APPSI Secretariat
The National Archives Kew Richmond Surrey TW9 4DU
Tel: 020 8392 5330 ext: 2252 Email: secretariat@appsi.gsi.gov.uk
Ian Greenwood
Chief Information Officer Directorate
Defra
Area 1D
Ergon House
Horseferry Road
London
SW1P 2AL
Tuesday 26 May 2009
Dear Mr Greenwood,
Response to the consultation on the transposition of EC INSPIRE Directive
2007/2/EC into UK law
The Advisory Panel on Public Sector Information (APPSI) welcomes the opportunity to
respond to this consultation exercise. Our response provides:
An overview of APPSI
Overall comments on consultation
Answers to the consultation questions.
APPSI overview
APPSI is a Non-Departmental Public Body of the Ministry of Justice. Its members are
drawn from a wide variety of backgrounds including: information providers; re-users and
consumers of public-sector information; experts from academia and industry;
representatives of producer and consumer groups; and representatives of the devolved
administrations. Its role is:
To advise Ministers on how to encourage and create opportunities in the
information industry for greater re-use of public sector information;
To advise the Director of the Office of Public Sector Information and
Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office about changes and opportunities
in the information industry, so that the licensing of Crown copyright and public
sector information is aligned with current and emerging developments;
To review and consider complaints under the Re-use of Public Sector
Information Regulations 2005 and advise on the impact of the complaints
procedures under those regulations.
Overall comments on consultation
The Impact Assessment (IA) looked generally well-prepared, covering many
of the impacts that needed to be measured. The benefits assessment has
been undertaken in a conservative manner minimising the risk of optimism.
However, it is important that steps are taken to ensure that the benefits are
actually realised.
We are concerned that Statutory Instruments (SIs), and the IA, may not have
recognised that the geographic area relevant to the Directive is wider than the
UK – the Directive includes all areas where the UK has or exercises
jurisdictional rights. Hence, for example, it appears to include surrounding
sea areas and the atmosphere above them. The position of other areas, such
as the Falklands (and surrounding areas), Gibraltar and the Channel Islands
is not clear.
For clarity, the SIs should note that INSPIRE includes data held on behalf of
Public Authorities – thus data collected by the private sector may well be
included if it is part of a statutory requirement.
As a clarification, the Consultation Document should have made clear, in
Annex 5 (on Related UK legislation) that the EIR does not require all
information to be made available electronically and hence INSPIRE will not
apply to such information.
The underpinning idea of providing better access to information is strongly
supported by APPSI; however this approach can easily become overbureaucratic and expensive so safeguards to avoid this are essential.
Consultation questions and answers
1. Annex 1 Paragraph 2. We propose on grounds of consistency to adopt the
definitions of ‘public authority’ already used in the Environmental
Information Regulations (EIR) and Environmental Information (Scotland)
Regulations (EIR(Scotland)), rather than the definition in the INSPIRE
Directive. We would welcome your views.
See general comments above.
2. Annex 1 Paragraph 9(c)(i) concerns the limit we propose to put on the
application of INSPIRE to local authorities. The Directive generally applies
to public authorities but by way of derogation covers the lowest level of
government only if there are national laws or regulations requiring the
collection of spatial data sets. We intend to limit the scope of these
Statutory Instrument so that they apply only to District Councils or above
in England and their equivalents in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales;
and then only in circumstances in which such local authorities are legally
required to collect or disseminate spatial data sets. We would welcome
your views.
a. In so far as this seeks to limit the responsibility on such Public Authorities to
collecting such data as they already collect or are required to collect through
national statutes or regulation, this seems reasonable. This is supported by
pragmatic considerations: experience of the implementation of other
regulations (e.g. the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005)
by Public Authorities shows that where these bodies encounter additional
costs but see no benefits to themselves there is much reluctance to take
action.
b. On page 7 of the IA, why do the burdens on Local Authorities only mention
Annex I of the Directive? Annex III contains several themes which apply to
Local Authorities.
3. Annex 1 Paragraph 25 sets out the derogations on the provision of Network
Services. For example, public access to spatial data sets and discovery
services may be limited where this would adversely affect international
relations, public security or national defence. The Directive proposes wider
limitations for public access to spatial data sets and view, download,
transformation services and services allowing spatial data services to be
invoked which are also set out in paragraph 25. We propose to adopt these
when drafting the SIs and would welcome your views.
a. We fully understand the need to restrict access on these grounds but are
cautious that these can also be used inappropriately to minimise effort and
thwart the intentions of the Directive. For that reason, we believe that an
appropriate independent appeal mechanism should be put in place.
4. Annex 1 Paragraph 29 sets out the derogations on data access and sharing
between public authorities when this would compromise the course of
justice, public security, national defence or international relations. We
propose to adopt these when drafting the SIs and would welcome your
views.
a. Our view is identical to that in regard to Paragraph 25.
5. We would like to hear from you if you have any other issues about the way
we propose to transpose this Directive or the content of the SIs.
a. Notwithstanding the conservative approach utilised (see above), there is
potential for the costs to be greater than anticipated. The Assessment should
be on costs and realisable benefits, not budgets.
b. As an example of potentially increased costs, the IA currently costs the
transition to the new data standards for existing datasets, but assumes that
the on-going costs will be the same as in the past, i.e. no cost increase. The
IA argues that the current processes to store geographical information will
merely need adapting to new formats. However, this will be the lower bound
of costs; almost certainly being a number of new requirements that would
raise costs.
c. There are also a series of areas that are unclear or missing in the
Consultation Document. These are as follows:
i.
Page 6 of the IA, Implementation: why is there no mention of the
requirement for the facilities to be easy to use and accessible to the
public?
ii. Page 6: what about e-commerce facilities?
iii. Page 6: Article 14 of the Directive requires that some facilities are
available to the public free of charge (with limited exceptions). How are
these to be funded (both initially and on-going)? The free facilities include
many aspects of Network Services.
iv. Page 8: Option 2 – there are significant additional costs associated with
many of the Network Services, including services for discovery and view
which generally have to be provided free of charge to the public. Who will
pay for these?
v. Page 8: Option 2 – what evidence is there that work can be
accommodated within planned expenditure? Have all Public Authorities
that have such work been consulted?
If you wish to discuss any of the points set out in our response to this consultation,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Grazia Zaffuto
APPSI Secretariat