Response to the Green Paper
government.direct: a prospectus for the electronic delivery of government services

(Response dated 31 January 1997)

About CoPI

The Coalition for Public Information is a membership body which is currently in process of formation. It held its inaugural meeting at the Library Association headquarters on 8 November 1996 (a list of delegates is attached as Appendix 1). It will be formally constituted on 1 April 1997 and expects to attract corporate and personal members from a wide range of information-related fields, including libraries, publishing, database creation, education, research bodies and the legal profession, as well as statutory, trade and professional bodies.

CoPI is a coalition working to encourage the development of an information and communications infrastructure which will enable full participation in social, economic and democratic activity. Its mission statement reads:

The Coalition for Public Information works to ensure that the developing information and communications infrastructure will empower commerce, communities and individuals so that they can participate fully in social, economic and democratic activity. CoPI aims to influence information-related policies and legislation.

CoPI's overriding concern is with information content provision, in terms of its...

• comprehensiveness,
• navigability,
• retrievability,
• and access for "information haves, have-nots and cannots".

Delegates to CoPI's inaugural meeting elected an interim executive board (details in Appendix 2), to serve until 31 March 1997, and authorised it, inter alia, to respond to the Green Paper government.direct. Executive board members have since canvassed opinion among delegates and others who have expressed interest in CoPI's formation. This response is the result of that consultation exercise. In preparing this Response we also considered the Government’s Response to the House of Lords Select Committee Report Information Society: agenda for action, and we have commented upon that in a separate document.

General Comments

CoPI’s chief concern is that the Government seems to be inconsistent over the need for adequate co-ordination of activities if users are to have straightforward and seamless access to information. If the access is complex and requires a considerable understanding of government structures before the required information can be found, it seems likely that any system will fall into disrepute and disuse.

The House of Lords report recommends the establishment of a "UK Information Society Task Force with members drawn from government, industry, commerce, consumer and academic interests... to represent the full diversity of interests, expertise and opinions across society as a whole." (6.3-6.5). The Government on the other hand prefers responsibilities to be shared amongst the many existing bodies: GEN 37; the Multimedia Industry Advisory Group; the National Information Infrastructure Task Force; the Technology Foresight Panels; and other relevant committees reporting to ministers. It is clear from the make-up of these groups as outlined in the Response, that they have little or no consumer/user representation.

Again, the House of Lords report recommends that "the Government should set all Departments and Agencies minimum standards for the electronic publication of information" (6.14). The Government, on the other hand believes that "decisions on what information should be selected to be placed online are best left to individual Departments and Agencies... It follows that the Departments and Agencies themselves must decide what information has the requisite public interest to warrant making it available free of charge in electronic form."

This attitude of the Government - that things are best left as they are in terms of management and decisions over content - contrasts markedly with its own proposals in government.direct. Government.direct asks the question "How valuable would it be to have unified service delivery from different levels and types of Government body" (4.5) Then we are told "the strategy should support the streamlining and integration of processes across the boundaries between government departments and agencies, so that those boundaries are invisible to the customer" (5.5). Again, "the strategy should provide for the sharing of resources for functions and processes which are common to more than one department or agency" (5.6).

Moreover, a model is proposed (6.6-6.7) whereby there is "a new infrastructure which will provide the link between the systems for particular services and the individual citizen." Indeed, "the Government expects the savings which would follow... in particular, from the rationalisation and redesign of government processes, to more than pay for the new infrastructure..." (6.22).

It is hard to see how this can be achieved if decisions on content, style and approach are "best left to individual Departments and Agencies".

Detailed comments on government.direct

2.5-2.7 IT and the Public

All initiatives to widen access to the Information Society are thoroughly welcomed. It is important, however, that training should focus on search skills and the management of information as well as on the purely technological aspects

2.9 IT and the Technology Foresight Programme

This seems to focus on technology rather than information content, and there appears to be little representation of user/consumer interests

3.1-3.14 Looking Around the World

This provides a useful overview of some of the initiatives elsewhere in the world. The detailed information for job seekers and the use of IT for benefit delivery (Australia, California), and the integration of information from a wide variety of sources into a single access point (Spain), stand in contrast to the current situation in the UK. Here there is often a lack of specific information from government sources (as opposed to general statements of policy) and initiatives from a variety of information providers are tending to lead to fragmentation.

The various business initiatives also provide interesting examples to follow; the Singapore Electronic Valuation List (3.12) provides an interesting parallel to UK proposals to establish a National Land (and Property) Information System.

4.5 Setting a strategic direction

How valuable would it be to have unified service delivery from different levels and types of Government body?

CoPI believes this to be very valuable indeed. It will mean that enquirers (including the "information cannots") need no prior knowledge of administrative structure or lines of responsibility to find the information they need.

To be really effective, unified service delivery of the kind proposed will require excellent navigation tools (to guide enquirers through administrative structures) and a user-friendly and powerful search engine (to accommodate enquirer entry at any point). CoPI believes that this can only be achieved through a great deal of co-ordination and it is concerned that this aspect is underestimated in the proposals and in the response to the House of Lords Report. The trick will be to develop structures which are intuitively obvious to potential consumers. If we fail to get this right, the system will fall into disrepute and disuse.

5.1-5.8 Setting out the principles

These are well thought out and should be welcomed. CoPI would, however, make the following comments:

5.1 CoPI appreciates that electronic service provision must be "cost-effective and affordable", but is concerned that this should not result in its being cut-price and second rate. The benefits to the taxpayer that the Government rightly seeks (in paragraph 6.25) are at least as well served by ploughing cost savings into service development as they are by returning revenue to the taxpayer.

The development of a world-class government information service can only benefit the UK - both in terms of enhancing the reputation of its information technology industries, and possibly also in terms of licensing the information system created to overseas governments and administrations and to supranational bodies.

5.2 Choice

CoPI welcomes the recognition that people - especially the elderly - should have the option of retaining the traditional services for as long as they are needed. These services will need to be supported for many years in parallel with the electronic services, and should not be allowed to wither away.

5.3 Confidence

CoPI recognises that privacy safeguards are essential, that there are real issues concerning the legal obtaining of information used for another purpose, and that they are likely to be sensitivities regarding the release of certain classes of information - for example in the business community. However, CoPI believes that these difficulties, if tackled early and thoroughly, are surmountable and should not impede access to information such as non-sensitive VAT data, which is of real public interest.

5.4 Accessibility

CoPI welcomes the commitments set out here - in particular the principles of simplicity and accessibility to the disadvantaged groups referred to. A 24-hour service should be the norm, bearing in mind the large number of people who work long and/or unsocial hours.

Reference should also be made to the provision of information in the home.

5.5 Efficiency

CoPI welcomes the principle that those dealing with government should obtain a near instantaneous response, and urges it to seek specialist advice from the information technology industry on the development of expert systems to achieve such a response wherever possible.

Where delay is inevitable (for example because the information requested goes beyond the retrieval and data processing capabilities of the software), then - under the principles of the Citizen's Charter - the official who responds in person should be personally identified at the outset and remain accountable until the enquirer's needs are satisfied.

CoPI is concerned, however, that this does not seem compatible with the approach taken in response to the House of Lords Report (6.14) that departments and agencies should decide for themselves which documents should be offered in electronic form.

5.6 Rationalisation

CoPI welcomes this principle. Public information generated as a result of this sharing of resources should be...

• centrally co-ordinated in terms of documents selected for inclusion,
• easily navigable,
• efficiently and flexibly searchable.

But again, this does not seem compatible with the approach taken in response to the House of Lords Report that departments and agencies should decide for themselves which documents should be included in any proposed database.

5.7 Open information

This is particularly welcome and should inform the whole debate on Crown Copyright.

CoPI is also concerned that issues of commercial confidentiality should not be allowed to override public interest - for example the interests of consumers.

Again, public information generated on this principle should be centrally co-ordinated in terms of material selected for inclusion, and should be easily navigable and efficiently and flexibly searchable.

Given systematic organisation of information, the improvement of UK competitiveness and open government can be parallel goals, of equal status. (See CoPI's response to paragraph 5.1.)

5.8 Fraud prevention

CoPI acknowledges that public funds must be protected from fraud and that the identity of enquirers has to be established in certain circumstances. However, any electronic information system will have to make a clear distinction between, for example, complex but general requests for information on social security eligibility - which it must be possible to make anonymously - and requests relating to an individual's eligibility, where the identity of the enquirer clearly has to be established.

6.7 Applying the principles - enhancing customer service

What are the implications of delivering government services electronically direct to the public?

• Faster and more efficient access to essential public information,
• more efficient links between disparate departments and agencies,
• cost-effective publishing of far more information than is feasible by conventional means,
• need to address the question of Crown copyright,
• need for excellent navigation tools and search engines,
• risk of isolating the information "have nots" and "cannots" from the rest.

The system must be simple and straightforward to use and not off-putting in its technical approach. Users must be able to find the information they want without difficulty, yet at the same time the paths to information should not be too rigid and the system must cater for the unusual as well as the more regular queries. When information is provided, it should be genuinely useful, not simply a reference to leaflets or other publications not available from the system.

This calls for considerable co-operation and co-ordination between information providers, and considerable skills in formulating the design of the electronic versions of documents as well as the delivery system.

Where might public access terminals be most conveniently located?

• Foyers of all public buildings,
• libraries,
• social security offices,
• tax offices,
• citizens' advice bureaux and other advice centres,
• town halls and other local government buildings,
• leisure centres (public and private sector),
• post offices,
• banks and building societies,
• supermarkets that offer banking services,
• schools,
• day centres and night shelters,
• chambers of commerce,
• Business Links.

This is a minimum list. The Millennium bid Information for All addresses some of these.

Some terminals must be located where intermediaries are on hand to help "information cannots". For truly universal access to government information, there is even a case for requiring all establishments that sell National Lottery tickets to install a public access terminal as well.

Some research into the views of potential consumers would seem to be worthwhile to discover where the public would like to have access to such systems bearing in mind potential issues such as confidentiality.

How important are electronic "one stop shops", twenty four hour access and near instantaneous response?

CoPI strongly supports the development of all these aspects of the service. It believes that the development of such a service would confirm Britain's place as a world leader in the development of democratic government for the twenty-first century, and would offer UK information technology and publishing industries incomparable competitive advantages globally.

However, it is essential that emphasis is placed firmly on quality throughout. The "one stop shops" must be comprehensively stocked with information that is efficiently navigable and easily searchable. 24-hour access should be the norm, and where the software cannot provide an instantaneous response, identifiable and accountable officials must be on hand to take enquiries up.

This quality can indeed be achieved through "carefully monitored and incentivised contracts"; British firms have in abundant quantities the expertise needed to create such a service. There will undoubtedly be savings in due course - in conventional publishing and distribution costs, and possibly in enquiry point staffing. But, for the foreseeable future, the Government must look to greater efficiency and scope for service delivery, rather than tax refunds, as the principal benefit to the taxpayer.

6.12 Applying the principles - extra connections between government departments

What are the implications of service rationalisation?

What are the implications of sharing data between government departments?

Rationalisation can clearly bring benefits in terms of accuracy and cost of collecting data. Full benefits will not be achieved, however, unless the opportunity is taken to "streamline" service delivery and examine how information flows within and between government departments can be improved through the use of the proposed technologies. Again this will be difficult to achieve without some comprehensive overview, rather than leaving decisions up to individual departments.

The issue of information redesign is particularly important. Much government information is written from the point of view of government instructing the citizen, rather than the citizen seeking answers to questions. A quick review of information on government Internet sites will confirm this observation. To be useful, information needs to be easy to understand as well as easy to find, and this is a non-trivial task which is not mentioned at all in the Green Paper. Data cleaning and information redesign are almost always the biggest costs in any computerisation project - and yet if they are not undertaken thoroughly the whole project is endangered.

At the same time there is the potential for government to combine data from different sources in ways which many citizens might find unacceptable and which might contravene the Data Protection Act. Before citizens are willing to share their information they will wish to be confident that they know who will see it and what they will do with it. Developing this confidence will be a critical task. Clear and auditable safeguards, set down in codes of practice, will need to be put in place to ensure that this does not happen.

On the positive side, the ability for both citizens and businesses to have straightforward access to the information held about them, and the ability to thus check on its accuracy, would certainly be welcome.

What kinds of information would it be convenient to tell government only once?

At present, we suspect few people or businesses have any accurate idea about what information is held about them by local and central government, and still less about how this is distributed amongst the various organisations. Clearly information such as changes of address, births, deaths, changes of employment, marriages and divorces, and mortgage details which have implications for tax and other purposes could all be included. Essentially, this covers personal or employment information which is relevant to central or local government.

What benefits would follow from the wider use of e-mail for communication between government and the public?

E-mail is a fast and convenient way of transmitting and receiving documents, which can then be easily revised and incorporated into other documents. Examples include incorporating government regulations into internal codes of practice, adding official statistics to internal reports, or revising official consultation documents in the light of responses from the public. A comprehensive e-mail directory to all of government would be an essential tool.

There may well be legal implications - over the admissibility of e-mail in court, for example. Also, access to e-mail services is still rare in private households, and likely to remain so in the immediate future, so businesses, rather than the general public, will be the principal beneficiaries of e-mail delivery.

6.13-6.16 Applying the principles - providing access to information

6.14-6.15 The proposals to make statistical and other information available in ways which allow use to be made of its geographic content are particularly welcome. This will certainly be of interest to SMEs, particularly those whose operations are themselves limited to a particular locality. It will also be of interest to individual citizens who can relate such information to their own localities.

6.16 Are any difficulties caused by the present Crown Copyright arrangements, and if so how might they be reduced or removed?

The United Kingdom is unique in the developed world in retaining the concept of official copyright for legislative documents. CoPI looks forward eagerly to the forthcoming Green Paper on Crown Copyright and hopes that it will result in the removal of all copyright restrictions from a wide range of government documents.

Announcing the forthcoming Green Paper in answer to a Parliamentary question on 6 November 1996, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster referred to any relaxation of Crown copyright being "subject to the continuing need to protect the taxpayer's interest and the integrity of Crown copyright material".

As far as the taxpayer's interest is concerned, CoPI believes that this is far better served by removing copyright restrictions on government documents, since the revenue generated through their sale by conventional means - and the consequent impact of that revenue on tax bills - is negligible. Economically there is an argument (favoured in the United States) that the financial benefits to the exchequer from, for example, improved support to businesses which stems from effectively free access to information collected by government at the taxpayer’s expense, outweighs the income raised by charging for access to government copyrighted data.

While recognising the potential for misrepresentation of electronically manipulable copyright-free government documents, CoPI would urge the Government to deal with such malpractices through the judicial process, rather than by placing undue restrictions on the general copying of official material.

6.17 What government information should be made available to the public electronically, and in what form?

CoPI believes strongly that abolition of Crown Copyright on a wide range of government documents is essential to "allow the citizen to be more fully involved in the democratic process". The following represents the minimum range of documents that it believes should be made free of all copyright restrictions:

• Parliamentary proceedings (Hansard),
• Green Papers,
• White Papers,
• Bills,
• Acts,
• Statutory Instruments,
• Departmental Circulars,
• Official reports of judicial proceedings,
• Press notices (including those issued by agencies such as the Office for National Statistics),
• All public information leaflets (e.g. from the Department of Social Security or the Inland Revenue),
• Procedural manuals which set down how decisions which affect the citizen are undertaken - as required by Open Government legislation.

All documents falling into these categories should be made available electronically, free of copyright and at no charge, in the following form:

• Online via the World Wide Web,
• efficiently navigable,
• retrievable via a user-friendly integral search engine,
• hypertext-linked to other relevant documents,
• incorporating intelligent agent software to alert enquirers to new information that matches their personal requirements.

CoPI believes that all information made available in printed form should also be made available electronically, if the proposed systems are to be really useful as a reference source to individuals and businesses - for example leaflets on social security benefits, taxation or housing. Once again, we would stress the need for extensive co-operation and co-ordination between information suppliers, and the need for information design skills to ensure that the interface is simple and that the required information can readily be tracked down. Users must be confident that they have retrieved all relevant information pertaining to their enquiry, and must be able to understand that information.

6.18 How can the electronic provision of information best support the principles of the Citizen's Charter?

CoPI's comments on paragraphs 5.1-5.8 apply here. The service must take account of the needs of all citizens - "information haves, have-nots and cannots" - and must be adequately supported with helpdesk and technical resources at all times.

CoPI notes that, in its response to the Lords report Information society: agenda for action in the UK (paragraphs 6.3-6.5), the Government concluded that it was not desirable for current arrangements to be supplemented or replaced by an Information Society Task Force, as the Lords Science & Technology Select Committee had proposed. Nevertheless, CoPI believes that there will be a need for an independent watchdog to monitor the electronic delivery of government services. The functions of such a body would include:

• ensuring that the service conforms to both the letter and spirit of the Citizen's Charter,
• ensuring consistently high quality of information, in terms of both comprehensiveness of coverage and structure,
• investigating complaints, with power to order changes,
• making recommendations on additional documents to be made available electronically, and on new software features.

6.24-6.27 Implementing the strategy

What are the implications of implementing the strategy in the way described?

6.24 CoPI welcomes the private sector approach. The United Kingdom leads Europe in the development of commercial electronic information services and has a large concentration of private sector firms which would be capable of building the required database.

However, the Government would need to seek expert advice on specifying precisely the product required and in monitoring and incentivising contracts (as proposed in Paragraph 6.7). It would also need to assist the chosen contractor(s) by removing all obstacles to their access to the information they needed to build a viable service - for example through the selective abolition of Crown copyright (Paragraph 6.16).

Clearly if this approach leads to fragmentation of information, requiring consumers to have a degree of knowledge about the department or agency providing the information before they can access the information they want, then much of the potential benefit will be lost.

At the very least, all information should be available from any access point - whether kiosk or in the home - irrespective of the company providing that access point. As with Internet service providers, it may well be that companies will be able to compete through the value added information and other services they provide over and above that deriving directly from government. Finally, the existing information kiosks currently operated by a number of local authorities should be fully integrated into the proposed network.

6.25 CoPI welcomes the concept of payment on delivery of an acceptable service and once again urges the Government to appoint an expert panel to deal with product specification and quality control issues. However it is again most concerned that, where savings are eventually achieved as a result of electronic delivery, the presumption should be in favour of ploughing the savings back into investment in better services. (CoPI’s response to Paragraph 5.1 applies here too.)

6.26 CoPI appreciates the necessity of implementing the strategy stage by stage, and agrees that information provision is one of the most straightforward applications to implement. However, it again warns that the early service will need to carry a critical mass of high value information, with sophisticated search and navigation tools, in order to achieve the credibility necessary to make the subsequent more complex applications viable.

6.27 CoPI welcomes the idea of offering organisations with established networks the opportunity of tendering for these new services, and urges the Government as customer to be bold and imaginative over its choice of outlets - particularly the public access terminals. (See response to Paragraph 6.7.)

8-1-8.11 Solving some problems - knowing who you’re dealing with

What are the implications of using electronic signatures in transactions with government?

What are the implications of electronic signature cards having additional functions (e.g. to carry electronic signatures recognised by private sector organisations, to carry medical or other personal data)?

Clearly, the major concern over the use of a single smart card to access a wide variety of personal and financial information has to be that of security. How confident can we be that codes will not be broken by thieves? Will thieves be able to established false identities through the use of stolen cards? Will citizens become ‘unrecognised’ in the event that they lose their card?

One method for spreading the risk might be to have different cards for different areas of activity. Thus one might have one card relating to one’s car, holding information on driving licence, vehicle registration, tax and insurance, but not allowing access to information on tax or benefits. Similarly on becoming unemployed, people may be issued with a card providing access to and holding information relevant to their benefit claims but not to personal information which is irrelevant to such claims. Medical data could be held again on a different card and so forth.

CoPI is concerned that reliable encryption seems to be very difficult, with hackers breaking new codes as soon as they are created. Careful consideration should be given to what information is required for what purpose, and to the risk to individuals and organisations of that information being accessed unlawfully. Again, Data Protection Act principles are appropriate here. If information on, say, a person’s identity is not required for a transaction, then it should not be given. This approach might cut down on the amount of material that required encryption.

8.12-8.14 Solving some problems - protecting individuals’ interests, data protection

How can the Government ensure suitable protection for individuals when using new methods of service delivery?

The recognition in the report of the importance of security and privacy is welcomed, as are the proposed discussions. Any legislation and/or codes of practice must recognise that developing common keys such as addresses, even in multiple databases, makes the task of combining sensitive data in new ways easier than it is at present. It must therefore provide for audit arrangements to ensure that the current principles outlined in 6.6 and elsewhere are adhered to.

It is important that these issues are up-front if costly compliance measures are not to be required later on. Also, consideration should be given to physical security - for example being overlooked in public places.

8.15-8.19 Solving some problems - physical security

8.19 What technical measures are needed to ensure public confidence in the electronic handling of information?

CoPI recognises the need to categorise information in this way. However it urges that all the copyright-free and other public access information should be accessible anonymously, and free at the point of use.

8.20-8.21 Solving some problems - data donors

What are the implications of the concept of the "data donor"?

See our comments on electronic signatures (8.1-8.11) above.

There will also be considerable legal issues with regard to the admissibility in court of information held and provided this way.

9.1-9.4 Reaping the benefits - benefits for the citizen

How might electronic service delivery be arranged to bring the greatest benefits to the citizen?

The principles outlined in 9.2 are particularly welcome. The point has already been made that there has to be a clear split between information providers and providers of the delivery mechanisms. Whether information is delivered via kiosks or through a variety of home access mechanisms - such as interactive TV or PC - the basic information provided must be fully comprehensive and the same in all cases.

The point has also been made that a high degree of co-ordination will be required and that the design of the information flows will be crucial.

The examples given are both appropriate and welcome as the basis for pilot schemes. The contrast with the current situation appertaining to social security benefit information has already been made (for example in CoPI’s response to the Government’s comments on the Lords Science & Technology Committee report Information society: agenda for action, Paragraph 6.2).

However, CoPI is extremely concerned that the proposed access to statutory information should not be too restrictive, and believes that the idea of providing "basic" statutory information is not enough. (See responses to Paragraphs 6.16 and 6.17.) It also wishes to draw the Government's attention to its remarks on e-mail in its response to Paragraph 6.12.

9.8 Reaping the benefits - benefits for business

How might electronic service delivery be arranged to bring the greatest benefits to business?

CoPI's responses to Paragraphs 6.16 and 6.17 apply as much to businesses as to private citizens. In particular, businesses would benefit from extensive free and copyright-cleared access to official statistics, as well as to the company accounts data managed by the Companies Registration Office and to information on VAT-registered businesses held by Customs & Excise. (See response to Paragraph 5.3.) CoPI would like to draw the Government's attention in particular to the situation in the United States, where detailed financial information on a large number of companies is freely available for anyone to use through the EDGAR service.

9.10 Reaping the benefits - benefits for the taxpayer

How might electronic service delivery be arranged to bring the greatest benefits to the taxpayer?

What are the implications of pricing electronic services differently from conventional services?

The point has been made repeatedly that there is a contradiction between the potential benefits identified in 9.9, and the Government’s response to the House of Lords Report - that departments and agencies are best positioned to determine on their own the form and the content of information provided electronically.

The taxpayer benefits from improved access to information as well as purely financially in terms of tax savings. Taxpayers and consumers are in most cases the same people.

On pricing, CoPI urges consideration of the American model - namely that the Government should not raise further revenues by charging for information originally collected by local and central government at taxpayers’ expense. The establishment and growth of businesses which add value to the government data that is made freely available for exploitation will not only produce additional corporate tax revenue, but will also afford increased employment opportunities and thereby yield greater personal income tax revenue.

Final Comments

The delivery of information on government policies electronically through a global system raises some interesting queries about how the views of opposition parties should be made available. Although much of the information is likely to be uncontroversial - statistical data, personal advice, factual information - it is inevitable that some will be of a political nature, outlining and arguing the case for government policies. It is important that suitable mechanisms should be put in place to allow citizens and businesses to have equally straightforward and comprehensive access to information on the policies of opposition parties, so that the arguments for and against certain policies can be fully informed. Far from being enhanced, there is a risk that democracy will be diminished, and the system will fall into disrepute, if it becomes a mechanism for propaganda rather than information.

APPENDIX ONE - CoPI INAUGURAL MEETING ATTENDEES

Francis Aldhouse Office of the Data Protection Registrar
Toby Bainton SCONUL
Matthew Beard Financial Times Information
Claire Beasley City University
Ceris Bergen NCET
Martin Boyle OST/DTI (Secretary ITEC Foresight Panel)
Barbara Buckley Personal capacity
Peter Clegg Association for Geographic Information
Neville Davies Royal Statistical Society
Mike Devereau Government Information Service
Stephen Ellison House of Lords Record Office
Richard Golland Personal capacity
Andrew Green Society of County Librarians
Elspeth Hyams Institute of Information Scientists
Sherry Jespersen The Library Association
Alison Lovelock Society for Public Information Networks/Hull Libraries
Liz Maclachlan Personal capacity
Adrienne Muir Policy Studies Institute
Gerald Newman The Law Society
Kate Oakley Policy Studies Institute
Charles Oppenheim Institute of Information Scientists
David Owen The Radio Society
Tim Owen Personal capacity
Howard Picton SCOOP
Ian Rowlands City University
Fiona Sampson Consumers’ Association
Rob Stanley Kingston upon Hull City Libraries
Isobel Stark UKOLN
Mark Swarbrick DTI
Howard Wheeldon Advertising Standards Authority
Roy Wood Association for Geographic Information
Chris Zielinski Authors’ Licensing & Collecting Society

APPENDIX TWO - CoPI INTERIM EXECUTIVE BOARD

Tim Owen (Chair) Personal capacity
Elspeth Hyams (Secretary) Institute of Information Scientists
Barbara Buckley (Treasurer) Personal capacity
Peter Clegg Association for Geographic Information
Ross Shimmon The Library Association