|
Author
|
Message
|
|
Christian Lister
|
Monday 07 April 2008 11:20:42 pm
The PSI Epiphany
The use of the term ‘epiphany’ has many uses.
I like this one –
‘A sudden moment of understanding that causes a character to change or to act in a certain way.’
The Personal Search Sector in the UK has been through many phases of development, always backed by strong legal opinion.
Opinions have always pushed for a judicial decision.
A position Central Government will not embrace.
UK Central Government ‘Communities and Local Government’ always stall at this juncture and always use the ‘opinions differ’ line.
Why would a Government so entrenched in a belief, not put such belief to the test?
Perhaps ‘the belief’ is nothing more than a tactic to stall or allow for another consultation.
I have a belief…………………….yet another consultation will be forthcoming in the Autumn of this year, irrespective of the KPMG consultation outcome.
I have another belief, much like the one above I am willing to put to the test……………there will be another after that one.
I once posted that UK Government has a tried and tested method of getting what they want………consult until the desired outcome is obtained – very little seems to have changed, to be fair it seems to have become habitual.
PSI - its access and re-use is not a preferred option to this particular Government department regardless of the progressiveness of the Tom Watson ‘Task Force’, APPSI strengthening the board, the formation of the PSI Alliance, Trading Fund investigation or Minister’s from other departments accepting a new industry with explosive potential.
So why the epiphany?
I had my epiphany in 2002.
The UK embraced the Environmental Information Regulations in 1992.
In December 2002 the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH COUNCIL published its ‘handbook’ which incorporates Freedom of Access to Environmental Information.
Looking back at the layers which built up to the 2004 EIRegs, it is easy to see why data, even its re-use has been smothered by Government. Aspects of the cold war emerge.
The given in this industry and I have listened to OFT in Helsinki during the EPSIplus thematic meeting - we should not look towards America; it’s data available for re-use has ‘dumbed down’ and ‘weakened’ the quality.
That’s an argument which can only be held up by UK Central Government.
The UK decided during the Home Information Pack Regulations to award Water Companies with a monopoly over data re-use and stifle it’s access, preventing re-use on a compliance level.
I am sure the American Economy was delighted in the 1970’s to find a market which could replace it’s oil industry revenues at a time when income was down, employment was down and national dependancy for state benefits was high.
So when do we switch from a European family sharing data to a European family earning from data? It’s a good question – when do we.
What countries will allow is global mapping without exclusion - Google has done little to hide military installations since it mapped the globe.
Did Google seek permission after countless consultations to map the globe and re-use the data?
Didn’t Google infringe on anybody’s IPR or re-use rights?
I doubt it – shareholders have to be paid.
The progressiveness of Google is there for every shareholder to see in real time.
So with our data openness available for all to search - pan and tilt functions, postcode location zoom and traffic data is Google the only outcome we have?
What about the much needed recognition for local businesses in each member state?
Small and Medium Enterprises to must be allowed to compete in every market from micro-business to market traders to expert one man operations to packaging companies to garage door makers…
We are a European community without boundaries, without divides. Population migration has been key in delivering the ‘without’ boundaries age.
Why then does data drag behind like the unwanted appendage?
Governments and indeed the European Commission want us to continue to create jobs, embrace emerging markets with the freedom to innovate.
EPSIplus gave an industry a voice, a platform and focus.
The PSI Alliance was created to ensure a emerging market has future job creation, thrives with data re-use freedom and the focus to deliver on a European platform.
Best Wishes,
Christian
|
|
Christopher Corbin
|
Tuesday 15 April 2008 10:37:20 am
Facilitating Exclusive Arrangements
Christian
With reference to your paragraph:
"The UK decided during the Home Information Pack Regulations to award Water Companies with a monopoly over data re-use and stifle it’s access, preventing re-use on a compliance level."
Are you implying the Department of Communities and Local Government have enable Water Companies to have an exclusive arrangement with respect to certain public sector information data and information through the legislation that was drafted and approved?
Are you aware whether any one raised an objection to this exclusive arrangement to which you refer?
Chris
|
|
Christian Lister
|
Thursday 17 April 2008 4:01:38 pm
Creating a monopoly - easy as 1,2,3
Chris,
In response I would say that we should look at the framework used to deliver the CLG’s housing market desires when creating the Home Information Pack Regulations
http://www.homeinformationpacks.gov.uk/industry/137_pubregulations.html
On page 44 Schedule 8 comes into play, Drainage and Water.
The CON29dw - the required document answers the questions as prescribed by the regulations creating a monopoly.
The Personal Search Industry had for many years created a reduced content version of the document, available to the consumer at a much reduced price; maintaining consumer choice, applying price pressures by offering consumer choice and by accessing the data insitu the industry avoided reseller agreements. Again, retaining the consumer champion position which has become the standard of the Private Search Industry.
The HIP Regulations handed the Water Companies a monopoly by stipulating all questions must be answered without the use of insurance should some data become unavailable.
The Water Companies hold all the data and have no access to re-use framework in place to allow 3rd party access.
What creates a monopoly?
(1) A monopoly is not merely the state of having control over a product; it also means that there is no real alternative.
(2) A company with a monopoly does not undergo price pressure from competitors.
(3) A monopoly will offer reseller agreements.
CLG gifted the Water Companies all 3.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/ukpga_19910056_en_18#pt7-pb2-l1g195
Certain sections of the Water Industry Act (above link) Section 195 onwards deals with the availability and access to data (maps and registers) and although access to some of the data, such as the maps of sewers and waterworks is given by Water Companies, the necessary pieces of the water report jigsaw are not forthcoming.
Water Companies have quoted fee’s of over £200,000 to ‘untangle’ the datasets, when there is already a clear public task defined regarding the registers.
During the construction of the regulations various issued were raised by Private Search Companies, access to data was and has continued to be a hot topic.
In response to your question - Are you implying the Department of Communities and Local Government have enable Water Companies to have an exclusive arrangement with respect to certain public sector information data and information through the legislation that was drafted and approved?
In my opinion, they certainly did.
Christian
|
|
Christopher Corbin
|
Thursday 17 April 2008 7:23:12 pm
Not as easy as 1,2,3 to correct I suspect!
Christian
Thanks for this further explanation.
Sorry but further questions.
Did the Private Search Companies raise the issue with any of the regulators besides the DCLG for example?
Competition - Office of Fair Trading;
PSI Regulations – Exclusive Deals: Office of Public Sector Information;
or Parliamentarians whilst the legislation was passing through Parliament?
As the HIPs are now operational what has been the impact on the Private Search Companies so far?
To assist the transparency of this matter did the Department of Communities and Local Government undertake an impact assessment? Did any of the respondents raise this particular issue? If yes what was the CLG’s response.
Can you remind me whether the OFT market study report on this sector raised this issue?
Regarding the £200,000 is this information in the public domain anywhere?
The reason this topic is of interest is that the ePSIplus Thematic Network wishes to ascertain what has happened in Member States with respect to exclusive arrangements – whether these have been phased out as well as have any new exclusive arrangements been entered into and if so what was the process that enabled it to comply with the Directive 2003/98/EC. This is in preparation for the ePSIplus Conference that will take place on the 13 June 2008 in Brussels.
The ePSIplus Thematic Network intends to organise a meeting devoted to the Competition Authorities in the October/November 2008 time frame. This form topic sounds potential like a case study that could be fed into that meeting.
Thanks for your patience with my questions.
Chris
|
|
Christian Lister
|
Thursday 17 April 2008 11:37:53 pm
should we nod back?
Chris,
The discussions and communications are not within the public domain, as such.
John Gray, PSI Consulting conducted a brilliant survey undertaking of Water Companies and the Directive. John’s results are available as .pdf’s but I have no link. John should be invited to this forum.
After reading John’s results, I embarked on EIR requests many are outstanding, only 3 have responded to date.
The OFT did not look into Water Company data, it has always been a hub and spoke addition to the to product portfolio, that said the access to data issues remain on a comparable level to the situation and environment Private Search Companies endure daily.
The Industry did respond to all data access issues. The Industry, although a little fragmented, has two outstanding trade associations. Both of which currently sit on UK Government Working Groups and have done for sometime.
Additional lobbying has been carried out by many individuals on many levels.
For the aid of transparency, key players in the industry like Steve Davies, CEO of IPSA have worked tirelessly.
The impact assessments
http://www.homeinformationpacks.gov.uk/industry/137_pubregulations.html are available here.
As for complaints, as an industry we have been restrained, the industry has always delivered consumer choice, therefore competitive prices.
The Local Authority Search Market
http://www.epsiplus.net/forum/eps...tion_for_property_searchesflourished on 12 years of absolute profit, possibly more.
The Local Authority Building Control market http://www.epsiplus.net/forum/eps...naccessible_due_to_unreadable_format flourished on 12 years of absolute consumer driven profit.
And then there is the compulsion and the will to act with unlawful intent http://www.epsiplus.net/forum/eps...uk_government_departments_ignore_psi
I do owe you Chris, an apology for the fact I incorrectly stated the above link as a Government Department ignores psi, as you where correct, they do mention it and do not ignore it.
They just make a reference to it.
Little is achieved or has been historically by receiving a nod.
Christian
|
|
Christopher Corbin
|
Friday 18 April 2008 8:51:29 am
Building the evidence base on this issue
Christian
I am grateful for the extra information and the evidence trail that you have provided.
I do not believe this is a nodding matter – it is an issue that has been raised in good faith in partnership between the public and the private sectors but the input appears to be ignored. The UK Government and its administration needs to make such partnerships work in the interests of ensuring the UK has a healthy PSI re-use information and knowledge economy. The issue besides being of direct relevance to those involved at this particular interface has wider implications for the Government and governance as well as ensuring the return on investment in public sector information is maximised to the benefit of all. The issue in a way relates back to the Power of Information report and its recommendations as to how the Government and its administration should enact its role in the global information society and knowledge economy.
You refer to the good work that John Gray has undertaken. John’s surveys have been reported on ePSIplus news and John is aware of this as ePSIplus obtained permission from John to publish.
426 PSIH’s surveyed re PSI Directive
http://www.epsiplus.net/news/426_psih_s_surveyed_re_psi_directive
Water undertakings – compliance with PSI Directive
http://www.epsiplus.net/news/wate...akings_compliance_with_psi_directive
Both John and I serve as expert Members on the UK Advisory Panel for Public Sector Information (APPSI). John in fact tabled the survey he had under taken at the last APPSI meeting and copies were provided to all APPSI members at the meeting. This is recorded in the APPSI minutes at paragraph 17.2 for the Meeting held on the 21 February 2008. ePSIplus reported as a news item the publication of February 2008 APPSI minutes.
APPSI Meeting 17
http://www.epsiplus.net/news/appsi_meeting_17
In addition to Johns action at the APPSI meeting in February I in a written input report (email) to the above-mentioned APPSI meeting also drew attention to:
• Communities and Local Government and the UK Ministry of Justice consultation on Charges for Property Search Services. Reason: Awareness and also to draw attention to several issues – the long time frame to resolve the issues in the Property Search Market from the OFT reports on this sector – the impact on existing re-users some of whom are represented on APPSI.
This is obliquely referenced within the APPSI minutes referred to above at paragraph number 17.4
As such APPSI has been alerted to this PSI re-use sector but as yet APPSI has not had time to consider and digest.
Regarding alerting John to this forum topic – I confirm I have emailed John.
I shall also bring this Forum topic to APPSI’s attention at the next meeting that takes place on Tuesday 22 April 2008.
With respect to a Government Department establishing monopolies with respect to PSI – there is a tradition (not followed here) that the Public interest information that is part of a privatisation should be regulated. This raises the question as to who is the regulator of the CON29 PSI that previously sat fully within the public sector?
When enough evidence is in the public domain this topic maybe worth submitting as a formal complaint to the European Union Competition Authority as the UK Authorities do not feel like addressing the issue apart from your first submission to this topic by wearing down through attrition - repeated consultations (an old UK Administrative technique well used over the past two centuries across the world).
Can anyone else shed further light on this discussion topic around PSI?
Chris
PS Just to record that John’s earlier work has also been picked up by the Open Knowledge Foundation.
Euro Directive on Re-Use of Public Sector Information: What Is Actually Happening at the Local Level?
http://blog.okfn.org/2007/06/05/r...tually-happening-at-the-local-level/
|
|
Christopher Corbin
|
Friday 18 April 2008 11:39:50 pm
Vested interest?
The Northgate Information Solutions press release today seems to indicate that this topic is hot...unfortunately this reads like vested interests at play!
http://www.epsiplus.net/news/property_search_market
|
|
Christopher Corbin
|
Monday 21 April 2008 3:45:01 pm
The evidence builds!
The Property Search Group have published their submission to the Ministry of Justice and Department of Communities and Local Government consultation on local government charges.
Charges for Property Search Services
http://www.epsiplus.net/news/charges_for_property_search_services
As a result of the above public announcement further evidence is now to hand that indicates that there is an issue that needs addressing at the PSIH - PSI Re-user boundary.
|
|
Christian Lister
|
Tuesday 29 July 2008 6:46:17 pm
When the rules to the game, change.................
When I first posted this thread, I was playing a hunch, a gut feeling.
Perhaps my experiences had got the better of me.............
A part of me had really wanted to believe the Government had listened to the industry.
With ePSIplus covering ground all over Europe, and the fantastic responses contained within this site, along with the birth of the PSI Alliance.
My favorite bit of the growth was definitely ,Chris Corbin and John Gray being appointed to APPSI.
I thought for a while, we had really cracked it.
This Thursday CLG the UK Government department will release another consultation (my hunch which started this thread) was correct.
The KPMG/CLG/MOJ consultation which as an industry we responded too (which may have set a record in the number of responses against) with not only negative comments but progressive data charging ideas (cost of distribution) has been ignored.
Well, not ignored (i have got in trouble for that statement in the past) but altered the rules.
Seriously altered the rules would be a fairer statement of what we are about to witness.
CLG will now scrap the legal framework which they believed would deliver data charging at the self-set cost of recovery, but enter into a further consultation (apologies for repeating myself) this time the framework will contain new primary legislation.
The new legislation will replace the old, unlawful set and attempt to deliver PSI cost recovery not inline with the platform the EC wished to deliver.
All I can say is, watch this space.............here we go again.
Best wishes,
Christian
|
|
Christian Lister
|
Thursday 31 July 2008 3:44:01 pm
consultation, consultation, consultation
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/chargespropertysearch
|
|
Christopher Corbin
Moderated by: Mary Gianoli
|
Friday 01 August 2008 8:33:29 am
Unrefined and refined data
The announcement of yet another consultation indeed is frustrating to those stakeholders that earn a living from the re-use of property search data held by local government bodies. However the consultation should be welcomed as it provides a further insight into UK Government policy with respect to the re-use of public sector information and an opportunity for stakeholders to respond.
http://www.epsiplus.net/news/fair_competition
The diagram on page 9 of the Consultation is interesting and probably reflects what the UK Office of Fair Trading has proposed in their reports on the Commercial Use of Public Information (CUPI) and the property search market.
It is also interesting that the English Ministry involved and the devolved Welsh Government by proposing Cost Recovery charges are not inline with current thinking in the UK and as it happens by the OECD! So they are indeed out of step and perhaps not listening as has been suggested!
It is also interesting that the Government should continue to impose charges on the conveyancing processes just as there is a down turn in the property market. The Department for Communities and Local Government appear not to be thinking holistically as well as not listening. No wonder stakeholders such as Christian Lister expresses severe reservations in this ePSIplus Forum topic!
The time line on this particular PSI re-use sector high lights the lag in the public sector thinking - it has taken far too long and the proposals outlined in the Consultation document if implemented will no doubt lead to further problems in the future.
The consultation document and the diagram however do raise some interesting questions.
Question 1
=========
How will financial transparency be achieved?
Question 2
=========
Is the data being made available at the earliest point?
Question 3
=========
How is the separation of the statutory duty of the local government body and the commercial re-use service of the local government body achieved?
Question 4
========
How will the cost recovery charge be harmonised to ensure down stream use across England and Wales is equal?
Question 5
========
At a time when the move of the UK Government is towards marginal cost pricing or no financial charge is the intention to implement Cost Recovery charging correct?
|
