written evidence from lord lucas

8/3/2019 Written Evidence From Lord Lucas

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/written-evidence-from-lord-lucas 1/3

FOI 10

Written evidence from Lord Lucas

1) Executive Summary

a) The Information Commissioner should be better able to influence how

datasets are priced under FoI and publication schemes. Current

arrangements allow public authorities to use pricing to unreasonably restrict

access and thereby limit access to information and the growth of new

businesses.

b) UCAS’s use of publication schemes to extinguish free FoI access needs

dealing with.

2) My experience of FoI

a) I am an active backbench Conservative peer, and have made occasional use

of FoI in that context; much greater use has been made by groups that I chair

or are otherwise associated with, such as the London Motorists Action Group.

I make considerable personal use of FoI in my commercial life as editor of

The Good Schools Guide.

b) As a user, I am broadly content with the workings of the act. I have pursuedan appeal to the Commissioner and won (and also similarly in Scotland).

Much patience was required, over several years (a faster system would be

welcome) but the eventual judgement was careful and fair, and the

Commissioner has been quick to enforce it subsequently. As a politician, I am

in agreement with the Campaign for Freedom of Information in the

improvements that they seek.

3) Payment for data which is intended for commercial re-use

a) Part 6 of The Protection of Freedoms Bill proposes to amend the FOI Act,

introducing new provisions facilitating access to, and the reuse of, datasets.

These also specifically provide that a fee may be charged for the reuse of

information.

b) I approve of this. Why should I not share my revenue with the public bodies

which have made it possible?

4) How much should be paid for data?

a) The more that is charged, the more access is denied and use prevented. To

offer three examples from my experience:



i) I currently obtain datasets under FoI from individual UK universities

(UCAS and HESA have refused to supply). These are dirty and often

presented in inconvenient formats; they take a lot of work to make

useable. If I had to pay even the marginal cost of providing me with the

data that would be a substantial barrier to my building a business in theuniversity information area.

ii) I asked HESA for four simple datasets; they quoted £4,000 for them – well

above their utility to me, and ten or twenty times their marginal cost.

iii) I would have a use for the house price data that the Land Registry collects

– but not £40,000 per annum worth of use, which is the minimum price for

the data I would need.

b) Pricing information highly reduces the use made of it and raises barriers to

the creation of new businesses, other than by the well-financed. On the other

hand, pricing it cheaply means that businesses using the data may not be

paying a fair price for it. I do not have an easy formula to offer, but this is a

familiar problem in commerce and one that I wrestle with myself; a licence

based on the number of users and the proposed use is a common solution in

my world.

c) In any event, I think that the Information Commissioner should be allowed to

review publication schemes, even after they have been approved, to check

that they measure up to a set of principles. Under the exemption in s.21 of the

FoI Act, a public authority can refuse to supply information under FoI terms if

it is reasonably accessible to the applicant other than by means of an FoI

request. Section 21(3) provides that this applies even if the authority charges

for the information - but only if the fee, or means by which the fee will be

calculated, is specified in the authority's publication scheme.

d) I suggest that the principles that publication schemes should measure up to

might be:

i) If a public body wishes to charge more than the marginal cost of

production for any dataset, then it must justify that charge in terms of the

commercial value of the dataset to the user in question and thedesirability of encouraging the commercial re-use of public data.

5) UCAS’s coach and horses

a) In their refusal of a recent FoI request from me, UCAS said:

i) “UCAS also considers that, even if data protection concerns did not

prevent it from disclosing the information you have requested, your

request would in any event have been refused on the basis of exemption

s.21 (Information available by other means). Should it be possible to

devise analysis specification which sufficiently minimises the risks of

disclosure, this service is available from UCAS Media Ltd who offers a



bespoke data analysis service as described in the UCAS Freedom of

Information Act Publication Scheme “Guide to Information” at

http://www.ucas.com/about_us/foi/guidetoinformation/services (at the link

“Statistical Services FAQs”).”

b) In other words, UCAS will never have to disclose data on FoI terms, becauseif it is disclosable under FoI then it comes under the publication scheme.

c) The minimum charge under the publication scheme is £200.

d) If this formula was adopted by all public bodies then that would be an end to

free information under FoI

e) In any event, UCAS’s exploit emphasises the importance of getting the pricing

of publication scheme datasets right.

January 2012

written evidence from lord lucas

Documents