A P P S I
Realising the Value of Public Sector Information
ANNUAL REPORT
2006
Members of APPSI (as at 1 December 2006)
Chair
Professor Richard Susskind OBE
Deputy Chair
Peter Wienand
Expert Members
Professor Mike Batty CBE, Geospatial Information
Michael Clark, Geospatial Information
Keith Dugmore, Statistical Information
Trevor Fenwick, Statistical Information
Avinash Persaud, Economics
Christopher Roper, Geospatial Information
Representative Members
Michael Allen, Wales
Stefan Carlyle, Information Producers
Christine Gifford, Information Management Community
Professor Hector MacQueen, Scotland
John Ponting, Trading Funds
Chris Sellers, End Users
Duncan Shiell, Trading Funds
John Thornton, Local Government
David Worlock, Digital Information Publishers
Biographies can be accessed on the APPSI website at:
http://www.appsi.gov.uk/members/biographies.htm
Terms of reference
APPSI is a Non-Departmental Public Body, established by the Cabinet Office in
April 2003. On 31 October 2006, APPSI became a Non-Departmental Public
Body of the Department for Constitutional Affairs. APPSI’s terms of reference
are as follows:
•
to advise Ministers on how to encourage and create opportunities in the
information industry for greater re-use of public sector information;
•
to advise the Director of the Office of Public Sector Information and
Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office about changes and
opportunities in the information industry, so that the licensing of Crown
copyright and public sector information is aligned with current and
emerging developments;
•
to review and consider complaints under the Re-use of Public Sector
Information Regulations 2005 and advise on the impact of the complaints
procedures under those Regulations.
Formally, APPSI reports to Ministers annually. This is APPSI’s report for 2006.
APPSI Realising the Value of Public Sector Information
ANNUAL REPORT
2 0 0 6
Advisory Panel on Public Sector Information
St Clements House
2-16 Colegate
Norwich
NR3 1BQ
Secretariat@appsi.gov.uk
This report can also be accessed on the APPSI website at
http://www.appsi.gov.uk/reports/annual-report.htm
APPSI is grateful to the Cabinet Office, the National Archives, Ordnance
Survey and the Met Office for providing some of the illustrations which
have been reproduced in this report.
© Crown copyright 2006
This publication may be reproduced free of charge in any format or
medium provided that it is reproduced accurately and not used in a
misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown
copyright and the title of the publication specified.
Introduction
2
1. Highlights from 2005/2006
6
2. The evolution of APPSI
8
3. The merger of TNA and OPSI
10
4. OFT Market Study
13
5. The INSPIRE Directive
15
6. Identity cards
17
7. Transformational Government
19
8. 3rd Annual Seminar – Taking PSI Seriously
22
9. Other jurisdictions
24
10. Case studies
26
contents
Abbreviations used in this Report:
APPSI
Advisory Panel on Public Sector Information
CUPI
Commercial Use of Public Information
DCA
Department for Constitutional Affairs
DTI
Department of Trade & Industry
FOI
Freedom of Information
HMSO
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office
INSPIRE
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe
OFT
Office of Fair Trading
OPSI
Office of Public Sector Information
Panel
Advisory Panel on Public Sector Information
PSB
Public Sector Body
PSI
Public Sector Information
PSI Directive
EU Directive on the Re-use of Public Sector Information (2003/98)
PSI Regulations Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005
TNA
The National Archives
1
Introduction
The Advisory Panel on Public Sector Information (APPSI) was set up in April
2003 to advise ministers and officials on the opportunities for the information
industry that flow from the greater use of public sector information (PSI). This
is our third annual report.
There have been very significant developments in the world of PSI since we
last reported. In mid-2005, the Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) came
into being as the regulator and principal champion of the re-use of PSI. Barely
a year later, it was announced that OPSI was to merge with The National
Archives (TNA). Meanwhile, the Office of Fair Trading has been conducting a
market study on the commercial use of public information. More, PSI has
become, for the first time, a focal point for a national newspaper – The Guardian
has been running a campaign, entitled “Free our data”, which has raised public
awareness of the topic. PSI has also been the subject matter of several
Parliamentary Questions. And, as ever, the Internet continues to spawn all
manner of innovative services that are set to change the pattern of information
provision in years to come.
These and innumerable other developments are laying the foundations for the
future exploitation of PSI and I am very pleased to say that APPSI strives to
keep apace and be involved with all of them. I hope this report gives a flavour
of the scope of our work and the impact we have had during 2005/2006.
I should offer a few words of explanation about the timing of this report, which
covers a period of 18 months. With the agreement of relevant government
officials, we agreed to delay publication. This was because of the
announcement of the merger of OPSI and TNA. We felt it was vital for APPSI
formally to express its view on the merger in our annual report but it would
have been inappropriate and unhelpful for APPSI to have done so before the
landscape for the future had become clear. The dust has now settled, however,
and we are now able to offer our assessment.
Overview
By way of introduction to the nature and extent of APPSI’s work during this
important period, in Section 1 we provide a listing of relevant meetings,
activities and events with which we have been involved. Further details of most
of these can be found at our website at www.appsi.gov.uk.
2
ANNUAL REPORT
2006
One crucial development for us in the past year has been our relocation, as a
Non-Departmental Public Body, from the Cabinet Office to the Department for
Constitutional Affairs (DCA). This is a move that we generally welcome, not
least because we have good reason to anticipate, given DCA’s other
responsibilities for public information, that our work will generate more
Ministerial interest at our new home than we managed to secure in the past. In
Section 2, we say more about this move and also provide an update there on
our role, under the PSI Regulations, since July 2005, as a review and complainthandling body for certain categories of PSI complaints.
The relocation of APPSI, as just noted, was itself a consequence of the recent
merger between OPSI and TNA. This new arrangement is of profound
importance to the realisation of the value of PSI in the UK. Broadly speaking, we
are now supportive of the merger but, as we explain in Section 3, APPSI has had
some reservations and intends carefully to monitor the implementation of the
merger and its ongoing consequences.
Also crucial for PSI since our last annual report has been the conduct of a
market study on the Commercial Use of Public Information (CUPI) by the Office
of Fair Trading (OFT). Unfortunately, the completion of APPSI’s annual report
effectively coincided with the completion of the OFT study and so, as we
explain in Section 4, we are not able to comment here on OFT’s findings and
recommendations. Nonetheless, we believe it will be an influential report and
we look forward to producing a separate response to it in early 2007.
We believe one of APPSI responsibilities is to identify legislative developments
or policy-making that may have direct bearing on the exploitation of PSI. Into
this category fall the European Union INSPIRE Directive, relating to spatial
information, which we describe in Section 5; the current proposals for identity
cards, as discussed in Section 6; and the publication by the e-Government Unit
of their strategy paper, Transformational Government, to which we responded
formally, as summarised in Section 7.
In March 2006, we held our third annual APPSI seminar. Once again, this was
organised collaboratively with the Oxford Internet Institute. Our theme was
“Taking PSI seriously” and an account of the day appears in Section 8.
In the penultimate section of our report, in Section 9, once again we offer a
summary of research undertaken on our behalf by OPSI into the re-use of PSI
in other jurisdictions. In 2005/2006, we have studied Ireland, Estonia, Australia
and Japan.
Finally, in Section 10, we provide a set of case studies that provide practical
illustrations of the very many ways in which PSI can be re-used to the benefit
of our society.
Future work
Looking forward, our particular priorities in the coming year are as follows:
•
To help raise awareness of the benefits of the re-use of PSI.
•
To monitor the impact of the merger between TNA and OPSI on the re-use
of PSI within the UK.
•
To perform, when requested and when within our remit, our review and
complaints function, as established under the PSI Regulations.
3
•
To respond to the OFT’s market study on the Commercial Use of Public
Information.
•
To consider in greater detail a variety of outstanding and unresolved issues
relating to the economics of the re-use of PSI (in so far as not settled by the
OFT study).
•
To commission further studies of PSI re-use in other jurisdictions.
•
To develop our programme of work on case studies that illustrate the value
of the re-use of PSI.
•
To respond to appropriate consultation documents and emerging legal
developments.
•
To investigate the likely impact of collaboratively produced information
resources (such as wikis and open source materials).
•
To hold a 4th annual seminar for APPSI, focussing on a key, current issue.
Acknowledgements
In reading through drafts of this report, I realise how many people expend
considerable effort on APPSI’s behalf. Looking within APPSI, first of all, I extend
my warmest thanks to all current members. I am very fortunate in having such
an experienced, expert and affable group of individuals around the APPSI table
and am grateful to all members for their contribution and support. Once again,
I express my particular and substantial gratitude to Peter Wienand, Deputy
Chair of APPSI. Despite his formidably busy diary, he always finds time to run
one or more APPSI initiatives and to meet and discuss issues with me, bringing
his special blend of knowledge and insight.
Much as I regret this, we must say farewell to members on a regular basis and,
in so doing, we keep our thinking fresh. In May 2005, Roger Dixon and Dick
Greener stepped down from the Panel. We miss them and remain thankful for
the input they made.
It is happier times when we attract new members and, in September 2005, we
welcomed Keith Dugmore, Christine Gifford, Avinash Persaud and Chris Sellers.
Each has already made an impact and I look forward to their ongoing
contributions.
Our work as a Panel is greatly assisted by OPSI with whom we enjoy a close and
productive working relationship. OPSI provides APPSI with a Secretariat,
maintains our website, upholds our independence, undertakes research on our
behalf and, above all, is a responsive recipient of the advice that it is our
business to offer. I am extremely grateful to the OPSI team for their ongoing
help. In 2005, we lost our Secretariat, in the person of Thomas Papworth. We
thank him for his support in the early years of APPSI and wish him well in his
new career. Andrew Eeles has stepped valiantly into his shoes and, ably
supervised by Marcia Jackson, has shouldered an increasing work-load with
patience and commitment. The Director of OPSI, Carol Tullo, has had an
outstanding year, steering OPSI safely into its merger, promoting PSI re-use
tirelessly and yet always finding time to work regularly with APPSI.
4
ANNUAL REPORT
2006
My last words by way of introduction concern the cost of APPSI to the taxpayer.
Despite our growing range of responsibilities, we strive to keep our expenses
low and continue to believe that we provide value for money. It may be
recalled that, in 2004/2005, APPSI incurred costs of £70,373. In the comparable
period during 2005/2006, in relation to the activities described in this report
(and more), public funds expended on APPSI amounted to £73,963.
Professor Richard Susskind OBE
Chair
1 December 2006
5
1
Highlights from
2005/2006
6
The following list summarises the main activities of APPSI since the publication
of our second annual report. As explained in the Introduction, the activities
span a period of approximately 18 months.
•
Chair and Deputy Chair: meeting with OPSI about APPSI’s review and
complaint function – May 2005
•
ongoing advice to OPSI on complaints procedures under the PSI
Regulations – May 2005
•
8th APPSI meeting – May 2005
•
Chair: presentation at Association for Geographic Information’s Public
Policy Group seminar on PSI – June 2005
•
publication on website of APPSI’s review and complaints procedures under
the PSI Regulations – June 2005
•
publication of APPSI’s second annual report – August 2005
•
APPSI Secretariat produces report on PSI policy in Ireland – September
2005
•
9th APPSI meeting – September 2005
•
Chair: column in The Times on crown copyright and PSI re-use – October
2005
•
APPSI Secretariat produces report on PSI policy in Japan – October 2005
•
10th APPSI meeting – December 2005
•
Chair: meeting with e-Government Unit – January 2006
•
Chair: meeting with Permanent Secretary, DCA – February 2006
•
submission of response to Transformational Government paper – February
2006
•
Chair: meeting with Acting Director, Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit –
February 2006
•
11th APPSI meeting – February 2006
•
Chair: meeting with Chief Executive of TNA – March 2006
ANNUAL REPORT
2006
•
3rd annual APPSI seminar, Oxford – March 2006
•
Chair: recording for Local Government TV – March 2006
•
APPSI Secretariat produces report on PSI policy in Australia – April 2006
•
Chair: meeting with Director of OPSI – April 2006
•
12th APPSI meeting – May 2006
•
APPSI Secretariat produces report on PSI policy in Estonia – May 2006
•
Chair and Deputy Chair: meeting with Michael Cross, The Guardian – May
2006
•
Chair: meeting with Permanent Secretary, DCA – May 2006
•
Representative Member for Information Producers attends the OECD
workshop on the re-use of PSI, Paris – May 2006
•
Chair: meeting with Chief Executive of TNA – June 2006
•
Chair: meeting with Director of OPSI – June 2006
•
Representative Member for Scotland gives seminar on PSI to an Edinburgh
law firm – June 2006
•
Chair, Deputy Chair and Expert Member on Economics: meeting with OFT –
July 2006
•
Chair: presentation at Social Market Foundation seminar – July 2006
•
Chair and Deputy Chair: meeting with Director of OPSI about APPSI
response to TNA/OPSI merger – August 2006
•
extraordinary APPSI meeting to discuss TNA/OPSI merger – August 2006
•
APPSI receives its first request to undertake a review under the PSI
Regulations – August 2006
•
Chair and Deputy Chair: meeting with Chief Executive of TNA and Director
of OPSI to discuss merger – September 2006
•
Chair: meeting with Consolidate to discuss the re-positioning of TNA –
September 2006
•
APPSI receives its second request to undertake a review under the PSI
Regulations – September 2006
•
Chair: presentation at Demographics User Group Conference – October
2006
•
Chair and Deputy Chair: meeting with a Treasury solicitor about
interpretation of PSI Regulations – October 2006
•
13th APPSI meeting – November 2006
•
Chair: pre-publication meeting on OFT study of commercial use of public
sector information – November 2006
Further details of many of these activities are laid out in the remainder of this
report and on the APPSI website, at www.appsi.gov.uk
7
2
The Evolution
of APPSI
When originally established in April 2003, APPSI’s principal focus was Crown
copyright. Within two years, reflecting legislative developments and changes
in the market, our remit (and name) was extended to embrace the re-use of PSI.
We began to view it as our purpose to help realise the value of PSI. During
2005/2006, two further fundamental developments have taken place. The first
is our assumption of a new role, that of reviewing and considering complaints
under the PSI Regulations.The second is our relocation as a Non-Departmental
Public Body from the Cabinet Office to the DCA. Each of these developments
calls for further comment.
Our new role
From 1 July 2005, APPSI assumed a new review and complaint-handling role.
As explained more fully in last year’s annual report, the PSI Regulations
implement Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and Council on
the Re-use of Public Sector Information. These regulations introduce the
category of “complainant” – any re-user or potential re-user who wishes to
make a complaint about non-compliance by a public sector body with the PSI
Regulations. If not satisfied with a public sector body’s response to a complaint,
the complainant may refer the matter to OPSI.Where either party is dissatisfied
with the findings reached by OPSI, they may request that it be reviewed by a
Review Board convened by APPSI. Additionally, where a complaint relates to
the licensing of Crown copyright undertaken by OPSI, Her Majesty’s Stationery
Office (HMSO) or the Office of the Queen’s Printer for Scotland (OQPS), the
complainant may refer the complaint directly to APPSI.
In June 2005, we completed and published APPSI’s procedures for handling
complaints and reviews. At that stage, as we said in last year’s annual report, we
had no sense of how many, if any, requests or complaints might be made. In the
event, we have now received two requests, under the PSI Regulations, to review
recommendations of OPSI. These came through in August and September
2006, respectively; and are currently being progressed by APPSI. It would not
be appropriate to discuss the details of these particular requests but, in due
course, our reviews will be made publicly available.
We also believe it our responsibility periodically to review the appropriateness
and effectiveness of APPSI’s new role. Once we have completed an initial series
of reviews, we will assess our performance and ask questions such as the
following. Were parties satisfied with the way in which we conducted the
work? Does APPSI’s new role conflict at all with our advisory role? Does APPSI
have sufficient powers under the PSI Regulations to progress complaints and
8
ANNUAL REPORT
2006
reviews swiftly? Were sufficient resources made available to APPSI? Our formal
conclusions will be available in future annual reports or on our website.
Our relocation
Following the merger of TNA and OPSI on 31 October 2006 (discussed at
length in the following section of this report), it was publicly announced that
APPSI would now report to Ministers at the DCA rather than the Cabinet Office.
It was further announced that, following its transfer to the DCA, APPSI would
continue to advise the Director of OPSI about changes and opportunities in
the information industry on matters relating to the licensing of Crown
copyright information and re-use of public sector information; and it would
also review and consider complaints under the PSI Regulations.
In other words, APPSI is now a Non-Departmental Public Body of the DCA and
no longer of the Cabinet Office; and our terms of reference are unchanged.
At the same time, it has been agreed that APPSI will still work closely with OPSI
who will continue to provide a secretariat and general support.
News of the proposed relocation of APPSI was positively received by most of
our members. It seemed to make sense for APPSI to work more closely with the
DCA, given the latter’s connections with the freedom of information and data
protection regimes and with The National Archives. This synergy is discussed
more fully in the following section.
Moreover, there was general optimism around the APPSI table that a move to
the DCA from the Cabinet Office might result in our work stimulating and
attracting greater interest at Ministerial level. The chair of APPSI, who has
worked alongside the DCA for many years, spoke highly of the department, its
Ministers and senior officials and suggested that the DCA was likely to take a
keen interest in PSI re-use. Most APPSI members were encouraged but a few,
who have no direct experience of the DCA, worried (and still do) that DCA
Ministers may not take much interest in PSI re-use.
The context here is that most APPSI members have been disappointed in the
past year with our inability to stimulate and secure Ministerial interest in PSI at
the Cabinet Office. It will be recalled that many of our recommendations in last
year’s report required Ministerial engagement. Perhaps because APPSI did not
make its case forcefully enough or perhaps because Cabinet Office Ministers
had other, more pressing and mainstream demands on their time, the reality is
that APPSI has not met with any Minister over the past 18 months, despite
attempts to set up meetings. Still less have Ministers actively pursued any PSI
initiatives. Were it not for our relocation to the DCA, APPSI would focus very
much more on this issue in this report. However, given we have been relocated,
and the interests of APPSI seem so well aligned with the DCA, our approach
here is to be positive and look forward to developing a healthy relationship
with DCA and its Ministers.
We are also encouraged, of course, that we will still enjoy a strong relationship
with OPSI with whom we have worked so productively in the past.
9
3
The Merger of
TNA and OPSI
On 21 June 2006, it was formally announced by the Government that The
National Archives (TNA) and the Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI)
would merge in October 2006, under the joint name of The National Archives
(TNA). It was said that the responsibilities and roles of OPSI and HMSO were to
be unaffected by what was described as a “machinery of government move”.
The rationale behind the merger
This decision to merge was the result of joint work during the first half of 2006
between the Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) and the Cabinet
Office. TNA is a government department and an executive agency of DCA
under the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. The broad idea was that
the combined organisation would lead on information policy, and support
effective delivery of records and information management across government
and the public sector.
Prior to the announcement, the chair of APPSI spoke several times about the
possibility of merger to the Permanent Secretary of DCA.The chair and deputy
chair of APPSI were also consulted by the Chief Executive of TNA and the
Director of OPSI, to whom they expressed the view that, while they could not
speak for all members of APPSI, it was likely that there would be general
approval from members if this resulted in more coherent PSI policy and
practice across the public sector.
In many ways, the merger followed naturally from APPSI’s various
recommendations, in our first and second annual reports, on bringing together
the various strands of information management within the public sector. It was
gratifying to learn that our recommendations had exerted some influence.
To recap on the thinking here: APPSI has always argued that public sector
information management, in the broadest of terms, has three main strands:
preserving PSI, offering access to PSI, and re-using PSI (Section 7 expands upon
this model). Historically, TNA has been the leading public sector body in
relation to preservation. The focal point for offering access to PSI has been the
freedom of information regime, policy and implementation responsibility for
which has belonged to DCA and the independent supervision of which is
undertaken by the Information Commissioner, whose sponsor department is
also DCA. With regard to re-use of PSI, OPSI has been both the regulator and
main champion. APPSI’s concern had always been that policy-making in
relation to, and management of, the three strands of PSI were insufficiently
coherent. Accordingly, the merger of TNA and OPSI promised, on the face of it,
10
to bring the three main strands of public sector information management
more closely together, with DCA being the common departmental hub. The
merger was also likely to give rise to more rigorous thinking and policies that
ensure all appropriate PSI is identified, captured and maintained efficiently.
APPSI’s views on the merger
On 21 August 2006, APPSI held an extraordinary meeting to consider the
proposed merger. The Chief Executive of TNA and the Director of OPSI each
gave presentations to the Panel, explaining the thinking behind the merger.
Consistent with APPSI’s past recommendations on the need for greater
coherence, as just noted, there was broad support for the idea of merging OPSI
with TNA and, in turn, bringing it into DCA’s extended family (although it is fair
to say that most members would have been more comfortable with OPSI
becoming a division of DCA).
Crucial to APPSI’s broad support for the merger was the prospect, through
being part of TNA and, in turn, being related to DCA, of OPSI securing greater
Ministerial interest in and support for the greater re-use of PSI. The reasons for
this optimism are outlined in Section 2 of this report, in relation to APPSI’s
attempts to engage Ministers.
However, at the meeting on 21 August 2006 and in the days that followed,
members did express two serious concerns, which were said also to have been
echoed in the publishing and digital content communities:
1. That the merger between TNA and OPSI was, in practice, a take-over of OPSI
by TNA and, in consequence, the re-use of PSI would become a lesser
priority for the Government and that the commercial value of PSI would be
neglected.
2. That the very name,“The National Archives”, no matter how much work was
being done to modernise that organisation, would continue to be
associated with historical materials and, in consequence, the image of OPSI
that had been emerging, as a forward-looking innovator, might be lost
when absorbed into TNA.
APPSI raised these concerns in frank discussions with TNA and OPSI. In
response, the Chief Executive of TNA and the Director of OPSI worked hard to
reassure APPSI in respect of both of these issues.
That TNA was much larger than OPSI and was the dominant party in the
merger could not be denied. But, as its Chief Executive explained, TNA is repositioning itself at present and is rapidly emerging as the focal point in the
public sector for information policy and information management. APPSI
accepts this and has been especially impressed with the rapidity with which
the Chief Executive has led an initiative to set up a Knowledge Council within
government, a development wholly consistent with various APPSI
recommendations in the past. (APPSI sees strong synergies between the
projected Knowledge Council and the existing CIO Council.)
The Chief Executive went on to argue that the re-use of PSI is a fundamental
building block in bringing about more coherent information management
and, far from neglecting the OPSI agenda,TNA, with its much greater resources
and reach, will provide a far more effective platform from which OPSI can
promote and regulate the exploitation of PSI.
11
ANNUAL REPORT
2006
On 9 October 2006, the Director of OPSI wrote to APPSI, expressing her views.
In the letter, she said:
I feel strongly that in redefining a National Archive for the 21st century and
allowing OPSI’s PSI and regulatory role to develop with rigour, we will meet
the confidence and reassurance our stakeholders demand. Within TNA we
have a unique opportunity to cover every strand of the information cycle
and deliver the coordinated approach that APPSI has been promoting since
its inception. In the initial sharing of priorities and opportunities working
across The National Archives policy related teams, we have already
identified some exciting initiatives where we can reinforce our work and
also develop an efficient and effective information management approach
to support the wider public sector.
This letter has provided APPSI with considerable comfort. The Director’s
commitment to PSI re-use cannot be over-stated and her favourable
assessment has reassured APPSI considerably.
As for the name, “The National Archives”, we accept that this is largely a
branding issue. We maintain that it will not be easy to shift the general
perception of TNA as a body whose focus is on historical material but we can
see that the Chief Executive is working hard precisely to bring about a change
of view. APPSI was pleased in this context when she arranged for the Chair to
meet with Consolidate, the marketing consultants who are advising on the repositioning of TNA.
The public message is unquestionably being refocused. In the words of TNA’s
current website at www.nationalarchives.co.uk:
The National Archives is at the heart of information policy – setting
standards and supporting innovation in information and records
management across the UK, and providing a practical framework of best
practice for opening up and encouraging the re-use of public sector
information.
In summary, APPSI’s conclusion, in relation to the merger of TNA and OPSI, is
that we are optimistic about its prospects and supportive of the new, resultant
organisation. We view it as an important function of APPSI to monitor the
progress of the TNA and OPSI merger, to watch for any diminution of emphasis
on PSI re-use, to note successes, and to report back next year on the progress
that has been made.
12
In our last Annual Report, one of our recommendations was that the
Government should undertake or commission a sustained and detailed study
into the economics of government information, including the activities of
those trading funds whose main business is the collection, maintenance and
dissemination of PSI.
OFT Market Study
We were greatly encouraged therefore when, only two months after our
Annual Report was published, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) announced the
launch of a market study on the Commercial Use of Public Information (CUPI).
The OFT says of market studies that they:
[...] will be in areas where there are concerns that a particular market is not
working well for consumers but where competition or consumer regulation
enforcement action does not appear, immediately, to be the appropriate
response. The studies will involve probing examinations of markets,
practices and regulation to explore whether the needs of consumers are
being well served.These will be exploratory studies to gain the best possible
understanding of how markets are working. If a study reveals the need for
further investigation or action under any of our enforcement powers, we
will act accordingly.
The CUPI study aims to examine whether the way in which public sector
bodies supply PSI works well for businesses and to the best advantage for
consumers, and whether such bodies have an unfair advantage when selling
information in competition with companies that are reliant on the same data.
The CUPI study fitted into one of the OFT’s priority themes for 2005 to 2007,
namely the interaction between government and markets, and specifically the
impact the public sector can have on the way markets work through
legislation, regulation and purchasing decisions. The OFT had conducted a
previous market study on the commercial use of PSI in relation to property
searches which found that improvements could be made in the sector. At the
same time, the OFT’s decision to conduct a study explicitly acknowledged the
value of public sector information within the economy, even if that value had
not yet been scientifically quantified.
The study promises to look at how PSI is turned into ‘value added’ information,
how the pricing of PSI and access to it affects competition between public
sector bodies and private sector vendors, and the effectiveness of existing
guidance and laws, specifically the Re-use of Public Sector Information
Regulations 2005.
13
4
Over the course of the year, the OFT has been speaking to a wide range of
public sector bodies and private sector enterprises that acquire and re-sell PSI.
We are pleased to report that they have consulted APPSI extensively. It is
unfortunate, as noted in the Introduction to this report, that the timing of the
publication of the OFT study (on 7 December 2006, by which time this current
document had been drafted) was such that we cannot formally respond here.
We look forward to discussing the OFT study and formulating our response in
early 2007.
14
The imminent adoption of the European Union INSPIRE Directive, an initiative
for the development of a European Spatial Data Infrastructure (ESDI), will have
far-reaching repercussions for all public sector information holders (PSIHs)
which are concerned with spatial information.
The INSPIRE
Directive
In the European Union, as elsewhere in the so-called First World, governments
collect huge amounts of geographically organised and referenced spatial
information, particularly at regional and local level. However, some of this
information has in the past often tended to be fragmented, hard to find and
access, with many gaps and duplications, which has prevented governments
from dealing efficiently with the increasingly complicated and interconnected
issues that affect the quality of life for everyone.
The intention of INSPIRE is to create a means of improving the interoperability
of spatial data at local, regional, national and EU level, and in so doing facilitate
improvements in the sharing of some spatial information both between public
authorities themselves and between government and public. The vision is to
make interoperable and high quality spatial data and information readily
available for formulating, implementing and monitoring policy, and for the
individual citizen to access information about his or her environment.
The six principles originally formulated in the INSPIRE Plan are set out in the
shaded panel (although the scope of the Directive is now extended to many
other types of spatial data).
The Principles underpinning INSPIRE
• Data should be collected once and maintained at the level where this can
be done most effectively.
• It must be possible to combine seamlessly spatial information from different
sources across Europe and share it between many users and applications.
• It must be possible for information collected at one level to be shared
between all the different levels, e.g. detailed for detailed investigations,
general for strategic purposes.
• Geographic information needed for good governance at all levels should be
abundant and widely available under conditions that do not inhibit its
extensive use.
• It must be easy to discover which geographic information is available, fits
the needs for a particular use and under what conditions it can be acquired
and used.
• Geographic data must become easy to understand and interpret because it
can be visualised within the appropriate context and selected in a userfriendly way.
15
5
The INSPIRE Directive was agreed in Conciliation on 21 November 2006 and is
expected to be published in early 2007 and to come into effect in the Spring of
2007. A period will then be allowed for Member States to transpose the
Directive into their own national legislation.
A key objective of the INSPIRE Directive is to establish an effective basis for a
Europe-wide network of spatial information services, which could help to
replace other processes such as the national reporting currently required for
the EU environmental administration.
It seems, then, that the INSPIRE initiative and its proposal for a Directive has
already had a considerable impact, especially with regard to stimulating interbody co-operation and consultation, as well as on more technical activities
such as standardisation, the development of catalogue services and mapping
itself.
The organic administration of INSPIRE will require a central co-ordinating and
controlling hub at the European level. Additionally, each Member State will
need a national co-ordinating hub of its own.
The implementation of INSPIRE, likely to commence in 2009, will be undertaken
in three stages following the usual period allowed for transposition from
European Directive into each Member State’s own national legislation. The
timetable will vary by the type of data and the date for application of different
Implementation Rules.
Annex 1 of INSPIRE specifies that certain basic geographic reference data must
be interoperable within four years. A further three years will be allowed for
establishing the interoperability of new data covered by the full INSPIRE spatial
data specification. Annexes 2 and 3 require the addition of further categories of
data, with a further period allowed for existing data to conform.
Additional details about INSPIRE may be found at http://inspire.jrc.it
It is often said that over eighty percent of all information has a spatial
component, and, if this is indeed the case, then the INSPIRE Directive for a
coordinated European spatial data infrastructure is clearly a much-needed and
overdue addition to the EU public sector information landscape.
The PSI Directive, transposed into UK law in the form of the PSI Regulations, and
INSPIRE have different purposes but are nevertheless complementary. INSPIRE
addresses access by the citizen to spatial information held by public authorities
and the sharing of spatial information between those authorities, whilst the PSI
Directive is aimed at the re-use of public sector information, including any data
that falls within the scope of INSPIRE, for commercial and non-commercial
purposes by the private sector and for use by public bodies for any purpose
outside of their public task.
An important underlying objective of the PSI legislation is to increase the
competitiveness of the European information industry in comparison, in
particular, with that of the US which, it is often argued, benefits substantially
from the free availability of federal public sector information, although this is a
matter of some debate.
16
The proposed introduction of Identity Cards represents the most
comprehensive attempt made in the UK to collect information from
individuals and make it available to different agencies across the spectrum of
the public sector. This raises a number of operational issues as well as issues of
principle; both are of interest and relevance to the work of APPSI, as data
collected for one purpose by one agency and passed to another for re-use is
likely to bring it within the scope of the Re-use of Public Sector Information
Regulations 2005.
Identity Cards
The debate on Identity Cards, both in Parliament and the media, has tended to
focus on their cost, technical feasibility, morality and usefulness. Only very
recently has attention been paid to the informational infrastructure that is
required to underpin a workable Identity Card System, and this is the area in
which APPSI may be able to contribute to a better understanding of the issues.
An example of the information that will be required is a definitive address; the
still unresolved debate around addressing is one that directly involves bodies
represented on APPSI. It is also possible that new data will be collected for the
2011 Census to support the introduction of Identity Cards.
While APPSI has no particular locus in the political debate surrounding the
introduction of Identity Cards, the very scope of the database being created to
support the proposals raises questions about access, not only for individuals
but also for commercial applications. Given the apparent opportunity for
wholesale mining of data by the public sector, it is likely that commercial
bodies will be interested in adding value to generic information contained
within the National Identity Card database arising from information provided
to the National Identity Register.
This aspect of wide access into what is essentially a huge database of
information about individuals, their status, location and movements, was the
subject of much of the debate in both Houses and, as a result, the ability of the
Secretary of State to amend the Act formally in relation to its statutory
purposes is limited. However, the opportunity for widespread sharing of
information with both public and private bodies means that statutory change
may not be necessary in order to access information contained in the Identity
Register.
17
6
It is entirely conceivable that once information is shared with, for example, the
Department of Work and Pensions, Local Government bodies and private
companies contracted to carry out public functions, then information
originally protected by the defined statutory purpose of the Act may not
continue to have that protection if it becomes part of the recorded information
within corporate memory. Given that there is no concept of ownership within
FOI it is quite possible that information apparently protected under the
Identity Cards Act 2006 may become accessible and therefore open to re-use
through this secondary route. Much will depend upon the regulations
introduced to implement the Act.
The Information Commissioner, who has already voiced concerns over the
2006 Act, will undoubtedly have a role here. Without seeking to pre-judge any
of the complex issues surrounding the introduction of Identity Cards, it will be
appropriate for APPSI to watch developments carefully, with a view to
understanding their impact on areas in which members of the Panel do have
specialist knowledge and in which APPSI may legitimately comment.
18
In November 2005, the Strategy Team of the eGovernment Unit at the Cabinet
Office (the Unit) published an important document entitled Transformational
Government: Enabled by Technology.This document was a response to the Prime
Minister’s request for a strategy for the use of technology to transform
government services. On 1 February 2006, APPSI sent a letter that formally
responded to the Unit’s document. This letter can be found on the APPSI
website.
Tr a n s f o r m a t i o n a l
Government
Our purpose in writing the letter was to offer our initial reaction to the strategy,
to introduce the Unit to the work of APPSI, and to invite ongoing dialogue
between the Unit and our Panel.
APPSI welcomed Transformational Government. We said that we regard
technology as fundamental to, and increasingly important for, the management
and delivery of government service and consider there are innumerable
opportunities for better and new systems. Given the significance of technology,
it followed, for us, that it should be managed strategically and systematically and
that the underpinning vision and plans should be clearly and publicly
articulated. We said that we hoped their strategy would be widely read and
understood.
However, we suggested that one vital aspect of technology management was
absent from the strategy document. The missing ingredient is what we call
public sector information management which has three strands.The first is the
secure retention, preservation and archiving of public sector information
(including the setting of standards for public sector records management).The
second concerns freedom of information – public sector information systems
should be designed in a way that allows for requests for access to official
information to be met efficiently and effectively. The third is the re-use of
public sector information which (we believe) can and should be shared and
re-used where benefits can accrue. For example, geographical, meteorological,
statutory and census data, although captured by government departments for
use in the course of their routine activities, can also be used to good effect by
others, such as publishers, traders, educators and citizens.
19
7
While the focus of APPSI is very largely on the third strand of public sector
information management, in practice APPSI often finds it difficult, and
undesirable, to disentangle the three. More, Chief Information Officers (CIOs) of
all public sector bodies should, in our view, develop a set of strategies, policies
and practices that embrace all three and manage them together and coherently.
Crudely, the same set of systems should support all three strands; the same
collections of data are simply used in different ways.
We said that we were in no doubt that the Unit was alive to the challenges of
public sector information management. But we expressed surprise that the
strategy document did not address these matters explicitly and in some detail.
We accepted that the document does make passing reference to some related
issues (for example, the re-use of geographical information is touched upon)
but we submitted that public sector information management is so
fundamental to the exploitation of technology in government and to the
delivery of services to the public that it deserved more detailed treatment by
technology strategists.
We adopted an analogy: if technology is considered as the “plumbing”, the
Unit’s strategy had addressed the purpose, the benefits and the beneficiaries
of having the plumbing in place, it had advocated a more efficient use and
allocation of the plumbing infrastructure, and it had recommended a more
professional approach to the maintenance and development of the plumbing.
However, it had not said much at all about what liquid can and should be
flowing through the pipes, how leakages might be avoided, how the liquid
should remain sanitised, who should be allowed to tap into it, and how the
liquid might feed into other system and facilities.
We advised that these omissions were worrying in practice. We pointed out
that CIOs need guidance on how to manage their content. (Content is, after all,
the information asset that government produces and that drives service
delivery.) For example, CIOs want (or should) to know how the Re-use of Public
Sector Information Regulations 2005 impacts on their systems and how these
regulations relate to legislation and regulation regarding freedom of
information and electronic records management. Public sector information
systems should not only enhance government service and be efficiently and
professionally run. They should also support compliance with the above and
other legal and regulatory requirements. Awareness of the full range of
requirements is low, however, and we suggested that the Unit can and should
play a role in encouraging better understanding and, in turn, best practice in
public sector information management.
We also urged that the Unit consider two further issues which, at least
arguably, fall within its scope – document management systems and
knowledge management systems. In our view, the value of public sector
information will only be realised and exploited when fairly advanced systems
of each kind are in place. However, our research suggests, first, that document
management technology within the public sector (systems that help name,
store, retrieve, and control all computer-based files, but most significantly, word
processed documents and ever more pervasive e-mail) is several years behind
good practice in the private sector. The concern here is that full exploitation of
public sector information will depend on the presence of advanced systems –
document management systems – for identifying and making available
information in electronic form. Without such systems, exploitation of public
sector information will always be disappointingly incomplete. Second, our
investigations suggest that many, but not all, knowledge management
20
initiatives within the public sector are almost exclusively inward-facing, that is,
devoted to improved performance and efficiency internally. Yet, these same
efforts could valuably also have an external dimension – for example, a
knowledge management project devoted to identifying and maintaining a
database of useful reports for re-use internally could and should be extended
to embrace materials that could also be exploited externally. APPSI
encouraged greater involvement by the Unit in both these technology-related
topics, along with consideration of the likely increase in funding that might be
needed to introduce appropriate document management and knowledge
management across government.
Finally, we said that we welcomed regular, ongoing dialogue on the issues
raised in our letter. We ventured that the Unit and our Panel share a strong
desire to exploit technology in the public sector. And we stated our willingness
to work closely with the Unit in ensuring that public sector information is
managed optimally on the technology platforms that they are encouraging to
be put in place.
A meeting between APPSI and the Unit was held on 26 January 2006.
21
ANNUAL REPORT
2006
8
3rd Annual
S e m i n a r – Ta k i n g
PSI seriously
On 16 March 2006, at the Oxford Internet Institute (OII), APPSI held its third
one-day seminar. It was attended by academics, representatives from the
public and private sector and members of APPSI. The main aim of the seminar
was to generate ideas on the ways in which APPSI could convince Ministers of
the importance of PSI to the economy and society.
The seminar was chaired by APPSI chair, Richard Susskind, and the following
are some selected highlights of the day.
1. Carol Tullo, the Director of OPSI, gave a presentation which highlighted the
significance of PSI during the past year. Accurate information was shown to
be essential for joined-up government and for the delivery of effective
public services. Information systems were crucial for managing the flow of
information and for facilitating its re-use by others. OPSI was said to be
providing the lead with solutions like Click-Use Licensing, IFTS Online, the
AKTive PSI Project and by offering seminars and workshops to public sector
bodies.
2. Stefan Carlyle, a representative member of APPSI, gave a presentation on
the use of PSI by the Environment Agency. Access to high quality and
accurate geospatial and environmental information was shown to be
essential for the delivery of effective services. He explained that it was
crucial that public sector information holders did not become isolated
islands which locked their information away. Freedom of Information
legislation, the PSI Regulations and discussions about the Infrastructure for
Spatial Information in Europe (INSPIRE) Directive were leading to a greater
appreciation of the importance of access to accurate information for policy
development and decision making process.
3. Natalie Ceeney, Chief Executive at The National Archives (TNA), gave a
presentation which advocated a proactive approach to electronic record
keeping across the whole public sector. She explained that if there are no
agreed and consistent standards for ensuring that electronic records are
captured at the time they are created, then there will be no records to
preserve. She argued that greater central co-ordination and leadership on
information management would prevent duplication of effort and the
uneconomical use of public money.
22
4. Paul Boyle, of the Information Rights Division at the Department for
Constitutional Affairs, gave his observations on the impact of FOI over the
last 15 months. Initial analysis of the requests had shown that the level of
requests had been erratic with an expected surge leading to a peak
followed by a steady decline with an unexpected surge again in 2006. He
said that some political discomfort had been expressed about the way the
press was requesting information using a public interest claim. The high
number of requests requiring the reading and assessment of documents by
senior officials was likely to lead, he suggested, to a review of the fees
charged.
5. Antoinette Graves, of the Office of Fair Trading, gave a progress report on
their market study on the Commercial Use of Public Information. She
explained that OFT was compiling a set of case studies drawn from a variety
of different public sector information holders and would compare them
with case studies drawn from other countries. She anticipated that pricing,
access, licensing and redress would be significant issues in the OFT market
study.
6. Avinash Persaud, APPSI’s expert member on economics, set out his evolving
thoughts on the economics of PSI. He stressed that this was an important
issue requiring detailed analysis and research. This should be done in a
language that is easy to follow and which encouraged discussion. PSI
needed to be recognised, he claimed, as the main asset of government.
7. David Lock, a former Minister, expressed his thoughts on what APPSI
needed to do to capture the attention of Ministers. He said that a Minister’s
views on an issue would be influenced by many factors but at the back of
any Minister’s mind would be the need to provide better services without
increasing taxes. Anything costly, he pointed out, would be unlikely to get
HM Treasury approval. He reminded that meeting that Ministers do not
want to be associated with bad news stories. He recommended that APPSI:
•
keeps its message simple;
•
focuses on the benefits to voters and not the government;
•
focuses on cutting costs and not anything which seems to increase the cost
of government;
•
provides routes over the heads of public sector information holders to the
public;
•
harnesses the power and influence of entrepreneurs in the private sector
who have successfully re-used PSI to the benefit of society.
8. The rapporteur, Professor William Dutton, Director of the Oxford Internet
Institute, reviewed the day’s discussions. He highlighted the importance of
APPSI getting the PSI story clear. FOI, data sharing and information
management were all important parts of the story, he said and ventured
further that the story has to be presented to Ministers and to the wider
public in an easily understood way if APPSI wants to be effective and to
bring about change.
23
ANNUAL REPORT
2006
9
Other
Jurisdictions
The Secretariat has continued to look at the way public sector information
policy is developed and applied in other countries. It has produced reports on
two members of the EU, Ireland and Estonia; and on two non-European
countries, Australia and Japan. This section offers a summary of the findings.
With a legislative and administrative structure closely based on the British
model, Ireland has followed a similar approach to the UK in implementing
Directive 2003/98EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 17
November 2003 on the Re-use of Public Sector Information. The Directive was
transposed into Irish law by Statutory Instrument No279 of 2005 European
Communities (Re-use of Public Sector Information) Regulations 2005.
The Minister for Finance is responsible for ensuring that public sector bodies
meet their obligations under the Regulations. A significant initiative has been
the creation of the Re-use of Public Sector Information Portal www.psi.gov.ie/
by the Department of Finance. The portal has links to the websites of the
bodies which are subject to the Regulations. It also contains the text of the
Directive, the Statutory Instrument and a Department of Finance Circular on
the Re-use of Public Sector Information (22 November 2005). The Circular sets
out the actions recommended and required of public sector bodies.The portal
also includes the PSI General Licence, a standard licence for those who want to
re-use information under the Regulations.
A “requester”can make an appeal to the Minister if a public sector body refuses
a request for a licence, if the proposed fee for re-use is not in accordance with
the Regulations, or against the conditions imposed. The Minister has the
authority to appoint an Appeal Commissioner to review the decision made by
the public sector body. If the “requester” is dissatisfied with the decision of the
Appeal Commissioner, they can make an appeal to the High Court.
Since joining the EU in 2004 Estonia has made significant progress in bringing
its information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure up to the
level of the most advanced EU members.This has led to Estonia becoming one
of the most progressive states in Central and Eastern Europe. Estonia has
welcomed EU Directives that are intended to encourage the development of
an information society. This has been supported by the development of
systems which ensure that databases are being maintained and by the
introduction of a digital archive which allows information to be exchanged
between national and local government and with business. The forward
thinking approach to information policy in Estonia is demonstrated by it
24
implementing a Public Information Act in 2001 which set out its citizen’s right
to information, its regulation and the requirement that information is made
accessible via the internet. This has meant that implementing the PSI Directive
has been easy for Estonia.
With Queen Elizabeth II as its Head of State and with its historical links to the
UK, Australia has many similar governmental and public sector structures as
the UK. It also has a similar approach to copyright and intellectual property. In
1982, the Commonwealth government of Australia introduced a Freedom of
Information of Act which covered the ministers, departments and public
authorities of the Commonwealth. Between 1989 and 2003, the Australian
states and territories implemented their own freedom of information
legislation.
There has been less policy development on the re-use of public sector
information, although this has started to change. In March 2006, the Australian
Government Management Information Office (AGIMO) published Responsive
Government – A New Service Agenda. A National Broadband Strategy
Implementation Group has been established to look at policy issues relating to
digital content. Its aim is to develop a comprehensive digital content strategy.
Research has begun into licensing issues as the digital content industry is
seeking better access to PSI for commercial exploitation. The AttorneyGeneral’s Department has initiated a consultation on a whole government
approach to the management of Intellectual Property. The outcome of this
consultation will clearly be significant to the development of public sector
information policy in Australia.
Governments in Japan have not been as forward looking as the other leading
industrial nations in developing information and communication technology
solutions for delivering services to the public. It was not until 2000 that
legislation established the basic law for Creating a Highly Integrated
Information and Communication Network Society. This was followed in 2001 by
the development of an e-Japan strategy which included plans for putting
administrative processes online over the next few years. The development of
e-government in Japan has been closely linked to administrative reform. On
1 April 2001, Japan implemented a national Information Disclosure Law. It was
the result of more than two decades of pressure being put on the government
by a variety of different groups. The law does include a broad range of
exemption clauses but there have been many cases where the courts have
decided that information should be released.The government’s policy position
on the re-use of public sector information is not clear.There do not seem to be
any central guidelines or regulations covering the re-use of PSI.
25
ANNUAL REPORT
2006
10
Case Studies
In APPSI’s Annual Report of 2005, it was noted that the Panel’s future work
would include the development of a series of case studies which would
“usefully reflect different business models that have been adopted by those
seeking to re-use PSI”. We had been struggling, as others were too, to find a
convincing way of showing the relevance and potential of the re-use of PSI.We
are optimistic that our solution – a set of case studies or examples – will help
engage and enthuse Ministers, information managers, entrepreneurs and
many more. The case studies include the following:
1. The Environment Agency’s What’s In Your Back Yard? (WIYBY) website
2. DEFRA’s MAGIC website
3. The National Land Information Service (NLIS)
4. A New Retail Census
5. The London Grid for Learning (LGfL)
6. Forecasting the Nation’s Health
7. The Planning Portal
8. OPSI’s Click-Use Licences
9. BAILLI
10. The British Library
11. Landmark Information Group
12. Companies House
13. The NHS and Dr Foster Intelligence
14. The ITEM Club: A Model for City Trading
15. The EThOS Project
16. ONS’ Neighbourhood Statistics
The Panel hopes that these case studies can be used as a powerful technique
for communicating experience and knowledge in a way which allows
practitioners, whether old hands or newcomers, to recognise problems,
address issues and modify their own thinking to the considerable benefit of all
concerned.
26
Above all, though, they help to bridge the identification gap – the “what’s this
got to do with me?” question. This is a question which is probably asked more
frequently than is sometimes acknowledged by busy information managers,
business executives and their staffs from the public sector, especially when a
request for re-use of PSI is received for the first time. Equally, the case studies
illustrate how commerce has used PSI to provide new services, for example, to
home buyers and insurance companies.
Over the last year, members of APPSI have produced the case studies as
illustrations of circumstances and situations in which PSI has been re-used to
good effect and in line with good practice.While thumbnail sketches of the case
studies are below, full versions will be made available through the Panel’s
website (www.appsi.gov.uk).
1. What’s In Your Back Yard? (WIYBY)
www.environment-agency.gov.uk
The Environment Agency has developed a fine example of the wider use of
public sector information which is routinely gathered and maintained as part of
an organisation’s public task – in this case the regulation and protection of the
environment in England and Wales – but whose value is significantly enhanced
by user-friendly presentation and easy availability.
The internet-enabled information resource known as WIYBY is first and foremost
a free public service, but its valuable underpinning databases are also promoted
as a key source of reference material for the private sector information
publishing industry as well as to other public bodies, institutions and research
establishments.
WIYBY users can find out more about what is really happening in the
environment where they live. Maps indicate whether a particular postcode area
is at risk of flood, whether there is a landfill site or source of contamination
nearby and how healthy the rivers and bathing water are in the area.
2. DEFRA’S MAGIC
www.magic.gov.uk
MAGIC is the first web-based interactive map to bring together information on
key environmental schemes and designations in one place. It is a partnership
involving eight government organisations who have responsibilities for rural
policy-making and management, including English Nature, the Countryside
Agency,English Heritage,the Forestry Commission,the Environment Agency and
DEFRA.
People wishing to view and query the available data may do so over the Internet
without requiring specialist knowledge and can access maps using a standard
web browser. MAGIC also provides links to other sources in order to make best
use of information available on different websites and Internet portals.
Summary data is also available to the public via the Countryside Information
System, which has recently been augmented by the addition of datasets for the
Coastal and Marine Atlas.
27
ANNUAL REPORT
2006
3. The National Land (and property) Information Service (NLIS)
www.nlis.org.uk
The National Land Information Service (NLIS) – provides electronic access to all
the official sources of land and property information across England and Wales.
This information is held by over 400 local authorities, national parks, Land
Registry, the Coal Authority, the Environment Agency and water companies. NLIS
has reduced search times to as little two minutes, compared to up to six weeks
under the original paper based system, and has processed over seven million
searches requests.
4. A New Retail Census
http://www.geofutures.com/online
Retailers have lobbied hard for better information about their industry. In
response, the Department of Communities and Local Government has
generated a unique database of town centre statistics which fuses employment
and retail turnover data from the Office of National Statistics and floorspace and
rateable value data from the Valuation Office Agency. The Census is conducted
bi-annually with 2000 and 2002 data now available for England and Wales.
Further value has been added to this public sector information by making it
available online using Google Maps.
5. The London Grid for Learning (LGfL)
www.lgfl.net
This is an initiative in pooling educational information within the public sector. It
is collaboration by the 33 London boroughs, launched in June 2000 to provide
broadband connectivity, managed services and online content for the education
community. Currently over 60% of London’s schools are connected with threequarters of London’s one million pupils already served. A wealth of online
educational content now exists, as well as facilities such as email, conferencing,
online communities, notes, calendars, and web creation tools through the LGfL
Portal.
6. Forecasting the Nation’s Health
ww.metoffice.gov.uk
The weather has a significant impact on people’s health.The Met Office predicts
factors affecting variability of infections, helping the National Health Service
(NHS) to target preventative action and plan admissions and staffing
requirements.
Key to the health forecasting programme are risk forecasts of Chronic
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) – a serious respiratory condition
affecting over 1.5 million people in the UK. COPD patients become vulnerable as
temperatures drop and are particularly susceptible in cold conditions.
By warning NHS organisations when people are most at risk of a COPD
exacerbation, the Met Office aids delivery of preventative care. For example, a
nurse could telephone or visit a patient to assess their condition and then enable
a range of medical and non-medical interventions if required.
The service is now available to health authorities across the UK, and an estimated
35,000 patients have been supported through the scheme already this year.
28
7. The Planning Portal
www.planningportal.gov.uk
The Planning Portal is the one-stop shop for planning information and services
online, set up to help anyone who wants to know more about the planning
process in England and Wales. It works alongside local authorities’ websites and
provides a source of help and advice on planning issues, helping home owners
and property professionals alike to minimise delays and save money.
It has been designed as a guide towards making a successful planning
application, providing simple and easy to use online forms for sending an
application direct to a local planning authority.Local development plans can also
be viewed, appeals made and tracked, regulations consulted, and contact with
local planning departments made.
8. OPSI’s Click-Use Licences
www.opsi.gov.uk
Click-Use is the online licensing system for the re-use of Crown and
Parliamentary copyright information, and its scope has recently been extended
to cover information produced by public sector organisations such as local
authorities, the NHS, police and fire services.
For information holders and providers, Click-Use offers a quick, efficient and costfree solution to the task of setting up a licensing process in order to fulfil the
obligations of the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations which came
into force in July 2005.
With over 11,000 global user licenses issued to date, enabling the re-use of a vast
range of official information without restriction, this UK online initiative has been
welcomed and praised for unlocking the potential of public sector information.
9. BAILII
www.bailii.org
The British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) provides the largest, freeof-charge online collection of British and Irish primary legal materials (legislation
and case law). In September 2006, BAILII included 74 databases covering 7
jurisdictions. The system contains around 9.4 gigabytes of legal materials and
around 186,000 searchable documents with about 4 million internal hypertext
links.
The raw material, in the form of statutes and law reports, is brought together and
subjected to a remarkable technology developed by academics. A new,
extremely valuable information resource was thereby created and is now
available to all.
BAILII is not just about making legal information available to citizens and to
lawyers, which of itself is of immense significance. In many ways, the BAILII
experience foreshadows many other efforts across government to re-use PSI
more widely.
10. The British Library
www.bl.uk
It was announced in March 2006 that the British Library was to offer free access
to forty databases containing the latest company, business and industry
information and financial news. Patents, trade marks and registered design
information would also be made available at no charge to the researcher.
29
ANNUAL REPORT
2006
The British Library website can be accessed and certain content freely printed
and downloaded provided it is not altered in any way, that copyright is
acknowledged, and that it is not used for any direct or indirect commercial
purpose.
Other individuals and organisations wishing to make British Library content
accessible through their websites are encouraged to create hypertext links to the
required content on the British Library website.
11. Landmark Information Group
www.landmarkinfo.co.uk
Since 1995, Landmark Information Group has transformed the way property
professionals research the history of a building or site. By centralizing data from
a range of public sector bodies, and keying the data to large-scale digital
mapping, Landmark cut research from 21 days to less than 21 minutes, and
delivered more information to clients’ desks than was possible using manual
research methods. Landmark delivers more than 50,000 reports a month and
turns over in excess of £50 million a year.
12. Companies House
www.companieshouse.gov.uk
Companies House is the official registry for companies and some other types of
businesses in England, Wales and Scotland. Two of its main functions are to
examine and store company information delivered under the Companies Act
and related legislation; and to make this information available to the public.
Its business model is an example of how a key statutory body can cover the cost
of an essential government overhead by operating effectively as a trading fund.
This is achieved while ensuring all charges for carrying out its obligations of
information gathering, registration and dissemination comply with domestic
and European requirements.
13. The NHS & Dr Foster Intelligence
www.drfoster.co.uk
Medical information has always been a difficult area in which fully to exploit its
intrinsic value because of the sensitivity of the subject. The medical profession
has always had concerns about the confidentiality of patient information, but as
many epidemiological investigations and analyses have shown, the societal
value of certain health data is potentially huge.
Dr Foster seeks to make it easier for professionals and the public to access health
and social care information. It demonstrates the way in which a public sector
information centre can be formally combined with private sector skills and
resources in a fully commercial public-private partnership in a way which is not
only potentially of value to a key government department but also provides a
stimulus to innovation and new product development which, in turn, has a
significant and beneficial indirect effect on business activity. It also shows one
open and transparent way in which a sensitive governmental information asset
may be beneficially introduced to the open marketplace.
30
14. The ITEM Club: A Model for City Trading
www.ey.com
The ITEM Club was founded in 1977 by a number of major companies who
wanted to share the cost of economic forecasting. The ITEM Club not only uses
government statistics to shed light on business decisions but, more importantly,
it uses the government’s own economic model to forecast economic statistics –
or more precisely the UK Treasury Model used for the UK policy analysis and
Industry Act forecasts for the budget. ITEM stands for Independent Treasury
Economic Model.
Members span a range of industry sectors and they “interrogate” the model
with questions that focus on business implications as opposed to simply the
macro-economic results the government is obliged to report in the budget
and elsewhere. In this regard it makes greater use of the same model and is
more “demand driven” with members deciding what questions to ask the
model.
15. The EThOS Project
www.jisc.ac.uk
Electronic Theses Online Service (EThOS) is a project involving the British Library,
the National Library of Wales, the Universities of Glasgow, Cranfield, Robert
Gordon, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Warwick, Southampton and the SHERPA
(Securing a Hybrid Environment for Research Preservation and Access) project.
It aims to deliver a UK online theses service, with supporting infrastructure,
offering full text access through a single web interface to UK doctoral theses,
including theses stored electronically by the British Library as well as others held
in electronic format by UK universities.
This will mean that the identification of past and current doctoral research work
in the United Kingdom becomes considerably easier, which will assist not only
those wishing to access and make use of the research, but also those considering
such research themselves.
16. ONS’ Neighbourhood Statistics
www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk
The Office for National Statistics’ Neighbourhood Statistics (NeSS) website
provides a convenient way of freely obtaining many statistics about small areas
throughout England and Wales.
The website attracts 60,000 users a month, ranging from specialists to the
general public, and across both the public services and commercial companies.
Some users choose to investigate one area, seeking to build up a picture using a
range of topics such as education, health and crime. Others may wish to
download information for just one topic for a number of areas or for the whole
country.
A key feature of NeSS is that, by drawing on many different sources in various
parts of government, it is able to provide users with a one-stop shop. It also acts
as a shop window, pointing to the original sources of the datasets, and giving a
lead for pursuing more detailed information that might be available now or in
the future.
Printed in the UK by The Stationery Office Limited
N5370516 01/07 19585 357028
31
ANNUAL REPORT
2006
32
Advisory Panel on Public Sector Information
St Clements House
2-16 Colegate
Norwich
NR3 1BQ
Secretariat@appsi.gov.uk
This report can also be accessed on the APPSI website at
http://www.appsi.gov.uk/reports/annual-report.htm
APPSI is grateful to the Cabinet Office, the National Archives, Ordnance
Survey and the Met Office for providing some of the illustrations which
have been reproduced in this report.
© Crown copyright 2006
This publication may be reproduced free of charge in any format or
medium provided that it is reproduced accurately and not used in a
misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown
copyright and the title of the publication specified.
ISBN 978 01 198984 15