How home information packs give local government a pricey monopoly
In today’s Guardian, “Government ducks the issue on property search data” looks at how the arrival of home information packs will give local councils a monopoly in land searches for properties. Trouble is, it’s not one that they’re entirely happy having because it ends up costing them.
However, local authorities can be sticky about releasing “unrefined” information. Nearly two years ago an investigation by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) found that one in 10 authorities provided no access to records of Town and Country Planning Act notices – even though by law this information should be openly available for free. A personal search company told the office that one third of local authorities do not provide information on highway developments.
Councils argue that they are in a cleft stick. The fee levels set by central government for access to certain items of unrefined data do not cover the cost of dealing with personal search companies. On average, each request takes council staff 70 minutes. They therefore have to subsidise this service out of fees charged for compiled searches. Charges range from £55 to £269, with an average cost of £119.
What’s the problem?
This is another example of what happens when a public body with a monopoly in raw data tries to sell products compiled from that data.
Couldn’t the government do something definitive?
The government responded this month with a consultation document on “Good Practice Guidance” that urges councils to play fair. One key concern of the OFT – price transparency – is ducked entirely. This will be subject to “a further consultation exercise later this year”.
It’s almost strange how the government keeps putting off big decisions like this. It’s almost as if they were waiting for someone important to leave, or someone important to take on a new job so that things could settle down.
Meanwhile we’re expecting the DTI response to the OFT report on public sector information to be released any day now. Let’s hope it’s not bad news – it might get buried.
- The following posts may be related...(the database guesses):
- Ordnance Survey says Met Police crime maps break its licence. Does Jacqui Smith know? Or Gordon Brown? (19 November 2008; score: 29.48%)
- Manitoba, home of the free (data) (17 August 2006; score: 26.9%)
- Home Office responds re OS and crime maps (21 November 2008; score: 25.48%)
- Why aren't public servants' details public? (5 October 2006; score: 24.84%)
- Interactive crime maps for everyone by Christmas, says Home Office (28 July 2008; score: 23.19%)
May 11th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Not strictly related to HIPs, but other data local councils are tight with : the definitive map of rights of way.
This is typically available as an overprinting of an OS map, and when published online the OS map is both in reduced definition and contains a sort of watermark.
However, regardless of the campaign’s efforts to free the OS part of the data, councils seem unwilling to provide the rights-of-way data for copying. This data would obviously be invaluable to a free mapping project, especially one that tried to mark footpaths as well as roads.
Can this attitude be challenged ? Surely the data describing where we are allowed to freely walk cannot be copyright ?
May 11th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Don’t you think that there is a ’scarcity’ mindset which would be neutralised if public sector data were made available for free? It seems to me that there is a culture of costing which needs to be changed. If OS didn’t charge such extortionate prices and the general attitude was that public information (i.e. info created by the public sector) was owned by the public not by the Councils/government/public sector bodies who are hired only to manage it, then local authorities would be forced to offer it for the public good.
We need to see ourselves as personally empowered citizens in order to effect this change. Collectively, we are certainly more powerful than the cadre of law firms which Ordnance Survey may choose to employ.
May 12th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
"This is another example of what happens when a public body with a monopoly in raw data tries to sell products compiled from that data."
Which monopoly are you referring to?
Adrian:
"Not strictly related to HIPs, but other data local councils are tight with : the definitive map of rights of way."
Once the rights of way are overlayed onto the OS map, you are into the dangerous territory of derived works. Overlaying a footpath onto an OS map almost certainly is not a derived work, but then who wants to face the OS in court? Probably not a Council employer with a budding Civil Serivce career.
May 14th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
The Government are relying on two points –
the Local Authorities (Charges for Land Searches) Regulations 1994
section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003
to bring in charges for search data.
perhaps this is a case for OPSI!!