ADVISORY PANEL ON PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION
Date:
Time:
Venue:
Friday 20 April 2012
11:00am-4:30pm
Steel House, Ministry of Justice
Attendees: Chair
Members
Professor David Rhind, CBE
Peter Wienand, Deputy Chair
Prabaht Vaze, Expert Member
Niel Ackroyd, Expert Member
Hilary Newiss, Expert Member
Shane O’Neill, Expert Member
Phillip Webb, Expert Member
Dean Whie, Expert Member
Paul Longley, Expert Member
Hugh Neffendorf, Expert Member
Robert Barr, Expert Member
David Lammey Representative Member for Northern Ireland
Bill Oates, Representative Member for Wales
Duncan Macniven, Representative Member for Scotland
Nonmembers:
1.
Malcolm Hurlston Registry Trust Ltd
Mr Nick Illsley Chief Executive of Transport Direct
Ed Parkes, Head of High Value Data Strategy, Cabinet Office
Mike Rabjohns, Shareholder Executive, Assistant Director
Carol Tullo, Director of Information Policy and Services, The National
Archives
Paul Edwards, APPSI Secretariat, The National Archives
Catherine Hill , Personal Assistant , The National Archives
Welcome, introductions and apologies
The Chairman welcomed members to the 35th meeting of APPSI.
Apologies of absence were received from APPSI members Michael Nicholson, Michael Jennings,
Keith Dugmore and Patricia Seex.
1.1
The Chairman also noted the following members reappointments; David Lammey, Bill Oates,
Michael Jennings, Prabhat Vaze, and Peter Wienand who was reappointed for a final term to
March 2013.
2.
Minutes and actions of the last meeting
2.1 Members approved the minutes of the APPSI meeting on 01 February 2012 as an accurate record of
the matters discussed.
1
Ongoing actions from earlier meetings
ACTION: Chairman to invite Professor Nigel Shadbolt to a forthcoming APPSI meeting to discuss the
Open Data Institute. Status: Ongoing: the chairman said that he was corresponding with Professor
Shadbolt to see if he could attend a future meeting.
Actions from the previous meeting on 01 February 2012
ACTION: Mr Bob Barr to lead sub-group in conducting a small pilot, testing common meaning of some
of the less centric government terminology. Status: See item 7.
ACTION: Mr Michael Nicholson to consult with Michael Jennings and Hugh Neffendorf to provide a
two page overview on how the National Information Infrastructure (NII) could fit in a Cross-Government
Information Strategy. Status: Superseded, The Chairman and Hugh Neffendorf drafted a paper on NII
and Open Data. See item 5.
ACTION: Ms Carol Tullo to contact her colleagues at Shareholder Executive to see if there is any
opportunity for APPSI to influence the scope of the Public Data Group (PDG) / Data Strategy Board
(DSB). Status: Completed; Carol emailed the Chairman on 02 February 2012 and confirmed:
The Data Strategy Board’s (DSB) focus is on the Public Data Group Trading Funds1 and their
users through the broad industry groups like the public weather service. They will speak for
existing and potential users of those categories of data.
The current task is to get the DSB up and running and the roles of the Chair and terms of
reference advertised.
The departments for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) /Shareholder Executive (ShEx)/
Cabinet Office (CO) would publish the summary responses to the Public Data Corporation
consultation and the detail on the PDG and DSB by the end of February 2012. It is the subject of
BIS/CO ministerial clearance and discussion after which there will be a ministerial write round
before publication.
The proposals before ministers on the PDG and DSB have been informed and shaped by the
consultation responses that were announced in the Government response in the Autumn
Statement. A First task of the Chairs of these new bodies will be to review and check the
functionality of their Terms of Reference
Carol confirmed that the split of ODI (general OD standards); DSB (commissioning) and PDG
(delivery) was as she as articulated in the APPSI meeting on 01 February.
ACTION: Secretariat to designate a future meeting for APPSI to finalise National Information
Infrastructure (NII) and proposed strategy. Status: Superseded: The Chairman noted that with the work
which had taken place on the latest NII papers there would be no need to designate the whole of a
meeting to the NII.
ACTION: Secretariat to circulate Duncan Macniven’s update on PSI in Scotland to members. Status:
Completed: Circulated by the Secretariat via email to members on 02 February 2012.
1
http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/growth/growth-review-implementation/releasing-reference-data
2
ACTION: Secretariat to provide copy of or link to information management principles as referred to by
Ms Tullo. Status: Completed: Circulated by the Secretariat via email to members on 02 February 2012
Item 3: Update on Public Sector Information within the UK and elsewhere – Ms Carol Tullo,
National Archives
3.1.1 Carol Tullo highlighted the latest developments in the Open Data and the transparency agenda.
She noted that the Terms of Reference for the Data Strategy Board had been published on 19 March
2012. Carol confirmed that The National Archives are working closely with the Cabinet Office on the
regulatory framework for the Board.
3.1.2 The Chair positions for the Data Strategy Board and the Public Data Group were advertised on 2
April 2012 with the application closing date on 23 April 2012. Carol also noted that the terms of
reference on the Open Data User Group had been drawn up and that the white paper in response to the
open data consultation is to be published in May.
3.1.3 Carol noted that the she had attended the Transparency Board on 27 March 2012, with the Open
Data white paper being the main discussion item. She confirmed there had been detailed discussions
regarding the regulatory framework.
3.1.4 Carol also noted that interim Transparency Board meeting took place on the 11 April 2012 to
discuss data principles and embedding privacy expertise in Transparency Board and local data panels.
3.1.5 Carol explained that the National Archives is working with the ICO on the legal implications and
enforcement issues of the datasets clause. The Bill is currently going between House of Commons and
House of Lords for consideration. The next date for consideration is in the House of Lords on 24 April
2012.
3.1.6 Carol reminded APPSI that a call for evidence had been made on the Digital Copyright Exchange
feasibility study and that it had closed on 10 February 2012. She noted that the Richard Hooper who is
leading the feasibility study into a Digital Copyright Exchange published the Phase 1 diagnostic report
on 27 March 2012: Rights and Wrongs: is copyright licensing fit for purpose for the digital age?
3.1.7 Carol noted that there had been successful negotiation and mediation with Information
Commission Office which was challenging the release of Land Registry house price data. The ICO had
argued it was personal data.
3.1.8 The DVLA Information Fair Trader Scheme Report was published on 14 March 2012. Reverification by the National Archives is planned for mid-May, depending on the availability of an
external team member from Office of Fair Trading.
3.2
European Commission Telecoms Council Working Group Meeting 17 April 2012;
3.2.1 Carol informed APPSI that her colleagues Beth Brook and Jim Wretham attended a telecoms
meeting in Brussels on Tuesday 17 April 2012.
3.2.2 The Proposal for amending the PSI Directive is going through co-decision procedure (sign off and
adoption by European Council and Parliament).
3.2.3 The Proposal was put to the European Parliament for reading in December 2011 and this process
is going on at the same time as it works its way through Council (via the Council Working Groups,
through Coreper and Council adoption).
3
3.2.4 Compromise proposal texts are being put forward by the Presidency and Chair of the European
Council working group meetings, based on Member State negotiations and comments. Progress update
scheduled for Council meeting (at ministerial level) on 8 June 2012.
3.2.5 Carol confirmed that the UK was making its representations on the mandate of the proposal from
its stakeholders (Cabinet Office, HM Treasury, Business Innovation and Skills and the Department for
Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) through ‘UKRep’.
3.2.6 Whilst the representations to the Telecoms Council are made through UKRep, the proposal is still
subject to UK Parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses before passing back to the European Parliament for
scrutiny in committee on 24 September 2012. Carol admitted that it was a complex process but that it
would be completed between October 2012 and early 2013.
3.2.7 Carol felt that there had been a push by the Danish presidency to get the PSI Directive proposal
amendments through, but noted that it would be interesting to see whether the emphasis would change
when Cyprus take over the presidency in the summer.
3.2.8 Carol noted that Article 6 of the Directive (principles governing charging) which says that public
bodies should be able to charge to supply and allow reuse of documents not exceeding certain costs and
with a reasonable return on investment was under review. Carol confirmed that Jim Wretham is working
with economists as part of the process of the UK seeking alternative wording.
3.2.9 David Lammey asked whether any developments had arisen for a PAN EU agreement on
regulation, Carol said that there had been a push back by member states as many want the autonomy to
define their own regulations needs.
3.2.10 Members discussed compliance of the PSI directive, and whether any legislation would be in
place to make governing body’s decisions binding and that without binding decisions it makes the
Directive toothless. Carol confirmed that the rules were set within the directive and that there was a
strong feeling among member states that it would not be attractive to go down the legally binding route.
She confirmed that the rules are already set within UK Financial legislation and therefore there was not a
strong call to for this to happen.
3.2.11 Some members agreed with Carol’s view that making the decisions of governing bodies such as
OPSI (The National Archives) binding would tie the hands of those public bodies looking to reuse data.
3.2.12 This lead to discussion on Pricing. Members noted that the amended PSI directive proposes a
three- tier charging regime, limiting the total amount charged to the marginal costs incurred for their reuse. Members noted that albeit at the discretion of the regulator, charging over and above the marginal
costs could be permitted.
3.2.13 Neil Ackroyd asked Carol whether the term ‘Public Bodies’ had been clearly defined in the
context of the PSI directive. This was important as there are a number of Public Sector Bodies (PSB’s)
particularly in the UK, which have changed status over the years from public sector bodies as understood
under the PSI directive, to de-facto PSB’s such as the Water Authority which are removed from central
government control but are very much a public utility. Neil asserted that there needs to be clarification as
to whether these types of authorities and public utility companies fall under the same obligations under
the amended PSI directive.
ACTION: Secretariat to circulate copy of Digital Copy Exchange Phase 1 report to APPSI members
4
Item 4: New Models in the public –private sector cooperation on PSI; Mr Malcolm Hurlston and Mr
Shane O’Neill
4.1 The Chairman explained that as yet APPSI had yet to really explore the perspective of the private
sector and to explore the challenges they face engaging with the public sector. The Chairman noted that
Malcolm Hurlston and APPSI member Shane O’Neill had been asked to share their experiences of
establishing private sector initiatives for PSI re-use.
4.2 Shane opened the item by highlighting his experiences of establishing ELGIN. ELGIN redistributes
public sector information on road works and traffic management data under the Open Government
Licence and provides its added value aggregation and application services to industry via its Application
Programme Interface. Access to the information it produces is free to companies delivering applications
to those who are ELGIN member Authorities.
4.3 Shane noted that the obligation to publish data pre-dates the open data agenda and is actually
enshrined in the Traffic Management Act 2004 ‘There is a requirement for statutory undertakers to keep
up to date records of the location of their apparatus located in the street’. The records must also show
what kind of apparatus it is, and must be available for inspection at all reasonable hours, and free of
charge, to anyone with a legitimate interest in seeing them.’’
4.4 Shane explained however that the full opportunity of the data on road work traffic management has
still yet to be fully unlocked. There are three to four million road works annually over 175 Highways
Authorities, however only the main trunk routes are integrated into the main traffic information systems,
estimated to account for less than 7% of possible roadwork data.
4.5 Shane felt that most of Western Europe were ahead of the game and had integrated road-works
information systems at quite a granular level – the UK situation is highly fragmented and a disincentive
to the development of other traffic planning applications. Road traffic data is released through each local
Authority and is in effect constrained to the land boundaries of each Authority. A more integrated
approach on data management would save the private sector considerable time and money in processing
the information into readable format.
4.6 Shane explained that many entrepreneurs such as Trafficmaster and NavTeqTraffic have tried to
aggregate local roadwork data from the 30 local Authorities that are offering their data, but have found it
too difficult and uneconomic to reproduce the data into a worthwhile resource. Shane was of the view
that these companies, and larger players such as Google, need the data to be processed and from one
single feed to fully utilise the potential data at their disposal. From Shane’s perspective, strategic national
data sets are therefore critical for reuse to thrive and there needs to be firm and agreed regulation to
ensure the private sector buys in to the reuse agenda.
4.7 Shane said that there were lessons for the private sector too. In the case of ELGIN he realised quickly
that to ensure any longevity ELGIN needed to engrain a governance model in the organisation, ensuring
public sector compliance with transparency on its ‘public task,’ by ensuring sustainable funding for
ELGIN by providing value added services, and offering innovative and bespoke solutions.
4.8 The Chairman invited Malcolm to share his experiences of setting up the registry trust. Malcolm
explained that The Registry Trust stemmed from the County Court Judgments set up by Parliament in
1852. He explained that the cost of running it led to the Lord Chancellor, in 1983 considering reducing
the scope. He explained that this was of great concern to users of the Register as it had proved valuable
in making assessments on credit granting.
5
4.9 Malcolm said that after listening to these concerns Lord Hailsham agreed that the operation of the
register could be handed to a non-profit company, allowing the Registry Trust to be formed. Malcolm
noted that at time the government saw this as in effect it reimbursed the Ministry of Justice the cost of
providing the information.
4.10 Malcolm noted that the Trust collects judgment information across the British Isles and Ireland and
since the early 2000’s all their information is 100% electronic data. However the journey to owning the
Intellectual Property rights to share the data had not been easy and the Fines Register and Registry Trust
which exists today are the result a series of discussions and negotiations with government over a 10 year
period. Additionally the cost of reformatting the information into a useable format caused a degree of
uncertainty on the future of the Trust.
4.11 Malcolm was of the view that tiered pricing structures had ensured flow of information to the public
and operating as a non for profit agency worked well for them as it ensure money made from government
data circulated back into the system.
4.12 Malcolm that understanding the departmental relationships within government and which
department had the policy lead had been key in the success of establishing the Registry Trust. Whilst the
Registry functions clearly lay with the Ministry of Justice, Malcolm had been surprised that there had not
been greater buy in from BIS.
4.13 Peter Wienand noted that the two case studies from Shane and Malcolm highlighted a clear need for
an intermediary to bridge the divide between those producing applications for the data and the production
of the raw data at government level. They also highlight that the majority of PSI reuse projects are not
self funding and the current level of dependence the Private Sector has on the Public Sector.
4.14 APPSI also recognised that there will always be a challenge for the Private Sector when it comes to
Intellectual Property Rights of data as the Public Sector will likely always want some sort of stake in the
IP. Members endorsed Shane’s view that the Public Sector needs to do more to engage with the Private
Sector and to provide innovative business models to make the reuse of PSI attractive.
4.15 Some members liked the model Shane highlighted with ELGIN. In this model, a platform is first
built and then a case made to government to highlight what it can do before making the case for the
formatted data to be provided. This approach might be a way of engaging more reuse rather than working
from the perspective of raw data whereby government is providing the data and asking the Private Sector
to create something.
4.16 APPSI concluded that Francis Maude’s challenge to the Private Sector to drive innovation on PSI is
constructive, as it makes developers and the PSI community look at reuse from a perspective of consumer
need. However the government’s definition of ‘public data’ as a commodity is too narrow and data within
the wider Public Sector agencies is being overlooked. Transparency is also needed on the tendering
processes, and particularly on how departments value data assets.
Item 5: Establishing a National Information Infrastructure - the next Steps, Mr David Rhind and Mr
Hugh Neffendorf
5.1 Hugh Neffendorf opened the item by summarising the journey of the National Information
Infrastructure (NII) concept. In autumn 2010 APPSI launched an extended discussion on how to make
the process of opening up data less ad hoc and more strategic. APPSI argued at the time that its vision of
NII was parallel in some respects to the National (physical) Infrastructure plan which is now supported
by HM Treasury.
6
5.2 Part of APPSI’s vision of an NII is to embed the notion that not all data and information are of equal
value. Hugh said that at present there is not any strategic overview of what is valued data and out of this
what should be collected and maintained by governments. He added that such a strategic overview is
highly desirable – especially in the current stringent financial environment –some data may no longer be
of high priority, and new data may be needed to meet current or anticipated needs.
5.3 Hugh explained that the concept of the NII embraces a wide perspective of what is deemed high value
data, as well as focusing on the users and their applications. Whilst the NII potentially covers all data
and all sectors, Hugh said that in presenting the idea to government APPSI needs to concentrate
realistically on the information and operations that government can most readily influence.
5.4 Hugh noted however that there is high value data held in the wider public sector outside of central
government that is of considerable interest to individual citizens. Devolved administration, local
authority or health trust data should not be overlooked. Additionally data is drawn from multiple sources
– government, the private sector and even crowd-sourced information outside of the United Kingdom
(UK) – are being inter-mingled. Hugh highlighted Google Maps as an example of a tool widely used by
the Public Sector. Many governments around the world purchase or lease satellite imagery from major
US-based corporations.
5.5 Hugh felt that government could drive an effective framework within which national datasets could
be grown and disseminated in ways which facilitate market growth. The way in which government
information is procured and managed needs to be subject to long term planning involving information
standards, training of staff, procurement terms and institutional culture. Hugh acknowledged that whilst
today’s high value data is identifiable the data produced today will not necessary be of the same value in
future, and this ties in to the need to having a strategy on how key data will be maintained and identified.
5.6 Hugh said that much of the government thinking is complementary to APPSI’s vision of an NII. The
definition and scope of the Data Strategy Board is clearly one avenue for a revised contemporary
National Information Infrastructure. Members were of the view that the Terms of Reference of the DSB
would need further consideration to make this possible.
5.7 Hugh and David were of the view that Government should – in the forthcoming white paper on Open
Data – make clear that their plans are consistent with the desirable aim of fashioning the National
Information Infrastructure in some form as part of a commitment to provide better and more effective
information sources and services. Members agreed that a positive outcome would be to see government
build the responsibility for achieving this into the DSB remit.
5.8 There was a consensus that the recent NAO report has sent a clear message that more strategic
thinking on how data is managed is needed and that the concept of the NII can be fed into this, however
there was strong feeling that the concept needs to have granularity. Government should additionally buy
into the idea there needs to be an identifiable framework in which it can sit.
5.9 Peter Wienand suggested the NII paper is working from a perspective of presuming what data is
critical to government and the wider public sector. He thought it might also be beneficial to seek the
opinion of government directly as to what it sees as key data. Peter saw the NII as a pyramid with the
most important data at the top and then a breadth of supporting data that underpinned the potential of the
high value data.
5.10 Bill Oates highlighted that Wales is exploring a data inventory, and has recently established clarity
over the enabling legislation (Government of Wales Act (2006)) that allows for data collection. Philip
Webb agreed that it is vital the key data sets are identified and are protected to ensure a continuity of
supply, Philip noted that demographic and population data is an example of high value data that will
require a holistic long term strategy.
7
ACTION: APPSI members to provide comments on how the NII paper can be developed further.
Item 6: Data Strategy Board, Public Data Group, Open Data Institute –The latest developments,
Ed Parkes & Mike Rabjohns
6.1 Ed Parkes and Mike Rabjohns updated APPSI on the developments that had emerged on the Data
Strategy Board (DSB), Public Data Group and Open Data Institute.
6.2 Ed Parkes explained that The Data Strategy Board (DSB) will seek to maximise the value of data
from the Public Data Group (PDG) of Trading Funds for long-term economic and social benefit,
including through the release of data free of charge. It will act as an intelligent customer advising
Government on commissioning and purchasing key data and services from the PDG.
6.3 Ed and Mike explained that the purpose of the DSB is to steer the management of contracts with the
PDG to generate economic growth. The PDG will also ensure that Ministers receive appropriate advice to
deliver the Open Data agenda of providing data and services to the public sector UK general public.
6.4 The PDG will also look to make access to data for all users easier and increase public access to free
data over time, subject to affordability and value for money. Ed explained that where funding and its
responsibilities allow, the DSB will also prioritise recommendations of funding for further
commissioning of Open Data. The DSB will also promote the Open Data research and best practice
developed with the PDG across the public sector. The aim of this Ed suggested was to advance the
adoption of new approaches ensuring government delivers the best opportunities for development of high
value data businesses.
6.5 In their explanation of the matrix and links between the different bodies, Ed and Mike explained that
the Open Data User Group (ODUG) will advise the DSB on public sector data that should be prioritised
for release as Open Data, to the benefit of the UK. They explained that the data will be sourced primarily
from the member organisations of the PDG (currently the Met Office, Ordnance Survey, Land Registry
and Companies House) but ODUG will be free to give advice on the release of data from other public
sector organisations.
6.6 ODUG will act on behalf of the public and the private sector for data free at the point of use and for
re-use, and act as vibrant advocate for this opportunity for the UK. ODUG will act as a single stakeholder
group for the interests of those that use and reuse Open Data, recognising the wide variety of
organisations and individuals.
6.7 The PDG will seek to support growth in the UK economy by delivering efficiencies and
improvements in public services through its members. These objectives are additional and incremental to
those with which the PDG members are already individually charged.
Mike explained that to achieve this aim, collaboration between its members and their partners across the
public sector is needed,, including through the better use and sharing of data, knowledge and skills, to
collectively identify and deliver best practice across the public sector.
6.8 The PDG will also seek to ensure the sustainability of high value data sets. Ed and Mike highlighted
the forthcoming Hack Day whereby the PIS community will be invited to ‘hack’ through NASA and Met
Office data sets to innovate commercial ventures. APPSI members thought this was very pertinent to
their proposal of a NII and reiterated that a national strategy and infrastructure is needed to unlock the
full potential of PSI.
6.9 Reflecting upon the role of the different bodies APPSI felt the DSB was most interesting in terms of
the dual role it will have as acting as the customer for government and in commissioning open data. They
viewed this to be a very difficult balancing act which will need to be managed carefully by the DSB.
8
Additionally it was noted that the relation of the DSB very much sits with Ministers and it was agreed
that APPSI is in a unique position as a body at removed from government to be able to provide a
reflection and analysis of this
6.11 Carol Tullo concurred, and said that it was very much a changing landscape and we are all waiting
to see what evolves over the coming months as these body’s establish themselves. She agreed that with
its unique range of expertise APPSI is well positioned to provide advice from an outside of government
perspective.
6.12 Members what relationship bodies such as the PDG, DSB and ODUG had with the private sector,
some members felt there was too much focus towards the public sector as the customer. Some members
felt that from what they had heard Malcolm and Shane’s earlier presentations it was clear that proactive
engagement with private sector is also required.
6.12 David Lammey asked Ed and Mike why the devolved Administration (DA) position on the Data
Strategy Board was only allocated on a rotation basis. Ed said that his understanding was that this
concern had already been noted and that it was likely this would be reviewed by the DSB once
established.
6.13 The APPSI Chairman noted that he, the Secretariat, and Hugh Neffendorf were due to meet with
Angela Latta, the lead on implementing the DSB on the 2nd May 2012, and would aim to explore with her
how APPSI might be able to collaborate with the DSB.
ACTION: Secretariat to circulate 2nd May meeting note to APPSI members.
Item 7: Update on PSI terminology-/-vocabulary pilot exercise; APPSI Member Bob Barr
7.1 Further to his presentation at the last meeting Mr Bob Barr highlighted the progress he had made
from sampling existing government glossaries. Bob noted that it was very much in draft form at present
but the initial analysis clearly highlighted that there was a disparity of the language and terms being used
across government.
7.2 Given the confusion that different versions of similar definitions raise, APPSI members agreed that
the lack of a common language for PSI, and PSI issues, makes it difficult for policy makers and decision
makers to distinguish between the nuances of meaning that different lobbyists are putting across.
To highlight this Bob undertook some analysis of terminology being used across government. Bob
explained that he sampled five existing government ‘PSI glossaries’ quantifying the frequency of terms
used across all five glossaries, highlighting the disparity of the terms which are not universally shared.
Examples:
o meaning of OGL and Public Task only appears in one of the five glossaries sample (
National Archives Information Management Glossary)
o Meaning of ‘Open Government Data’ is referenced in the Open Data Hand Book but not
in the other four glossaries
o Some of the glossaries are extensive whilst some only reference half the terms
(consistency /clarity on the terms / language government uses)
7.2 Carol Tullo noted that Bob’s initial research was very insightful and thought that this is exactly the
area where APPSI could add value to current PSI policy development. She offered to highlight this work
with her transparency board colleagues.
ACTION: Mr Bob Barr to continue to refine the pilot sample and to be reviewed at a future meeting.
9
ACTION: Ms Tullo to summarise Bob’s work with Transparency Board colleagues at a future meeting.
Item 8: Any Other Business
8.1 The Chairman noted that time had been set in AOB to discuss the next steps and actions for APPSI to
take forward, however he felt this could be carried to the next meeting following the next set of revisions
to the NII paper.
ACTION: APPSI actions and next steps for the NII to be carried to the next meeting.
8.2 The Chairman noted that the next meeting would take place at Petty France the Ministry of Justice on
15 June 2012.
10