Conclusions and recommendations
Barriers to accountability
1. Stephan Shakespeare's
proposal that the Government should adopt a "twin-track"
approach to data release is a practical and realistic way of maintaining
the momentum on open data, which recognises that "the perfect
should not be the enemy of the good: a simultaneous 'publish early
even if imperfect' imperative AND a commitment to a 'high quality
core'". Regular publication of imperfect government data
will provide Departments with a powerful incentive to improve
it. We recommend that the Government should adopt the twin-track
approach to data release advocated by Stephan Shakespeare. Government
should 'publish early even if imperfect', as well as being committed
to a 'high quality core'. As long as Government is clear about
its limitations, there will always be a role for data that is
imperfect but improvable. (Paragraph 16)
2. It is very difficult
to assess the performance of Government in enhancing accountability
through opening up its data. The concept of open data is poorly
defined and there are no accepted measures of what is published.
This allows supporters of open data to claim the revolution is
well under way and the sceptics to say nothing has changed. (Paragraph
18)
3. It is often pointed
out that more than 13,000 datasets can now be found on data.gov.uk,
but it is unclear how many of these represent simple republishing
of data already published on other government sites. Some data
sets are small and others large. And it is possible for departments
to get more data out by publishing it in smaller bundles or updating
it more frequently, in such a way that there is little or no extra
public benefit. In these circumstances, measuring progress on
this important agenda is difficult if not impossible. Simply putting
data "out there" is not enough to keep Government accountable.
(Paragraph 19)
4. We invite the
Government to publish a clear list of open data, indicating when
each data series became open in each case.
(Paragraph 20)
Procurement and Open Data
5. Open data principles
should be applied not only to government departments but also
to the private companies with which they make contracts (Paragraph
28)
6. We recommend that
companies contracting with the Government to provide contracted
or outsourced goods and services should be required to make all
data open on the same terms as the sponsoring department. This
stipulation should be included in a universal standard contract
clause which should be introduced and enforced across Government
from the beginning of the financial year 2015-16. (Paragraph 29)
The right to data?
7. There is confusion
about the concept of the 'right' to data held by Government. On
the one hand, the Minister told us that there is no right to data,
but there is evidence to suggest that, in effect, a presumption
already exists that government data will be published in an open
format. (Paragraph 37)
8. The Government
needs to recognise that the public has the inherent 'right to
data', like Freedom of Information. The Government should clarify
its policy and bring forward the necessary legislation, without
delay. (Paragraph 38)
Privacy and open data: managing the risks
9. When releasing
data, it is the responsibility of Government to avoid risk that
individuals may be identified against their will. There has been
an effective campaign to highlight unease about the release of
anonymised NHS patient data for academic and pharmaceutical research
as part of the Care.data programme. There is a clear need to reassure
the public about personal privacy. However, it is also important
to explain what open data can do to make public services more
accountable and responsive to the needs of society. The recent
controversy over Care.data demonstrates the danger that concerns
about privacy will unduly undermine the case for open data (Paragraph
47)
Increasing engagement
10. There is no sign
of the promised emergence of an army of armchair auditors. There
is little or no evidence that the Cabinet Office is succeeding
in encouraging greater public engagement in using data to hold
the public sector to account. (Paragraph 54)
11. Open data is important
and touches people's lives at many points. Yet Government and
some of the experts sometimes make too much use of jargon and
so can alienate and confuse people who do not have expert knowledge
of the technical terms. This can undermine efforts to encourage
more people to get involved in holding Government to account.
(Paragraph 55)
12. The Government
should adopt a star-rating system for engagement, as recommended
by Involve, for measuring, and reporting to Parliament on, Departments'
progress on increasing accountability through open data. The Government
should expect Departments to set out plans to move towards Five
Star Engagement for all their data releases. (Paragraph 56)
General conclusions on accountability
13. We welcome the
clear lead on open data that has come from successive Governments.
There have been some useful moves to improve accountability and
engagement in recent years, with positive developments such as
the establishment of the Open Data User Group. However there is
much still to be done. (Paragraph 57)
14. There should
be a presumption that restrictions on government data releases
should be abolished. It may be necessary to exempt certain data
sets from this presumption, but this should be on a case-by-case
basis, to provide for such imperatives as the preservation of
national security or the protection of personal privacy. (Paragraph
58)
15. The Cabinet
Office must give a much higher priority to ensuring that more
interesting and relevant data is made open, and that the release
mechanisms encourage people to use it and, where appropriate,
hold Government and local authorities to account. Beginning in
April 2014, targets should be set for the release of totally new
government datasets - not the republishing of existing ones
(Paragraph 59)
Understanding the data marketplace - the two cultures
16. The Government
has set up or supported a number of initiatives and bodies which
are intended to help UK business make the most of public sector
open data. It is too early to say how effective they will be,
but there is evidence that their work will be hampered unless
Government acquires a better understanding of trends in the rapidly-moving
marketplace for open data, where international competition to
realise the economic benefits of key datasets is increasingly
fierce. (Paragraph 68)
Charging for data
17. A radical new
approach is needed to the funding of government open data. Charging
for some data may occasionally be appropriate, but this should
become the exception rather than the rule. A modest part of the
cost to the public of statutory registrations should be earmarked
for ensuring that the resultant data - suitably anonymised if
necessary - can become open data. Data held by the Land Registry
and car registration data held by DVLA and, indeed, Care.data
held by the NHS are among relevant examples.
(Paragraph 75)
The value of core reference data
18. Some government
datasets are of huge direct value to the economy. Ministers and
the Royal Mail have made a number of promises about the continued
accessibility to small businesses and others of the Postcode Address
File (PAF). Evidence we have received casts doubt on the credibility
of such assurances. The Postcode Address File (PAF) was included
in the sale to boost the Royal Mail share price at flotation.
This takes an immediate but narrow view of the value of such datasets.
The PAF should have been retained as a public data set, as a national
asset, available free to all, for the benefit of the public and
for the widest benefit of the UK economy. Its disposal for a short-term
gain will impede economic innovation and growth. This was an unacceptable
and unnecessary consequence of privatisation, and is at odds with
the Minister's general argument that open data should not be "swallowed
up [...] by big global companies." (Paragraph 88)
19. The sale of the
PAF with the Royal Mail was a mistake. The Government must never
make a similar mistake. Public access to public sector data must
never be sold or given away again (Paragraph 89).
Ensuring fair access
20. There is concern
about the attitudes of the research councils, and academic researchers
in general, to government data. The government needs to make the
case for giving privileged academic access to the new government
data, when it should be more widely available. It has, after all
been funded by tax payers. (Paragraph
93)
General conclusions on open data and economic
growth
21. The UK Government
was an early mover on government open data, but other Governments,
watching the UK with interest, are catching up fast. If the Government
does not take the opportunities offered, there is a risk in the
UK that businesses with growth potential will be deterred by fees
for data, and by legal and administrative barriers, while other
countries are developing their data industrial base and stealing
a lead over the UK. It is short-sighted in the extreme for Government
to seek to maximise fee income from data while those fees penalise
in particular small companies that can prove the most innovative,
and which could establish the UK as global leader in this new
economic sector. (Paragraph 94)
22. Core data needs
to be released fast and, above all, free so that businesses (for
example apps developers) can use it along with other data to make
progress. To this end the Government should in particular pledge
that the data held by GeoPlace LLP, a company owned by Ordnance
Survey and the Local Government Association, will remain in public
ownership. (Paragraph 95)
23. Departments should
be required to list all the surveys conducted and administrative
systems in operation to allow the public to see what data might
be produced, and should provide to Parliament and the public a
prompt and clear account of all revenues from any data sale. (Paragraph
96)
24. The Government
must work closely with business and nurture new open data enterprises
by providing the environment they need to grow. The Open Data
Institute is a welcome recent development. It has worked to help
develop some start-up businesses based on open data and has been
a hub for knowledge, but its impact is far from clear and now
needs to be felt more widely. (Paragraph 97)
Missing opportunities to improve effectiveness
25. There is little
evidence to suggest that the Government is consistently making
the most of the opportunities to improve policy and performance
via the use of its own data. Departments need to make full use
of the records and information they possess to ensure they are
running effectively. Opening up that data to other departments
will boost the Government's evidence base and can improve policy
making. The benefits of making data open include not just an increase
in openness and accountability, but also the opportunity for outside
experts to verify, and suggest improvements in the quality and
accuracy of, the data itself. (Paragraph
103)
26. The Cabinet Office
should be much more active in ensuring Departments maximise the
social and economic potential of open data, not least in increasing
their own efficiency and effectiveness. To this end, it should:
a) require Departments to produce, by the end
of 2014, a detailed and timetabled plan for using data to enhance
their performance,
b) ensure that the data which is used to underpin
policy work in all public announcements is published alongside
the policy statements, and
c) bring an end by January 2015 to the outdated
and wasteful practice whereby Departments have to pay for access
to data that has been produced by Government itself. (Paragraph
104)
27. The Office for
National Statistics, directed by the UK Statistics Authority Board,
should also be at the forefront of this movement and showing the
way forward by example. (Paragraph 105)
The role of statisticians
28. Many
civil and public servants lack the skills to interpret data properly
and some civil servants do not seem to share the Government's
desire for openness. While bearing fully in mind the needs of
national security and personal privacy, civil servants need to
be much more aware of the
presumption to publish. They should stop being gatekeepers,
guarding government data, and become enablers encouraging its
wider use; key to this will be the development of a wider understanding
of data issues among policy staff.(Paragraph 116)
29. Government
statisticians have the skills to do much more with government
data, for example, through producing new series of statistics.
But statisticians have chosen to adopt a low profile when they
need to be active in producing new data sets and collaborating
with their colleagues in other Civil Service professions to bring
more sense and usability to open data initiatives. Government
statisticians should become champions of open data.(Paragraph
117)
30. We recommend above
that the Government adopt the "five-star" system along
the lines proposed by Involve, for open data engagement. A second
"five-star" rating system, developed by Full Fact for
assessing the usability of government statistics, would support
the efforts of statisticians to play a more active role in open
data. This system should also be adopted by the Cabinet Office
in assessing departmental progress on open data. (Paragraph 118)
31. The Government
needs to move fast to encourage training of more data scientists.
We therefore recommend that the Government should bring forward
a practical timetable for training data scientists, with target
numbers, to be announced before the end of July 2014. The Government
should also include data skills and open data awareness sessions
in the training of the policy profession in the Civil Service.
(Paragraph 119)
Who is responsible for making the Government's
open data plans work?
32. There
is much to be gained from open data, but the Government's direction
of travel is not clear. The ODI has set out some important elements
of a more considered and coherent approach, and it is a foundation
for the Government to use as the basis for further work towards
a strategy. The National Action Plan provides little incentive
for the wider public to get involved in open data.(Paragraph 138)
33. There
has been a lack of coordination on open data at Ministerial and
official level, though this is improving. No clearer indication
of the lack of strategy on open data is required than the inconsistency
of the decision to sell the Postcode Address File with the Royal
Mail. The Cabinet Office leads on the policy, but its mechanisms
to hold Departments to account are weak. The sale of the PAF with
the Royal Mail demonstrates that important Departments such as
the Treasury and BIS do not appreciate the value of open data.
Despite the enthusiastic rhetoric emanating from the Cabinet Office,
our evidence indeed indicated something more serious - a lack
of understanding of open data among most Ministers and apparently
most officials. (Paragraph 139)
34. The
Information Commissioner described how the public sector's commitment
to the Freedom of Information Act slackened over time. Under present
arrangements, it is all too possible to foresee a repeat of this
experience in the case of open data, with the issue slipping gradually
down the list of public sector priorities as apparently more pressing
matters come to the fore. The stakes on open data are arguably
higher than those on freedom of information, and the UK has great
opportunities if it gets it right - but Government needs to take
a determined lead or the opportunities will slip away. (Paragraph
140)
35. There
is an unwieldy plethora of open data bodies which tends to slow
both decision-making and consultation. The structure of the government
web sites also make it very difficult to see what government policy
is towards open data, and to identify the progress being made
(Paragraph 141)
36. To overcome
departmental apathy and resistance, open data needs to be treated
as a major government programme in its own right, which will only
bring substantial benefits if it is subject to active leadership
and management by Ministers and officials. The Minister for the
Cabinet Office should be given explicit responsibility for all
aspects of open data policy, including the commercial aspects.
We believe that Civil Service accountability for progress needs
to be much clearer, and that the Cabinet Secretary should be given
the overall responsibility for pushing open data through Whitehall
and beyond. A single Senior Responsible Owner should be appointed
at Deputy Secretary level in the Cabinet Office, to be directly
and personally responsible for delivering the benefits of the
open data strategy. The Public Sector Transparency Board is too large
to be effective in driving progress. A small group from that Board
should work as a Programme Implementation Board.
(Paragraph 142)
37. The Government
should, by the end of June 2014, submit to the Committee a detailed
report on progress on the actions related to open data. This should
include a list of all plans and actions from recent relevant documents,
reports and committees on open data, including but not limited
to the Open Government Partnership Action Plan and the National
Information Infrastructure. The Cabinet Office should report to
Parliament at least every six months on progress made with a consolidated
list of actions. (Paragraph 143)
Conclusion
38. Today there are
unparalleled opportunities to harvest unused knowledge that otherwise
goes to waste, which can be used to empower citizens, to improve
public services and to benefit the economy and society as a whole.
(Paragraph 144)
| 
