The UK Chancellor announced in November 2017 the creation of a new Geospatial Commission to maximise the value of all UK government data linked to location, and to create jobs and growth in a modern economy. The new Geospatial Commission, supported by £40 million of new funding in each of the next two years, will drive the move to use this data more productively - unlocking up to £11 billion of extra value for the economy every year.

The new Commission will draw together HM Land Registry, the Ordnance Survey, the British Geological Survey, the Valuation Office Agency, the UK Hydrographic Office and the Coal Authority with a view to:

• improving the access to, links between, and quality of their data
• looking at making more geospatial data available for free and without restriction
• setting regulation and policy in relation to geospatial data created by the public sector
• holding individual bodies to account for delivery against the geospatial strategy
• providing strategic oversight and direction across Whitehall and public bodies who operate in this area

Objective

• Location data that government produces in the course of delivering public services and maintaining laws and regulations can be used to stimulate innovation in the economy.
• Individual bodies can be held to account for delivery against the geospatial strategy, and provide strategic oversight and direction across Whitehall.
• Ensure that NI falls in line with the rest of the UK to stimulate growth and investment in the NI economy, generate jobs and improve services for citizens

Context

There is a legal duty on the Executive to monitor the impact of all law and policy on women, looking for any direct or indirect discrimination. This duty exists in domestic equality and human rights law as well as through obligations under international human rights treaties.

Although gender disaggregated data is quite widely available in Northern Ireland the Women’s Resource and Development Agency (WRDA) believe that the removal of the Gender Equality Statistics Update would mean that the raw data would not be translated into a meaningful monitoring mechanism for measuring the impact of law and policy on women and girls and the progress made towards gender equality.

As the Executive works towards the implementation of its Open Data Strategy (2015-18) we note the following commitment: ‘We will ensure the open data formats we publish are relevant to the users. We will build the skills and capability within government to proactively release relevant datasets.’ This reflects the principles contained in the G8 Charter on Open Data to ensure that data is of a high quality and that it is ‘useable by all’. 

 A s users of government data, WRDA wrote to the Executive Office regarding there consultation to end publishing the Gender Equality Statistics Update.  The Executive Office responded by saying that Gender Equality is now the remit of the Department of Communities, but this is the only statistical publication that provides a cross-cutting review of indicators of gender equality. Also, there is no information forthcoming from the Department for Communities about their intentions to renew the gender equality strategy since it expired in 2017.

As the Executive Office is the Department with overall responsibility for equality and human rights it would be neglectful for the Executive Office to stop monitoring gender equality data and making it accessible to users, knowing that there is currently nothing to replace it from any other departments. 

We would also like to point out that the provision of links to the various data sets that would normally be used in the report is not sufficient to make this data useable and accessible. On reviewing the 2015 Gender Equality Statistics Update WRDA found that there were 34 separate data sources cited, not all of which are publicly available and licensed appropriately.

Objective

Users interested in monitoring gender equality could access the evidence base that these compendia provide. It would not be reasonable for the Executive to expect users to do this given their duty to use data to monitor the impact of law and policy on women. 

Provide all citizens with a report on how their individual level data has been used by government services.

Status quo or problem/issue to be addressed

No citizen currently knows how Government has used their data.

Main Objective

Digital Services should provide the citizen with a report on how their individual level data has been used by those services. All uses and flows of a citizen’s individual level data within and out of a department/body should be securely and sensitively collated, and made available to a citizen in a secure and confidential digital manner.

Every citizen should be able to see an individual “data bank statement” of how/where Government has used their record and why.

If you don’t know where your data has gone, there’s no way to know whether your wishes are being respected. And when there is a problem, there’s no way to know whether you were personally affected.

To assuage concerns, citizens must be able to understand precisely where their data has gone, and why, through citizen centric data usage reports. This will give the citizen the tools to understand/question inappropriate flows, and Government the ability to communicate directly with a citizen when there is a data incident that may, or more likely may not, impact them.

Relevance

While Data Release Registers provide necessary insight into where some data flows within Government, and are a large step to solving the problem, they do not provide an individual with any detail on whether their data was included in any item in the register.

“Bulk Personal Datasets” have been defined by Parliament as “large databases containing personal information about a wide range of people”. Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee in its 2015 report, ‘Privacy and Security: A modern and transparent legal framework‘, also concluded that as a Dataset of this type “may be highly intrusive and impacts upon large numbers of people, it is essential that it is tightly regulated”. Currently, the existence of such datasets is highly opaque.

When data incidents occur, and they will continue to do so, there is no simple message that can be given to citizens about what happened, and what they should do about it, that is individualised to them.

Ambition

Over time, no citizen’s data should be used by Government without them being able to understand why.

Status quo or problem/issue to be addressed

Citizens distant from the parliamentary process

Main Objective

The parliaments and assemblies of the UK should be encouraged to experiment with new ways that enable the public to contribute to the different stages of the parliamentary process. This would range from putting questions to ministers, addressing and commenting on committees and within the pre-legislative, legislative cycles and during post-legislative scrutiny.

Relevance

Those who take part in the parliamentary process shape the future, but all too often this is a narrow subset of the population and unrepresentative of the wider population. Digital tools allow our legislatures to step out beyond the chamber or committee room in new ways, whether it’s taking the parliament out to the people or allowing people to come to parliament through new digital channels, this is about strengthening democratic participation and rebuilding trust as much as it is about enhancing public accountability.

Ambition

More people will be able to contribute to what happens in their parliament, this helps legislations better reflect people’s lives and makes parliaments more transparent and accessible.

Category

Open Assembly

Develop process and tools for more effective consultation practices.

Status quo or problem/issue to be addressed

The principle that those affected by decisions should be given the opportunity to shape those decisions is central to open government. Outside periodically voting for elected representatives, citizens (in the broadest sense of term to mean all inhabitants of a country or local region) must be offered opportunities to provide their input into key policy decisions that affect them. Consultation provides not only an opportunity to gather opinion and values, but also an opportunity to tap into the expertise of the public; crowdsourcing insights that government would not otherwise have access to. There is little transparency about consultation performance, and little ability for citizens to raise concerns that decision making has not been sufficiently informed by the public voice.

Main Objectives

Government should work to create a stronger culture of responsive, accessible, and transparent consultation.

Ambition

In an increasingly complex world, citizens’ input is a critical resource for policy-making, as good decision-making requires the knowledge, experiences, views and values of the public.

The process of consultation is typically opaque, with little built in requirement for engagement of a wide range of individuals. Institutionalising a minimum level of citizen engagement in the policy process is important for ensuring that the views of citizens and other stakeholders are present when decisions are made, and that decisions are better informed as a result. A Community Empowerment Act would help communities to do more for themselves, have more say in decisions that affect them; and ensure that public bodies listen to what communities want.

Category

Citizen participation

Written by Noeleen Diver

Commitment

Run a PB pilot with a government department and capture and share the learning across government.

Problem or issue to be addressed

Issues with current funding mechanisms lack engagement and transparency.

PB an innovative way to fairly and transparently invest funds into the community through a process that enables citizens to deliberate on priorities.

Objective

Done well PB can:

• harness collective wisdom and creativity
• enhance levels of political agency, autonomy and wellbeing
• embed a culture of democratic deliberation
• encourage altruism and promote mutual respect and understanding
• lead to stronger partnership working and increase social capital
• improve the quality and impact of the projects funded
• provide people with practical ways of being involved in their community

Relevance to OG

Citizen empowerment and engagement

It’s about local people making direct decisions about how to spend some of their public money.

It’s about helping to implement the UN SDGs by tackling inequalities, solving local problems and connecting with communities.

It’s about empowerment, meaningful engagement and achieving outcomes that people want.

Ambition/Impact

• PB is more than just about deciding who to fund. It can become a celebration of positive action in the community. One that creates a lasting legacy.
• People active in community get to meet each other, often for the first time. This happens at the information event and at the presentation and scoring event. These meetings offer a rare chance to hear about the work of others and maybe think about taking new approaches.
• Marginalised or ignored groups, who may be unused to completing applications forms and so struggle to get funding elsewhere, can often do well in PB processes. This is because they can speak directly to their wider community. When there is a limited resource and lots of good ideas on the table, priority is naturally given, through the voting system, to small locally based projects with a commitment to improving their neighbourhood.
• Participants learn on the presentation day what it takes to be a successful project and often leave with a greater confidence to apply elsewhere. Even unsuccessful groups will often go on to find funding elsewhere.
• Spending time with people who may become useful partners in the future helps build a positive sense of what can be achieved in the community. Participants, funders and citizens, really value that feeling, enjoy taking part and will want it to happen again.

Why Use PB

• Hundreds of communities have benefitted from using PB, especially where there are scarce resources and lots of good ideas on how to spend money.
• The people most involved in community affairs are often working within local groups.
• These groups often struggle to find even small sums with which to make a difference.
• Often, grant funding panels and application forms force groups to compete. This does not provide a chance for them to collaborate or influence the outcome.
• Only a few ‘expert’ people get to read and approve applications and the wider community is
• generally unaware what money is being spent in their community.
• Different funders can pool their resources and so bring greater impact: It is common that once a PB programme has been tried and seen to be successful, other people working in the same area realise they can use the same format to distribute their funds.
• Greater control can be given to the community over bigger public budgets, like policing, health, youth work and environmental schemes.
• Better partnership working can occur and services can become more joined up. Most importantly, un-met need in a community can be recognised, and communities can take on greater responsibility for making their area better.

Current Action

The Participatory Budgeting Works Project is a collaborative effort to raise awareness of and advocate for Participatory Budgeting (PB) across Northern Ireland. (http://www.participatorybudgetingworks.org/) The project is co-ordinated by Community Places and includes a range of organisations from the public, community and voluntary sector working together to create an enabling and supportive environment for Participatory Budgeting. In parallel to the PBWorks Project, two pilot PB events are currently underway in Causeway Coast & Glens Council, The Big Dish Out. (https://www.wastenotime.net/the-big-dish-out)

Category/Theme

Citizen Engagement and Participation

Problem or issue to be addressed

The public cannot easily see whether research conducted or commissioned by government has been published. Public representatives and the Public are not always made aware of the existence and availability of government research that could increase/improve their knowledge and help them make more informed choices about socio-political issues that impact their lives.

Government conducts a large amount of research, either directly through the civil service and arms-length public bodies, or through independent academic experts it commissions. There have been high-profile examples where such research was delayed, modified, and misrepresented – or dropped altogether – apparently because the results were politically inconvenient. Recent examples include research looking at the rising use of food banks, international comparisons of drugs policy, and the effect of immigration on the jobs market, but researchers have come forward with numerous cases under previous governments.

This non-publication happens even though there are numerous codes of practice and guidelines in place requiring the prompt release of all government social research. Where this happens it undermines public scrutiny of government policy. Because government points to research to justify policy, there should be a presumption of open publication so that citizens can look at what they’re being asked to accord authority to. And if taxpayers pay for research, they’re entitled to know the results and what the quality of the study was. The impression that challenging results will be delayed or suppressed risks damaging the trust between government and researchers.

Currently it is not possible to assess the scale or significance of the non-publication of government research, as departments aren’t required to hold or publish records of what research is being carried out, by whom, and any agreements around publication of results. Such a record would make it easier to hold government to account, allowing public scrutiny of cases where studies are delayed or suppressed.

Objective

Every government department and arms-length public body should publish a standardised record of all research it carries out, whether conducted by civil servants or commissioned through independent academic experts. The record would include what the research is looking at, who is conducting the study, and any agreements around the publication of results.

Relevance to OG

Access to information is essential to the spirit and practice of open government. Right to information legislation (RTI), also referred to as freedom of information or access to information laws, establishes a general presumption that all information held by government should be accessible and sets out the mechanisms by which is can be accessed. Some information may not be released because it is exempt, for security or privacy reasons. But a key principle of Right to Information is that of ‘maximum disclosure’’. Information should only be withheld from the public where absolutely necessary to prevent harm to a legitimate interest and where there is no overriding public interest in knowing the information.

Ambition/Impact

Better informed citizens: A standardised record of all government research would empower the public to scrutinise what research is being carried out, by whom, and what the results were. This transparency would make government more open, and help improve the trust between researchers and policymakers by making it harder for studies to be delayed or suppressed for political reasons.

Category/Theme

Access to Information

Develop Open Government Skills across the Public Sector.

Public sector staff must change how they design and deliver programs and services to support the Northern Ireland Executive’s commitments to transparency and public engagement. An openness mindset needs to be integrated into their day-to-day business activities. Open data, for example, is useful not only to those who regularly evaluate and use data to support financial, statistical, and socio-economic analysis, but also to non-data specialists working in policy, operational, and service delivery areas. Sharing and leveraging data, information, and technology across the government can help innovation flourish. How will it be done: Individuals working in departments across government will have access to learning material to build their skills and capabilities for using open data, open information, and open dialogue to support better operational and policy decisions. Furthermore, to boost the value of available open data to citizens, public sector can be guided to understand how to set priorities for data or information publication, based on its potential value to users both inside and outside of government.

Lobbying Register

Problem or issue to be addressed

The citizen does not know whom or on who’s behalf a Minister Politician or Senior Civic Servant is be being lobbied by. 

Objective

To create a lobbying register for Northern Ireland. 

A register of lobbyists should cover two basic principles:

It must cover all paid lobbyists, including lobbyists-for-hire working in lobbying agencies, PR firms, law firms, management consultants; and lobbyists employed in-house by companies, trade bodies, trade unions and charities.

It must give us meaningful information on what lobbyists are up to. As a minimum: who is lobbying and for whom; which agency of government is being lobbied; and broadly what they are seeking to influence (which policy, law, regulation, or contract).

The register will be online and fully accessible to the public.