Committee of MPs attacks public bodies for "dumping data"

An influential committee of MPs has attacked the public sector for “dumping” data in a way that makes them difficult to interpret and of limited use.

In a report on the Government’s implementation of the transparency agenda, the Public Accounts Committee said the presentation of much government data was poor.

On ministers’ claims that the agenda would lead to public accountability, service improvement and economic growth, the PAC warned that it was not clear that the data being released would enable the Government to meet those objectives.

“We are concerned about gaps in giving relevant information in some sectors to inform choice and accountability, and about the comparability of information where data is incomplete or of poor quality,” the Committee said.

“For example, the price and performance information for adult social care is incomplete and cannot be easily compared across local authority boundaries.”

The MPs also expressed concern that 'commercial confidentiality' was being used as an inappropriate reason for non-disclosure of data.

The report said: “If transparency is to be meaningful and comprehensive, private organisations providing public services under contract must make available all relevant public information.”

The Committee called on the Cabinet Office to set out policies and guidance for public bodies to build full information requirements into their contractual agreements, in a consistent way.

“Transparency on contract pricing which is often hidden behind commercial confidentiality clauses would help to drive down costs to the taxpayer,” the MPs said.

The PAC report also concluded that:

  • In some sectors different providers types were subject to different transparency requirements, and this undermined the comparability of data for users. “For example, spending per pupil in individual academy schools is not made available, and consequently value for money cannot be compared fully with maintained schools.” The PAC said the Government should ensure that there was a level playing field in information requirements between different provider types.
  • The Government did not understand the costs and benefits of its transparency agenda.
  • The Government had not got a clear evidence based policy on whether or not to charge for data.
  • Departments in Whitehall did not make it easy for users to understand the full range of information available to them. The Cabinet Office should develop guidance for departments on information inventories.
  • There was a risk that those without internet access would not gain the full benefits of more open public data.

Margaret Hodge MP, Chair of the PAC, said the Committee fully supported the principle of greater openness and its potential to strengthen accountability and drive improvements in public services.

But she warned that the Government had “a lot more work to do” before that potential was realised.

She said: “It is simply not good enough to dump large quantities of raw data into the public domain. It must be accessible, relevant and easy for us all to understand. Otherwise the public cannot use it to make comparisons and exercise choice, which is the key objective of the transparency agenda.”

Hodge also called on the Government to develop a comprehensive analysis of what it actually cost to release data, and of the real benefits and risks.

The PAC acknowledged that the Government had met the majority of commitments set out in letters written by the Prime Minister on the transparency agenda.

It also recognised that public bodies in both local and central government had significantly increased the volume and range of information released, with many datasets linked to the Government's data.gov.uk portal.

But the MPs warned that “some data are very difficult to interpret, such as on local government spending, and there are important gaps in information, such as incomplete price and performance information on adult social care.”

The report added: “We are also concerned about some information not being presented on a consistent basis, again for example in local government.”

A copy of the report can be viewed here