Office of Public Sector Information - The National Archiveswebarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20060802113610/... · with the Re-use of Public Sector information Regulations 2005

1

Office of Public Sector Information

Information Fair Trader Scheme Verification of commitment to information fair trading

DVLA February 2006

Verification of Commitment to Information Fair Trading ORGANISATION

2

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 3

INTRODUCTION 3 LICENSING ACTIVITY AT THE DVLA 3 OVERALL ASSESSMENT 4

PART TWO: ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE VERIFICATION TEAM 6

METHODOLOGY 6 ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN 7 ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY DVLA 8

PART THREE: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9

INTRODUCTION 9 OPENNESS 9 FAIRNESS 10 TRANSPARENCY 10 COMPLIANCE 13 CHALLENGE 14

PART FOUR: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 15

ANNEX 1 – DETAILS OF LICENCE REVIEWS. 17

Date of visit: 20 – 22 February 2006 © Crown copyright 2006


3

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Introduction

1. The Information Fair Trader Scheme (IFTS) is the best practice model for public sector bodies wishing to demonstrate compliance with the Re-use of Public Sector information Regulations 2005. IFTS ensures that re-users of public sector information can be confident that they will be treated reasonably and fairly by public sector information providers.

2. IFTS is also the mechanism by which the Controller of HMSO regulates those Crown bodies with a delegation to administer their own licensing of Crown copyright material. All such bodies with a delegation must become accredited to the Scheme.

3. To be accredited to the Information Fair Trader Scheme, an organisation will:

• make a commitment to IFTS principles; • see the commitment successfully independently verified; and • investigate complaints that the commitment has not been met. 4. Once a Chief Executive has declared the commitment, the

underlying administrative and decision-making processes of the organisation are examined to verify that they support the Information Fair Trader commitment.

5. This report shows the findings and conclusions of HMSO’s verification of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA).

Licensing Activity at the DVLA

6. The primary aims of the DVLA are to facilitate road safety and general law enforcement by maintaining registers of drivers and vehicles, and to collect vehicle excise duty (car tax). The DVLA is an executive agency of the Department for Transport and became a Trading Fund in April 2004.

7. The DVLA is currently undergoing a consultation exercise in relation to its policies on the sale of information and depending on the outcome of this; there may be some changes to the licensing model currently in place. As such, some of the DVLA team felt that the timing of the IFTS verification was inappropriate and were reluctant to proceed. As IFTS focuses on current and past policies and procedures for re-use, the team felt that it was appropriate to continue with the verification. In addition, IFTS status will help to


4

reassure the public that the DVLA is operating within the constraints of Government policy and is trading fairly in information. IFTS will also inform the policy making process.

Licensing and trading in information

8. The DVLA licenses two main categories of data for re-use:

• Anonymised Data - This is a range of non-personalised, non-vehicle identifying information including vehicle makes/model, partial post code but no Vehicle Registration Mark/Vehicle Identification Number.

• Bulk Data – This is a range of specific, vehicle identifying information, including Vehicle Registration Mark, Vehicle Identification Number, make/model but no post code.

9. The DVLA ensures that it is impossible to identify an individual or group of individuals from the information supplied by the DVLA.

Overall Assessment

10. The DLVA has demonstrated its commitment to trading fairly in information, and will become an Information Fair Trader Scheme member. The DVLA is a medium risk organisation, and will be re-verified in 2-3 years time.

Openness

11. The DVLA is clear about the information it holds and tries to maximise this for re-use where possible. The DVLA currently operates within certain constraints, such as a limited technological options, which prevent some information being released but we are confident that the DVLA is working to overcome these in order to maximise information available for re-use.

Fairness

12. The DVLA treats its customers fairly and equally. Standard licence terms and conditions are in place help to ensure fairness but these should be published on the website to maximise transparency.

Transparency


5

13. DVLA licences for re-use of information are complex and inconsistent. They are based on procurement contracts and were not drafted as Crown copyright licences. The DVLA is aware of this.

Compliance

14. Awareness of Crown copyright, licensing procedures and IFTS was low. The Chief Executive demonstrated his commitment to IFTS but this was not confirmed by all staff. Not everyone realised that DVLA material is Crown copyright and licensed under Delegation from the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Awareness and understanding in this area need to be improved through more effective internal communication.

Challenge

15. The DVLA has a complaints procedure and has not received any formal complaints about its licensing activity.


6

PART TWO: ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE VERIFICATION TEAM Methodology

16. The underlying purpose of the verification was to establish whether the key principles of openness, transparency, fairness, compliance and challenge were achieved. Different types of activity, where one might expect to see these key outcomes achieved, were examined. This approach was based on a matrix model, as shown below, which takes each of the outcomes, and shows how work in each of the areas of activity demonstrates compliance.

17. The organisation is divided into a number of key business areas. Each of the areas is divided as necessary into areas of verification focus. The key business areas, and the areas of verification focus, fall under the following headings:

Business Area Verification Focus Service Offering • Understanding of Licensing/ selling

information • Pricing • Terms and Conditions

Access • Access to and re-use of government information

• Websites and equivalents Internal Processes • Staff responsibilities and delegations

• Exceptions handling • Costs and Cost allocation • Complaints handling

Standards • Service standards Strategic Management • Business objectives and performance

indicators • Management supervision of compliance

Relationship with HMSO • Commitment to IFTS External Constraints • Competition Act 1998

• Financial targets • Legislation

18. When considering the findings of the verification, a view is formed

as to whether the organisation was sufficiently meeting the desired outcomes of fairness, openness, transparency, compliance and challenge. The verification also took into account whether the organisation was demonstrating a genuine commitment to strengthening the Chief Executive’s commitment and making substantial progress towards that goal.


7

Activities Undertaken

19. The verification team:

• examined key policy and practice documentation; • interviewed staff members within the organisation; • reviewed licensing files; • reviewed the website; • reviewed the standard licence; and • reviewed the complaints process.

These activities are described in more detail below.

Documentation review

20. The organisation provided documentation in support of the Chief Executive’s commitment which was reviewed by the team, prior to the onsite verification.

People and Practices

21. In order to see how people in the organisation work and how their work is impacted by the Information Fair Trader commitment, the team interviewed a range of staff of all levels who are involved in the policy or practice of providing information.

Licence File Review

22. A sample review of customer files, covering both government and commercial re-users was carried out.

Website

23. A review of the organisation’s website was made from the viewpoint of a potential re-user of information to assess how easy it was to use. This was carried out by someone who was not part of the on-site team in order to achieve some objectivity. A more subjective review of the website also took place, based on what the verification team knew of the organisation.

Licence review

24. The terms and conditions of the standard licences were reviewed.


8

Complaints process

25. The customer complaints process was examined by the team. Consideration of the organisation’s complaints process, both policy and practice, indicates how committed an organisation is to meeting customer needs.

Assistance provided by DVLA

26. The team appreciated the co-operation and assistance of the DVLA staff.


9

PART THREE: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction

27. This part of the report describes the findings of the verification team and its recommendations. It is divided into sections dealing with each of the five principles of IFTS: openness, fairness, transparency, compliance and challenge. Definitions of these principles can be found in the shaded boxes. Key recommendations are shown in bold.

Openness

“In principle, the Chief Executive expects that all information created by the organisation will be licensed for any use, by any customer. While there might have to be exceptions to this, whether limiting the material licensed, prohibiting uses or limiting the customer base, the Chief Executive will be reluctant to allow exceptions and will explain why they are necessary.”

28. The DVLA has a clear understanding of the information it holds and what information could be of interest to third parties. The DVLA does, however, operate within certain constraints and would like to make more information available for re-use. This is something the DVLA hopes to be able to do in the future. Recommendation: DVLA seeks to maximise the information available for re-use.

29. The DVLA’s attempts to maximise the information it has available for re-use are hindered by the technology it has at its disposal. It intends to overcome this problem through outsourcing, although the timescales are currently unclear. The DVLA hopes that through technological advances, more information can be made available. Recommendation: DVLA gives consideration to the timescales involved in maximising information available for re-use and minimises these where possible.

Information assets lists

30. The DVLA contributes to the Department for Transport’s Information Asset Register (IAR) but this has not been updated for some years and there are few records on the system. It is important that the IAR is kept up to date to ensure that potential customers are aware of what information the DVLA holds and has made available. This also encourages challenge if customers feel information that is not made public, should be. Recommendation: DVLA considers the information it has available for re-use and updates its IAR.


10

Fairness

“All applicants and licensees should be treated alike for the same type of licence. The organisation should not use its market power to compete unfairly.”

31. It was evident from both interviews and file reviews that the DVLA

treats its customers fairly and equally. The DVLA uses standard terms and conditions in its licences and if terms have been altered, they are applied to all customers. The licences are, however, based upon purchasing licences and are not written as copyright licences. DVLA licences all expire on the same date, allowing the DVLA to renew all licences at the same time, thus ensuring that they are the same for all customers. Recommendation: DVLA consider incorporating Click-Use licence terms into its licences and introducing these to all customers when the licences expire.

32. Requests for re-use of anonymised and bulk data are not processed quickly. It can take several months from initial enquiry to the customer receiving their information and this is unacceptable. A customer could be relying on this information to produce a product or service that would be obsolete if the information provided is not provided in a timely manner. Equally, the information could become out of date. Recommendation: DVLA reviews its procedures to ensure that licences for re-use are processed within 20 days.

Transparency

“Applying for a licence, not only the process, but prices, the considerations influencing price policy, and any exceptions to the principle of openness, should be explained clearly and simply in accessible public statements. Licensees and applicants for licences should be given reasons for decisions and the reasons should be consistent with public statements and Information Fair Trader principles.”

Website Review

33. A review was carried out of the DVLA website, www.dvla.gov.uk as described at paragraph 13. The following questions were considered:

Is there an Information Asset Register?


11

- No, there is very little information on what data the DVLA holds. It is possible to search for vehicle records but this attracts a charge

Does the DVLA use standard licences?

- No. There is no mention of licences on the website.

Are any charges made for licences?

- No, there is no information on the website about whether there are any charges or not.

Is the IFTS commitment on the website?

- N/A (Not yet an IFTS member), although the commitment should be published as soon as possible

Is there clear and precise information on how to apply for a licence?

- No. There is very little information online as to how to apply. There are contact details to find out more information.

Does the DVLA have a complaints procedure for complaints regarding licensing?

- No, there is no specific complaints procedure, although there is a complaints section.

http://www.dvla.gov.uk/other/complain.htm

Does the DVLA explain what information is not available?

- No

Does the website outline any exceptions to normal licensing policy?

- There is no licensing policy published on the website.

Does the website have a Crown copyright notice?

- There is a Crown copyright notice on the website, however the website incorrectly states that people who wish to find out more about DVLA licensing should contact HMSO.

Does the website have an electronic search facility?


12

- The search facility is at the top of every page. It is, however, slow, and

brings up too many results. Is the information available in electronic means? - No information given. General comments: - The website has very little information regarding PSI trading. Crown

copyright was well explained and had the standard notice. However, there seems to be no guidance on how to apply for re-use and licences are not mentioned at all.

It is recommended the DVLA should:

Update its Information Asset Register as well as list what information is not available

Publish standard licences and explain how to apply for one Explain the cost of a obtaining a licence Formulate a licensing policy and publish this on the

website Consider developing a licensing-specific complaints

procedure, mentioning the roles of OPSI and APPSI Correct the Crown copyright notice that currently states

potential re-users should contact HMSO Consider explaining what a trading fund is and how re-use

differs from FOI • Publish the IFTS commitment

Licence Review There were several general concerns regarding licensing at the DVLA, which are outlined below. More specific items noted in individual contracts have been included in Annex 1. Main areas of concern are:

Inconsistencies between licences are very common. Despite apparently using a contract template, charges, changes to charging policy, contract length, notice period and terms & conditions appeared to vary between agreements.

While some licences were in plain English, others were very dense and contained a great deal of legalistic clauses.

Definitions should be more rigid and consistent. This is particularly important when referring to the DVLA. The terms DVLA, Agency,


13

Department and Authority are used, sometimes within the same agreement. A definition of data should also be included. The term ‘the Industry’ is sometimes used. A definition of this should also be provided.

If data is provided by the DVLA’s IT supplier, a reference to ‘third party service providers’ should be included.

Responsibilities of both the DVLA and the customer under the Data Protection Act need to be clearer.

A review of Intellectual Property Rights clauses needs to be carried out. Details are in Annex 1.

Some contracts did not specify how the data can be used. This is highlighted in greater detail in Annex 1.

The voluntary code of practice was seen as superfluous as the binding terms & conditions of the contracts would be sufficient.

The DVLA should produce guidance on what data can be released for re-use, how this data can be re-used, standard charges and standard terms & conditions to replace this code of practice.

Compliance

“Chief Executives agree to test their organisations by an independent verification to find out whether they have the infrastructure to deliver their commitments to openness, transparency and fairness. The verification tests whether the administrative processes are actually followed in practice.”

Policies

34. Staff were aware of how to deal with licensing requests, but there was little documented reference material. The policies and procedures should be on a shared area or Intranet so that staff can refer to them when necessary. Recommendation: compile written policies and procedures to ensure all staff are aware of how to deal with requests for re-use of information and publish these on a shared area or Intranet.

Awareness

35. Internal communication in relation to IFTS was ineffective as many of the staff interviewed were unprepared for the verification and were unaware of IFTS principles, despite the verification team being told of verbal and written briefings given to staff notifying them it would be happening. It is important that key personnel are aware of IFTS and the Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regulations so they understand why they are operating within restrictions and follow certain policy. Recommendation: DVLA considers what would be


14

the most effective means of internal communication for future IFTS briefings.

36. Many staff lacked basic knowledge and awareness of Crown copyright and IFTS. This had an impact on the level of commitment given to the scheme. Some senior staff involved in this area did not realise that the information produced by the DVLA was Crown copyright and licensed for re-use by the DVLA under Delegation of Authority from the Controller of HMSO. The IFTS team, as well as DVLA employees, suggested that the responsibility for IFTS may not sit within the correct team. Recommendation: Consider which team would be most appropriate to take responsibility for IFTS. Organise Crown copyright training for key staff. OPSI is willing to assist with this.

Breaches

37. The DVLA is not aware of any breaches of copyright but does not currently take measures to monitor this. Recommendation: Actively monitor potential breaches of Crown copyright and have policies in place to act upon these if necessary.

Challenge

“The organisation has a complaints process empowered to reconsider incorrect licensing decisions. HMSO can investigate the organisation's licensing decisions if they appear to be wrong.”

38. The DVLA has a complaints procedure which is published on its

website. It has not received many complaints relating to licensing or re-use of its information. Many staff were not aware that complaints could be escalated to OPSI if the complainant is not satisfied with the outcome of the DVLA complaints procedure. Recommendation: Ensure staff are aware of the internal process for handling complaints and that complaints can be escalated to OPSI if a complainant is not happy with the outcome.


15

PART FOUR: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS This is a summary of the recommended action to:

• remedy the weakness identified; and, • strengthen the commitment to Information Fair Trading.

Principle Ref Recommendation Priority

28 The DVLA should seek to maximise the information available for re-use.

High

29 The DVLA gives consideration to the timescales involved in maximising information available for re-use and minimises these where possible.

High

Ope

n ne

ss

30 The DVLA considers the information it has available for re-use and updates its Information Asset Register.

High

31 The DVLA should consider incorporating Click-Use licence terms into its licences and introducing these to all customers when their current licences expire.

Medium

32 The DVLA should review its procedures to ensure that licences for re-use are processed within 20 days.

Medium

Fairn

ess


16

33 Website Review. It is recommended the DVLA should:

Update its Information Asset Register as well as list what information is not available

Publish standard licences and explain how to apply for one

Explain the cost of a obtaining a licence

Formulate a licensing policy and publish this on the website

Consider developing a licensing-specific complaints procedure, mentioning the roles of OPSI and APPSI

Correct the Crown copyright notice that currently states potential re-users should contact HMSO

Consider explaining what a trading fund is and how re-use differs from FOI

Publish the IFTS commitment

Medium

Tran

spar

ency

34 The DVLA should compile written policies and procedures to ensure all staff are aware of how to deal with requests for re-use of information and publish these on a shared area or Intranet.

High

35 The DVLA considers what would be the most effective means of internal communication for future IFTS briefings as current.

Medium

36 The DVLA should consider which team would be most appropriate to take responsibility for IFTS. They should then organise Crown copyright training for key staff in this team. OPSI is willing to assist with this.

High

Com

plia

nce

37 The DVLA should actively monitor breaches of Crown copyright and have policies in place to act upon these if necessary.

Low

Cha

lleng

e 38 The DVLA needs to ensure staff are aware of the internal process for handling complaints and that complaints can be escalated to OPSI if a complainant is not happy with the outcome.

Medium


17

Annex 1 – Details of licence reviews. Contracts reviewed: 1. Agreement for the provision of Bulk Data [mogbulkdatacontract04.doc] 2. Agreement for the provision of Anonymised Vehicle Data [SAD CONTRACT Final Version – 01.08.05] 3. Agreement for the provision of Mileage Data [Mileage Data Contract.doc 4. Agreement for the provision of DVLA Driver Entitlement Checking Service (DECS) [DECS Contract Final.doc] The contracts were sent to Chris Coyle by Tina Thomas (DVLA Wider Markets Unit). Contents of the Agreements Each agreement has: An introduction and signature page Schedule 1: Terms and Conditions Schedule 2: Service Description Schedule 3: Prices Contracts 1, 2, and 3 have an Annex A Contact Details Contract 4 has an Annex A Particulars of Process and Contact Details, Annex B Specification for Enquiries/Respond files, Annex C Code Tables and Annex D Guidelines on Requirements of Applicants for the Driving Entitlement Checking Service. Comments on the Introduction page The first paragraph on each contract is the same. There are concerns about the wording of the second sentence, “The Contract does not confer on [Company} exclusive rights to any others parts of the Agency’s business.”, as it implies that the DVLA is granting the Customer exclusive rights in the data covered by the agreement. Licence agreements for the re-use of data should be on a non-exclusive basis. Contract 2 includes the additional sentence, “For the purposes of this Contract, *Company* shall here be referred to as the “Customer”. Similar wording should be used in the other contracts as “Customer” is a defined term in Schedule 1 (Clause 1.1). The rest of the paragraph should be


18

rewritten in plain English and should make clear that the rights in the data are non-exclusive. The second paragraph sets out the period of the contract. Contracts 1 and 3 are for three years: contract 3 can be terminated before the three years have elapsed if Mandatory Mileage Recoding is introduced. Contract 2 has a specified end date of 31 March 2008. Contract 4 is for a set period, it runs “until such a time that the DVLA delivers an alternative electronic fee-paying enquiry service (via the Drivers Re-Engineering Project (DRP) or otherwise), to be determined by DVLA.” Contract 1 has a 3 month period for notice of termination once the 3 year period has elapsed. Contract 3 has a 60 days notice period. Contracts 2 and 4 do not have notice periods. DVLA should have a consistent notice period for termination of contracts. Schedule 1: Terms and Conditions Although the DVLA appear to have a standard contract template for producing Schedule 1 there is a lack of consistency in the wording across the four contracts. Some clauses are in Plain English while many are dense containing jargon and legalistic language which is not easy to follow. The clause covering Disclosure of Information (1.12), Retention of Documentation and National Audit Office Access (1.22), Dispute Resolution 1.24) and Change Control Procedures are particularly lengthy and need to be read carefully to fully understand them. Comments on Individual Clauses Definitions DVLA should consider including a definition of data. Contracts 2, 3 and 4 include a definition for “premises” which covers premises belonging or leased by the Crown. There is an inspection clause in Schedule 1 but this is for DVLA to inspect the premises of the customer! The definition for “DVLA” is too wide. In its current form it extends to the Department for Transport and all its agencies. It is recommended that a separate definition for the Secretary of State is composed. The DVLA need to check for consistency, some clauses in the agreements include references to “the Agency”, “the Authority” and “the Department”. .


19

Duration of the Contract The wording varies across the 4 contracts. It needs to be linked to the period clause in the introduction/signature page. Duty of Care Contract 2 includes a reference to “third party service providers”. This should be in the other contracts if the data is being supplied by the DVLA’s IT supplier. Meetings and Reports The wording in Contract 2 is fairer as it requires the DVLA to give the Contractor “reasonable notice” of meetings. The inclusion of Reports in the heading seems superfluous as there does not appear to be a requirement for the Customer to produce reports. Data Protection Contracts 2 and 4 both refer to Schedule 4; this was not included with the contracts. The responsibilities of the DVLA and the Customer under the Data Protection Act need to be made clearer. Transfer of Responsibility This clause is included in Contracts 2, 3 and 4. It is not clear why it has been omitted from Contract 1. Variation of Price There is a lack of consistency in the wording used for this clause and where it refers to Schedule 3 which sets out the prices and payment arrangements. In Contract 1 the price shall not be changed “for a period of a least 1 year” and will then be subject to review on giving “two month’s notice”. Contract 2 says that the “Schedule of Rates “shall be fixed and remain firm until at least 1 April 2006”; the period of notice is 3 months. Contract 3 says that the price will be fixed until the first anniversary of the Commencement Date and any revision “will be subject to negotiation between the Customer and the Authority” (should be the DVLA). Schedule 3 (3.1.4) requires a three month period of notice. Contract 4 contains what appear to be unfair terms. It states that “The Schedule of Rates may be subject to change in line with any Fees & Charges review carried out the Agency during the life of the contract.” This is refers to Schedule 3 which states that DVLA will provide prior notice of any proposed pricing review “where possible” but “can not guarantee a fixed notice period”.


20

Some contracts refer to the Central Statistical Office; the name should be changed to National Statistics. Intellectual Property Rights The four contracts include IPR clauses. Contracts 1, 2 and 3 include IPR clauses that appear to have been sourced from a research contract. The clauses cover Definition, Ownership of the Results and Copyright and publication. “Results” are defined as “any document, item product material or other work produced for the purposes of the services or in connection with services by the Authority*. This includes an idea, invention, innovation and design.” *Contract 2 uses the term “the Agency”, to be consistent it should be DVLA. The Ownership of the Results clause refers to all forms of IPR in the Services. What this clause should do is set out the copyright status of the data that Customer is buying from the DVLA and the ways that it can be re-used. If the DVLA are providing software etc that is subject to other forms of IPR the DVLA need to separate out the different forms of IPR involved. The Copyright and Publication clause states that the “Authority” owns the copyright in the data. If the data has been collected by the DVLA it will be Crown copyright. The Controller of HMSO has delegated authority to the DVLA to license the re-use of Crown copyright material and this should be referred to in the contracts. Sub clause [b] allows the DVLA to determine whether the Results of the Services shall be published. This is not appropriate in a contract which is for the re-use of data in information products/services. Sub clause [c] requires all reports prepared for publication to “carry the disclaimer and copyright statement below”. The contracts include a disclaimer but do not include a copyright statement. The wording of the disclaimer is suitable for a report produced under the terms of a commissioning contract but is not really suitable for a service or product that re-uses data from the DVLA. “The authors of this report are employed by [name of customer]. The work reported was carried out under a contract placed on [date of award contract] by the driver and vehicle licensing agency (sic). Any views expressed are not necessarily those of the Agency.” The final clause is very wordy. Its purpose is to get over the point that the DVLA is not claiming IPR (including database rights) in any service developed by the customer provided that the customer recognises that the IPR status of the supplied data remains with the Crown as represented by the DVLA.


21

In contract 3 the IPR clause consists of the sentence “The existing Intellectual Property Rights in the Services or those that originate from the provisions of the Services shall remain and continue to remain at all times with DVLA.” This appears to be saying that services developed by the contractor using the data will be Crown copyright. Change Control Procedures This clause is included in the 4 contracts. It appears to cover any changes that may need to be made to the software and systems that facilitate the supply of data. It needs to be revised to make it clearer and to refer to other relevant parts of the Agreement. Use of Brands, Logos and Trade Marks The 4 contracts include a clause that make it clear that the Customer does not have a licence to use DVLA brands, logos or trade marks except when communicating with the DVLA. The wording varies between the contracts. The illustrative examples of trade marks included in the contracts are not consistent. Schedule 2 Service Description The wording used for Schedule 2 is specific to each contract because it relates to the supply of a particular category of data. The comments relate to each Schedule 2. Contract 1 On the index page this Schedule is referred to as Service Description while the actual Schedule is headed the Specification. The term “the Agency” is used rather than “the DVLA” which is not consistent with Schedule 1. Customer’s Obligations (Clause 2.2). This clause refers to the use of the data but it does not specify what rights are being licensed by the DVLA. There is also a separate section covering Use of Data (2.8) which should be linked to 2.2 and to set out the scope of the licensed rights. If the data can only be used for certain purposes because of data protection requirements the restrictions need to be made clear. The requirements should be linked to the clause on Security of Data. Modifications to Data [Clause 2.4] If the DVLA need to make modifications to the data they should make sure that the modified data is supplied on the same terms to all who receive the data. The role of the DVLA IT supplier needs to be made clear.


22

Contract 2 Overview of Provision (Clause 2.2). The DTI Guidelines on the release of tradable Information have now been overtaken by policy guidance on the re-use of public sector information. This should be replaced with a description of the data and its copyright status. For clarity, the DVLA might want to consider moving clauses 2.3 (The Data), 2.4 (Data Description), 2.5 (Monthly Keeper Data), and Clause 2.6 (Size of the Data) to a separate Schedule for clarity. It would also make it easier to issue a replacement schedule if DVLA change the Data during the period of the contract. As stated previously the DVLA should set out what rights are being granted in relation to the data. Clause 2.10 Use of the Data states that the Data shall be held “on one database only”. Clause 2.12 sets out the Customer’s Obligations. The rationale behind some of these clauses is unclear. Clause 2.12.6 (a) covers “inspecting any Products derived from the provisions of the Service”. “Products” is not defined in the agreement. Clause 2.12.9 refers to “an enhanced product “. Contract 3 Distribution/Use of Data (Clause 2.1) The wording of clause 2.1.2 is not clear. If the DVLA has made a contract for the supply of the data they are contractually required to supply the data. If legislation changes and the data cannot be supplied the agreement would need to be terminated. There is concern about the use of the word “exclusively”. See comments on the introduction to the agreements. If the data can only be used for a specific purpose the contract should say, “The data can only be used for …” Clause 2.2.2 says that the fee for “an anonymised copy of the microfilm showing the mileage recorded for a particular vehicle” will be set at the discretion of the Secretary of State. To ensure openness and fairness it would appropriate to publish guidance on the fee for supply of microfiche. Security of Data (Clause 2.3) The provisions of this clause need to be linked to the data protection clause in Schedule 1.


23

Using data in ways that fall outside of the licensed rights would be a breach of the terms and conditions and would surely be grounds for terminating the agreement. The reference to “commercial customers” in 2.3.3 needs to be explained. It is important to ensure that all the contracts for this type of data are made by the DSA on an equal and fair basis. Contract 4 The wording of Schedule 2 indicates that the purpose of this Agreement is to enable the transfer of the records relating to an individual driver’s entitlement to drive to be supplied by the DVLA to a company that has to ensure that the driver of a vehicle (hire car etc) has the legal authority to drive the vehicle. As this is personal data about an individual the company requiring the record has to get the driver to complete a consent form before the DVLA is able to release the record to the company. Under data protection the company would not be able to use the records for any other purpose. This arrangement falls outside of the conventional licensing model verified under the IFTS. The agreement ensures that the DVLA can release information to others who need to makes sure that only those who are legally entitled to drive do so. The DVLA should ensure that the fees charged for the service are applied consistently. Schedule 3 Payment Arrangements The arrangements for making payments are set out clearly. Contracts 1, 2 and 3 do not explain how the annual price for the date was calculated. Contracts reviewed: 1. VE 103 Vehicle On Hire Certificate [Schedule 2-V103.doc] 2. Enquiries relating to the vehicles registered keeper details [Schedule 2 – DCA doc]] 3. Driving Entitlement Checking Service [Schedule 2 DECS.doc] 4. The Service of Entitlement Checking Transactions [Schedule 2-DSA doc.] 5. VRM data [Schedule 2–Greyfleets.doc] 6. Data Set [Schedule 2–Mileage D contract.doc]


24

7. Data Set [Schedule 2–Mosaic Experian.doc] 8. File Transfer [Schedule 2-Motability.doc] 9. Police & Court Service data exchange [Schedule 2–PITO doc] 10. Active Use data [Schedule 2–SAD doc] 11. Bulk Data [Schedule 2-Bulk Data.doc] These contracts were sent to Helen Westhall by Darren Chucas (DVLA Procurement Services Group) General Comments All except for Contract 4 are the Specifications that describe the data covered by a contract, the main terms and conditions being set out in Schedule 1. Contract 4 is a service level agreement with the Driving Standards Agency. Comments on the contracts Contract 1 This is for the supply and issuing of official certificates so it would not be classed as re-use. Contract 2 This covers the electronic transfer of data from the DVLA. It contains technical specifications but does not say how the data can be used. Contract 3 See earlier comments on this Schedule which forms part of the Contract 4 sent to Chris Coyle. Contract 5 This is also unclear on how the data can be re-used. Contract 6 See earlier comments on this Schedule which forms part of the Contract 3 sent to Chris Coyle. Contract 7 Clause 2.3.1 is confusing because it says that Experian Limited will provide data to the DVLA. The rest of the document covers data supplied by the DVLA.


25

Clause 2.9.1 which relates to use of the data refers to the rights granted in Clause 1.37 and 1.38, these are not part of Schedule 2 so it is not possible to provide comment on extent of the rights. The same clause refers to “client’s databases” in relation to Clause 1.37 and 1.38. Clause 2.11.6 (Experian Limited’s obligations) refers to “inspecting any Products derived from the provision of the Service”; products are not mentioned anywhere else in the document. It appears that this contract involves significant re-use of data. Contract 8 This covers the electronic transfer of data from the DVLA. Contract 9 This sets out in great detail the technical specifications for the electronic exchange of data between the DVLA and the Police Forces in England and Wales. The data is used for Case Preparation and needs to be compatible with the systems used by the police and courts. This contract is to meet a legal and administrative purpose so it falls outside of the scope of IFTS. Contract 10 This contains a lot of technical information but does not make clear how the data can be re-used. Contract 11 See earlier comments on this Schedule which forms part of the Contract 1 sent to Chris Coyle Contract reviewed: Schedule 1 Terms and Conditions.doc Comments This document follows the same format as the Schedule 1 documents included in the contracts the DVLA sent to Chris Coyle. There are some changes. In the definition section “Award Date” has been changed to “Commencement Date” and “Price” to “Service Charge” or “Service Price”. The clause covering Duration of the Contract” (1.3) has different wording.


26

The first sentence of the Intellectual Property Rights clause says that all IPR “in the raw Data shall be vested in the Agency”. There is no definition of Data or of raw Data. The use of “DVLA” (a defined term) is not consistent. Some of the clauses refer to “the Agency” and others to “the Department”. The detailed comments on the other Schedule 1 documents also apply to this Schedule 1. Document reviewed: 1. Data User Application Form [ver 1 doc] Description A five page form for gathering information that has to be completed by anyone wanting to purchase data from the DVLA. Comments The form includes a section called Commercial Facts (Section 4). It might be better to title this section, ‘How are you proposing to re-use the data?’ Document reviewed: 1. Code of Practice for Approved Data Customers [ver6 doc]. It is watermarked draft. Comments The adoption of a voluntary Code of Practice for those who purchase vehicle data from the DVLA is questionable. The terms and conditions for the re-use of the data should be clearly set out in the licence agreement (contract) issued by the DVLA. Action can be taken against those who are in breach of the terms and conditions. The wording used in the draft Code of Practice is imprecise and includes shorthand forms such as “3rd parties”, “QA” without first stating the letters mean “Quality Assurance. One paragraph is headed “Reputable Agent”. Those who obtain data from DVLA are operating as agents of the DVLA. The words “the Industry” are used in paragraph 2.3. It is unclear as to what is mean by the “the Industry”.


27

It is more important for the DVLA to produce guidance that sets out:

what data can be released for re-use how the data can and cannot be re-used the standard charges for the different categories the standard licence terms and conditions for re-use.

Documents

Office of Public Sector Information - The National Archiveswebarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20060802113610/... · with the Re-use of Public Sector information Regulations 2005