In a response to another request about PSI relating to a dodgy contracted out database that is sold on for undisclosed commercial rates to 11 undisclosed corporations by the MoJ, I got the following paragraph:
"You may be interested to know that there are three minutes held which concern meetings held with the Office of Public Sector Information to discuss the Directive on the Re-use of Public Sector Information, and its potential impacts on our procurement strategy. These meeting were not about the re-use of information. They concerned the construction of the licensing scheme and so are outside the scope of your Freedom of Information request. I am therefore satisfied that the information held does not have to be disclosed." Not any more! http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/reuse_of_psi_relating_to_procure So it could be that the Ministry perfectly well knows the consequences of PSI, and may have tried to cook up some kind of dodgy exemption for itself involving placing these databases under the control of 3rd parties. We are going to have to establish whether this is the case, and find the list of datasets they are doing this with. We could coordinate or merge making the complaints through the (FOI like process) to the Office of PSI under Regulation 18: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1515/regulation/18/made There are proposed amendments to FOI concerning going after databases, which to me look like they completely overlap PSI regulations. Julian. On 4 July 2011 08:43, Mark Goodge <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/07/2011 17:20, Francis Davey wrote: > > Hopefully the present government can be persuaded to do something >> about it. It strikes me that a political, rather than technical or >> legal, solution may be the best way to approach it. The present >> government ought to be psychologically in favour of getting rid of >> exclusive arrangements, especially where they bring in no revenue. >> > > I tweeted and blogged about it, and someone else on Twitter pointed out > that such an arrangement may well be contrary to section 14 of the Re-use of > Public Sector Information Regulations 2005. If so, that would apply to the > contract with Bailii as well. So I've followed it up with another FoI > request: > > http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/**request/public_interest_**provisions_for_e<http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_interest_provisions_for_e> > > Mark > -- > Sent from my Babbage Difference Engine > http://mark.goodge.co.uk > http://www.ratemysupermarket.**com <http://www.ratemysupermarket.com> > > > ______________________________**_________________ > developers-public mailing list > developers-public@lists.**mysociety.org<[email protected]> > https://secure.mysociety.org/**admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/** > developers-public<https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public> > > Unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/**admin/lists/mailman/options/** > developers-public/julian%**40publicwhip.org.uk<https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/julian%40publicwhip.org.uk> >
_______________________________________________ developers-public mailing list [email protected] https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public Unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/archive%40mail-archive.com
