Memorandum by the Association for Geographic
Information
INTRODUCTION
The Association for Geographic Information (AGI)
is the umbrella organisation for all those with an interest in
geographic information (GI). Membership comprises individuals
and organisations, including government departments and agencies,
local authorities, other national organisations, educational institutions,
utilities, commercial software companies and data suppliers. The
mission of the AGI is to maximise the use of GI for the benefit
of the citizen, commerce and good governance.
AGI is additionally a member of the UK GI Panel,
a body that aims to give high-level advice to DCLG Ministers on
geographic information issues of national importance for the United
Kingdom.
Because of its wide and diverse membership,
the views expressed by the AGI—whilst taking into account
a broad input from members—may not reflect the views of
all its individual members. Being a "broad church', AGI may
sometimes find itself caught between members in external dispute
and subject to criticism. It is relevant to note that other organisations
responding to this enquiry, Ordnance Survey, Department of Communities
and Local Government and Intelligent Addressing (whose Managing
Director also currently chairs the Locus Association) are additionally
members of the AGI.
The AGI sees the work of Ordnance Survey in
terms of providing public service, high quality and equitably
available data that is current and regularly maintained, as highly
essential and considers that the National Topographic Database
is a vital national asset. AGI believes Ordnance Survey has a
national interest role to play and that at least the publicly
funded collection, update and maintenance of unrefined GI data
is pivotal to the nation's well being.
The AGI memorandum is structured below to match
the questions originally stated.
ORDNANCE SURVEY:
PUBLIC SERVICE
INFORMATION
1. In 2002, the Committee's predecessor, the
Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee, concluded
in its report on Ordnance Survey: "there is a clear need
to define the boundaries of Ordnance Survey public service and
national interest work". To what extent has this changed
over the intervening five years?
(a) In evidence of the Select Committee "s
recent inquiry into DCLG "s Annual Report, the Department
said the ending of NIMSA meant there was "no distinction
between public service and commercial activity for Ordnance Survey"
(Third report of 2006-07, HC 106; Ev 105). But OS remains the
largest public sector information holder in the UK, providing
publicly gathered data under licence to organisations both public
and private. How clear are the boundaries between its roles as
the holder of base geographical information required by its partners
and competitors to make their products commercially viable and
as a commercial operator within the same marketplace as those
partners and competitors?
1. ANSWER
1.1 AGI believes that these boundaries are
blurred and are becoming increasingly so. This lack of clarity
causes confusion and cost not only to the private sector, but
the public sector.
1.2 AGI agrees with the recommendation of
the OFT report (ref 1) that "unrefined information' should
be distinguished from "refined information' within Public
Sector Information (PSI) agencies like Ordnance Survey. The former
should be made available on a fair and equitable licencing basis
to the commercial sector. Currently, it is suggested, the OS does
not distinguish between these in a clear and definitive manner.
It must be possible, it is argued, for OS to enable all organisations
to access this unrefined data on the same terms as it applies
to itself before it refines this data into OS branded commercial
products.
1.3 Ideally, publicly gathered data should
only be produced once and should constitute the sole definitive
product. From this data, other value-added products can be derived.
Because there is no regulation currently in place that defines
this definitive public data product, the boundaries between publicly
gathered and commercially added value continues to be blurred.
Nevertheless, the EU INSPIRE Directive (ref 2) requires by 2009
the identification of a reference product for public sector information
and thus scope must be made for this.
1.4 From a public sector AGI member perspective,
it is believed that the focus of providing and being the national
mapping representative is being lost and the `public service'
ethos is perceived to be diminishing. If so, this will be detrimental
to Local Authorities (and other public bodies) who rely on mapping
to deliver many services (targets for which are set by the government).
1.5 It is pointed out by some local government
AGI members that whereas OS incorporates data from local authorities
in their products, which is available free of charge and supplied
under statutory duty, in return, OS are able to request licensing
fees from local government for using a diminishing proportion
of their Address Point product in local government's own National
Land and Property Gazetteer (NLPG). This specific example raises
a variety of complex issues because it also involves Royal Mail
licencing costs for the Postcode Address File (PAF). AGI certainly
perceives a great deal of concern and confusion from local authorities
regarding this matter. OS will state that by offering additional
value to the data it uses it can charge licence fees for its products.
1.6 Concerns have been raised that such
transactions between public bodies may be financially inefficient
to the general public and create a conflict arising from the lack
of distinction between publicly gathered data and added commercial
value.
1.7 There was, it is believed, a clear remit
for public service provision by OS under NIMSA. Its withdrawal,
it is feared, leads to a further blurring between commercial and
public interest activity and a perception that public service
will suffer.
2. In 2002, the Select Committee also identified
"a clear need for some form of independent arbitration so
that conflicts could be resolved" between OS and its partners
and customers. To what extent has this changed over the intervening
five years?
2. ANSWER
2.1 AGI believes that although the number
of actual cases per year involving the Ordnance Survey has not
significantly altered over the period scrutinised by the CLG Committee
and its predecessor, there is no unambiguous evidence of an effective
independent arbitration process `with teeth' currently in place.
2.2 For example, the scope for conflict
between OS as a public sector information provider and partners
and customers has been exemplified in the OFT report (ref 1) on
the commercial use of public sector information, culminating in
the complaint by one AGI member to the OFT about OS commercial
competition it believes to be unfair. Although the response by
the OPSI (ref 3) made several critical observations concerning
OS commercial practices and ruled in favour in one area for the
complainant, the conflict has not yet, it seems, been resolved
in the eyes of the complainant. OPSI states that since its original
report Ordnance Survey "has made sufficient progress in the
given timescales" and has satisfied OPSI that the recommendations
made have been "met" (ref 4). Additionally, the recent
conclusion by APPSI (ref 5) that Ordnance Survey's Address Point
product does not fall under PSI regulations has deepened the confusion
for AGI members over the position of OS as a public sector information
provider.
2.3 AGI eagerly awaits a definitive response
from Government to the OPSI ruling to obtain clarification that
will be very important to AGI members. In the meantime, two government
bodies using public funds are competing for the use of their products
by other public sector bodies.
2.4 Because licensing terms are considered
conflicting, there is a strong perception from some local government
members that this is likely to hamper the ability for joined-up
government and setting up local partnerships to deliver local
services to the citizen. For example, joint emergency response
centres (between fire, police and ambulance services); local community
and child services joined up with the health and voluntary sector
etc.
GEOGRAPHIC PANEL
3. What is your assessment of the UK Geographic
Panel's operation since its introduction in 2005?
3. ANSWER
3.1 AGI has a seat on the GI Panel. It is
relevant to state that whilst it has full visibility of meeting
content, in terms of public communication it is bound by a level
of confidentiality outside the published GI Panel minutes.
3.2 There is some perception in the wider
GI community of a lack of transparency about the GI Panel and
insufficient communication concerning its activities. This has
contributed to concern and disappointment in some quarters over
its activities because the role and objectives may not have been
clearly articulated and it is considered to be not very effective.
AGI has requested a more timely publication of minutes by the
GI Panel to help improve communication and this was recently agreed
as an action at the April GI Panel meeting.
3.3 The GI Panel is currently focussed on
creating and submitting an appropriate GI Strategy to DCLG Ministers—a
non-trivial exercise. This is perhaps the most significant formal
government related gathering to discuss GI matters and deserves
fostering to ensure the maximisation of the use of GI for the
benefit of the citizen, commerce and good governance.
3.4 Having the Chief Executive of a Trading
Fund as Chair of the GI Panel creates a potential conflict of
interest. However, AGI recently supported the continuing role
of the OS in the Chair of the GI Panel, because it is so close
to the stated submission date of a GI Strategy, that to change
at this stage could be detrimental. We believe that the Chair
should rotate, as originally intended, at a more suitable point.
3.5 AGI believes it is important to maintain
a GI Panel, to improve its communications with stakeholders and
also for it to be viewed in a balanced manner bearing in mind
some of the political factors that seem to have currently affected
it in association with Ordnance Survey.
4. The Select Committee's predecessor, in
recommending in 2002 that an advisory panel on geographic information
should be created, suggested that it should have at least three
members, including the Association for Geographical Information,
OS and a private sector representative. Is the current panel's
membership currently balanced with three private sector representatives
among its 12 members?
4. ANSWER
4.1 There is a preponderance of public sector
organizations on the GI Panel and no representatives from utilities
and academia. AGI believes that the size of the panel should ideally
not be increased, or increased significantly, to maintain efficiency.
In the case of the private sector, no additional single commercial
operator should be appointed, rather any additional members should
be trade/membership bodies deemed relevant. Similarly with academia,
if given a seat, this should be a collective representation if
that is possible. It has also been suggested that there is a lack
of any scientific/research council representation on the GI panel.
Perhaps NERC should be represented, particularly as sustainable
development and climate change move up the government policy agenda?
5. In a memorandum to the Committee during
its recent inquiry into DCLG's Annual Report 2006 the Government
said that the ending of NIMSA means "there is no distinction
for OS between public service and commercial activity ".
If that is the case, should the head of a commercially active
organisation continue, ex officio, to be official adviser to Ministers
on "all aspects of survey, mapping and geographic information?"
5. ANSWER
5.1 If the DCLG statement is considered
to be correct then the head of a commercially active organisation
should not continue, ex officio, to be official adviser to Ministers
on "all aspects of survey, mapping and geographic information".
5.2 The official advisor to Ministers should
be independent of any own commercial interest, which, it is argued,
is currently not the case. Even with a clear split of OS activities
between collecting data (unrefined) and commercially producing
products in competition with others (refined) there is an argument
that the head of the former shouldn't automatically be the holder
of any of these roles and as head of the latter, certainly not.
5.3 Additionally it is possible that OSGB
are not positioned to provide the necessary breadth of knowledge
and wisdom to UK Government across all aspects of GI—take
for example marine & coastal, geology, meteorology, statistical
information, land registration and so on. Ordnance Survey is however,
an internationally acknowledged expert in the field of GI data
collection and maintenance and its importance in advising Government
where and when necessary should not be overlooked.
5.4 If the official advisory role were not
solely in the hands of Government agencies such as the Ordnance
Survey, the UK Hydrographic Office and the British Geological
Survey, perhaps this should be the role of an up-rated GI advisory
panel to Government with RICS AGI and other relevant bodies included
as members?
NATIONAL INTEREST
MAPPING SERVICES
AGREEMENT
6. What impact will the ending of NIMSA have
on rural mapping?
6. ANSWER
6.1 AGI members are concerned that the impact
will be either reduced currency of rural mapping (longer intervals
between surveys) or increased prices (to existing customers).
6.2 If currency of data is reduced, there
is concern that this could have major implications where large
housing or road development takes place in rural areas, and may
have a detrimental impact on emergency services. It could also
have an adverse impact on a dynamic part of the UK landscape—where
there are many conflicting development and land management interests
at stake. The split between urban and rural areas is changing
as development and land use evolves and what may be in the rural
category for OS may in practice have moved into the urban one.
AGI notes that there is apparent confusion as to the current data
maintenance programmes undertaken by Ordnance Survey and the impact
of NIMSA withdrawal will have on these programmes. Further clarification
from Ordnance Survey would be welcomed.
6.3 There is an argument that any difference
in data maintenance policies should not be based simply on the
classification of mapping as being "rural" or "urban".
Rather priority and emphasis should be given to those areas which
are subject to the greatest volume of change. Again Ordnance Survey
could clarify its data collection strategy and practices in this
area.
7. Will procurement be more expensive for
local authorities now that OS is not providing them under NIMSA?
7. ANSWER
7.1 AGI believes the outcome of the next
Mapping Service Agreement (MSA) will determine the answer to this
question. AGI urges that all parties in the procurement of the
next MSA should ensure that the process be simpler than the current
one and concluded in less time and at less cost (to public bodies)
than the last.
8. Some OS competitors allege it is able to
use its position as public sector information holder to compete
unfairly, either by imposing over-stringent and costly licence
conditions or by developing products of its own in direct competition
with theirs but without the associated licencing costs. There
are further complaints that OS is an effective monopoly, preventing
fair and transparent competition in the GI market. What is your
view of these suggestions?
8. ANSWER
8.1 This is always going to be a controversial
area, but certainly a number of private sector organisations have
genuine concerns about OS imposing over-stringent and costly licence
conditions or by developing products of its own in direct competition
with theirs but without the associated licencing costs.
8.2 Some AGI members suggest that they are
directly affected by the OS trying to use their alleged monopoly
position to dictate terms and conditions of PSI. The case is well
exemplified in the conflict between local government (represented
by Intelligent Addressing) and OS over addressing data where both
bodies compete against each other in the provision of addressing
datasets. This led to the recent complaint by Intelligent Addressing,
the private sector body that manages the NLPG on behalf of local
authorities, to the OPSI. In a ruling (ref 3) OPSI pointed out
that OS licensing terms were not transparent and fair. OPSI now
states that Ordnance Survey has made progress in these areas and
that they are satisfied their report recommendations have been
"met" (ref 4). Nonetheless these have not appeared to
have been resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant.
8.3 To complicate the matter for a number
of AGI members, APPSI in its recent assessment (ref 5), concluded
that Ordnance Survey's Address Point product does not fall within
the regulations for public sector information, yet it is provided
under Crown copyright by a public sector organisation. It is not
clear where the APPSI report leaves local government. There is
confusion as to whether APPSI consider local government to be
the only public sector body that produces public sector address
information? What is the role of Royal Mail PAF data? Does this
fall within the public sector information category or not? What
is the situation of competition between PSI and non-PSI data?
The situation of addressing has become so confusing that it is
essential for central government to clarify the situation for
the benefit of running an efficient and effective service by local
government. The current situation of duplication, uncertainty,
lack of transparency consumes valuable public funds to provide
services to citizens and urgently requires a clear resolution.
8.4 AGI stresses that addressing is not
purely a problem affecting Local Authorities. From central government,
emergency services and wider commercial perspectives there are
other beneficiaries who need to be served by national, well-maintained
and consistent address products which are free of confusion and
uncertainty.
8.5 Some members have raised concerns about
the time taken to understand the Terms & Conditions and often
"standard' agreements are supplemented with non-standard
side letters. AGI Members cite that licenses have increased in
length—the current OS Address Point VAR agreement is approximately
48 pages, whereas many private sector companies are moving to
shorter licences composed of clearer terms in order to help stimulate
business.
8.6 AGI believes Ordnance Survey has found
itself caught between a blurred public and commercial role and
as a result is subject to difficulties, misunderstandings and
conflicts. AGI is concerned that this may stretch the capacity
of the organisation to cope with the demanding and complex circumstances
it finds itself within. OS is skilled and respected for data collection,
update maintenance and production. It is in the area of distribution,
pricing and licencing where difficulties and confusion start.
REFERENCES
1. The commercial use of public information (CUPI)
OFT861, December 2006.
2. Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council, establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial
Information in the European Community (INSPIRE), March 2007.
3. Office of Public Sector Information Report
on its investigation of a compliant (SO 42/8/4): Intelligent Addressing
and Ordnance Survey, July 2006.
4. Evaluation of Progress made by Ordnance Survey,
OPSI, March 2007.
5. Review Board of APPSI Report, April 2007.
| 
