ADVISORY PANEL ON PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION
11th March 2013
10:45am-4:30pm
Open Data Institute
Date:
Time:
Venue:
Attendees: Chair
Members
Nonmembers:
Professor David Rhind
Peter Wienand
Bob Barr
Keith Dugmore
David Lammey
Duncan Macniven
Bill Oates
Hugh Neffendorf
Hilary Newiss
Shane O’Neill
Prabhat Vaze
Michael Jennings
Michael Nicholson
Dean White
Deputy Chair
Expert Member
Expert Member
Representative Member for Northern Ireland
Representative Member for Scotland
Representative Member for Wales
Expert Member
Expert Member
Expert Member
Expert Member
Expert Member
Expert Member
Expert Member
Carol Tullo
Director, Information Policy & Services, The National
Archives
CEO ODI
Chairman ODI
Business and Policy Manager, The National Archives
Head of Standards, The National Archives
PA to Carol Tullo, (minutes)
Gavin Starks
Nigel Shadbolt
Beth Brook
Marcia Jackson
Catherine Hill
1.Apologies
Patricia Seex, Paul Longley, Phillip Webb and Neil Ackroyd
David Rhind thanked Patricia Humphries for running the Secretariat before the new APPSI Secretary,
Beth Watson, starts on the 8th April.
2. Minutes of previous meeting and actions
The minutes were unanimously approved
All actions completed
1
3. TNA perspective on current PSI issues
Carol Tullo reported on the current issues:
UK
A stimulus package fund had been announced by BIS on the 12th December 2012 designed to
encourage initiatives relating to open data.
Action: Beth Brook to circulate information on fund to APPSI members
The Shakespeare Review of PSI is scheduled for publication mid April 2013 with a Government
response scheduled for June. Carol Tullo sits on the steering group. The Review will give a number of
recommendations, cover an evidence and literature review, include cases studies and do a ‘deep dive’
into the health and education sectors. The Deloitte market analysis report will be published alongside.
The PSI YouGov survey for re-users and providers was launched on 22nd February (Press release on
BIS website).
The Data Strategy Board session on copyright and data protection took place on 21st February.
The UK would be exploring opportunities and working with the Open Government Partnership on
encouraging more open data.
The PAF Public Sector Licence announcement had followed the Ofcom review. PAF would be free at the
point of use to PSMA members for delivering core business by public services from April 2014. There is
an intention to extend this to wider public sector users.
Europe
The next PSI Working Group meeting would be on the 18th March. The key negotiating issues remained
charging provisions and public task. The timing of the Directive remained unchanged – adoption of text
was expected in June.
A project team would be working on the drafting of the Regulations in the second half of 2013.
There had been EU meetings around digital opportunities – user generated content and licensing
solutions. The EU was interested in adopting the Open Government Licence (OGL) framework as a
model licence.
At the PSI Group in Europe (17th meeting) on 24th January there were discussions on companies data
(UK and Companies House were top of the league table) and development of a pan-European
information portal. Chair put forward OGL as one of the model licences to be used across Europe.
At the ePSIPlatform Conference 2013 (Warsaw) on 22nd February there were panel sessions on open
data and liability; open data and privacy; and licensing of open data. TNA on licensing panel – discussed
OGL..
The Protection of Freedoms Act – a draft code of practice on provision for data sets was currently being
prepared. The resulting charged licence would form part of the UK Government Licence framework.
Regulatory work
The Standards team has recently completed a complaint involving Falkirk Council. Shane O’Neill asked
for a profile of the sorts of issues covered in recent mediation activity.
Action: Marcia Jackson to circulate report and a profile of mediations to APPSI members
2
The IFTS re-verification reports of Registers of Scotland and TNA would shortly be published.
The OGL v2 was at a final stage.
An external review of Exceptions to Marginal Cost Pricing had been commissioned to inform the current
review of PSI and is expected to be delivered to TNA at the end of March. This would be presented to
APPSI.
The next Transparency Board meeting would be on the 21st March
David Rhind commented that the landscape of PSI was becoming increasingly complex.
The creation of a PSI “map” was then discussed and finally discounted.
Carol Tullo observed that the APPSI Glossary would help in that respect.
One value of APPSI was that it had a legacy knowledge and historical perspective on the development
of the open data debate.
Carol Tullo suggested that a representative of MoJ should present at APPSI in the future on the Data
Protection Directive. David Rhind agreed this would be helpful.
Action: David Rhind to invite MoJ to speak at a future APPSI meeting
4. OFCOM consultation on PAF
Peter Wienand commented that the regulatory framework for PAF imposed certain duties on Ofcom. It
was an example of core reference information that remained subject to the regulatory framework. In his
view Ofcom would retain any post privatisation role to ensure PAF remained available on reasonable
terms.
David Rhind, Peter Wienand and Hugh Neffendorf had recently met Ofcom (see note of meeting Annex
A)
Ofcom agreed that the note be made public and APPSI would respond to the consultation, ensuring that
the response would not conflict with the prevailing view of members.
Action: David Rhind to coordinate APPSI view and respond by 15th March. Copy to Stephan
Shakespeare and others
The members discussed the issue of privatisation of PAF and reached agreement that




addressing – of which PAF is a key part – should be treated as Core Reference Data and ideally
be free at the point of use
any future PAF should be of adequately high quality data
it should be in the ownership of the public sector (even if operations were contracted out)
it should be universally available to the emergency services
5. Glossary Wiki exercise developments
The latest draft of the PSI Glossary was now on the APPSI website. The Cabinet Office team working on
the planned wiki were making significant progress and it was expected that it could go live within the
next month.
Hugh Neffendorf, Philip Webb and Bob Barr would moderate the content. Duncan Macniven and Shane
O’Neill volunteered as additional moderators.
3
6. National Information Framework
The NIF document had not had the hoped for impact, and some ideas were called for to push it further.
The members discussed how to reach a wider audience and agreed on the following action:

APPSI should commission single topic working papers. Topics proposed included
o Information governance
o Raw versus processed/value added data
o Core reference data
o Funding models for PSI
o Open platform for PSI
Hugh Neffendorf had already produced two draft papers on key functions of the NIF and data types in
the NIF. Comments are sought from members.
Each paper would be authored. The author would not need to be a member of APPSI but the tenor of
any paper should be within the APPSI ethos. Each paper would be followed by an APPSI advisory note.
Hugh Neffendorf stated help would be needed from TNA to co-ordinate the APPSI branding.
Actions:
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 a WP template/ protocol and APPSI disclaimer
7. Presentation by ODI
Gavin Starks – CEO ODI – outlined the ODI mission: to catalyse the evolution of open data culture to
create economic, environmental and social data.
ODI was now 5 months old, a non profit company promoting standards, research, training and
innovation in the first evolution of data sharing development
Its aims were threefold – to unlock demand, to unlock supply and to communicate value.
To view the slide presentation see www.slideshare.net/theODI/open-data-institute
8. ODI and APPSI
The APPSI members with Gavin Starks and Nigel Shadbolt discussed shared ODI/APPSI objectives:
issues around quality of data and the strategic communication of the benefits of open data. There was a
mutual need to find strong evidence of the benefits of Open Data.
Nigel Shadbolt opened the discussion by saying that there was a lot of overlap between ODI and APPSI
concerns. Of primary importance was the need to generate news stories on the benefits of open data.
The launch of Open Date Certificate http://theodi.github.com/open-data-certificate/certificate was
designed to address data quality issues.
ODI was focussed firmly on showing the value of Open Data through concrete examples of use.
Legislation.gov.uk was cited as great example of evolving open data.
Gavin Starks said that the test of open data success could not be purely economic – it must be
connected to other factors and not just a focus on problems to be solved. Communication was critical –
this is what ODI had added to the field. SMEs were most excited about the potential of open data. In 5
months ODI had nurtured several successful start –ups.
4
Dean White pointed ODI to ONS who had been collecting case studies on the use of census data for
some time.
Michael Jennings and Hugh Neffendorf commented that APPSI had a more strategic focus and
struggled with the boundary between private sector and public service. Peter Wienand said that in a
dynamic environment the constant evolution of expectation of what public sector bodies should provide
could strip out private enterprise
Gavin Starks responded that for ODI the first priority was to identify the problem to be solved and then
get the data, whether it be private or public.
A key Issue was the extent to which datasets were discoverable by search engines. ODI would convene
or catalyse these discussions.
Shane O’Neill asked where ODI stood on Public Sector bodies charging for services.
Gavin Starks replied that ODI was in favour of charging for service level agreements
8. Midata
Nigel Shadbolt outlined the creation of Midata – a BIS tool designed to give consumers access to certain
personal data from utility companies, finance bodies and other consumer goods suppliers.
To view the slide presentation see www.slideshare.net/theODI/open-data-institute
9. Research agenda for PSI/Open data - paper written by Paul Longley.
David Rhind would consider the APPSI strategic direction of the paper and approach ESRC if
appropriate.
ODI would be convening a workshop on research data in the summer of 2013 to which APPSI and the
TNA research team would be invited.
12. Next steps and actions
The APPSI members identified areas of mutual interest with ODI
o
o
o
o
o
o
Data standards/quality
SME’s looking to use public information
Certification
Sharing work programmes
Raising the profile of NIF and building it into public task
Open Data evidence
Action: Send APPSI minutes to ODI
13. AOB
On behalf of APPSI David Rhind thanked Peter Wienand who was retiring as Deputy Chair after 10
years and Prabhat Vase who was retiring as an Expert Member.
Carol Tullo presented Peter Wienand with a presentation framed copy of the front page of the Re-use of
Public Sector Information Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No. 1515).
As alumni they would be welcome to continue to contribute their thoughts to APPSI. All alumni would
have access to minutes of meetings and any other relevant communications via the website.
5
Next meeting
18 June 2013, The National Archives, Kew
ANNEX A
APPSI Meeting at Ofcom
26 February 2013
Present:
Chris Rowsell, Competition Policy Director; lead on postal regulation issues
6
Carina Tillson, Competition Policy Adviser and project manager of Ofcom PAF Review
David Rhind, Peter Wienand, Hugh Neffendorf, APPSI
Purpose of the meeting
David arranged the meeting in response to the Ofcom consultation report Postcode Address File
Review. The aim was to appreciate the functions of Ofcom in relation to PAF, to seek clarification on
aspects of the report and to explore the implications of Open Addressing.
Summary of discussion
David explained the role of APPSI and its stated position on addresses as a Core Reference dataset.
He also noted that Hugh had just been appointed to help BIS with a review of Open Addresses and that
Hugh was present in an APPSI capacity. Ofcom had been informed of the review earlier that day, and
understood that it was likely that a separate meeting would be needed for that purpose.
Clarifying the Report - APPSI members felt that the report was clear and well argued, although the
conclusions did not all follow naturally from the analysis. Instead, the overwhelming requirement to
protect the Universal Service objective seemed to have dominated, notably in recommending that PAF
stay fully funded by sales revenue to avoid financial pressure elsewhere (it was pointed out that RM paid
the same amount to use PAF as any other large user). APPSI members felt that the case was
somewhat over-stated, since RM profitability had probably improved recently and the costs of running
PAF seemed somewhat high (the redactions in the Ofcom report made this difficult to verify).
Ofcom said that the Universal Service had weighed heavily but had not pre-ordained thinking. In
addition, it had seemed reasonable to Ofcom to maintain the status quo established by Postcomm in the
absence of evidence of a need for change. Ofcom reiterated that it has to operate within a regulatory
framework, which, among other things, requires the "owner for the time being" of PAF to make it
available to any person who wishes to use it on such terms as are reasonable – including terms as to
price.1
That said, APPSI was very pleased to see the recommendations to simplify PAF licensing and to
challenge the operating costs, which had directly tracked revenues in an unlikely way. This was partly
an ‘unintended consequences’ result of the perverse incentives nature of the profit cap from the 2000
Act and Ofcom proposes that should be changed to encourage growth of usage and cost saving (though
they had not defined how this might best be achieved).
Ofcom has no formal role relating to the privatisation agenda. Its statutory duties do not require it to
take a position on privatisation, but rather to ensure that the Universal Service or mail business
sustainability are not threatened and that the public interest in how PAF is managed is recognised.
These duties are the same regardless of the ownership of Royal Mail. It was agreed that it is
fundamental in any scenario that RM or a new owner of its business has full access to a PAF of
equivalent quality for its operations and that ‘posties’ continue to provide their valuable address change
intelligence.
Ofcom is aware of but not directly involved in other topical issues, like links with the NAG and the
Pinpoint trial.
A specific point mentioned is that Ofcom has rules for telecoms to protect the availability of service and
information to emergency services. They see PAF as belonging, to some extent, in this arena, thus
echoing APPSI's view of PAF as having national 'infrastructure' significance.
APPSI suggested that Ofcom should highlight risks to PAF from privatising a monopoly position, notably
price control, quality changes, access and IPR being confounded by changing specification. Ofcom
pointed out that the regulatory framework for PAF would (unless changed) continue to enable it to
1
Note that this is a different test from the ‘excessive pricing’ test for the purposes of establishing whether
there has been an abuse of a dominant position under competition law.
7
exercise some oversight and that, therefore, unlike perhaps some other valuable datasets that had been
'lost' from the public sector on privatisation (e.g. of the utilities), this regime could allow PAF and its use
and licensing to continue to be regulated post-privatisation. APPSI members considered therefore that
PAF could continue to have a 'quasi-PSI' status.
Open Addresses – Ofcom is “silent” on this matter. They are clear that any decision on whether PAF
becomes Open Data is a matter for Government. Ofcom had been asked by Government to review PAF
arrangements under the existing circumstances: the ODUG paper proposing different circumstances
had arrived when Ofcom was nearly ready to publish its consultation document, requiring Ofcom to
consider how to address the question in the consultation document. Rather than conjecture on a
hypothetical situation, Ofcom decided to note the proposals of the ODUG paper and that if government
decides that addresses should be free at the point of use, this would be likely to require a review by
Ofcom of their work and conclusions.
Ofcom does see addresses as ‘Core’ and did not give the impression of resistance to an Open Data
decision for PAF, so long as their other legal objectives were met.
8