Information Fair
Trader Scheme
Report
Land & Property Services, Northern Ireland
March 2012
1
PART ONE: INTRODUCTION
3
PART TWO: ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE VERIFICATION TEAM
6
PART THREE: KEY CHANGES
8
PART FOUR: HIGHLIGHTS/AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT
9
PART FIVE: PROGRESS
12
APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
13
APPENDIX 2: IFTS WEBSITE ASSESSMENT
14
Visit: March 2012
Published: April 2013
© Crown copyright 2013
2
PART ONE: INTRODUCTION
Information Fair Trader Scheme
1. The Information Fair Trader Scheme (IFTS) is the best practice model
for the public sector to demonstrate compliance with the Re-use of
Public Sector Information Regulations 2005 (the PSI Regulations).
IFTS ensures that re-users of public sector information can be
confident that they will be treated reasonably and fairly by public sector
information providers.
2. IFTS is also the mechanism by which the Controller of Her Majesty’s
Stationery Office (HMSO) regulates, through the Office of Public Sector
Information (OPSI), part of The National Archives, those Crown bodies
with a delegation to administer their own licensing. As a Crown body,
Land & Property Services (LPS), Northern Ireland, falls into this
category.
First verification
3. LPS was first verified in August 2008. Prior to that, Ordnance Survey
of Northern Ireland® (OSNI®), a constituent part of LPS, was a
longstanding IFTS member.
Re-verification
4. Re-verification is important as organisations change and staff move on.
It is also an opportunity for OPSI to ensure that the recommendations
from the last verification have been given due consideration. The
recommendations made after the August 2008 visit and LPS’s progress
in meeting them can be found in part five of this report.
5. The frequency of re-verification is based on several risk factors. These
include the complexity of the system that is in place to license public
sector information, how critical information trading is to the body in
question, the standard of compliance with recommendations from the
previous verification, and the degree of policy change that is
envisaged. LPS is assessed as being medium risk against these
criteria.
Licensing Activity at LPS
6. LPS is an executive agency within the Department of Finance and
Personnel for Northern Ireland. It is responsible for rating, valuation,
land registration and mapping.
7. LPS’s primary area of licensing activity continues to be in the field of
mapping information. LPS licenses a variety of products under the
OSNI brand name, from traditional paper maps through to digital
geographic data which is either used by members of the public, for
social policy research, or for commercial purposes. LPS has a
licensed partner scheme which enables the private sector to evaluate
and develop products prior to signing up for a commercial licence.
3
8. LPS administers a number of licences, from straightforward copying
licences involving a flat fee, to more complex Value Added Reseller
(VAR) which require royalties to be paid.
9. LPS supports data sharing within Northern Ireland through Spatial NI™
and its collective agreements with the rest of the public sector.
Overall Assessment
10. Progress against previous recommendations is detailed in part five of
this report.
11. In this report we:
Note that LPS continues to license its core mapping products
diligently.
Express regret that licensing activity within LPS has not fully kept
pace with the open data agenda.
Ask LPS to review its current policy of “user pays” across the board
and publish a statement on the outcome of the review.
Argue that that candidate datasets for re-use without charge should
be identified in order of priority.
Recommend that LPS extends its analysis of its potentially re-from
land registration through to valuation and rating.
Observe that there is a case for minimum royalty payments being
lowered or removed.
Point out that where data is free it should be offered under the
Open Government Licence.
Propose that LPS reviews its standard commercial licence with the
aim of producing a more concise and user-friendly document.
Advocate the carrying out of a new exercise on the pricing of data
to evaluate the cost base for the provision of bulk data as between
direct data supply and the supply of data to value added resellers.
Draw LPS’s attention to the need to develop and publish a public
task statement.
Suggest that LPS draws up a plan for more fully engaging the
application developer and citizen re-user communities.
12. Based on the team’s assessment, LPS is re-accredited to IFTS and
should be re-verified within the next 2-3 years.
4
13. Below is a summary table rating LPS’s current position against the
IFTS principles.
Maximisation
Development area
Simplicity
Satisfactory
Transparency
Satisfactory
Fairness
Satisfactory
Challenge
Satisfactory
Innovation
Satisfactory
5
PART TWO: ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE VERIFICATION
TEAM
Methodology
14. Since LPS was last re-verified in August 2008, OPSI has introduced
changes to the IFTS process. These reflect public sector information
policy developments. An IFTS Strategy1 and Performance
Management Framework2 have been produced which add
transparency and robustness to the process.
15. OPSI has also introduced three new IFTS principles:
Maximisation – an obligation to allow others to re-use
information;
Simplicity – facilitating re-use through simple processes, policies
and licence terms;
Innovation – supporting the development of new and innovative
forms of re-use.
16. These principles sit alongside the three existing IFTS principles of:
Transparency – being clear and up front about the terms of reuse, and the policies around it;
Fairness – applying terms without any discrimination;
Challenge – ensuring that re-use is underpinned by a robust
complaints process.
17. Together with the principles and performance management framework,
the verification team considers the organisation’s governance and
culture, risk management, re-use policies, licensing, pricing, and
approach to customer experience and feedback.
Documentation review
18. LPS provided documentation in support of the Chief Executive’s
commitment which was reviewed by the team prior to the onsite
verification.
People and Practices
19. In order to see how people in the organisation work and how their work
is impacted by the Information Fair Trader commitment, OPSI
interviewed a range of LPS staff at all levels who are involved in the
policy or practice of information re-use. This included speaking to the
Chief Executive and a non-executive director.
1
2
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/ifts-strategy.pdf
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/ifts-performance-management-framework.pdf
6
Licence File Review
20. A sample of licensing files was examined. The licence file review
provides evidence of adherence to corporate policy and the principles
of IFTS in actual transactions.
Website review
21. A review of the organisation’s website was carried out from the
viewpoint of a potential re-user of information.
Licence review
22. OPSI has recommended that LPS reviews its principal commercial
licence.
Complaints process
23. The customer complaints process was considered by the team. An
organisation’s complaints process, both policy and practice, indicates
how committed an organisation is to meeting customer needs.
Assistance provided by LPS
24. The team appreciates the co-operation and assistance of LPS staff.
Following our site visit, any supplementary documents that were
requested were provided promptly.
Re-Verification Dates
25. The re-verification took place on the following dates:
12-13 March 2012
The re-verification team consisted of an OPSI Standards Manager and
a Standards Assessor.
7
PART THREE: KEY CHANGES
26. The intention of an IFTS re-verification is to focus on changes since the
previous verification and the re-use policy landscape has changed
significantly since our last visit.
27. In April 2009, OPSI introduced new elements to IFTS as documented
in part two of this report.
28. The INSPIRE Regulations came into force in November 2009 and LPS
continues to represent Northern Ireland interests on the Location
Council.
29. In April 2010, Ordnance Survey Great Britain released a significant
amount of small and mid-scale mapping data for free. This was an
important watershed for public sector information, setting a trend for
public bodies that generally charge on a commercial basis to look
seriously at releasing some of their data for free. This move was
particularly relevant to LPS as a provider of mapping data. There
would be significant commercial and citizen re-use benefits available
were it possible to use Northern Ireland mapping data on an equivalent
basis to that offered in Great Britain.
30. The Government has reinforced its commitment to the principle that
data should be freely available in a re-usable format through continued
support for the data.gov.uk website and the establishment of the Public
Sector Transparency Board and associated thematic transparency
boards.
31. In September 2010, The National Archives launched the Open
Government Licence. This provides an effective vehicle for public
sector bodies wishing to license both commercial and non-commercial
re-use on simple terms and without charge.
32. In December 2011, the European Commission released a proposal for
amendments to the PSI Directive.
This could have significant
implications for public sector bodies, notably those that currently
charge for their information above marginal cost.
33. In March 2012 the creation of the Public Data Group (PDG) was
announced along with the setting up of the Data Strategy Board and
Open Data User Group. All four members of the PDG now release a
significant amount of data for free.
34. The enactment of new freedom of information provisions in May 2012
is aimed at strengthening the ability to re-use information on
straightforward terms.
35. The above developments all point to an increasing expectation that all
public sector bodies, even those which have traditionally subscribed to
the “user pays” model, should re-examine their approach to information
re-use.
8
PART FOUR: HIGHLIGHTS/AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT
Maximisation
36. It is important that IFTS member organisations provide a variety of use
and re-use channels and minimise the barriers to re-use. This will
typically involve making some data available for free in the interest of
promoting wider social and economic benefits.
37. While LPS continues to license its core mapping products diligently,
there are two areas in which more could be done to maximise the reuse of LPS data. First, by giving consideration to the release of some
small and mid-scale mapping data without charge. Second, by more
fully exploring the potential for licensing data from other LPS sectors,
land registration being an example.
38. In respect of mapping data, more freely available data would not only
be of benefit as far as commercial stimulus and citizen re-use in
Northern Ireland is concerned, but there would be significant synergies
available through combining the data with equivalent data for Great
Britain.
39. With the limited exception of a free town names gazetteer, LPS has a
longstanding policy of charging for data on a cost recovery basis and
following the “user pays” principle.
40. LPS has put this question to its Minister and, in the absence of an
equivalent funding package to that which was put in place to support
Ordnance Survey’s open data initiative, it continues to receive support
for this stance.
41. Recommendation Given the potential UK-wide benefits that could be
achieved through full or partial alignment with comparable free data
that is available in the rest of the UK, LPS should formally review its
approach to the question of free data and publish a statement on its
website recording the outcome of this review.
42. Recommendation While recognising that funds for free data may be
limited, LPS should identify candidate datasets for release without
charge in order of priority.
43. Regarding data from other parts of LPS, some work has been done to
evaluate the potential of licensing more land registration data and
some statistical data on house prices is made available, but there has
yet to be a systematic survey of the re-use potential of LPS’s wider
data holdings.
44. Recommendation LPS to update OPSI on its evaluation of the re-use
potential of land registration data and extend its analysis to its valuation
and rating data.
45. As far as barriers are concerned, minimum royalty requirements can
prevent small and medium enterprises from taking the opportunity to
re-use public sector information. LPS has such minimum royalty
9
requirements in place for the commercialisation of products through
licensing agreements. Other comparable organisations have reviewed
such charges over the last few years and lowered or removed them.
46. Recommendation LPS to review its existing minimum royalty charges
with a view to lowering or removing them.
Simplicity
47. With the launch of the Open Government Licence and its widespread
take-up, there is now a ready-made vehicle for licensing free data on
simple terms.
48. Recommendation Where LPS does make information available
without charge, it should adopt the Open Government Licence.
49. The licences that LPS offer for a number of types of re-use on its
website are succinct and relatively easy to understand and so meet the
test of simplicity.
50. Its principal licence for commercial re-use, however, could benefit from
review. The document runs to approximately thirty pages and should
be edited for clarity.
51. Recommendation LPS should review its principal commercial re-use
licence and submit a draft version of the revised licence to OPSI for
comment.
Fairness
52. Discussion with LPS staff and examination of files has demonstrated
that LPS is aware of the need to treat customers equitably.
53. As far as charging for information is concerned, LPS is guided by the
principle of cost recovery. However, it is some years since LPS carried
out a fundamental review of the basis for its charges.
54. LPS is conscious of the fact that a review of the cost base for the direct
supply of bulk data as compared with that for data made available for
re-use by valued added resellers would be appropriate.
55. Recommendation LPS to re-examine the cost base of charges for the
direct supply of data by comparison with data made available to value
added re-sellers.
Transparency
56. One element of transparency is for an organisation to be clear on
where its public task responsibilities lie in relation to the information it
produces.
57. With the proposal to amend the PSI Directive, the question of public
task could assume increasing importance. The National Archives has
published guidance on producing a public task statement.
10
58. Recommendation LPS should publish a statement of its public task in
relation to the information that it collects, holds and disseminates.
59. Provision of clear website information is important.
LPS’s website is appended to this report.
Our review of
Challenge
60. LPS has sound procedures in place for complaint handling.
61. OPSI has not received any formal complaints concerning LPS.
62. However, OPSI does invite customer comments concerning IFTS
members and we received representations from the Association of
Census Distributors (ACD) prior to our site visit.
63. ACD’s comments on the charges levied for mapping information across
the UK, the licensing of Census map references, the application of
minimum royalties and the ease of use of licence documents were
taken into consideration as part of OPSI’s overall approach to this
audit.
Innovation
64. A demo/developer licence is available, but on request rather than
online and at a significant charge. There is a small amount of sample
data available in a re-usable format. The very limited amount of free
data that is available for unrestricted re-use limits the extent to which
developers and citizen re-users can explore and experiment with LPS
data.
65. While LPS has been involved in the provision of an app to support the
tourist industry in Northern Ireland, it is not apparent that it has a
comprehensive plan in place for supporting innovative re-use.
66. Recommendation LPS to develop a plan for more fully engaging with
the application developer community and citizen re-users.
11
PART FIVE: PROGRESS
Recommendations of previous verification and if they have been met.
Principle Ref
Priority
Action Taken
Status
36
LPS should conduct an audit of its information
resources with a view to identifying the data holdings
that can be made available for re-use.
H
LPS has looked at data holdings in
land registration and there is a new
recommendation to audit valuation
and rating information.
Carried
forward
37
LPS should produce an Information Asset Register
(IAR) or an equivalent resource.
H
The availability of such information
that has been identified as available
for re-use is listed on the LPS
website.
Complete
38
Once the organisation has established which data
sets can be made available for re-use, it should
convene seminars using the ones it currently hosts
for prospective licensed partners in the exploitation
of its mapping data as a model.
M
Not applicable until process of
identification of new data sources is
complete. Not carried forward on
the basis that licensed partner
process is now more embedded.
Complete
42
LPS should consider the observations made in the
review when the text of the licences is next updated.
M
New recommendation made on
licence documentation.
Openness
Compliance
Recommendation
12
Carried
forward
APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
This is a summary of the recommended actions to:
remedy the weaknesses identified; and
strengthen the commitment to information fair trading.
Innovation Transparency
Recommendation
Priority
41
Given the potential UK-wide benefits that could be
achieved through full or partial alignment with
comparable free data that is available in the rest of
the UK, LPS should formally review its approach to
the question of free data and publish a statement on
its website recording the outcome of this review.
H
42
While recognising that funds for free data may be
limited, LPS should identify candidate datasets for
release without charge in order of priority.
H
44
LPS to update OPSI on its evaluation of the re-use
potential of land registration data and extend its
analysis to its valuation and rating data.
M
46
LPS to review its existing minimum royalty charges
with a view to lowering or removing them.
H
48
Where LPS does make information available
without charge, it should adopt the Open
Government Licence.
H
51
LPS should review its principal commercial re-use
licence and submit a draft version of the revised
licence to OPSI for comment.
M
55
LPS to re-examine the cost base of charges for the
direct supply of data by comparison with data made
available to value added re-sellers.
H
58
LPS should publish a statement of its public task in
relation to the information that it collects, holds and
disseminates.
M
66
LPS to develop a plan for more fully engaging with
the application developer community and citizen reusers.
M
Fairness
Simplicity
Maximisation
Principle Ref
13
APPENDIX 2: IFTS WEBSITE ASSESSMENT
Organisation: Land and Property Services, Northern Ireland
Questionnaire Part 1: Transparent Processes
This section considers the transparency of the processes and terms under
which a Public Sector Body (PSB) licenses information.
Licences
1. Are the PSB’s licences available online?
Yes, for the following types of licence: Internal Business Use,
Publishing, and Digital Licensing:
http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/lps/index/copyright_licensing_publishing.htm
It’s main value added reseller contract and associated commercial
paperwork is offline.
2. How standardised are the PSB’s licences?
Those licences that are viewable online are standardised and
categorised.
3. Are the purposes of different licences and their intended audiences
explained?
Yes, the purpose, usage limits and types of user of each licence are
explained and documented on the website.
4. Are any exceptions given? Are they explained/justified?
Copyright requirements and the necessity of using the material on an
authorised, licensed basis are explained on the Crown copyright page
http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/lps/index/copyright_licensing_publishing.htm
Personal or internal use is licensed through licences that are viewable
online.
5. Would the licences harmonise with those offered by other relevant PSI
providers?
It is not apparent that the licences that are offered have been
benchmarked against those currently offered by Ordnance Survey,
14
Great Britain. The Open Government Licence, which does facilitate the
re-use of compatible datasets, is not referred to on the website.
Other policy issues
6. Is there a complaints process? Is it explained? Is it online?
Yes, http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/lps/index/about-lps/complaint.htm
It is also made clear that onward referral of licensing complaints can be
made to the Office of Public Sector Information. However, contact
details should be updated.
7. Is there a charging policy? Is it online?
Yes, http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/lps/lps_pricing_policy-2_1_.pdf
8. Does the PSB flag its membership of IFTS?
Yes, http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/lps/index/aboutlps/lps_information_fair_trader_scheme.htm
9. Does the PSB publish its IFTS commitment?
Yes,
http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/lps/ifts_chief_exec_s_commitment_for_website
s-3_1_.pdf
10. Does it explain its IFTS obligations?
Yes, http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/lps/index/aboutlps/lps_information_fair_trader_scheme.htm
11. Does the PSB have other feedback mechanisms?
Yes, it has a feedback form for comments on its services
http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/feedback.htm
Questionnaire Part 2: Information Availability
This section focuses on the online availability of public sector information held
by the IFTS member.
12. Does the PSB make any of its information assets accessible by the
web?
Yes, through its online map shop https://maps.osni.gov.uk/ and through
its provision of sample “Pointer” data
https://maps.osni.gov.uk/CMSPages/moreinfo_address_data.aspx,
15
Pointer being the address database for Northern Ireland which LPS
maintains. Also, information assets are accessible to public sector
users through GeoHub NI
http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/lps/index/gi/spatial_ni.htm
13. How significant a portion of the PSB’s information assets are available
via the web?
A significant amount of information is directly accessible, although
much of it remains subject to enquiry and full licence agreement before
it can be obtained.
14. Do methods used to implement web access represent good practice,
taking into account the nature of the assets in question?
Sample data that is available is published in CSV format, which is a
convenient, proportional format for this type of data for both publisher
and re-users. No registration is required.
15. How does the PSB make discovery of its offline assets possible? Does
it have an Information Asset Register or other catalogue?
It does not have a formal asset register, but it does prominently display
the means by which its key information resources can be accessed
http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/lps/lps/index/gi.htm
16. Does the PSB supply provenance information for the datasets it offers,
that is information about the quality, collection methods, publication
frequency etc?
There is information supplied on technical specifications and so forth.
16