Addressing the United Kingdom An unlikely PSI challenge

1. Addressing the United KingdomAn unlikely PSI challenge addressing information from source Michael Nicholson Managing Director, Intelligent Addressing Limited 16th February 2006

2. A synopsis… • In 1999, a private/public partnership was formed to develop an address gazetteer for England & Wales (NLPG) • Re-used elements of data from several PSI Holders • One of the PSIHs saw NLPG partnership as a commercially competitive threat and restricted licensing • After 6 years of abortive negotiation, IA complained to OPSI under PSI Regs and IFTS • Complaint upheld by OPSI • Will the result be fair and reasonable licensing?

3. The background • In 1999 local government (IDeA) wanted to create a master-list of addresses for use across government and the private sector • Invited Ordnance Survey (OS), a “Trading Fund” to manage project • OS had technical reservations and wanted more than a management role and rejected involvement • Private sector then approached by IDeA. Intelligent Addressing (IA) became joint-venture partner • IA provided funds to initiate process, developed central data Hub and offered technical expertise • IA to be repaid from royalties when data commercially licensed • Once NLPG created, IDeA procured its ongoing maintenance in 2005 through OJEC local government Mapping Services Agreement. IA won maintenance contract for the NLPG element.

4. The problem • NLPG incorporated data from local authorities, Valuation Office, IA and Ordnance Survey • Element of OS data (from “AddressPoint”) incorporated with permission in 2002. [Proportion declining] • IA needed to license NLPG to third parties to recoup investment • Local government wanted income return to support ongoing maintenance too • Parts of central government and private sector want to use the NLPG • Full AddressPoint license costs £135,000pa and OS licensing terms considered draconian and restrictive • OS insist that NLPG pays a full AddressPoint licence although use was historic, partial and proportion declining annually.

5. The negotiation • IDeA and IA opened negotiations with PSIHs to license data in 1999 • All parties agreed to licensing arrangements except OS • OS a publicly owned government “Trading Fund”. Essentially a commercial enterprise sitting within government • In 2005 OS starts to market their own version of NLPG (Master Map Address Layer 2) • Whilst continuing to block NLPG licensing except on terms considered by IDeA and IA to be unfair and uncommercial • Forced IA to seek external resolution • How best to break the log-jam ?

6. Factors considered • Both IA and local government reluctant to complain • Difference in relative size and influence of OS and IA • Resorting to legal action too long and expensive (eg Competition Act) • Relationship with OS already poor but how to do least damage? • Answer: the Public Sector Information Regulations coupled with • The UK’s Information Fair Trader Scheme (IFTS) guidelines • Both gave a relevant framework through which pressure could be brought to bear and good sense might prevail

7. The drawbacks in reality • Time frame for resolution is far too long for private sector SMEs • Regulations quite high-level and lack precision • Regulations and IFTS designed to redirect willing PSIH’s who have inadvertently gone astray. Inadequate force behind them • Instant legal involvement by PSIH. Lack of resources at OPSI • OPSI even-handed but subject to political realities • IA looked to OPSI for independent adjudication and then enforcement within a tight deadline. NOT mediation or facilitation! • Above all, IA wanted to secure fair and reasonable terms from OS to allow their declining element of data in the NLPG to be liceinsed… !

8. The timetable – fair and reasonable licensing still elusive 15/02/06Submission of IA Complaint to OS 15/03/06 OS rejection 07/04/06 Submission of IA appeal to OPSI (evidence collation takes time) 05/06/06 OPSI initial draft response for parties’ to comment on. 13/07/06 OPSI final report  (OS publish statements rejecting OPSI findings) 31/07/05  IA make 2,000 word appeal to APPSI to try to force pace (OS are entitled to appeal to APPSI at any stage during the following 6 months and OPSI is unlikely to force OS’s hand through Ministerial Direction if an APPSI appeal is underway) 14/08/06  IA make £750 payment to APPSI who accept appeal 21/08/06 IA request for APPSI appeal received by OS who are invited to respond 25/10/06  OS response received by APPSI rejecting our arguments and referring to an appeal which they intend to make themselves.  APPSI states they intend to await OS appeal before reviewing the issues. 01/11/06 IA 500 word response to OS response to APPSI 02/11/06  APPSI reports to IA that they have received an appeal from OS and are awaiting OS’s payment £750 so their review can commence. 29/11/06APPSI confirms they have received payment from OS. IA receives a copy of the OS appeal. 06/12/06 IA replies to APPSI with the 2,000 word response to OS’s appeal. 08/12/06 APPSI writes to confirm receipt of the response and states they have given OS 10 working days in which to present their 500 word written reply 02/01/07 APPSI confirms that OS’s 500 word response has been received. 13/01/07 OPSI publishes its evaluation of OS performance and gives OS another 2 months to satisfy certain recommendations

9. Regulations lack precision…[Directive 2003/98/EC] • What element of third party rights should “exclude” a dataset? [2 (b)] • Does the pricing principle of cost recovery apply to each PSI “product” separately or to some other broader definition ? [6] • Should the setting of “Standard Charges” apply in public procurements ? [7] • Where is Public Task defined? [10(2)] • What is the penalty for failure to comply ?

10. Conclusions • We need a robust, low cost and rapid process offering confidence and clarity to PSIHs and PSI users alike • Too much wriggle-room currently. Elements of the Regulations need clarification. • Complaint process tightened-up. Timetable must be reduced. • Adjudication and availability of effective enforcement are vital. Mediation / facilitation risks being ineffective • A safe environment. Rebuilding bridges with monopoly providers can otherwise appear impossible • Monopoly public sector bodies should not be given a commercial remit without tight regulation

11. LLPG LLPG LLPG LLPG LLPG Social Services UPRN Council Tax, NNDR, Stamps Local and National Statistics Building Control UPRN Childrens’ Services UPRN Council Tax UPRN Land Charges UPRN Conveyancing, e-Voting Social services Improved joined-up service delivery - using UPRN and constantly-updated master address list addressing information from source Joined-up Local Services Joined-up National Services Planning UPRN NLPG UPRNReference Highways Ambulance Joined-up Regional Services Fire Social Services Counties Police