ADVISORY PANEL ON PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION
Date:
Time:
Venue:
18 June 2013
10:45am - 4:30pm
The National Archives, Kew
Attendees: Chair
Members
Professor David Rhind
Bob Barr
Bill Oates
Dean White
Duncan Macniven
Hilary Newiss
Hugh Neffendorf
Michael Jennings
Michael Nicholson
Neil Ackroyd
Paul Longley
Philip Webb
Expert Member
Representative Member for Wales
Expert Member
Representative Member for Scotland
Expert Member
Expert Member
Expert Member
Expert Member
Expert Member
Expert Member
Expert Member
Carol Tullo
Director, Information Policy & Services, The National
Archives
Business and Policy Manager, The National Archives
Head of Standards, The National Archives
Head of Information Policy, The National Archives
Independent Consultant on PSI
Head of Stakeholder Engagement & Communications
– Beyond 2011, Office for National Statistics
Deputy Director, Data Strategy and Services Team,
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Item 6
onwards)
The National Archives
Chief Executive, The National Archives (Items 6&7)
Secretary to APPSI (minutes)
Nonmembers
Beth Brook
Marcia Jackson
Jim Wretham
Christopher Corbin
Alistair Calder
Angela Latta
Trish Humphries
Oliver Morley
Beth Watson
1.Apologies
1.1 Apologies were received from Patricia Seex, Keith Dugmore, David Lammey and Shane O’Neill.
2. Minutes of previous meeting and actions
2.1. The minutes were approved as an accurate record.
2.2 Outstanding actions from the previous meeting:
1

ACTION: Beth Brook to circulate information on stimulus package fund to APPSI members.
Status: Completed.

ACTION: Marcia Jackson to circulate report and a profile of mediations to APPSI members.
Status: Completed

ACTION: David Rhind to invite Ministry of Justice to speak on the Data Protection Directive at a
future APPSI meeting. Status: On-going. Ministry of Justice will be asked to APPSI’s September
meeting.

ACTION: David Rhind to coordinate APPSI view on Ofcom consultation on the Postcode
Address File and to respond by 15 March. Copy to Stephan Shakespeare and others. Status:
Completed and acknowledgment received from Ofcom.

ACTIONS: Taking forward the NIF. All to consider who could contribute to this and volunteer
appropriately. Bob Barr to issue note on WP topics and proposal process. David Rhind to ensure
creation of WP template/protocol and APPSI disclaimer. Status: See Item 10.

ACTION: Send APPSI minutes to the Open Data Institute. Status: Completed.
3. TNA update on current PSI issues
3.1 Carol Tullo reported on the current issues:

PSI Directive amendments
It is expected that the amended Directive will be published in the OJEU shortly after the
European Council has formally adopted it on 21/22 June. HM Government will then transpose it
into UK legislation within the two-year deadline set down by the Government’s policies on the
implementation of EU legislation.
Carol drew attention to five areas in which the revised Directive now more closely reflects the
UK’s policy aims:
o
o
o
o
o
It would now be mandatory for public sector bodies that fall under the remit of the
Directive to release their information for reuse, subject to privacy, national security or
charging exceptions.
Marginal cost will now be the default, although there are exceptions where substantial
costs are involved, and for museums, libraries and archives.
Museums, archives and libraries (including university libraries) have been brought within
scope in order to release as much cultural material as possible without imposing
unnecessary burdens.
There should be an impartial review body and redress mechanism which reinforces the
principle of low-cost, proportionate but effective oversight.
Public task will now have a more prominent profile.
APPSI members noted that this timetable meant that there was a possibility that implementation
would clash with the 2015 General Election, and that there was a risk that it would be delayed.
Carol explained that, while TNA was looking at the options on timings and whether
implementation would require primary or secondary legislation, the overall strategy and timing
would be for Ministers to decide.

Administrative Data Taskforce
The Administrative Data Taskforce’s report examining the best procedures and mechanisms to
make administrative data available was published in December. The Government announced its
response during the G8 Summit on 14 June.

Information Economy Strategy
2
The Government published its Information Economy Strategy on 14 June. Members noted that
it represented a substantial shift in Government priorities from transparency to the impact on the
economy. Carol confirmed that BIS will lead on the Strategy and the follow-up work, while the
Cabinet Office will lead on transparency. APPSI will be able to discuss this further with Paul
Maltby, Director of Open Data and Government Innovation in the Cabinet Office, who will attend
the next meeting.

Shakespeare Review of PSI
The Shakespeare Review was published on 15 May and the Government published its response
in time for the G8 Innovation Conference announcements on 14 June. See Item 7.

Open Government Partnership Second Annual Summit
Between 31 October and 1 November the UK will host The Open Government Partnership’s
second Annual Summit.

PSI Workshop to information managers in the Northern Ireland Executive
On 30 May the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister hosted a workshop for
information managers on PSI run by TNA staff. This has helped to ensure high level engagement
with PSI and has provided a basis to secure NI ministerial support. The Department of
Enterprise, Trade and Investment have expressed an interest in follow-up training for staff.

Licensing
TNA has been working on the development of the Open Government Licence v2.0. See Item 8.

European PSI Scorecard
The PSI Scoreboard has recently been updated to reflect recent UK activity. The UK is now in
first position.

LAPSI2.0
The Legal Aspects of PSI 2.0 Project recently highlighted the UK’s Open Government Licence
and the Information Fair Trading Scheme as examples of best practice in PSI licensing and
enforcement.

Section 45 Code of Practice – datasets
The draft Code of Practice, commencement and fees regulation have now been referred to the
Ministry of Justice. Publication is expected before the summer recess.

Launch of the Good Law Initiative
On 16 April, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel launched The Good Law Initiative to bring
together all those with an interest in making and publishing legislation to ensure that new law is
clear, coherent, effective and accessible. As the publisher of all UK legislation and manager of
legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives will play a central role in the project.

Regulation – complaints
A summary of mediations has been circulated to members following the previous meeting.
TNA is working to deliver the remaining recommendations of the Webb Report on OPSI’s
complaint-handling process. This will involve finalising complaints procedures, producing a
questionnaire for complainants and updating information on TNA’s website, and will be finished
by the end of July 2013.

Exceptions to marginal cost
Chris Corbin has conducted an external review of Exceptions to Marginal Cost Pricing. See Item
4.

IFTS
The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (May 2013) and the Environment
Agency (June 2013) have recently had their accreditation re-verified.
3
The forthcoming schedule for re-verification includes The Health & Safety Laboratory (Spring
2013), the Met Office (September 2013) and the Driving Standards Agency (November 2013).

APPSI Triennial Review
As members were already aware, APPSI is due to undergo a triennial review during this financial
year as part of the Cabinet Office’s programme for reviewing all non-departmental bodies. Once
the timing has been confirmed with Ministers, a letter will be sent to the Chair.
4. The Corbin Report on exceptions to marginal cost-charging
4.1. Marcia Jackson began by providing a brief overview of the marginal cost-charging system and of
how public bodies can agree exceptions for specific datasets. The system, which has been in place
since 2010, was devised by OPSI and HM Treasury, and requires applicants to set out a business case
for each relevant dataset. Twelve bodies have approached OPSI about seeking exceptions, with nine
applications being made. To date, two applications have been rejected, with a number of others still
under discussion.
4.2. Where exceptions have been agreed, the public bodies still license their information under a
delegation of authority from the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, and still come under the
scope of the IFTS.
4.3. Following a question from Neil Ackroyd, Marcia confirmed that business cases should be based on
the organisation’s public task. This principle ran through the assessment criteria.
4.4. Bob Barr wondered about the position of hybrid organisations and cases where the public task had
been contracted out. The Chairman also asked about the position of universities. Marcia explained that
the assessment process considered the nature of the dataset rather than the nature of the organisation.
OPSI were currently looking at how the system would operate with regard to other cultural sectors.
4.5. Neil and Bob both stressed the need for clarity. Carol concurred.
4.6. Chris Corbin then ran through his findings. While the core of the process was operating well, he had
identified a weakness with regard to transparency in that it was not always easy for potential re-users to
find information on charges or details of who to contact to discuss their requirements. As an example, he
observed that it is very difficult to find this information on the new gov.uk website.
4.7. He also noted that the increasingly complex nature of the public sector also presents problems, and
that the exceptions process can take two years. In addition, the number of public sector bodies charging
is unknown. There is also a disparity between policy and operational practice and work needs to be
done to bring these in line with each other.
4.8. Neil commented that the issue here may be one of access to information rather than transparency
and that the problems with gov.uk may be transitional.
4.9. Bill Oates noted that the part of the Welsh Government that operates outside the OGL makes this
clear on its website.
5. The Biggest Data-mashing Project: Developments in the Census Replacement
5.1. Alistair Calder gave a presentation on ONS’ work looking at alternatives to the traditional census.
[link to slides]
5.2. The Chairman highlighted a leader in The New York Times (25 May 2013) which noted that, when
Canada replaced its mandatory long-form census with a voluntary survey, response rates dropped from
94% to 68%. He asked what the risks of implementing changes in the UK were likely to be, and what
other countries were doing in this area. Alistair explained that many other countries are interested in
ONS’ work and that the UK at the cutting edge of new developments, particularly in the field of
4
anonymous data matching. He added that, to help to ensure good response rates, privacy risks need to
be the lowest that they can possibly be.
5.3. Duncan Macniven said that he was please to see how far work on the census replacement had
come. He asked if genealogists and family historians have expressed any concerns about the impact
that a move away from the traditional census would have on their research. He also asked if the need to
maintain historical time series data had been considered. He wondered if this requirement could be used
to ONS and TNA’s advantage when replacements were being considered.
5.4. Duncan, Michael Jennings and David also noted the impression that has formed in the public mind
that information in the censuses is highly accurate, rather than simply a snapshot. They observed that
this may have an impact on how any replacement to the census would be perceived.
5.5 Alistair explained that while the census aims to produce statistics of the highest quality the only level
at which there have been specific quality targets is Local Authority level. Beyond 2011 are using the
census as a 'gold-standard' in assessing the quality of its research work but even with census data
there will be some (unknown) error. ONS are in discussion with genealogical groups and TNA to discuss
the national requirement for a historical record and how this might be achieved if ONS moves to a new
approach. Further discussion on any aspect of the work of Beyond 2011 would be strongly welcomed
and members could contact him directly.
5.6. Paul Longley asked if ONS had confidence in the alternative data sources that would be used when
cross-referencing; were they reliable, and were there any issues regarding their on-going validity? He
also noted the length of time it already took to obtain lower-level results from the census and asked if
this problem would get worse if even smaller sources were used in future.
5.7. Alistair said that the reliability of data sources had been examined. There was a need to build on
more than one source. Legislation would also be necessary to ensure that certain elements of the
sources would remain unchanged. ONS staff would also work closely with departments and other data
providers to ensure reliability and consistency. In terms of delays in publishing data, sources will be
continually updated, so this is less likely to be a problem.
5.8. Philip Webb asked if the use of ID cards in other countries made the collection of census-type data
easier.
5.9. Alistair agreed that it did but that there was no appetite for the introduction of ID cards in the UK.
When ONS presents its proposals to Government, it is possible that it would say that ID cards would
facilitate the collection of census data but he thought it unlikely ONS would recommend that they be
introduced. He also explained that privacy groups who had been consulted by ONS had expressed
concerns about ‘scope-creep’ if data from the various sources was stored together. ONS had been in
discussion with the Government Digital Service about practical solutions to this issue.
5.10. Bob asked if the census was about people or places and what the impact of any changes would be
on this. Alistair said that it was currently about places but that the nature of household structure needed
to be considered.
5.11. Hugh Neffendorf suggested that ONS might need to consider becoming a service provider. Alistair
acknowledged that people may no longer come to ONS for all of their information in this field and that
there was a need to educate users. ONS had been discussing its future role with academics and other
stakeholders.
6. Developments with the Postcode Address File
6.1. Angela Latta confirmed that the Postcode Address File (PAF) will remain with the Royal Mail after
privatisation. In July Royal Mail will launch a consultation exercise on a range of licensing reforms,
including those affecting the PAF. BIS will also consider and evaluate the various options for facilitating
access to the PAF and will then advise Ministers in the autumn. It is unlikely that the Government will
pay for the PAF to be freely available as HM Treasury were not convinced of the economic case for
doing so.
5
6.2. David noted that, from APPSI’s perspective, the Government’s decision was disappointing.
6.3. Bob noted the need for the Royal Mail to maximise the use of data. He asked how the Royal Mail’s
use of the PAF will be regulated. Angela confirmed that Ofcom would continue to regulate as now.
6.4. Michael Nicholson hoped that Ofcom’s terms of reference with regard to the regulation of the re-use
of the PAF would be reviewed and tightened. Angela said that there was no appetite in Government to
do this.
6.5. Michael also asked if anyone had considered how much it would cost to buy back the PAF. Angela
explained that the focus has been on the complete Royal Mail ‘package’ of which the PAF was a
necessary part; without the PAF, the sale of Royal Mail would be impossible. She agreed with Hugh’s
observation that the value of the PAF was not relevant to the Royal Mail sale.
7. The Shakespeare Review of Public Sector Information
7.1. Angela confirmed that, in its response to Stephan Shakespeare’s Review, the Government had
accepted almost all of the recommendations that had been made. The Government had only partially
accepted the recommendations concerning Trading Funds. It is also unlikely that any further measures
will be introduced to ensure privacy as it is the Ministry of Justice’s view that existing provisions are
sufficient, although it recognised that there is a need for these to be explained to stakeholders.
7.2. The Cabinet Office will lead on the ‘supply side’ of implementing the recommendations. It will take
forward the production of the National Data Strategy and the creation of core reference dataset. As part
of this it will ask departments to create data asset registers. It will also consult business users on what
data sets they would like to be released. It intends to publish its findings in the UK OGP National Action
Plan in October 2013.
7.3. The new body created by the merger of the Data Strategy Board and the Public Sector
Transparency Board will be a Cabinet Office body.
7.4. BIS will lead on the ‘demand side’, working with businesses. The Trading Funds will continue to fall
under BIS’ remit, except with regard to any issues related to open data, for which they will be
accountable to the Cabinet Office.
7.5. Hugh commented that the use of the phrase ‘National Information Infrastructure’ in the
Government’s response implied that the focus was on data alone rather than the creation of a strategy.
He wondered if APPSI could convey this in a response to the Government’s response, and if APPSI
should seek to have an active involvement in helping to implement the Review’s recommendations.
7.6. Michael Jennings also noted that the emphasis on data made it appear that the Review and
response were dealing with abstract concepts when they were actually about information management,
and that there was a need to consider the framework around the data. He was also pleased to see that
the capability weaknesses were acknowledged but asked if there would be more to come from the
Government on both a framework and capability.
7.7. Bill observed that the public sector needed to find a way of connecting and engaging with others to
create an effective framework. Members agreed with David’s observation that the work ONS had done
with other stakeholders on the census replacement, which Alistair had described earlier, seemed to
have worked well.
7.8. Angela agreed that the issue of capability is a broader one both in and outside Government. It was
for the market to develop the product rather than Government.
7.9. Cabinet Office is leading on the development of a wider framework and APPSI will be able to
discuss this with Paul Maltby in its next meeting.
6
8. Update on the Open Government Licence v2.0
8.1. Jim Wretham explained the forthcoming changes to the Open Government Licence (OGL).
8.2. Following discussions with users and other stakeholders, the OGL has been refined to make it fit for
purpose. The provisions for non-endorsement, misleading or misrepresentative use have been moved to
a separate section, with reference to the Data Protection Act and the Privacy and the Electronic
Communications (EC Directive) Regulations being removed altogether. This would ensure that it is
clear that the licence does not permit the re-user to suggest that their versions of the information enjoy
any official status or have departmental endorsement. At the same time it would avoid implying that the
OGL is seeking to control how public sector information is used and interpreted.
8.3. Carol noted that the Transparency Board had been very supportive. There were still discussions ongoing with the Government Digital Service on the use of identifiers, which needed to be concluded
before the new OGL was launched.
8.4. The new version of the licence will launched towards the end of June 2013.
8.5. Bob commented that, at international meetings he attends, the OGL is often held up as an example
of good practice.
8.6. It was noted that, although under open licensing, no tracking or record is taken of re-use, the take
up of the OGL across the public sector is noted. Inventories are part of the development plan for
data.gov.uk.
9. Update on the Public Sector Mapping Agreement
9.1. Neil gave a presentation on the Public Sector Mapping Agreement (PSMA), which has been in
place since April 2011. [link to slides]
9.2. The PSMA is centrally funded and covers central and local government and the health sector in
England and Wales. Currently 2946 public bodies are signed up as users. Neil said that experience had
demonstrated the importance of the ‘eco-system’ that has been developed around the data and that this
had improved take-up; 80% of use was of specific products rather than large, complex datasets.
9.3. Duncan noted that the similar agreement in place in Scotland had helped to smooth the relationship
between Ordnance Survey and other organisations. The clear dispute-resolution procedure was working
well.
9.4. Bill stressed that it was important that momentum was not lost. There was a risk that the need for
departments to make efficiency savings would have an impact on their ability to continue to pay. Neil
agreed that this may have an impact on the scope of the Agreement.
10. Developments in the National Information Framework and the National Information
Infrastructure
10.1. Hugh updated members on the APPSI Glossary. This was now on the website and had been used
by Deloitte when they conducted the economic study that was commissioned as part of the
Shakespeare Review. However, it appeared that there had been a loss of momentum on the
consultation process on the glossary that was to be undertaken by the Cabinet Office. If there was no
likelihood of further action by the Cabinet Office on this, Hugh suggested that APPSI should consider
publicising it themselves, perhaps as part of a re-launch when the NIF Resources website pages went
live.
10.2. Bob circulated a paper setting out proposals for a new communications framework for APPSI. In
addition to the existing methods APPSI uses to communicate its position on issues to Ministers, other
7
stakeholders and the public, it has been suggested that members produce and contribute to informal
discussion notes. The final versions of these papers would be published on the Panel’s website.
10.3. Members briefly discussed how APPSI could raise its profile more effectively. Suggestions
included producing a guest post for data.gov.uk’s blog and ensuring that a member of APPSI attended
the Open Government Partnership Annual Conference at the end of October.
10.4. A number of members stressed the need to keep in mind APPSI’s remit to advise Ministers.
Michael Jennings suggested that a good approach would be to concentrate on how APPSI can best
contribute to the aims of the Government’s PSI strategy, and to use these aims as hooks for future
activity.
ACTION: All to consider the proposed communications framework and where they could
effectively contribute.
ACTION: The Chairman to write to members asking for views on:
i.
what contributions APPSI have made over the last few years and when it has had the
greatest effect; and
ii.
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?
11. AOB
11.1. Carol informed members that the Cabinet Office would shortly publish a list of UK bodies
performing duties for Scotland that may need to be replicated if Scotland were to become independent.
APPSI would be included on this list.
Next meeting

20 September 2013 - Ministry of Justice, Steel House, Tothill St, London SW1
8
ANNEX A
APPSI Meeting - 18 June 2013
SCOTLAND UPDATE
1. The Scottish Government organised on 19 April a well-attended conference in Edinburgh on “Big
Data in the Public Sector”. John Swinney, the Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for
Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, emphasised the economic importance of making
effective use of the vast amount of data collected by the public sector as one aspect of the
Scottish Government’s Digital Strategy. Three key points emerged from the day’s discussions:
the importance of improving data science skills, the need for government to reassure the public
about the steps taken to ensure the privacy of personal data and the demand for common data
standards.
2. John Swinney also emphasised the importance of the “future cities” project in Glasgow, funded
by £24 million from the UK Government’s New Technology Challenge Fund, to showcase how
UK cities can grow their local economy and improve the lives of their citizens by making the most
of new technologies and by integrating and connecting city systems. As part of the project, the
University of Strathclyde's Technology and Innovation Centre will allow academic and business
and industry researchers to analyse more than 200 information feeds about Glasgow - its health,
economy, transport, energy use - to map the relationships between them and to understand how
a 21st century city operates. The large-scale, city-wide, demonstrator will show what can be
achieved by innovative use of today's technology. The results will be made available to
innovative UK businesses to enable them to test and develop integrated new urban solutions and
technologies.
3. Also in April, the Scottish Government published a progress report on “Scotland’s Digital Future”
(http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/05/2347). The main strands are encouraging
Scottish businesses to improve their digital reach, exploiting market opportunities, improving skill
levels, and making wider use of public sector data.
4. Two statistical developments are making good progress. The first is the modernisation of
Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics, which is envisaged as the main source of small-area
statistics, in machine-readable form, on a wide variety of government activities including health,
education, poverty, unemployment, housing, population, crime and social/community issues.
The second is a project to provide access for research purposes to anonymised information from
a wide range of sources of data about people, particularly with the aim of improving public health.
This Data Access and Linking Service is on course for a launch at the end of 2013.
Duncan Macniven
June 2013
NORTHERN IRELAND UPDATE
TNA briefing for NI stakeholders – 30 May 2013, Belfast
1.
The Director of Information Policy and Services, and the Head of Information Policy (TNA)
briefed Departmental Information Managers and also staff with records management
responsibilities from the archives and libraries sector regarding Open Data and re-use of Public
Sector Information (PSI) developments.
2. The briefing was much appreciated by an interested audience, which later posed questions on
various matters, including marginal cost pricing, protection for the cultural sector within the new
Directive’s provisions, and the mapping of legislative requirements.
9
3. TNA officials and APPSI’s NI representative met afterwards to discuss how best to tap into the
interest shown in the event. The idea of running a conference was explored. This included
some initial thinking around attracting the interest of some NI businesses, which would be
interested in developing commercial products and services based on public sector information.
A conference might also serve to identify the sort of NI-based data that would be of interest to
business. The formation of a NI equivalent of the Open Data User Group was also considered.
Telephone conference
4. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) representative at the above briefing
has since organised a telephone conference (25 June) with the Head of Information Policy (TNA
) and his team to further explore the options to progress NI policy on Open Data and re-use of
PSI. Representatives from the Department of Finance & Personnel (DFP), including Land &
Property Services, and APPSI’s NI representative will participate.
Innovation Strategy
5. DETI is tabling the draft Executive Innovation Strategy (which highlights the potential economic
and social benefits of Open Data) for discussion at the Executive’s Sub-Committee to the
Economy on 25 June.
David Lammey
June 2013
10