Audrey Mandela: Public Sector Information Policy: On the Right Track?

Public Sector Information Policy: On the Right Track? Audrey Mandela Chair The Locus Association

Public Sector Information (PSI) matters
The Locus Association was established to encourage the public sector to maintain a trading environment that is fair and equitable, in particular in relation to the licensing and re-use of public sector information
“ Between 15% and 25% of commercial information products and services are based on information held by the public sector.” (Lord Falconer, former Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor)
“ Government is a natural monopolist for most PSI.” (Treasury Spending Review)
“ Geographic information is a key element in PSI.” (European Union study by PIRA)
Over £500 million of lost value to the economy because of current arrangements. (OFT Commercial Use of Public Information Market Study)

The current position on PSI trading is not optimal….. for business or for government
Locus does not believe PSI should necessarily be free
Key PSI Holders focus on exploitation, not maximization of re-use
Public task is poorly defined
Commercial conflicts of interest are endemic
Legal, sales and marketing overheads
Investment to challenge existing private sector products
Restrictive licensing
Inhibits Government operations
Impedes modernization – unsuited for Internet use
Limits transformation and sharing services
Disadvantages citizens – lack of choice
Strong disincentive to private sector investment, enterprise and innovation

What is actually happening? Operational Efficiency Review consequences Defending PSI appears to PSI Holders to be in the national interest
New public guidelines are vague and come from a variety of (sometimes conflicting) independent reports:
- CUPI Study (OFT)
- Power of Information Study and Taskforce
- Cambridge Study
Private acceptance that PSI Holders must “sweat the assets” Barriers have stopped coming down

Government is the main user of PSI but there is a high cost of non-statutory data Limitations of use, for example on Internet Unnecessary gold-plating of data quality Questionable efficiency vis a vis the private sector Lack of choice because monopoly providers Tortuous licensing Complex negotiations

Private sector blocked from innovation Limitations of use, especially on Internet Opaque accounting, cross-subsidization Competitive threat (and now reality) Unfair behaviour and terms Inadequate regulatory framework

The playing-field is not level
Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) has no real regulatory power
OPSI obliged to support government policy – not all stakeholders
PSI Holders have substantial resource to defend their business models. [ OPSI’s entire annual budget is less than OS spends on lawyers alone]
“ Information Fair Trader Scheme” is an “agreement” designed to encourage best practice – not to enforce it. Not open to Judicial Review
OPSI’s only sanctions are too nuclear
The PSI Regulations exclude vital PSI and need tightening
The National Audit Office remit is too high-level
The Office of Fair Trading can only “investigate” 1 in 30 complaints
Stimulating PSI re-use requires all barriers to be removed

The Cambridge Study
Socially optimal policy would involve moving to marginal cost charging for a subset of products
Having proper governance/regulatory regime in place is central to realising benefits of change:
Public Task currently poorly defined
Trading Funds have no incentive to minimise cost but only to match cost to revenues
Trading funds can currently always raise prices and increase revenues to meet costs
Leads to gold-plating of products and over-investment
A change in charging regime should not have an impact on data quality or efficiency
Shareholder Executive advising Trading Funds but the Shareholder Executive only represents interests of some stakeholders

At present the UK government does not have a viable policy
Gives away some data
Sells some data
“ Public Task” boundaries are blurred
Aggregation of “Product” costs permitted
Cross-subsidisation condoned
Unrefined and refined data costs merged
Lack of clear and effective regulation tolerated

Government must decide….
a) If it continues commercial activities
How to separate clearly and fairly, commercial activities from those of its data collection activities
b) If it retrenches and focuses purely on data collection activities
Whether to provide them free or
At real cost (plus margin) for each data collection activity

What is needed?
Decisions about what government should be doing in this space
Information about what PSI is available
Clarity about use conditions
A level competitive playing-field. Some Trading Funds are almost certainly acting anti-competitively. Privatisation is thus impossible.
A review process that is relatively swift, low cost, open, adequately independent and robust
Transparent outcomes within a realistic timetable
Certainty that decisions will be implemented promptly

THE LOCUS ASSOCIATION PO Box 54826 London SW1Y 4XX Tel: 020 7930 9788 Fax: 020 7976 1680 Email: harriet@quintuspa.com Web: www.locusassociation.co.uk

Audrey Mandela: Public Sector Information Policy: On the Right Track?

by AGI Geocommunity on Sep 15, 2009

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

2 Embeds 10

Statistics

Audrey Mandela: Public Sector Information Policy: On the Right Track? — Presentation Transcript

http://www.geocommunitylive.com	8
http://www.slideshare.net	2