APPSI, Public Sector Information, Open Data and Government Information Policies
David Rhind1
Summary
This paper describes the role and activities of the Advisory Panel on Public Sector
Information in its 12 year lifetime. It summarises and comments on key areas in which
APPSI has made a contribution and describes the body’s objectives and way of working.
Much has changed in the PSI/Open Data area since APPSI’s foundation, driven in part by
technological change and greater Government activism. But the record shows that APPSI
has made a substantial contribution to that change.
1. Background
The UK Government’s Advisory Panel on Public Sector Information (APPSI) was established
as a Non-Departmental Public Body by Douglas Alexander MP, Minister for the Cabinet
Office in April 2003. In October 2006, APPSI became a Non-Departmental Public Body of
the Ministry of Justice (then the Department of Constitutional Affairs). It had two defined
roles:

To provide advice to Ministers and to the Director of the Office for Public Sector
Information (OPSI) and the Controller of HMSO on how to encourage and create
opportunities in the information industry for greater re-use of public sector information

as part of the review process regarding the Re-use of Public Sector Information
Regulations (Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 1515). Complainants who felt dissatisfied with the way that OPSI considered their complaints could appeal to APPSI
under certain situations.
The world of Public Sector Information (PSI) has changed almost beyond recognition in the
last decade. Apart from the rapid technology-enabled changes, the EU has reviewed its
Directive on PSI and national governments have been required to implement the new
Directive into national law by summer 2015. This necessitates a more legal redress
mechanism involving tribunals and providing ‘greater teeth’ (the case for which APPSI has
always supported). As the Open Data movement has gathered national and international
momentum, PSI is no longer the sole focus of Government interest in information policy.
Unsurprisingly, additional organisations - some of which Government has set up within
departments other than the Ministry of Justice – now provide advice to their parent bodies.
Ministers therefore decided that APPSI would be stood down when the EU Directive was
transposed into UK law. This is scheduled to occur in July 2015.
This brief note sets out to summarise the main issues with which APPSI has been
concerned and the impact it has had. It does this in two ways: by a synoptic view of some of
the key issues to which we have contributed and a more detailed Annex 1. Even more
detailed information – for example the minutes and many of the presentations at each APPSI
1
This was assembled from the documentary record by the APPSI Chairman but has also benefited greatly
through scrutiny by APPSI members. I am grateful to all the APPSI members and OPSI staff who have helped to
achieve what is described in this paper.
meeting are accessible on the APPSI web site and the Government’s web archive.2 Annex 2
to this report summarises the membership of the Panel throughout its existence and the
visitors who contributed to its meetings – and hence helped to shape advice to Ministers and
OPSI and to APPSI’s public statements. Because much has changed in policies and practice
since c.2008, this account focuses primarily on the subsequent period although Annual
Reports and minutes of APPSI meetings describe earlier activities.
2. APPSI’s operating principles
The APPSI approach was to be outward- and forward-looking. From the outset it invited in
members of other organisations – some from outside of the UK (see Annex 2) – to present
their own views and take part in open discussions. The minutes of all meetings of APPSI
were published, as were most of the presentations. Designed to bring a wide range of senior
experience together, APPSI’s membership was derived from academia, the IT industry, the
law, economics, PSI producers, the private sector services sector, local and central
government and from the Northern Ireland, Scottish and Welsh administrations. The body
was unique in having a UK-wide remit.
APPSI operated by developing national and international networks which have alerted us to
new developments and issues. Our meetings have always included presentations by
‘outsiders’ (see Annex 2). We have published ‘thought pieces’3 to stimulate discussion in the
community, held ‘one off’ seminars as appropriate, written to Ministers (often offering
unsolicited advice) and responded to national and international consultations launched by
various governments.
Finally, APPSI was never a lobbying body: it sought to identify both opportunities and
implementable solutions to problems and then to publicise these more widely, as well as
advising Ministers across Government and the Director of OPSI. Perhaps surprisingly there
was much consensus on many conclusions (though not all). Other than a small honorarium
for the Chairman and travelling expenses for meetings of members it never had access to a
budget. Finally, we always sought to collaborate and foster beneficial outcomes rather than
claim credit for initiating developments.
3. Continuity and change
The Public Sector Information and Open Data worlds are very different in 2015 to those of
2008 and earlier. Advances in technology and software have transformed what is possible.
Government policies have evolved rapidly, initially under the Brown UK government but
especially under the Cameron one through the influence of Francis Maude, the Minister for
the Cabinet Office. Many developments have been global for example the multi-national
Open Government Partnership4 has been predicated on availability of Open Data. And, as a
consequence, several new organisations have been set up in the UK (mostly by Whitehall),
such as the Open Data User Group, the Open Data Institute and the Public Sector
Transparency Board.
2
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/*/http://www.appsi.gov.uk/ and
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/*/http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/appsi/default.htm
3
Such as http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/meetings/appsi-discussion-note-derived-data.pdf
4
http://www.opengovpartnership.org/
2
Some of APPSI’s concerns have however been remarkably consistent throughout time.
Many of these were identified in a letter from APPSI to the then Minister in July 20085. This
described various ‘road blocks’. In summary they were:









The availability of PSI across departments was patchy. A guaranteed right of access
and of re-use was needed to fix it; the EU Directive and UK Regulations were too
weak to provide it.
Users would help to enlarge PSI use by adding value to data if it was readily
available
Ambiguity and confusion existed in what Public Sector Information Holders (PSIHs)
were required and entitled to do because their Public Task was not clearly defined;
this has led to much tension between the private and public sectors.
In some cases PSI had been created within government but the relevant function had
been out-sourced to the private sector and the data were no longer accessible
The ownership of Intellectual Property Rights and access to PSI which had been
integrated with other information (creating ‘derived data’) was unclear.
The sanctions against those who did transgress against the UK Regulations
implementing the EU Directive were either inadequate or ‘nuclear’. They either could
not be enforced or, where they could, they might destroy the basis of the PSIH’s
activities
The charging basis for information made available by PSIHs acting as Trading Funds
was inhibiting much wider use of these assets. APPSI argued for a wider use of
marginal cost pricing.
Exclusive licensing arrangements existed in some cases and this was unacceptable.
Awareness of the potential value of PSI and existing beneficial uses was very limited.
Some awareness-raising was needed.
Some of these have been overtaken by events but others have remained only partially
addressed over the subsequent years. That said, the situation is now much better than in
2008 – in part due to APPSI’s activities. We now describe a selection of these activities.
4. Some case studies of APPSI contributions to ‘big issues’
APPSI held over 50 formal meetings over its lifetime. Some issues (e.g. charging for PSI)
were discussed often and in many contexts. Here we summarise a small selection of some
key activities and outcomes. Many of these are inter-twined: the PSI and Open Data
environment is in effect an ecosystem and APPSI members have also been associated with
other bodies, thereby spreading our thinking across a wider domain.
4.1 Minimising conceptual and linguistic misconceptions (the APPSI Glossary of Terms)
In a situation where a field is developing rapidly and engaging individuals from many
disciplinary backgrounds, it is no surprise that the language and terminology used
becomes confused. This was particularly the case in PSI and Open Data. Indeed the
definitions of these two terms became very unclear, some assuming they were
synonyms whilst in reality they describe overlapping entities. It became apparent to
APPSI that there was no consistent vocabulary for dealing with PSI or Open Data and
this has sometimes caused confusion and misplaced emphasis. Government recognised
5
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/appsi-minister-letter-ec-submission-07-2008.pdf
3
APPSI’s argument in its Open Data White Paper 2012 (Cm 8353) and promised to take
action.
In the event APPSI seized the initiative and, in cooperation with the Cabinet Office,
initiated an exercise to aggregate and rationalise existing glossaries into a single
preferred set of definitions. Rather than decide on the most appropriate definitions
internally, it was decided that the proposed definitions themselves should be offered to
the wider PSI and Open Data communities for comment using a 'wiki' style mechanism a site that allows multiple contributions to be combined to arrive at a consensus view of
what is the most appropriate definition. This is now available at data.gov.uk/glossary and
is being lightly moderated.
The glossary was initially compiled from six existing glossaries from government
documents and open data organisations. In addition, APPSI and the Cabinet Office have
added some definitions from other official sources and from our own deliberations. A
cumulative list of preferred terms from all the sources has been assembled. Definitions
have been graded by members of the team as below.
Star grading
*****
****
***
**
*
Definition type
Widely agreed definition or enshrined in legislation
A sound definition; fit for purpose
A working definition capable of improvement
Usable but potentially confusing or ambiguous
A loose or contentious definition; not adequate
4.2 Widening user access to public sector information through Open Data
The first explicit mention of Open Data in the APPSI minutes dates from 2009 but the
concept was a matter for much APPSI discussion and action beforehand; indeed
APPSI’s remit included ‘to advise Ministers on how to encourage and create
opportunities in the information industry for greater re-use of public sector information’.
For instance we frequently articulated our views on the merits of marginal cost pricing of
government’s PSI – though we also staunchly argued the need to maintain data quality
as well.
Increasingly of course other parties became involved. For example the role of The
Guardian in its Free Our Data campaign and widespread antipathy to what was
perceived as expensive and restrictive licensing of data by Ordnance Survey (OS) in
particular produced a fertile environment for the growth of the Open Data movement.
4.3 Engaging local authorities, the NHS, the devolved administrations and the private sector
in PSI/Open Data developments as well as central government
At the outset the focus of central government so far as Open Data was concerned was
almost totally with Whitehall departments. The two letters6 to government departments
by Prime Minister Cameron demonstrated a fixation with organisations that could be
centrally controlled. As a result the large amounts of PSI held in the devolved
administrations, by local authorities, and in the NHS were largely ignored for several
years. APPSI – which included representatives from the devolved administrations plus
6
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/letter-to-government-departments-on-opening-up-data and
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/letter-to-cabinet-ministers-on-transparency-and-open-data
4
senior figures who had worked in the NHS and local authorities – railed against this
monocular fixation and we are delighted by recent advances made in those
organisations.
In the early days of PSI and Open Data there was a focus only on data held by the public
sector. Yet, as presentations made over many years to APPSI vividly demonstrated,
parts of the private sector were far advanced in using their own data and that from the
public sector to underpin their business success. This was perhaps most notable in the
retail sector where some APPSI members were closely engaged with major commercial
players. We argued for recognition of the merits of data sharing between private and
public sectors whilst recognising the safeguards for privacy which needed to be
established and the importance of communication of benefits to the population at large.
We were delighted when Government provided £64m funding in 2014 to the Economic
and Social Research Council to fund work on Big Data, exploitation of administrative
data and working with the private sector.
4.4 Identifying the financial and social benefits of Open Data
There have long been conflicts and differences between different state bodies in how
they make available (if at all) the data they hold. This long pre-dates the advent of Open
Data. Indeed Ordnance Survey – at government behest – warned against unlicensed
use of its mapping as far back as 1817 whilst in contrast the US federal government has
always operated in a fashion akin to Open Data. Perhaps unsurprisingly there have
been many attempts to quantify the relative merits of government data being made
available for free or being charged for but success has proved elusive7. Most of these
studies have been produced by economists and suffered from the need to make
sometimes heroic assumptions about behaviour. They also ran into the Treasury’s
preference for certain levels of revenue now as opposed to potential economic gain or
possibly larger but uncertain revenues in the future. Recognising the importance of the
issue, APPSI held a major seminar8 with representatives from such bodies as Google,
McKinsey and HM Treasury in January 2014 seeking to clarify the issues involved.
Previous assessments of benefits have been focused on various different aspects of
Open (and related) Data, used different data classifications and terminology, and
pertained to different geographies and moments in time. Rarely, we found, is the
availability of Open Data the single key factor enabling success: other factors like
financing, customer interest in the service, marketing, and competition also matter. Given
the very nature of Open Data, tracking its usage is usually difficult and benefits do not
always arise in the same place as where costs are incurred. We concluded that it is
impossible to put a meaningful single monetary value on the benefits but that some
certainly existed. Commercial benefits to small companies (software and data
developers) can be identified. The greatest benefits however accrue to consumer
surplus, notably in the transport domain where time saving by users of apps in planning
or making journeys is a major benefit. Other benefits to the end user through use of
Open Data include some improvement in obtaining best value for money in purchasing
7
Measuring real success is difficult, as the Public Administration Select Committee has pointed out
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmpubadm/564/564.pdf
8
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/meetings/20140128-appsi-what-is-the-value-of-opendata.pdf
5
goods on-line, other forms of convenience (such as grocery deliveries) and possibly
environmental benefits.
4.5 The National Information Infrastructure and Framework
In the early days of Open Data and PSI the focus of government and many other parties
was on individual data sets. There were frequent arguments that maximising the number
of data sets available for re-use was the key to success. APPSI took a different
approach. From December 2010 onwards we argued strongly that Britain needed to
recognise that the need for a national information infrastructure parallel to that for the
physical infrastructure (e.g. roads) is critical to how the UK operates9,10. In a world where
many tens – perhaps hundreds - of thousands of data sets are being created or
maintained by the public sector some are much more important than others and need to
be prioritised and operated to common standards. One manifestation of this was the
identification – originally by APPSI members Robert Barr and Christopher Roper – of the
category of Core Reference Data (CRD). By this was meant data which formed an
underpinning for many other data sets. Thus some Ordnance Survey data is a CRD
since it is used as a geographic framework for linking multiple data sets together and
displaying them in a geographic context. The Royal Mail’s Postcode Address File (PAF)
is another such CRD (see below); the failure to create a definitive address database
which is widely available as a CRD led to the avoidable expenditure of £12m for the last
Census of Population.
Over time APPSI recognised that a NII was too narrow a focus and promulgated the
concept of a broader National Information Framework (NIF)11. We argued the need to
become more strategic and focus on a contemporary NIF which includes (at least) all key
data sets to meet currently anticipated needs in governments and other key sectors of
the economy. The NIF should also consist – crucially – of policies, procedures,
standards, directories, metadata, tools, user guidance, skill sets and other foundation
elements as well as information derived from the entire public sector – not just central
government – and possibly the private sector.
APPSI’s formulation of a NII and a NIF is a classic example of how we have helped
shape the entire PSI/OD field in the UK and beyond. The concept of a NII was taken up
by the Cabinet Office12 and subsequently was developed by the Open Data User
Group13. We rejoiced in those developments. We also take pride in the designation by
Government in April 2015 of the real time ELGIN database of roadworks as part of the
National Information Infrastructure. So far as is known this is the only private sector
database yet to be so designated and ELGIN has set a high standard in demonstrating
good governance, transparency and adherence to government guidance. ELGIN is led
by Shane O’Neill, an APPSI member and is rapidly becoming a national database as
almost all Local Authorities are now participants.
9
National Information Infrastructure by M.Jennings December 2010 see
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/meetings/061210Paper2-Michael-Jennings-presentation.pdf
10
National Information Infrastructure and Open Data 20 April 2012 see
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/appsi/meetings-conferences-seminars.htm in record of 35th APPSI
meeting
11
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/nif-and-open-data.pdf October 2012
12
http://data.gov.uk/dataset/national-information-infrastructure
13
http://data.gov.uk/blog/national-information-infrastructure-nii
6
4.6 Data sharing benefits and issues
Central to the realisation of benefits from Open Data is the concept of data sharing. This
is rarely a major issue if the data are aggregate i.e. do not describe characteristics of any
one human individual or business. Yet it is self-evident that large potential benefits exist
when such personal data from different sources can be linked together and analysed.
This is particularly the case in health data but extends to many other areas and to ‘comingling’ of data from different scientific or business domains.
APPSI recognised this from a very early stage and helped over an extended period to
develop national thinking about privacy issues and how to demonstrate the benefits of
data sharing and linkage to the populace. At an APPSI seminar in 2008 Dr (now Sir)
Mark Walport described the findings of the Thomas and Walport report on data sharing.
And in 2014 members of the ONS Beyond 2011 team discussed their work on using
administrative register and other data to supplement or replace a traditional Population
Census. Their – and many other – presentations were made available on the APPSI web
site and the discussions helped shape APPSI advice. The discussions and debates
provoked by such presentations helped to forge APPSI views and hence shape its
advice to Ministers and its public statements. For example APPSI argued strongly that
Unique Property Reference Numbers (UPRNs) should be Open Data and this was
accepted in March 2015 by OS, GeoPlace (jointly owned by OS and the Local
Government Association through the latter’s Local Government Information House Ltd
subsidiary) and the Local Government Association. Not all such APPSI advice was
accepted: perhaps the least successful14 was that the PAF should be made available as
Open Data. In the event, Government decided that retaining the ownership of this as part
of the Royal Mail privatisation was essential to the latter’s success. This remains a
controversial view and has had impact on subsequent consultations on change of status
of government PSIHs (see below).
4.7 Big Data and data scientists
Central to the entire Open Data initiative and to the re-use of Public Sector Information is
the view that this will generate new services, foster transparency, create new high skilled
jobs and bring national economic benefits. As APPSI’s NII and NIF thinking clearly
demonstrated, data availability alone is a necessary but not sufficient causal factor for
achieving these ends. Tools to link and analyse the data and the existence of a pool of
skills and an information management profession are also essential – a view now more
widely held in the Big Data movement. APPSI has always seen this as an exciting and
potentially transformational development. But we have also seen that it is potentially
disastrous if the analysts are not aware of the characteristics of the data (e.g. they are
often a non-representative sample of the population) and have inadequate domain
knowledge. There is much evidence that the UK does poorly on international
comparisons of mathematical and statistical skills15. Thus we have repeatedly supported
the development of new educational approaches to train data scientists appropriately
(such as the Nuffield Foundation, ESRC and HEFCE funded Q-Step scheme to multiply
quantitative skills in undergraduates in the social sciences.
14
15
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/response-to-paf-advisory-board-consultation.pdf
http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/uk-outlier-upper-secondary-maths-education
7
4.8 The Trading Funds
Arguably the biggest barrier to dramatic widening of use of PSI and Open Data use has
been the Treasury-imposed rules under which a number of government PSIHs must
operate – the Trading Funds16,17. In essence this requires these bodies to fund
themselves by licensing data or providing services. In addition, the Treasury expects to
receive an annual dividend. This has raised a multiplicity of arguments and complaints,
especially concerning the behaviour of Ordnance Survey whose data underpins a very
wide range of applications. OS has been accused of operating in a monopolistic fashion,
over-charging and imposing complex and highly legalistic licensing terms, and seeking to
control all data derived from admixture of a client’s data and OS data – even if the latter
is only implicit such as locations of house centroids.
As a result, OPSI – the first line of redress open to complainants – has received some 52
complaints about the practices of government PSIHs over the last decade. Of these 17
have arisen from alleged OS approaches and behaviours: many have come from small
businesses seeking to create new services using OS data. Where OPSI has finally been
unable to resolve a complaint to the satisfaction of the complainants, they have the
option of having the OPSI process reviewed by APPSI. The two major independent
reviews18 carried out by APPSI under its statutory function both originated from
complaints against OS investigated by OPSI and whose reports were found wanting by
the complainants.
Over nearly a decade APPSI has questioned the Trading Fund approach for the impact it
has had on constraining the widening of beneficial use of Ordnance Survey and other
Trading Funds’ data. Whilst this was overcome for most, though not all, of the public
sector through Treasury funding of a Public Service Mapping Agreement, for the private
sector - particularly SMEs - pricing remained an obstacle. Along with its partners and, in
particular, the influence of senior Ministers and the Public Sector Transparency Board
(on which the Chair of APPSI and the Director of OPSI have sat) the range of OS data
deemed Open Data has been increased19. That said, the changed status of OS as a
Government-Owned Company20 may well produce new complexities and tensions
between users and SMEs.
4.9 Establishing principles for operations of Public Sector Information Holders
It is entirely appropriate for Government to review the roles and structure of public sector
bodies to meet changed circumstances. PSIHs are no exception to that dictum. But the
‘PAF affair’ (see above) and other developments21 raised questions for APPSI about how
16
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/80075/Categories_of_public
_bodies_Dec12.pdf
17
http://www.civilserviceworld.com/trading-funds-model-impeding-open-data-plans
18
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/appsi-review-ia-op-30-04-07-final.pdf and
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/appsi-review-board-report-77mseptember-2014.pdf
19
https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/about/news/2015/four-new-os-open-data-products.html
20
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/writtenstatement/Commons/2015-01-22/HCWS215/
21
Such as the outsourcing of tasks previously carried out within government where the commercial contractor
became the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights to the data collected in the course of the contract. This
8
Government should operate especially (but not solely) when changing the status of
PSIHs. APPSI published a set of principles22 designed to ensure that continuing access
to and maintenance of the quality of data previously funded by the public sector should
be maintained. This catalysed some reactions to Government consultations such as that
on the future status and possible privatisation of some functions of Land Registry. The
Director of OPSI has made clear that current Ministers and herself are committed to the
on-going ownership of OS data as Crown property.
4.10
Promoting research in the PSI/Open Data areas
APPSI outputs have included many published statements, responses to consultations,
letters of advice, summaries of meetings and more ephemeral ‘thought pieces’.
As stated earlier, developments in Open Data and PSI have occurred within many
disciplines and countries. This has been healthy with much cross-fertilisation. But there
has been little strategic thinking about the research which is needed to ensure continuing
progress. APPSI members produced and discussed a ‘thought piece’ paper proposing a
number of areas of future research and engaged with the academic community about
ways forward. Some of the elements of this have subsequently been funded by
Government through the ESRC’s Big Data initiative.
5. Conclusions
All of the above and Annex 1 show that APPSI has played a significant catalytic role in its
lifetime. Of course while some of what has been described – notably the NII/NIF and the
glossary – have unambiguously been APPSI creations, other developments have involved
contributions by other bodies and individuals in the UK and elsewhere. Throughout the last
decade however APPSI members have performed a signal service in developing the
concept, reality and benefits of Open Data and Public Sector Information.
David Rhind
June 2015
situation – now less frequent under changed procurement processes – severely reduced the availability of
some important (e.g. transport) data sets as Open Data.
22
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/appsi-principles-pertaining-togovernment-public-sector-information-holders.pdf
9
ANNEX 1: SOME EXAMPLES OF APPSI’S CATALYTIC ROLE IN THE PERIOD 2010 TO 2014
Government Actions/Commitments/Plans
APPSI contribution
GRSR* Commitment 1 on National Data Strategy contains
agreement that Core Reference Data will be identified
Made the case for Core Reference data sets in 2011/12 and subsequently
GRSR* Commitment 1 The National Data Strategy will be taken
forward through the Information Economy Strategy
GRSR* Commitment 2 The Cabinet Office Transparency Team will
set out a collaborative process for identifying those datasets which
should be part of the ‘National Information Infrastructure’.
GRSR* Commitment 3 Government will publish the criteria which
determine the National Information Infrastructure for comment on
Data.gov.uk
GRSR* Commitment 4 We will set out the data we already have by
department and invite comment from business users about what data
they would like released. We will also be working with departments to
complete this process so that we have a full set outlined for UK OGP
National Action Plan in October. At this point we will highlight those
which are of the highest priority.
Made the case from 2010 onwards for a more strategic approach to data
release than that initially taken in Government.
APPSI introduced the concept of the National Information Infrastructure in
November 201023 and has been refining it ever since via the concept of
the National Information Framework24. This has been adopted by
Government and is being taken forward through the Economic Information
Strategy
Prior to the launch of data.gov.uk APPSI argued strongly for an easily
accessible means of users knowing what data sets were held inside
government and that this information should be kept current. In particular,
APPSI has always argued for an initial focus on high value data sets.
APPSI therefore strongly supports the thrust of Commitments 4, 5, 6 and 7
GRSR* Commitment 5. The Cabinet Office will work with those
departments who have already undertaken a dataset inventory to
develop guidance for other departments on how to develop their
inventory.
GRSR* Commitment 6 The Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor
and the National Statistician will identify data sets of critical
23
24
See The National Information Infrastructure 2010 http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/meetings/061210Paper2-Michael-Jennings-presentation.pdf
See A National Information Framework for Public Sector Information and Open Data. 2013 http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/nif-and-open-data.pdf
10
importance
GRSR* Commitment 7 As part of a refreshed Departmental Open
Data Strategy approach the Cabinet Office Transparency Team will
work with departments to define an inventory of all data that they
hold, including that already released on Data.gov.uk. … departments
will be asked to score their data inventories to identify their most
important datasets. We will also develop functionality so that these
inventories can be published so that citizens, businesses and other
users can also contribute to the identification of National Information
Infrastructure. These full inventories will be published by departments
as part of their Open Data Strategies in October, alongside the
refreshed OGP National Action Plan.
GRSR* Commitment 10 The EU Directive on the Re-use of PSI will
be adopted in Summer 2013. The Government aims to transpose the
terms of the revised Directive into UK legislation during 2014-15.
APPSI discussed and critiqued possible changes to the EU Re-use
Directive with senior staff in the EU Commissioner’s Office.
GRSR* Commitment 11 Recognition of the value of information held
in local government
The initial focus on data held in central government (in particular in
Whitehall) has been highlighted as insufficient by APPSI since 2010. In
particular, the importance of data held in the devolved administrations and
in local government was stressed. Facilitated by representatives of these
entities on APPSI, the issues are now being addressed.
GRSR* Commitment 14 Government will consider how best to draw
upon experts from within and out with government and will feed this
recommendation into our fuller governance review.
GRSR* Commitment 18 The Government agrees that there are
further positive steps that can be taken …. through increased
promotion of what data and support is available to raise greater
A number of members of APPSI have been invited to join other relevant
groups such as the Open Data User Group, the Public Sector
Transparency Board, the Local Data Panel and the Welfare and HMRC
Tax Sector Transparency Boards. As a consequence, their APPSI
experience and links through APPSI colleagues to a very wide area of
expertise has been beneficial to a wider community.
Acted as an independent forum for open discussion, engaging staff from a
variety of organisations including the Cabinet Office, Department for
Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), Ministry of Justice, Office for
National Statistics, the Office for the Information Commissioner, the
11
awareness
Shareholder Executive, Ordnance Survey, the Environment Agency, the
Met Office, the Local Government Association, multiple parts of the
European Union, the Data Strategy Board, the Open Data User Group,
and the Open Data Institute plus major commercial bodies such as
Google, Deloitte and Sainsburys, entrepreneurial start-ups such as Placr
and academics and research organisations (such as the Wellcome
Foundation) in APPSI meetings. The results of these discussions/debates
are published as minutes and presentations thereafter. In addition, the
chairman and appropriate members have held smaller meetings with
Ofcom, BIS, CO, and other bodies to seek to find good solutions to
disputes or emerging problems. Aside from exchanging information on
new and desirable innovations, this has helped raise awareness of the
PSI/Open Data agendas.
GRSR* Commitments 20 The Government will continue to
emphasise the importance of data analytics skills across all
disciplines of the civil service…
APPSI members have argued since 2010 that factors other than available
data, including Open Data and PSI, will shape the success of the National
Information Infrastructure. In particular, data analytics skills are in short
supply and this is now recognised by government. APPSI members have
played a significant role in the Nuffield Foundation/ ESRC/Higher
Education Funding Council for England’s £19.5m Q-Step programme: this
involves setting up 15 university centres to enhance undergraduate
training in quantitative methods in the social sciences and hence help
meet the need for enhanced capacity. Moreover APPSI has promoted the
concept of developing information management as a profession which is
now being recognised in Whitehall.
GRSR* Commitment 21 Through the Information Economy Strategy,
the Government will support an industry-led exercise to develop a
digital skills strategy.
GWP* Commitment to produce a collective definition/glossary of
Open Data and related terminologies and consult on these (see page
7)
APPSI’s expert role in devising and quality assuring the work on a
collected glossary of legal and policy terms – already available on the
APPSI web site and data.gov.uk - will be the official, reviewed glossary
and meets a core commitment under EU and Open Data requirements.
General government support
Advice to Ministers in the Ministry of Justice (and also other Ministers on
occasions) on PSI and Open Data policy and implementation matters
APPSI members have carried out much work at the behest of Government
12
(e.g. the Neffendorf review of Open Addressing) or produced work used by
Government as exemplars (e.g. the creation of ELGIN led by Shane O’Neil
as a private sector body providing a near-national service yet voluntarily
committing itself to the Information Fair Trader Scheme
APPSI has submitted expert responses to numerous Government (e.g.
OFCOM) and EU consultations (e.g on revisions to the PSI Directive).
APPSI work and contributions by its members have supported the creation
of the ESRC Big Data initiative funded by £64m of government funds.
The National Archives
APPSI members and alumni have produced various independent reports
on PSI for The National Archives, such as the Webb Review of OPSI’’s
procedures employed for the investigation of complaints arising under the
Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005 and the Corbin
report on Exception to marginal cost pricing procedure in the United
Kingdom 2010 to 2012
Acting as the final part of an appeal process (under statute) after
complaints to OPSI and engaging in frequent discussions with officials on
related matters
Providing advice to TNA e.g. on creative commons licensing
Engagement with the private sector
Encouraged by APPSI members Keith Dugmore and Paul Longley, APPSI
has long been an advocate of the wider importance of some of the data
held by the private sector as well as government’s data; This is now
formally recognised (e.g. as part of ESRC’s Big Data initiative funded by
the UK government).
Key: GRSR*: Government Response to the Shakespeare Review (see Annex A) July 2013 GWP*: Government White Paper: Unleashing the
Potential (June 2012)
13
ANNEX 2 APPSI members25 and invited attendees
APPSI members 2014-15
Professor Robert Barr, expert member
Keith Dugmore, expert member
Michael Jennings, expert member
David Lammey, representative member for Northern Ireland
Professor Paul Longley, expert member
Duncan Macniven, representative member for Scotland
Hilary Newiss, expert member in law
Hugh Neffendorf, expert member
Shane O'Neill, expert member
Michael Nicholson, expert member
Bill Oates, representative member for Wales
Professor David Rhind, Chairman
Patricia Seex, expert member in economics
Phillip Webb, expert member
Dean White, expert member
APPSI Alumni
Neil Ackroyd, Ordnance Survey
Michael Allen, representative member of Wales, 2004-2008
Toby Bainton, representative member of the library and university community, 2003-2005
Professor Mike Batty, expert member in geospatial information, 2003-2009
Stefan Carlyle, representative member in information producers, 2003-2009
Professor Michael Clark, expert member in geospatial information, 2003-2007
Christopher Corbin, expert member in European PSI, 2007-2010
J Eric Davies, representative member of the library and university community, 2007-2010
Roger Dixon, representative member for Northern Ireland, 2003-2005
Trevor Fenwick, expert member in statistical information, 2003-2008
Christine Gifford, representative member of the information management community, 2005-2010
Jon Gray, expert member in digital content, 2007-2010
Dick Greener, expert member in Intellectual Property law, 2003-2005
Stephen King, representative member of RNIB, 2003-2005
Hector MacQueen, representative member for Scotland, 2004-2011
John Ponting expert member in public sector information, 2003-2011
Professor Avinash D. Persaud, expert member in economics, 2005-2008
25
This list may not be complete due to some early records being unavailable. Apologies are due to anyone who is
missed off.
14
Howard Picton, expert member of the library and information community, 2003-2005
Christopher Roper, expert member of geospatial information, 2003-2008
Chris Sellers, representative member of end-users, 2005-2007
Duncan Shiell, representative member of trading funds, 2003-2007
Richard Susskind, Chair of APPSI, 2003-2008
John Thornton, representative of local government, 2004-2008
Prabhat Vase, Government economist 2010-14
Peter Weinand Farrer & Co, Vice-Chairman 2008-13
David Worlock, representative member, Digital Information Publishers, 2003-2008
David Young, representative member of Universities UK, 2003-2005
The National Archives staff attendees at selected APPSI meetings
Carol Tullo26
Jim Wretham
Marcia Jackson
Beth Brook
Alison Webster
Peter Brooker
Malcolm Todd
Jo Ellis
Natalie Ceeney
John Sheridan
Matthew Pearce
Oliver Morley
Beth Watson
John Williams
Ruth Ford
Howard Davies
Clemence Cleave-Doyard
Emma Markiewicz
Alan Pawsey
Norman Hoggett
Judy Noakes
Graham Paterson
26
As Director of the Office for Public Sector Information, Carol Tullo attended all APPSI meetings and presented an
update on relevant developments across all of government
15
Invited speakers to APPSI meetings
2015
Caron Alexander, NI Executive
Trevor Steenson, NI Executive
Michael Rabjohns, ShEx
2011
Irene Loh, Cabinet Office
Christopher Graham, ICO
Faith Quigley, ShEx
Cass Chideock, Cabinet Office
Tord Johnsen, Cabinet Office
Rosie Jaffer, OFT
Daniel Caistor, OFT
Andrew Coote, ConsultingWhere Ltd
Peter ter Haar, OS
2014
Keitha Booth, NZ Govt
Dan Maldoom, DotEcon
Oliver Buckley, Cabinet Office
Harvey Lewis, Deloitte
Simon Briscoe, PASC
Alistair Calder, ONS
John Carpenter, ONS
Michael Chui, McKinsey
Richard Dobbs, McKinsey
Nick Illsley, DfT
Ed Parkes, Nesta
Ed Parsons, Google
Heather Savory, ODUG
Andrew Stott, PSTB
Jeni Tennison, ODI
Geoff Tily, HMT
Neil Townsend, ONS
Stephen Williams, NAO
Romina Ahmed, Cabinet Office
2010
Charlie Villar, ShEx
Richard Stirling, Cabinet Office
Sara Marshall, Cabinet Office
Chris Hill, Southampton University
Neil Pittam, Crown Estate
Nick Benson, Met Office
Phil Evans, Met Office
Jonathan Raper, Placr
Emer Coleman, GLA
Tim Allen, LGA
Noel Hatch, Kent CC
2013
John Bowman, MoJ
Chris Corbin
Angela Latta, BIS
Gavin Starks, ODI
Nigel Shadbolt, ODI
2009
John Kingsbury, Nesta
Glen Watson, ONS
Mark Houghton, Environment Agency
Jessica Skillbeck, ShEx
Peter Shortt, ShEx
2012
Annette Dellevoet, Sainsbury’s
Nigel Clark, GB Group
Antonio Acuna, Cabinet Office
Malcolm Hurlston, Registry Trust Ltd
Richard Swetenham, European Commission
Rick Holyomes, DCMS
2008
Richard Allan, Power of Information Taskforce
Sir Mark Walport, Wellcome Trust
Ramesh Harji, Capgemini
Bill Dutton, Oxford Internet Institute
Vanessa Lawrence, OS
Javier Hernandez-Ros, European Commission
16