Commitment to Fair Information Trading

Information Fair Trader Scheme Manual

This document is dynamic and will be updated as processes develop.

Principles & Commitment

Background

The Cross-Cutting Review of the Knowledge Economy set out practical steps for the Government to promote the re-use of Government information in innovative products and services. The Controller of HMSO is responsible for Crown copyright and therefore has responsibility for implementing three critical decisions of the Review that changed arrangements for the management of Crown copyright:

Core Government information from central Government Departments, but not Trading Funds, is to be made available for re-use at no more than the marginal cost of supplying it.
Information from central Government Departments where they have added value should be licensed at market prices.
A repositioned HMSO should regulate the licensing decisions of the Trading Funds, whose pricing and dissemination policies should be improved.

The Controller of HMSO has offered Government Trading Funds permission to make licensing decisions on Crown copyright information on her behalf: though some prefer the Information Policy Division to administer licences, some have accepted the responsibility. The Controller consulted the public about the regulatory regime to put in place. The outcome was the Information Fair Trader Scheme.

Since 2004, the focus of IFTS has shifted from concentrating on Crown copyright licensing within government trading funds, to the licensing of Crown and non-Crown copyright information throughout the wider public sector. This has mainly been because of the introduction of the Regulations on Public Sector Information 2005.

The IFTS principles are not particular to Crown copyright organisations and can be applied to any public sector organisation. The purpose of IFTS is to ensure that re-users of public sector information, whether in the voluntary, professional or commercial sectors, can be confident that they will be treated reasonably, consistently and fairly by public sector information providers.

Five Principles

The key characteristics of a fair information trading system include openness, transparency, fairness, compliance and challenge. These terms are defined as follows:

Openness

The Chief Executive commits that in principle 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. Any new exceptions should be discussed with OPSI.

Transparency

Applying for a licence, not only the process, but the prices, the considerations influencing pricing 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.

Fairness

All applicants and licensees should be treated alike for the same type of licence; this includes treating internal and external customers the same for the same type of re-use. The organisation should not use its market power to compete unfairly.

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.

Challenge

The organisation has a complaints process empowered to reconsider incorrect licensing decisions. OPSI can investigate the organisation's licensing decisions if they appear to be wrong or inconsistent.

IFTS Accredited Verification Methodology

General Approach

The verification process involves carrying out sufficient activities to form an audit judgement. Judgement and experience will be used to determine the scope and extent of audit testing required to provide an adequate level of assurance. Testing should be in proportion to the level of the activity under review.

IFTS Accredited requires each Chief Executive of a candidate organisation to commit to trading openly, transparently and fairly in information. Once a Chief Executive has declared the commitment, the underlying administrative and decision-making processes of the organisation are to be examined to verify that they support the Information Fair Trading commitment of the Chief Executive. If the organisation's structure can be verified, the Controller will certify that the organisation is a Fair Information Trader. If not, unless remedies are put in place, the certificate will not be awarded. The overall purpose of the verification is therefore to test the commitment.

The verification process is based on establishing whether the key outcomes of Openness, Transparency, Fairness, Compliance and Challenge are achieved. These outcomes are matched across a number of areas of activity of the organisation where we might expect to see these key outcomes achieved. The approach is therefore based on a matrix model, the Testing Framework, which takes each of the outputs and shows how work in each of the areas of activity demonstrates compliance. The Testing Framework can be seen on the next page.

There are a number of key business areas in public sector bodies that should be verified. 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 Pricing Terms and Conditions
Access	Access to and re-use of public sector 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 OPSI	Commitment to IFTS
External Constraints	Competition Act 1998 Financial targets

0x08 graphic

Testing Framework

Notes:

The testing framework is based on the headings at figure 1.
This is a general checklist for testing; not all tests will apply.
For all tests we will be examining progress towards achievement, rather than complete compliance, as appropriate.

Business Area	Verification Focus		Specific Tests
Service Offering	Understanding of Licensing		The organisation's policy on licensing is clearly stated
					If the organisation has a delegation of authority from the Controller of HMSO, then that policy is in accordance with the delegation.
					OPSI guidance on access to public sector information has been incorporated into the organisation's policies and practices
			Pricing		Charges are in accordance with HM Treasury guidance (or other relevant guidance if not central government)
					Charges are in accordance with the organisation's own policy
					Pricing policy is explained internally and publicly
					Users have confidence in fair licence pricing
					The nature and value of the material are fairly reflected in the terms and prices charged to licensees
					Internal re-users are charged fairly in comparison with external licensees
			Terms and Conditions		Standard licences are available to applicants
					Terms and conditions are provided within 20 working days of application.
		Access	Access to and re-use of public sector information		The commitment to maximising the re-use of public sector information is clear, and supported by specific actions in the business plan
					The organisation seeks to understand the needs of information re-users and end-users
					There are appropriate mechanisms for logging feedback from re-users
			Websites and equivalents		There is a publicly accessible information asset list
					The role of licensing is publicly explained
					The availability of different types of data is made clear
					All potential uses of material are covered, within reason
					There is adequate guidance on how to apply for a licence
					The end-to-end process of obtaining a licence is satisfactory for the applicant
					There is a clear description of where a non-standard licence (exception) will be required
					Licensing fees are published
					Pricing policy is explained
					Enquiry and complaints procedures are clearly explained
		Internal Processes	Staff responsibilities and delegations		The commitment to Information Fair Trading is assigned to a named senior manager
					The commitment to maintaining sections about information re-use on the website is allocated to a named individual
					Licensing staff are given sufficient guidance on the standards of openness,, fairness and transparency to apply
					Personal objectives reflect the organisation's aims for openness, transparency, fairness and compliance
					Accountabilities for dealing with compliance are clear and unambiguous
					Accountability for dealing with complaints is clear and unambiguous
			Exceptions Handling		Potential and actual exceptions are reported to and reviewed by those accountable for setting and maintaining standards
					The bases upon which exceptions are made or refused are fair
					There is consistency in the treatment of exceptions regardless of the applicant or licensee
					There are procedures for dealing with the impacts of exceptions, new policies or re-interpretation of policies, on existing licensees
					The need for “permanent” exceptions such as for joint ventures and reciprocal arrangements with other governments has been identified and agreed at an appropriately senior level
					The need for such exceptions has been discussed with OPSI
			Costs and Cost Allocation		Up-to-date and timely cost information is generally available to staff who need it
					The cost allocation methodology is clear and simple
					Cost allocation bases are logical and sensible
					Cost allocation methods do not conceal or encourage cross-subsidies
					Issues in cost allocation are identified and reviewed at an appropriately senior level
			Complaints Handling		Robust systems are in place
					Depending on scope and scale of complaints, best practices in complaints handling have been adopted
					Complaints about licensing are given the same level of attention that other complaints are
					The role of OPSI in investigating complaints is made clear
		Standards	Service Standards		A service standards commitment is published
					Service standards are adequate
					Performance against service standards is monitored and acted upon
		Strategic Management	Business Objectives and Performance Indicators		Explicit objectives (quantified and date-specific wherever appropriate) are established for key items related to the commitment to Information Fair Trading, such as improving access to public sector information
					These objectives are made known to the staff responsible for their achievement
					There is a clear commitment to ensuring all information that can be made available is made available
					Clear guidance is given that fairness to licensees and between licensees is a corporate value
					A realistic action plan details how the organisation will ensure compliance
			Management supervision of compliance		Proactive Policies are driving the wider use of material
					There is a formal programme for reviewing legacy licences
					Information Fair Trading compliance requirements are built in to policies and procedures
					There are explicit and effective compliance processes
					Action is taken whenever compliance performance fails
					There is a proper balance of Information Fair Trading compliance and other strategic objectives
					Complaints procedures are soundly designed and managed
					There are effective systems and procedures which support the delivery of Information Fair Trading in practice
		Relationship with OPSI	Relationship of organisation with OPSI		The role of OPSI is understood in the organisation, and reflected in policies and procedures (particularly for those organisations with delegations)
					There is dialogue between OPSI and organisations with delegations on any issues arising in connection with licensing
	External Constraints	Competition Act 1998		Robust procedures are in place for achieving compliance with the Competition Act
	Financial Targets		Where necessary any impact of the financial targets on the commitment to Information Fair Trading is assessed and disclosed
	Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005		Robust procedures are in place for achieving compliance with the Regulations

Activities

Document Review

[off site and on site]

Documents will be requested by OPSI from the organisation for review by the verification team. A document checklist is provided to the organisation but it is not exhaustive. An organisation is invited to submit any documentation it feels demonstrates its commitment to information fair trading or to enable the verification team to gain a deeper understanding of the organisation's trading activities. A pre-verification report will be produced based on this information for the benefit of the verification team.

*Document Checklist* The purpose of the audit is to examine the commitment to Information Fair Trading given by the Chief Executive of the organisation. The organisation is therefore encouraged to provide such information as is considered necessary to provide support for that commitment. We would normally expect to see some or all of the following, although of course further information can be given. Please indicate which documents are being provided and return a copy with the documentation.
Documentation
A brief written summary of the business and of its licensing activity
Current version of the Commitment to Information Fair Trading given by the Chief Executive
Supporting papers for that commitment, such as analysis papers and Board briefings
Policy statements and internal guidance on:	Information Fair Trading
		Licensing of information for re-use
		Dealing with Intellectual Property infringement
		Service Standards and Complaints handling
		Competition Act 1998
		Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005
	Organisation structure	Overall for the organisation showing where licensing responsibilities lie
		Detailed structure for licensing department
		Delegated responsibilities for staff in relation to licensing
Published guidance on copyright, licensing and pricing for applicants and licensees
Summary of licence types offered
Standard terms and conditions for use of information
Supporting papers for pricing including:	Policy statements
		Pricing Schedule
		Supporting schedules of calculations, including cost information
		Income from licensing
	Business Objectives, especially with regard to licensing	Business Plan
		Relevant management or working group reports
		Framework Document
Annual Report and Accounts for most recent financial year
List of Licensing Case Files and corresponding work allocation

Website review questions

[off site]

A website audit will be carried out from the perspective of a potential applicant.

This assessment assigns scores to each question, with the score reflecting the importance attached to it. For example, having an asset register attracts a higher number of points than having an explanation of what a delegation of authority is. Through the assessment, the multiple choice answers each attract a score. Once the assessment is complete, the score sheet gives the number of points each question encompasses. The points are then added up and the website given a score.

Judging from known websites and the scores they achieved, the following scoring grid is suggested:

<160 - Poor

160-180 - Adequate

>180 - Good

Clearer information on what to put in the comments section has also been included, to keep any additional information relevant and useful. There is also space to put links to webpages so that the person drafting the report can easily see what the assessor has found. This will help to keep the report accurate.

Guidance for Using the Assessment Sheet

The assessment sheet is comprised of 13 sections, each relating to a different aspect of IFTS and the principles it encompasses. It is important that each section is answered fully, except where questions are not applicable (in which case N/A must be chosen). It is not important to answer the assessment in order.

The comments sections give examples of what could be included in them, except the last one which is a general comments section. Here, a brief overview of the website can be included and any general remarks made.

Once the assessment is complete, the score sheet should be used to give the website a score. This score gives a reflection of how comprehensive the website is, although the circumstances of the organisation should be taken into account, for example if the website is in the process of being redesigned.

IFTS Website Assessment

Organisation:

Site available at:

Date assessed:

Assessed by:

1.1 Does the website have an Information Asset Register? (Yes) (No)

1.2 If yes, how many clicks is it from the homepage? (0-1) (2) (3) (4+) (N/A)

1.3 How long did it take to find? (<1 minute) (1-2 mins) (2-4 mins) (4+ mins) (N/A)

1.4 If there is no IAR, is there other guidance on what information is available? (Yes) (No) (N/A)

Please provide a link for the IAR page, along with comments on how easy it was to use.

2.1 Does the PSB use standard licences? (Yes) (No)

2.2 Are these published in full on the website (Yes) (No) (N/A)

2.3 If yes, how many clicks are they from the homepage? (0-1) (2) (3) (4+) (N/A)

2.4 How long does it take to find? (<1 minute) (1-2 mins) (2-4 mins) (4+ mins) (N/A)

2.5 How many standard licences are there? (1) (2) (3-5) (6+) (N/A)

2.6 Is there an explanation of what different licences are for and is it clearly understood? (Yes) (No)

Please provide a link to the standard licences here. If there are a large number of standard licences, are they proportionate to the volume of licensing carried out?

3.1 Is there any charge made for licences? (Yes) (No)

3.2 Is there an explanation of the charges? (Yes) (No) (N/A)

3.3 Is there an explanation of how charges are drawn up? (Yes) (No) (N/A)

Please provide a link to the charges here, along with any explanation of the way they are drawn up.

4.1 Is there an IFTS commitment on the website? (Yes) (No)

4.2 How many clicks is it from the homepage? (0-1) (2) (3) (4+) (N/A)

4.3 How long does it take to find? (<1 minute) (1-2 mins) (2-4 mins) (4+ mins) (N/A)

Please provide a link to the IFTS commitment

5.1 Is there clear and precise information on how to apply for a re-use licence? (Yes) (No)

5.2 Are there a variety of methods for applying for licences? (Yes) (No)

5.3 Is it possible to apply online for a licence?(Including emailing a form) (Yes) (No)

5.4 Does it specify a timescale to grant licences? (Yes) (No)

5.5 If yes, what is that timescale (in working days)? (<5 days) (5-10 Days) (<20 days) (20+ days) (N/A)

6.1 Does the PSB have a procedure for complaints regarding licensing decisions? (Yes) (No)

6.2 How many clicks is it from the homepage? (0-1) (2) (3) (4+) (N/A)

6.3 How long does it take to find? (<1 minute) (1-2 mins) (2-4 mins) (4+ mins) (N/A)

6.4 Does it mention that if the complainant is unhappy they can refer to OPSI or APPSI? (Yes) (No)

Please provide a link to the complaints page. If there is no separate licensing complaints page, please link to the general complaints section.

7.1 Does the website explain what information is not available? (Yes) (No)

7.2 If Yes, does it explain why? (Yes) (No) (N/A)

7.3 How many items are listed? (<2) (3-4) (5-6) (7+) (N/A)

Please provide a link to the page with this explanation. What is the nature of the unavailable items? Please comment if the nature of the PSB's activity would require a larger/smaller number of exceptions than would be expected. Are the exceptions listed specific, or cover a category?

8.1 Does the website outline any exceptions to normal licensing policy? (Yes) (No)

8.2 If Yes, does it explain why that exception has been made? (Yes) (No) (N/A)

8.3 How many exceptions are there? (1) (2) (3) (4+) (N/A)

What is the nature of the exceptions? Are the exceptions specific? Please provide a link to the page

9.1 Does the website have a Crown Copyright notice? (Yes) (No) (N/A)

9.2 Is it linked to from every page? (Yes) (No) (N/A)

9.3 How many clicks is it from the homepage? (0-1) (2) (3) (4+) (N/A)

9.4 How long does it take to find? (<1 minute) (1-2 mins) (2-4 mins) (4+ mins) (N/A)

9.5 Is OPSI/HMSO mentioned, with contact details? (Yes) (No)

10.1 Does the website have an electronic search facility? (Yes) (No)

10.2 If yes, how many clicks is it from the homepage? (0-1) (2) (3) (4+) (N/A)

10.3 How long did it take to find? (<1 minute) (1-2 mins) (2-4 mins) (4+ mins) (N/A)

Please provide a link for the search page, along with comments on how easy it was to use. If it is not present, does it say why? (Yes) (No)

11.1 Is the material available by electronic means? (Yes) (No) (Some)

11.2 Is it possible to download direct from the website? (Yes) (No) (Some)

11.3 If data is not available electronically, is there an explanation of how to obtain it? (Yes) (No) (N/A)

11.4 If data is sent via email, is there a specified timescale for delivery? (Yes) (No) (N/A)

11.5 If yes, what is the timescale (In working days)? (Same day) (Next day)

(<5 days) (5+ days) (N/A)

Please state any other methods of receiving data. If a timescale is published, to what extent do they meet that commitment?

12.1 Does the PSB outline its responsibilities under IFTS on their website? (Yes - all) (Yes - most) (Yes - some) (No)

12.2 Does the website explain what IFTS is aiming to achieve? (Yes) (No)

12.3 Are the benefits of IFTS explained? (Yes) (No)

12.4 Is the PSB using IFTS logos on their website and actively mentioning they are a member of the scheme? (Yes) (No) (N/A)

13.1 Does the PSB outline its policy towards its trading of PSI? (Yes) (No)

13.2 Does the PSB explain how it arrives at decisions? (Yes) (No)

13.3 Does the website have an explanation of what re-use is? (Yes) (No)

13.4 Does the website explain what Crown Copyright is? (Yes) (No) (N/A)

13.5 Does the website explain why licences are sometimes needed to re-use information? (Yes) (No)

13.6 Does the website explain the difference between FOI and re-use? (Yes) (No)

13.7 Does the website explain what a trading fund and delegated authority is? (Yes) (No) (N/A)

Please provide a link to any explanations here.

Please enter any comments that you may have about the website, and how it promotes re-use of PSI, explains the processes of licensing and what it says about IFTS.

Scores for IFTS Verification Web Assessment.

1.1 Yes - 10, No - 0

1.2 0-1 - 3, 2 - 2, 3 - 1, >4 - 0 N/A - 0

1.3 <1 - 3, 1-2 - 2, 2-4 - 1, >4 - 0 N/A - 0

1.4 Yes - 5, No - 0, N/A - 5

2.1 Yes - 7, No - 0

2.2 Yes - 7, No - 0 N/A - 0

2.3 0-1 - 3, 2 - 2, 3 - 1, >4 - 0 N/A - 0

2.4 <1 - 3, 1-2 - 2, 2-4 - 1, >4 - 0 N/A - 0

2.5 1 - 10, 2 - 5, 2-5 - 3, >6 - 0 N/A - 0

2.6 Yes - 10, No - 0

3.1 Not scored

3.2 Yes - 10 No - 0 N/A - 10

3.3 Yes - 7 No - 0 N/A - 7

4.1 Yes - 10, No - 0

4.2 0-1 - 3, 2 - 2, 3 - 1, >4 - 0 N/A - 0

4.3 <1 - 3, 1-2 - 2, 2-4 - 1, >4 - 0 N/A - 0

5.1 Yes - 9, No - 0

5.2 Yes - 3, No - 0

5.3 Yes - 10, No - 0

5.4 Yes - 10, No - 0

5.5 <5 - 7, 5-10 - 5, 11-20 - 3, >20 - 0 N/A - 0

6.1 Yes - 10, No - 0

6.2 0-1 - 3, 2 - 2, 3 - 1, >4 - 0 N/A - 0

6.3 <1 - 3, 1-2 - 2, 3 - 1, >4 - 0 N/A - 0

6.4 Yes - 10, No - 0

7.1 Yes - 8, No - 0

7.2 Yes - 5, No - 0 N/A - 0

7.3 <2 - 5, 3-4 - 3, 5-6 - 1, >6 - 0 N/A - 0

8.1 Yes - 8, No - 0

8.2 Yes - 5, No - 0 N/A - 3

8.3 1 - 10, 2 - 7, 3 - 3, >4 - 0 N/A - 5

9.1 Yes - 9, No - 0 N/A - 9

9.2 Yes - 6, No - 0 N/A - 5

9.3 0-1 - 3, 2 - 2, 3 - 1, >4 - 0 N/A - 1

9.4 <1 - 3, 1-2 - 2, 2-4 - 1, >4 - 0 N/A - 1

9.5 Yes - 5, No - 0

10.1 Yes - 5, No - 0

10.2 0-1 - 3, 2 - 2, 3 - 1, >4 - 0 N/A - 0

10.3 <1 - 3, 1-2 - 2, 2-4 - 1, >4 - 0 N/A - 0

11.1 Yes - 5, No - 0, Some - 3

11.2 Yes - 5, No - 0, Some - 3

11.3 Yes - 2, No - 0, N/A - 2

11.4 Yes - 2, No - 0, N/A - 2

11.5 Same day - 3, Next day - 2, <5 days - 1, >5 days - 0 N/A - 3

12.1 All - 7, Most - 5, Some - 2, No - 0

12.2 Yes - 2, No - 0

12.3 Yes - 2, No - 0

12.4 Yes - 5, No - 0, N/A - 5

13.1 Yes - 7, No - 0

13.2 Yes - 4, No - 0

13.3 Yes - 3, No - 0

13.4 Yes - 3, No - 0, N/A - 3

13.5 Yes - 3, No - 0

13.6 Yes - 3, No - 0

13.7 Yes - 3, No - 0, N/A - 3

Standard Licence Review

[off site]

Any standard licences should be reviewed by a member of OPSI Information Policy Team to ensure that the terms and conditions are open, transparent and fair. The OPSI licences should be used as a model.

The following template should be used for comments:

Name of Reviewer:

Licence(s) reviewed: Licence for xyz

1. Clarity of licence terms

Check for clarity of language, jargon, legalistic language, plain English

2. Comprehensiveness of licence terms

Are there any significant omissions? Does the licence contain terms that you would not expect to find in a licence?

3. Fairness

Does the licence contain terms that are unfair or unnecessarily discriminates between different user groups?

4. Consistency

Does the licence contain any terms which are inconsistent and contradictory?

5. Practical Arrangements

Is it clear what the process is for making payments, amending terms for example?

6. Restrictiveness of terms

Are any of the terms unnecessarily restrictive?

Interviews

[on site]

The aim of interviews is to investigate policies and assess whether practice reflects them. As all organisations are different, when identifying the people we would like to interview, it is best to identify them by function rather than by job title. The types of people we would like to interview would be involved in the following functions:

Setting business plan/objectives/ policies relating to re-use of information (relevant board member). Should include pricing policy for sale/ licensing of data and policy on what data can and cannot be supplied for re-use.
Handling applications for buying/ licensing of data.
Setting service standards and complaints processes.
Handling complaints and dissatisfaction.
Handling breaches of copyright
Handling internet content relating to copyright policy, licensing, sale of data.

Interview Theme Sheet

It is helpful to explain to the interviewee, what IFTS is, as we cannot assume they have been briefed.

There is no set form to the interview. Some key themes are examined but the interview needs to be tailored towards the interviewee and should explore the issues raised.

Name:
Position & reporting line, time in organisation and past roles:
Current role and objectives:
Themes:

Major Responsibilities and Tasks
Current issues for organisation
Attitude to maximising information for re-use
Attitude towards and methods of achieving transparency and
fairness
What types of decisions do you make?
What criteria are applied in decision making?
Circumstances requiring reference to higher authority
Sources of advice and best practice
What material is referred to (e.g. policy statements, guidance,
notes)?
Do you receive many complaints about information re-use?
How do you handle complaints?
In which aspects do you find difficulty in doing your job?

Licensing File Review

[on site]

The aim of reviewing licensing files is to investigate how the administration of the re-use of information works in practice and to assess whether policies and business processes are followed.

Licensing File Review Checklist

The case review checklist helps in making an initial assessment of the licensing case file and in identifying any issues that need to be resolved. It includes a checklist of questions about openness, transparency, fairness, compliance, and challenge, together with positive and negative examples. More questions and examples may be added as they occur. A sample checklist, with positive and negative examples, is set out below.

Checklist	Positive example	Negative example
Openness
Has the organisation maximised the information available for re-use by licensees?	A licensing decision enabled the applicant's requested re-use to occur	The organisation refused to license some information to an applicant and there is no reasonable justification given.
Has the organisation maximised the number and variety of methods of re-using information?	The organisation licensed re-use by any means (within reason) requested by the applicant	The organisation has not explained to potential re-users what is available (eg. through an information asset list)
Transparency
Has the organisation presented public, clear, accurate, accessible and complete information on the licensing process?	There is clear, accurate, accessible and complete information on the processes for obtaining a licence.	There is no explanation of how to apply for a licence.
… made clear the basis for the type of licensing treatment?	Set out the reasons for the decision, for example on terms and conditions.	Given no explanation
… clarified the basis on which the fee is determined?	An applicant has been told how his fee is calculated, and this calculation is included in correspondence.	Given no explanation of the basis of the fee
Fairness
Can we be confident that the treatment of actual and potential licensees is fair?	Organisation has considered the applicant's needs and has suggested ways in which they might reduce charges by modifying the way they re-use information.	Apparently similar case files show evidence of differing treatment Issued exclusive licences
Is it evident that both treatment and outcome are fair for the licensee compared with other licensees and the licensee in relation to the organisation?	There is evidence of staff comparing charges between licensees, and checking that they are fair	The prices charged to internal users differ from those to external licensees and it is not clear how the figures have been calculated.
Where an exception is made or refused, is it fair and in line with established principles?	Reference is made to the principles involved and an explanation is given to the applicant	The decision to make or refuse an exception has not been justified, and referred to higher authority if necessary.
Was discretion exercised, for example in pricing, and can the organisation be confident that the outcome is reasonable and consistent amongst licensees?	A note of any judgement required has been made, together with the reasons for the decision.	A decision on licence terms or price has no support on the file.
Compliance
Has the normal licensing procedure been complied with?	The procedure has been followed	The procedure has been incorrectly applied; side-stepped or procedural errors have been made.
Have any exceptions been reported and reviewed by appropriate management?	Exceptions have been referred to management as necessary.	The required referral of an exception was not made. The fee charged is not in accordance with the Fee Schedule or as determined by precedent.
Have any necessary approvals been obtained?	Any required approvals have been obtained	Required approvals were not obtained.
Have legacy licences been followed up in accordance an exit strategy?	Management scrutiny of results of legacy licence review programmes.	Little proactive treatment of legacy licences.
Challenge
Are the complaints procedures clear?	Where a re-user is unhappy with the level of service, complaints mechanism are explained.	Inadequate or no response is given to complaints.

Licensing File Review Record

Reference number/ file type:

Assessment

Principle (circle)	Notes & examples of behaviour
Principle (circle)
*Openness*
*X ?*
Transparency
X ?
Fairness
X ?
Compliance
X ?
Challenge
X ?

Other significant issues (carry over page if necessary)

Other Procedures

Issues List

An issues list should be maintained throughout the verification process. The verification should attempt to resolve all issues on site and certainly by the time the report is drafted.

Principle	Description of issue	Action to verify	Owner	Resolved	Ref.
					1
					2
					3
					4
					5
					6
					7
					8
					9
					10
					11
					12

IFTS verification checklist

BEFORE ON-SITE VISIT
The Verification Team should …		Organise a pre-visit for key team members
			Request pre-review documentation and Licensing File list
			Start and maintain an `issues list'
			Follow up any key issues from documentation
			Produce a summary of the business and licensing activity of the organisation and pass to all team members
			Make clear team's on-site office administrative requirements (room, desk, computer, telephone, flipchart, security access)
			Identify who the team members will be
			Identify licensing files for review
			Ensure sufficient licensing file review forms
			Inform organisation of the types of people who need to be interviewed and ensure all interviews are scheduled
			Maintain a verification visit diary detailing work allocations
			Organise a team member to carry out a website review
			Organise a team member to carry out a licence review
		The Organisation should …	Provide pre-review documentation
			Provide list of licensing files
			Brief relevant staff on how IFTS affects them and what the verification process involves
			Provide access to any Intranet, including partner/confidential areas
			Ensure that the verification team has a room, desk, computer, telephone, flipchart and security access
DURING ON-SITE VISIT
The Verification Team should …	Maintain the `issues list'
		Carry out all interviews
		Carry out review of all identified licensing files
		Investigate other issues raised during on-site visit
AFTER THE ON-SITE VISIT
The Verification Team should …	Provide feedback to the organisation on the visit
		Write up report and send it to organisation for comments
		Meet with organisation to discuss findings and recommendations
	The Organisation should …	Provide feedback to the verification team on the visit if desired
		Provide any outstanding information as requested by the verification team

Report and Recommendations

Priorities

IFTS verification reports always include recommendations which the organisation is expected to implement. Recommendations are given a priority of high, medium or low. The award of IFTS accreditation is conditional upon the recommendations being implemented within set time scales.

High priority: These recommendations are critical and should be implemented as soon as possible (within six months). Failure to implement may result in removal of accreditation.

Medium priority: These recommendations are important and should be implemented as soon as possible (within a year). Failure to implement may result in removal of accreditation.

Low priority: These recommendations would help the organisations to be more compliant but are not essential to retaining accreditation.

Sometimes it may not be possible for organisations to implement recommendations within the above time scales. For example:

legacy licences may need to run their course before they can be replaced by standard licences;
recommendations may be dependent on other business changes; or
recommendations may be dependent on other recommendations being implemented first.

All organisations will be offered advice by OPSI on:

interpretation of the recommendations;
reasoning behind the recommendations; and
advice on implementing the recommendations.

Monitoring recommendations

Organisations who have been awarded accreditation should be visited within six months of accreditation. At this point they will be expected to have developed an action plan and to be well underway with the implementation of the recommendations. The high priority recommendations should be implemented by this stage.

A further meeting should take place a year after accreditation to check up on progress.

Different time scales may apply to organisations which have not been awarded accreditation.

Risk & Re-verification

It has been agreed that the verification process is not a one-off and that organisations need to be re-verified at regular intervals. The following risk matrix sets out criteria that will be used to determine not only how often an organisation is verified, but to what extent.

All IFTS accredited organisations will be scored under this system.

No.	Criteria	Low Risk 1 Point	Medium Risk 5 Points	High Risk 10 points
1	Income from licensing activity	£0-£100K	£99K-£350K	£351K+
2	Complexity of Licensing Regime	straightforward	acceptable	complex
3	How critical information is	Insignificant	Important	Critical
4	Number of high-priority recommendations	0-3	4-5	6+
5	Complaints received	0	1-2	3+
6	Number of licensees	0-10	11-29	30+
7	Commitment of CEO	Full commitment	Qualified commitment	No commitment
8	Percentage of recommendations implemented within time-scales	100%	75-99%	Less than 75%
9	Number of exceptions	0	1-3	4+
10	Number of legacy licences	0	1-10	11+
11	Number and scale of recent changes	No change	Some changes	Major change

To Calculate Risk Factor

The criteria 1-9 will be considered and organisations scored based on the following notes:

As shown in the last Annual Report or other appropriate records
Based on the view of the IFTS verification team
Although the actual income may be low, information may be key to the business and there are substantial risks in getting this wrong.
Recommendations are graded in the verification report
Complaints received by OPSI
Number of current licensees
This will take into account discussions with the CEO, not just the official statement
Taken from the Action Plan drawn up after the verification
Exceptions to normal policy
Number of licences subject to out of date terms and conditions (ie. Conditions which are not compatible with IFTS).
This will take into account changes such as a new Chief Executive, change in status of the organisation or a change in pricing policy.

At the end of this exercise each organisation will have a score. The score will determine how often the organisation is verified.

Low risk: 11-27 points. Organisation will be visited every three years. Review will focus on any changes.

Medium risk: 28-51 points. Organisations will be visited every two years. Review will focus on changes and key systems.

High risk: 52 points plus. Organisations will be visited annually. A full verification will be undertaken.

The Re-verification process

Re-verification follows a similar process to the original verification. However it concentrates on key changes since the last verification.

Examples of changes include: new licensing process introduced, new pricing regime, change of corporate strategy, change of Chief Executive.

Documentation: documentation should be requested which relates to key changes as the Standards Team should already have a background knowledge of the business of the IFTS member.

Interviews: should concentrate on those involved in key changes though a cross section of roles should still be included.

Licence Files: should concentrate on files with recent activity (at least since the previous verification).

Website Review: should be the same as for full verification.

Standard Licence Review: should concentrate on licences that have significantly changed since previous verification, though reviewer should also ensure that relevant recommendations have been implemented.

The organisation should be asked to provide a summary of what it considers the key changes to be. It should also provide a completed action plan, showing what it has done to implement the recommendations of the previous verification.

The Re-verification report is shorter than the full verification report and should follow the template (see Appendix 1).

IFTS Online Methodology

IFTS Online is based on the IFTS Accredited principles. It is an online assessment system aimed at organisations which are subject to the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005.

Organisations will answer 8 questions. Responses will be reviewed by the Standards Team and a report prepared. This will be emailed to the organisation.

The team will base their assessment on similar criteria that apply to IFTS Accredited organisations.

Marking criteria for IFTS Assessed:

++ = very positive

+ = positive

- = negative

The organisation must have passed the IFTS Registered level (automated part) to be considered for IFTS Assessed. The organisation should demonstrate more positive characteristics than negative (using the grid below) in order to be IFTS Assessed.

Question	Criteria	?
Please provide details of how you let people know what information is available for re-use. You may include internet links to examples such as catalogues or your Information Asset List.	++ Easily located from main web page. Catalogue, IAR. Comprehensive in proportion to the activity of the organisation. Explains where information can be obtained. Explains cost of information. Explains format.
		+ Easily located from main web page. Catalogue, IAR. Comprehensive in proportion to the activity of the organisation.
		- No information asset list. Not much information on the list. Not easily located.
	Please give some examples of situations where you might not permit re-use of the information produced by your organisation.	++ FOI exemption. Data protection. Health and Safety. Previous breach or non payment Public interest Work in progress
		+ Public interest Work in progress
		- Exclusive licences with other customers. No reason given. Don't want people re-using information.
	Please give some examples of how you explain the charges for re-use.	++ Proactive: Website, leaflets, telephone enquiry line, exhibitions. Fair charges
		+ Website Fair charges
		- Reactive; on request.
	Please explain how you publicise the terms of re-use that apply. If you have standard licences, please give an internet link to an example.	++ Website page explaining licensing policy and procedures Reference to PSI Regulations/ Crown copyright if applicable Standard terms and conditions online Exceptions online Contacts for more information
		+ Website page explaining licensing policy and procedures Contacts for more information
		- No information or limited to contact details
	Please provide an internet link to your complaints policy or provide additional details.	++ Complaints policy which refers specifically to PSI Regulations and role of OPSI/ APPSI
		+ General complaints policy
		- No complaints policy

Training

Staff involved in onsite activity

The Standards Manager will contact the team member to explain what the verification involves.

Team members are sent the IFTS Manual and IFTS booklet for reference. They may also be sent a copy of a report for a previous verification so that can get an idea of what is involved. They are not expected to read these documents from cover to cover but rather to refer to them when needed.

Team members are encouraged to talk to colleagues who have been on verifications about their experiences. They can also refer to the documentation provided by the organisation and the organisation website.

Team members should consider what they hope to get out of the experience and if appropriate they should discuss some specific objectives with the Standards Manager. For example,

to lead on at least one interview
to review case files objectively using the IFTS manual examples of good practice as a guide
to follow up on issues which arise from case files

Once the verification is complete, the team member will be provided with some feedback for their Performance Agreement, either by the Standards Manager or the Head of Standards.

Once colleagues have been on verification, they are encouraged to use their experience on later verifications.

Staff involved in offsite activity

The standard licence review and the website review are carried out by the OPSI Information Policy Team and Business Support team.

The web review is carried out using a self explanatory questionnaire.

The Licence review is based on the standard terms and conditions of the Click-Use licences.

Freedom of Information

OPSI are obliged to disclose any material not covered more specifically by an exemption. We hold three categories of information:

The final IFTS reports
Documents and papers uplifted as part of the verification process.
Notes and minutes made whilst planning the verifications, during the verification, whilst investigating complaints, mediating between bodies and during more general meetings.

These categories each require a different approach, which are detailed below.

IFTS Reports

The reports contain details of the verifications, including recommendations, and are written specifically for the Chief Executive. The full report is published on the OPSI website once all parties are happy that it contains no commercially sensitive material.

Documents collected as part of the verification process

As part of the verification process, we will obtain records and documents from IFTS candidates and members, some of which may be confidential or restricted. OPSI will keep everything for the duration of the verification and then either return the documents to the IFTS member or destroy any records held once the report has been finalised This will be agreed with the IFTS member. Any person requesting information while OPSI hold the records and documents will be referred back to the IFTS member.

Interview Notes and Minutes

Upon request, we will review the notes or minutes to ensure that they contain no information that is exempt under FoI. Any exempt material will be redacted (with annotations for the reasons for redaction) before the request is answered.

We will keep IFTS members informed of any requests received, and of the response given.

Complaints

If OPSI receives a complaint about an IFTS member, it will investigate this with reference to the principles of the scheme following the procedures published under the PSI Regulations. It is vital that the complainant makes clear which principles the organisation has allegedly breached and how. Here is a link to the complaints procedure: ..\..\..\Complaints\OPSI\OPSI Complaints procedures 17.07.06.doc and complaints manual:..\..\..\Complaints\OPSI\Complaints_manual_16.08.06.doc

Once the report is finalised, the Complaints Manager should keep in regular contact with the PSIH to ensure that the organisation complies with the principles of the IFTS and PSI Regulations. The PSIH should draw up an action plan and this should be implemented in the same way as recommendations under IFTS as outlined on page 23.

Appendix 1: Verification Report pro-formas

First Verification Report Template: ..\IFTS\IFTS (full)\IFTS Procedures & General\Standard docs\Report Pro forma new.doc

Re-verification Report Template: ..\IFTS\IFTS (full)\IFTS Procedures & General\Standard docs\Reverification report proforma.doc

UNCLASSIFIED IFTS Manual

Last updated: 26/09/2007

S:\Standards\IFTS\IFTS (full)\IFTS Procedures & General\IFTS Manual 05.09.07.doc

UNCLASSIFIED IFTS Manual

Yes

The Verification Process

Licensing File Review Process

Final assessment on review record

Start

Sample end?

Resolve issues

Assessment & identify issues

Review for evidence of 5 principles

Staff

Verification Report

Licensing File

Document review

Standard licence review

Pre meetings

Website review

Licensing file reviews

Interviews

Identify and Test the processes that deliver:

Openness

Transparency

Fairness

Compliance

Challenge

Form opinion as to whether IFTS commitment is met in principle and practice.

Checklist & examples

Finish