ADVISORY PANEL ON PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION
Date:
Time:
Venue:
20 September 2013
11.00am – 3.30pm
Steel House, Ministry of Justice, Tothill St, London
Attendees: Chair
Members
Professor David Rhind
Bob Barr
Dean White
Duncan Macniven
Hilary Newiss
Hugh Neffendorf
Michael Jennings
Neil Ackroyd
Philip Webb
Patricia Seex
David Lammey
Shane O‘Neill
Expert Member
Expert Member
Representative Member for Scotland
Expert Member
Expert Member
Expert Member
Expert Member
Expert Member
Expert Member
Representative Member for Northern Ireland
Expert member
Carol Tullo
Director, Information Policy & Services, The National
Archives
Head of Standards, The National Archives
Head of Information Policy, The National Archives
Secretary to APPSI (minutes)
Nonmembers
Marcia Jackson
Jim Wretham
Beth Watson
1.Apologies
1.1.
Apologies were received from Keith Dugmore, Paul Longley, Michael Nicholson and Bill Oates.
2. Minutes of previous meeting and actions
2.1. The minutes were approved as an accurate record of the matters discussed subject to some
corrections being made.
2.2 Outstanding actions from the previous meeting:

ACTION: The Chairman to invite Ministry of Justice to speak on the Data Protection Directive at
a future APPSI meeting. Status: Complete. See Item 4.

ACTION: All to consider the proposed communications framework and where they could
effectively contribute. Status: Ongoing. See Item 9.
1

ACTION: The Chairman to write to members asking for views on what contributions APPSI have
made over the last few years and when it has had the greatest effect; and, given the current
political, financial and information landscapes, how APPSI can best make valuable contributions
in future, and if this different to the present, whether it implies the need for greater resourcing.
Status: Complete. See Item 8.
2.3. Devolved administrations – comparability of statistics.
The Chairman briefly described how many aspects of statistics in the UK were devolved matters even
though the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) acted as a regulator for all producers of official statistics in the
UK. Statistics were sometimes complex, were often collected in part on different bases in the countries
of the UK, were frequently controversial and misinterpretations of them were fairly common. He cited the
recent publication of a UKSA report examining comparability of statistics relevant to the Scottish
referendum and produced separately by the UK government and by the Scottish government
(http://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/assessment/monitoring/monitoring-reports/monitoring-report-6-2013---officialstatistics-in-the-context-of-the-referendum-on-scottish-independence.pdf). All of this indicated that detailed
metadata were needed for such complex PSI or Open Data to ensure users were able to interpret them safely – as
provided by this report.
3. TNA update on current PSI issues
3.1 Carol Tullo reported on the current issues:
a) The new PSI Directive
The final agreed text of the Directive was agreed and adopted by the European Commission,
and published on 26 June 2013. The Commission published a consultation on the
implementation of the directive on 20 August with a close date of 11 November.
HM Government will transpose into UK legislation in line with the Government’s transposition
guidance and policies on the implementation of EU legislation. Transposition is on a project
managed basis in The National Archives with engagement from key stakeholders across
Government and other sectors, and has the following workstreams: - impact assessment and
new burdens assessment; legislation planning; regulatory framework; Ministerial and Cabinet
Committee clearance; and compliance and awareness.
Owing to the Government’s commitment to reducing the number as well as the complexity of
regulation, it is proposed to revoke and replace the existing UK PSI Regulations with a single
piece of legislation that consolidates the Directive 2003/98/EC and the amending Directive, and
the FOIA datasets section that came into effect on 1 September 2013 with the Code and
guidance published by the Information Commissioner’s Office on 17 July and 7 August 2013.
The Directive gives a 2-year transposition deadline and therefore the latest date for transposition
in 18 July 2015. Early implementation into UK legislation is desirable as the amending Directive
aims to support the wider economy and its implementation forms part of the Government’s policy
on open data and transparency. Options for earlier transposition are being explored as part of
the transposition process.
b) The Public Sector Transparency Board
The Transparency Board and the Data Strategy Board merged into one body following a decision
to streamline the top-level policy focus. The Ministers on the new Board are Matthew Hancock
(BIS) and Francis Maude (Cabinet Office), with Lord McNally representing the Ministry of Justice.
The new Board’s members include APPSI’s Chairman, Sir Mark Walport (the Government’s
Chief Scientific Adviser), Bill Roberts (SWIRL), Steve Thomas (Experian), Stephan Shakespeare
(YouGov), Heather Savory (Open Data User Group) and Dame Fiona Caldicott (National
Information Governance Board for Health and Social Care).
2
The Board’s remit will extend wider than open data to include functions previously delivered by
the Data Strategy Board. At its first meeting on 9 September, its discussions included the EU
Data Protection Regulation, Ordnance Survey data, the Open Government Partnership Summit
and police.uk.
c) The Open Government Licence (OGL)
The Open Government Licence v2.0 was issued on 28 June 2013. The new version is Open
Definition compliant. At the same time the new OGL identifier, developed by The National
Archives and the Government Digital Service, was launched. This will show re-users at a glance
what information can be reused under the OGL.
d) The Information Economy Strategy
The Information Economy Strategy was released by the Government on 14 June following a
consultation and engagement with a wide range of stakeholders. It sets out a shared vision for a
thriving UK information economy that enhances national competitiveness.
This work forms part of HM Government’s industrial strategy outlined in September 2012, in
which the Government aims to develop strategic partnerships with industry, support emerging
technologies, improve access to finance for businesses, work with them to help develop skills the
skills they need, and publish government contracts to provide confidence to business investment.
e) The Open Government Partnership (OGP)
The OGP is a partnership of 60 countries and civil society organisations committed to greater
transparency and to build on the discussions held at the G8 in June 2013.
On 31 October and 1 November, the UK is organising a summit in London for all members of the
OGP. It is expected that around 1000 delegates will attend the event at the QEII Conference
Centre.
At the summit, the OGP will launch five working groups to address different topics related to
transparency. These will include an ‘Access to Information’ group that will aim to facilitate the
sharing of best practice and ideas between countries. Carol will sit on this group.
The Government will also launch the OGP UK National Action Plan at the summit. The Cabinet
Office is leading on the drawing up of the plan, which see the Government and civil society
organisations making a number of commitments.
f)
The Corbin Report on Exceptions to Marginal Cost Review
As discussed at APPSI’s last meeting, Chris Corbin’s report on Exceptions to Marginal Cost
Review, and the executive summary, was published by The National Archives’ website on 1 July.
An early action to publish more information about the process has seen The National Archives
publish exceptions business case statistics to 8 July 2013, and these will be updated as and
when new cases are received. The National Archives also plans to publish the names of
successful business cases when enough have been received to ensure that publication would
not allow the identification of the anonymised cases discussed in the report.
g) The Webb Report on Complaints Handling
The National Archives’ principal outputs in response to the Webb Report are complete and will
be uploaded to the website in October.
3
4. The EU Data Protection Regulation
4.1. The Chairman welcomed John Bowman, Head of EU & International Data Protection Policy,
Ministry of Justice, and Malcolm Todd, Public Records & Information Policy Manager, The National
Archives, to the meeting.
4.2. John began by providing a brief overview of data protection legislation from 1981 to the present. In
2012, the EU Commission announced a new EU Data Protection Regulation to replace the EU Data
Protection Directive that had been in place since 1995. The Directive, with its focus on traditional (paper)
storage methods, was outdated and provided only a broad framework for member states.
4.3. The EU Commission sees a Regulation, which would set out one law for all member states, as
providing consistency and a benefit to business. John explained that it is unusual for Regulations to be
used in areas that affect fundamental rights; they usually cover technical issues. The UK Government is
pressing for a Directive as it is of the view that a broad framework approach is best way to take account
of existing variations across member states and to avoid any conflicts with existing national laws.
Around eight other countries would also prefer this approach.
4.4. This is a high priority for the Commission as it feeds into other agendas such as the digital single
market. Negotiations began in January 2013, with a revised text published in June 2013 which restored
clauses related to historical archives. John said that there were still some areas of concern from a UK
perspective, particularly the references to ‘public sector’, the definition of which can vary from country to
country. The prescriptive requirements also impose new burdens.
4.5. Malcolm Todd explained that the Commission was keen to place the data subject in the driving seat,
and that there is a potential conflict with the re-use of information. The proposed Regulation promotes
consent more than the existing law and it was moving close to an opt-in approach. There is nothing to
conflict with public authorities’ statutory position, but private sector organisations may need to seek data
subjects’ permission. Neil and the Chairman observed that this could cause problems for re-use and
could limit the amount of information available.
4.6. Bob queried the enforceability of this approach with regard to information collected by extraterritorial organisations. He drew attention to the recent action by Google who had recently claimed in
the High Court that UK law had no impact on the company has it was based in California. John agreed
that this was a problem. The EU was aiming to be able to enforce it and had already reached
agreements with some countries, e.g. Argentina and Uruguay. Hilary Newiss noted that there was some
legal work going on in this area and Neil noted that companies such as Google were looking at their own
obligations with regard to how to hold information.
4.7. Hilary observed that the conflict between public and private rights had been the subject of
discussion within the health sector for some time. She drew attention to the Caldicott Report, Richard
Thomas’ and Mark Walport’s Data Sharing Review and the NHS Constitution. She was of the view that
effective use of agreements and technology, and better education about individuals’ rights could help to
deal with the issues raised.
4.8. David asked about the proposed penalties. John explained that it has been suggested that
organisations that breach the Regulation could be fined up to €1million or 2% of global turnover, but that
this was subject to the ongoing negotiations.
4.9. John explained that this was a co-decision between the European Council and the European
Parliament. Both organisations were still discussing the matter and the parliament was subject to
intensive lobbying on various amendments. There was a need for the Regulation to be adopted before
the European elections in May 2014, which means there is strong pressure to reach an agreement on
the text by the end of the Lithuanian presidency in December 2013. The UK was concerned that this did
not give time to look at the text in sufficient detail. APPSI members agreed that there was a risk that
such pressure could lead to things being given away inadvertently, and that the text would eventually
need to be redrafted.
4
5. Addressing Data
5.1. Hugh Neffendorf gave an informal presentation on the review that he is conducting for Ministers
(through BIS) on the feasibility of an Open National Address Gazetteer. The work is still in progress but
BIS agreed that it was appropriate to provide APPSI with an update.
5.2. Hugh explained the status of the project, the changes since it had started, the outlook of various
user groups, discussions with the data owners, thoughts on improved efficiency and the options under
consideration. He outlined the next steps and agreed to keep APPSI informed.
5.3. The Chairman asked Hugh to thank BIS for agreeing to provide a presentation.
6. Transparency and Open Data
6.1. The Chairman welcomed Matthew Brown from the Cabinet Office’s Transparency Team to the
meeting.
6.2. Matthew gave a brief overview of the Transparency and Open Data Team. Its international
workstream supports the UK’s participation in and leadership of international initiatives such as the G8
and the OGP Summit. The domestic workstream consists of a number of relationship managers who
work with departments to encourage them to identify and publish their datasets on data.gov.uk. Their
current focus is the development of the National Information Infrastructure, the first version of which is to
be announced at the OGP Summit.
6.3. Matthew then drew attention to the exercise which had been recently launched by the Transparency
team asking users to help to identify which currently unpublished datasets would be of particular value to
them, and to assist in the compilation of an inventory of datasets held by Government. In response to a
query from members he confirmed that, where it was agreed that a dataset should be published, there
was the facility for departments to bid for funding from the Transparency Board to enable this to happen.
6.4. Neil Ackroyd offered a provider’s perspective on the initiative. He noted that Ordnance Survey
already publish most of the datasets it holds as a matter of course but that there is still work to be done
in normalising this approach across Government. Some organisations have acknowledged every
dataset they hold, while others have not included those that they have no intention of publishing. He
would like to see more consistency and more clarity from the Transparency Team as to what falls within
the scope of the exercise. Matthew acknowledged the issue, although the project was still helping to
identify datasets that may not have been thought important.
6.5. The Chairman asked if the exercise was UK-wide. Matthew confirmed that it was and that the
Cabinet Office was liaising with the devolved assemblies and the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
Offices. David Lammey noted that Northern Ireland’s Portal for Geographic Information – Spatial NI™ links to data.gov.uk.
6.6. Dean White questioned whether there was visibility within departments and organisations of the
datasets they held. He cited the example of the NHS where many datasets are held locally at the level of
primary care trusts, hospitals and GPs practices, and are not cascaded upwards. Matthew said that the
resources being developed as part of the project, including a structured web-based catalogue would
help to address this.
6.7. While Hugh said he was pleased to see that more data was being identified, he expressed some
concern that the project would go under, as other cataloguing efforts had in the past. He also stressed
the need for metadata and asked what would be done to provide a framework. Other members agreed.
6.8. Michael Jennings pointed out that ‘public service’ data is not limited to data held by the public
sector, and asked what mechanisms were in place for gap identification. Matthew said that the focus
was initially on finding out what Government holds and then to improve accessibility for importance
datasets. Then they would begin to identify the gaps.
5
6.9. Matthew believed that the Transparency Board and APPSI could offer expert advice on what is
important data. The Transparency Team’s relationship managers were also building good relationships
with departments. Dean suggested that there was a need to engage people at a senior level in
departments who not only had the domain and institutional knowledge but who also had the authority to
unlock the barriers to effective data sharing. Neil thought that the project would benefit from greater
outreach to business as the current crowd-sourcing model could be biased. Better links with business
could also be helpful in identifying potential sources of funding. Matthew said that the recent refresh of
the Transparency Board had given in a greater business focus and most of the transparency panels
include representatives from the private sector.
6.10. With regard to obtaining public service information from the private sector, Shane O’Neill said that
he had been very impressed with the Department of Transport’s Transparency Team. It had made huge
progress in getting private sector organisations such as thetrainline to provide data, and in finding a
pragmatic way to underpin costs.
6.11. The Chairman thanked Matthew, who then left the meeting.
6.12. Bob said that there were already good examples of useful information being uncovered through
data requests. He drew attention to the National Register of Social Housing (NROSH).
6.13. Members agreed that it was clear that there many different things happening in this area. There
was a need for a single locus for it in government to connect the initiatives to ensure greater durability
than there had been in the past.
6.14. The Chairman thought that it may be helpful for APPSI to hear the views of Sir Mark Walport and
the National Statistician on what data it is important to have.
ACTION: The Chairman to ask Sir Mark Walport and the National Statistician to a future APPSI
meeting.
7. The Future Direction of APPSI
7.1. The Chairman had circulated a draft paper to members setting out APPSI’s strengths and its
achievements to date.
7.2. He felt, and members agreed, that his recent appointment to the Transparency Board offered a
good opportunity to communicate APPSI’s ideas to a wider audience and to feed them in directly to
Ministers including those such as Matthew Hancock and Francis Maude who are outside the Ministry of
Justice.
7.3. Members observed that, without direct requests for advice being received from Ministers, it was not
always easy to discern what advice was required. However, they agreed that there was no reason why
APPSI should not produce and publish position papers without being asked; these could also form the
basis of ministerial briefings. The advice and papers to should tie into the Government’s agendas,
particularly for growth and jobs, and where possible use real-life examples to help Ministers to engage
with the issues. Members recognised the need to remain sensitive to the political mood, particularly as
we move towards a general election but noted that APPSI’s role was to give independent advice to
Ministers and not simply to tell them what they might like to hear.
ACTION: Members to provide comments on the draft paper to the Chairman.
8. The APPSI Glossary
8.1. Bob Barr explained that he and Hugh had been working with the Cabinet Office to develop the new
glossary for data.gov.uk, and that the project was close to being delivered. A small amount of work
remained to be done. He would be writing an introduction and Hugh had recruited three volunteers –
Duncan, Philip and Shane – to test out the glossary.
6
8.2. The publication of the glossary is expected to be included as one of the Government’s commitments
announced at the OGP Conference at the end of October. The gloassry will then be launched on 30
November.
8.3. The project had highlighted the fact that there are inconsistencies in the way in which terms are
used across Government. The glossary would help to address this but APPSI and the Cabinet Office
would have to ensure that it was publicised effectively.
ACTION: Hugh to inform members when the glossary is ready to be launched.
9. APPSI Discussion Papers and Working Papers
9.1. Bob said that there had not been as much progress on the production of a set of working papers as
he had hoped. Members who had responded to the proposals he circulated after the last meeting, had
made a number of points. It was agreed that there was a need to:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Focus on who APPSI was advising.
Ensure that policy making was evidence-based.
Agree on how evidence and advice should be presented.
Ensure that any advice was kept on the public record, even where it had been rejected.
9.2. The Chairman questioned whether APPSI’s focus should be on building support for its existing
proposals or on identifying new subjects on which advice may be needed. Members agreed that it was
possible to do both. APPSI position papers could form the basis for its briefing to Ministers. Bob noted
that a number of subjects for position papers had already been identified. Patricia Seex stressed the
importance of ensuring there was a clear narrative linking the chosen topics to the wider government
agenda.
ACTION: Members to consider the subjects suggested for working papers and where they may
be able to contribute.
10. AOB
10.1. David Lammey updated members on recent developments in Northern Ireland (see Annex A).
10.2. Duncan Macniven updated members on recent developments in Scotland (see Annex A).
Next meeting

9 December 2013 – The National Archives
7
ANNEX A
APPSI Meeting – 20 September 2013
NORTHERN IRELAND UPDATE
APPSI meeting – 20 September 2013
Northern Ireland links with UK-wide initiatives
1. Since the National Archives (TNA) briefing for NI stakeholders in Belfast on 30 May 2013, there have
been a number of telephone conferences between NI representatives and the TNA and also the
Open Data Institute (ODI). More are planned. Most of the discussion concerns tapping into various
upcoming Open Data events, and organising an event in Northern Ireland in Spring 2014.
2. The Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) has been in touch regarding the production
of a Data Capability Strategy, and the devolved administrations have been invited to participate in a
series of stakeholder sessions planned for September. Following discussions, a representative from
the Department for Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) has agreed to take part in a meeting on
18 September 2013.
3. The Cabinet Office’s Transparency team has also been in contact regarding the production of a UK
National Information Infrastructure. I have put the team in touch with key stakeholders in the
Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP).
4. Liam Maxwell (Chief Technology Officer) and Mike Bracken (Executive Director, Government Digital
Service (GDS)), visited Northern Ireland in August and met with stakeholders from a number of
Departments. They offered to assist NI Civil Service (NICS) in moving forward the Digital and Open
Data agendas.
5. Land and Property Services (DFP) is further developing the INSPIRE technical platform (Spatial NI)
to enable it to deliver non-spatial open data in addition to the range of spatial datasets it already
holds. Spatial NI links to the UK open data portal (www.data.gov.uk).
6. ODI is holding its Inaugural Open Data Summit on 29 October 2013, and senior representation from
DFP at the Gala Dinner and the Conference is anticipated.
New Northern Ireland Finance Minister
7. Simon Hamilton, the new Finance Minister, announced in August the creation of a Public Sector
Reform Division. It is hoped that a senior official in this new Division will take on lead responsibility
for progressing an Open Data agenda in Northern Ireland. A decision on this proposal is anticipated
at a meeting of the NICS Information Governance Board (Chaired by the DFP Permanent Secretary)
on 10 October.
8.
Draft NI Innovation Strategy
9. DETI has developed a draft Innovation Strategy (2013-2025) on behalf of the NI Executive. Open
Data is set to play a key role in the delivery of the strategy. A public consultation has commenced.
DAVID LAMMEY
APPSI NI REPRESENTATIVE
SEPTEMBER 2013
8
SCOTLAND UPDATE
APPSI meeting - 20 September 2013
1.
2.
Under the leadership of the Digital Management Board (which includes representatives of central
and local government, universities and the NHS in Scotland, together with the Information
Commissioner’s Office and the ESRC under the chairmanship of the relevant Scottish Government
Director General), the Scottish Government is:

Articulating a strategic action plan for the management of data, including how to meet skills
needs, how to retain public confidence, and how to ensure that data is of the right quality.
The strategy will fit within the Digital Public Services Strategy published last September, and
is likely to be published around the end of 2013.

Pressing ahead with widening the range of data available. The Scottish Government and its
agencies are identifying data holdings which could usefully be released and those which are
available but not widely known. The end product will be a data catalogue arranged in
accordance with the OECD classification of the functions of government.
In a further step towards the modernisation of the Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics database
(which is seen as the principal platform for the release of central government’s small-area statistics),
SWIRRL has been appointed to identify options for the form of platform suitable for the wide range
of users. This work will be completed at the end of the year, with delivery of the new system
planned for 2014.
DUNCAN MACNIVEN
APPSI SCOTLAND REPRESENTATIVE
SEPTEMBER 2013
9