Local Public Data Panel – seventh meeting 9th February 2011

Meeting note

Panel:  Professor Nigel Shadbolt (Chair), Tim Allen (Local Government Association), Roger Hampson (London Borough of Redbridge), Chris Taggart (Openlylocal.com), Janet Hughes (London Assembly), Nick Aldridge (Mission Fish), Conn Crawford (for Dave Smith - Sunderland City Council), Jos Creese - Hampshire County Council), Ex Officio: Katie Davis - Cabinet Office), Hulya Mustafa (DCLG).

Apologies:  William Perrin (Talk About Local), Cllr Liam Maxwell (RB Windsor & Maidenhead)

Other Attendees: Baroness Hanham (Items 1-3), Emer Coleman (London Assembly), Ruth Hayes and Clive Paulse (DCLG – for item on Capital Asset Pathfinders)

Secretariat: Philip Worsfold and Padma Juggapah.

Item 1: Minutes / Actions

Minutes of the 16 December 2010 meeting were agreed. The DCLG team working on the community rights to bid / buy had been required to attend Parliamentary debate on the Localism Bill. It was agreed this item would be considered at the next meeting.

Hulya Mustafa updated on progress against previous actions.

VAT/Fraud

An HMRC-led risk assessment had been completed, which had suggested there was little additional risk of fraud to central departments from publication of VAT registration number (VRN). The Information Commissioner had been asked for an opinion on whether a VRN was public or private data and how they should be treated.

• As the transparency agenda progressed it was important to avoid insular consideration of issues as they arose. This helped ensure better consideration of risk / rewards from the opening up data. It was important both FOI and Data Protection sides were equally considered.
• Once a final position had been established it was important for the LGA to ensure local authorities were informed.

Action: Confirm final position on publication of VAT number and include in guidance to local authorities (Hulya Mustafa/Tim Allen).

Public Data/Private Companies

The Panel had not yet agreed a position statement on how this issue should be handled.

• The issue was central to the Ministry of Justice and Cabinet Office plans to extend the FOI Act but a number of unknown factors existed, such as the future role of the Public Data Corporation.
• Small amendments to the FOI Act were being prepared so that data needed to be proactively published for re-use and in re-useable formats. It was suggested all information released under FOI should be under the Open Government License and be added to the list of regularly released data sets.
• The Panel agreed to feed into the broader review of FOI by the Ministry of Justice.

Action: Panel members to be canvassed for participation in sub group, working with Katie Davis, to establish a position statement.

Data Literacy

Effort was needed to sustain existing and encourage new developer interest in local public data. This was especially true outside of developers operating outside of London.

Item 2: Matters Arising

Local Authority Expenditure Data

All bar one English local authority had started to publish expenditure details. Nottingham City Council had stated that it would not publish expenditure details until it became a formal requirement. A number of challenges remained, not least improving the quality of data, but the Panel commended the impressive response from local authorities. Promotional activity was needed to celebrate this success, highlight good practice examples and identify next steps to improve the quality of data.

• Many local authorities had enthusiastically responded to the release of data and had proactively sought to improve future data releases.
• Other local authorities remained reluctant participants and were only publishing the minimum expected. It was therefore important to maintain momentum.
• Around 50 local authorities were publishing data in .pdf format only.It was important that future publication moved toward machine-readable data so that it could be better linked and reused.
• A period of consolidation was needed to ensure publication became business as usual and systematic.
• An important next step was also to improve accessibility of the data for the public and scrutiny politicians. It was essential for clarity on what the purpose of each item of expenditure had been. The data needed to become more meaningful through, for example, use of clearer descriptors; better commentary made the data more useful.
• It was necessary for closer working with the companies that produced finance reporting systems. This would help ensure easier production of better data at source.
• The publication of supplier information had proved the more useful data set than information from service categories. There was inconsistency between use of major budget lines and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Codes. Revenue Outturn forms to DCLG remained an important source of data yet to be opened up.
• Continued effort was needed to improve data but it was also important that the standards currently set by local authorities were adopted by the whole public sector. Local authorities were in many ways setting the standard.

Actions:

Publicity to highlight local authority progress, distil some lessons learned to help stimulate improved returns and suggest how data can become more meaningful for people. (Chris Taggart to blog on release of data thus far; Emer Coleman/Tim Allen).

Analysis of local authority publication returns to be circulated (Tim Allen).

Panel to input into Cabinet Office redesign of the data.gov.uk to highlight success of local authority expenditure data publication. (Nigel Shadbolt)

Crime Data Map

The release of the Home Office’s Crime Data Map on 1^st February established many positive features to build on for future release of information. The data had been provided in .csv format, under the Open Government License and established a “privacy tariff” to help test release of certain crime data. The police.uk site achieved 5million hits per hour when first released.  The release therefore represented the beginning of improved releases with a number of police forces expected to go further with their data.

• This was the biggest release of crime data to date anywhere in the world. The Home Office should be congratulated for making progress in a short period of time.
• It was important the data release facilitate a change of attitude within police forces. The Home Office and police forces needed to be encouraged to understand the beneficial effects of the data release and learn from inevitable mistakes made along the way.
• There was room for improvement. The data changed from month to month and the system did not allow for continuity of information; it simply provided a monthly snapshot. The timeliness of data could also be improved. There was an opportunity to have different privacy tariffs for different types of crime and public place ASBOs.
• The data could only become transformative when it became tied to the wider criminal justice system.

Action: Panel views to be reported back to the Home Office (Hulya Mustafa)

Making a Difference with Data project

The Panel was updated on this project, which recognised the need to understand and champion the life changing potential of data.  The project focussed on five areas of activity:

-          the www.madwdata.org micro site, which provided examples of effective data use. Six content editors were in place with tools to access data;

-          two workshops hosted in the Midlands with councillors and bloggers;

-          an event on 18^th March to promote the project and micro site;

-          a Local Transparency Speaker Group

-          production of guidance on how to use data – for example ‘ how to save your library’

Item 3: Capital Asset Pathfinders

Ruth Hayes presented on the DCLG Capital Asset Pathfinders project, which proposed to map all public sector land and property assets (slides separately attached). There were 11 Pathfinders different types of local authority working with DCLG to map all public assets in the locality. The value of public sector assets were estimated at £370bn and was essential to better understand current capital and asset supply to help ensure joined up services, a smaller estate that performed better and to help realise cash savings from asset disposal. Potential benefits ranged from better asset management by local authorities and implementation other policy areas such as the ‘community right to buy’. The project was focussed on development of a methodology, release of demonstrator map in April and had concentrated on getting together the basic data needed to populate a national map.

• There was a clear relationship to the National Address Gazetteer, valuations, local development frameworks and planning status of land
• Joint ownership with the local government sector would be crucial to role out a national map. It was important to decentralise the asset management task to local government. The map and methodology should therefore be promoted as a self-help tool.
• The Public Data Corporation was unlikely to be a key factor in systemising the methodology.
• The focus on getting previously unreleased data published in open standards was welcomed. It was not necessarily a dataset of major interest to developers at this time but there was clear potential for by-products to come about in the future.

Action: consideration on how best to ensure systematic provision of asset data (Ruth Hayes /Tim Allen, LG Group)

Item 4: Public Data Corporation

The Panel discussed the creation of the Public Data Corporation. Katie Davis explained that the PDC had three objectives: making more data freely available, efficiency and maximising value of data the government held. A public evidence gathering process was planned to improve understanding of the issues that needed to be addressed to achieve those objectives. The process was governed by a Steering Group, Chaired by BIS, and involving the Cabinet Office and HM Treasury. The Panel’s advice on how to proceed was welcomed as part of the wider public process.

• While the PDC objectives seemed clear, clarity was needed on the problem(s) it was seeking to overcome. It was suggested that the most important question to answer was “when it was appropriate for the public sector to charge for use of data”?
• At present there was an inconsistency, across the wider range of public services, where it was deemed appropriate for the state to charge for services. A financial model existed that made sense for open publication of government data. This should be pursued.
• It was important that evidence gathering and development process was conducted in an open and public manner. This was a sensitive and significant issue that would benefit from challenges external to Government and Civil Service thinking. Transparency Board input was especially important.
• The Panel needed to agree a set of questions it wanted answered as part of the evidence gathering process.

Action: Panel to develop set of questions to be answered and feed in views via the public process. Panel representatives to meet with PDC steering group. (Secretariat)

Item 5: Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Data Transparency

The DCLG Secretary of State had published for consultation a Code of Recommended Practice on local authority data transparency http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/codepracticeladataconsult .  The Code was intended to enshrine the principles of transparency, lock in progress made to date publishing £500 expenditure and set out the minimum data sets that people should expect to see published by local authorities.  The consultation was open until 14 March.

• The draft code appeared to cover key elements of how to increase data transparency in local authorities.
• The status of the final Code was questioned. It was important to clarify the nature of ‘recommended practice’.
• There needed to be more open discussion about how to embed a culture of transparency in local authorities and other public bodies.
• The local data agenda needed to move beyond a focus on particular data sets and to help change the culture so that all appropriate data was proactively released.

Action: Panel members to offer views on DCLG consultation on Code of Recommended Practice on local authority data transparency. DCLG to brief Panel on consultation at next meeting.

Item 6: Any Other Business

The Panel agreed the need for an update on the handling of endangered datasets from Arms Length Bodies (Hulya Mustafa / Katie Davis)

There was a need to identify examples of innovative use of local authority data so that these could be promoted. (Panel members)

A summary of responses to the LG Group’s Contracts Guidance should be circulated to the Panel. (Tim Allen)

Date of Future Meetings:

23^rd March 2011, 14:00 - 16:30

Local Public Data Panel Secretariat

11 February 2011

By Local Data Panel