Stockholm Chamber of Commerce responds

tags:

Posted by ChrisCorbin on 15 Dec 2009

Stockholm: 4 December 2009

The Stockholm Chamber of Commerce has published an article titled: Genomförande av PSI-direktivet (Implementation of the PSI Directive). The Chambers background information on the PSI Directive provides additional information - Stockholm Chamber of Commerce on PSI

The Chamber of Commerce article states:

“Stockholm Chamber of Commerce has been given the opportunity to respond to the inquiry headed. Chamber of Commerce's response began by reviewing the general thrust of policy, competition issues and leave some comments on the consultative process. Then follows a review of the proposals in the memorandum. Remi The answer concludes with a proposal that the authority may be regulatory mission and the focus of further work on access to public information. General information on PSI policy The memorandum is concise in terms of background and purpose of the Directive on the reuse of information from the public sector (Public Sector Information, PSI) It is now clear that the combination of data in electronic format, information technology, internet, GPS and other technologies that create rapid and dynamic development. To provide citizens and businesses access to the data they have had to submit, pay taxes to collect or otherwise entrusted by the public with an important policy measure which gives positive economic and social effects. In further work for the government's political intentions to come to clearer expression. The government and its representatives have repeatedly affirmed one PSI policy that is more proactive than the Ministry of Finance's memorandum creating the impression. The Chamber believes that policy objectives should be to avoid further criticism from the Commission or to Sweden end up in Court. An aggressive policy of PSI leads to new services, higher growth and more jobs. The Chamber recalls its purpose: A key purpose of establishing a single market is creating opportunities to promote the development of community service. Information from the public sector is an important starting material for products and services with digital content, and it will become an even more important content resource with the development of wireless content services. An extensive cross-border geographical coverage will also be crucial in this context. More opportunities to exploit information from the public sector should inter alia allow European companies to exploit its potential and contribute to economic growth and job creation. (Preamble Paragraph 5.) ... To facilitate the creation of Community-wide information products and services based on documents from the public sector, promoting private enterprise efficiency and cross-border use of documents from the public sector to create value-added information products and services and to limit distortions of competition within the common market ... (Preamble Paragraph 25.) There have been several studies on the economic potential of PSI. The surveys are often difficult to interpret and not always easily transferable to such Swedish conditions. What is clear is that all studies indicate that PSI's economic potential is far from being fulfilled. The value of government investment in the production of information in the EU in 2000 amounted to SEK 81 billion. This gave rise to a value in the information market, which amounted to 1139 billion, ie. ett, 14 times higher value. The corresponding ratio in the U.S. was 39 times. In a British report was written there in 2006 that public information was worth 400 million pounds, which could be doubled. Re-use to society brought a value of approximately another 48 percent (190 million pounds). Ten times as many companies were operating in the PSI sector in the U.S. than in Europe. The U.S. commercial weather market has grown by 17 percent a year 2000-2008, compared with 1.2 percent in Europe. In the U.S., there are thirteen times as many businesses and employees in the weather sector in Europe. Sweden should however remain above the EU average and may not be quite as great opportunities for interchange. ITPS writes conservative (in 2007) that they have found indicators showing that the economic potential of a wider re-use of public information produced is significantly larger than the current PSI-related competitive activities (the government) does. The market for private operators in the geographic information in Sweden grew by 56 percent 2004-2007, corresponding to Lantmäteriets commercial portion was only 17 percent. ITPS estimates the market for geographic information in Sweden may be doubled. Sweden has a long experience in computerization and have large amounts of data quality. It can lead to new products and services in Sweden, but also of services. Here, Swedish companies have a competitive advantage in the European market. We need more, better and above all Swedish studies of PSI-economy. The results we have today indicates a strong growth potential that best managed by the business community. Fair Competition The Chamber considers that the government should act on the commercial information market, which is also the Management Committee (see SOU 2008:118) and FCA (Report 2009:4) has suggested. If it is not achieved, we need a clearer definition of what is the authority's activities and what is the sale of information on the market. Several authorities have competition in parts of the example able to check information, have proximity to, and understand how it is structured. Measures must be taken that such competition does not occur. This is also one of the main Commission proposals for revision of the Directive. From a broader perspective should be reasonably increased reclamation of an agency's data to stimulate and increase the skills of even the authorities. It is likely that such re - produces more services than would be possible for an authority, thus increasing the understanding of how data can be used. From a longer perspective, the PSI work could lead to a broader labor market is created for those operating in the PSI sector. The interaction between businesses and governments will benefit the community and conducts cutting-edge expertise in key areas. Currently, a development that goes past the Swedish authorities when such Norway gives freer access to weather data (which is used in several Swedish service) and map data. Referral Treatment The Chamber believes that the Ministry of Finance's referral of the bill is totally inadequate. Of 92 respondents are eight that are not public authorities or municipalities. The Ministry has apparently not taken the trouble to think about the business stakeholders or stakeholders in civil society who should be interested in the PSI issue. Chamber of Commerce gathered at a national meeting on the PSI issue approximately 30 companies and organizations in December 2008 and had about twenty participants at a consultative meeting for the PSI Act in November 2009. PSI-law will also affect these companies and organizations. Proposals Implementation of the Directive Proposal: PSI Directive's provisions are implemented in Swedish law by a specific law on the re-use of the public administration. (5.2) Chamber of Commerce shares the view that the directive should be implemented with a new law. The government's previous actions have been rejected by the Commission. Chamber of Commerce's own investigation has shown that it appears that several agencies did not follow those, extremely modest, requirements of the current PSI-regulation. In conclusion, except that a law is needed, the government must take a further series of measures to monitor the law and ensure that its intentions a reality. This is also the subject of the OECD Recommendation on PSI. The new scope of the Act Proposal: Scope of the Act shall include conditions for re-use of documents held by state and municipal authorities and certain bodies governed by public law without the authorities. The law should not include access to documents and shall not regulate or affect the lawfulness of the re-use of documents. Verdict: The existing principle that the documents that individuals have access to a rule may also be re-used need not be regulated. (6.1.4) The Swedish implementation of the Directive should lead to as many documents as possible available for re-use. Exceptions to the law should only apply to documents which by law or regulation may not be re-used. Sweden does not need to introduce the exceptional opportunities that exist. It is also not in line with the principle of openness, further, it is in direct conflict with the ambitions that Sweden has been expressed by adopting the OECD Recommendation on access to public information. It is difficult to assess the impact of this proposal, since it exempts documents to which access is restricted by administrative records. The Government should urgently undertake a comprehensive review of records constitutions in order to increase the number of documents that may be available for reuse. The assessment is made on the re-use should also result in the government fails to investigate so also is the case in practice and, if necessary, take enforcement actions that lead to the desired result. The State Treasury also made proposals on this as early as 2005, the report free to agree on public information? (State Treasury pm Dnr: 2005/100-5). Proposal: The Act shall apply to re-use of documents. The concept of action should have the same meaning as in Freedom of the Press. The law should contain a provision with a definition of action. (6.2.3) The Chamber has no objection to the proposal to document the concept of the proposed PSI-law has the same meaning as in the Freedom of the Press. It is, however, indicate that the re-location to get what is called raw data held by the Authority, ie. data that have not been processed by the Authority. Reuser shall be entitled to have access to raw data in the form that the Authority's own mission or business has access to. (See also the registry provisions above.) Proposal: The Act shall apply to re-use of documents. With the re-use means the use of documents for purposes other than the original purpose for which the documents dealt with by an authority. Authorities, exchange of documents as part of their public duties should not be considered as the re-use. The concept of reuse is defined in the Act. (6.3.2) Chamber of Commerce approves the proposal. The Government should clarify the wording so that it is clear that there can not be required, explicitly or implicitly, processing or that the conditions attached to the reclamation, which seeks to distinguish it from the reading of authority. It can very well conceivable that a re-use the documents for the same practical purpose. Weather data can, for example basis for the forecast (in time and space) of which it is doing. Proposal: The Act will include state and municipal authorities and certain other bodies, covered by its provisions on freedom of the press document disclosure. (6.4.3) The Chamber considers that the implementation of the Directive should lead to as many bodies as possible under the law. It should be clarified how the parliament, county and municipal treatment. The law exempts these parishes while it describes that the documents (from them) that may be of interest to see bodies covered by the Act (Riksdag Administration and others). What is of interest is of course a matter of opinion. The Chamber would like more clarity in the legislation, or that in the bill described in more detail why this definition is appropriate. This is of particular concern from a democratic perspective, then re-use can result in greater transparency in the political assemblies and their work. Verdict: The provisions of Article 5 of the available formats need not be regulated in the proposed law. Existing rules are deemed to fulfill the PSI Directive. (6.5.3) The Chamber ruled against the proposal. It should be worded in the law that documents be submitted electronically, or register constitutions should be reviewed with this objective. Many of the new and innovative services are IT-based and uses the data in electronic format. Without data in electronic format are the benefits of the PSI Act is very limited. The Chamber considers that the documents should be submitted electronically (if required) in cases where it is not prohibited by law or regulation or any other key reasons militating against it. The memorandum suggests that it is common that documents be submitted electronically. However, it is no guarantee that it actually happens. Especially authorities who have income from the re-use are likely to use the option not to disclose electronically to their advantage. Re-users should have access to raw data in the same manner as the authority itself is able to provide for their own business or professional services. The proposal put forward in the Personal Information and Electronic extradition does not seem applicable to all types of documents, such as weather data: Any constitutional change in the ability to make the documents electronically would influence the level of protection of personal privacy. (P. 51.) Either constitutions should be designed more precisely, or the government should further clarify this interpretation. In addition it facilitates the disclosure in an electronic format for both the management authority and reuser, especially at high volumes. Exemptions for certain agencies and activities Proposal: The Act shall not apply to documents held by educational, research and cultural institutions that are excluded from its scope. The exemption will apply even if the documents are public. Verdict: no provision for exceptions for acts of public service broadcasters in radio and television field is not needed. (7.1.3) The Chamber considers that the implementation of the Directive should lead to as many bodies as possible under the law. In further work the government should carefully examine the conditions for more bodies under the PSI Act, in line with the OECD Declaration on PSI: Make public sector information and content, including scientific data, and works of cultural heritage more Widely accessible in digital format. Similar statements were also made in the context of EU meetings on the future of IT policy and e-government during the Swedish presidency of the EU. Proposal: The proposed law should not include documents provided by authorities in business. (7.2.3) The Chamber believes that public organizations in general should not engage in business activities in competitive markets. Authorities should rather be prohibited from processing of basic data in order to act in a market. The authorities' efforts could then focus on giving good service to re-which would be more efficient and make more information available in the community. The proposal builds on that it is possible to define "business". The memorandum of the proposed definition ( "business as an agency engaged in forms and in conditions similar to private enterprise") is not unambiguous. It may lead to enforcement problems. In any case, lined clearer wordings for this to be heard and to supervise. Fees Proposal: The revenue from the fees that an agency receives for re-use shall not exceed the cost of collection, production, reproduction and dissemination of documents. Where appropriate, revenues also represent a reasonable return on investment. (8.3) Government revenue from the fees must be re-disclosed by the Authority's commercial activities. Otherwise, it is not possible to determine if the PSI is enforced. Obligation of accounting separation should be imposed by law or by any other regulation. The Chamber believes that charges should be kept low to encourage a rapid growth in the market for re-use of public information. In practice often charge fees that few or none can re-use information. It also makes it difficult for new or small businesses. The Commission emphasizes in his review of the fee that the models will promote the reuse of information from the public sector. The basic rule of charges in the law should be as it was proposed in the bill, State management in public service (Government Bill 1997/98: 136): Standard principles for authorities charging for electronically providing the requested information is introduced. The fee should be based on the cost to produce and distribute information. (Section 8.3.4, pp. 63.) This corresponds broadly defined to marginal cost or extra cost for the distribution of data. A similar basic principle enshrined in the OECD PSI recommendation. Moreover, advocates of this pricing in the preamble to the PSI Directive. The directive permits a range of costs can be passed on to re-users, including those that are already funded by taxpayers. There is also a risk that the authorities are doing their dependence on higher revenue by charging high fees for re-use. It can lead to a confusion of where the boundary of the public commitment to go. With the conditions prevailing today, there is a risk that revenue from the (high) fees are used for processing in authority who are not in demand by re-users. It leads to higher fees and to re-either forced to charge higher prices or refrain from investing in their business. This does not favor re-customers and reduces the usefulness of further exploitation in society. Possibly, one could imagine that allow for higher fees in special cases. For such cases should require a special constitutional rules and specific reasons. Fee The question is linked to questions about the state budget, socio-economic effects, etc. These issues have so far not been investigated to the extent necessary in the work of PSI in Sweden. There is also a need to examine the facts about pricing, services etc. relating to access to public information. The government should have a surface that reflects the reality for those who want to reuse public sector information. The Chamber has requested that the government is investigating these issues and gives authorities a mandate to provide data on charges. The government should investigate the economic impact of the application of both the Directive and the OECD Recommendation. Terms Suggestion: If an authority impose conditions, including fees, terms and conditions shall be relevant in relation to the documents and the re-use at issue. They may not limit the possibilities for re-use of unnecessary and should not restrict competition. Such restrictions on the re-use a document as an authority is obliged to adopt, or otherwise provided by law or regulation is not subject to the law, and therefore should not be considered as conditions of the law. Verdict: The provision on standard licenses in Article 8.2 of the Directive need not finally validated. It should be implemented through a joint management development. (9.1.3) The Chamber considers that the proposal is good, but should go further. Authorities PSI's work should focus on facilitating the re-use. The Commission emphasizes in his review of the licensing models that will promote wider use of information from the public sector. This should be reflected in the law, therefore, a more positive statement than that "conditions should not restrict the possibilities for re-use." As regards the assessment, it is difficult to completely leave it to the authorities. If this is not codified, the government should take measures to ensure that such work is commenced. Proposal: The conditions which the authority applies shall be non-discriminatory for comparable categories of re-use. If documents are re-used within the authority of its business, the Authority shall apply the same conditions for the provision of information in relation to the activities against other re-users. (9.2.3) Chamber of Commerce approves the proposal. Proposal: An authority shall not grant an exclusive right to re-use documents. This is not an exclusive right to the documents necessary for the provision of services of general interest. An exclusive right shall not be granted for longer than three years and only after the government's consent. A decision on the exclusivity will be made available to the public. (9.3.3) Chamber of Commerce approves the proposal. Transparency of terms and fees Proposal: An agency shall publish the fees and other conditions. An authority shall, on request, publish the basis of the levy. The information should be submitted electronically whenever possible and appropriate. (10.1.3) Chamber of Commerce approves the proposal in principle. There should be an addition in terms of the bases of calculation. The authorities shall, without request, publish the bases of calculation of fees for re-use of documents that are regularly or in large numbers. Proposal: An agency shall provide information on what documents are available for reclamation. The information should be submitted electronically whenever possible and appropriate. (10.2.3) At this point, the government should propose a law that goes beyond the Directive. Information about the documents and conditions shall be submitted electronically. The proposal is qualified to where it is appropriate and possible. The rule should therefore be reversed - if there are serious reasons such information should be published electronically. Furthermore, the Chamber of Commerce of the Authority to publish information about how data is stored (or structure), where data is available and how data are provided. Then facilitated the re-use. It would also reduce the competitive advantage that the authority itself has close proximity to and control of data. Consideration of a request for re-use Proposal: A request for re-use will be handled promptly. Administrative Law procedural rules shall apply to the private sector bodies covered by the Act. Verdict: The requirement in § 5, second subparagraph Administrative satisfy these requirements to a request for re-use will be managed electronically. The Chamber considers that the proposal should go further. The authorities should organize its work with PSI to fit the re-. It may be to appoint such Contact PSI for questions or procedures that permit more than the expedited processing of requests for re-use. In many cases, this ought to be a regular and routine handling. The assessment that the requirement that a request can be handled electronically is satisfied if an agency can receive e-mails must be considered very low set. It is difficult to imagine that the requirement covers all stages in which electronic processing is desirable, useful and effective. Possibly fit it in the PSI Act, but the government should take measures to ensure that the agencies themselves or by such a single site can handle at least some sort of request for re-use electronically, automatically and quickly. Justification of decisions, and the reference Proposal: Refusal of a request for re-use must be justified. Case of rejection is always given an appeal reference. (12.3) Chamber of Commerce approves the proposal. Appeal Decision Proposal: Decisions of a body outside the government, the Supreme Court or the Supreme Administrative Court in a particular case will be appealed to an Administrative Court. Leave to appeal is required when an appeal to the Appeal in respect of decisions by an administrative law concerning a dit appealed the decision. Some court decisions must be appealed separately. A private firm, which under the proposed law is not treated as an authority, shall in its decision to appeal as the individual counterparty. (13.3) Chamber of Commerce approves the proposal. The government should initiate a job that provides better opportunities for re-users to protect their rights, compare with the proposed supervisor below. A re-users are often dependent on an authority over time to obtain data. There is a risk that re-users do not require their right for fear of disrupting relations with authorities. Moreover, it seems as if the proposal involves the municipalities decision not to appeal other than the residents in that municipality. There is an obvious shortcoming which the Directive aims to create a European market for re-use of public information. Although Swedish players on the national level may wish to compile similar information from several or all municipalities in the country. It should also be considered if it is possible to introduce faster forms of conflict resolution, such as through a mediator. It would better meet the needs of industry in the information market is developing rapidly. The Commission has put forward similar proposals in its review of the directive. Transitional and commencement provisions Motion: The new law should come into force on 1 July 2010. Regulation (2008:31) on the condition of re-using information from government agencies (PSI-regulation) is proposed repeal at the same time. (14) Chamber of Commerce survey on e-government suggests that several agencies did not follow the current regulation. The government should take measures to ensure compliance with the regulation until it is replaced by a PSI-law. Regulator The Chamber believes that an agency should be tasked to supervise under the PSI Act. The proposal describes several authorities could supervise. According to the Chamber of Commerce is the one for the split mandate. Supervisor shall supervise, monitor and support implementation of the PSI Act.

Further work

Chamber of Commerce sees the PSI Act as a minimum measure to implement the Directive in Sweden. There are large and pent-up need for additional measures to increase re-use of public information in Sweden. The Chamber recalls what the Management Committee said on the implementation of EC directives: Guidelines for good integration [of such Directive] should emphasize the need to bring the desired result in the desire to do minimally invasive procedures in the rules. (To guide and ask, SOU 208:118, pp. 106.) The same committee gives both the previous and the current government, severely criticized for how the PSI Directive have been handled: How this directive was incorporated is an example of when government chooses a minimalist approach, changing as little as possible of the existing Swedish regulation. (To guide and ask, SOU 208:118, Annex 5, pp. 178th) Below Chamber of Commerce provides some suggestions for further work with PSI in Sweden. The government should work with the OECD Recommendation on the PSI, which raises a number of issues, such as promoting re-use fees, copyright, etc. The Swedish Presidency Conclusions of the meeting on IT policy in Visby, Sweden (10 November 2009) of specific reference to the PSI issue: make available more data for entrepreneurs, research and transparency. Access to and re-use of PSI should be improved, as well as those areas (sources) covered by the re-use the directive to multiply. These are similar to the OECD Declaration on the Future of the Internet economy, the government also has endorsed. The government should live up to these recommendations. Chamber of Commerce said on November 6, 2009 to six departments and requested that a number of authorities should be instructed in the marketing message for 2010 to submit proposals on measures to increase re-use of authority data. To the extent that this has not been possible in the marketing letters, the government should provide similar missions by government decisions. Sweden should follow the directive proposal and set up a website with comprehensive information about the documents available for re-use and under what conditions. Such examples are eg in the U.S. (data.gov). The development of indicators of PSI developments in Sweden. It would enable the development and utility of the re-use of public information can be measured and used as a basis for the continued development of policy in the field. Peter Egardt Fredrik Sand”