III Government policy on information in the UK

Section Contents

• Introduction
• Policy background
• Next Steps programme
• HM Treasury fees and charges guide
• Tradeable Information Initiative
• Open Government White Paper
• Other potentially relevant policy proposals
• Campaign for the Freedom of Information
• Labour Party
• European Union Directives
• Overall conclusions

Introduction

In this section, we review and highlight:

• the policy background with regard to information collection and provision by central government bodies;
• the relevant aspects of government policy on Executive Agencies: the Next Steps programme;
• the relevant issues from HM Treasury's Fees and Charges Guide;
• the key provisions of the Tradeable Information Initiative;
• the Open Government White Paper and subsequent Code of Practice on Access to Government Information; other relevant policy proposals; and
• overall conclusions on the policy framework.

Policy background

Government policy on the provision of data has evolved over many decades. The collection of much government information has traditionally been funded by the taxpayer with charges reflecting only the costs of dissemination ("paper and ink"). For most government information, the historical reason for collecting the data was to support basic government functions, for example:

• Meteorological Office (MO), Ordnance Survey (OS), Hydrographic Office (HO) data to support military functions;
• Central Statistical Office (CSO) and Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) data to support management of the macroeconomy and policy-making in government;
• Companies House (CH) and the Land Registries (HMLR and RoS) to support the smooth operation of markets and to permit the operation of key concepts such as limited liability.

Over time, data have become more widely used, but traditional funding arrangements remained in place until very recently. Providers are now expected, however, to conduct their activities in a more commercial way as a result of a combination of factors including:

• a wider programme of reassessing the role of government, with emphasis on privatisation, deregulation and market testing;
• pressures on government to constrain spending; and
• increasing demand for data and higher quality datasets, partly as a result of improvements in computer technology, which also adds to the financial pressure on information providers.

Similar, more commercial, policies are now being adopted in other countries reflecting, in part, pressures on government expenditure, but also greater acceptance by governments of the benefits of market forces.

As part of this broad policy shift:

• HM Treasury has provided guidelines on the pricing of services to other government departments and on commercial activities;
• the Department of Trade and Industry launched a Tradeable Information Initiative which provides specific guidelines to information providers encouraging them to recognise and exploit the commercial value of their data.

There is now, however, a growing conflict between these policies and pressure for more open access to government information. Some of the main reasons for this latter pressure have been:

• developments in computer technology, which have made it easier and cheaper to disseminate and manipulate data;
• an increase in the amount of data that is available in digital form, increasing the range of possible applications;
• growing concern about "environmental" issues;
• the adoption of Freedom of Information legislation in many English-speaking economies; and
• EU Directives on access to data.

This conflict is highlighted through the remainder of this section.

We also note another important shift in government policy towards information collection. From the Rayner review of the early 1980s until 1995, statistics were only collected that were essential to government. No account was taken of the needs of outside bodies. Now it has been agreed that it is acceptable to collect valuable national information which can be collected at marginal cost on the back of other data collection.

This shift also highlights a potential conflict as the roles of the public and private sector begin to blur.

Next Steps programme

The principal UK government information providers, with the exception of the British Geological Survey and other parts of the Natural Environment Research Council, are all Executive Agencies. Many have, or are about to have, Trading Fund status. The aim of government in the Next Steps programme, which was launched in 1988, was for executive functions to be carried out in a progressively more businesslike and effective way. Each agency has key performance objectives including financial, efficiency and customer service targets. These targets have become more demanding over time, reflecting the need to ensure that limited public resources are used with maximum effectiveness and efficiency. The government's view is that this has benefited both the taxpayer and customers.

This financial regime has been a significant influence on many information providers. There has not yet been a privatisation of a government information provider, but Her Majesty's Stationary Office (HMSO) is currently being considered as a candidate. Ordnance Survey is currently working on clarifying the obstacles to, and investigating the costs and benefits of, privatisation; a further review of its status will take place in 1999 and it will meanwhile remain an Agency. The Meteorological Office has reviewed the possibility of privatisation but there are currently no plans for this to happen.

Overall, these moves have been accompanied by increasing cost recovery levels and, where appropriate, consideration of more arms-length contracting with key government users.

HM Treasury fees and charges guide

The latest edition of the HM Treasury guide on fees and charges was published in 1992. The general principle is that prices should be set to recover full costs, including a 6% rate of return on capital, to ensure efficiency in the allocation of resources, but:

• for statutory services, the guide stresses that charges should not be set so as to deliberately generate a surplus;
• for government departments, the guide recognises that charges will be determined by financial objectives, but repeats that, in principle, charges should still be set to recover costs in order to provide greater incentives for services to be used efficiently and to encourage the supplying department to provide value for money;
• for commercial services, the guide recognises that there might be deviation from this principle in circumstances of excess demand or capacity, but stresses that:
• this should be given careful consideration given the need for competition to be fair;
• only in exceptional circumstances is cross-subsidisation allowable; and
• in no circumstances should prices be set below marginal cost.

The guide places constraints on the commercial activities of publicly-owned providers. It states that commercial services should be provided by the private rather than the public sector, particularly where the public sector might be competing with the private sector. The fact that the public sector might be able to provide a service as well as or as cheaply as the private sector is not regarded as a reason, in itself, for the public sector being involved in commercial activities. The guide notes that these commercial activities will not normally be central to the objectives of a government body.

Tradeable Information Initiative

The Department of Trade and Industry first published its Tradeable Information Initiative in 1986. This initiative specifically encourages holders of government information to recognise its commercial value. The government's objectives are stated to be as follows:

• to promote growth in the UK information services market;
• to promote efficiency and thus improve competitiveness in the economy, through the use of commercial electronic services; and
• to make as much government-held information as possible available for the information industry and to assist the private sector to turn the data into electronic information services.

Under this initiative, providers are expected to observe HM Treasury guidelines on fees and charges (Note 1), but clarification is provided on the circumstances when providers might deviate from full cost recovery. The Tradeable Information Initiative states that:

• where a market is developed, providers should charge a reasonable market price for information;
• where information has not previously been exploited, charges might initially be based on marginal cost.

The DTI also says that providers should not:

• normally introduce electronic information services in competition with an existing private sector service;
• introduce an electronic service, even where the private sector does not already provide one, without first considering whether the private sector should provide this service instead;
• introduce an information service in any form on an uncommercial basis where a similar service is being provided by the private sector; or
• normally negotiate exclusive contracts.

This Initiative has also provided a stimulus to the use of geospatial data by requiring Government departments to create a comprehensive list and description of their data and information holdings. This exercise brought to light many previously less well known government sources of data.[Note 2] Against this background, the Ordnance Survey is now taking an active role in the management of geographically referenced datasets.

There appears to be broad consistency between this Initiative and the HM Treasury guidelines on fees and charges, both in terms of pricing issues and positioning in relation to private sector provision. Moreover, both documents provide some flexibility. However the HMT guidelines envisage that commercial services will not normally be central to the activities of a government body whilst the DTI TII exhorts such bodies to generate the maximum revenue from information trading.

Open Government White Paper

The Open Government White Paper, issued in 1993, sets out standards for the disclosure of information, in response to growing pressure for more open access. The government's three stated objectives were:

• to handle information in a way which promotes informed policy-making and debate and efficient service delivery;
• to provide timely and accessible information to explain Government's policies, actions and decisions; and
• to restrict access to information only where there are good reasons for doing so.

The Code of Practice on Access to Government Information is one of a package of measures for achieving these objectives. It came into force on 4 April 1994; it provides common standards for the disclosure of information and covers all requests for information for which a charge is levied as well as information that should be provided free of charge. This applies to all government departments, agencies and public bodies within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. This excludes, for example, the National Health Service and Local Government, but includes all government departments and agencies involved in the supply of geospatial information.

Under the code, departments should not charge for the provision of information which is necessary for the public to have as part of "fair and accountable" performance of government functions. Information concerned with the following areas should, therefore, be provided free of charge:

• benefits, grants, rights and entitlements; standards and availability of services;
• reasons for administrative decisions;
• regulatory requirements; and
• existing government policy and initiatives.

For information not covered by this list, charges may be made for requests for information that cause additional work, but departments have considerable discretion as to how these guidelines are applied. A key finding from our interview programme is the significant variation in the practice of providers. This is developed further in Section IV.

It is relevant to note that, since the publication of the code, government has also become much involved with the use of the Internet as a means of disseminating information to the public. Thus speeches (e.g. the Budget) by Ministers, press releases, statistical information and guides to where to obtain information (e.g. the SINES service run by Ordnance Survey on behalf of other departments) are now accessible via Internet. The Prime Minister has commended this approach and indeed has ensured that the UK has taken a lead in this area within the G7 nations.

The concept of information provision which seems to underlie this advocacy of the Internet is one akin to the provision practised by the US federal government where an increasingly large proportion of its information is disseminated by these means. At present, there is no universal, secure way of charging for information services over the Internet and no government departments (to our knowledge) attempt to try to do so.

Other potentially relevant policy proposals

As we have seen, there is growing pressure for increased access to government information. This makes it important to consider policy proposals on government information provision made by:

• the Campaign for the Freedom of Information (CFI);
• the Labour Party; and
• the European Union.

Campaign for the Freedom of Information

The CFI believes that current government policy on charging is inconsistent with the philosophy of open government and does not meet the government's own objectives as set out in the Open Government White Paper. In particular, they argue that:

• some charges are punitive; and
• extraordinary differences in charging schemes show the arbitrary nature of the charges.

Examples of high fees that CFI cite include the National Rivers Authority charge of £100 for a page of A3 photocopying and a charge of between £2000 and £3000 by the Public Health Laboratory Service to identify local authorities who have reported salmonella food poisoning incidents involving eggs.

To illustrate their point about differences in schemes, CFI note some departments say that they will do considerable work without charge, but other departments, including the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Inland Revenue charge flat rate fees, in advance, for simple requests.

The CFI's view is that non-commercial users, including individuals and community groups, should only pay the cost of copying. They are less concerned about charges to commercial users, and argue that arbitrage problems can be overcome by, for example, product differentiation and use of copyright. It is clear, however, that CFI have not considered in detail the practical implications of attempting to price differentiate between commercial and non-commercial users, particularly in the case of pressure groups. CFI also argue a need for greater transparency in charging.

The CFI have not proposed a clear policy on charging for geospatial data.

Labour Party

The Labour Party view on access to information was published in 1995 in "Communicating Britain's Future". It argues that it is the duty of government to ensure that the "information revolution" benefits the many, not the few, but also states that government should intervene as little as possible. Government is seen as having a facilitating role in the areas of universal access, competitiveness, copyright law and free speech. In particular its aims are:

• to ensure equal access through an integrated national network;
• to encourage freedom of information, while at the same time respecting privacy and legitimate rights to the ownership of information; and
• to provide a regulatory framework that is up-to-date with technology, encourages innovation and ensures fair competition.

Until these principles are developed into practical policy proposals, the implications for government information providers are not clear.

European Union Directives

In 1990, the European Union adopted the Directive on the freedom of access to information on the environment. The objective was to ensure freedom of access to, and dissemination of, information on the environment held by public authorities and to set out the basic terms and conditions on which such information should be made available. This states that member states may make a charge for supplying the information, but such charges may not exceed a reasonable cost. No explanation is provided of what would be considered as "reasonable", but the UK regulations implementing this Directive state that "arrangements ..... may include provision for the imposition of a charge on any person in respect of the costs reasonably attributable to the supply of information to that person".[Note 3]

A draft European Union Database Directive has now been agreed by the Internal Market Council and will be examined by the European Parliament. This is in response to a view that current legislation in the European Union does not give adequate protection to some databases from copying. The draft directive would give 15 years copyright protection for a database. The Council is also considering the possibility of clauses on compulsory licensing where there is no alternative source for information.

Concern has been expressed in the UK that this directive will dilute current copyright protection by removing protection for databases that do not involve creativity and in any case reducing protection to 15 years. Under the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, databases in the UK were protected for 50 years if the owner could show that time and money has been invested in accumulating the database. This is being extended to 70 years under a new copyright Directive from the EU except for Crown copyright material.

Overall conclusions

There appears to be a clear tension in current government policy between the pressure on providers to be more commercial and the restrictions placed on their participation in the provision of value added products and services. Current practice in these areas is highlighted in the next section.

There may also be an increasing conflict in some areas between the financial objectives set for government information providers and the pressure for greater openness in the provision of information.

These tensions, and the complex arguments involved with the provision of information by government, have been noted by both policy-makers and information providers. In the next section we consider what has been happening in practice against this policy background.

Notes

1. guidelines relate specifically to information provided to the private sector in electronic form, but are said to be generally relevant. These guidelines were first published in 1986, but amended after a review in 1988.
2. From Dead Parrots to Sheep Dips, The Times, 14 January 1994.
3. No 3240, Environmental Protection, The Environmental Information Regulations 1992.