure that they
are open and transparent and as such comply with the IFTS. That is completes the Stage 3
actions of the Exception procedure.
TNA monitors licensing and charging activity through the IFTS.
TNA has adopted a policy of minimising bureaucracy when operating and managing the
procedure.
6.2 The Procedure
TNA have adopted a pragmatic approach with respect to developing and implementing the Exception
to marginal cost pricing procedure that was implemented on the 1st January 2010. The four-stage
procedure implemented (refer to section 3.3 of this report) enables a PSB to explore with TNA their
ideas during Stage 1 before deciding whether or not to submit a formal application to TNA. The
number of PSBs that have considered applying for an exception has been small. Although the number
of applicants has been small it nevertheless has enabled TNA to test the procedure. Following the
experience gained from the initial applications TNA enhanced the Stage 2 process in the autumn of
2011. The change was to implement a standard table to record the outcome of the individual tests as
set out in the published documentation for Applicants 10. Stages 3 and 4 are the back end parts of the
procedure where Stage 3 applies to the PSB granted a delegation and Stage 4 applies to TNA.
TABLE 5.1 shows the number of formal applications received during each year – Stage 2 of the
procedure. As far as this review is concerned the two applications for pilot and then post-pilot
10
Hence the reason why in Section 4 the TNA Framework Assessment Summary data is not present for
the Public Sector Bodies “C”, “E” and “F” applications.
56
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
operations by the same body with different partners (Public Sector Body “B” and “M”) are counted
separately and not treated as one application. From the TNA perspective these two applications have
been considered as one as the delegation granted in 2011 was carried forward following consideration
of the second application at the end of the pilot. These applications bring out some interesting points
that are discussed elsewhere in this section of the report. TABLE 5.1 shows 9 applications have been
received.
TABLE 5.1 and 5.2 show that 4 PSBs have entered into the exploratory stage of the procedure (Stage
1) but have as yet not decided to proceed to submitting a formal application for an Exception. Of the 4
it appears that two are still considering and two have decided not to proceed further but have not
informed TNA. Note: There is no requirement to do so.
From the perspective as to whether the procedure implemented is having the desired effect all
approaches to TNA are of interest even if the PSB subsequently decides not to submit a formal
application. For example the action taken by Public Sector Body “F” as detailed in Section 6.7 of this
report.
From the perspective of the resources needed to administer the Exception to marginal cost pricing
process all approaches are of interest as they will consume valuable public sector resources – in this
case the resources from within TNA that at the current time is administering only the PSBs that hold
Crown copyright materials. An appreciation of the level of resources expended is of interest when
considering how the UK will administer the exception process for all PSBs in the UK as such the
Crown Bodies can be considered as a pilot for the future wider system. FIGURE 6.1 shows when
PSBs entered Stage 1 of the procedure since the procedure came into force in January 2010. FIGURE
6.2 shows the total number of PSBs entering the procedure each year. FIGURE 6.3 shows the
accumulative entry rate since the inception of the procedure.
Since this review commenced TNA have received a further application that is still in process and as
such this particular application has not been reviewed.
FIGURE 6.1 shows that 6 months elapsed before the first PSB approached TNA and entered the
procedure. FIGURE 6.2 indicates that the current arrival rate is level at about 6 per annum.
The TNA web site includes a web page titled Delegations of authority. Of the 12 PSBs that entered
into the Exception procedure none held an existing delegation and therefore can be counted as
potentially new exceptions if granted a delegation.
The total number of PSBs that hold Crown copyright materials is not known. Due to the machinery of
government changes the total number will vary over time. In order to gain a measure of the number of
PSBs that have applied for an exception two lists have been used:
1.
2.
The TNA UK Crown Bodies web page lists 189 public bodies with Crown status. Using this
total the 12 PSBs that have entered the exception procedure represents 6.3%. Of the 12, 6
PSBs were granted a delegation representing 3.2%. The procedure does not apply to
government trading funds and if these are removed from the total then the percentages change
to 6.7% and 3.4% respectively.
The GOV.UK Departments, agencies & public bodies web page lists under Ministerial
Departments and their agencies 376 PSBs. Using this total the 12 PSBS that have entered the
exception procedure represents 3.2%. Of the 12, 6 PSBs were granted a delegation
representing 1.6%. If the total is adjusted to remove government trading funds from the total
then the percentages change to 3.3% and 1.6% respectively.
As the number of PSBs that hold Crown copyright materials is unknown the average of the two lists
has been used in Figures 6.4 and 6.5 that show the percentages for those entering the exception
procedure and the number granted a delegation under the procedure.
The review of the applications that TNA has processed has highlighted a number of issues that are
considered elsewhere in this section of the report.
57
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
FIGURE 6.1
Number of Public Sector Bodies entering the procedure each month
Number of Public Sector Bodies
4
3
2
1
Feb-09
Dec-08
Oct-08
Aug-08
Jun-08
Apr-08
Feb-08
Dec-07
Oct-07
Aug-07
Jun-07
Apr-07
Feb-07
Dec-06
Oct-06
Aug-06
Jun-06
Apr-06
Feb-06
Dec-05
0
FIGURE 6.2
Total Number Of Public Sector Bodies entering the procedure each
year
7
Number of Public Sector Bodies
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2010
2011
2012
58
2013
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
FIGURE 6.3
Accumulated total PSBs entering the procedure per year
16
Number of public sector bodies
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2010
2011
2012
2013
FIGURE 6.4
Percentage of PSBs entering the procedure 2010-2012
Percentage of PSBs holding Crown copyright materials entering the
exception procedure
3%
97%
PSBs entering
PSBs not entering
59
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
FIGURE 6.5
Percentage of PSBs holding Crown copyright materials granted a delegation under the exception
procedure 2010-2012
Percentage of PSBs holding Crown copyright materials granted a
delegation under the exception procedure
2%
98%
PSBs entering
PSBs not entering
6.3 Application Processing times
The whole process is initiated and driven forward by the PSB seeking an exception with minimal
progress chasing by TNA. The procedure has two distinct parts – the frontend processes Stage 1 and 2
and the backend processes Stages 3 and 4 that follow once an application has been processed. With
respect to the backend process the important factor is whether a delegation has been accepted. Where a
delegation has not been granted then the process in reality ends as far as TNA is concerned unless the
PSB decides to submit a revised application to TNA. From the review perspective Stages 3 and 4 are
of interest only where a delegation has been granted. Stage 3 is predominantly a PSB activity when a
delegation has been granted. Stage 4 is predominantly a TNA activity.
FIGURE 6.6 shows the total time that elapsed for the 9 applications to pass through Stages 1 and 2 of
the procedure.
FIGURE 6.7 provides the elapsed times spent for Stage 1 and Stage 2. The elapsed time spent in Stage
1 of the procedure is much longer than that of Stage 2. This is due to the exploratory nature of Stage 1.
The elapsed time for Stage 2 is short as this is purely a processing stage undertaken by TNA. The
change within TNA that occurred in the summer of 2011 significantly reduced the time spent in Stage 2
as FIGURE 6.8 shows. During 2010 and the first half of 2011 TNA was gaining experience and there
tended to be much more time spent in face to face meetings. From the middle of 2011 this changed and
the time spent within Stage 1 has greatly reduced. The elapsed time of Stage 1 reflects the point that it
is the PSB that is driving the process forward.
FIGURE 6.9 shows the elapsed time for one particular action in Stage 3 and Stage 4 of the procedure
that of signing the Delegation of Authority Agreement. This stage is particularly important, as the
delegation granted does not come into effect until the agreement is signed.
60
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
FIGURE 6.6
Time Analysis for Stages 1&2
60.0
Elapsed weeks
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
PSB B
PSB C
PSB E
PSB F
PSB G
PSB H
PSB I
PSB L
PSB M
PSB L
PSB M
Public Sector Body Application
FIGURE 6.7
Application Processing times for Stages 1 & 2
50
45
Elapsed weeks
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
PSB B
PSB C
PSB E
PSB F
PSB G
PSB H
PSB I
Public Sector Body Application
Stage 1
61
Stage 2
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
FIGURE 6.8
Stage 2 processing time
5
4.5
4
Elapsed weeks
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
PSB B
PSB C
PSB E
PSB F
PSB G
PSB H
PSB I
PSB L
PSB M
Public Sector Body Application
FIGURE 6.9
Time taken for parties to sign the Delegation of Authority Agreement
50.0
45.0
40.0
Elapsed weeks
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
PSB B
PSB C
PSB E
PSB F
PSB G
PSB H
PSB I
PSB L
PSB M
Public Sector Body
Notes:
1. Public Sector Body “C” had not signed and returned the agreement to TNA by 31 st March
2012 when the PSB closed down.
2. Public Sector Body “M” has not yet signed and returned the agreement to TNA as of 4 th April
2013.
62
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
6.4 Delegations Granted
TABLE 5.10 shows that of the 9 applications considered under Stage 2 of the procedure 6 have been
granted a delegation – the Public Sector Body “B” delegation was reconfirmed as part of the Public
Sector Body “M” application.
The updating of the TNA Delegations of Authority web page11 is considered to be part of Stage 4 of the
Exception procedure. The web page appears at level 5 of the web site (Home > Information
management > Our services > Crown and Parliamentary copyright > Crown copyright > Delegations
of authority). As of the 8th April 2013 the web page has not been updated to reflect the delegations
granted. There is a secondary issue as to whether this particular web page is maintained as it contains
PSBs that have either closed down, merged or have been renamed as a result of the Machinery of
Government changes.
6.5 Delegation granted - IFTS pre-requisites (Test 6.1)
TABLE 5.14, 5.15 and 5.16 show the applicants commitment to the IFTS and the progress the PSB has
made where a delegation was granted with regard to joining the IFTS, publishing the statement of
commitment and making the membership and commitment transparent on the web site of the PSB.
Statement of Commitment
For a PSB to be granted a delegation the PSB must agree to join the IFTS either as a Full Member or as
an Online Member as directed by TNA when granting a delegation. In addition, the PSB must agree to
publish a formal commitment, usually signed off at Chief Executive or Permanent Secretary level to
comply with IFTS principles. Test 6.1 of the Application Assessment Framework requires the applicant
to have gained a draft statement from the organisation’s Permanent Secretary or Chief Executive.
In Stage 3 of the procedure 12 one of the actions is to make the appropriate request to join the IFTS and
to publish the Statement of Commitment. Once these two actions have been completed then the action
moves from the Exceptions to marginal cost procedure to that of the IFTS.
Of the 6 delegations granted only Public Sector Body “G” has completed the action related to
publishing the Commitment - a 16.7% success rate.
Joining the IFTS
As of 8th April 2013 of the 6 delegations granted only three PSBs have submitted an application to join
the IFTS – one as a Full IFTS Member and two as an Online IFTS Members – a 50% success rate.
With respect to the remaining three delegations granted that have not applied to join the IFTS as of the
8th April 2013:
Public Sector Body “C” – the delegation lapsed as the Delegation of Authority Agreement was
not signed by the time that the PSB closed down.
Public Sector Body “I” – due to the machinery of government changes the PSB’s IFTS
application has been placed on hold until the new organisation that has absorbed it has become
fully operational. There is a possibility that this particular IFTS application will never be
received as it requires the delegation to be transferred to the new organisation and that may
require a new application to be submitted to TNA.
Public Sector Body “E” – The application contained 4 scenarios of which only two were
accepted by TNA and granted a delegation. One delegation was retrospective (Scenario 1)
11
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/delegations-ofauthority.htm
12
Actions the Public Body must take following the granting of a delegation.
63
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
and one delegation (Scenario 4)13 was granted in principle and placed on hold pending the
development of a tradable added value product that takes information that it had gathered in
the course of its public tasks and re-use it to produce an added value product. When PSB E
has such a product then it would be required to submit a new application to activate the
delegation which if granted would require PSB E to submit an application to join the IFTS.
With respect to Scenario 1 - this is a live application where by PSB E is commissioned by a
paying non-crown body to produce a report. A delegation was granted so that PSB E can
assign the Crown copyright to the customer when the report is finally submitted to the paying
Customer. TNA decided after due consideration that PSB E in this case was not trading and
as such IFTS membership does not arise.
With respect to the three PSBs that have gained Membership of the IFTS only two have included a
statement on the PSBs web site that states that the PSB is a Member of the IFTS. A completion rate of
66% by those IFTS applications accepted. As part of the IFTS procedure TNA have updated the Full
IFTS Accreditation - Members web page14.
The Full IFTS accreditation Members page appears at level 4 of the TNA web site. (Home >
Information management > Information Fair Trader Scheme > Full IFTS accreditation > Members)
The update of the TNA IFTS web pages is considered to be part of the IFTS procedure rather than that
of the Exception procedure. The information has been noted here as it provides a measure of the level
of transparency achieved and maintained.
Currently, details of PSBs that sign up to the IFTS online are not published 15. In the interests of
transparency it is recommended that a list of these PSBs is produced and published. A partial list of
PSBs that have been accredited via the Online Accreditation system is published at the bottom of the
Full IFTS accreditation Members web page.
6.6 Implications arising from Machinery of Government changes
Two of the applications have been affected by Machinery of Government changes.
Public Sector Body “C”
PSB C was granted a delegation on the 31st March 2011. On the 31st March 2012 the PSB was closed
down and some of its functions were transferred to a new organisation. The PSB’s international
functions have been taken on by other parts of government. One consequence of the PSB closing down
is that a new entrant has appeared in the market place – a private sector organisation that has been
formed by personnel that previously worked for PSB C.
During the review TNA have confirmed that:
TNA’s Licensing contact within PSB C did make contact with the TNA Standards team when
the plans to close the PSB were first announced, but at that time the contact had little
information about what would be happening and as to whom the best contact would be within
the new organisation. Correspondence was then entered into between TNA and PSB C and the
contact confirmed that much of the material was going to be made freely available under the
Open Government Licence.
TNA have noted the action to contact the new organisation in order to establish the position
with respect to the Crown copyright materials that they have acquired out of PSB C.
13
Refer to Section 4 of this report.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/ifts/members.htm
15
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/ifts/ifts-online.htm
14
64
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
The TNA information management team have confirmed that their contact with PSB C was
through the parent Department’s Departmental Records Officer (DRO). A brief dialogue did
take place between TNA and the DRO about the winding up of PSB C. The dialogue however
did not touch on the Crown copyright material transfers from PSB C to other PSBs.
TNA have archived the PSB C web site.
As of the 9th April 2013 TNA had not been contacted by the new organisation about the
inherited Crown copyright material.
TNA have noted that consideration needs to be given as to how TNA should deal with
delegations that have been granted as a result of Machinery of Government Changes.
By the time PSB C closed down the Delegation of Authority Agreement had not been signed and as a
consequence the Delegation has not been finalised. As such the delegation is not active and the
question of whether it is transferable does not arise.
The experience gained from PSB C raises a number of important issues:
Whether a delegation is automatically transferred to the body that has taken over the
responsibilities of the PSB if they are still to be delivered. As the Marginal Cost exemption
procedure places emphasis on the IFTS and the Statement of Commitment it is questionable
whether another PSB with a different Chief Executive, public task and business plan is able to
commit in the way expected under the IFTS.
One of the key responsibilities of the PSB that has been granted a delegation is that they must
manage the whole process and this includes keeping TNA informed of relevant changes that
may impact the delegation. PSB C did make contact with TNA but it was difficult for the
contact to be explicit as to what was occurring, as they did not know themselves.
With the changes underway the commitment from PSB C may have reduced. This raises a
question as to whether it is correct to grant a delegation to a PSB that has 12 months or less
life left!
The closing of PSB C has triggered new entrants to appear in the market place and as such
Exception Test 4.1 would need to be considered in more detail by which ever PSB has
absorbed some or all of the Crown copyright materials should they seek an exemption. This
again indicates that an automatic transfer of a delegation may not be the correct approach.
If no delegation exists then the movement of the Crown copyright materials from PSB C to
other PSBs can be considered to be outside of the Exception procedure but is one for TNA to
consider as to how these movements are managed.
Public Sector Body “I”
PSB I has been passing through a number of structural changes over the past 24 months. On the 1 st
April 2013 the PSB merged with another Agency to form a new body. The new body will not be fully
functional and integrated until September 2013. The PSB I changes have highlighted the issues related
to a public sector wholly owned private company being moved into a Department that brings the PSI
held under the Crown copyright regime. The transfer to the Department was possibly one of the
triggers for approaching TNA to seek an exception.
The Delegation of Authority Agreement was signed by both parties on the 18th December 2012 and as
such is an active delegation. PSB I has not kept TNA informed about subsequent changes.
TNA Machinery of Government advice published by the Information Management and Practice
Department within TNA recommends that a PSB liaise with TNA regarding the movement of
information.
During the review TNA confirmed that:
TNA information management team had no direct contact with PSB I but they did have
contact with the DRO within the parent Department. The DRO informed TNA that the merger
was taking place and asked for guidance on some information management aspects. Copyright
issues however were not discussed.
65
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
TNA Standards team had an electronic dialogue with the licensing contact within PSB I about
the progress with the IFTS application. The contact reported that the application had to go on
hold until the new organisation came into being, as such TNA have noted the action to make
contact with the newly formed organisation once it was up and running.
TNA has archived the PSB I website via the parent Department.
TNA hold a copy of the PSB I web site just prior to the point in time that it moved into the
parent Department.
The experience gained from the PSB I Application raises a number of important issues:
Whether a delegation is automatically transferred to the new merged body that has absorbed
the responsibilities of PSB I. The Marginal Cost exemption procedure places emphasis on the
IFTS and the Statement of Commitment as such it is questionable whether another PSB with a
different Chief Executive, public task and business plan is able to commit in the way expected
under the IFTS.
One of key responsibilities of the PSB that has been granted a delegation is that they must
manage the whole process and this includes keeping TNA informed of relevant changes that
may impact the delegation. A dialogue with PSB I that was initiated by TNA established that
the Stage 3 actions had been placed on hold whilst the new body was established.
With the changes underway the commitment from the new organisation may have reduced, as
there maybe other higher priority tasks that needed to be completed first in order to establish
the new body. This raises a question as to whether it is correct to grant a delegation to a PSB
that will be very much focussed on bedding down a merger of PSBs.
The case of PSB I provides a good example of the issues that need to be managed with regards
to machinery of government changes.
Both the PSB C and the PSB I applications have raised issues that need to be addressed within the
exception procedure and how delegations are managed once granted.
On a broader front TNA have reported during the review that Departments not keeping TNA informed
of developments has been an issue in the past.
6.7 Delegation not granted – Public Sector Body reaction
Two of the applications for an exception were not granted as shown in TABLE 5.10.
Public Sector Body “F”
PSB F submitted an application for an exception to be granted for a specific Catalogue of information.
The application did not meet the exception tests and TNA informed PSB F that a delegation would not
be granted.
During the review TNA reported that:
PSB F’s first reaction to the TNA decision not to grant a delegation was for PSB F’s Lawyers to
enter into a lengthy dialogue with TNA. During the dialogue the PSB F Lawyers argued:
o
o
o
That the material was not Crown copyright;
That the material was not covered by the PSI Regulations; and
That PSB F could move the catalogue to another non-Crown body, in an effort to get
around the TNA decision.
TNA devoted considerable amount of time and resources to deal with the points raised by PSB F’s
Lawyers. Eventually all went quiet.
After a period of time had elapsed TNA followed up with the original PSB F contact to establish
what, if anything, was happening. The contact informed TNA that PSB F had in fact now made the
material available under the Open Government Licence and that was why TNA had heard nothing
66
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
more. Had TNA not been proactive in making contact with PSB F, TNA would not have been
informed that the material had been published.
The experience gained from the PSB F application shows that administering Stages 3 and 4 of the
procedure even where a delegation has not been granted can consume considerable resources. The
final outcome was positive and is an example that the procedure has had the desired effect. The issue
of making the procedure more cost-effective is considered further in Section 7 of this report.
Public Sector Body “H”
The actions that PSB H has taken since TNA refused the delegation has not been established during
this review.
6.8 Application Assessment Framework – The Verification process
Transparent objective assessment criteria
As detailed in Section 3 Overview of the Procedure Implemented the assessment criteria were
developed in an open manner and have been placed in the public domain and as such are transparent.
The operational experience from processing the nine formal applications indicates that the published
criteria have enabled applicants to complete and submit the application template to TNA.
Verification
TNA undertake the verification process as described in section 3.5 of this report. The formal
assessment framework provides a documented audit trail. The completed assessment form is not
returned to the applicant and is not published. The documented record would enable TNA or an
external auditor to verify that the process is functioning as intended if there is a requirement to do so.
The operational experience of processing the nine applications received has shown that the criteria are
sound and have enabled an objective assessment to be made. TABLE 5.5 provides a summary of the
combined outcome of the tests from processing 7 applications. Section 4 of this report includes a wider
checklist that has been used as part of the review of the exception procedure. The processing
experience has identified where additional criteria may need to be added. Where an application for a
delegation is granted the applicant PSB has to join the IFTS and as such passes through a further
verification process. The outcome of the IFTS verification process is the publication of an IFTS report
that is published by TNA and is in the public domain.
Missing test for Exclusive Arrangements
The Application Assessment Framework currently has no specific test for the existence of Exclusive
Arrangements either actual or proposed within the Market Condition tests 4.1 and 4.2 that relate to
competition within the market place. The applications received from Public Sector Body “B” and “M”
have highlighted the absence of a specific test on exclusive arrangements and also raised the question
whether this is a valid test to include within the Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure.
During the review TNA acknowledged that it had recognised that Public Sector Body “B” intended to
establish an exclusive arrangement and discussed the exclusive arrangement with the PSB during Stage
1 of the exception procedure. TNA decided to handle the issue through the IFTS on the basis that the
IFTS procedure dealt with fair-trading and competition issues.
During the review TNA reported that they did not formally raise the exclusive arrangement with Public
Sector Body “B” parent Department under the powers TNA has (the Controller’s legal authority for
Crown owned copyrights and databases and OPSI statutory responsibility for the investigation of
complaints under the PSI Regulations) that the PSB was establishing an open ended exclusive
arrangement.
The IFTS report has been published on Public Sector Body “B”, which makes no explicit mention that
an exclusive arrangement had been established. The report however stressed the lack of transparency
as to how PSB B was handling the PSI Regulations and that PSB B should address this issue with
HIGH priority.
67
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
The lack of transparency magnifies the exclusive arrangement issue, as when combined with the
information included in the business case submitted by the PSB there are clear indications that there are
potential Competition issues.
During the review TNA have confirmed that the exclusive arrangement will be included in the IFTS reverification that will assess Public Sector Body “M”.
The TNA approach of handling the exclusive arrangement issue within the IFTS process in essence
leaves the market to raise a challenge in order to redress the issue. This might be acceptable if Public
Sector Body “B” was transparent but as identified by the TNA IFTS report transparency is a HIGH
priority issue. As such a challenge is unlikely to materialise for sometime and in the process the PSB
has gained a further competitive advantage.
TNA maintain an Exclusive Arrangement web page and as yet the webpage has not been updated by
TNA with the result that exclusive arrangement remains out of view.
TNA has the power to either refuse a delegation or grant a delegation on the basis that a number of
conditions be addressed within a given time period which if not met then the delegation is with drawn
until such times that the conditions have been met. These powers have not been exercised in the case
of Public Sector Body “B”.
The applications state that relevant departments were consulted and had given approval to the intention
to provide training packages, manuals, Consultancy, Software and services through a commercial
activity – first as a Pilot with a commercial partner and after the pilot via a new partner organisation.
The application to TNA for an exception was the last step in the process.
DIAGRAM 6.1 and 6.2 summarise the applications and proposals.
The Public Sector Body “B” and “M” applications have raised a number of issues that need to be
explored further as to what changes need to be made both in the advice given by TNA and how such
cases of exclusive arrangements are handled and documented if permitted following a delegation in the
future. Section 7 of this report considers the potential actions further.
DIAGRAM 6.1
PSB “B” Commercial Activity pilot construct (Ended 31 st October 2012)
PSB “B”
Commercial
partner
The
Market
PSB “M” Commercial activity Social Enterprise Company construct (Operational 1 st April 2013)
PSB “M”
Social
enterprise
company
68
The
Market
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Month –Year
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
Application
DIAGRAM 6.2
IFTS Accreditation
Partners
IFTS Assessment
Commercial partner pilot
PSB “B”
Licensed
Report published
PSB “M”
Social Enterprise company partner
6.9 Availability of raw data (Tests 1.4 and 2.3)
TABLE 5.11 summarises the nine applications processed with respect to the availability of raw data.
Of the nine applications processed 2 met the raw data tests. TABLE 5.5 indicates that in part the
reason for this maybe that some of the value added items included in the applications for an exception
are Crown copyright materials but are not raw data or refined data. For example a software package,
commissioned reports, training courses and training course materials – these items may well re-use raw
data or be based on raw data. Perhaps the reason that the raw data has not been identified is due to the
generic grouping of the items that they are seeking an exception. i.e. training courses. A software
package may well read in raw data but would require further research for a clearer description of the
software package.
TABLE 5.5 shows that data and databases are mentioned by Public Sector Bodies “F”, “G” and “L”
applications. Of these only Public Sector Bodies “G” and “L” were granted a delegation.
69
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Publishing data on data.gov.uk
In order to explore the absence of raw data further a data.gov.uk and or data.london.gov.uk test has
been applied during the review. This is summarised in TABLE 5.17.
6.10 Public Sector Body commitment to the Exception Procedure
The review of the exception to marginal cost procedure indicates that there is a lack of commitment to
the process by many of the PSBs that have sought a delegation in order to increase their income. Even
when mitigating circumstances are taken into account the time scales in some cases are still very long.
As mentioned in section 6.3 of this report the whole process is initiated and driven forward by the PSB
seeking an exception with minimal progress chasing by TNA.
From the review it is evident that TNA generally deals with applications promptly. However, there is
scope for TNA improving the final actions in Stage 4 that are internal to TNA, which are in the main
transparency actions that demonstrate that the delegation has been granted. These final actions gain in
importance when the PSBs themselves are not transparent. i.e. TNA provides a fall back level of
transparency.
The PSB commitment indicators include amongst others:
The elapsed time spent at Stage 1 of the procedure – FIGURE 6.5
The elapsed time spent in signing the Delegation of Authority Agreement – FIGURE 6.7 – the
average time for those that have signed is 14.7 elapsed weeks.
The time taken for the PSB to publish the Statement of Commitment on the PSBs web site.
i.e. to be transparent
The time taken for the PSB to submit an application for IFTS Membership.
The number of occasions that TNA has to prompt the PSB.
The mitigating circumstances include amongst others;
Machinery of Government changes
Cabinet Office Controls
o Commercial models – the creation of any new organisation, including a spin-off from
central government, (mutual) joint venture, GovCo, charity, social enterprise, or
other mutual organisation
Public Sector web site policy
Web site limitations on Executive Agencies operating within a Ministerial Department.
Even when all of the above possible reasons for the long timescales have been taken into account the
timescales involved are still long. If time is not of the essence then this raises the question as to
whether an exception should be granted at all. i.e. why bother with a low priority task of obtaining an
exception when the PSB has other far higher priority tasks related to their core public task.
The exception procedure adopts the position that the main reason for seeking an exception is to trade
PSI on the open market and as such the exception procedure feeds into the TNA administered IFTS.
Where the PSB has been slow to complete the post delegation actions TNA have adopted the policy of
leaving it to the IFTS process to resolve any outstanding issues. For example the transparency of the
PSB pricing policy, the terms and conditions, the complaints procedure, licences used, whether an
exclusive arrangement is being operated. The IFTS is in effect elongating the time to comply and an
astute PSB may take advantage of this by trading without completing the transparency and fair trading
actions.
The best example of commitment to the business objective for seeking an exception has been Public
Sector Body “G”. The PSB has demonstrated focus on their business objective and completed all the
actions required in stages 1 to 3 of the exception procedure.
70
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
6.11 Seamless procedural boundaries within TNA
The Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure is closely connected to both the IFTS procedure and
the management of Crown copyright delegation procedure.
Within TNA two sections are involved in these procedures namely Standards and Information Policy.
The Standards section handles the exception procedure and the IFTS procedure. The Information
Policy section handles the Crown copyright delegation procedure. Each procedure has responsibility
for maintaining pages on the TNA web site as shown in TABLE 6.1.
TABLE 6.1
Web Page
Section responsible
Delegations of Authority
Information Policy
UK Crown Bodies
Information Policy
IFTS-Full Accreditation
Standards
From the review undertaken of the exception procedure it is clear the two sections are liaising but it is
also very transparent that Information Policy are not maintaining the relevant web pages that support
the management of Crown copyright delegations. The reason that this is transparent to the online
community that may view the TNA web site is that IFTS announcements and reports refer (on the RSS
feed and also on the IFTS-Full Accreditation web page) to the delegations where they have been
granted under the exception procedure.
The PerSpectIves blog topic on Exceptions to marginal cost pricing posted on the 28th July 2009
(Detailed at Annex B of this report) under The process highlights what appears to be two delegation
processes. TNA have during the review confirmed that prior to January 2010 the Controller handled
the delegation process to authorise delegations to particular categories of bodies or information. Since
January 2010 all requests/applications for a delegation are handled by the Exception to marginal cost
pricing procedure.
The review has shown at TABLE 5.7 that the Public Sector Body “E” application was in process for a
year in Stages 1 and 2. In part the reasons for this was due to the fact that the PSB submitted a generic
application that covered a number of scenarios namely:
Scenario 1 was a straight Crown copyright delegation request. Delegation granted.
Scenario 4 was an exception to marginal cost application. Delegation refused.
The PSB E application highlights the procedural boundary issue discussed above. The review indicates
that this was handled seamlessly by TNA with the Standards section acting as the main point of contact
but it did mean that TNA contributed to the length of time the procedure was in process.
The PSB E application also highlights two other issues:
With reference to PSB E reports submitted to Parliament and the parent Department to name
but two, it is apparent that PSB E have for many years produced reports that are
commissioned by other organisations some of whom are PSBs that are not Crown Bodies. As
such PSB E should have applied for a delegation in the past. Although the PSB E situation has
now been normalised it does raise the issue as to whether other PSBs are operating without
applying for a delegation for the Crown copyright materials that they hold in implementing
their public tasks.
The PSB E application Scenario 4 was not granted a delegation. The reason was that the
application was not specific. PSB E in effect were seeking a blanket delegation as if they
were a major PSI trader. From the point of view of the exception procedure only Scenario 4
was relevant. TABLE 5.10 shows the outcome for the two scenarios.
6.12 Delegations granted – consistency between database and TNA Web site
During the review TNA provided the reviewer with a copy of the delegation database. This enabled a
correlation to be undertaken to check the consistency between the assumed Master Delegations
database and the TNA web pages where delegations are mentioned as shown in TABLE 6.2.
71
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
TABLE 6.2
Web Page
Section responsible
Delegations of Authority
Information Policy
IFTS-Full Accreditation
Standards
Annex D contains a sorted list of the delegation entries that appear in the delegation database and the
two web pages referred to in TABLE 6.2. The list contains the name of the organisation that has been
given a delegation and/or is accredited to the IFTS. The names have been edited in some cases so that
they appear in the correct place in the sorted list. Annex D indicates that there is an inconsistency
between the three sources. FIGURE 6.10 shows that the TNA Delegation of Authority web page was
updated until 2010. There have been no additions since.
FIGURE 6.10
Number of entries
TNA Delegation of Authority Web page
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Stage 4 of the Exception Procedure includes actions where TNA update the database and relevant web
pages once a Delegation of Authority Agreement has been signed. Annex D indicates that:
There is an inconsistency between the database and the two web pages that refer to a
delegation;
That the TNA web page Delegations of Authority is no longer updated and perhaps the list is
now redundant.
During the review TNA reported that they were aware of the inconsistency and were currently
considering what action to take.
6.13 Delivering Transparency
The exception to marginal cost pricing procedure assumes that:
The PSB submitting an application is already transparent with respect to how they comply
with the UK Freedom of Information Act and the PSI re-use Regulations at the time that they
apply for an exception to marginal cost pricing.
Transparency is delivered online via the organisations web site.
The review indicates that a number of the PSBs that have applied for an exception are not transparent
even at this base line level of transparency as at April 2013. As a consequence implementing the IFTS
transparency requirements when an exception is granted is proving to be difficult. The IFTS requires
the licence terms and conditions, charging information, the complaints process and the commitment
statement to be transparent as a minimum.
The reason for this is due in part to one or more of the following:
72
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
HM Treasury use of the term “point-of-sale” Annex 6.3.7 – which may be interpreted as when
the actual transaction takes place rather than the what is required under the PSI Regulations
and the IFTS to pre-establish charges and to publish in the public domain. A similar point
with respect to the Licence that will be used.
Central government bodies that have not been granted a delegation have if they exist very
simple statements regarding Crown copyright materials that they hold. The statements refer
the potential re-user to TNA about the re-use of the Crown copyright materials that the PSB
holds. The Crown copyright materials are in the majority of cases not listed as such the reuser is passed into an open ended slow process. When the PSB is granted an exception then it
becomes the responsibility of that PSB to implement the IFTS transparency requirements that
go with a particular delegation. The PSB is then confronted with two issues as to how they
deal with the Crown copyright materials they hold that is not covered by an exemption and the
materials that an exemption has been granted.
The introduction and wide spread adoption of the Open Government Licence which in effect
simplified the web pages that set out whether the PSB complies with the PSI Regulations and
if so how.
The UK Government policy on PSB web sites especially within central government.
Web site changes following machinery of government changes;
Limitations due to outsourced providers of PSB web sites – whether these limitations are
technical, financial or administrative.
The move to GOV.UK
The arrival of data.gov.uk and that this has been used as one of the main vehicles for
delivering data that falls under the Governments Transparency agenda.
Reviewing archived web sites indicates that in a number of cases there has been a regression as the
archived web sites show that some PSBs were transparent either in part or in whole in the past but are
now no longer transparent.
As PSBs are experiencing difficult with the transparency requirements of the exception procedure this
raises a fundamental question: How is transparency achieved in practice? The default position appears
to be that transparency is achieved online on the PSB web site. An alternative view is that transparency
is achieved via the data.gov.uk web site. The latter view ignores the fact that at this point in time the
majority of PSI is not accessible via data.gov.uk.
The EU Directive 2003/98/EC states at Recital 17 and Article 7 that transparency will be achieved
through electronic means where possible and appropriate. The proposal to amend the Directive
2003/98/EC maintains the requirement that transparency is achieved through electronic means where
possible and appropriate. That is no change.
The UK transposition of the EU Directive The Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005
does not use the word Transparency but at Regulation 16 Information to be published by a public
sector body at 16.2 and 16.3 the regulations state:
(2) A public sector body shall, where possible and appropriate, make the information specified in
paragraph (1) available to the public by electronic means.
(3) In relation to paragraph (1)I, so far as is reasonably practicable, a public sector body shall ensure
that potential applicants are able to search the list of documents by electronic means.
The regulations imply that the PSB web site is the preferred electronic medium.
During April 2012 the National Audit Office (NAO) published a publication titled: Cross-government
review. Implementing transparency16. The report states in the Summary on page 5:
The Government‘s objectives for transparency are to:
strengthen public accountability;
support public service improvement by generating more comparative data and increasing user
choice; and
16
Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, HC 1833 session 2010–2012, 18 April 2012
73
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
stimulate wider economic growth by helping third parties to develop products and services
based on public sector information.
In the context of the final bullet point above the NAO report tends to focus on data released via
data.gov.uk. The NAO report states that progress has been slow for data sets that are not listed within
data.gov.uk. For example in paragraph six under Key Findings page 6 the report states:
For example, the Cabinet Office has not yet defined how departments should prepare and disclose data
inventories to facilitate wider use.
The NAO Detailed Methodology report indicates that a questionnaire was used followed up by
interviews with 16 Ministerial departments and 4 local government authorities.
The NAO report implies that transparency is delivered via electronic means predominantly via web
sites albeit that the NAO report does not deal with the detail level of how transparency is delivered,
maintained and sustained in the context of the PSI Regulations 2005 and the EU PSI Directive.
6.14 Impact of Public Sector budget constraints (UK Government austerity measures)
Patricia Seex an economist at the World Bank and a Member of the Advisory Panel for Public Sector
Information in her feedback to the PerSpectIves blog topic on Exception to marginal cost pricing (refer
Annex B) made the observation that:
It will be important to guard against short term budget constraints becoming an acceptable
justification, which could ultimately undermine the principle of re-use at marginal cost.
It is clear from a number of the applications received for an exception that PSBs are being pushed into
raising income from commercial activity as a result of the UK Governments austerity measures. This
is particularly noticeable from Ministerial Departments that are trying to deliver the reductions in
expenditure expected of them as required by the current spending review. The applications specifically
refer to the Ministerial instruction and also refer in one case to the establishment of a Commercial
Activity Unit. These applications indicate that precedence is been given to the Departmental objective
rather than the higher level pan government policy objective of stimulating growth in the economy
from the re-use of PSI. In one case the Cabinet Office and HM Treasury have supported the
Ministerial Departments objective and this has been stated in the application. There is also evidence
that innovative methods of maximising income outside of the normal public sector financial controls
are being used and as such raise competition issues with respect to a level playing field as these
innovative methods may not be available to others outside of central government and in the private
sector. TNA have tried to maintain a professional approach and considered each application against
the criteria set for assessing an application for an exception and have tried to ignore the overt pressure
to grant an exception.
Without further research it has not been identified whether this support was obtained prior to the PSB
approaching TNA or whether it took place during Stage 1 of the exception procedure. This is of interest
as to where the Exception procedure is placed in the list of tasks that need to be completed in preparing
to undertake commercial activity. If TNA is approached first then during Stage 1 of the exception
procedure the issue such as competition, exclusive arrangements and terms and conditions could be
raised and dealt with either by TNA itself or in conjunction with other bodies for example the OFT.
The indications are that the exception procedure has been undermined and that the objective of Stage 1
has not been fully met. It is also evident that the issues when identified by TNA are passed over to the
IFTS process to retrospectively correct matters that could have been resolved in Stage 1 of the
procedure. Retrospective work to ensure Fair Trading also impacts the cost-benefit calculations and as
such the return on investment in establishing the commercial activity. Section 7 of the report considers
this issue further.
All the indications from the current review indicate that there is no evidence that a cost benefit analysis
has been undertaken for establishing the commercial activity and that this has not been included in the
over all cost benefit analysis and risk analysis within the business case put forward to TNA.
74
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
In summary guards that need to have been put in place are not present or if they are they are not
effective.
6.15 Value Added in the context of the exception procedure
Two of the applications related to a database that was considered to be adding value by improving the
integrity of the data by making it consistent across the jurisdiction. The objective of the process is to
provide a standardised data set and to phase out the old databases once the standardised data set has
settled. Applicants consider that value is being added during the construction and proving stages and
that this warrant’s an exception. One application was refused and a second was granted. The latter
application included database with a wider portfolio of value added services for which an exemption
was granted.
6.16 TNA Resources
TNA have estimated that the total time to process an application takes between 2.1 to 3.7 days
depending on the complexity of the application. A break down across the exception procedure stages is
as shown in TABLE 6.3.
TABLE 6.3
Time Spent Processing one Application
TNA Salary TNA Salary TNA Salary TNA Salary
Band F
Band F
Band G
Band G
Procedure Stage
Lower Days Upper Days Lower Days Upper Days
Stage 1
1
2
0.1
0.3
Stage 2 Draft
0.3
0.3
Stage 2 Final
0.5
1
0.1
0.1
Total
1.8
3.3
0.3
0.4
Grand Total (Band F&G)
2.1
3.7
Average
2.9
Over the three-year period 9 formal applications have been received giving a range of between 18.6 to
33.4 days spent on processing time in total.
TABLE 5.1 shows that over the three year period 4 informal explorations took place – Stage 1 only
giving a range 4 to 8 days in total.
The overall time spent on processing both the formal applications and informal exploratory discussions
with TNA over the three-year period to be between 22.6 to 41.4 days in total.
In addition time may also be expended should a PSB challenge a TNA decision. This has occurred
once as described in Section 6.7 of this report.
The estimate would indicate the resource consumed per year to be modest for the outcome achieved.
The estimate does not include the time to implement the procedure or the time spent on the IFTS
accreditation process.
During 2009 TNA formed a project team of 3 people that worked full time to establish and implement
the exception to marginal cost pricing procedure. It is believed that the project team was in existence
for 6 months.
6.17 Impact Assessment of the Exception to Marginal Cost Pricing Procedure
The measures of effectiveness for the exception to marginal cost pricing procedure can be considered
from two perspectives:
1.
2.
High level policy objective of the procedure – TABLE 6.4
Low level – implementation and administration of the procedure – TABLE 6.5
75
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
The base line for the measurements assumes that the PSBs are transparent with respect to how they
comply with the UK Freedom of Information Act and the PSI re-use Regulations at the time that they
apply for an exception to marginal cost pricing.
As the exception procedure is mandatory for PSBs that hold Crown copyright materials this may have
an additional bearing on the effectiveness of the procedure.
TABLE 6.4
Assessment
Numerical
measure
Number of PSBs applying for an exception
LOW
Number of PSBs granted an exception
LOW
Transparency
LOW
Increased access to PSI
LOW
Competitive neutrality
MEDIUM
Measurement Criteria
TABLE 6.5
Assessment
Numerical
Measure
Application processing time
LONG
Transparent objective assessment criteria
HIGH
Verification
HIGH
Applicant commitment
LOW
Measurement Criteria
Level of
Effectiveness
Section 6
reference
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
6.1
6.1, 6.4
6.5, 6.13
6.7, 6.9
6.8
Level of
Effectiveness
Section 6
reference
HIGH*
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH*
6.3
6.8
6.8
6.10
A long time spent in the procedure in effect is a delay in the PSB trading. Whilst a PSB (apart
from Trading Funds) is in this position the PSB in theory is limited to free of charge or
marginal cost pricing. As a consequence the number of PSBs permitted to set prices above
marginal cost remains low.
A Reality Assessment
An alternative perspective is to measure what has changed in the UK Public Sector irrespective of the
exception to marginal cost pricing procedure.
It is clear that a number of PSBs were already
operating to recover their costs prior to submitting an application for an exception these included:
Public Sector Body “C”
Public Sector Body “I”
These organisations were subject to the Machinery of Government changes.
It is also clear that a number of PSBs were also providing services to organisations outside the public
sector or to PSBs that were not Crown copyright bodies:
Public Sector Body “B”
Public Sector Body “E”
All four of the above PSBs were granted a delegation under the procedure albeit that they have not as
yet fully complied with the requirements of the procedure. In effect the delegations were normalising
an existing situation – as such there has been no change with respect to what was taking place in the
public sector. A further reality check as to what has changed is that one of the organisations has closed
down as such there has been a reduction in the number of PSBs.
The effectiveness measure of the procedure in these cases is the presence of the procedure that has
triggered normalisation. Without further research it is not clear whether there are other PSBs that need
to be normalised.
76
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Two other PSBs were granted a delegation that is Public Sector Bodies “G” and “L”. Six other PSBs
entered the exception process three of which withdrew, two were refused a delegation and one is still in
process. With respect to those that withdrew or were refused a delegation the PSI is still present and in
at least two cases is available under an Open Government Licence. One case is now available via
data.gov.uk.
In summary the reality check would indicate that the presence of the exception procedure has been
effective.
FIGURE 6.11
Effectiveness of the Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
2010-2012
1
4
3
Normalised
Granted
Refused
2
Withdrew
2
In process
TNA provided the reviewer with their summary of applications processed by the Exception to marginal
cost pricing procedure. This is shown in FIGURE 6.12
FIGURE 6.12
TNA Summary of business cases reviewed 2010-2012
Exception to marginal cost pricing process
2
2
2
6
Rejected or pending, likely to be rejected
Lapsed
Approved, IFTS
Pending, likely to be reviewed
77
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
The presence of the procedure and that it is mandatory for Crown copyright holders has encouraged
PSBs to come forward and make contact with TNA. After due consideration (Stage 1) PSBs have
proceeded to submit a formal application. Not all applications have been granted. A number of the
applications were normalising an existing position. Although the numbers are small there has been an
impact. The presence of the procedure has helped set a base line from which future measurements can
be made and highlighted a number of issues that need to be considered and addressed as such the
procedure has had an impact and shown to be beneficial. FIGURE 6.13 provides a diagrammatic view
of the effectiveness and impact. The scale used is: No impact = 0, High impact = 5.
FIGURE 6.13
Exception Procedure impact assessment
Procedure transparent
Normalised
Increased availability of
PSI
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Criteria transparent
PSBs applying
PSBs Fair Trading
PSBs granted exception
PSB Transparency
PSBs refused
78
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
This section contains a set of proposals for TNA’s consideration for improving the current exception
procedure and its administration and in the process to reduce the associated costs to the public sector.
It is recommended that if the proposals 1 to 10 are accepted that they should be implemented within 3
months and that proposals 11 to 14 should be completed within 6 months.
The expected benefits to be gained from implementing the proposals would be to:
Reduce the number of applications entering the system;
Improve the effectiveness of the procedure;
Improve the requirement for transparency;
Prepare for 2015 when the procedure becomes mandatory on most PSBs.
7.1 Summary of Proposals 1
Proposal
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Proposal
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
TABLE 7.1
Description
Introduce a questionnaire that applicants must complete prior to making a request for an
exception.
Update published documentation to make it explicit as to the responsibilities of the
applicant.
Generic applications should not be accepted.
Applications from applicants in the midst of Machinery of Government changes should
not be accepted.
Applications that involve exclusive arrangements should not be accepted unless justified.
Applications that involve copyright infringements should not be accepted.
Publish a small set of case studies to assist potential applicants.
TNA to improve the internal back end processes of the procedure.
Applications from a PSB that are not compliant with the basic transparency requirements
of the PSI Regulations 2005 should not be accepted.
Applications that involve the creation of core data sets from a set of disparate data sets
should not be accepted.
TNA to consider, consult and report as to how transparency is delivered in practice.
Following this consideration to adjust the exception procedure requirements where
necessary.
TNA to review the categories of Crown copyright delegation to ensure the delegation
process has not compromised the exception procedure.
TNA to consider the establishment of a base line to identify all PSBs that are currently
charging above marginal cost. In normalising the situation to ensure applications for an
exception come within the PSI Regulations.
TNA together with HM Treasury take action where necessary to ensure all the pertinent
documents are aligned and current with respect to PSI policy.
Cost to
Implement
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Related to
other
proposal
4&8
10
4
1&3
TABLE 7.2
Section 6
Impact if
Reference Implemented
6.3, 6.10
6.10, 6.13
6.5
6.6, 6.11
6.8
6.10
79
High
Medium
High
High
Low
Medium
Requires
published
documentation
to be updated
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Assists
Future
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Proposal
Number
Cost to
Implement
7
8
Low
Low
9
10
11
12
13
14
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Related to
other
proposal
1
1
2
1
1
2, 9, 11
Section 6
Reference
Impact if
Implemented
Medium
Low
Requires
published
documentation
to be updated
Yes
Yes
6.10
6.4, 6.10,
6.11, 6.12
6.13
6.15
6.13
6.17
6.17
6.13
Assists
Future
Yes
Yes
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
7.2 Summary of other issues that need to be addressed
The review of the exception procedure and the applications received indicates that there are issues that
are not related to the exception procedure but they do come within TNAs remit and as such TNA may
wish to review. These include:
It is apparent from the applications that have been affected by Machinery of Government
changes that the teams within TNA and the Cabinet Office to name but two that are involved
in such changes are not giving copyright the attention required apart from a well it will all be
transferred! Consideration needs to be given for the moving of copyright from the Crown to a
non-Crown PSB and vice-versa.
Constructs such as the partnership employed by Public Sector Body “M” need to be given
consideration as to the status of copyright. The PSB M example is far from clear. There are
indications that the same maybe happening within other PSBs.
Currently, details of PSBs that sign up the IFTS online are not published. In the interests of
transparency it is recommended that a list of these PSBs is produced and published.
The automatic transfer of a delegation from one PSB to another needs to be reviewed as the
examples described in Section 6.6 of this report indicates that an automatic transfer
undermines the principles and purpose of both the Exception to marginal cost pricing
procedure and the IFTS.
80
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Proposal 1
The review of the applications would indicate that there is a need to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Reduce the time spent in Stage 1 of the procedure. Although the time spent in stage 1 has
reduced with experience it maybe possible to reduce the time further.
Increase the level of understanding of the potential applicant regarding UK PSI policy.
Increase the level of understanding of the applicants own organisation from two perspectives:
a. The organisations current engagement with the PSI Policy framework;
b. The potential pages of the organisations web site that will need amending should an
exception be granted and whether the transparency requirements arising from a
successful application can be achieved.
Increase the level of commitment by the applicant once they decide to engage with TNA
regarding an exception and to help manage expectations.
In Section 4 Review of Applications within this report a framework has been used to assess each
application. It is worth considering the applicant completing a questionnaire (preferably online) as the
first part of Stage 1 of the process and that this is submitted to TNA when they first request a meeting
or an electronic dialogue. DIAGRAM 3.1 has been modified as DIAGRAM 7.1 to show the Stage 1 –
step 1 and Stage 1 step 2. The questionnaire can be developed from the framework in Section 4 of this
report. The proposed questionnaire is similar in concept to the IFTS Online questionnaire. Section 1.3
of the How to apply for exception to marginal cost pricing assessment would need to be amended
should TNA decide to introduce the questionnaire.
DIAGRAM 7.1
Stage 1
Preparation
Process
Step 1: Applicant Completes Questionnaire
Step 2: Applicant submits and enters a liaison with TNA
Stage 2
Formal
Application
Process
Stage 3
Applicant
Post Decision
Processes
Stage 4
TNA
Post Decision
Processes
The questionnaire could also be a stepping-stone towards the development of an online exception to
marginal cost pricing procedure that is partially self-documenting. This would prepare the way for
when the procedure becomes mandatory for most PSBs within the UK. The self-documentation may
also assist with the preparation of regular reports to the European Commission on the exemptions in
81
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
force in the UK from 2015 onwards when the revised EU Directive on the re-use of PSI comes into
force in all EU Member States.
Cost of implementing the proposal: Low
Relevance to other proposals: 4, 8
Section 6 references: 6.3, 6.10
Estimate effect if proposal implemented: High to Medium
Proposal 2
The review of the applications would indicate that there is a need to:
1.
2.
Reduce the elapsed time taken to complete Stage 3 of the procedure.
Increase the level of commitment by the applicant once the PSB decides to engage with TNA
regarding an exception and to help manage expectations.
In order to improve the potential applicants understanding of the process especially stage 3 of the
procedure and to raise the profile of the actions that they will have to take if an exception is granted the
Stage 3 actions need to be made more explicit in the TNA documentation. This could be achieved by
updating the TNA document How to apply for exception to marginal cost pricing assessment. Section
3.3 of this document could be considered for inclusion in the documentation.
Cost of implementing proposal: Low
Relevance to other proposals: 10
Section 6 references: 6.10, 6.13
Estimate effect if proposal implemented: Medium – Low
Proposal 3
The review of the procedure showed that one application was generic in nature and as such was in
process for a lengthy period of time.
TNA should consider making the process more rigorous in order to reduce the resources required to
handle such cases. TNA could assist this by:
1.
2.
Updating the published information on how to complete an application to make it more
explicit. By inserting an additional paragraph in section 1 of the document titled: How to
apply for exception to marginal cost pricing assessment.
That if an application is received that is generic in nature then it is not accepted and the
applicants attention is drawn to the published information as to how to complete an
application. The application is then closed and recorded as not entering Stage 1 of the
procedure.
Cost of implementing proposal: Low
Relevance to other proposals: 4
Section 6 references: 6.5
Estimate effect if proposal implemented: High
Proposal 4
The review of the procedure showed that two applications were subject to machinery of government
changes and that both were granted delegations. Although these applications completed Stages 1 and 2
of the procedure this was to no avail as Stages 3 and 4 were partly completed then placed on hold or
were not completed at all as the PSB was closed down and the functions transferred elsewhere. One of
the applications received was from a PSB that was in the process of passing through several
transformations that are still in process after an elapsed period of over 2 years. Where a PSB has
closed down the services maybe taken up by one or more PSBs or not at all. One consequence arising
82
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
from a close down is that new entrants appear in the market place as a result of personnel that have
been displaced creating a new private sector business that offers services similar to that of the PSB that
closed down.
In order to ensure the exception process criteria are not compromised and are effective TNA should
give consideration to recommending to the submitting PSB that is affected by machinery of
government changes that they should not submit a formal application. If the PSB wishes to explore the
possibility of whether the business case could be considered for an exception in the future then this
could be done in Stage 1 and then the application process be closed down. In considering this proposal
TNA should be mindful that:
The copyright status of certain materials may have changed. In some cases copyright has
been assigned to the Crown, whereas in other cases Crown owned copyrights are assigned to a
non Crown body, for example in the case of a privatisation. All assignment of Crown owned
copyrights and databases must be personally authorised by the Controller of HMSO.
The public task may have changed;
The personnel at all levels may have changed with the possibility that there may be a change
in commitment and there may also be a temporary knowledge gap as a result of personnel
changes;
The PSBs overall priorities may have changed;
The market conditions may have changed.
In essence there is little point in assuming that a delegation can be automatically transferred.
If the above proposal was implemented then the published guidance documentation needs to be
updated.
The overall objective of this proposal is to:
Make the procedure more rigorous;
To reduce the resources involved in administering the exception procedure.
Cost of implementing proposal: Low
Relevance to other proposals: Enables proposal 1 to be more effective. Reduces the resources
involved with proposal 3.
Section 6 references: 6.6, 6.11
Estimate effect if proposal implemented: High
Proposal 5
One of the applications processed established an open ended exclusive arrangement and this
highlighted that there was no specific test within the Application Assessment Framework that tested for
the presence of an exclusive arrangement. The published guidance does not make it explicit that the
establishment of exclusive arrangement has to be justified under the EU Directive and the UK PSI
Regulations 2005. (Reference Section 2.2 in this document) That is under a separate justification
procedure.
In order to make this explicit TNA should consider:
Adding an extra test into the Application Assessment Framework possibly Section 4.
Making it explicit in the document titled Criteria for Exceptions to Marginal Cost Pricing that
exclusive arrangement must be justified, not be open ended and transparent.
In addition to the above TNA needs to consider the TNA Web site Exclusive Arrangement page as to
whether this page is going to be maintained. If the outcome of the consideration is YES then if an
application to the exception procedure identifies an exclusive arrangement that this triggers an update
of the exclusive arrangement page.
83
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
The objective of this proposal is to:
Align the exception to marginal cost pricing procedure with other procedures.
Making the existence of an exclusive arrangement transparent.
Improving the rigour of the exception procedure.
Demonstrates that TNA is acting as a controller and regulator.
Cost of implementing proposal: Low
Relevance to other proposals: None
Section 6 references: 6.8
Estimate effect if proposal implemented: Low
Proposal 6
One of the applications received and processed described a potential infringement of Crown copyright
– PSB B is also aware that certain organisation have (without appropriate authority) used and
plagiarised existing PSB B products for commercial gain. In part the application for an exception
included an organisational construct being formed the objective of which was to try and prevent the
potential infringement. The application is not explicit as to whether the potential infringement is as a
result of re-use of PSB B’s Crown copyright materials.
Within the Application Assessment Framework a specific action needs to be included to address any
potential infringement identified by referring the potential infringement to the Controller of HMSO and
that whilst this is in process the application is placed on hold until the situation is clarified. To make
this transparent the published exception guidance documentation needs to be updated.
The objective of the proposal is to:
Ensure that the application is justifying the correct reasons for seeking an exception to
marginal cost pricing.
Make the exception procedure criteria tests more rigorous.
Prepare the way forward for when the procedure becomes mandatory on most PSBs not just
PSBs that hold Crown copyright materials.
Cost of implementing proposal: Low
Relevance to other proposals: None
Section 6 references: 6.10
Estimate effect if proposal implemented: Medium to High
Proposal 7
The published TNA advice and information be extended to include case studies that would:
Provide additional guidance to a PSB considering submitting an application to TNA for an
exception to marginal cost pricing.
Provide information that shows the effectiveness of the exception procedure.
Give recognition to a PSB that has set a good example.
Demonstrate to others operating in the same market sector how the exception to marginal cost
pricing is regulated and monitored.
Cost of implementing proposal: Low
Relevance to other proposals: None
Section 6 references: 6.10
Estimate effect if proposal implemented: Medium to Low
84
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Proposal 8
The review of the procedure would indicate that there is a need to:
1.
2.
3.
Ensure that the TNA actions in Stage 4 of the procedure are completed. I.e. updating relevant
web pages.
Improve the transparency of the outcomes where a delegation has been granted.
Improve the consistency between the delegation agreement database and the TNA web pages
that refer to Delegations.
TNA considers the purpose and content of the following web pages and reviews the procedures related
to delegations and how these are made transparent and that the relevant web pages are maintained
regularly and in a timely manner.
Web Page
Delegations of Authority
UK Crown Bodies
IFTS-Full Accreditation
Section responsible
Information policy
Information policy
Standards
Cost of implementing proposal: Low
Relevance to other proposals: This proposal underpins Proposal 1.
Section 6 references: 6.4, 6.10, 6.11, 6.12
Estimate effect if proposal implemented: Low
Proposal 9
The review of the procedure shows that PSBs are not transparent with respect to how the body
complies with the FOI Act 2000 and the PSI Regulations 2005. As a result if the PSB is granted an
exception there is a long delay before the transparency requirements required of the IFTS are met if at
all. The applications reviewed that have not yet become transparent happen to also be PSBs that are not
transparent with respect to either the FOI Act and or the PSI Regulations.
Proposal 1 proposes that a PSB completes a questionnaire prior to approaching TNA and entering into
the exception procedure Stage 1. The questionnaire requires checking and documenting compliance
with the FOI Act and the PSI Regulations. If the applicant in completing the questionnaire establishes
that the organisation is not open and transparent with respect to how they comply with the FOI Act and
/or the PSI Regulations then they should not submit an application for an exception until such time that
the PSB does comply.
TNA to consider refusing an application for an exception to marginal cost pricing if the applicant PSB
has not complied with the basic transparency requirements of the PSI Regulations 2005.
TNA under the MoU with the Information Commissioners raise the issue of basic transparency with
respect to the FOI Act 2000.
The objective of the proposal is to:
Encourage the PSB to comply with the basic transparency requirements related to the FOI Act
and the PSI Regulations.
Reduce the resources and delays down stream when an exception is granted.
Make the exception procedure criteria tests more rigorous.
Prepare the way forward for when the procedure becomes mandatory on all PSBs not just
PSBs that hold Crown copyright materials.
Cost of implementing proposal: Low
Relevance to other proposals: This proposal enhances Proposal 1.
Section 6 references: 6.13
Estimate effect if proposal implemented: Medium to High
85
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Proposal 10
Two applications involved a database that was becoming a standard database within the PSB or for the
thematic sector the PSB supports or operates within. The applicants consider the process of creating
the database as adding value and as such have submitted an application for an exception. In a literal
sense this may be correct but in the context of the public task and data infrastructures such as INSPIRE
data reduction and improvements of this nature do not fit the classification of value-added. Indeed a
number of the data sets available via data.gov.uk are updated with time as part of improving the
usability and quality of the data sets but still remain under the Open Government Licence.
It is proposed that TNA should not accept proposals that request an exception for such data
rationalisation. If accepted then the published documentation needs to make this explicit.
The objective of the proposal is to:
Remove unnecessary applications;
Clarify what is meant by value-added in the context of the exception procedure;
Prepare the way forward for when the exception procedure becomes mandatory on all PSBs
not just PSBs that hold Crown copyright materials.
Cost of implementing proposal: Low
Relevance to other proposals:
Section 6 references: 6.15
Estimate effect if proposal implemented: Low to Medium
Proposal 11
The review indicates that there is a growing issue of delivering online transparency. As a result how
transparency is achieved in practice is not clear and this has an impact on the way the PSI Regulations
and the IFTS are implemented. In the context of the review of the exception procedure it means that
meeting the transparency requirements has not been achieved as yet even though a considerable
elapsed time has occurred. Only one applicant that was granted an exception has achieved the
transparency required.
It is proposed that TNA should consider and consult with its Advisory Panels, the Information
Commissioners and others (including the European Commission) where TNA feels necessary on:
What is meant by transparency in the context of the PSI Regulations and how should it be
implemented, maintained and sustained;
Whether TNA has a role with respect to PSBs complying with the requirement to be
transparent in the context of PSI policy and the PSI Regulations.
Whether there is a need for consistency between the FOI Act transparency and PSI
Regulations transparency. Other data access frameworks such as INSPIRE, Data Protection
Act, Access to Environmental Information that are referenced in the EU PSI Directive may
also need to be considered;
The need to document the minimum standards for achieving and sustaining transparency;
Understanding the differences and the relationship between a PSB web site transparency,
GOV.UK transparency and data.gov.uk transparency. Are they the same? Are they
consistent?
Whether the Cabinet Office Public Sector Transparency Board has considered how
transparency should be achieved and sustained in the context of PSI re-users. Note: The TNA
Document How to apply for exception to marginal cost pricing assessment mentions the
Transparency Board in paragraph 1.2.
The objective of the proposal is to:
86
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Clarify what is meant by transparency and how it is implemented, maintained and sustained.
Assist the exception procedure.
Assist the complaints procedure and the right of challenge once an exception has been
granted.
Prepare the way forward for when the exception procedure becomes mandatory for most
PSBs and not just PSBs that hold Crown copyright materials.
Cost of implementing proposal: Medium
Relevance to other proposals: 2
Section 6 references: 6.13
Estimate effect if proposal implemented: Medium to High
Proposal 12
The current exception procedure applies to PSBs that hold Crown copyright materials. The review
indicates that the procedure may have been compromised with respect to how TNA grants delegations
to PSBs in respect of Crown owned copyrights. At least one application was classified as not
information trading but was granted a delegation. That is PSB “E” Scenario 1. Other examples
included training courses run by a PSB for other parts of the public sector. That is they may be
categorised as internal processes of government. The Machinery of Government changes that result in
copyright status changes are apparent in the review.
It is proposed that TNA should review the Crown copyright delegation process and to classify different
categories of delegation where they exist. In most cases the PSBs are simply requiring a delegation of
authority to be able to license the re-use of information that it produces. There, are however, other
cases where a PSB operates as a contractor to produce a report or a study. In such cases, the PSB needs
to be able to agree, in the context of a commissioning agreement, that the copyright in the results of the
commission should rest with the person or organisations that commissioned the work.
In undertaking the review TNA should be mindful that the PSI Regulations specifically exclude re-use
of PSI within the public sector for the purposes of government.
The objective of the proposal is to:
Clarify what is meant by a Crown copyright delegation.
Ensure the exception procedure is not compromised and deals specifically with the re-use of
PSI.
Assist the reporting and audit of the impact of the exception procedure.
Prepare the way forward for when the exception procedure becomes mandatory on most PSBs
not just PSBs that hold Crown copyright materials.
Cost of implementing proposal: Medium
Relevance to other proposals: 1
Section 6 references: 6.17
Estimate effect if proposal implemented: Medium to High
Proposal 13
The review of the applications highlights the fact that applications have been received from PSBs that
were charging above marginal cost pricing prior to submitting the application. The reason for this
situation is that the PSBs concerned have to operate at 100% cost-recovery, as they receive no
parliamentary vote financial support. This is in accordance with HM Treasury guidelines. The reason
the applications have been submitted is as a result of moving arms length PSBs to come within a
Ministerial Department and or transfer of copyright to come under Crown copyright. There may also
be a desire by the PSB to normalise the position. The two training PSBs are examples of this. PSB
“E” is an example of an arm’s length body that has to operate 100% cost-recovery. In this review such
examples have been classified as normalised reference FIGURE 6.11. It is clear that there may be
87
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
other PSBs that hold Crown owned materials that are providing PSI for re-use above marginal cost
pricing.
It is proposed that TNA should consider in the context of Crown copyright how these categories of
applications are classified and detected if they have not submitted an application how to normalise the
situation so that there is a clear base line from which an impact assessment can be made.
The objective of the proposal is to:
Ensure the exception procedure is not compromised by applications that do not come within
the remit of the PSI Regulations.
Assist the reporting and audit of the impact of the exception procedure.
Prepare the way forward for when the exception procedure becomes mandatory on most PSBs
not just PSBs that hold Crown copyright materials.
Cost of implementing proposal: Medium
Relevance to other proposals: 1
Section 6 references: 6.17
Estimate effect if proposal implemented: Medium to High
Proposal 14
The applications assessment framework tests for compliance with the HM Treasury Guidance and
Standards and in particular Managing Public Sector Money – October 2007 Chapter 6 and Annex 6.3.
Section 2.5 of this report contains an extract from these documents.
Consideration should be given to reviewing and updating the HM Treasury documents to:
Align them with the developments that have taken place in the UK with respect to PSI – for
example the use of licences;
Align them with the PSI Regulations and the need to pre-establish and justify charges and that
these are published in the public domain – for example “point-of-sale” may be interpreted by
PSBs as the point of actual transaction which may not comply with pre-establish and publish;
Provide advice on what takes precedence with respect to the PSI Regulations, Statutory
powers to charge.
The objective of the proposal is to:
Provide greater clarity with respect to setting charges.
Assist the Assessment framework tests.
Provide explicit advice on what is required by transparency.
Improve the cost-effectiveness of the exception procedure.
Cost of implementing proposal: Medium
Relevance to other proposals: 2, 9, 11
Section 6 references: 6.13
Estimate effect if proposal implemented: Medium
88
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
8. Changes in the Environment
This section of the report considers the changes that have occurred since the Exception to marginal cost
pricing procedure was launched in January 2010 that may require changes to the 2010 procedure.
Proposed changes for the future are considered in Section 9 of this report.
The changes also demonstrate the continued commitment and development of the PSI policy
framework not just in the UK, the European Union and EFTA Member States but also globally. At the
end of this section a timeline has been included and this includes the Applications received for
consideration for an exception to marginal cost pricing. The correlation of the environmental changes
and the applications has been included to check whether the PSBs that have submitted applications
have detected these changes.
The changes are presented in chronological order.
8.1 INSPIRE
The INSPIRE Directive came into force within the EU on the 15 th May 2007 and Member States had to
complete transposition by 15th May 2009.
Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 17
The INSPIRE Directive has been transposed into the UK as follows:
2009 No. 3157 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION – PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION –
The INSPIRE Regulations 2009 that came into force 31 st December 200918
2009 No. 440 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION – PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION – The
INSPIRE (Scotland) Regulations 2009 that came into force 31st December 2009
The explanatory memorandum to the INSPIRE regulations 2009 No. 3157 states that the purpose of the
instrument as:
2.1 This Instrument will improve the joining up of, and access to, existing location based information
across the European Union at a local, regional, national and international level; facilitate
improvements in the sharing of such information between public authorities in the UK; and provide
improved public access to such data.
Paragraph 12(3) of the INSPIRE Regulations 2009 refers to PSI charges that are permitted between
PSBs and states:
Data-sharing between public authorities etc.
12.—(1) A public authority (―P‖) must, in relation to a spatial data set or spatial data service for
which P is responsible—
(a) enable another public authority or a relevant body to gain access to that data set or data service;
and
(b) enable another public authority or a relevant body to exchange and use that data set or data
service,
where that authority or body requires that data set or data service for the purpose of its public tasks
that may have an impact on the environment.
17
18
http://inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.cfm
http://data.gov.uk/location/inspire
89
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
(2) But a public authority may limit sharing of the kind described in paragraph (1) when this would
compromise the course of justice, public security, national defence or international relations.
(3) Subject to paragraphs (4), (5) and (6), a public authority which supplies a spatial data set or
spatial data service to another public authority or a relevant body may impose conditions on the access
to or exchange or use of that data set or data service, for example by doing either or both of the
following—
(a) providing that access to that data set or data service, or exchange or use of that data set or data
service, is subject to terms and conditions imposed by a licence;
(b) making a charge for the access to, or exchange or use of, that data set or data service.
(4) But any such conditions must be compatible with the aim of facilitating the sharing of spatial data
sets and spatial data services among public authorities and between public authorities and relevant
bodies, and must avoid creating practical obstacles, occurring at the point of use, to such sharing.
(5) Where a public authority makes a charge as described in paragraph (3)(b), the charge must be kept
to the minimum required to ensure the necessary quality and supply of spatial data sets and spatial
data services together with a reasonable return on investment, and any requirement on an authority to
be self-financing is to be respected.
In the context of the review of the Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure the PSBs holding
Crown copyright information will require a delegation (apart from the PSB Trading Funds). Sharing of
PSI between PSBs is not covered by the PSI Regulations 2005.
2012 No. 1672 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION – PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION –
The INSPIRE (Amendment) Regulations 2012 that came into force 1 st August 2012
The INSPIRE (Amendment) Regulations 2012 make no reference to PSI charges or pricing.
8.2 Data.gov.uk
Data.gov.uk19 was launched on the 21st January 2010. At the time of the public launch 2,500 data sets
were listed. Since the public launch the number of datasets that are accessible via data.gov.uk has
grown to over 9,400.
Data Strategy Board (DSB)20
The Department for Business Innovation & Skills (BIS) press release 21 dated 19th March 2012
announced:
A new independently chaired Data Strategy Board (DSB) will advise Ministers on what data should be
released and has the potential to unlock growth opportunities for businesses across the UK. At least
one in three members of the DSB will be from outside government, including representatives of data reusers.
8.3 Administration Change
Following the UK General Election held on the 6th May 2010 a new coalition Administration came into
power in the UK. The new Administration continued and strengthened the PSI policy put in place by
the previous Administration. The previous Administration had been in power since the 1 st May 1997
General Election. The change of administration has demonstrated the sustainability of the UK PSI
policy and the commitment to the PSI policy framework. On the 31st May 2010 the UK Prime Minister
19
http://www.data.gov.uk/
https://www.gov.uk/data-strategy-board
21
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/better-access-to-public-sector-information-moves-a-stepcloser
20
90
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
published an open letter to government departments on opening up data22. On the 7th July 2011 the UK
Prime Minister published a second open letter on transparency and opening up data.23
8.4 UK Government Licensing Framework
The UK Government Licensing Framework and the Open Government Licence were launched on 30 th
September 2010.
8.5 Public Bodies Reform Programme
On the 10th October 2010 The Government (Cabinet Office Minister) announced plans to:
Reform a large number of Public Bodies, or quangos, across government.
Introduce an enabling Public Bodies Bill
The Government proposes reforming 481 bodies. Of these, 192 will cease to be public bodies and their
functions will either be brought back into Government, devolved to local government, moved out of
Government or abolished altogether.
Public Bodies Act 2011 came into force on the 14 December 2011.
Relevant Publications
Cabinet Office Publication: Public Bodies Reforms: Checklist for departments, March 2012, Version 2.
Section 1.9 Knowledge transfer and information management – pages 32 to 34. Included in section 1.9
is reference to the TNA document titled: Machinery of Government Changes: Guidance on Transfer of
Records, Information and Knowledge24. The TNA document states on page 33:
RE-USE OF PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION REGULATIONS
Licensing re-use
The Controller of Her Majesty‘s Stationery Office (HMSO) at The National Archives manages Crown
copyright and Crown database rights. The Controller has authorised some departments to manage the
licensing and re-use of Crown copyright and database right material they produce (under an official
‗delegation of authority‘ agreement). Departments with a delegation of authority are regulated by The
National Archives under the Information Fair Trader Scheme (IFTS).
A transferring department that has previously exercised a delegation of authority should review past
licensing and notify The National Archives and the receiving department of any key licenses relating to
material being transferred. The receiving department may require its own delegation of authority from
the Controller and details of any copyright licences that have been issued in respect of material for
which it has policy responsibility.
Support provided by TNA
The National Archives web site under Information Management has a section titled Reform of Public
Bodies25 that provides support and advice to PSBs impacted by the Governments Public Body Reform
Programme. In the section titled: Where to look (Home > Information management > Our projects and
work > Reform of public bodies > Where to look) a list of documents maybe downloaded.
22
http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/letter-to-government-departments-on-opening-up-data/
http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/letter-to-cabinet-ministers-on-transparency-and-open-data/
24
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/machinery_of_government.pdf
25
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/projects-and-work/reform-publicbodies.htm
23
91
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
8.6 Public Task
During August 2011 the TNA after a period of consultation published two documents related to a PSBs
public task.
Title: Public Task Principles: Principles defining public task for public sector information under the
PSI Regulations
Dated: August 2011
Version: 1
Pages: 3
Published in Public Domain? Yes
Title: Guide to drawing up a statement of public task: Information for public sector bodies on
producing a statement of public task under the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005
Dated: August 2011
Version: 1.0
Pages: 18 (not including front cover)
Published in Public Domain? Yes
The Guide refers to the exceptions to marginal cost pricing procedure on pages 6 and 15.
Page 6
1.1.2
Deciding to charge for re-use of information
The provisions on charging for allowing re-use of public sector information are set out in Regulation
15 of the Re-use Regulations. Where a public sector body decides that it would wish to charge for
licensed re-use of information, reference should be made to the exceptions to marginal cost pricing
pages on The National Archives‘ website (if the information is Crown copyright) and HM Treasury‘s
Managing Public Money, Annex 6.3 on Charging for Information.
The default position is for raw data to be made available for re-use at marginal cost under the Open
Government Licence. In most cases this means at nil charge. For value added data and for information
supplied by Trading Funds, the norm is to charge full cost plus an appropriate rate of return. Public
sector bodies should ensure that any decision to apply a charge for information, including a charge for
re-use, complies with Managing Public Money.
If the information is protected by Crown copyright, then before a charge for re-use in excess of
marginal cost can be made, a public sector body is required to submit a business case to charge at
exception to marginal cost pricing to The National Archives. If this is successful, the public sector body
will be given a delegation of authority to license the re-use of the Crown copyright material. A policy
condition of the delegation is that the public sector body joins the IFTS, and a policy condition of IFTS
membership will be the production of a statement of public task.
Even if the information is not Crown copyright, before taking any decision to charge for re-use of the
information, the public sector body has to know whether the information is covered by the Re-use
Regulations, and to do this it must understand the extent of its public task and whether the requested
information is covered by it.
Page 15:
guidelines on applying for exception to marginal cost pricing as being:
‗A public sector body‘s information product developed for the purpose of making profit. An example
might be an information product originally produced to be used as a tool by various public sector
bodies, which with further work can be turned into a product that could be sold commercially to nonpublic sector users.‘
A practical example of this might be work done as part of the public task of a public sector body which,
with further development, can be sold to the private sector. An outside body might have re-used the
92
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
original public task information to produce an equivalent product, but as it is the public sector body
that has done this additional work then, as explained in Managing Public Money, the norm is to charge
for this value-added information at full cost plus an appropriate rate of return. This additional work
falls outside of the public task of the public sector body. The public sector body will have considered
carefully the pros and cons of undertaking this development work itself before embarking on it. An
example of such a product might be the Safety Climate Tool developed by the Health and Safety
Laboratory building on its existing public task activities. Those activities remain in the public task, but
providing and selling the Safety Climate Tool are outside that task. Such a public sector body with a
mixed commercial and non-commercial range of activities might have a public task statement along the
following lines.
8.7 Government Consultation: Making Open Data Real
During August 2011 the Government initiated a consultation on Making Open Data Real. The
consultation was opened on the 4th August 2011 and closed on the 27th October 2011. The consultation
was supported by a 57-page consultation paper with the title Making Open Data Real: A Public
Consultation. The consultation document refers to the exceptions to marginal cost pricing procedure
on pages 16 and 17.
Page 16
Cost
6.6 Simply stated, the proposals outline how we might move to a position where most data held by
public service providers about the provision of public services would be available for re-use under the
Open Government Licence, except in very specific circumstances. There are a number of factors that
may preclude releasing data for free re-use and these would create some exceptions to this rule.
6.7 It is our intention that data already provided for free re-use should not be charged for, and there is
no question of charging for data required for holding public bodies accountable or for ―key data about
public services, user satisfaction and the performance of all providers from all sectors. This will
include data on user satisfaction, spending, performance and equality.‖12
12 Para 3.4 of the Open Public Services White Paper:
http://files.openpublicservices.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/OpenPublicServices-WhitePaper.pdf
Page 17
6.8 When considering whether or not to charge for data, a transparent business case setting out why
will be made, including any cost or value for money implications. Under existing rules, where Crown
bodies wish to charge for the re-use of data, they are required to justify this against the criteria for
exceptions for marginal cost pricing to The National Archives, which manages Crown copyright and
database right. This justification ensures that government does not limit or restrict re-use.13
6.9 Any charging should follow existing rules in Managing Public Money (MPM) guidance14. MPM
guidance states that much information about public services should be available free, or at low cost, in
the public interest. The guidance explains that where re-use of data is charged for the norm is to
charge at marginal cost and for value-added data and information currently sold by trading funds the
norm is to charge at full cost plus an appropriate rate of return. Other value-added data services may
also be charged for, for example: services commissioned in response to particular requests; services
where there are statutory powers to charge; and publications processing publicly gathered data for the
convenience of the public, through editing, reclassification or other analysis.
13 See http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/ifts/cost-pricing.htm
14 http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/psr_mpm_index.htm
93
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
8.8 Open Government Partnership
In September of 2011 the Open Government Partnership declaration was published. The UK was one
of the eight founding members of the Open Government Partnership (OGP). In September 2012, the
UK took over from Brazil as the lead co-chair of the OGP.
On the 2nd April 2013 the UK Government published a number of documents and opened a
consultation26 that closes on the 15th April 2013. The documents published included:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Open Government Partnership UK 2011 national action plan: self assessment report: An
honest account of the UK’s performance to date and how much our agenda has evolved.
Annex A: Enhancing public service delivery through open government
Annex B: Co-chair vision – UK priorities for the Open Government Partnership
Annex C: Open Government Partnership UK country action plan 2011-2013 – self-assessment
progress report
Annex D: Open Government Partnership UK country action plan 2011-2013 – datasets
On the 24th April 2013 the UK Government published the final version of the documents following the
consultation.
The above documents describe the UK PSI policy framework and the various components and actions
that have been taken and are still underway that enhances the policy framework.
Annex C on page 4 states:
making clear that, with very narrow restrictions, licences must cover free, commercial re-use
with public service providers not normally selling data. We will build on the successful Open
Government Licence (OGL), which makes re-use of Crown copyright and Crown Database
material free for commercial and non-commercial purposes, to create one or more licences
which will be prescribed for public bodies where they are making datasets available for reuse. In most cases, the expectation will be that this licence will be the OGL;
Fulfilled
The Open Government Licence is now widely used by local authorities in England and Wales and has
been adapted by some overseas governments including Canada, South Korea and Spain. Further
licence models covering non-commercial use and charged licences have been developed under the UK
Government Licensing Framework.
8.9 Amending Directive 2003/98/EC
In December 201127, the European Commission presented a proposal to revise the PSI Directive.
The proposal for a revision of the Directive proposes to further open up the market for services based
on public-sector information, by:
including new bodies in the scope of application of the Directive such as libraries (including
university libraries), museums and archives;
limiting the fees that can be charged by the public authorities at the marginal costs as a rule;
introducing independent oversight over re-use rules in the Member States;
making machine-readable formats for information held by public authorities the norm.
The Commission proposal is a Co-decision procedure involving the European Parliament, the European
Council and the European Commission. The co-decision process is currently scheduled for completion
during the summer of 2013 under the Irish Presidency.
26
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/open-government-partnership-uk-2011-nationalaction-plan-self-assessment-report
27
http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/revision-psi-directive
94
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
On the 10th April 2013 the Irish Presidency announced that a tentative agreement had been reached on
amending the PSI Re-use Directive at the third co-decision meeting between the Council, Parliament,
and the Commission that took place on the 25th March 2013.
On the 15th April 2013 the Secretariat of the Council of the EU published an Item Note 28 and separately
the consolidated version of the agreed text29.
On the 25th April 2013 the European Parliament Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE)
voted on the agreed text. The vote was carried by 37 to 3 in favour of the agreed text and a European
Parliament press release was published30.
On the 10th to 13th June 2013 the European Parliament plenary session is scheduled to consider the
agreed text. The draft agenda for the plenary session states that the European Parliament will consider
the: Report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending
Directive 2003/98/EC on re-use of public sector information on the morning of Thursday 13th June
2013 with a vote scheduled for mid-day.
The co-decision agreed text contains within Article 6 of the proposed amended Directive a sub article
that permits exception to marginal cost pricing.
Recital 12 pages 9 and 10 of the agreed text states:
(12) Where charges are made by public sector bodies for the re-use of documents, those charges
should in principle be limited to the marginal costs. However the necessity of not hindering the normal
running of public sector bodies that are required to generate revenue to cover a substantial part of
their costs relating to the performance of their public task or of the costs relating to the collection,
production, reproduction and dissemination of certain documents made available for re-use should be
taken into consideration. In such cases, public sector bodies should be able to charge above marginal
costs. The requirement to generate revenue to cover a substantial part of their costs relating to the
performance of their public tasks or of the costs relating to the collection, production, reproduction
and dissemination of certain documents, does not have to be a requirement in legislation and may
result, for example, from administrative practices in Member States. Such requirement should be
regularly reviewed by the Member States.
In such cases charges should be set according to objective, transparent and verifiable criteria and the
total income from supplying and allowing re-use of documents should not exceed the cost of collection,
production, reproduction and dissemination, together with a reasonable return on investment.
Libraries, museums and archives should also be able to charge above marginal costs also for reasons
of not hindering the normal running of these public sector bodies. In the case of those public sector
bodies the total income from supplying and allowing re-use of documents over the appropriate
accounting period shall not exceed the cost of collection, production, reproduction, dissemination,
preservation and rights clearance, together with a reasonable return on investment. For the purpose of
libraries, museums and archives and bearing in mind their particularities, the prices charged by the
private sector for the re-use of identical or similar documents could be considered when calculating
the reasonable return on investment. The upper limits for charges set in this Directive are without
prejudice to the right of Member States or public sector bodies to apply lower charges or no charges at
all.
(12a) Member States should lay down the criteria for charging above marginal costs. In this respect,
Member States, for example, may lay down such criteria directly in national rules or may designate the
appropriate body or appropriate bodies, other than the public sector body itself, competent to lay down
such criteria. That body should be organised in accordance with the constitutional and legal systems of
Member States. It could be an existing body with budgetary executive powers and under political
responsibility.
28
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/13/st08/st08469.en13.pdf
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/13/st08/st08469-ad01.en13.pdf
30
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20130422IPR07539/html/Recyclingmaps-statistics-and-other-public-data-could-save-EU-firms-billions
29
95
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Recital 14(a) on pages 10 of the agreed text states:
(14a) The means of redress should include the possibility of review by an impartial review body. That
body could be an already existing national authority, such as the national competition authority, the
national access to documents authority or the national judicial authority. That body should be
organised in accordance with the constitutional and legal systems of Member States and should not
prejudge any means of redress otherwise available to applicants for re-use. It should however be
distinct from the Member State mechanism laying down the criteria for charging above marginal costs.
The means of redress should include the possibility of review of negative decisions but also of decisions
which, although permitting re-use, could still affect applicants on other grounds, notably by the
charging rules applied. The review process should be swift, in line with the needs of a rapidly changing
market.
Article 6 on pages 17 and 18 of the agreed text states:
Article 6
Principles governing charging
1. Where charges are made for the re-use of documents, those charges shall be limited to the marginal
costs incurred for their reproduction, provision and dissemination.
2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to the following:
(a) public sector bodies that are required to generate revenue to cover a substantial part of their costs
relating to the performance of their public task;
(b) by way of exception, documents for which the public sector body is required to generate sufficient
revenue to cover a substantial part of the costs relating to their collection, production, reproduction
and dissemination. Those requirements shall be defined by law or by other binding rules in the Member
State. In the absence of such rules, requirements shall be defined in line with common administrative
practice in the Member State;
I libraries (including university libraries), museums and archives.
3. Public sector bodies referred to in paragraph 2(a) and (b), shall calculate the total charges
according to objective, transparent and verifiable criteria to be laid down by the Member States. The
total income of those bodies from supplying and allowing re-use of documents over the appropriate
accounting period shall not exceed the cost of collection, production, reproduction and dissemination,
together with a reasonable return on investment. Charges shall be calculated in line with the
accounting principles applicable to the public sector bodies involved.
4. Where charges are made by public sector bodies referred to in paragraph 2I, the total income from
supplying and allowing re-use of documents over the appropriate accounting period shall not exceed
the cost of collection, production, reproduction, dissemination, preservation and rights clearance,
together with a reasonable return on investment. Charges shall be calculated in line with the
accounting principles applicable to the public sector bodies involved.
Article 7 on page 19 of the agreed text states:
Article 7
Transparency
1. In case of standard charges, any applicable conditions and the actual amount of those charges for
the re-use of documents held by public sector bodies, including the calculation basis for such charges,
shall be pre-established and published, through electronic means where possible and appropriate.
2. In case of charges other than those referred to in the previous paragraph, the public sector body in
question shall indicate upfront which factors are taken into account in the calculation of those charges.
Upon request, the public sector body in question shall also indicate the way in which such charges
96
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
have been calculated in relation to the specific re-use request.
3. Requirements referred to in Article 6(2)(b) shall be pre-established. They shall be published by
electronic means, where possible and appropriate.
4. Public sector bodies shall ensure that applicants for re-use of documents are informed of available
means of redress relating to decisions or practices affecting them.
Article 13 on pages 21 and 22 of the agreed text states:
Article 13
Review
1. The Commission shall carry out a review of the application of this Directive before ...* and shall
communicate the results of this review, together with any proposals for modifications of the Directive,
to the European Parliament and the Council.
Member States shall submit a report every 36 months to the Commission on the availability of public
sector information for re-use and the conditions under which it is made available and the redress
practices. On the basis of this report, which shall be made public, Member States shall carry out a
review of the implementation of Article 6, in particular as regards charging above marginal cost.
2. The review, referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1, shall in particular address the
scope and impact of this Directive, including the extent of the increase in re-use of public sector
documents, the effects of the principles applied to charging and the re-use of official texts of a
legislative and administrative nature, the interaction between data protection rules and re-use
possibilities, as well as further possibilities of improving the proper functioning of the internal market
and the development of the European content industry.
The UK Parliament
Fifty-seventh Report31 of
Session 2010–12 and the Sixteenth Report of Session 2012-13 respectively. The Committee awaits
further reports and an impact statement.
32
8.9 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 came into force on the 2 nd May 2011.
Part 6 of the Act:
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND DATA PROTECTION
Publication of certain datasets
Clause102 Release and publication of datasets held by public authorities
(1) The Freedom of Information Act 2000 is amended as follows.
Includes an amendment titled:
Power to charge fees in relation to release of datasets for re-use
As a result of this amendment a draft Code of Practice (Datasets) Consultation was opened on the 22nd
November 2012 and closed on 10th January 2013. Section 6 of the draft code deals with Costs and fees.
On the 22nd November TNA published a Charged Licence (Beta) to support the consultation.
31
32
Pages 56 to 64
Pages 27 to 32
97
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
8.10 Charged Licence
During November 2012 TNA announced the publication of a draft Charged Licence, an extract from
the announcement states:
New standard licence developed
26 November 2012 14:35
The National Archives has published the beta version of a new standard licence for comment. The new
licence, which has the working title ‗Charged Licence‘, has been developed for use by public sector
bodies which have reason to charge for the re-use of the information they produce or hold. The licence
will form part of the UK Government Licensing Framework.
The TNA Web site Charged Licence web page33 states:
(Home > Information management > UK Government Licensing Framework > Charged Licence)
In developing the UK Government Licensing Framework, The National Archives has produced a
standard licence for use by public sector bodies which have reason to charge for the re-use of the
information they produce or hold. The licence will form part of the UK Government Licensing
Framework.
With the Open Government Licence and the Non-Commercial Government Licence, this licence will
form a suite of ‗specified licences‘ provided for in amendments to the Freedom of Information Act by
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Title: Charged Licence
Dated: November 2012
Version: Draft – Beta
Pages: 16
Published in Public Domain? Yes
8.11 The Shakespeare Review
The Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) on the 15th May 2013 published a press
release titled Government response to Stephan Shakespeare‘s review of public sector information.
The press release states:
Title: Shakespeare Review: An Independent review of Public Sector Information
Dated: May 2013
Pages: 71
Published in Public Domain: Yes
The report considers PSB Funding Models on pages 28 and 29 and the final paragraph of the Funding
Models section states:
33
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/government-licensing/chargedlicence.htm
98
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
―The terms under which PSI can be charged are fairly clearly set out in Treasury guidance in
managing public money but the direction of travel is firmly towards encouraging greater use of the
Open Government Licence. This anomaly should be addressed.‖
The above paragraph is somewhat similar to Proposal 14 in Section 7 of this report
The Shakespeare Review report does not make reference to the Exception to marginal cost pricing
procedure.
Title: Market Assessment of Public Sector Information
Dated: May 2013
Pages: 235
Published in Public Domain: Yes
The Market Assessment of Public Sector Information report on pages 99 and 100 states:
Exceptions to marginal cost pricing
As discussed above, most public sector information is made available at marginal cost, which in
practice usually means free of charge, especially where the information is provided online. However,
there are exceptions to this. Where a PSIH wishes to charge above marginal cost for information, it
must make a business case to the Office of Public Sector Information under the exceptions process. An
application will generally be made if an information holder has added value to the information and
therefore wishes to treat it as a commercial product.
The case for an exception is judged on the following criteria:
Is it essential to produce the information as part of government‘s core duties and therefore
vital to the workings of government?
Is the information directly funded by the taxpayer, either through it being collected for the
purposes of government or produced with the purpose of informing the public?
Is the Department or Agency the sole producer of the information or can the information be
obtained from other sources?
What effect would charging for the information have on the level of re-use?
Is the Department or Agency able to provide a statement of commitment to Information Fair
Trader principles signed by its Permanent Secretary or Chief Executive?
These criteria are designed to ensure that charging above marginal cost does not compromise the core
principles of public sector information policy, especially:
maximisation of access, re-use and innovation;
openness and accountability; and
competitive neutrality.
99
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
8.12 PSI Policy change Timeline
TABLE 8.1
Correlation of Applications and changes that impact PSI Policy
Month –Year
Event
Application
January 2010
INSPIRE Regulations 2009
data.gov.uk
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
New UK Administration
June 2010
Public Sector Body “A”
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
UK GLF
Public Sector Body “B”
October 2010
Reform of Public Bodies and Act announced
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
Public Sector Body “C”
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
Public Sector Body “D”
June 2011
July 2011
Public Sector Bodies “E”,
August 2011
Public Task
“F” and “G”
UK Making Open Data Real
Public Sector Body “H”
September 2011
UK Founder Member of OGP
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
Public Bodies Act
EU PSI Directive Amendment proposed
January 2012
Public Sector Body “I”
February 2012
March 2012
Public Sector Body “J”
April 2012
Public Sector Bodies “K”
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
May 2012
and “L”
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
INSPIRE (Amendment) Regulations 2012
Public Sector Body “M”
Beta Charged Licence
Shakespeare Review
EU Amended PSI Directive expected
100
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Section 8 of this report outlined a number of changes that have occurred since the UK Exception to
Marginal cost pricing procedure was introduced in January 2010. The most significant of these
changes is that related to the revised EU PSI Directive.
The amended EU Directive on the re-use of PSI may come into force within the EU on the 1st July
2013 for implementation across Member States within two years of adoption. It will specify that:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Member States may apply no charges or charges that are limited to marginal costs.
Exceptions will be permitted to marginal cost pricing but these must be pre-established and
published.
The exception criteria for charging above marginal costs shall be set down either in national
rules or set down by a designated body or bodies competent to lay down such criteria. A PSI
holder will not be permitted to set the criteria.
The exception criteria will be objective, transparent and verifiable.
Member States will be required to submit a report every 3 years to the Commission that must
be placed in the public domain and that as part of that report the Member States shall carry out
a review of the implementation of Article 6, in particular as regards charging above marginal
cost.
The independent body that is involved in the redress process shall be a different body to that
which sets the marginal cost pricing criteria.
The requirements outlined above relate to charges where they are applied are closely aligned with the
current UK policy on PSI re-use. The key change is that the mandatory exception procedure that
currently applies to all PSBs that hold Crown owned materials will from the summer of 2015 be
extended to apply to all PSBs within the UK. As such the marginal cost exception procedure that has
been operational in the UK since January 2010 has grown in significance under the revised EU PSI reuse Directive.
As described elsewhere in this document TNA currently sets the criteria and administers the process
with respect to the exception to marginal cost procedure. TNA also provides the appeal process when
dealing with complaints under the PSI Regulations. The amended Directive recital 14a as currently
drafted implies that TNA would have to withdraw from one of these processes.
Recital 12a of the agreed text describes two options as to how the criteria for charging above marginal
cost shall be set down in an EU Member State:
1.
2.
In National rules – that is in revised PSI Regulations scheduled for 2015
By a designated body that has executive powers and under political responsibility – such as
HM Treasury
The number of PSBs in the UK is significant and is in excess of 100,000 that come under the FOI Act
2000 as such this sets an upper limit. As outlined in Section 6.2 of this report the number of PSBs
covered by the current mandatory Crown copyright exception procedure is estimated to have an upper
limit in the region of 300. It is clear that the number of PSBs will lie between these two extremes and
is likely to be in the thousands. As such the current exception procedure may not be scalable with out
amendment due to the larger numbers.
Figure 6.2 shows that currently TNA receives on average 6 applications per annum from 300 Crown
copyright holders. Table 6.5 shows that on average the TNA processing time for each application
received is 2.9 days. TABLE 9.1 shows the TNA staffing levels that would need to be provided to
administer the exception procedure for 60 and 600 applications per annum. A contingency has been
factored in to deal with variability and accuracy of the estimate to process an application. The estimate
has not taken account of any potential improvements that could be implemented that may improve the
accuracy of the estimate.
Under the current exception procedure when an exception is granted the applicant PSB then has to join
the IFTS. As a consequence further TNA resources would need to be deployed.
101
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
TABLE 9.1
Estimating TNA resources if the current procedure is adopted
Number of
Average
Total Processing
Staff
Add
PSBs
Applications per
Time
FTE
Contingency
annum
Per annum
factor of
Days *
200%
Staff FTE
300
6
17
0.1
0.3
3,000
60
170
0.8
2.4
30,000
600
1,700
8.1
24.3
* Based on data shown in TABLE 6.5
TABLE 9.1 assumes that it is unknown how many UK PSBs already charge above the marginal cost
price for the re-use of the PSI that they hold. Establishing a base line would help firm up the estimate
for the number of applications that might be received per annum. Establishing a baseline would
provide other benefits discussed later in this section of the report.
9.1 Exception procedure implementation options 2015
At the time of the review the option that the UK may adopt in 2015 was not known. TABLE 9.2
considers a number of implementation options that might be deployed. The list is not exhaustive but
indicative of possible combinations of approaches that might be used to comply with the amended
Directive in the context of exceptions to marginal cost pricing.
Option
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
TABLE 9.2
Implementation Options
Method
Regulations + Current Exception process + IFTS Online + Documentation + PSI re-user
right of challenge
Regulations + Current Exception process + Documentation + PSI re-user right of
challenge.
Regulations + Mandatory Online questionnaire that documents case with a back end
register that is online and in the public domain + Documentation + Random use of
current exception process + PSI re-user right of challenge
Regulations + Mandatory online registration with register online + Documentation +
Random use of current exception process
Regulations + Documentation + PSI re-user right of challenge
Regulations + Mandatory use of a standard licence + Documentation + PSI re-user right
of challenge
Regulations + Documentation + Mandatory certification process + PSI re-user right of
challenge
Option 3 includes a mandatory online questionnaire that could be evolved out of the current exception
process. That is the criteria are inbuilt into the questionnaire with questionnaire under the control of a
National PSB.
Option 4 includes a mandatory online registration process that records the public domain address of:
The PSB
The published price list
A contact point
The complaints contact and process
In addition the full name of the PSB is entered into a public register. Once entered into the public
register the PSB would not be able to amend the entry this would be undertaken by a national contact
point that hosts and administers the register. Option 4 is a simpler version of Option 3.
102
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Option 6 the standard licence to be the Charged Licence that is currently under development following
the recent public consultation. The name of the licence should not be varied to permit online search
engines to detect the presence of the licence.
Option 7 includes an independent mandatory certification process that is undertaken by a private sector
organisation(s) that operates under licence from the public sector. The PSB would be required to gain
certification and for it to be periodically re-assessed every 3 years. The PSB would have to pay for the
certification and re-certification. The certification process would include a registration with a central
register run by the public sector.
TABLE 9.3 shows whether the implementation option has an independent verification process
included.
Option
TABLE 9.3
Level of Verification per option
Criteria
Independently
Random
Transparent?
Verified?
Verification?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
Fair Trading
Confirmed
Independently?
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
9.2 The Reporting Challenge
Member States are required to submit a report after 3 years and the report has to include a section on
the impact of the exceptions to marginal cost. The Member State has to place the report in the public
domain.
One of the issues in successive surveys over the past decade has been the difficulty in quantifying the
lost opportunity that arises as a result of the price set for the re-use of PSI. This is a challenge for the
first report Member States will be required to submit to the European Commission in the summer of
2018. Part of the solution is to place the draft report into the public domain for a public consultation
prior to submission to the European Commission.
A further challenge is that of determining a base line from which assessments can be made. The UK
experience over the period 2010 to 2012 shows that PSBs were operating above marginal cost pricing
prior to the procedure entering into force. A number of these came forward once the exception
procedure came into force. In the run up to 2015 an action to try and establish a reliable reference
position would assist and to encourage registration via a central online registration facility. The
advantage of Options 1 to 4 and 7 in TABLE 9.3 is that they include a mandatory process that records
the PSBs that are operating above marginal cost pricing. If the baseline has been established then the
change over the three years can be quantified. The impact of mandatory registration may act as a
deterrent to PSBs that may consider setting the price above the marginal cost. This is summarised in
TABLE 9.4.
Date
Base line – 1st July 2015
First report – 1st July 2018
TABLE 9.4
Numerical Assessment
Challenge
To determine the reference position as to how many PSBs are
charging above marginal cost.
To determine what has changed since the base line date.
If the base line has been determined then establishing what has
changed will be impacted by the method used to comply with the
Directive. If the method adopted does not contain a formal
103
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Date
Challenge
verification process or a registration process that provides a register
then alternative approach to estimating will need to be employed.
An alternative approach is to consider the number of PSI re-user challenges that have been registered
over the 3-year period. However the number of complaints received is not a reliable indicator for
determining quantifying the lost opportunity. The complaints are useful for highlighting the excesses.
The PSBs operating at the local level across a Member State are undertaking similar public services
and comparisons could be made between those that provide the PSI either at no charge or at marginal
cost with those that have set the price above marginal cost. The presence of a reliable exception
register would assist in identifying the PSBs where the price may be deterring re-use. Organisations
that establish commercial services based on re-using PSI from the local level may well experience the
holes in quilt effect. That is they find it hard to create complete coverage over a geographic region or
Member State.
Once all Member States have submitted the required report in 2018 a further assessment and
comparison maybe possible at the pan European level based on the information contained in the
reports. A comparison based on the Member State reports will not be easy if no standard reporting
methodology has been set down. The EU INSPIRE Directive includes a reporting requirement and the
first set of reports have been submitted and this has identified the need for a consistent reporting format
and methodologies for basing impact assessments on.
9.3 Proposals for the period 2013-2015
Section 7 of the report proposes a number of improvements to the current procedure and the
recommended timescale for implementation. This section contains proposals that build upon the
proposals described in Section 7 that may help prepare the way forward to 2015. However these
proposals would be irrelevant if the decision is taken to adopt option 5 or option 6 in TABLE 9.2 – in
effect withdraw the current exception procedure and leave it to the re-user of PSI to challenge the
prices set by PSBs. If a decision is taken to withdraw the current exception procedure then this also
raises the question: Is there any value in implementing any of the Section 7 proposals? Withdrawing
the current exception procedure does raise a further question as to whether TNA will continue to use
the exception procedure as part of Crown copyright management. In putting forward the proposals the
reviewer is mindful that:
TNA as the UK PSI lead will be very busy with amending the UK PSI Regulations.
There is no regulator with the delegated power to enforce compliance by PSBs with a
mandatory exception procedure.
data.gov.uk will continue to advance and may include far more data from the PSBs that
operate at the local level by the summer of 2015 – for example local government.
The Charged Licence will in due course be added the UK Licensing Framework
9.4 Summary of Proposals 2
Proposal
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
TABLE 9.5
Description
To establish the baseline of PSBs that currently set prices above marginal cost – under
take a survey using a paper questionnaire
To establish the baseline of PSBs that currently set prices above marginal cost – using an
online registration facility that creates a register
To further adapt questionnaire (TABLE 7.1 Option 1) to provide a self-assessment
facility that produces documentation that has inbuilt checks that the exception criteria
have been met.
To maintain the current exception procedure (plus section 7 amendments) but to
overcome the lack of transparency by TNA publishing the documents that a PSB needs to
make transparent.
TNA to undertake randomly selected PSBs to establish the level of compliance with the
exception criteria
TNA to explore the feasibility of licensing organisations to undertake a certification
104
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Proposal
Number
7
Description
process.
To consider making it mandatory that any PSB that sets charges above marginal cost
must become a Member of the Online IFTS.
Proposal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
TABLE 9.6
Relation between TABLE 9.5 and 9.2
Implementation Options
Supports the Report 2018
1&2
YES
1 to 4 and 7
YES
3
YES
1
YES
3&4
YES
7
YES
All
YES
105
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
10
The exception to marginal cost pricing procedure is operating as designed. After the first year of
operation the number of applications entering the procedure has remained steady at around 5 or 6 per
annum. The number of applications granted an exception to charge above the marginal cost price has
been low for categories of PSI that closely match those described in the HM Treasury document
Managing Public Sector Money Annex 6.3.
The review of the first 3-years of operation has identified a number of issues even though the number
of applications processed has been low. PSBs have demonstrated a remarkable lack of commitment to
drive their application forward and to ensure that if they are granted an exception that they are
compliant with the conditions set down by the procedure. Only one application granted an exception
has completed the process fully and is compliant with the procedures requirement to comply with the
IFTS principles as required by the PSI Regulations 2005.
A major issue the review has identified is that PSBs appear to be experiencing increasing difficulty
with respect to delivering and sustaining online transparency and this is particularly noticeable with
Ministerial Departments. The archived web sites of PSBs show that there has been a regression with
respect to transparency over recent years. A number of reasons maybe contributing to this situation
that include lack of clarity in the published documentation, central government web site policy, the
implementation of GOV.UK and public sector financial constraints. The full report lists other potential
contributing reasons.
The exception procedure has been mandatory for all PSBs that hold Crown copyright materials. One
consequence of this is that the operation of the procedure has merged the management of Crown
copyright with that of re-use of PSI under the PSI Regulations. As a consequence care needs to be
taken when reporting on the impact of the exception procedure and in preparing for transposition of the
revised PSI Directive.
The procedure has had a beneficial impact in that it has helped normalise the base line of how many
PSBs that hold Crown copyright material set charges above the marginal cost.
A number of improvements have been proposed that would help further streamline and improve the
robustness of the procedure. If these proposals are accepted and implemented then this will help
prepare the way for future extensions of the procedure.
The exception procedure that has been in operation since 2010 can be considered as a pilot for July
2015 when the revised PSI Regulations will come into force within the UK. The experience gained
albeit limited due to the small number of applications has put the UK in a unique position that will help
prepare for 2015. Exactly how the UK will implement the exception procedure in 2015 is not known at
the time this review was undertaken. A number of possible options have been considered and briefly
explored as to the challenges that each option may face and what role if any the current exception
procedure will play. Based on the consideration of the challenges a number of proposals have been put
forward that would assist whatever option is eventually chosen.
106
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
APPSI
DRO
DSB
EC
EFTA
EU
HMSO
IFTS
INSPIRE
ITRE
NAO
OFT
OGP
OPSI
POIT
PSB
PSBs
PSI
PSIH
TNA
UK
Advisory Panel on Public Sector Information
Departmental Records Officer
Data Strategy Board
European Commission
European Free Trade Area
European Union
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, part of TNA
Information Fair Trader Scheme
Information for Spatial Information in the European Community
European Parliament Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
National Audit Office
Office of Fair Trading
Open Government Partnership
Office of Public Sector Information, part of TNA
Power of Information Taskforce
Public Sector Body
Public Sector Bodies
Public Sector Information
Public Sector Information Holder
The National Archives
United Kingdom
107
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
List of DIAGRAMS
Reference Page
3.1
20
6.1
68
6.2
69
7.1
81
Description
Procedure stages
PSB B and M Commercial activity constructs
PSB B and M Applications Timeline
Amended procedure for proposal 1
List of FIGURES – Graphs
Reference Page
Description
S1
8
Effectiveness of the Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure 2010-2012
S2
9
Exception procedure impact assessment
6.1
58
Number of PSBs entering the procedure each month
6.2
58
Total number of PSBs entering the procedure each year
6.3
59
Accumulated total of PSBs entering the procedure per year
6.4
59
Percentage of PSBs holding Crown copyright materials entering the exception
procedure
6.5
60
Percentage of PSBs holding Crown copyright materials granted a delegation
under the exception procedure over 3 years
6.6
61
Time analysis for procedure stages 1 & 2
6.7
61
Application processing times for procedure stages 1 & 2
6.8
62
Procedure stage 2 processing time
6.9
62
Time taken for parties to sign Delegation of Authority Agreement
6.10
72
TNA Delegation of Authority web page
6.11
77
Effectiveness of the Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure 2010-2012
6.12
77
TNA summary of business cases reviewed 2010-2012
6.13
78
Exception procedure impact assessment
List of TABLES
Reference Page
S.1
10
S.2
11
S.3
12
3.1
24
3.2
25
5.1
49
5.2
49
5.3
49
5.4
50
5.5
50
5.6
51
5.7
51
5.8
51
5.9
51
5.10
52
5.11
52
5.12
52
5.13
53
5.14
5.15
53
53
Description
Summary of proposals
Implementation options
Summary of proposals
Application Assessment Framework
Correlation of exception criteria with UK PSI policy
Applications per Calendar Year (Stages 1 & 2)
PSB Considered an exception (Stage 1 only)
PSB Category Analysis
Assessment totals for each application
Assessment totals for each criterion for all applications
Analysis of items requesting an exception to charge
Application processing date analysis – Stages 1 & 2
Application date analysis by stage
Application time analysis for Stage 1 & 2
Post delegation actions analysis – (Procedural stages 3 & 4)
Post delegation time analysis
Raw data analysis (Tests 1.4 and 2.3)
Analysis of the signing of the Delegation of Authority Agreement (Procedural
stages 3 & 4)
Statement of commitment (Test 6.1)(Procedural stage 3)
Commitment to the IFTS (Procedural stage 2)
108
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Reference
5.16
5.17
5.18
5.19
5.20
5.21
5.22
5.23
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
7.1
7.2
8.1
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
Page
54
54
54
54
54
55
55
55
71
72
75
76
76
79
79
100
102
102
103
103
104
105
Description
Delegation granted – Joining IFTS (Test 6.1) (Procedural stage 3)
Data publishing test on data.gov.uk and/or data.london.gov.uk
Public Task
Licences
Statutory Power to charge
Act/Regulation/Directive named
Number of times an applications refers to
Framework Document test: Summary
TNA web page responsibility
TNA web page referring to delegations
TNA time spent processing one application
Impact assessment of procedure – High level policy objectives
Impact assessment of procedure – Low level procedure implementation
Summary of proposals 1
Proposal cross-references
Correlation of Applications and changes that impact PSI Policy
Estimating TNA resources if the current procedure is adopted in 2015
2015 Implementation Options
Level of verification per option (2015)
Numerical Assessment of PSBs that charge above marginal cost pricing
Summary of proposals – 2015
Relation between TABLE 9.5 and 9.2
109
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
TNA Policy
Documents provided by TNA
Published and in the public domain
1. Criteria for Exceptions to Marginal Cost Pricing - December 2009
2. How to apply for exception to marginal cost pricing assessment - August 2010
3. How we deal with an application for exception to marginal cost pricing – June 2011
Not published in the public domain (Internal)
1. Summary of business cases reviewed 2010-2012 – October 2011
2. Charging for Information Re-use: Application Assessment Framework – August 2011
Websites reviewed
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/ifts/cost-pricing.htm
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/policies/exclusive-agreements.htm
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/delegations-ofauthority.htm
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/uk-crown-bodies.htm#azi
As the Perspective Blog (http://perspectives.opsi.gov.uk/ ) is no longer responding and does not appear
to be archived alternative web sites have been visited that record TNA actions:
http://epsiplatform.eu/content/marginal-cost-pricing-criteria 28 June 2009
http://epsiplatform.eu/content/exceptions-marginal-cost-pricing-0 8 January 2010
Other TNA Reports published in the public domain.
1.
2.
3.
The United Kingdom Report on the Re-use of Public Sector Information 2010 - unlocking PSI
potential (Published April 2011)
Guide to drawing up a statement of public task information for public sector bodies on
producing a statement of public task under the Re-use of Public Sector Information
Regulations 2005 (published August 2011)
The Queen’s Printer for Scotland - Report covering the period 1 January 2010 to 31 March
2011 and Report covering the period 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012
Licensing Forum
The following meetings of the Licensing Forum have considered the TNA actions related to the
exceptions to marginal cost pricing procedure. The meeting notes are published in the public domain.
1.
2.
Notes of the meeting held on the 20th January 2010 (A presentation of the policy)
Notes of the meeting held on the 8th September 2011 (An update on the applications)
Advisory Panel on Public Sector Information (APPSI)
The following meetings of APPSI have considered the TNA actions related to the exceptions to
marginal cost pricing procedure. The meeting notes are published in the public domain.
1.
Meeting Minutes 17th September 2009
110
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
As the PerSpectIves blog link on the archived TNA web site is broken the blog entry has been
included34 in this audit report as it provides relevant information that was in the public domain when
TNA undertook the online consultation on the Exceptions to marginal cost pricing.
PerSpectIves
July 28, 2009
Exceptions to marginal cost pricing
Most government information should be available for re-use at marginal cost, which often in practice
means free of charge, especially where the information is published online. This will maximise social
and economic value, and supports the Government‘s response to the recommendations made by the
Power of Information Taskforce
There are some instances when public sector organisations can charge for supplying information
which recipients intend to process and re-use. Further clarification is given in Budget 2009.
Government policy for charging is set out in HM Treasury's document ―Managing Public Money‖.
Government information is normally made available for re-use at marginal cost. There are some cases
where a department has added value to the information to create a commercial product. In those cases
the policy is to charge at full cost plus an appropriate rate of return. This information trading is
policed under the Information Fair Trader Scheme (IFTS), which ensures that there is a simple, fair
and transparent approach to licensing.
Where departments and agencies wish to charge for the re-use of data, they will be required to justify
departures from the marginal cost model. This justification ensures that Government does not limit or
restrict re-use.
The Government‘s response to the Power of Information Taskforce‘s recommendation 10 explained
that OPSI would develop a series of tests, or criteria, to help assess whether charges are appropriate.
We welcome your views and comments on the criteria that should be applied.
Criteria
A Department or Agency‘s responses to the following questions will enable OPSI to make a decision as
to whether a departure from the marginal cost model is appropriate on a case by case basis.
Government trading funds, which are required to maximise income, are exempt from these tests,
although they are subject to the requirements of IFTS.
Draft Criteria
· Is the information embedded within a commercial product? If so, is it an integral part of the product?
· Is the information competing in the market place against similar information products?
· Was the information directly funded by the taxpayer or from another source?
· Is the department a monopoly producer of the information? Can the information be obtained
from other sources?
· Does the information derive special status and authority because it has been issued by
government?
· Is it essential to produce the information as part of a government‘s core duties?
· Is the information essential to the relationship between citizen and state?
· How will charging affect the maximisation of re-use?
· Can the information only be made available if charging is allowed?
· Will charging for re-use be in the public interest?
· Was the information launched on the market by a private sector agent or publisher following
34
Copied from the reviewers APPSI archives.
111
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
a competitive tendering exercise?
Tests on Business
· Is there accounting separation between upstream and downstream(1) activities?
· Is there transparency of development costs and licensing fees?
The Process
OPSI has responsibility for Crown copyright and also issues Delegations of Authority to departments.
As such, OPSI will make the decision on whether or not a body can charge more than marginal cost for
re-use. The process is as follows:
1. Application If a Government Department or Agency wishes to charge for re-use it must
apply to OPSI to be allowed to do so. The application should include details of the
information and the product and also details of the proposed business model, which will
include accounting separation, costs and licensing arrangements.
2. Tests OPSI will consider the application and make a decision as to whether to allow the
Department to charge for re-use. We will publish our decision with the reasons.
3. Statement of Commitment A department charging for information must sign a commitment
to fair trading, which will declare that it has appropriate business models and licences in
place, that it will follow the principles of IFTS and that it agrees to be subject to the IFTS
verification process.
4. IFTS OPSI will carry out rigorous tests under the Information Fair Trader Scheme to verify
the commitment and to ensure that the department continues to meet the tests.
OPSI‘s Role in Licensing
OPSI‘s role in the management of the licensing of Crown copyright material is evolving. Previously,
OPSI licensed both core and value added content on behalf of Government Departments. Now that
OPSI is responsible for approving whether particular information from government is charged for,
OPSI will cease to license any content that involves payments. Departments and agencies that satisfy
the charging tests will be given the authority to license the information itself. This will be subject to
compliance with the Information Fair Trader Scheme (IFTS) and OPSI verification that IFTS
principles have been met.
Information Fair Trader Scheme
All licensing of government content that involves payments will be regulated under the enhanced
version of the IFTS which was introduced on 1 April 2009. Updating the existing principles of
openness, transparency, fairness, challenge and compliance, rigorous principles of maximisation,
simplicity and innovation have been introduced. These will raise standards by requiring public sector
bodies to demonstrate a more proactive and user responsive approach to provision and licensing of
their content. Information on the enhanced IFTS can be found here.
1) Rufus Pollock, in The Economics of Public Sector Information, offers the following definitions to
upstream and downstream:
Upstream: if it cannot be substituted directly from other sources.
Downstream: if it could be provided by another organisation should that organisation have access to
the relevant upstream information.
Posted by Matthew Pearce at 09:50:57 in Crown copyright
Technorati Tags: copyright, licensing, opsi, poi, power of information, psi, public sector information
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a0105353c3bfc970b0115723fa24d970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Exceptions to marginal cost pricing:
Comments
• To help ensure that requirements of the Re-use of PSI Regulations are met, and to address wider
issues of maximising re-use of the original material, I suggest adding to the 1st Draft Criteria:
Is the information available separately?
• On the 2nd Criteria, it may be a product based on the information that is competing. Hence I suggest
this is changed to:
112
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Is the information, or a derived commercial product, competing in the market place against similar
products?
• On the 4th Criteria (monopoly), in some case the information may be available elsewhere but with
much more difficulty and/or at a high cost. I suggest adding to this criteria:
If so, how easily and at what cost?
• After the 10th criteria (public interest), I suggest adding another criteria, linked to the recent
decisions from the Information Commissioner linked to EIR:
Is the information covered by the Environmental Information Regulations? If so, will charging reduce
access?
• There is very little directly linked to the problems associated with Derived Data. Hence I suggest
adding a further criteria:
Are there any restrictions on how the information, and products derived from the information, are
used?
• In the Tests on Business, I suggest adding two further tests - to emphasise the need for separation as
far as possible between the upstream and downstream activities:
Are the licensing and access conditions the same for downstream business as apply to other users of
the information?
Is the downstream business competing in market(s) with multi year agreements when the upstream
business is restricting the length of licences.
Posted by: John Ponting | August 17, 2009 at 03:46 PM
The questions listed as draft criteria are good questions and will be very useful in considering cases.
However, as criteria they don't offer very clear guidance to departments as to the grounds on which an
exception to marginal cost pricing may be granted.
I suggest that the criteria include some higher level principles:
- value has been added to information collected for and used by Government
- charging above marginal cost is in the public interest
- distribution at marginal cost will create a market distortion.
The questions may then be grouped under these principles. Question 9, 'can the information only be
made available if charging is allowed', is crucial to the public interest issue. It will be important to
guard against short term budget constraints becoming an acceptable justification, which could
ultimately undermine the principle of re-use at marginal cost.
Will OPSI have a role in agreeing the price or rate of return? Average cost pricing is sometimes
required of regulated monopolies facing high fixed cost and low marginal costs.
Posted by: Patricia Seex | September 27, 2009 at 07:02 PM
We would like to thank the contributors for their ideas and suggestions – they are much appreciated.
We will consider how to incorporate them as we move on to the next stage of the project. As such we
will not be reviewing further feedback on this draft of the policy.
We plan on issuing a final draft of the policy by January – we anticipate this will go into further detail
on the performance levels expected of applicants.
Posted by: Matthew Pearce | October 22, 2009 at 02:22 PM
113
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Extracts that demonstrate that TNA under take regular reporting and consultation on Exceptions to
marginal cost pricing.
Licensing Forum
Extract from the Licensing Forum notes of the meeting held on the 20 th January 2010 at the
Land Registry, London
5. Update: exceptions to marginal cost pricing, Howard Davies (OPSI)
a. Unfortunately the scheduled speaker was not able to attend. Howard kindly gave a ten minute
update on the progress of an item discussed at the previous forum.
b. Howard outlined the purpose of the exceptions to marginal cost pricing policy developed by OPSI.
i. Action stemmed from Power of Information recommendations to treat marginal cost pricing
for re-use of information as the default, and to develop tests for departures from this.
ii. OPSI had published a draft set of criteria for comment in 2009, and Howard noted the
useful comments which had been received on this.
iii. The criteria had now been published, along with supporting information on the process.
This was now the basis on which OPSI would assess applications for delegations of authority.
Questions included:
a. When would the criteria apply from?
iv. OPSI had written to departments in 2009, giving notification of its intention to cease
licensing directly at the end of 2009. Therefore departments whose material OPSI directly
licensed at that point were invited to express their interest in applying for a delegation under
the exceptions policy.
b. Would there be strain on OPSI resources from an increasing number of IFTS Members?
i. It was not envisaged at this point that new membership of IFTS would present significant
resource issues
Extract from the Licensing Forum notes of the meeting held on the 8 th September 2011 at The
National Archives, Kew, London
Introduction from chair and UKGLF update
Marcia Jackson, The National Archives
Jo Ellis, The National Archives
A number of organisations had applied for or expressed interest in the Exceptions to Marginal Cost
Pricing process.
114
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
TNA Reports
Extract from PSI Report 2010
Page 10:
3.2 The enhanced IFTS principles and framework were reinforced in April 2009. Recent activity has
built on this and includes:
• a new policy and criteria for exceptions to marginal cost pricing12
12 In economics, and in the context of information, marginal cost pricing means the cost of producing
an additional copy of a document or dataset. In most cases the marginal cost will be negligible or nil
Page 20: Time Line for Winter 2009/2010
January Introduction of criteria for exceptions to marginal cost pricing
Extract THE QUEEN’S PRINTER FOR SCOTLAND - Report covering the period 1 January
2010 to 31 March 2011
Page 20
A new policy and criteria have been developed for exceptions to marginal cost pricing, whereby those
public sector organisations that wish to charge above the standard marginal cost for their information
must submit a business case application for OPSI to consider.
APPSI
ADVISORY PANEL ON PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION minutes of the meeting held on the 17 th
September 2009 held at the Ministry of Justice.
Extract from Page 2:
The exceptions to marginal cost pricing and the criteria to measure the progress of the new
Ordnance Survey business strategy were posted to OPSI‘s blog PSIPerspectives on 28 July
2009 at the following URLs:
http://perspectives.opsi.gov.uk/2009/07/exceptions-to-marginal-cost-pricing.html
http://perspectives.opsi.gov.uk/2009/07/ordnance-survey-licensing-pricing-reviewmeasuresand-outcomes.html
Extract from Page 5:
Exceptions to marginal cost pricing – OPSI mandates that most government information
should be made available at marginal cost and where departments wish to charge, they will
be assessed by OPSI to ensure the charge is justifiable.
ADVISORY PANEL ON PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION minutes of the meeting held on the 27 th
July 2011 held at the Ministry of Justice.
Extract from Page 4
Exceptions to Marginal Cost Pricing: The National Offender Management Service has been approved
as an exemption to the marginal cost norm and has been granted a delegation of authority. The
application was approved for software developed in house, for training services and consultancy.
115
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
OPSI Letter: Changes to Crown copyright Licensing
21 August 2009
Dear Colleague
IMPORTANT CHANGES TO CROWN COPYRIGHT LICENSING
As part of the continuing move to proactive publication and re-use of Crown information through the
flexible and enabling licensing regime, from 1 January 2010 the Office of Public Sector Information
will cease to license information where a charge for re-use is made. This move is in line with the
Government’s response to the recommendations contained in the Power of Information Taskforce
Report published earlier this year.
Re-use of government and public sector information will continue to be licensed under the online
Click-Use Licence, which will be extended to cover the re-use of material previously classed as being
Value Added and attracting a charge. The effect of this will be that more information will be available
for re-use free of charge.
It also means that any Crown organisations that decide to continue to charge for the re-use of
information that they produce will be required to identify the information concerned, explain why
charges are appropriate and, if agreed that charges are appropriate, take on the licensing responsibility.
The context of this change and details of the implications for your organisation and its Executive
Agencies are set out in Annexes A and B of this letter. Please feel free to forward this letter and
attachments to any interested colleagues.
If you would like to discuss the contents of this letter further or are unsure of what this means for you,
please contact:
Yours sincerely
JIM WRETHAM
Head of Information Policy
116
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Annex A
Licensing the Re-use of Crown copyright Material
The purpose of this Annex is to provide the context for you about recent policy developments affecting
the licensing of government information which is protected by Crown copyright. It also explains what
the implications are for your organisation and the actions you need to take.
Background
The policy responsibility for Crown copyright rests with Carol Tullo, the Controller of Her Majesty’s
Stationery Office (HMSO). HMSO operates from within the Office of Public Sector Information
(OPSI) which is part of The National Archives. Most licensing of Crown copyright is handled through
the online Click-Use Licence system, managed by the Information Policy Team. In recent years, a
distinction has been drawn between core government information, which has been licensed free of
charge under the PSI Click-Use Licence, and value added information which has been licensed under
the Value Added Click-Use Licence35. Under the value added version, re-users have often been
required to pay a re-use fee. OPSI, in managing the licensing for re-use of value added information,
has collected re-use fees and royalties and has allocated the income to the organisations which
produced the information in the first place.
Policy on Public Sector Information
Since 2005 there has been an increasing move towards encouraging the re-use of public sector
information, and removing obstacles to re-use whenever possible, in order to maximise the benefit to
the wider economy and society as a whole. This is set out in the Regulations on the Re-use of Public
Sector Information 36 and a number of government initiatives.37 A key document is the government’s
response to 25 recommendations made by the Power of Information Taskforce
http://poit.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/poit/.
The Government response to the Taskforce’s Recommendation 10 is key in relation to the licensing of
the re-use of Crown copyright. It picks up on three main issues:
1.
The Government’s acceptance that most Government content will be available for re-use
at marginal cost, which in practice, means free of charge. Given the commercial
challenges facing government trading funds they are exempt from this decision.
2.
Where government organisations and agencies consider that charging for re-use of the
Crown copyright material they produce is necessary, they will need to demonstrate to
OPSI that there is a valid reason for so doing. In assessing the validity of charging OPSI
will apply a series of tests. These tests have been developed in the light of the Power of
Information recommendations and are currently available for public comment on the
blog PSI Perspectives see
http://perspectives.opsi.gov.uk/2009/07/exceptions-to-marginal-cost-pricing.html.
3.
OPSI will cease to license the re-use of any government content where this involves a
transaction and charge to re-users. Organisations and agencies which consider that
charges are necessary and can satisfy the charging tests (see previous paragraph) will
undertake the licensing themselves and will be subject to verification under the
Information Fair Trader Scheme (IFTS) See http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ifts/index.
Please note that these arrangements relate to allowing others to re-use the information and content in
other resources and products. They do not refer to the supply of and provision of access to government
The criteria for core and value added information derives from HM Treasury’s Cross Cutting Review of the
Knowledge Economy in 2000.
36 The Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No. 1515)
37 For example: Office of Fair Trading, Commercial Use of Public Information, 2006; Cabinet Office, Power of
Information Review 2008.
35
117
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
information through Freedom of Information publication schemes or as a result of requests for
information under the Freedom of Information Act or, in the case of environmental information, the
Environmental Information Regulations.
What your organisation needs to do
There are essentially three issues that your organisation will need to do:
a) Identify any existing information produced by your organisation and its Executive
Agencies where re-use would attract a charge. The government has accepted that most
government information, other than that produced by trading funds, will be available for reuse on a marginal cost basis. If there are any exceptions to this your organisation will need to
set out for OPSI valid reasons for charging for the re-use of specific publications, datasets and
information. OPSI will then assess by applying the tests mentioned above.
At this stage we only need to know about existing information. However, as new information
is produced that you believe should attract a charge for re-use you will need to provide OPSI
with details.
b) Your organisation will need to allocate resources to managing the licensing. If OPSI
agrees that there are valid reasons for charging for the re-use of some of the information
produced by your organisation, the Controller of HMSO will grant your organisation a
delegation of her authority that gives you the legal right to license the re-use of the
information that you produce. The delegation of authority will be conditions on you
complying with IFTS principles. OPSI will provide support and training in order to help you
take on these responsibilities should you so decide.
New Licensing Terms
OPSI is in the process of testing a revised licence model where applicants will not have to apply and
register to re-use government content. This will replace the PSI Click-Use Licence. For information
about the new PSI licence see http://perspectives.opsi.gov.uk/2009/06/opsis-new-licensing-modeltaking-the-licensing-of-government-content-to-the-next-level.html
Timing
OPSI intends to cease issuing any charged licences from 1 January 2010. We would be grateful if you
could let us know by 31 October 2009 if there is any information, for which you consider it necessary
to levy a re-use charge. If we do not receive a response from you by that date, we will assume that
your organisation is content for its material to be re-used free of charge under the new OPSI licence.
Further Information
At Annex B there are a series of Q&As to help you.
118
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Annex B
Q&A
Q: What is re-use?
A: The use of public sector information for a reason other than the reason for which it was originally
produced. This includes both commercial and non-commercial re-use. It can also be described as
reproduction, re-mixing, adapting, mashing, or recycling of information in other products or resources.
It does not include continued reference and use by the organisation for ordinary business purposes.
Q: What is the position with existing licences that generate income?
A: OPSI is reviewing all existing charged licences and will be looking to terminate the licences at the
earliest opportunity in line with the terms of the licence. Once terminated, the applicant will be advised
either to re-use the information under the new free PSI Licence or to apply to the originating
organisation in cases where the information will continue to be charged.
Q: My organisation regularly receives licence income from OPSI. What will happen in the
future?
The current arrangements for the allocation of licence income will continue until all licences have been
terminated and all licence income has been received. Once this has happened a final payment will be
made to the organisation that originated the information for which licence income has been received.
Q: Will this affect my organisation’s publishing programme?
A: Not at all. How organisations publish information and what they charge for their publications is
unaffected by these changes. Re-use covers information that is already accessible through publication,
the Freedom of Information Act or the Environmental Information Regulations (access legislation).
Q: What about information that is not accessible?
A: Any information that is not available through publication or under access legislation, for example,
where the information is exempt under the Freedom of Information Act, is outside the scope of the
Regulations on the Re-use of Public sector Information and should not be licensed.
119
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
The delegation database shows organisations in red where the organisation no longer exists as a result
of machinery of government changes. The delegations database shows for each delegation listed
whether the delegation has ended or is still current.
Name of Public Sector Body
List
British Geological Survey (BGS)
IFTS
Cabinet Office, Efficiency and Reform Group
IFTS
Central Office of Information
Database
Central Office of Information
Delegation
Central Science Laboratory
Database
Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS)
Database
Coal Authority
IFTS
Companies House
Database
Companies House
Delegation
Companies House
IFTS
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
Database
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
Delegation
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
IFTS
Driving Standards Agency
Database
Driving Standards Agency
Delegation
Driving Standards Agency
IFTS
Duchy of Lancaster
Database
Duchy of Lancaster
Delegation
ELGIN
IFTS
English Heritage and National Monuments Record
Database
Environment Agency
IFTS
Fire Service College
Database
Fire Service College
Delegation
Fire Service College
IFTS
Food and Environment Research Agency
Delegation
Forensic Science Service
Database
Forest Research
Delegation
Forest Research Photo Library
Database
Forestry Commission
IFTS
Government Art Collection
Database
Government Art Collection
Delegation
Government Art Collection
IFTS
Government Communication Headquarters
Delegation
Government Communications Headquarters
Database
Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)
IFTS
Health and Safety Laboratory
Database
Health and Safety Laboratory
Delegation
Her Majesty's Stationery Office/Office of the Queen's Printer for Scotland
IFTS
Highways Agency
Database
Highways Agency
Delegation
Highways Agency
IFTS
Historic Scotland
Database
Historic Scotland
IFTS
Historic Scotland
Delegation
HM Land Registry
Database
HM Land Registry
Delegation
HM Land Registry
IFTS
Imperial War Museum
Database
Imperial War Museum
IFTS
Intellectual Property Office
Database
Intellectual Property Office
Delegation
Intelligence Collection Group
IFTS
120
June 2013
A Review of the TNA Administered
Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure
Name of Public Sector Body
Land & Property Services, Northern Ireland
Land and Property Services, NI
Land and Property Services, Northern Ireland
Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency1
Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency
Met Office
Met Office
Met Office
Metropolitan Police
Ministry of Defence (Defence Geospatial Intelligence)
Ministry of Defence (Directorate of Intellectual Property Rights)
Ministry of Defence, Directorate of Intellectual Property Rights
Ministry of Defence: Directorate of Intellectual Property Rights
Ministry of Defence: Intelligence Collection Group (now Joint Forces Intelligence Gp)
National Archives of Scotland
National Archives of Scotland
National Army Museum
National Army Museum
National Army Museum*
National Assembly for Wales
National College for School Leadership
National Offender Management Service
National Offenders Management Service (NOMS)
Office of Government Commerce
Office of Government Commerce
Ordnance Survey
Ordnance Survey
Ordnance Survey
Public Record Office of NI
Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre
Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre
Registers of Scotland
Registers of Scotland
Registers of Scotland
Royal Commission on the Acient and Historic Monuments of Scotland
Royal Commission on the Acient and Historic Monuments of Wales
Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Scotland
Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Wales
Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments for Scotland
Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments for Wales
Royal Mint
Royal Mint
Royal Mint
The National Archives
Transport Scotland
Transport Scotland
Transport Scotland
Treasury Solicitor, Bona Vacantia Division
Treasury Solicitor, Bona Vacantia Division
UK Hydrographic Office
UK Hydrographic Office
UK Hydrographic Office
Vehicle and Operator Services Agency
Welsh Assembly Government (Visit Wales)
Welsh Government
121
List
IFTS
Database
Delegation
Database
Delegation
IFTS
Database
Delegation
IFTS
Database
Delegation
Delegation
IFTS
Database
Database
Database
Delegation
Database
IFTS
Delegation
Database
Database
Database
IFTS
Database
Delegation
Database
Delegation
IFTS
Database
Database
Delegation
Database
Delegation
IFTS
Delegation
Delegation
Database
Database
IFTS
IFTS
Database
Delegation
IFTS
IFTS
Database
Delegation
IFTS
Database
Delegation
Database
Delegation
IFTS
Database
Database
Delegation
June 2013