Open call for evidence

The marginal cost restriction on public sector data re-use

Published 15 July 2026

1. Introduction

Data held across the public, private and third sectors is an economic asset to the UK, underpinning growth, innovation and productivity in all sectors. For instance, the National Underground Asset Register (NUAR) is estimated to deliver over £400 million in economic benefit a year from fewer accidental strikes on pipes and cables through better sharing of public and private sector data. Data is also a social and strategic asset that can support more efficient public services, better decision-making and Government ambitions, such as securing a strategic advantage in AI and driving AI adoption across key sectors of the economy.

This call for evidence focuses on public sector data and aims to support DSIT’s objectives to shape how data is used so that we can maximise its potential, drive growth and improve lives across the UK.

Currently, some public sector data assets cannot be produced, or made available for re-use in a valuable format, because there is insufficient investment to do so.^{[footnote 1]} In other cases, public sector bodies are missing out on potential revenues from data that could be invested in data infrastructure or in public services for the benefit of UK society.

We are therefore seeking perspectives from third parties on whether it would be appropriate for public bodies to be able to charge for the re-use of more public sector data than they are currently legally able to – to fund increased data availability, data quality and better public services – and, if so, to determine the approaches and restrictions that should be considered.^{[footnote 2]}

It is important to note that interventions being explored in this Call for Evidence only cover data that public bodies can already legally make available for re-use. They do not seek views on giving public bodies any new powers to disclose any data that they cannot currently already do so. They also do not cover any data that is excluded or restricted under information access legislation, including on the grounds of protecting national security, or complying with confidentiality obligations, nor do they cover any personal data for which re-use would be incompatible with data protection law, such as identifiable health and social care data.

2. Current situation

Growth of the UK’s data economy has increased commercial demand for public sector data. In recognition of this demand, as well as data’s role as an economic, social and strategic asset, the Government set an objective in the UK’s Industrial Strategy to capitalise on its value.

As part of that objective, pledges were made in the Industrial Strategy to i) explore legislation to improve how public sector data is made available to businesses, and ii) develop a Public Sector Data Valuation Framework to help public bodies assess the value of their data and determine the best mechanisms to maximise and return that value to UK society. This Valuation Framework was published on 24 April 2026 within HM Treasury’s Balance Sheet Framework.^{[footnote 3]}

The Government currently operates an ‘Open by Default’ policy approach to public sector data. This means that accessible public sector data should be made available for anyone to re-use as Open Data, i.e., with terms that provide predominantly free and unrestricted re-use.^{[footnote 4]}

Information is considered to be accessible if it is required to be communicated to a requester under an information access regime – such as the Freedom of Information Act 2000 – or if it already published.^{[footnote 5]} Open Data does not cover data exempt from information access legislation because there are overriding reasons to withhold it, such as personal data that cannot be shared compatibly with data protection legislation, as well as data that is commercially sensitive or linked to national security. For example, identifiable health and social care data cannot be made available as Open Data. Such data must be afforded higher levels of protection, including strict restrictions on access and, in the case of health and social care data, controls to ensure it is never used for marketing or insurance purposes.

Recent updates to the Balance Sheet Framework recognise that making data freely available as Open Data is only one of several valid approaches. They highlight that non-Open Data approaches, including charging models that allow for different forms of revenue collection, may in some cases be more effective in realising the value of a public sector data asset for the benefit of UK society.^{[footnote 6]}

The Balance Sheet Framework therefore promotes giving public bodies access to a full range of Open Data and non-Open Data options when making their data available for external re-use. Under current law, however, many public bodies face constraints in adopting non-Open Data charging models when making many of their accessible data assets available for external re-use.

Through this Call for Evidence, the Government is exploring whether greater legal flexibility to make more accessible data available to businesses on commercial terms could enable public bodies to realise more value for UK society and improve the cost-effectiveness of public services, while more sustainably meeting growing business demand for public sector data.

3. Current regulatory situation

The current rules governing the re-use of public sector information are the Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2015 (RPSI / the Regulations).

The Regulations create a public right to re-use accessible information – including data – held by public bodies. They also set conditions on how public bodies may make this information available for re-use.

RPSI applies to the majority of UK public bodies and to most of the accessible information or data that they produce, hold and/or disseminate.

3.1 The RPSI marginal cost charging restriction

The Regulations include a marginal cost provision. This limits what public bodies in scope of the Regulations may charge for the re-use of their data to the marginal costs of reproducing, providing and disseminating the data, unless exemptions apply.

Marginal cost is commonly understood to be the incremental cost of providing data to an additional re user, reflecting the fact that reproduction and dissemination costs are often minimal for accessible data. For accessible data provided digitally, marginal costs are generally zero or negligible as the cost incurred is typically the same regardless of the number of organisations seeking to re-use it.

The provision therefore requires most public bodies to make a significant proportion of their valuable data available to businesses for free as Open Data, thereby preventing them from generating revenue through non-Open Data models.

3.2 Exemptions from the marginal cost charging restriction

Not all public sector data is covered by RPSI.

The Regulations do not apply to documents (including data) that are produced, held and/or disseminated by a public body for a purpose outside that public sector body’s public task, which relates to its core statutory or customary functions.^{[footnote 7]} This could include, for example, the creation of derived datasets that package, curate or present information specifically for external re-use purposes. For example, RPSI would apply to an administrative dataset that is collected and used by a crown body to carry out its public functions (e.g., a dataset of bus timetables). By contrast, a data asset that has been aggregated or linked from that dataset to produce new outputs for external use (e.g., a data asset combining bus timetable, fares and real-time locations data to generate performance metrics) may fall outside the scope of RPSI where it is created outside the body’s public task. Such datasets are not subject to RPSI and are therefore not constrained by RPSI’s marginal cost provision, even if the underlying information was originally held or produced for a public task purpose.^{[footnote 8]}

However, the Regulations state that this exclusion applies only if the scope of the public body’s public task is transparent and subject to review. In practice, this often makes it difficult for many public bodies to demonstrate that some of their data falls outside RPSI, because their public tasks are complex, diffuse, and not clearly documented.

RPSI also contains provisions that exempt some data assets within the scope of the Regulations from its marginal cost provision.^{[footnote 9]} These exemptions apply when:

• public sector bodies are required to generate revenue to cover a substantial part of their public task delivery costs, such as trading funds (e.g. the UK Hydrographic Office).
• public sector bodies have information or data from which they are required to generate sufficient revenue to cover collection, production, reproduction or dissemination costs (e.g. HM Land Registry for copies of entry).
• the data is held by libraries, museums and archives.

A substantial amount of valuable public sector data is already charged for under these exemptions.^{[footnote 10]} However, outside these exemptions, all other public sector data in scope of RPSI must be made available for re-use with charges no more than marginal costs. In practice, this means making the data available as Open Data.

4. Impact of current regulations on government objectives

4.1 Benefits

The current regulations increase transparency and lower barriers to entry by making a significant amount of public sector data freely available for re-use as Open Data. This supports re-use by broadening the pool of organisations able to work with the data, supporting economic growth and innovation and, in turn, improving commercial services and increasing tax revenues.

The current regulations also facilitate data discoverability and frictionless re-use between public bodies by enabling the data to be published as Open Data via the single, interoperable Open Government Licence. This allows all users, including other public bodies, to re-use data freely without the need to negotiate re-use agreements on a case-by-case basis, and to easily combine and manage different datasets published under the licence.

4.2 Potential drawbacks

The current regulations may in some cases inadvertently constrain economic growth and innovation by limiting the ability of public bodies to charge above marginal costs. Currently, incentive-related and technological barriers are known to impede public bodies from making data available for commercial re-use or making data available in ways that would unlock commercial value.^{[footnote 11]} An inability to charge above marginal costs constrains many public bodies from generating sustainable funding that could remedy these barriers. Revenues from charging could fund public sector budgets and, in doing so, help public bodies make more data available for re-use by improving incentives and by providing revenue to resolve technological barriers.

The current regulations may, in some cases, also contribute to the value of some public sector data assets not being maximised for UK citizens by preventing charging above marginal costs. In some instances, it is possible that public bodies could deliver more benefits to UK society by re-investing revenues they make from charging than could be delivered by the additional external actors that would use the data if it was made freely available (e.g., via economic growth, service creation, and increased tax revenues). For example, public bodies could reinvest returns into improving public service delivery or into data management, including to ensure high-value public sector data assets are properly maintained and better used.

4.3 Case study

The Natural Capital and Ecosystem Assessment (NCEA) programme collects and publishes a rich set of data on the condition, extent and location of England’s natural assets. The data under this programme is currently made freely available and is instrumental in supporting environmental decision-making across government, research and industry. It delivers both government and commercial value, informing policy while enabling businesses to make better planning and investment decisions. Businesses use NCEA data to prioritise the most profitable and ecologically appropriate sites for investments in nature – to accrue biodiversity credits, carbon credits and nutrient neutrality offsets – leading to investments which improve outcomes, environmental impact and financial returns. Companies value NCEA data because it is trusted, authoritative, and easily accessible via the Natural Capital Search Tool. This programme is funded until 2029, with decisions on how we maintain and update these rich datasets against other priorities still to be determined. One option to support the ongoing maintenance of these datasets beyond 2029 could be to introduce charging in recognition of their commercial value alongside their policymaking value.

5. Potential reform

The Government is seeking to ensure that public bodies have access to the full range of options and models – including charging and other non-Open Data models – (as outlined in the Balance Sheet Framework) when making their data assets available for re-use. To support this, the Government is considering how to create greater flexibility to charge above marginal costs for more public sector data assets without undermining the benefits of Open Data.

Any potential reform would need to be guided by a set of principles. These could include:

Safeguarding trust 

Any potential reform should not:

• apply to data that is excluded or restricted under information access legislation (including on the grounds of protecting personal data, national security, or commercial confidentiality)
• alter any existing legislation (with the potential exception of RPSI), including data protection and freedom of information law, or change public bodies’ existing compliance obligations under that legislation or under relevant guidance (including HM Treasury’s Managing Public Money)^{[footnote 12]}
• affect any access rights provided by any information access legislation^{[footnote 13]}
• grant public bodies any new legal powers to disclose data they cannot currently disclose.

Embedding a transparent, rules-based framework

A process for determining which data assets may be subject to charges above marginal cost is needed to ensure that public bodies only charge when it is appropriate to do so. This process should be set out in a rules-based framework that supports transparency in decision-making and appropriate oversight. It should also require data assets to be assessed against clear criteria to determine that charging would deliver public value and societal benefit. Where it does not, data should continue to be provided as Open Data.

Enabling flexibility

Recognising that different models may deliver the optimum value for different data assets, public bodies should have the option to choose the model that delivers the greatest benefit to citizens. This requires enabling a wider range of value-exchange models beyond Open Data.

Ensuring legal clarity

Public bodies should have clear, unambiguous legal routes to permit them to charge higher rates for the re-use of some data assets.

5.1 Potential approaches

There are multiple potential approaches to enabling public bodies to charge above marginal costs for a wider range of data assets. These include creating a new legal category of data assets that are required to generate revenue to cover a substantial part of the costs relating to their collection, production, reproduction or dissemination. Doing so would automatically exempt any data assets that are assessed as meeting criteria to be designated into this category from the marginal cost restriction via existing RPSI provisions.^{[footnote 14]} Another approach could be creating a new legal category of data assets that would not be subject to RPSI by amending the Regulations to exclude this category from its application.^{[footnote 15]} Such an approach would differ from the former approach by excluding data assets designated into this category from all of RPSI’s provisions.

6. How to respond

This call for evidence is open from 15 July 2026 and will close on 11:59pm on 8th September 2026.

To help us analyse the responses, please use the online system wherever possible and ensure you have submitted your response before exiting the question.

To help us analyse the responses, please use the online system wherever possible and ensure you have submitted your response before exiting the question.

If you are not able to submit responses using the online form, please contact publicdatacfe@dsit.gov.uk for alternative ways to contribute.

In exceptional circumstances, if you need to submit a hard copy, please contact us at publicdatacfe@dsit.gov.uk and we will advise how to do this. Should you require another format (e.g. braille or large font) please contact alt.formats@dsit.gov.uk.

7. How this call for evidence is structured

There are 9 questions in this Call for Evidence on the impact of current rules, changing current rules, and the design principles and approach to potential reform.

You are free to submit evidence in the way that works best for you. You can respond to as many or as few questions as you deem relevant, though we would encourage you to respond to as many questions as you feel in a position to comment on.

7.1 About you / your organisation (for context)

This section asks a small number of background questions to help us interpret evidence. You can skip any questions that are not relevant.

1. Are you responding as:

• an individual 
• on behalf of an organisation

2. Name or organisation name (if responding on behalf of an organisation):

3. Organisation size (if applicable):

• Micro (fewer than 10)
• SME (10 to 249 employees)
• large enterprise (250+ employees)
• don’t know

4. Sector(s) you operate in (if applicable):

• Professional, Scientific, Technical
• Information and Communication
• Human, Health and Social Work
• Finance and Insurance
• Education
• Research/academia
• Goods-producing sectors, manufacturing and construction
• Non-governmental organisation
• Wholesale, retail and storage
• Transport and logistics
• Public sector
• Third/ charity sector
• Other

5. May we contact you to follow up on points in your response in more detail?

• yes 
• no

If yes, please provide a contact email:

8. Full list of questions 

8.1 Impact of current rules 

• What are the benefits and drawbacks of the current rules on charging for the re-use of public sector data?
• Are you aware of any public sector data assets that you would like to re-use, but which are not disclosed for re-use? If so, please provide examples, noting how they could help your organisation.
• Do you think current rules on charging affect whether public bodies make data available for re-use, or whether they do so in ways that meet the needs of businesses and other users?

8.2 Changing current rules

• Do you think it is appropriate for public bodies to charge above marginal costs for the re-use of data assets they hold, if the resulting revenues can be used to:
  • Make more data available for re-use?
  • Make better quality/more useful data available for re-use?
  • Improve public sector data foundations and infrastructure?
  • Improve public services?

8.3 Design principles for reform 

• We have outlined 4 principles to guide any reform of how the public sector charges for data: safeguarding trust; embedding a transparent, rules-based framework; enabling flexibility; and ensuring legal clarity. What principles do you think should guide any reform?
• If public bodies are able to charge for a wider range of data assets under a rules-based framework, should they determine which data assets they can charge for, or should a single body be responsible for these decisions?
• What challenges might users face if public bodies can charge for a wider range of data assets, and what measures should Government take to address them and ensure that all public sector data – including data made available under non‑Open Data terms and conditions – is affordable and easy to re‑use? (For example, measures could relate to licensing terms, interoperability and the ability to combine data, data quality, and service and delivery models.)

8.4 Reform approach

• What criteria and conditions should be met when determining whether it is possible to charge above marginal cost for a data asset?
• Is there a particular approach you would recommend to enable public bodies to charge above marginal costs for a wider range of data assets?

8.5 References

1. Re-use is the use of data for a purpose other than the initial purpose for which it was produced ↩

2. While the current legal framework does technically permit some charges for the data in scope of this Call for Evidence, this is often minimal or zero in practice. More detail on this is provided in the Current Regulatory Situation section of this document. ↩

3. HM Treasury Balance Sheet Framework, Chapter 9.1 ↩

4. While re-use of Open Data is expected to be free and unrestricted in most instances, it does allow charging at levels that are no more than the cost of reproduction (according to the Open Data White Paper 2012 that built on the EU PSI Directive (2003/98/EC)), and it does allow some minor restrictions such as attribution requirements. ↩

5. The right to access under information access legislation is the right to be informed whether information is held by a public body and, if so, to have that information they have requested communicated to them. However, this right to access does not automatically confer the right to re-use this information. ↩

6. Non-Open Data models include various managed or commercial value-exchange mechanisms, including charges or subscription fees and royalty schemes, amongst others. ↩

7. RPSI provides no definitive statements on what is meant by public task. Examples of information considered to be part of a body’s public task include information essential to its public service and information that is created or maintained through taxation funding. ↩

8. While not constrained by RPSI’s marginal cost charging restriction, public bodies would still have to comply with HM Treasury rules (Managing Public Money) on how charges can be set. ↩

9. These exemptions were given legislative footing by RPSI Regulation 15(3)(a-c). ↩

10. Public bodies use a range of non-Open models, including various managed and commercial value-exchange mechanisms, when making such information available for external re-use. ↩

11. Incentive-related barriers: Public bodies are often disincentivised from making valuable data available for external re-use in ways that would unlock commercial value. This is because they often lack data management funding but are required to bear the risks and costs of making the data available for re-use while receiving no direct benefits from doing so. Technological barriers: Constraints requiring funding to remedy – such as insufficient data infrastructure, legacy systems and data formatting issues – impede public bodies’ ability to make their data available for re-use. ↩

12. Public bodies would be required to comply with Managing Public Money, which sets an overall framework governing how public bodies can charge for services, including the supply of data, even if the RPSI marginal cost restriction does not apply to a data asset. The default approach to setting charges under Managing Public Money is full cost recovery unless Parliament has explicitly agreed otherwise. ↩

13. Such as information access rights in the Data Protection legislation, Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) or the Environmental Information Regulations (2004), amongst others. ↩

14. Via RPSI Regulation 15(3)(b). ↩

15. By adding this category of data assets as an exclusion in RPSI Regulation 5. ↩