UK Politicians react!
London: 11 December 2009
Following recent announcements the UK Parliament has debated and raised questions about the policy statements related to public sector information. The context of the parliamentary debate and questions is as follows:
The UK Prime Minister announced on the 7th December 2009 the publication of Putting the Frontline First: smarter government. The Prime Ministers announcement built upon the Prime Ministers announcement of the 17th November 2009. The UK Prime Ministers also outlined the Governments plans to review all Civil Servants salaries that are £150000 or over. The following table provides an indication of the Chief Executive remunerations with respect to a sample of Public Sector Information holder. (Data Source: The respective public sector body annual report for the financial year 2008 to 2009 and as approved for publication by Parliament.)
Public Sector Body
Position
Salary 2008–09, including
performance pay
£’000
Trading Fund?
Companies House
Chief Executive
115 - 120
Yes
Intellectual Property Office
Chief Executive
155 - 160
Yes
Land Registry
Chief Land Registrar and
Chief Executive
175 - 180
Yes
Met Office
Chief Executive
195 - 200
Yes
Ordnance Survey
Director General and Chief Executive
200 - 205
Yes
Registers of Scotland
Keeper and Chief Executive
90 - 95
Yes
The National Archives
Chief Executive
135 - 140
No
The European Commission has also reported on the UK Prime Ministers announcement.
--
Parliamentary material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO on behalf of Parliament
London: 7 December 2009 (House of Commons)
Smarter Government
7 Dec 2009 : Column 34
Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham) (LD): Much of the statement is uncontroversial and, indeed, blindingly obvious. Let me start with the efficiency savings. Is not there a basic problem with announced efficiency savings in Government? If they knew that there was inefficiency, why had not they dealt with it already? To what extent is this new?
Let me pick up on a particular item to clarify what the Government are doing. They say that they are cutting the consultancy budget by 50 per cent., but 50 per cent. of how much? What is their consultancy budget? There are estimates that it could be in the order of £20 billion. We discovered on Friday that they are paying more than £100 million a year for consultants who are advising on the bail-out of the banks alone, so what is the consultancy budget that is now being cut by half?
The Chief Secretary said that he is personally going to vet pay of more than £150,000 a year. He is going to be a very busy man. How many people in the public sector are paid more than £150,000 a year, whose salary he will vet personally? Are we talking about GPs and dentists, heads of quangos and the dozens of people in the BBC who are paid more than the Prime Minister? Whom does he mean and how many of them are there? Are we talking about hundreds or thousands of people?
The Chief Secretary also suggested that he will save lots of money by reducing the number of targets for and the amount of monitoring of local government. That is admirable, but I understand that the Government currently spend £1 billion to £1.5 billion on various audit bodies, notably the Audit Commission, in overseeing local government. How much of that budget will be saved and how many officials who are employed in overseeing local government will no longer be required? If he is genuine about restoring autonomy to local government, why does not he consider ideas such as giving them significantly greater freedom over the business rate system?
Let me make a specific point. The Chief Secretary says that the Government are to give away, free of charge, data from the Met Office and the Ordnance Survey. That sounds straightforward, but those organisations survive by selling data, so if they have to give their data away for free, how will they function as organisations, especially now that the Government plan to privatise them? How can the Government privatise organisations that do not have any income?
Mr. Byrne: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome for at least some of these measures. I think that there is a direction of travel in some of the reforms that Liberal Democrat Members will welcome, not least the move towards greater freedom and flexibility for local authorities. When he has had time to study the report in some depth, I think that he will welcome some of the flexibilities that we have talked about. On Wednesday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will announce further measures, which attempt to bring a degree more freedom from the regime of inspection and performance setting that has helped to drive up service standards over the past 10 years. We will be able to retire some of that regime in the years to come, and there will be significant savings as a result. It is right that many of the relevant reductions in targets should wait until the next comprehensive spending review, so that the plans that are drawn up reflect the resources that are provided.
7 Dec 2009 : Column 35
The hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions that I will try to answer. First, he asked about consultancy bills. My goal is to save about £512 million from the consultancy bill by 2011-12, by reducing it by 50 per cent. He asked about pay, and I reiterate that we have asked Bill Cockburn, the chair of the Senior Salaries Review Body, to draw up proposals on how to bring greater transparency to the system of setting senior sector pay and how to make sure that value-for-money bodies such as the Audit Commission and others are given a greater role in scrutinising those offers. The simple answer is that I believe that too many people are paid more than £150,000, and my goal is to exert downward pressure. That is partly why I say that we should cut the costs of, for example, the senior civil service by 20 per cent. in the next couple of years.
On data, we must get the balance right. Organisations such as Ordnance Survey can make a great deal of money by supporting specialist engineering and mapping companies with high-quality data. Ordnance Survey runs one of the best-if not the best-mapping services in the world. When there are opportunities to make available information such as low-resolution maps or boundary data, the public should be able to get hold of it free of charge.
London: 7 December 2009 (House of Lords)
Smarter Government
“7 Dec 2009 : Column 951
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for doing his duty, repeating the Statement from another place. The Statement sounds as if it is coming from a new Government taking over a brave new world, not from the same tired old team who have been running the shop so inefficiently during the past 12 years. If so much of what is proposed is so obvious and so easy, why have they not done it already? What have they been doing?
The National Audit Office, in its second review of progress on Gershon targets, pointed out that 23 per cent of the claimed savings could not be proved. So they were funny money. The Statement refers to halving consultancy fees. How on earth has the Treasury alone managed to run up a consultants' bill of more than £120 million just for dealing with the banks during the past couple of years? Is there not anyone left in the Treasury who knows how markets work and can do that job themselves? What are they paid for?
I should declare my interest as a pension fund manager investing in property. I have had a quick look through the asset portfolio programme and must say that there are some wonderful statements in it. I particularly enjoyed that relating to the long delayed sale of the Tote. The Government announce that it is,
"a public corporation which does not have pure public policy objectives".
Well, as it is the country's fifth biggest bookie, you could say that again. We have the ultimate in unjoined-up government when they say that they want to sell off Ordnance Survey while making a considerable part of its product free. That seems unlikely to work.”
“7 Dec 2009 : Column 956
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I welcome what I hope is the beginning of the end of the current situation where one half of the Civil Service spends their time monitoring and inspecting the other half, who spend their time responding to those inspections and very little leaks out to the benefit of the taxpayer.
However, I really wanted to ask about the electronic or internet side of this. I notice that the Government are trying to get a million more people online. Are those new connections? Are they in urban areas or in rural areas, where they are really wanted? If it is only £30 a connection, is this just waffle, encouragement and PR? The Government are committing to spend £1.3 billion in putting services online. How does this square with the ideas in the Digital Economy Bill of throttling back people's internet connections and possibly cutting them off, because then they cannot access these e-government services? If they are throttled back to below a useable speed of 1.5 megabytes per second, you will not be able to receive podcasts, and some government websites will "time out" on you, so you cannot submit your forms. That seems to be an example of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
I am delighted that the Government are going to free public data from the Ordnance Survey mapping and boundary data. At last, perhaps farmers, Defra and the RPA can all work off the same database. I hope this means that the RPA will release its data sets to the farmers for free, so that we can work off the same sets. But, on the other hand, who will pay for that? The Ordnance Survey has to make a profit at the moment, so presumably this will have to be funded from somewhere. However, I welcome it as a proper step forward in the right direction of having some joined-up government.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Earl. The Government have made clear that we are concerned about internet access as regards a large number of our citizens. We are devoting resources to ensuring that an extra million people have the opportunity to access it. He is right; that is at the basic level of two megabytes per second. Nevertheless, it is a government commitment and we have indicated that we intend to deliver it over the next few years.
7 Dec 2009 : Column 957
I say to the noble Earl that we do not intend to withdraw facilities from anyone. He may participate in discussions on the Bill, which proposes sanctions for misuse. Withdrawal is not quite the ultimate sanction but it is a very heavy one indeed. We envisage that the majority of offences will occur involuntarily and unwittingly. We intend that well before such an offence occurs, individuals will be warned about downloading in a way which breaches copyright. Withdrawal of the facility is a very significant sanction that is up for debate as we discuss the Bill. I am all too well aware that the proposal has its critics, but it is not meant to be anything other than a distant object.
As regards the noble Earl's point about farmers, he will have rejoiced over the announcement about the progress that the RPA has made in terms of prompt payments to farmers from 1 December and the very high percentage of farmers who have already received payment. He is absolutely right that it would be hugely advantageous if there were total agreement between farmers and the RPA on the mapping data. Making Ordnance Survey data available for free-that is an important concept-may assist in this respect, but I imagine that a shorter route to achieve this object is through more effective liaison between the RPA and farmers.
The Earl of Erroll: I was just talking about making the system more efficient if this was shared; I was not trying to suggest anything else. The document says that the Government are going to make this provision free. However, my wife is delighted, and absolutely amazed, to have received her payment.”
--
Written Questions and Answers regarding the Ordnance Survey
London: 10 December 2009
Ordnance Survey
Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what discussions his Department has had with the independent mapping sector on the effect on that sector of its proposals for Ordnance Survey in drafting its consultation on Re-mapping the future for Ordnance Survey. [305126]
Mr. Ian Austin: In developing policy proposals for Ordnance Survey, officials in Shareholder Executive have had a number of meetings and conversations with individuals, companies and organisations from the private sector geographic information market. The purpose of these was to understand better the external environment in which Ordnance Survey operates. Independent consultants working for Shareholder Executive have also had similar meetings. The purpose of the forthcoming consultation is to hear further feedback on the policy proposals from all interested parties
.
Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what account he takes in his formulation of policy on the mapping sector of the effect on the independent mapping sector of his Department's support for the activities of Ordnance Survey. [305127]
Mr. Ian Austin: The Government recognise that Ordnance Survey operates in a commercial marketplace and any change must be implemented carefully to reflect this. The purpose of the forthcoming consultation is to hear further feedback on the policy proposals from all interested parties, including the independent mapping sector.
10 Dec 2009 : Column 592W
Ordnance Survey: Public Relations
Mr. Hurd: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what payments Ordnance Survey has made to Mandate Communications/AS Biss in the last 12 months; for what purposes; and if he will place in the Library a copy of each of the contracts under which such payments have been made. [302216]
Mr. Ian Austin: Mandate Communications provides Ordnance Survey with consultancy and advice on Corporate Communications and Public Affairs.
Payments made by Ordnance Survey to Mandate Communications for these services for the 12 months up to the 31 October 2009 total £ 53,900 inclusive of VAT.
I am unable to place a copy of Ordnance Survey's contract with Mandate Communications in the Library of the House due to its content being commercially confidential.
London: 7 December 2009
Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of the accuracy of the digitalised farm maps used by the Rural Payments Agency for the purpose of making payments under the Single Payment Scheme. [303628]
Jim Fitzpatrick: For Single Payment Scheme claims up to and including the 2009 scheme year, the Rural Payments Agency has been using existing Ordnance Survey base-data information on Rural Land Register (RLR) maps.
7 Dec 2009 : Column 6W
The mapping update currently in progress uses the most recent Ordnance Survey data available in conjunction with aerial photography to update the RLR maps. This includes improving the positional accuracy of our map data and reflecting any real world change recorded by Ordnance Survey.
Postcode data to be free in 2010
UK plans to increase PSI re-use!
- 100 reads
