House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology

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. In preparing that response we also considered the Government’s comments on the House of Lords Select Committee Report Information Society: agenda for action. This response is the result.

General Comments

CoPI has two principal concerns with regard to the Government Response to the House of Lords Select Committee Report:

a There is too much emphasis on technology and not enough on the information content and structures to which the technology is intended to give access.

b The response rejects proposals for an overall body to overview and coordinate the variety of specific initiatives proposed in the Report and in the Government’s own Green Paper government.direct. CoPI believes the response underestimates the degree of co-ordination needed and is inconsistent with the Government’s own proposals.

Information Content and Structures

Information technology will only bring benefits if it provides straightforward and simple access to genuinely useful information. For example, many users of the Internet are finding that the current search tools are inadequate. Research and development into this area is urgently required. The ease of searching is in turn related to the way in which the underlying information is structured, so this needs careful planning.

The question of content selected for electronic publication also needs careful research to ensure that the information provided is what is genuinely needed. Information, like any other commodity, needs careful market research if it is to meet the demands of customers and clients.

The Need for Co-ordination

The need for adequate co-ordination of activities is paramount 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 accessed, any system will fall into disrepute and disuse.

The House of Lords report recommends the establishment of a "UK Information Society Task Force (ISTF) 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 response on the other hand prefers responsibilities to be shared amongst the many existing bodies: GEN 37; the Multimedia Industry Advisory Group (MMIAG); the National Information Infrastructure Task Force (NIITF); 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 documents selected for electronic publication 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)

Detailed Comments on the Government’s Response to House of Lords Report

6.2 The emphasis of the Government’s response seems to be more on technology than content. If the issue of a National Information Infrastructure is outside the remit of CITU, then it must be addressed elsewhere. It is vital that the Government have a view on information infrastructure which takes account of information structure and content, rather than just the technology. If Government had a policy it would be easier for Government Departments and others to provide best practice. Without such a policy there could be a drifting led by manufacturers with clout.

The Government identifies its role as "researching into and promoting awareness of potential risks of the Information Society as a whole." However, it is of course also a major source of information, or at least has the potential to become one. It seems odd for example that the only detailed information on benefits for the unemployed and those on low incomes is provided not by the Government, but by Imperial College School of Medicine, London. CITU, or an Information Society Task Force as proposed by the House of Lords, could act as a catalyst in making government information available. This could be achieved through commercial publishers as well as directly by government.

6.3-6.5

CoPI has already expressed its concerns about the various existing committees, namely that there is a focus on technology rather than information, that there is little user/consumer representation, and that this seems to conflict with the Government’s own proposals in government.direct.

Whilst recognising the role of the LIC, CoPI urges reconsideration of the Government’s rejection of the Task Force and points out that co-ordination is needed because of the wide range of organisations involved.

6.6 Whilst the "Government has properly devolved decisions over spending and resource use to more local management", this does not mean that the Government cannot or should not set overall policy objectives for public sector information infrastructures, as it does in many other areas of service delivery. CoPI supports the view that an ISTF could perform a valuable role in proposing and monitoring the delivery of such policy objectives.

6.8 CoPI considers that the corporate cultures of telecommunications and broadcasting are so different that mergers between them do not take place in reality. The issue will be one of regulating the Internet, which will perhaps be done in part by the treaties put in place by WIPO.

6.9 CoPI is concerned that time and money will be needed to undertake the necessary monitoring and that, with so many Internet sites, the undertaking would be extremely difficult.

6.10 It is not possible to create anything other than laws for the UK. There is no contract with users to state where information is coming from and under what conditions or whose laws grievances can be judged.

6.13 CoPI supports the House of Lords view that a specific panel is required, rather than dissipating consideration of content selection for electronic publication amongst a number of other bodies, most of which have a predominantly technological focus.

6.14-6.16

Leaving content selection and style purely to individual departments seems to conflict with government.direct and will require consumers to have fairly detailed knowledge of which department or agency is responsible for what, before they can be sure of finding what they are looking for. Also there is little room for the consumer, rather than the provider, to specify what information is required.

It is important that detailed government information should be made available, as well as Green Papers and general statements on policy. At present consumers still have to rely on printed leaflets for much of the detail as to how government policies, for example in the areas of benefits or housing, will impact on them.

References here and elsewhere refer to "the tax payers’ interests" in terms of financial interests. Taxpayers also have interests as consumers of information collected in their name and at their expense.

6.17- 6.18

CoPI is very supportive of the original recommendation to limit the development of "haves", "have nots" and "cannots", and strongly urges support for the Millennium Bid Information for All. It is important that areas of local government beyond the library community should be involved in Information for All. A number of local authorities are investigating or have already invested in public access systems, and these projects have been driven as much by information providers in, for example, social services or housing as by library staff.

It would be unfortunate if the public ended up with a number of different public access points, each run by a separate agency and each with only a subset of the information likely to be required by the public. Once again this points to a need for co-ordination. CoPI is also concerned that access points and content must be in a suitable intellectual form, and that there is no reference to user-empowered access in the home.

Finally, the Government should encourage support for cabling initiatives - not take a neutral stance.

6.19 Much of the information required by CABx should already be available on the Internet. Information support for CABx should evaluate and, where suitable, draw on what is already available. CoPI urges that such evaluation should be included in the ongoing development of the online system.

6.20 CoPI supports the proposal and encourages the Commonwealth Secretariat to "promote a programme of information-sharing in the development of superhighways".

6.21-6.28

Once again, CoPI is concerned at the overall technological thrust of these paragraphs. It is vital that teachers, pupils and students are adequately trained in understanding how to locate and use information productively if the benefits of the Information Society are to be fully realised.

6.22 CoPI is concerned that both the original proposal and the response over-emphasise the technology. Teachers and students also need information-handling skills to find information and to understand and exploit what has been found. These skills are not the same as IT skills.

6.23 CoPI welcomes the OFTEL Task Force.

6.26 The Government should support after-hours initiatives, since spreading the skills base is critical if a division into information "haves" and "have-nots" is to be avoided. After-hours initiatives could play an important role in meeting the objectives of the Millennium Bid Information for All.

6.27 Business access to information needs to be of a comparable standard to SuperJANET. However, there are concerns that increased business access to SuperJANET itself would cause a deterioration in the services. Whilst we agree that business access to SuperJANET must be on a commercial basis, the issue is more complex than the Government Response indicates.

6.29-6.33

CoPI is concerned that these proposals and the Government Response seem aimed at improving administrative procedures. There is little discussion of information needs, particularly with regard to the development of knowledge-based and evidence-based health care, providing practitioners with easy access to research and statistical information on the effectiveness of the variety of treatment options available.

The National Health Service and Department of Health also hold a vast amount of non-confidential information which could be more readily made available to the public. Although this is beginning to happen, it needs to be properly encouraged and co-ordinated.

6.34-6.35

CoPI is keen that environmental and health & safety issues relating to the Information Society should be fully considered. In addition to teleworking, increased use of teleconferencing could also reduce pollution.

6.36 CoPI is sympathetic to the original recommendation, but recognises that the Government is to some extent bound by existing EC agreements. Nonetheless, CoPI urges that any opportunities to reduce VAT in this area should be explored, taking into account discussions now going on within the EU on VAT.

6.37 CoPI strongly support the original proposals and welcomes the Government’s intention to consult widely before bringing forward legislation in this area.

6.38-6.39

Both the original proposals and the responses are to be welcomed. The represent two sides of the same coin and support both the needs of business and the privacy of individuals.

6.40 Once again, the Government Response suggests that consumers could be faced with hunting through a variety of information sources each containing only part of the information required. Who is deciding the scope of the "targeted information packages" already available - the supplier or the consumer?

Concluding Comments

CoPI urges the Government to reconsider its rejection of an Information Society Task Force to co-ordinate the many initiatives already in existence, together with those proposed in its own Green Paper government.direct.

CoPI believes that the Government has underestimated the degree of co-ordination between specific bodies and projects that will be required if the benefits from the Information Society are to be fully realised.

CoPI urges the Government to place a greater emphasis on informational structures and content, rather than focusing primarily on the technological options available for delivering information.

The overall goal must be to provide information systems which deliver timely and relevant information to citizens, businesses and government organisations themselves, in ways which are straightforward and simple for all to use.

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