Welcome
	Board
	Diary of activities
	Constitution
	Business Plan
	Manifesto
	Why CoPI?
	Archive

[LA Home Page]

Archive of CoPI documents

Information and the Citizen: a two-way street

Tim Owen reports on the Coalition for Public Information's prestigious inaugural conference

Seldom can a more authoritative and influential group of people have been gathered on one conference platform. CoPI's inaugural conference, held on March 11 at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, embraced virtually every aspect of public information provision, and included the full range of social, political and economic views. Thus we had Roger Freeman, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Public Service Minister, outlining Cabinet thinking on how government should interact electronically with its citizens, and the investigative journalist Duncan Campbell warning of a global threat to individual privacy brought about by the enormously enhanced ability to gather and swap information in official circles.

And yet the atmosphere was constructive throughout. Mr Freeman candidly admitted that not all of the pilot projects initiated under government.direct would necessarily work. Mr Campbell was in no doubt about the enormous social benefits that could result from increased public access to electronic services, given the unrestricted availability of personal encryption technology. Elizabeth France, the Data Protection Registrar - far from wishing to restrain more comprehensive use of electronic personal data - talked instead of the need to get early decisions right, balancing the legitimate needs of government against the personal right to privacy.

Personal privacy versus open government

But the day began with a challenge. Giving the opening keynote address, Duncan Campbell painted a sinister picture of the enormously enhanced ability of the security services to use electronic surveillance, and suggested that current technological developments were slewed almost entirely in their favour. Effective personal cryptography was central to freedom, he suggested, but he then went on to describe the various ways in which government sought to restrain this - on what he regarded as largely spurious grounds of national security or crime prevention. We needed to think ahead, he suggested, about the implications of technology that was developing now. The prospect of establishing personal identities through facial or vocal recognition, hologram images or DNA fingerprints could be of benefit in their use for electronic signatures, but could also be used to build a totalitarian state. "We stand on the cusp," he concluded.

Bureaucratic, rather than conspiratorial motives were behind the unchanged culture of official secrecy, suggested Richard Norton-Taylor of the Guardian. Citing a number of examples of attempts to gag officials and government advisers, he pointed out that continuing secrecy tended to lead to more leaks, with the result that we moved crabwise towards a more open system. The government of John Major had also begun releasing some information, he acknowledged, and the destabilisation that some suggested would result had not emerged. But he also quoted remarks from Maurice Frankel of the Campaign for Freedom of Information (who was in the audience) that two-year delays in handling complaints undermined the concept of open government. Taking up Duncan Campbell's point that more and more official information was now in the hands of unelected quangos, Mr Norton-Taylor pointed out that privatisation had also led to increased secrecy. And he suggested that government still used the concept of the absolute sovereignty of Parliament to manipulate the release of information.

So were there any grounds for hope? The next speaker suggested that there might be. Dave Carter, principal economic development officer at Manchester City Council, is responsible for the Manchester Host, the UK's first public access computer communications and information system. Launched as a public service in 1991, with e-mail, bulletin boards and online databases, it was upgraded to become a full Internet service provider in 1995. Acknowledging that it was too early for such an initiative to become part of everyday life, he explained how it had been established in Manchester through a network of twenty local voluntary organisations. But he warned of the dangers of obsession with a Utopian view; there was still an information divide, and it led to a democratic deficit. Much more needed to be done to empower people to produce content of their own. Initiatives - in Antwerp, Bologna, Athens, Amsterdam - could show the way; they were succeeding in closing the age and gender gap, and could provide the basis for a mass market breakthrough in the use of such services. The over centralised government.direct initiative, Mr Carter concluded, would therefore succeed or fail on the basis of local civic services.

The Canadian experience

One country which has grasped the twin nettles of access to information allied to preservation of personal privacy is Canada. But it may be an unusual case. Professor Eugene Tate, of the University of Saskatchewan, explained that secrecy had always been part of the Canadian system, and implied that this was a matter of public consent. "Canadians are different," he stressed, contrasting the "access" to official information provided for under the Canadian legislation with the unfettered freedom enjoyed in the United States. Describing the workings of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, Professor Tate explained that the freedoms enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were not inalienable but limited by accountability and responsibility. There were numerous clear exemptions under the access legislation, although appeals against

adverse decisions by the Commissioner of Information were possible, and frequently led to greater access. Nevertheless, personal privacy was the number one concern of Canadian citizens, he explained, and this regard for privacy seems to be reflected in the surprisingly low number of access requests - about 10,000 a year, of which a mere 7% come from the media.

Both the journalists had cited examples of a particular concern of the next speaker - Deirdre Hutton, the Chairman of the Scottish Consumer Council. The increasing ability to link official datasets - TV licence records to postcode data, social security to tax records - posed risks to privacy, and Ms Hutton agreed that there was little personal information that needed to be common across government departments. People valued their privacy, she said, their willingness to disclose normally ending at their name and address. But she was also concerned at the continuing difficulty people faced in obtaining information from business - on the constituents of medicines for children, for example. Commercial confidentiality was frequently used as an excuse for a lack of transparency that allowed poor companies to thrive, she said, and she worried about the "sheer helplessness" of the population in the face of technological change at whose pace and scale it would be unwise to guess. Education and training were essential, for all sections of the population. Access to new information services had to be affordable too - delivered by interactive TV and through public access points. And the development of what was technologically possible must not be allowed to obscure what was actually desirable.

The official line

Were the many fears that had been expressed in the morning justified? Roger Freeman, the Public Service Minister and the Government member charged with overseeing the delivery of electronic services, was naturally reassuring. But he was also realistic. He acknowledged that all revolutions produced change, and that this could be painful for individuals. But he warned that we must adopt a strategic approach, and that the Government's role was one of catalyst, providing the right climate for IT in the UK. Its main vehicle for change - the Information Society Initiative - must apply across all sectors of society, he emphasised. Education had a particularly high profile in the ISI, he explained. Beyond that, the Government could contribute through public service reform, as proposed in the green paper government.direct.

Its vision was of comprehensive electronic communication between government and citizens, covering applications such as information, collecting taxes, granting licences, administering regulations, paying grants and benefits, collecting and analysing statistics and procuring goods and services. He also reiterated that he was reviewing the future of Crown Copyright, with a view to ensuring that the regime was compatible with the objectives of government.direct. Finally, the Minister dismissed concerns that the Government's aim was merely to cut costs rather than raise the quality of services, and he denied any intention of creating a "huge central database" on individual citizens. Public confidence was the key to this initiative, he stressed, and in this regard data protection issues were paramount.

Cue the Data Protection Registrar, Elizabeth France. Correcting a possible misconception, she made clear that her role was more about protecting the privacy of individuals about whom data was being processed than about keeping information locked away. There would be tensions between the two on occasion, but her duty was to balance the legitimate needs of the data user against the rights of the data subject. A further opportunity to deal with such tensions would arise when the Government legislated to bring in the European Union Data Protection Directive. It had to be incorporated into domestic law by 1998, and she urged that the opportunity be taken to make that an occasion on which increased rights to access personal files was given statutory force. Turning to government.direct, she welcomed the long term view that the Government was taking, which allowed time for concerns about the designs of new systems to be addressed. Pointing out that new technology could be used as much to enhance as to erode personal privacy, she called for proper thought about how data was going to be used, before it was captured. The key aim had to be that only the minimum amount of personal information necessary to take a decision should be made available to the official concerned. It was usually more expensive to repair things later, she warned, than to get them right in the first place.

Valuing information

Three contrasting illustrations of the value of information concluded the day. Dr Robert Hawley, Chief Executive of British Energy plc and chairman of the eponymous Hawley Committee, introduced the notion of treating information as an asset with a value as measurable as that of a piece of capital equipment. The Committee was set up in 1994 under the KPMG IMPACT programme to produce the 10-point Hawley Agenda. Published in a booklet called Information as an Asset: the Invisible Goldmine, it was designed to challenge boards of directors (and, by extension, those responsible for running government departments and agencies) to treat their information as an asset, produce an information policy, and then measure their compliance with that policy. Illustrations of careless use of information were legion, he showed - in the collapse of Barings or the copper market scandal, for example. KPMG has subsequently built on the Hawley Agenda to develop with IBM a new Information Management Index. The challenging task is to build a measure of the health of an organisation's information management which applies rigorous and credible analysis, and yet is simple to understand - something along the lines of "three out of ten".

Is information valuation feasible? Dr Hawley made clear that his Index might not succeed, but Professor David Rhind provided in his presentation a clear correlation between the value of the information and organisation owns, and the revenue that can be generated from it. The Director General of Ordnance Survey, he challenged conventional wisdom - and earned a few challenges in return from delegates - by illustrating graphically how charging realistically for mapping and surveying information had allowed OS to maintain a level and frequency of mapping that far outclassed that of countries such as the United States. After rehearsing the arguments against cost recovery in information for which the taxpayer has already paid, he countered by suggesting that "real prices" identified "real needs", that cost recovery gave customers what they wanted, that taxes reduced in consequence and that the Government was more ready to help. Charged with minimising the cost to the taxpayer of OS's work, he nevertheless pointed out that OS pricing was equitable, realistic in market terms, and had enabled expansion of services. Nevertheless, much of OS's data gathering work was "uncommercial" and done in the national interest. There was a need, he said, to categorise public information to facilitate open government while avoiding financial shortfall.

And, having decided what information to offer to citizens, the question remaining was how to offer it effectively. Richard Goodwin of KPMG's Enabling Technology Unit brought the day to a close by describing two pilot projects on the online provision of Government information - the Business Startups prototype and the National Land Information Service. The first, a one stop shop of regulatory and licensing guidance for new firms, showed that the regulations were not enough on their own - value had to be added if they were to be used to the extent intended. There had to be a shift from provider defined content to user driven value, Mr Goodwin said. If the market was to deliver such a system, then it had to make it attractive. Multiple delivery channels would also be needed, he warned, and the system would need the services of enablers, intermediaries and brokers. Creation of a National Land Information Service - a graphical guide to every parcel of land including its administrative area, value, use, property, tenure and sub surface characteristics - raised a number of legal, organisational and institutional issues. Besides questions of overall liability and protection against misuse, there needed to be co-operation between different agencies, and regard for a return on the asset value of and investment in the data.

CoPI - the next moves

So where do we go from here? Answering a question posed by CoPI executive board member Peter Clegg, Mr Freeman positively welcomed further dialogue, inviting CoPI to arrange a smaller meeting with himself and his officials. (CoPI has since been invited back for further talks with senior figures from the Office of Public Service.) It seems clear, too, that there is very little difference between Government and Opposition on the direction in which wired government should go. So if CoPI should find itself dealing with a Government of a different colour after May, it will not have to go back to square one and address an entirely changed agenda. Most likely it will face an expanded version of the current programme.

But whatever the future brings, Information and the Citizen has further established CoPI as an essential channel of communication with government, and as an influential voice helping to bring about the information revolution. Where exactly it goes from here will depend on those who choose to support it and to shape its aims. That support must be practical - administrative and technical help, expertise, money. Unlike the special interest groups who lobby on behalf of IT or the media or consumers or lawyers or the information profession - or any of the other myriad interests that attempt to influence public policy - CoPI is perceived as being non-partisan. It is a broad church; it can benefit all of us with an interest in Britain's success in creating an information society. I urge you to help.

Tim Owen is the Principal Information Officer at the London Research Centre. He is acting Chairman of CoPI: the Coalition for Public Information.

[To top of document]

  [Next document]

© CoPI

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.

Last Updated: Tuesday, October 07, 1997