LIST OF CONCLUSIONS
That Ordnance Survey were able to cut the price
in the case of one significant service to business from £800,000
to £120,000 a year simply as a result of renegotiation suggests
to us that a similarly vigorous series of renegotiations may prove
advantageous to all parties (paragraph 10).
In Britain, clear accurate maps are necessary
to so much of modern life and are an essential tool to an effective
democracy. In making maps available for such purposes, it is reasonable
for Ordnance Survey to charge the full cost of providing the maps
whether on a web-site for downloading or in paper form. But the
Ordnance Survey should not be seeking to obtain a return from
provision of these services in order to cover its general overheads
nor to contribute to the costs of map data collection (paragraph
13).
There is plainly a need for greater transparency
in the way that Ordnance Survey uses the public funding passed
to it under the National Interest Mapping Service Agreement, so
that all parties can be satisfied that it is being used as intended
(paragraph 14).
The Committee recommends that the Government
provides funding for a long-term Pan Government Service Level
Agreement to ensure widespread use of Ordnance Survey data across
Government, so as to ensure the Government gets the best value
for money. This should be done by the start of the 2003/04 financial
year (paragraph 16).
The Committee concludes that there is a clear
need to define the boundaries of Ordnance Survey public service
and national interest work. If Ordnance Survey wants to enter
into commercial activities we can see no reason why it should
not do so, but the two activities ought to be separately accounted
for and its commercial arm should pay the same copyright fees
as any other organisation/competitor (paragraph 20).
In light of the evidence received and the volume
of current and past legal action between Ordnance Survey and its
partners, there is a clear need for some form of independent arbitration
so that conflicts could be resolved without going to the courts.
The exact form of any regulator obviously needs to be considered
in some detail but there is also a clear need for some form of
regulation, if only to arbitrate cases of dispute (paragraph 23).
The Committee recommends that a panel of at least
three advisers is established to advise Government on geographic
information issues in order to avoid any possible conflicts of
interests. Membership of this panel should include the Chairman
of AGI, the Director General and Chief Executive of Ordnance Survey,
and one or more representatives of the private sector (paragraph
25).
The Committee is strongly opposed to Ordnance
Survey's proposed transition to Government Owned Public Limited
Company and sees no case at all for change from its current status.
Ordnance Survey has experienced no problems with borrowing while
operating as a trading fund. The Committee finds it hard to believe
that the only way to pay staff better is by becoming a Government
Owned Public Limited Company. The broad problems affecting Ordnance
Survey, such as the definition of its boundaries of work, will
not be resolved through transition to Government Owned Public
Limited Company. It is inadvisable to impose on Ordnance Survey
a legal framework designed for a commercial organisation, without
a proper assessment of what the role of a national mapping agency
should be and the extent to which it should be involved in commercial
activities. The Committee recommends that the Government rejects
the option of making Ordnance Survey into a Government Owned Public
Limited Company (paragraph 31).
| 
