Radical
Statistics
Response to Green Paper
This response to the Government's Green Paper, Crown Copyright in the Information Age: A consultation document on access to public sector information (Cm 3819, January 1988) was sent to Dr David Clark, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
(see: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/document/cfuture.htm)
Radical Statistics Group
There are very wide areas of official publication where the control afforded by copyright is necessary for one of the reasons set out in paras. 4.2. and 4.3 of Cm 3819. The Crown has the same rights and obligations as any other author.
The present financial regime, which has attempted to put access to information on a more commercial basis, was devised by a government, which saw the nation as populated not by citizens but by customers. This regime led to a reduction in the volume of data produced and in loss of access through the rising price of published reports. If there is to be a cost to the taxpayer in making information more accessible then it is the cost of restoring their status as citizens of a relatively democratic society, of giving back what was taken away from them. Yet in his Foreword, the Minister writes of the need to avoid any additional burden on the taxpayer. That he wishes to avoid any additional burden seems to pre-empt discussion of some key issues. Yet he would presumably not wish to argue like the previous government that information should only be available to those who can afford to pay the full price for it? Most government information in its paper form is available through public libraries - but public library services are being cut back, inter-library loans are expensive and can be very slow. The taxpayer thus pays a price in reduced or slow access to data for which she or he has already paid through taxation. For this reason paragraph 4.11 of Cm 3819 must have very great force. 4.13 is also important because as cuts in libraries and education make access to data more difficult, the administrative costs of giving members of the public access are increased, thus multiplying the effects of the original cuts in services.
Many academics who use official statistics are experiencing increasing demands on their time in dealing with enquiries from schools and charitable organisations who hope to find an easy (or cheap) route to information. This indicates not only that there is demand and that access is difficult but that no body of expertise in the use of these data is being built in the wider community.
Treating data as a commercial commodity has the effect of concentrating power. Big companies, for example, can use expensive financial and demographic data to buy substantial advantages over smaller competitors. If we are all equally required to provide data then we should all have equal access to the data when they are compiled. Unequal access may also damage the public interest; there are cases where, for example, epidemiological research has been severely hampered by the costs of Ordnance Survey data.
Paragraph 4.10 of Cm 3819 raises a difficult question because the data that should now be made easily available to the public also have commercial uses. But should we, for example, deny school children access to materials for projects through their local library simply because the same materials might be used by commercial interests? The private/ commercial distinction is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain in the face of improved techniques of dissemination. If we make previously expensive and inaccessible materials available through cheap media for one section of the population we have to make it available to all.
We are concerned with statistical data as well as printed reports and papers. The latter may be dealt with under normal copyright laws. In the case of printed statistical sources we also wish to see publications like the General Household Survey volumes again become affordable to schools and local libraries - which plainly they are not at present. We believe it is possible to identify a number of such volumes of general interest that could be subsidised at little cost and with great benefit.
In the case of the base data of national surveys, and of the census in particular, we face a problem that the Green Paper does not address at all. It is now technically possible to make available the census data, for example, very cheaply. The US census is available on one CD-ROM with software packages for tabulating and mapping. However there is wide commercial value in the census and mapping packages; if a UK CD-ROM was available in every public library there would be no need for firms, or indeed local authorities, to buy the data. Potential users could simply go to the public library and download what they needed - or get a child to bring it home from school.
The best solution to this problem would be to adopt what the Green Paper calls 'the US model' and which is described in para. 1.19 as a policy 'based on the premise that government information is a national resource and that economic benefits to society are maximised when it is available to all'. The data could be disseminated widely (under licence when necessary) on the basis of the costs of the medium - which would also be cheaper to operate than a commercial arm of a government agency. The ONS's contribution to the income listed in Annex B to Cm 3819 is about 3 per cent of the total. If a more open policy on access to data was adopted the loss of ,6.6 million could hardly be construed as an 'additional burden' on the taxpayer. If it was then it would have to be recognised that the interests of the taxpayer as a taxpayer were being put ahead of the interests of taxpayers and others as citizens. If this is to be the case then it should be clearly stated, as a policy.
If the 'the US model' is not adopted then we will have the absurd situation in which British children could find out everything they need to know about the USA from US censuses, but not have similar access to UK data, even after the first census of the 21st century.
Radical Statistics
