House of Commons - Communities and Local Government Committee

Select Committee on Communities and Local Government Committee Written Evidence

Memorandum by Chris Corbin

I welcome the decision of the Communities and Local Government Select Committee to undertake a review on the impact of the recommendations made in the House of Commons Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee (Hoc TLR-C)—Ordnance Survey, Tenth Report of Session 2001-02 published on 22 June 2002 and the opportunity to submit evidence to the Committee.

PERSONAL BACKGROUND TO SUPPORT SUBMISSION

During 2002 as Chair of the Association for Geographic Information (AGI) I submitted supplementary evidence regarding a number of European Union (EU) Directives and initiatives to the Ordnance Survey Inquiry.[47] I am no longer a member of the AGI[48] and as such the views expressed in this submission do not represent those of the AGI.

I have been involved with public sector information and in particular geographic information for over 40 years and I am currently employed as an analyst in the European Union eContentplus funded project ePSIplus—Towards the 2008 review of the Directive on PSI re-use.[49] I have been employed in a number of other EU projects that relate to public sector information policy and geographic information. These projects have included:

GINIE: Geographic Information Network in Europe, duration 2001 to 2004.[50]

MEPSIR: Measuring European Public Sector Information Resources, 2005-2006.[51]

I have also been involved and provided evidence to:

ePSINet: Towards the implementation of the Directive on PSI re-use, 2002 to 2005.[52]

SPREAD: Stimulate and promote good practice in the field of digital content in Eastern and Western Europe, 2004 to 2005.[53]

OECD Working Party on the Information Economy—PSI Information and Content 2006.[54][55]

1. SUMMARY

1.1 Legal frameworks brought in through EU legislation have complemented the HoC TLR-C Conclusions published in June 2002. One consequence of these legal frameworks has been the establishment in the UK of a new Regulator (OPSI) that has Memorandums of Understanding in place with two other regulators namely the OFT and the ICO which enables complaints to be moved between the Regulators. An appeal process has also been established via APPSI. Both the OPSI and the APPSI have received and processed complaints related to the OSGB. Further changes as a result of recent EU laws (INSPIRE) will be required which will have a direct bearing on the Committee's review.

1.2 The Government's response to the HoC TLR-C Conclusions was in some cases not in accordance with the legal frameworks and Guidelines that existed when the Government responded. Subsequent legal frameworks have not supported the conclusions the Government reached nor have the assessments reached by the Regulators especially those related to market competition.

1.3 A number of the HoC TLR-C conclusions have been enacted upon by the combination of the Department (DTLR, ODPM, DCLG) and the OSGB. In implementing the HoC TLR-C conclusions the Department has not complied with the law related to the conduct of Public Sector bodies or the Guidelines related to the establishment of Advisory bodies. The Department has in some cases recently corrected their earlier actions and they now comply with the law (Reference the PGA2 procurement). As a consequence both the geographic information market in the UK and Government initiatives related to improving the efficiency of government through the exploitation of ICT have been affected and or set back.

1.4 The OFT has reported on their Market Study on The Commercial Use of Public Sector Information (CUPI) which has reported on potential competition infringements by the OSGB. The Government has failed to respond to the OFT CUPI report within the statutory timeframe, which is regrettable as this indicates that the Government and its supporting administration place themselves above the laws in force within the UK. Such delays have a direct impact on the geographic information market.

1.5 The European Commission Regulatory body related to ensuring the principles of the Single Market, public sector procurement, and subsidies are complied with has also processed complaints related to actions taken by the Department and the OSGB.

1.6 The number of questions related to the actions of the Department and the OSGB have continued to be asked in both the HoC and the HoL which is in itself an indicator that issues exist that have an impact on the geographic information market and other Government led initiatives.

1.7 Within Government and its administration there still exists genuine confusion regarding the role of the OSGB as to whether it is acting in the public good or acting commercially. This is an area that requires urgent attention as it has and continues to have a major impact on the geographic market here in the UK to the detriment of UK plc. As a consequence considerable resources are being diverted to non-productive activities both within the public sector and private sector to address the issues that arise. It is notable that other Countries in recent years have either separated out the public task and the commercial task into separate legal public sector entities or abandoned the principle of acting commercially with respect to public sector information.

1.8 Research and evidence is building that indicates that when ever a public procurement for geographic information complies with the EU law that results in an outcome that is not favourable to the OSGB (not all lots are awarded to the OSGB) that excessive delays occur for example the Local Government Mapping Service Agreement (MSA) and the PGA2. Delays have also occurred in other areas that involve the OSGB for example the time taken to reach agreement and publish the current OSGB Framework document.

1.9 The Department's decision not to renew NIMSA but to let specific open competition contracts where necessary is correct.

1.10 Despite all of the developments outlined above there remain real issues with respect to the OSGB and its responsible Department that are damaging both the geographic information market and the public sector. As such the five-year review by the Committee is timely.

2. PERTINENT LEGISLATIVE CHANGES SINCE JUNE 2002

Re-use of PSI

2.1 The EU Directive 2003/98/EC[56] on the re-use of public sector information came into force within the EU on 31 December 2003 and within EU Member States on 1 July 2005. The UK transposition Statutory Instrument 2005 No 1515 The Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005 came into effect on 1 July 2005. The Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) was established during May 2005 and is in effect the Regulator appertaining to the re-use of Public Sector Information.

2.2 SI 2005—1515 established a formal complaints process within OPSI with an appeal process via the UK Advisory Panel for Public Sector Information (APPSI). Furthermore the OPSI established Memorandum of Agreement's with the UK Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) and as such established a unified interface for the processing of complaints.

2.3 The above combination of the framework legislation together with the complaints and appeals process met in outline HoC TLR-C Conclusions (a), (c), (e) and (f).

INSPIRE

2.4 The EU Directive 2007/2/EC on establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INPSIRE) came into force within the EU on 15 May 2007 and is due to come into force within the UK by 15 May 2009 at the latest.

2.5 The INSPIRE framework requires a national co-ordinating structure to be put into place and as such relates to HoC TLR-C Conclusion (g).

Public Sector Procurement

2.6 The EU Directive 2004/18/EC on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts came into force within the EU on 30 April 2004 and within EU Member States on 31 January 2006. The UK enforcement body is the Office of Government Commerce (OGC).[57] Directive 2004/18/EC replaced the EU procurement laws that were in effect within Member States when the HoC TLR Committee published its Conclusions in June 2002.

2.7 The Public Sector procurement Directive applies to HoC TLR-C Conclusions (d).

Financial Transparency

2.8 The EU Directive 2006/111/EC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings came into force in all Member States on 20 December 2006.

2.9 Directive 2006/111/EC is a codified version that consolidates Directive 80/723/EEC and the subsequent amendments into one updated document and as such repeals all previous versions. As preamble (1) states this has been done in the interests of clarity and rationality. Directive 80/723/EEC was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 29 July 1980 and came into force into all Member States on 31 December 1981. As such the Public Procurement laws were in force when the HoC TLR-C published its Conclusions in June 2002. Within the UK the Department of Trade and Industry has responsibility for implementing the Directive.[58]

2.10 The Financial Transparency law applies to HoC TLR-C Conclusions (c).

EU Treaty Article 82

2.11 EU Treaty Article 82[59] trading organisations in a dominant position may not abuse that position. Article 82 has been in force since 1957 and was in force when the HoC TLR-C published its Conclusions in June 2002. The enforcement body (Regulator) within the UK is the Office of Fair Trading (OFT).

2.12 The above raises a number of points that the committee may wish to consider and note.

1. Guidelines and Processes that existed at the time the HoC TLR-C published its report in June 2002 complement the legal frameworks outlined above in the EU & UK. Over the past five years a number of these guidelines (good practices) have been reviewed via open consultation by the Government and improved or adapted to current conditions. In particular the processes related to HoC TLR-C Conclusions (c), (d) and (g). The Guidelines are published and available on the Cabinet Office web site. These Guidelines have been developed through practical experience as well as open and democratic processes using public funds and the taxpayer would rightly expect Departments and Executive Agencies to abide by these Guidelines. For example the process of establishing the Geographic Information Panel (GIP) was not in accordance with the Cabinet Office Guidelines on public appointments. It is not at all clear why the Department (DTLR, ODPM, DCLG) did not follow the set down processes and guidance. It is interesting to note over the same period that Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO) now known as the Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) established the Advisory Panel for Public Sector Information (APPSI) in accordance with the Cabinet Office procedures and as such the APPSI has a level of credibility that the GIP has not managed to achieve due in part to the process of establishment, appointment and maintenance that is the rotation of appointed members and the publication of the financial accounts (financial transparency). Both panels report to Ministers and both panels have an advisory role.

3. A number of the legal frameworks existed at the time the HoC TLR-C published its report in June 2002 and as such the HoC TLR-C report was indirectly indicating (as the report made no direct reference to the existing EU and UK laws) that the combination of the Department of State (DTLR, ODPM, DCLG) and the Executive Agency (Ordnance Survey of Great Britain (OSGB)) that the Department has responsibility were not being complied with in particular Conclusion (c).

4. The above brief summary would suggest that rather than generate yet further legal frameworks and guidance there is an urgent need for compliance to be enforced with respect to the existing laws and frameworks combined with a more rigorous scrutiny both by Parliament and bodies such as the National Audit Authorities.

3. PAN-GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT—(CONCLUSION D)

3.1 The Pan-Government Agreement was established but the process did not comply with the EU Procurement law in that it was not open to competition. The basis for not complying with the EU Directive was that both the Department of State concerned—the procurer (DTLR then ODPM) and the Ordnance Survey of Great Britain—the supplier, are public bodies under the Crown (confirmed by the fact that Crown Copyright applies in both cases). As such these two bodies are exempt from the EU Public Procurement Directive as they are part of the same family of public bodies.

3.2 However the Pan Government Agreement supplied a substantial number of other public bodies that were not under the Crown for example the Environment Agency. It is the latter aspect that resulted in non compliance with the EU Public Procurement Directive.[61]

3.3 The European Commission (EC) Internal Market and Services Directorate's Public Procurement Policy enforcement Unit received a complaint in July 2003 and the decision reference number 2003/4786 upheld the complaint that the Pan-Government Agreement did fall within the remit of the EU Public Procurement Directive due to the wide range of public bodies and their sub contractors being beneficiaries under the Pan-Government Agreement. The details and the decision related to Complaint 2003/4786 —Ordnance Survey—Pan-Government Agreement—Public Procurement are available from the EC Enforcement Unit in Brussels.

3.4 As a result of the EC intervention the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (OPDM) placed a notice in the Official Journal of the European on 25 August 2005. The process that was initiated by the notice resulted in only two lots being met both of which are provided by the private sector data providers. The procurement is still in process.

3.5 The above raises a number of points that the committee may wish to consider and note.

1. It is assumed that the HoC TLR-C in publishing Conclusion (d) in June 2002 was not implying that the DTLR did not need to comply with the EU and UK Public Procurement laws, procedures and good paractice.

2. The Pan-Government agreement did not cover the procurement of Aerial Photography due to the complaints and Court Injunction between Get Mapping plc—Ordnance Survey of Great Britain. (Conclusion (f)). It was apparent that there were at least three private sector companies able to provide aerial imagery.

4. The second Pan-Government agreement (PGA2) that did abide by the EU Public Procurement laws (even though at the current time it has not been concluded) has demonstrated that other suppliers do exist within the geographic information market both within the public and private sectors and that given the opportunity to bid that they do so. Thus value for Money can be demonstrated but only if open competition exists.

The Commercial Use of Public Information (CUPI)

4. THE NATIONAL INTEREST MAPPING SERVICE AGREEMENT—NIMSA (CONCLUSION C)

4.1 The HoC TLR-C Conclusion (c) was not met throughout the lifetime of NIMSA. The published Annual Accounts of the OSGB have not complied with the legal requirement for financial transparency in that only the total amount of the NIMSA subsidy received each year has been reported. The NIMSA payment in the context of the OSGB Annual Profit & Loss accounts is significant as TABLE 4.1 shows and as such demonstrates the need for financial transparency with respect to any cross-subsidisation that maybe taking place.

Table 4.1

NIMSA DETAILS OBTAINED FROM OS-GB PUBLISHED ANNUAL REPORTS


NIMSA Year	Year	Received for NIMSA	Accumulated Total	Operating Surplus*	OS Total Turnover	Less NIMSA

1	1999-2000	£14,616,800	£14,616,800	£12,484,000	£99,586,000	£84,969,200
2	2000-2001	£13,454,136	£28,070,936	£27,342,000	£98,558,000	£85,103,864
3	2001-2002	£15,987,245	£44,058,181	(-£7,562,000)	£102,631,000	£86,643,755
4	2002-2003	£12,546,480	£56,604,661	(-£2,213,000)	£108,042,000	£95,495,520
5	2003-2004	£12,820,427	£69,425,088	£5,582,000	£116,280,000	£103,459,573
6	2004-2005	£13,179,461	£82,604,549	£9,177,000	£114,738,000	£101,558,539
7	2005-2006	£10,925,516	£93,530,065
	Total to date	£93,530,065		£44,810,000

* Surplus/Deficit(-) on ordinary activities before interest and exceptional items.

4.2 Over the lifetime of NIMSA the Department (DTLR, ODPM, DCLG) has only published five NIMSA annual reports.[66] The Department published these reports towards the end of the period.

TABLE 4.2 shows that the financial reporting improved following the publication of the HoC TLR-C report. The financial information provided however, is not sufficient to meet the requirement of transparency with respect to cross-subsidisation between the public task and the commercial activities.

Table 4.2


Financial Year	Financial Information included

NIMSA Annual Report 2005-06	Financial breakdown provided
NIMSA Annual Report 2004-05	Financial breakdown provided
NIMSA Annual Report2003-04	Financial breakdown provided
NIMSA Annual Report 2002-03	Financial breakdown provided
NIMSA Annual Report 2001-02	Financial totals only
NIMSA Annual Report 2000-01 Not published on the DCLG web site. Available via FOI Request to OSGB	Financial totals only

4.3 The National Interest Mapping Service Agreement signed between the Customer (DETR) and the Supplier (OSGB) has not been placed in the public domain even though this is not a commercial arrangement but a National Interest (Public interest) agreement. The signed Agreement provides the basis for assessing whether the services defined in the Agreement have been delivered in accordance with the Agreement. The Agreement (Released by the OSGB in respect to an FOI request Number 41577) shows that the Agreement was still being varied even though the Agreement had come into force as shown in TABLE 4.3. Schedule D of the Agreement documents the Profile of proposed NIMSA services and costs 1999/00 to 2005/06 is shown in Annex A of this submission. Schedule D highlights the need for financial transparency in respect of cross subsidisation as a number of entries will be common to the OSGB computerised databases for example Corporate Data Management, Technical security.

Table 4.3


Version	Date	Description

1.0	October 1998	First issue
1.1	February 2000	Replacement pages E.1 and E.2*
1.2	February 2001	Complete reissue

* Schedule E: Terms of Reference for the NIMSA review group.

4.4 NIMSA was for a seven year period from April 1999 through to the end of March 2006. The DCLG in the October statement on NIMSA states that NIMSA funding will end on 31 December 2006—an overrun of eight calendar months. The trend within Government to extend supply agreements and contracts that are not open to competition distorts the market.[67]

4.5 The Government's response to the HoC TLR-C report recommendation (c) states:

"NIMSA charges are audited every year and have never been the subject of adverse audit comment since NIMSA was established on 1 April 1999".

4.6 However the Annual NIMSA reports published contain no official Audit statement to corroborate the above statement. It is not clear from the published NIMSA annual reports what the Audit process involves. It is also not clear how the Department was ensuring value for money. Information released under the FOI Act, and in response to letters—refer Annex B; would indicate that the formal NIMSA Audit process was part of a much larger Audit process and that NIMSA itself was not subject to a specific Audit. The information provided indicates that the Department was not part of the Audit process.

4.7 Evidence on the Value for Money can be ascertained from at least two parts of NIMSA for example the metadata service (GIgateway) and the update or Rural Addresses. The metadata service was subcontracted to the Association of Geographic Information (AGI) in 2001. The AGI employed up to six people to manage and deliver the metadata services. A comparison of the AGI Annual Accounts published at Companies House with those of the NIMSA Annual reports published by the Department shows that the OSGB overhead of managing this contract was on average 33% even when the alignment of the financial years is taken into account.

Table 4.7


Year	AGI received (Jan to Dec)	OS-GB Received (Apr to Mar)	OS-GB Handling	Percentage Overhead

2001	£263,000	£393,333	£130,333	33.14%
2002	£278,000	£396,526	£118,526	29.89%
2003	£251,938	£403,775	£151,837	37.60%

4.8 The above raises a number of points that the committee may wish to consider and note.

1. The requirement for financial transparency has not been met.

2. The Department's management of NIMSA improved with time which maybe in response to the HoC TLR-C report as well as the ongoing external pressures for greater transparency.

3. The financial audit process is far from clear and as a result it is not proven that the value for money was being achieved.

4. NIMSA overran the seven year period which has an impact on the market.

5. The NIMSA consultation was not conducted in accordance with the Cabinet Office Consultation guidelines—refer Annex C of this submission.

6. In light of the above the Departments conclusions on the future of NIMSA in the October 2006 statement is correct in that requests for financial transparency have not been met, the value for money is questionable, NIMSA distorts the market. The Department decision in effect ensures compliance with the law. The Department then has the freedom to procure services that it deems are required in the National Interest via open competition.

7. The OSGB views NIMSA as a commercial contract as many of the documents held and referenced by the National Audit Office—Refer to Annex B that originate from the OSGB are marked Commercial in Confidence. If separate accounts were produced for the public task role and the commercial role then the necessity felt by OSGB to mark their documents as Commercial in Confidence would not be required.

5. OSGB ANNUAL REPORT AND FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS

5.1 The OSGB Annual Report and Financial Accounts are not transparent as required by EU legislation and HM Treasury requirements. In response to an FOI Act request HM Treasury states (Refer Annex D of this submission) that Trading Funds must ensure that their accounts are transparent with respect to subsidies received. The HM Treasury also states that it is down to the responsible Department (DTLR, ODPM, DCLG) to ensure that the Financial Accounts comply with the HM Treasury guidance.

5.2 With respect to HoC TLR-C Conclusion (a) prices—the OSGB Annual Report for the past six plus years contains an Adverse report from the National Audit Office regarding the value of the database. The Adverse report makes the point that this affects the price. In response to an FOI Act Request (Annex E) the National Audit Office states that has is still to be resolved.

6. COMPLIANCE WITH PSI REGULATIONS SI 1515—2005 (EU DIRECTIVE 2003/98/EC)

6.1 The PSI Regulations 2005 came into force on 1 July 2005. In January 2006 (seven months after the PSI Regulations came into force) the OSGB published a document titled Licence Exceptions (D03800.doc Jan 2006) that did not comply with the Regulations in a number of areas. For example:

"Please note that we may refuse a licence in certain circumstances including the following:

1. We may refuse to grant certain applications if:

— your request to reproduce Ordnance Survey mapping falls outside Ordnance Survey's standard licensing terms and conditions; or

— you want to market a product whose intended use is the same as, or comparable to, that of any product marketed by Ordnance Survey itself or any product which Ordnance Survey intends to market."

"7. We will only licence Ordnance Survey published products. We will not licence mapping information which is used as part of our production flowline."

6.2 The OPSI has subsequently taken the matter up with the OSGB with respect to ensuring compliance.

6.3 The above raises a number of points that the committee may wish to consider and note.

1. Where are the OSGB boundaries documented and set? The OSGB Framework document does not define them and the potential re-user of OSGB data according to Licence Exception Clause 1 bullet 2 has to guess where the OSGB boundaries are.

2. The Licence Exception may infringe EU Treaty Article 82 in that it is an abuse of dominant position.

3. The Licence Exception can be used to control the market, which is explicitly prohibited within the PSI Regulations. In this example the potential re-user of the OSGB data has to divulge their business plans and only then discovers whether the OSGB will licence the data, which it may refuse on the grounds that the OSGB is considering entering the same market!

4. The Licence Exception clause 7 defines the base line with respect to the PSI Regulations regarding refined and unrefined data from the OSGB's perspective, a point that the OFT CUPI report also considers.

5. zPublic sector resources have to be devoted to correct the situation, which should not have arisen in the first place. Whilst the matter is resolved the geographic information market is impacted.

6. The example is but one that demonstrates that the OSGB can introduce such documents without notice and in a time scale that verges on the instantaneous, yet the correction and or withdrawal takes an inordinate amount of time. This is visible (transparent) with respect:

— To the OPSI Information Fair Trader Scheme (IFTS) reports where the OPSI requires the OSGB to change licences and other conditions that do not conform to the IFTS.

— Resolving complaints upheld by the OPSI under the PSI Regulations.

7. MARKET IMPACT—LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAPPING SERVICE AGREEMENT

7.1 An analysis of the Local Government Mapping Service Agreement procurement clearly shows that the OSGB actions delayed the procurement. The difference between the timescales published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC) notice and the actual timescales are shown in the TABLES 7.1A and 7.1B.

Table 7.1A

MSA OJEC NOTICE


Event	Date

Reference	74274100
Type of Contract	Restricted Procedure
Period of Contract	1.04.04 to 31.03.07
Publication date of Notice	17.06.03
Closing date for obtaining document	14.07.03
Closing date for Expression of Interest	25.07.03
Dispatch of Tender document	10.10.03
Closing date for tender	21.01.04

Table 7.1B

MSA TIME ANALYSIS


Date	Elapsed Days	Event

17.06.2003	1	OJEC Notice Call for expression of interest
05.11.2003	141	Invitation to Tender issued
16.12.2003	182	Bids received (Tender closed)
20.02.2004	248	Preferred bidders announced
26.05.2005	709	Announcement MSA has been signed between the three suppliers and I&DeA
31.05.2005	714	LGIH dispatch LA MSA Agreements
31.07.2005	775	Deadline for LA's to return MSA 70% of fees threshold must be met
02.09.2005	808	I&DeA announces 99.46% of LA's had signed the MSA

7.2 The above raises a number of points that the committee may wish to consider and note.

1. The procurement was divided into Lots (as is recommended by UK OGC). Different lots were awarded to three suppliers—two from the private sector and one from the public sector (OSGB). Agreement was reached at an early stage with the two private sector companies that covered the duration of the contract but protracted with respect to the public sector supplier (OSGB). Due to the construct of the procurement all three suppliers had to have reached agreement with the Local Government procurement body before the MSA could be presented to the individual local government bodies for signing. The cost of the procurement alone is estimated to be in the region of £10 million plus.

2. While the procurement process was under way the previous Local Government Service level Agreement where the OSGB provided all the data products—that was not awarded under open competition; continued in force, ie the OSGB continued to receive income. In contrast the private sector companies awarded the other lots could not proceed or receive income!

3. During the procurement process the OSGB announced new products that were not available at the time of the announcement. The products announced were competitive products to those already awarded to the private sector companies that the Local Government procurement authority had reached agreement.

4. Whilst the procurement was in process the OSGB together with the Department (DTLR, OPDM, DCLG) announced the National Spatial Address Infrastructure (NSAI). The Department on 1 June 2007 made an announcement that it will not proceed further with the NSAI!

5. The Department (DTLR, ODPM, DCLG) has experienced a similar delay with respect to PGA2. Whilst the delay continues PGA1 has been extended. ie the OSGB continues to receive income.

6. Although the market perception on the delays is one of anti competitive behaviour on the behalf of the OSGB it can also be taken as an indicator that the OSGB places contractual conditions on Customers that are unacceptable to their real world business requirements and as such indicates that the OSGB maybe abusing its dominant position.

7. In both the MSA and PGA the OSGB was the incumbent supplier to other parts of the public sector and as such the OSGB is in a position to not only maintain the income through delay but also able to use its relationship with the Minister and the Department (DTLR, ODPM, DCLG) to influence events. This clearly is not a level playing field with respect to the private companies that are OSGB's competitors. As such there is a market distortion. This situation is further distorted when the Director General serves a Chair of the GIP and previously was a member of the Departments board.

8. The same delaying technique is also apparent when Regulators require the OSGB to comply with their decisions.

8. LACK OF TRANSPARENCY—QUINQUENNIAL REVIEW STAGE 2

8.1 Although the conclusion of the OSGB quinquennial stage 2 pre dates the HoC TLR-C report publication it is notable that the OSGB quinquennial review stage 2 report produced by National Economic Research Associates has not been placed in the public domain even though quinquennail review stage 1 report has been. The review process was undertaken in the public interest using public funds and as such the document should be publicly available.

8.2 The lack of transparency with respect to the quinquennial review is yet another example of the lack of transparency and delays mentioned elsewhere in this submission. This demonstrates that there has been little change by the OSGB and the Department since the publication of the HoC TLR-C report. This not only impacts the geographic information market, public sector initiatives but as importantly that of accountability which weakens the democratic processes.

NOTE: Further supporting information can be provided to support the submission if required.

47 Tenth Report (HC481) OS13 (a) & (b) pages Ev 88 and 89. Back

48 I served as an elected member of the AGI Council from 1 January 1995 through to the 31 December 2004. Back

49 http://www.epsiplus.net/epsiplus/contacts/epsiplus_network_team_analysts/chris_corbin Back

50 http://www.ec-gis.org/ginie/documents.html Back

51 http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/library/index_en.htm#MEPSIR_Study,_2006_(PDF-files) Back

52 http://www.epsigate.org/index.htm Back

53 http://www.ubique.org/spread/ Back

54 http://www.oecd.org/document/17/0,3343,en_2649_201185_36860241_1_1_1_1,00.html Back

55 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/42/37865140.pdf Back

56 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/psi-regulations/eu-directive-on-psi.htm Back

57 http://www.ogc.gov.uk/procurement_policy_and_application_of_eu_rules_european_procurement_directives.asp Back