Minutes of the 43rd meeting of the
Advisory Panel on Public Sector Information
Date:
Time:
Venue:
8 April 2014
11.00–15:30
28 Bedford Square, London WC1B 3JS
Attendees: Chair
Members
Professor David Rhind
Bob Barr
Keith Dugmore
Duncan Macniven
Hilary Newiss
Michael Nicholson
David Lammey
Shane O‘Neill
Bill Oates
Dean White
Expert Member
Expert Member
Representative Member for Scotland
Expert Member
Expert Member
Representative Member for Northern Ireland
Expert Member
Representative Member for Wales
Expert Member
Carol Tullo
Director, Information Policy & Services, The National
Archives
Head of Standards, The National Archives
Head of Information Policy, The National Archives
Business and Policy Manager, The National Archives
Secretary to APPSI (minutes)
Triennial Review Team, The National Archives
Triennial Review Team, The National Archives
Nonmembers
Marcia Jackson
Jim Wretham
Beth Brook
Beth Watson
Alison Webster
Peter Brooker
1.Welcome, Apologies and Introductions
1.1.
Apologies were received from Paul Longley, Hugh Neffendorf, Phillip Webb, Patricia Seex and
Michael Jennings.
1.2.
The Chairman informed other members that he had received a letter of resignation from Neil
Ackroyd. This followed Neil’s appointment as Acting Director General and Chief Executive of
Ordnance Survey. For him to continue as a member of APPSI in these circumstances could
represent a conflict of interest.
1.3.
The Chairman introduced Alison Webster and Peter Brooker from The National Archives, who
were observing the meeting as part of the triennial review process (see Item 5)
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

Paragraph 4.3 – reference to 125,000 views to be amended to read 25,000.
2.2. Outstanding actions from the previous meeting:

ACTION: Invite a member of EGIS to a future meeting. Status: Postponed.

ACTION: APPSI to discuss if it wishes to proceed with the production of an overview of the
current PSI legislative landscape and how best to do so. Status: Carol informed members
that a new post has been created in Jim Wretham’s team and the new member of staff will be
responsible for the production of guidance on PSI. This will include an overview of current
legislation. Therefore there is no need for APPSI to take this forward independently.

ACTION: Members to consider the subjects suggested for working papers and where they
may be able to contribute. Status: Bob said that he and Hugh are exploring less complex
ways in which the production of such papers could be accomplished, and they would report
back to members at a future meeting.
3. Public Sector Transparency Board Update
3.1. David had attended the Transparency Board meeting on 11 March. There had been a discussion of
examples of good practice and of failures regarding the sharing of data during the recent floods in the
South West. While DECC Ministers and the Chief Executive of the Environment Agency were supportive
of Open Data, there had been some delays in making data available. Some of this was due to the fact
that the information they held originated from other organisations, such as Ordnance Survey, and could
not be released easily. The Transparency Board intended to ask Ordnance Survey to its next meeting to
discuss this further; it would, for example, probe why Ordnance Survey do not use the Open
Government Licence
3.2. Tim Kelsey, the NHS’ National Director for Patients and Information, gave a presentation on
care.data. There was concern amongst Board members about the possible impact of the failure of
care.data.
3.3. It was possible that BIS would attend the next Transparency Board meeting to speak on the Open
National Address Gazetteer and that they would have something substantive to report.
3.4. Carol reported that, at the February meeting of the Transparency Board, Heather Savory, as Chair
of ODUG, had been given funding to open specific pieces of data. This had resulted in legislation.gov.uk
being given £70,000 which had enabled it to release secondary legislation from the Department of Work
and Pensions. A total commitment of £1.3m had been made to various projects.
3.5. Keith informed members that he had been approached by the Cabinet Office about the possibility of
joining a private sector sub-group to report to the Transparency Board.
4. TNA update on current PSI issues
4.1. Carol Tullo reported on the current issues:

PSI Transposition
The transposition of the EU PSI Directive must be completed by 18 July 2015, but HM
Government gave a commitment in the UK's OGP National Action Plan 2013-15 to transpose
early. Discussions have been taking place with the devolved administrations about the scope
and extent of legislation and its implementation. The Welsh Government has agreed the
proposals and they are currently under consideration in Northern Ireland and Scotland. Once
some outstanding legal issues have been resolved, and it has been agreed by the Ministry of
Justice’s Chief Economist, the Impact Assessment on transposition options will be submitted to
Ministers. It is expected that the Regulatory Policy Committee, and the relevant Cabinet and
2
parliamentary committees will clear the proposals by the early summer. The public consultation
will then take place over the summer with the final policy approach and framework, impact
assessment and legislative package being published in August/September.

Balance of Competencies Review
The Ministry of Justice is currently carrying out a Balance of Competences review on information
rights. The public call for evidence was launched 27 March 2014. It runs for 12 weeks and closes
1 July 2014. The review is due to be completed by the end of the year.

Open Government Licence (OGL)
Discussions are on-going with Ordnance Survey (OS) about use of a preamble with the OGL.
The National Archives wish to persuade OS to use only the OGL.

Open Government Partnership (OGP)
HM Government is putting arrangements in place to track progress for and take forward the OGP
commitments made in the latest UK National Action Plan (launched at the summit on 31 October
2013) with civil society organisations. The National Archives is leading on four of these
commitments and the deadline for reporting on progress is 17 April 2014.

Data Sharing Bill
Proposals for a Data Sharing Bill appear to have stalled. However, David reported that the
Cabinet Office was still encouraging discussions on the issue and there remained the possibility
of a white paper in the autumn.

IFTS Verifications
Recent verifications – National Offender Management Service (March 2014)
Forthcoming verifications - Ordnance Survey (March 2014); UK Hydrographic Office (April 2014);
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (September 2014); Driving Standards Agency (post April
2014 following completion of merger with the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency); Public
Health England (tbc – this is a new business case and PHE is currently unaccredited).

PSI and IFTS Complaints
As usual OPSI is currently tracking through a number of complaints relating to the re-use of
public sector information. It will publish its reports once the investigations had been completed.
OPSI had recently published its report regarding a complaint between 77M and Ordnance
Survey (OS). The complaint was formally investigated under both the PSI Regulations and IFTS
and concerned timescales, licence terms, file format and charges relating to the INSPIRE
polygon dataset. It had highlighted a tension between two Crown bodies operating different
commercial models – OS and HM Land Registry – over what was Crown data and under what
terms it should be made available to third parties for re-use. Carol said she and colleagues were
due to meet with the OS Board to discuss the matter further. As the current licence is central to
OS’ business model, any changes could have a significant impact, although experience during
the push towards Open Data suggested that this could be managed.
Members recognised that this case raised serious wider issues, given a future in which private
sector companies will be providing more and more data to the public sector. It was important
that there was clear guidance available to public sector organisations to ensure that they could
determine what data was private and what was public, and that there was agreement with private
sector partners on what could and could not be released. Carol agreed that it was the role of The
National Archives to make public sector bodies aware of the implications of the agreements they
put in place to avoid data being locked down, and to make sure that decisions that seemed
3
reasonable in the short term would not have a detrimental impact in the long-term. The on-going
positive shift in the perception of the benefits of Open Data would help.
Members also highlighted a number of other cases where licence terms were causing
disagreements and uncertainty. They noted there had been major disputes between Local
Government Authorities and others and OS concerning the use of OS MasterMap, and queried
what advice OS was receiving from the Shareholder Executive and HM Treasury. The Welsh
Government had also had concerns about whether the use of the INSPIRE licence would leave it
liable if others reused the data it published under the licence to make a profit. These had been
resolved (they had obtained agreement that they would not be liable), but the terms of the
licence could potentially discriminate against new businesses that were building their business
on the back of Open Data. The lack of distinction made between the types of commercial use,
e.g. data being used by organisations to underpin commercial decisions rather than the selling of
information, meant that bodies such as housing associations could also be disadvantaged.
ACTION: APPSI to consider producing a position paper on derived data.
5. APPSI Triennial Review
Alison Webster explained to members that the process of triennial review of non-departmental public
bodies was mandated by the Cabinet Office. There had been some discussion between The National
Archives and the Cabinet Office about the timing of the review of APPSI, given the possible impact of
the transposition of the EU PSI Regulations into UK law, but the Cabinet Office had asked that the
review go ahead as planned within the next few months. Therefore the start of the review was
announced on 27 March.
Cabinet Office guidance states that reviews should be proportionate, efficient and quick. Stage 1 will
determine if APPSI’s core functions are still required. Her team will consult and engage with APPSI and
key stakeholders, and then present its report to The National Archives’ Management Board. Trevor
Spires, a National Archives non-executive director would act as a ‘critical friend’ to challenge the review
team. Once the report is agreed it will be submitted to the Minister of State and the Lord Chancellor, and
then the Minister for the Cabinet Office. Alison hoped that the Stage 1 would be completed and signed
off by Ministers by the end of July 2014. If it was agreed that APPSI’s core functions were still required,
Stage 2 of the review would then examine its control and governance arrangements.
With regard to consultations with stakeholders, Duncan drew Alison’s attention to the fact that the
Scottish Government would be keen to have input into the review. She confirmed that she would be in
contact with all of the devolved administrations.
In response to a query from Michael Nicholson, Alison said that it was not within the scope of the review
to consider whether APPSI’s remit should be extended. Carol explained that the consultation on the PSI
Regulations, which may include recommendations on extending APPSI’s remit, would post date the
completion of Stage 1 of the triennial review. Stage 1 would be limited to examining whether APPSI’s
functions were required as at mid July 2014, and not pre-empt the results of the consultation.
6. Care.data
6.1. Dean gave a presentation on the care.data programme which will draw on existing data collection
capability to create a new data service for health and social care in England. He also explained the
Health Select Committee's criticisms of the programme and implications of such criticism.
Drawing on her experience of the health sector and her current role as the Chair of National Voices (the
national coalition of health and social care charities in England), Hillary stressed the need for an
effective communications strategy to address concerns about the re-use and security of personal healthrelated data. There was a case to be made for allowing the commercial re-use of such data, for example
by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, but the interests of all stakeholders need to be
considered. She suggested that there may be an argument for the establishment of an independent
advisory body to oversee re-use.
4
Other members agreed with Hillary’s comments. Michael observed that the release of health data was a
double-edged sword for the pharmaceutical industry. More openness mean that companies and health
researchers would no longer have to seek data from abroad but it would also prevent them from making
unsubstantiated claims. Duncan noted that the linking of data from disparate sources was hugely helpful
in improving social outcomes and that future advances depended on such linkage. There was a need for
clear evidence of the efficacy of the past usage of such data in order to demonstrate its importance to
stakeholders.
Members queried if the Information Commissioners’ Office (ICO) are being consulted about the
proposals. Dean explained that under the current model, the ICO is consulted on a case by case basis
on issues regarding the publication of sensitive information and on proposals for the anonymisation of
such material. Annual reviews are also conducted.
Members discussed whether APPSI should make a statement on its position that there were public
benefits in having such health-related data open but only with proper safeguards in place. It was agreed
that this would be best achieved by the Chairman writing a letter of thanks to Dean for his presentation,
and setting out why APPSI believes that the care.data programme is important.
ACTION: Chair to formally write to Dean White, thanking him for his presentation and confirming
APPSI’s support.of the care.data programme.
7. Public-private sector national datasets: reflections – the example of ELGIN
7.1. Shane gave a presentation on ELGIN, the local roadworks portal, its strengths and the proposed
introduction of pricing for its Application Programme Interface (API).
He explained that he had been motivated to set up ELGIN in 2011 following APPSI’s discussions on the
concept of a National Information Infrastructure or Framework. At a 2012 summit called by Transport
Minister Norman Baker, there had also been questions raised as to why information on streetworks was
not available in one place. ELGIN seeks to address this issue.
It is essentially a pilot project which utilises a public sector governance strategy within a private sector
organisation. As such it is being closely studied to see whether it represents a model for future publicprivate cooperation in other sectors.
ELGIN is very near to creating a national streetworks database and is examining ways in which it can
continue to invest and to keep access open. It currently uses a freemium business model, with its
premium subscription allowing embedding in subscribers’ websites. Sainsburys, for example, uses data
from ELGIN to predict the impact of local roadworks on its stores and this feeds in to its management
data and planning. BT Openreach uses the data to allow it to share coordinates of streetworks with other
utility suppliers when planning repair works. While there is a statutory requirement for information on
planned roadworks to be made public, people generally want realtime information; ELGIN is able to
provide both. It also allows users to choose their preferred map formats, e.g. Google Maps, OS
Mastermap.
In terms of securing government support, both in terms of funding and allowing access to its data,
Shane explained that there was still work to be done to persuade local government authorities (LGAs) of
the benefits of Open Data. ELGIN can provide analytics but it also needs to be able to quantify the
tangible benefits of signing up to LGAs. They must also be convinced of the fact that there is no
exclusivity on the information ELGIN received and that they are able use ELGIN’s API without
restriction. He was also aware that there was a general feeling amongst LGAs that central government
should make some financial contribution. Bill noted that as there is a statutory requirement on LGAs to
publish information, it should be possible to demonstrate that ELGIN is providing a useful service to
them. It was also observed that the government was investing heavily in transport and funding projects
that overlap with ELGIN, for example, one of ELGIN’s partners, transport data service company Placr,
had received substantial funding from government.
5
One difficulty that needed to be overcome was the fact that default clauses in contracts meant that
intellectual property (IP) rights resided with contractors. If these clauses could be removed, it would give
added value by allowing re-users greater freedom to utilise information databases.
Members agreed that ELGIN’s business model offered a strong challenge to the usual approaches to
public-private collaborations. It also demonstrated that curated data which was open and free at the
point of use can be the most effective way of providing specific services; ELGIN was doing this so well
that no other organisations had chosen to compete with it.
8. Updates from the devolved administrations

Scotland
Duncan began by thanking Jim and Marcia for their recent visit to help smooth the process for
PSI transposition.
It was expected that the contract for the replacement of the Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics
website (www.sns.gov.uk ) would soon be let. He noted that Glasgow City Council was a good
example of a local authority that was committed to the Open Data agenda. The Future
City/Glasgow project, which had received £23 million from the Technology Strategy Board, was
examining how innovative technology could address issues such as health, safety and
sustainability through the use of Open Data, apps, portals and citizen science mapping. As part
of the project, the OPEN Glasgow website enables the public to find and sort data relating to the
city. While the approach is not novel, it is interesting to see a local authority engaging in such an
expansive way. Carol observed that the Glasgow site was very clear on which licences applied to
each dataset, which was very good practice.
The Scottish Funding Council has awarded £11 million to The Data Lab, a consortium of private
sector organisations and universities which will explore the technical aspects of data usage. Its
purpose is to help Scotland capitalise on the growing market in analytics and ‘big data’
technology.
Duncan also reported that the Scottish Government was due to publish its vision on Open Data
later in April. This may be the prelude to the publication of an Open Data strategy later in the
year.

Wales
Bill explained that there was still no centralised Open Data agenda in the Welsh Government.
Work was still going on but resources remained an issue. Ministers had requested information on
the economic benefits of Open Data which he saw as an optimistic sign and which could lead to
the introduction of a cross-government standard. However, the Assembly would still need to be
persuaded of the economic and social benefits, and to see a political imperative to take action.
He thought that the report on APPSI’s January seminar would provide useful evidence.
He drew members’ attention to the launch of a free aerial photograph site with images covering
the whole of Wales, which will be the first national Open Data photo site of its kind.

Northern Ireland
David Lammey updated members on recent developments in Northern Ireland (see Annex A).
9. APPSI draft report on assessing the value of Open Data – content and distribution
9.1. The Chairman thanked members, and in particular Duncan and Phillip, for their assistance in
compiling the report on the proceedings of the ASSPI seminar on assessing the value of Open Data
held on 28 January.
6
He asked if there were any further comments on the draft. It was agreed that paragraphs 9.9 onwards
should be relocated to before the overviews of the presentations.
In addition to publication on the APPSI website, members agreed that the report should be circulated to
Ministers and to the Chairman of the Public Administration Select Committee. It would also be publicised
through National Archives social media (RSS feed and twitter).
10. On-going matters
10.1. The Chairman thanked members for their contributions to APPSI’s response to BIS’ consultation of
the Open National Address Gazetteer. Following a request from BIS, members confirmed that they were
content for the response to be made public.
10.2. The Chairman alerted members to the publication on 27 March of the UK Statistics Authority’s
proposals for the future of the census. It was envisaged that there would be an e-census in 2021.
Additional, anonymised datasets would be added over the following 10 years. While the new approach
was only a recommendation and had yet to be agreed by HM Treasury, Ministers seemed to be
supportive. Bob asked if the production of a population register was still a possibility. David said he was
unsure.
10.3. Bob reported on two recent consultations concerning HM Land Registry (HMLR). The first, which
closed on 20 March, set out government proposals for the setting up of a new service delivery company
to process land and property registration. HM Government would retain possession of some, but not all,
of the land and property data currently held and collected by HMLR. The second consultation, launched
by HMLR itself, put forward proposals to widen its powers and for it to become the sole registering
authority for local land charges and provider of local land charge searches.
Bob explained that the proposals by the first consultation in particular highlighted the unresolved issues
between HMLR and OS over the ownership of data. He noted that this uncertainty had fed into
questions from outside observers about government proposing a joint sell-off. Therefore the final
outcome of the recent complaint considered by OPSI could be very important. There were also
concerns over the ownership of HMLR’s Index Polygons which position and indicative extent of freehold
property registered in England and Wales. The Scottish Affairs Select Committee had recommended
that the availability of Open Data on ownership was necessary to reform land ownership in Scotland,
and Bob argued that the same would be true in England and Wales. The government would also
effectively be selling a tax-raising power. It would also be selling government intellectual property, which,
Hillary noted, raised IP issues that did not seem to have been appreciated in the consultation
documents.
Members discussed what action APPSI should take, if any. It was noted that the proposals as set out
gave no obvious grounds for objections. Some members suggested it may be worth drawing attention to
other models of service delivery short of privatisation. The DVLA, for example, had succeeding in
outsourcing its processes but had retained ownership of its data, while the Highways Agency was
examining the option of becoming a public corporation. APPSI should also stress that it was of the
opinion that the ownership of any data should remain unchanged in the event of a service delivery
company being set up. It was also suggested that the future of HMLR could be raised at a meeting of
the Transparency Board.
10.4. Michael Nicholson reported that there had been some progress on the issue of Unique Property
Reference Numbers (UPRNs) and how much data they should be linked with in the public domain. The
Public Administration Select Committee had highlighted the matter and the Open Data User Group
(ODUG) had also received numerous submissions on the subject. Bob observed that the Government
was now beginning to recognise the importance of core reference data. Michael asked members to
forward their thoughts on the issue to him, Hugh and Michael Jennings. APPSI would then be able to
consider if it should write formally to the Cabinet Office.
7
12. The APPSI Glossary
12.1. The Chairman welcomed Romina Ahmed, Technical Project Manager for data.gov.uk, to the
meeting.
Romina reminded members that the 2012 Open Data White Paper had included a Government
commitment to the development of wiki-glossary which would look to define key PSI and Open Data
terms. The idea of such a glossary had suggested by APPSI and members had created a substantial set
of definitions.
She explained that the prototype which had been developed by the Cabinet Office with the assistance of
APPSI members had proved successful and that the glossary would be launched on data.gov.uk on 9
April. The launch would be accompanied by an entry on data.gov.uk’s blog by Bob Barr.
Romina then demonstrated the glossary to members. She talked through the layout of the website, how
individuals could comment on the definitions and how suggestions would be moderated. Other users
would be able to views any comments. She noted that definitions with a basis in legislation, which had
been given a 5* rating under the rating system, would not altered. All others would be open for
discussion and users would also be able to suggest new terms to be included. Bob and Hugh had drawn
up a moderation policy and at present APPSI would remain the controller of the definitions.
At the request of members Romina agreed to provide regular updates to APPSI on the number of
number of unique visits and page views the glossary had.
The Chairman asked if the Public Sector Transparency Board could be given a presentation on the
glossary. Romina agreed to take this forward.
13. AOB
13.1. The Chairman asked for his thanks to the Nuffield Foundation for hosting this meeting to be put on
record.
Next meeting

15 July 2014 – The National Archives, Kew
8
ANNEX A
APPSI Meeting – 8 April 2014
NORTHERN IRELAND UPDATE
TRANSPOSITION OF NEW DIRECTIVE ON RE-USE
Northern Ireland will participate in a UK-wide approach to the transposition of Directive 2013/37/EU
(amending Directive 2003/98/EC) on the re-use of public sector information.
DIRECTOR OF DIGITAL SERVICES
Caron Alexander has been appointed to a new Senior Civil Service post of Director of Digital Services in
the Department of Finance and Personnel. Her remit includes Open Data policy. Caron has started the
process of drafting a strategy and welcomes informed advice. She wants to work with business areas
across the NI Civil Service (and wider NI public sector) that hold significant datasets, with a view to
making them accessible to as wide an audience as possible.
OPEN DATA GROUP
A small group representing various Open Data interests across the NI Civil Service will continue to meet
regularly under the chairmanship of the Open Data champion, John Wilkinson, to promote Open Data.
This will include the organisation of events.
NI CIVIL SERVICE INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND INNOVATION BOARD
An Information Governance and Innovation Board has been established to take over the work of the
Information Governance Board and the Senior Information Risk Forum. The new Board will be chaired
by the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Finance and Personnel and will have a direct link to
the Permanent Secretaries Group (PSG). This action follows a wide-scale review of information
governance across the NI Civil Service departments.
DAVID LAMMEY
APRIL 2014
9