Hi Adrian, Thanks for you comment - it's good to have you involved in the debate. We completely support the efforts of Chris Taggart and others in trying to increase public access to genuinely open data. The point we're making here however is that the Government's stated aim to make such information available and the SpotlightOnSpend website are actually two separate points. Spikes Cavell are not actually claiming or attempting to fulfill these goals with their website; they're only making available certain amounts of their own data. Luke Spikes told me that they don't have a remit to publish this data, as it's distribution is limited by data protection laws. As I say, we're an organisation that actively campaigns for greater transparency in public life. We just feel in this case, we need to be pressuring Government and Local Authorities to fulfill their data publication obligations, rather than Spikes Cavell.

Here are some more facts for you to check: 1. The CountCulture blog which originally raised these concerns is written by Chris Taggart. Chris is a long-standing and well-respected open data developer and activist who runs one of the country's leading open data websites, OpenlyLocal, and formally advises the government on open data policy as a member of the Local Public Data Panel. 2. As if to make the latter point any clearer, Chris is one of the people who actually defines what the government means by "transparency" and "open data". 3. To my knowledge, no-one on the Local Public Data Panel or in the wider open data community disagrees with Chris on this matter. 4. The government's Public Sector Transparency board has released a statement saying, "We understand that urgent measures are already taking place to rectify the problems identified by Chris [Taggart]". 5. Spikes Cavell is a company that has never published a single item of open data according to the government's accepted principles and definitions. 6. To my knowledge, Spikes Cavell has never advocated any policy to increase the amount of open data released by government in the sense that the government is advocating. 7. In the case of Windsor and Maidenhead's data, Spikes Cavell turned open data into closed data by republishing data that was free in an unfree way. 8. The other councils for whom Spikes Cavell has published spending data are under the false impression that they have complied with the government's request to release their data in an open way. They have not. 9. A full list of the councils that have published their spending data is available on my Armchair Auditor website. 10. Today, this list shows only two councils that are publishing their data in a truly open and transparent way as defined by the government: The Greater London Authority and Windsor and Maidenhead. These are the councils that have both an open licence and machine-readable data. 11. Neither of those two councils are using Spikes Cavell's Spotlight on Spend to publish their data openly, though as already mentioned above, Spikes Cavell are publishing Windsor and Maidenhead's data separately in a closed way. 12. Windsor and Maidenhead's data is available as open data through Armchair Auditor and OpenlyLocal. OpenlyLocal also has open data for other councils' spending. Spikes Cavell has rightly been called on its practice of substituting its own definition of transparency for the one used by the government and the open data community, thereby muddying the waters about what is expected of councils to bring about a situation in which their finances can be best scrutinised by the public. Please get in touch if you have any further facts about this matter to be clarified.