Minutes of the 45th meeting of the
Advisory Panel on Public Sector Information
Date:
Time:
Venue:
13 October 2014
11.00–15:30
The Ministry of Justice, 102 Petty France, London
Attendees: Chair
Professor David Rhind
Members
Bob Barr
Michael Jennings
Paul Longley
Duncan Macniven
Hugh Neffendorf
Michael Nicholson
Bill Oates
Shane O‘Neill
Phillip Webb
Dean White
Expert Member
Expert Member
Expert Member
Representative Member for Scotland
Expert Member
Expert Member
Representative Member for Wales
Expert Member
Expert Member
Expert Member
Carol Tullo
Director, Information Policy & Services, The National
Archives
Head of Information Policy, The National Archives
Business and Policy Manager, The National Archives
Information and Legislative Policy Manager, The
National Archives
Programme Manager, New Zealand Open
Government Information and Data Programme
Founder and Partner, DotEcon Ltd
Deputy Director, Government Transparency, Cabinet
Office
APPSI Secretariat (minutes)
Nonmembers
Jim Wretham
Beth Brook
Malcolm Todd
Keitha Booth
Dr Dan Maldoom
Oliver Buckley
Beth Watson
1.
Welcome, Apologies and Introductions
1.1.
Apologies were received from Keith Dugmore, Hilary Newiss and David Lammey.
1.2.
The Chairman welcomed Keitha Booth, Dan Maldoom and Oliver Buckley to the meeting.
2.
Minutes of previous meeting and actions
2.1
The minutes, subject to the following amendment, were approved as an accurate record of the
matters discussed.
1

2.2.
Outstanding actions from the previous meeting:

3.
Item 6. Care.Data: ACTION: Chair to write to Dean White thanking him for the presentation
he gave to APPSI at the April 2014 meeting on NHS Care.Data setting out why APPSI
believes that the Care.Data programme is important. Complete.
ACTION: Members to consider the subjects suggested for working papers and where they
may be able to contribute. Status: A list of possible working papers has been drawn up and
some have been allocated. Some work has been done, but there have been no comments to
date. Bob suggested that the audience was not obvious and wondered whether thought
should be given to a national information consortium on advisory bodies.
Open Data and Transparency: Recent developments, current plans and possible future
developments
Oliver Buckley explained the function of the Cabinet Office’s Government Innovation Group,
headed by Paul Maltby, and its role in embedding transparency and OD in government policy
decisions.
He explained that its objectives are to ensure that the government provides higher quality data to
the public and that the benefits of OD can be spread. It has already made significant progress in
these areas. The UK has taken a leading role in international forums such as the OGP and led
on the creation of the c-Cam platform. He noted the lessons learned during the flooding in the
West Country early in 2014, and the Environment Agency’s subsequent commitment to become
an OD organisation, beginning with the release of the nafra data set in April 2015. Future
developments will centre on local government data, identifying bodies that can act as exemplars
and who will be invited to speak to Ministers. Robust OD ecosystems will also be developed to
enable users to better exploit information such as spending data which is currently not being
used as effectively as it could be. Work is also underway on the next version of the NII, which will
stress the importance of core reference data and the introduction of SLAs to ensure user
confidence.
He acknowledged that there were a number of challenges to be met. These included:





Improving the quality of data and making it linkable
Making it easier for government departments to release data
Seeing government as a consumer of OD as well as a producer
Setting up effective eco-systems to ensure sustainability
Addressing privacy issues and retaining public support.
In response to a query from members on the impact of the EU Directive on the release of
personal data, Oliver explained that a Cabinet Office team was working on clearer guidelines for
government users of data, which may take the form of a white paper. Bill noted that ONS is
aware of the issues and is looking at mechanisms that will allow it to share some information.
Shane was pleased about the emphasis that was being placed on local data. He had no
objections to the release of raw data but to drive economic growth data should be released in a
useful form. He stressed the importance of having clear service values which clarified the role of
government and the private sector in producing this. In response, Oliver observed that different
stakeholders had different perspectives on quality, and that some businesses had a commercial
interest in the release of raw data.
Bob expressed concerns about who led on data governance issues across government and the
devolved administrations. At present there was confusion as to whether the Cabinet Office, MoJ
or the ICO had ultimate responsibility on particular aspects of data governance and he asked
how this could be resolved. Oliver said that the Cabinet Office was looking at how other
2
governments had addressed the issue, for example France had recently appointed a Chief Data
Officer with responsibility for improving the flow of data in the economy and within the
administration, ensuring the production or acquisition of essential data, and spreading a culture
of data within French ministries and agencies.
Members asked if there was any intention to expand the aims of the NII to include data from
private sector providers of public service or private sector organisations more widely. Oliver said
that they were making steps in that direction, and were exploring the inclusion of OD clauses in
contracts with suppliers.
Members made a number of other observations and suggestions about how the Cabinet Office
could most effectively pursue its OD agenda. These included:







Educating the public about the benefits of OD and reassuring them with regards to
privacy
Maintaining a long term perspective to ensure that short term decisions, e.g. with regard
to privacy issues, do not compromise long term objectives
Facilitating data sharing between departments and teams, and improving government’s
use of its own data
Ensuring there is a government-wide ethical framework underpinning re-use
Ensuring there is a clear legislative framework in place
Working with the Scottish and Welsh Governments on the development of the NII
Developing apps predicated on business use
Oliver was grateful for their suggestions. David thanked him for his attendance.
4.
TNA Update on Current PSI Issues
Carol Tullo reported on the current issues:

Triennial review
There was no further news on the progress of the triennial review.

Public Sector Transparency Board (PSTB)
The PSTB had met on Thursday and had discussed Ordnance Survey’s business model.
The focus had moved away from the trading fund model and there was now a recognition
that there could not be a one-size-fits-all approach.

EU PSI Directive
The consultation exercise that had been run had had to be limited to a narrow set of
questions. It had not been possible to consult on the definition of ‘public sector body’ or
on charging. There had been 22 responses from a good range of organisations. While a
clear preference had not emerged amongst respondents with regard to the redress
mechanism, there was an inclination towards using the ICO. Members wondered if the
ICO had expressed any interest in taking on this additional responsibility. Carol said they
had not pushed for it.
HM Treasury favoured the inclusion of a judicial element to redress although discussions
were on-going. Until this issue is resolved ministerial agreement cannot be sought.
However, the intention is still to have a submission ready by December, with a bill being
laid in Parliament in January or February to meet the April deadline (taking into account
‘purdah’).
Meanwhile TNA were holding workshops and seminars for stakeholders to explain the
impact the Directive will have. These included with museums, whom the EU Commission
had confirmed did fall within the legislation.
3

Licensing
Carol confirmed that v3 of the Open Government Licence would be published by the end
of the month.

IFTS Verifications
 Forthcoming verifications: Ordnance Survey (OS) verification under IFTS would
start next week. OS would also be holding a meeting with its licence partners,
which could prove significant in resolving some outstanding issues; DVLA
(January 2015)
 Recent verifications – National Offender Management Service (summer 2014)
 Complaints
Carol had recently met 77M to discuss their on-going complaint. Heather Savory had also
been present. Carol had also facilitated a meeting between 77M and the Chief Executive
of Ordnance Survey. The case had raised some interesting questions on what happens
when a regime built on mediation breaks down.
 UK Statistics Authority
Carol alerted members to UKSA’s Statistics Futures meeting on 25 November, which
would launch a major programme to explore what official statistics would be needed over
the next 10 years.
5.
New Zealand’s Open Government Data and Information Programme
Keitha Booth gave a presentation to members which gave them an overview of the New
Zealand’s Open Government Programme and its Government and Open Access Licensing
Framework (NZGOAL).
Members asked if the decision to introduce legislation has addressed any particular problems.
Keitha explained that NZGOAL had been approved by Cabinet Decision and not an Act of
Parliament.
Members were interested to understand how the government measured re-use in the absence of
a licensing regime. Keitha explained that, while there was no requirement for users to register to
access information, it was possible to produce metrics based on their signing up for updates. The
government also worked closely with user groups. It was also possible to measure improvements
in efficiency as a result of re-use within government as departments used OD to carry out their
functions.
Members asked if the public in New Zealand were more relaxed about data control than in the
UK. Keitha said that personal data was protected but there was a general acceptance of the
principle that, if data had been collected by a central government department or agency, then it
should be released as OD. Some state-owned enterprises operated in a similar way to UK
trading funds and did charge for re-use, which was unpopular, but the New Zealand government
was looking at ways in which to amend contracts in cases where the data had been created
using public funds. This would ensure that former government organisations would still be bound
by the same responsibilities when it came to the release of such data as they had been before
they were spun off into the private sector.
The Chairman thanked Keitha for her interesting presentation.
4
6.
OFT’s Commercial Use of Public Sector Information Study 2006: an evaluation of its
impact
Dan Maldoom began by running through the paper circulated to members setting out the
purpose of DotEcon’s review of the recommendations the OFT had made following its 2006
study into the Commercial Use of Public Information (CUPI) as part of its competition advocacy
remit. The aim was to understand what impact it had and to inform how the Competition and
Markets Authority (CMA) might dispatch its competition advocacy function in future.
DotEcon has been looking at documentary evidence to assess the impact of the study and has
also interviewed PSIH’s, ODUG and government departments. There is a recognition that the
2006 CUPI study did not initiate changes but it may have accelerated them and have helped a
greater understanding of nature of problems faced by third parties in a complaints based system.
It is clear that improvements have been made but the review may identify some residual issues
which still need to be addressed. The results of DotEcon’s review will be published in the new
year.
OFT had recommended that PSI, either refined or unrefined, should be made as widely available
as possible for re-use and should not be a monopoly for PSIHs. There should also be no
restrictive licensing and charges should be reasonable. The Government’s response included
commitments on the production of guidance, plans and compliance, and an extension of IFTS.
The focus of the initial report and the review was on competition issues but they also touched on
the lack of enforcement powers possessed by OPSI. Given the continuing discussions on the
new EU Directive and forthcoming announcements about the future of Ordnance Survey (a PSIH
which has been the focus of a number of complaints), members wondered if publication of the
review could prove difficult if it made recommendations that were not reflected in government
proposals. It was suggested that there could be a benefit in DotEcon attending meetings with OS
and its licensing partners.
Members were generally of the view that the CUPI Study had facilitated positive changes,
helping to mitigate internal government nimbyism and supporting the setting up of new joint
ventures. However, there was some concern that OFT still lacked the resources to support SMEs
and to address the issues affecting them in relation to PSI. Given the rapid changes in the PSI
landscape it may also be difficult to prove, almost 10 years on, that it was the CUPI study itself
that had effected any changes. They also hoped that the review would look at how government is
benefitting from the supply of information to it by PSIHs and how it places contracts which
involve collection of what should properly be considered as PSI.
The Chairman thanked Dr Maldoom for his presentation.
7.
European PSI Group Update
Jim and Malcolm updated APPSI on the meeting of the EU PSI Group they attended in
September.
There was a commitment by all the governments of member states to meet the transposition
deadline. The Netherlands, Sweden and the UK had made the most noticeable progress. All
states’ work on transposition will be judged against the guidance notice issued by the EU
Commission. While the notice has no official status, member states will be expected to have
considered three issues:
a) Standard licensing, including simplicity and interoperability
b) The proactive release of datasets (the amended directive places more emphasis on
format, metadata and feedback from re-users)
c) Charging
5
During the discussions, all member states identified similar barriers to successful transposition
including the complexity of the legislative regime, the difficulty in ‘getting the message across’ to
stakeholders, and the impact of forthcoming elections. Much of the discussion focussed on the
treatment of personal information, and the link between PSI, FOI and access, but little was said
about redress.
PwC also gave a presentation on the implementation of licensing across the EU. Malcolm noted
that there was no statement made about the importance of OGLs or any recommendations
regarding EU-wide licensing.
8.
Updates from the Devolved Administrations

Scotland
Duncan informed members that the Scottish Government expected to publish its new data
strategy in December. There had been a good response to the consultation and the new
strategy would give Open Data more prominence.
With the encouragement of the Scottish Government many local authorities were following
Glasgow’s example to create their own Open Data portals, although work in this area was not
as advanced as in many English authorities. Some of the obstacles to progression were the
result of a shortage of specialist IT skills and the lack of sufficient storage behind their
website, but it was also necessary to allay concerns about what data would be used for once
it had been published.

Wales
Bill had recently had discussions with the Chief Statistician for Wales. Work was beginning
on a data strategy and, while no Minister has yet agreed to lead on the issue, progress is
encouraging. As well as linking into the Well-Being of Future Generations (Wales) Bill, there
may also be the opportunity for the strategy to feed into the ONS Strategic Futures Project.
Bill was also working with Ordnance Survey on a review of the current legislative programme
to identify areas of potential crossover relating to Ordnance Survey data and derived data.

9.
Northern Ireland
David Lammey was unable to attend the meeting but provided the written update at Annex A.
Update on Open UPRNs enquiry
Michael Jennings informed members that the Chairman had recently written to Ordnance
Survey, the LGA and GeoPlace. There had been a helpful response from GeoPlace which briefly
addressed the points APPSI had raised and said that they would reply in greater detail following
their Board meeting in mid-October. APPSI agreed that this represented a positive opening up of
dialogue on the issue.
David thanked Michael and Hugh for their assistance in drafting the letter.
Bob hoped that ODI’s work on the development of an Open Address Database and the success
of the OpenStreetMap project could be enough to persuade the Government that the release of
UPRNs as OD would be a positive move and would not have a negative impact on government
income streams or projects.
ACTION: The Chairman to write again to GeoPlace later in October requesting an update on the
outcome of the meeting. Complete
10.
Complaint under the Re-use of PSI Regulations 2005
Before the start of this item Bob withdrew as he had connections with the complainants.
6
David informed members that the Review Board’s report had been published. He thanked Phillip
Webb and Peter Wienand for their work on it. The Board recognised that the complainants would
were unlikely to be content with the outcome as APPSI had been unable to resolve all the issues
they raised. However, it was clear that it would be inappropriate for APPSI to be drawn into
further discussions with the company on any on-going issues now that the report had been
published.
Members noted the observations made in the report, particularly regarding the confusion that
had been caused due to the lack of coherent advice and guidance for organisations that were
unfamiliar with PSI and OD issues. In this case, this had led to the complainants contacting the
wrong organisation, i.e. HMLR, in the first instance.
OPSI were continuing to work with the complainants and Ordnance Survey to try to reach an
agreement.
11.
Chair’s forthcoming meeting with the APPSI Minister
David informed members that he would be meeting Simon Hughes shortly and asked for their
views on what issues he should raise. Suggestions included:






The triennial review and how APPSI’s role as an advisory body to Ministers could be
more clearly defined
APPSI’s contribution to developments in Open Data, including the NII/NIF and the
Open Data glossary
The outcome of January’s seminar on assessing the impact of Open Data.
Praise for the way in which the coalition has taken forward the transparency and
Open Data agenda and suggestions on how it could continue to do so
Ordnance Survey
UPRNs and addressing data – it was suggested that this issue could be best
explained in relation to its impact on housing policy, an area of particular interest to
Mr Hughes.
It was also recommended that the most productive approach to the discussion would be to link
the issues raised into the relevant Ministry of Justice policy agendas, such as FOI, data
protection and information rights wherever possible.
12.
Any Other Business

APPSI Glossary
On 29 October Bob and Hugh would be meeting with data.gov to discuss comments and
feedback on the PSI and Open Data glossary. A new blog post on the glossary would also
be published shortly.
7
ANNEX A
APPSI Meeting – 13 October 2014
NORTHERN IRELAND UPDATE
INNOVATION STRATEGY FOR NORTHERN IRELAND (2014 - 2025)
This document prepared by the Department of Enterprise, Trade & Investment (DETI) and mentioned in
the NI update to APPSI of 28 January 2014 has now been agreed and finalised. The exploitation of
public sector data features significantly.
OPEN DATA TEAM
The Department of Finance & Personnel’s (DFP) Open Data team are continuing to engage with various
departmental stakeholders and beyond.

They have asked Departmental Information Managers to ask Information Asset Owners to
identify high value datasets.

They are hoping to issue an online questionnaire in the next few weeks to gauge the appetite for
preferred data and formats of data people are most interested in – in order to inform their work

They are still aiming to have the NI Open Data Strategy written by December and formalised in
early 2015

Prior to the Open Government Partnership 3rd anniversary event in New York in September, the
team was approached by Open Data colleagues from the Irish government’s Department of
Public Expenditure and Reform to see if they could make a pledge at the event (all countries
were encouraged to do so) to hold a bilateral exchange of research on best practice in terms of
Open Data. DFP agreed
NI CIVIL SERVICE INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND INNOVATION BOARD
The new NICS Information Governance and Innovation Board are meeting on 23 October 2014. One of
the Board’s immediate objectives is to ensure that the Information Management community engages
fully in the Open Data agenda.
PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION SEMINAR
The Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI) is hosting a seminar led by The National
Archives’ PSI team for the benefit of the archives, libraries and museums sector on 7 November 2014.
DAVID LAMMEY
OCTOBER 2014
8