9. List of recommendations

Introduction

The key issue for the review is the licensing of the use or re-use of government information. We are not dealing here with printed booklets or other familiar forms of publication. (Paragraph 2.3) Where Crown copyright has been waived this information does not fall within the review. (Paragraph 2.4) It also excludes Information not available to external users because of its sensitivity, eg because it concerns matters which are sub-judice, is of a particularly personal nature, is commercially confidential, etc. The Freedom of Information Bill lists the categories of unpublished information which the Government has proposed should be exempt from the general right of access to information, including information which is required to be made available under other enactments and, for example, information held with the intention to publish.(Paragraphs 4.3 and 4.10)The use of government information in the production of non-information products ( e.g machinery, clothing, souvenirs etc) is not covered by the recommendations (and may require a separate licence).

Recommendations

1. Government trading funds

Government trading funds which trade information should improve their pricing and dissemination polices. (Paragraphs 1.16 and 5.20)
A policy of encouraging price differentiation through product differentiation is appropriate. This would see fixed costs recovered equally between users of the same services but on a variable basis between services according to the type of service. (Paragraph 5.19).

2. Elsewhere

In departments and agencies (other than trading funds) there should be a move to an immediate policy of marginal cost pricing (unless, in any specific case, a statutory enactment indicates otherwise). This should apply to the licensing of raw data but not where the government adds value to material. (Paragraph 1.16 and 5.20 and 5.22)
Marginal costs be defined as costs, including costs of staff time, reasonably incurred in locating and retrieving the information, and giving effect to the requesters preferred medium for the reply (which could be different to that in which the department currently held it); and also the disbursements directly incurred in communicating the information, eg printing, postage etc. (Paragraph 5.21)

3. All government bodies, including those for whom the general rule of marginal cost pricing applied in relation to raw data should still be free to develop value-added services charged at market prices. This should preferably occur through partnership with the private sector under the Treasury's initiative Selling Government Services into Wider Markets and provided that this can be achieved in a transparent manner and in a way which creates a level playing field among all market participants. (Paragraph 1.17 and 5.23)

4. The draft class licence should be finalised in the light of the other recommendations of the review, agreed by the Crown copyright user group and implemented as soon as possible. (Paragraph 1.19 and 6.8)

5. Annual fees

Consideration should be given to levying annual fees where a data set or information source has been particularly expensive to collect, or where government has gone beyond its own needs - so that the commercial re-use of this data is subject to a fixed annual fee set at a level designed to make a contribution to overhead costs but preclude the necessity of negotiations. (Paragraph 1.20 and 6.11)
If this approach is adopted we think fees should be set on a data-set specific basis and in the range of around £1,000 to £10,000 and that they should only be levied with the prior agreement of HMSO. (Paragraph 6.12)

6. HMSO should operate as a central point of contact for businesses which wish to repackage government content and services. HMSO would help navigate the private sector around government, and ensure that for their part departments are cooperative. (Paragraph 1.23 and 7.3)

7. HMSO

A repositioned HMSO should be established as the regulatory body for government content. (Paragraph 1.25 and 7.5)

It would have the following functions:

act as a guide around departments and processes for private sector companies;
promoting dialogue with the private sector; ensuring a level playing field; help to ensure that departments comply with requests to release data, and that the quality of services are the same for private and public sector customers;
in due course to provide a single point of licensing for most Crown copyright. (Paragraphs 1.24 and 7.4)

c. The new body should work closely with an advisory panel of representatives drawn from the public and private sectors. (Paragraph 7.6)

d. The new body will need to develop:

the ability to require minimum standards of departments, including abiding by a Fair Trading Charter;
a new complaints procedure which provides real and credible remedies where departments fail to adhere to their published service standards. (Paragraphs 1.26 and 7.7)

8. As soon as possible a consultation paper should be issued on the future role and scope for the new regulatory body elaborating upon the proposals set out in the report. (Paragraph 1.27 and 7.8)

9. Delegations of authority for the reuse of information, except for trading funds, should be rescinded on a timetable in line with the introduction of the new charging and licensing arrangements. (Paragraph 1.28 and 7.9)

10. The new regulatory body should develop proposals for a licensing task force comprising its own and Treasury staff whose remit will be to work closely with individual agencies (starting with the trading funds) to bring charging polices and licences into line with those set out in this report. (Paragraph 1.28 and 7.9)

11. Proposals should be developed for the publication of departmental and agency compliance league tables for publication. (Paragraph 1.28 and 7.9)

12. All government bodies should meet the HMSO timescale for the creation of their information asset registers, and should be tasked with speeding-up where necessary to achieve this, so that these can be cross-searched from the HMSO "inforoute" site. (Paragraph 7.9)

13. Upon acceptance of this report, public sector copyright owners other than the Crown, such as local authorities and non-departmental public bodies should be asked to review their charging and licensing and access strategies and align them with the more liberal approach being proposed in relation to Crown copyright. (Paragraph 1.29 and 8.3)

14. There should be a presumption in favour of public information being made available in digital format and a prohibition on exclusive arrangements between departments and agencies and the private sector for the digitisation of public sector information where this unreasonably restricts access and/or commercial reuse of the material. (Paragraph 1.30 and 8.2)

15. Further work should be undertaken by the Treasury and the DTI on the economics of information pricing with a view to developing further the evidence base and to inform future policy decisions. (Paragraph 5.11)

Internal links

Spending Review: Cross Cutting Reviews Index

9. List of recommendations

Internal links

Internal Links