Local Public Data Panel – Ninth Meeting 19th July 2011

Meeting note

Panel: Professor Nigel Shadbolt (Chair), Tim Allen (Local Government Association Representative), Roger Hampson (London Borough of Redbridge), Chris Taggart (Openlylocal.com), Janet Hughes (London Assembly), William Perrin (Talk About Local), Nick Aldridge (Mission Fish), Jos Creese (Hampshire County Council), Liam Maxwell (RB Windsor & Maidenhead / Director ICT Futures), Ex Officio: Shehla Husain (DCLG).

Apologies:  Baroness Hanham (DCLG), Dave Smith (Sunderland City Council), Cass Chideock (Cabinet Office), Emer Coleman (London Assembly), Steve Peters (DCLG)

Other Attendees: Ruth Hayes (DCLG), Julie Stephenson (DCLG), Clive Paulse (DCLG)

Secretariat: Philip Worsfold and Padma Juggapah (DCLG).

Item 1: Minutes, Matters Arising

Minutes of the 23^rd March 2011 meeting were agreed. Philip Worsfold updated on progress against previous actions.

VAT/Fraud

A consultation on whether to publish VAT registration numbers was on hold pending introduction of unique reference indicators for Government suppliers as announced by the Prime Minister. It was hoped these URIs would meet the objective of greater transparency on Government suppliers but without the concerns associated with personal data or a risk of fraud. Potential use of the Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) had been suggested.

• There were serious concerns about potential use of DUNS as this was a proprietary data set not available for free re-use. It was essential the Government avoided commissioning costly, private solutions to improve transparency on who did business with Government.
• The Panel’s view remained that, subject to mitigating perceived risks of fraud, VAT numbers provided an important data set that should help to improve transparency of payments to suppliers.

Action: 

• DCLG to clarify position on possible use of DUNS numbers.

Local Authority Expenditure Data and Open Government License Framework

The LG Group had promoted use of Open Government License through various guidance documents, workshops with local authorities in relation to the Knowledge Hub and Inform projects and the Communities of Practice.

• The Panel agreed there was growing awareness and use of the Open Government License though this was not yet default, business as usual activity. 

Public Data Corporation (PDC)

Machinery of Government changes had been announced as part of transition to the PDC. These saw the Land Registry, Ordnance Survey and Met Office come under the responsibility of BIS. A consultation on creation of the PDC was expected shortly.

Making a Difference with Data

Use of programme underspend had been confirmed by DCLG. Given the Panel’s interest in seeing the platform continue, provision of possible further support had been made. This was subject to a decision on a wider package of support for how DCLG published its data. The position would be confirmed in August.

Panel Chair’s Letter to the Secretary of State

The Chair had written to the Secretary of State seeking to renew the Panel’s mandate. [Response received 20 July].

Data from Arms Length Bodies

This action was ongoing. The Panel’s guidance had been included in the checklist for Records Officers on what ALBs should be doing as part of their exit strategies. Web content was being archived by TNA but it was not clear to what extent other content was being registered. The situation was complicated by the nature of change affecting ALBs – some were merging into new agencies with other functions being absorbed in to ‘parent’ Departments.

• It was important to make better progress this area. Greater clarity was needed on data, not located on websites, that was being archived.

Action:

Secretariat to provide a fuller update.

Item 2: Terms of Reference

Shehla Husain introduced the draft Terms of Reference (ToR). These were based on priorities set out in the Chair’s letter to the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister’s recent letter to Cabinet and the Open Public Services White Paper. In discussion, the following points were made:

• It was essential to regularly review the Panel’s purpose.
• Existing members were happy to remain on the Panel, and to meet on a 6 weekly cycle, but there needed to be more opportunities for others to get involved.
• The Panel was not going to be able to achieve everything by itself. It was vital the Panel championed release of data through others.
• The pace of change promised by Ministers was not being delivered because of barriers within public authorities. Thought was therefore needed, in particular, on how to better engage with the open data community to help ensure progress.
• The main driver for opening public data remained for citizens to be in charge, which was underplayed in the draft ToR. Similarly, the Panel needed to support the release of public data for business re-use, public service delivery and increased productivity. As such the scope needed to cover all local public service data not only that held by local authorities.
• The Panel’s success measures needed specific examples of data to be released by sector – for example in transport, public assets or health.
• It was important DCLG did not act as Gatekeeper to the rest of Whitehall. Panel members needed broad access to help open up all government data. Coordination with other new ‘sector boards’ was also needed to avoid duplication.
• The Panel should make better use of common web resources to engage the wider community. Conference calling should also be used than solely relying on face-to-face meetings.
• More frequent reporting against actions between meetings was needed to improve visibility on the progress being made. The Cabinet Office team produced a weekly digest of actions. It would be useful for this to be circulated.

Action:

• DCLG to amend draft ToR accounting for Panel views.
• DCLG to report on use of 2010/11 programme funding.

Item 3: Priorities

Following discussion of new ToR, the Panel discussed future priority actions

• Effort should be focussed on releasing the public data that people wanted. In general this interest was about everyday issues than the costs of contracts. To ensure this, the ambition should remain for all non-personal data to be made accessible.
• Recent research from SOCITM provided insight into data the people were most interested. This was, for example, about housing repairs, street scene, special waste collections or roads and lighting.
• With abolition of the Audit Commission a gap had emerged in provision of data that should be made available for armchair auditors. Too many repeat Freedom of Information requests were also needed to obtain data. Release of information needed to follow ‘right to data’ whereby the information continued to be routinely published.
• It was important to overcome the cultural barriers that remained in public bodies. There were still issues about fear for reputation, concerns about mis-use of data, the costs of redacting personal information and updating systems to make publication easier. The Panel needed to show that making data available was not as difficult as it was often perceived and that it positively changed behaviours.

• The Panel should champion examples of best practice possibly through sponsorship of a prize.  Reputation remained a key driver for embracing greater transparency.  For example, linking data on pollution levels with Met Office forecast data and the means of contacting residents had the potential to save lives. Such innovation in public bodies should be celebrated.
• Work was needed to deal with closed but published data. For example, helping the move away from publishing in PDF formats that held non-linkable data.

• Elected members needed to play a central role in opening up data held within authorities. There was a wealth of information not being made available to councillors who had the ability to challenge and scrutinise. This was a focus of action for the Local Government Group. It was also suggested the Secretary of State should help engage councillors with the open data movement.
• Specific data sets needed to be opened to demonstrate success. For example, it had become apparent the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) had developed a database of parish councils with the aid of a DCLG grant.  As public funds had been used this database should be published for re-use.
• Some policies, such as the community rights agenda, required the aggressive release of data to be successfully implemented. It would be beneficial to map these flagship policies and examine gaps in the availability of open data.
• It would also be useful for the Panel to feed ideas into transparency commitments made in future Structural Reform Plans.

Actions:

• DCLG to engage NALC on publication of the parish council database.
• DCLG to map thematic policy areas against current data collections.

Item 4 DCLG Structural Reform Plan

Philip Worsfold updated on DCLG’s Structural Reform Plan commitment to explore ways to identify spending to the voluntary and community sectors. This commitment stemmed from wanting a clearer view of how the VCS was being affected by the local government finance settlement and, over time, the impact of further transfer of services. The Department was keen for a data-led response given the availability of £500 expenditure and existence of projects such as Open Charities.

• The Office for Civil Society was also working in this area. The Departments needed to join up.
• The Open Charities project provided the solution to this problem using a representative group of local authorities, charities and companies. The issue was about sustainability of this project.
• There would never be 100% coverage of all VCS organisations through the data - charities were the only ones that had a unique identifier separate to names.
• An open list of parish councils would also help contribute to the national picture.
• The charitable sector also needed to participate through open access of their own data.

Action:

DCLG to engage Nick Aldridge, Chris Taggart and Tim Allen as this project develops.

Item 5: Spotlightonspend – update

Chris Taggart updated on recent contact with Spikes Cavell Ltd to confirm whether a separation procedure agreed in 2010 had been completed. This separation was needed to safeguard open access to the raw local authority accounts data. It was not yet clear that the procedure had been completed but a further update from Spikes Cavell had been promised.

• It was essential there was not privileged access to the raw data generated by local authority accounts systems.
• There should be a further engagement with Spikes Cavell Ltd to confirm there was equal access to the raw local authority data.

Item 6 Capital Assets Map Project / Public Sector Mapping Agreement

Ruth Hayes updated on the development of a Public Sector Asset map. A demonstrator map had been drawn from four national databases and a number of local datasets and most of the data could be openly viewed, downloaded and re-used. However easting, northing and area fields were Ordnance Survey (OS) derived data and therefore commercially restricted.. This was recognised to be an imperfect solution. There were two options on which Baroness Hanham asked for the Panel’s view: 1) whether to proceed and publish the demonstrator map making as much of the data openly available as possible and the remainder under an end user licence restricting commercial re-use or 2) waiting until the position on derived data was clear.

• The Panel endorsed a move to publish the demonstrator map now, opening up as much data as possible. However, this was far from satisfactory.
• The Panel wished to understand why the Ordnance Survey had turned down the DCLG’s request for the relevant data to be exempted from licensing (Action DCLG). It was a concern that OS acted as the arbiter of its own decisions.
• This case provided a practical example of how licensing requirements undermined the important policy objectives set by Ministers. It was likely there were others, for example in the development of neighbourhood planning. The demonstrator map should be used as a test case to articulate the current problem and highlight the merits of an open solution.
• It was important to confirm exact working of the terms of the Public Sector Mapping Agreement to see if it now allowed anyone to download and use the data for non commercial purposes. (Action DCLG).
• This highlighted the need for clarity on what was judged to be premium data where there was a case for some charging. Clarity following consultation on the Public Data Corporation was vitally important so that the citizen’s interest was safeguarded rather simply the interests government or shareholders.

At 15.40 the Chair left to attend the Public Sector Transparency Board. Shehla Husain took the Chair.

Item 7: Panel Position Statement “Public Data, Private Companies”

Janet Hughes summarised comments made on an earlier draft position statement. It was necessary to reconcile the comments to finalise the statement prior to final publication:

• The final statement needed to provide a positive view on the benefits of opening up public data in the broadest sense. At present there was an over emphasis on a risk that public data could be lost. This set the wrong tone.
• The Panel statement needed to be clear that FOI interest should be limited to specific contracts. Public rights of access to information should not disappear as a result of increasingly porous boundaries between public and private bodies delivering services.  However, it was not appropriate, for example, that a small charitable organisation be subject to the full requirements of FOI as a result of a single contract.
• The expectation of access to information relating to public contracts needed to be integral to procurement practice. The public interest in the performance of services would often outweigh any commercial sensitivity.
• The statement needed to reflect that there was already a significant outsourcing of service.
• There was debate on the inclusion of a second principle that all public data should be released freely for re-use, including for commercial purposes. While it was appropriate for the Open Government License to become the default for most public data, the boundaries on what it was acceptable to charge for were not yet clear pending development of the Public Data Corporation. It was agreed to remove the second principle.
• There should be a clear statement that open data reduced the costs associated with answering FOI cases.

Action: Janet Hughes to revise the position statement in light of Panel discussions.

Item 8: Any Other Business

• Nick Aldridge updated on work by the Charity Commission and Charities Aid Foundation to open the data they received from charities direct.
• The Panel agreed, as part of its priority work, for the significant thematic policies in DCLG to be mapped against central or local data requirements. This would facilitate a better understanding of the open data needed by communities to make the policy successful.

Date of Future Meeting:

29 Sept 11, 2:30 – 4:30

By Local Data Panel