Minutes of the 44th meeting of the
Advisory Panel on Public Sector Information
Date:
Time:
Venue:
15 July 2014
11.00–15:30
the National Archives, Kew
Attendees: Chair
Professor David Rhind
Members
Bob Barr
Keith Dugmore
Duncan Macniven
Hilary Newiss
Michael Jennings
Phillip Webb
Hugh Neffendorf
Bill Oates
Dean White
Expert Member
Expert Member
Representative Member for Scotland
Expert Member
Expert Member
Expert Member
Expert Member
Representative Member for Wales
Expert Member
Carol Tullo
Director, Information Policy & Services, The National
Archives
Jim Wretham
Beth Brook
Trish Humphries
Harvey Lewis
Jon Ryder-Oliver
Head of Information Policy, The National Archives
Business and Policy Manager, The National Archives
Secretariat (minutes)
Deloittes
The National Archives
Nonmembers
1.
Welcome, Apologies and Introductions
1.1.
Apologies were received from Paul Longley, Shane O’Neill, David Lammey and Michael
Nicholson
1.2.
The Chairman welcomed Harvey Lewis from Deloittes and Jon Ryder-Oliver from The National
Archives who would be observing 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.
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.
Outstanding actions from the previous meeting:

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.
3.
TNA Update on Current PSI Issues
3.1
Carol Tullo reported on the current issues:
 PSI Transposition
A ministerial submission containing the draft consultation paper has been submitted and
clearance has been received from Treasury in connection with charging provisions. It is hoped
that a response will be received before recess so that the consultation can be published in early
August. A meeting of all the member states who have worked on the transposition will be held
on the 10th September and The National Archives will be represented.
Lawyers are reviewing drafts and Parliamentary Office is being briefed as there may be some
constitutional issues.
In response to queries, Carol advised that there is a big change within the charging aspect. It
will now be obligatory to move to marginal costing, although there will be some exceptions for
libraries, museums and archives. There should not be any burdens on local authorities but they
will need to alter processes. The changes are unlikely to affect trading funds, but the rest of the
public sector will be affected.
 Complaints Activity
An audit and assessment of bids in the national fair trader scheme have been carried out and
public engagement is now within schedule.
 IFTS
The Public Health England delegation of authority has been signed. The UK Hydrographic Office
has been re-verified and a report on the National Offender Management Service (NOMS)will be
published shortly. The verification at Ordnance Survey will not be carried out until issues around
data are resolved.
 APPS Triennial Review
The Stage 1 report is due to go to Ministers and the outcome will be shared once accepted,
although this is unlikely to be before recess. The review team advised that a very poor response
was received from the consultation and members queried briefly whether the right people had
been targeted.
Hugh wondered whether it was appropriate to start to consider what impact a possible change of
status might have on the role of APPSI, but it was felt that that it would be better to wait for the
outcome of Stage 1. Whatever the outcome, the statutory role of APPSI will continue until the
new regulations come into force, probably at the start of the 2015/16 financial year.
2
4.
Transparency Board Update
David advised that following the last meeting, he had requested that Board papers be circulated
to APPSI members and the majority of papers had now been forwarded. Members
acknowledged that this was very helpful, although as the papers were not circulated well in
advance of the meetings, it was agreed that any meeting highlights should still be shared.
5.
APPSI Glossary
Bob advised that the Cabinet Office guide was now published although there had not been many
comments to date. It appeared, from those comments which had been received, that there was
confusion regarding the actual purpose of the glossary and members felt that some clarification
was necessary to illustrate that it is a compilation of terms, brought together to assist
government. It was suggested that links to the sources of the terms might be helpful.
Members discussed the value of a formal launch but felt it would be more appropriate to produce
a further blog and include responses to comments in a factual manner. The moderating team
can also review the contributions and make amendments where required.
Duncan advised that the Scottish Government had used the glossary and found it very useful.
Philip suggested that it might be helpful to look at links within other search engines to see how
the glossary appears.
ACTION: Provide clarification of the purpose of the glossary in a further blog.
6.
Should the UPRN be Open Data?
Members considered a paper by Michael Jennings, Hugh, and Michael Nicholson recommending
that the UPRN (Unique Property Reference Number) be in the public domain. The paper
outlined potential benefits and barriers and suggested that whilst APPSI should initially focus on
the UPRNs, it may wish to also think about the role and status of other such data linkages, and
whether a general approach to such identifiers should be considered.
David advised that at the most recent meeting of the Transparency Board, a Director General
from BIS had reported on an open address report which Hugh had created for BIS, and noted
that it was an interesting idea but that there were no funds available to take such a project
forward.
Hugh felt that the UPRN was proving to be well designed and durable and less complex than
adding addresses. However, it was suggested that there would be more value if addresses were
attached, although there would need to be some caveats.
Concerns regarding confidentiality would be mitigated by the fact that the UPRN covers
geographic areas, not people; although Dean queried the advantage of having the UPRN without
an address.
Hugh advised that the utility companies already use UPRNs and they will also be added to the
electoral register and are beginning to filter down to individuals.
It was noted that very few organisations outside the public sector have access to the National
Address Gazetteer being produced by GeoPlace and therefore most private sector organisation
use the Royal Mail’s Postcode Address File which does not give general access to the UPRN
and this can often result in there being no definitive identifier.
3
The position regarding UPRNs was very confusing and although it had been generally thought
that the data was open, it appears to be owned by GeoPlace. Following discussion, it was
agreed that the Chair should write to GeoPlace and ask them to advise whether the APPSI
interpretation that UPRN is open data is correct.
Members were asked to forward any comments or suggestions on UPRNs as Open Data and
their value to Michael or Hugh.
A plan for an ODI Open Address project was briefly discussed and Phillip advised that a
symposium was being arranged. It was thought that the project might look at pulling together
existing sources and start to build a street file. Funds had been made available for an initial pilot
to ascertain feasibility.
Hugh felt that it would be possible to draw together around 70-80% of addresses from publicly
available sources, but it was agreed that any product would need to be definitive if it were to be
effective.
Members agreed that this is a matter which needs to be taken seriously by government and
suggested that David write to ministers.
ACTION: Chair to consider writing to Ministers outlining the issues and advised that APPSI
believes that a short term solution will be available, but that longer term further consideration will
be necessary.
7.
Discussion Paper: IPR, Liability and other issues in regard to Derived Data
Members reviewed a discussion paper prepared by David regarding derived data and issues of
Intellectual Property Rights and liability.
The paper sought to clarify the definition of derived data and outlined four main issues:




Who owns the IPR and has to meet the liabilities in situation where data is derived?
How can we identify whether data are derived without permission from another source?
What metrics can be used to assess the relative share of two (or more) IPR owners in a
combined product?
How can we assess the quality and suitability for particular uses of a combined data set?
Members acknowledged the practical problems involved and suggested a possible licencing
system for issues such as orphan works, although this was likely to be expensive. There are
pooling arrangements in place and these are governed by European law.
The issue of ‘royalty stacking’ was raised and David gave an example using Ordnance Survey,
asking whether they could refuse permission to mix other data with theirs unless they received a
larger share of the revenue. Hugh felt that although this may be used as a negotiating position, it
would still be subject to EC law.
Carol outlined the Crown licencing position in respect of shared or derived data and advised that
where anything was created from combined data including Crown data, it must always be able to
identify exactly what is Crown, and that that would then take precedence. There will always
been issues of principle, but the default must be to the OG licence.
Bill suggested the possibility of having some specific process or grants made available for
specific derived data sets to alleviate problems caused by lack of clarity.
Carol advised that of approximately 550 exemption claims under PSMA, only around 30 were not
allowed and there were very few still under discussion. She further clarified that Ordnance
Survey products are Crown owned and, although the licencing issue is complicated, there are
clear rules.
4
Members noted that some local authorities had been difficult about licensing arrangements but
under the new PSI regulations will be subject to the same general rules on charging although
they will retain their own copyright. It will not be possible to force them to use OGL, but they will
have to make data available at marginal cost. Philip advised that this would also apply to
education authorities, hospitals and police forces, all of whom have information which they sell
and buy in. This created many different purchasing models.
Michael Jennings suggested the glossary highlighted the issue of Ordnance Survey's having two
functions - data collection, and products and services. Bob noted that there was no forum for
discussion on this matter and Carol advised that this was one of the reasons why Ordnance
Survey moved to BIS, as bringing the organisation under one Secretary of State would ensure
better oversight.
David thanked members for the useful discussion and suggested that consideration be given to
what kind or record is required and what action might be necessary.
Carol felt that there was still an issue around the commercial trading element, with a number of
bodies opening up. She advised that the questions raised in the discussion paper were being
asked on a regular basis and suggested that it might be helpful to use that, and the suggested
answers more widely.
Hugh felt that a QA paper which also explained licencing and IP rights would be useful.
David asked whether Carol’s team could produce such a paper to provide guidance and clarity
and Carol agreed to give the request some consideration, but felt that it would be preferable to
contribute to the work David had already done, rather than write something new.
8.
Updates from the Devolved Administrations

Scotland
Duncan advised that the Scottish Government had now published a vision for open data,
together with a strategic action plan and had requested comments. Data Management Board –
A Data Vision for Scotland Data Management Board – Strategic Action Plan
Work was now underway to produce an open data strategy to be published in December.
Following the initiative by Glasgow City Council to set up the open Glasgow website, a number of
other cities are looking into the feasibility of creating similar websites.
The Data Lab consortium project to analyse online data for commercial use is about to be
launched.
Duncan and Shane have been working together on roadworks data accessibility and have
received interest from a member of the Scottish roadworks commission.

Wales
Bill advised that neither of the two digital focussed initiatives had yet received backing.
Digital Strategies for Welsh Government and for the Welsh Public Sector are well advanced, with
strong links to the PSI agenda in each. They are likely to be launched publicly in the Autumn.

Northern Ireland
David Lammey was unable to attend the meeting, but submitted a written update on recent
developments in Northern Ireland (See Annex A).
5
Members agreed that the new Chair of the Open Data Group, Caron Alexander, should be
invited to attend a future meeting.
ACTION: Chair to invite the Chair of the Open Data Group to a future meeting.
9.
Principles to underpin any changes of status of Public Sector Information Holders
Members considered a paper prepared by David which proposed a number of principles to
underpin any changes in status for Government Public Sector Information Holders.
The paper provided background on the current operating models of government bodies. Many
are operating under Trading Fund legislation but a number are also moving towards making their
information available via Open Data mechanisms.
Government appears to be looking to review the status and role of public sector bodies and there
is a strong tendency towards privatising or commercialising all or some parts of such bodies. A
number of suggested principles were outlined in the paper which could be used to test and steer
any proposals for change of status where the continuing provision of PSI is involved. This would
ensure that the quality of information produced by the bodies will remain at a level which meets
the Government transparency requirements
The principles proposed in the paper were discussed.
Duncan suggested that No. 1 was too general and could perhaps be deleted, starting with No. 2.
Hugh wondered whether Nos 4 and 5 were too similar, but Carol felt that they were different but
that some clarification might be needed. Hugh also felt that No. 9 could be clearer.
It was felt that the paper was very timely and David confirmed that the paper had been shared
with Cabinet Office. Carol advised that she would be happy to share the paper informally as a
draft with Shareholder Executive colleagues.
It was suggested that the second sentence in No. 4 should be deleted as it was slightly
confusing.
Members felt that the table attached to the paper was unnecessary and should be removed, and
that the title could be changed.
David agreed to review the paper in light of the suggested amendments and provide Carol with a
revised version to share with Stakeholder Executive colleagues.
ACTION: David to produce a revised paper, to be shared with Shareholder Executive.
10.
APPSI members-only business
David Rhind advised members of a complaint against OPSI which had been brought to APPSI
for consideration and explained the background.
David had been asked to consider whether the complaint falls within the terms of reference for
APPSI to investigate and advised that he felt it did merit further consideration. A panel had been
convened to consider the complaint with David chairing. Phillip Webb and Peter Wienand had
agreed to act as the other panel members.
The timescale for the handling of the complaint was outlined and David advised that from receipt,
the Panel had sixty days to consider and complete a report. Phillip confirmed that the panel was
very clear about the remit of the complaint investigation and had made the complainant aware.
6
APPSI members were asked to endorse the action being proposed and were fully supportive.
11. Any Other Business
11.1
Dean queried the current terms of membership in light of the recent triennial review. David
advised that membership and recruitment were on hold at present, but would be considered
once the outcome of the review was known. Carol confirmed that the Minister had been asked to
approve extensions for those members whose term had recently expired but who were willing to
continue, to cover this transition period.
11.2
Bill advised that he is now working two days a week for the National Statistician.
There being no further business, the meeting was closed.
7
ANNEX A
APPSI Meeting – 15 July 2014
NORTHERN IRELAND UPDATE
HEAD OF OPEN DATA
Following on from the appointment of a Director of Digital Transformation (Caron Alexander), a Head of
Open Data, John Daly, has been added to the team in the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP).
John has been holding one to one meetings with Departmental Information Managers and will also be
consulting with information asset owners, academics and SMEs. He aims to produce a draft Open Data
strategy by October, and to have it agreed by Christmas 2014. However, he has indicated that any
datasets identified for re-use will probably feature on a dedicated website (ie, not on Spatial NI, which
was envisaged previously).
Trevor Steenson, formerly Director of Mapping Services in Land & Property Services, DFP, has also
recently joined Caron’s team, as Programme Director in connection with the Open Data agenda.
SPATIALNI
This new website was launched by the Finance Minister in June. A key message delivered was that
‘Spatial NI needs new and current datasets to continue to thrive. If you have a dataset that you feel may
be suitable for publishing on Spatial NI please contact the Spatial NI Team.’
NI CIVIL SERVICE INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND INNOVATION BOARD
The new NICS Information Governance and Innovation Board had its first meeting in June. One of its
immediate objectives is the ensure that the Information Management community engages fully in the
Open agenda.
OPEN DATA GROUP
The group, chaired by the current NICS Open Data Champion, John Wilkinson, Director of LPS, met on
11 July 2014. Caron Alexander will chair future meetings of the group, as John is due to retire shortly.
Group members continue to keep all the main stakeholders aware of PSI/Open Data initiatives and
developments.
OPEN DATA CHALLENGE
A competition organised by the Department of Enterprise, Trade & Investment (DETI), Invest NI and the
NI Statistics & Research Agency (NISRA) was launched this month.
DAVID LAMMEY
JULY 2014
8