§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pearson.]
10.29 pm§ Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North)I would like to use this debate as an opportunity for the Minister to update the House on where the UK Government—and its wholly-owned subsidiary, the UK Parliament—are on the exciting but dangerous road of e-democracy. Access is the key to e-participation. Just as the majority of people in the world have never made a telephone call, so the majority of my constituents have never sent an e-mail. They are in the poorest third of our community in the UK, with only one in nine households having access to a personal computer. However, one of the answers to that, and to participation in democracy, is not ownership of a PC but access to one. Involvement through a group is just as valid. Indeed, arguably, in the practice of democracy, it is more effective than one of the atomised.
The Government have produced many initiatives in this area, including the wiring up of schools, the development of UK online and the setting of targets for online Government services. However, I hope that the Minister will tonight report to the House on the latest progress of the e-democracy Cabinet Committee. I hope that that Committee is not limiting itself to the nerdy issues, but will take head on the key problems of access, especially pricing and restrictive practices. It is no good wishing the ends and then dodging the means. The Committee must take a view and act on some serious issues.
BT and the cable companies should make all local calls free to give a massive boost to internet usage. Some 90 per cent. of the cost of a local call is either in billing or in metering. Broadband technology, which allows extremely fast internet connectivity, is becoming increasingly affordable but has to be more so. Even those who want broadband in most rural areas cannot get access to it. If the Government are serious about access, they must ask Oftel to examine and, if necessary, restrict BT's sale of lower grade ISDN lines, so as to boost broadband.
The Office of Fair Trading should investigate the BT monopoly of leased lines, especially outside the major cities, so that we can open up those systems. The Government must be far more creative in providing computer access for poorer families. The computers within reach scheme was confined to a few small local pilots, because of underfunding. If Microsoft Windows changes versions again, it may be highly profitable for the company, but it will mean the replacement of perfectly adequate computers by faster ones and the further purchase of expensive software—and that often excludes poorer people.
The piece of kit that most people are familiar with and find easy to access is the television. I hope that the Minister can tell us if interactive digital television will provide access for those parts of British society that are currently on the outside but who need public e-services the most.
The e-democracy Cabinet Committee was charged with producing a consultative paper last summer and I hope that it tackles the supply and access issues that I have mentioned. I hope that the Minister will give us a date for the publication of that long-anticipated consultative paper. 864 The opportunities are immense. New technology offers exciting prospects in many areas. For example, we need to create a joined-up e-democracy, involving central, regional and local governments and to ensure that online voting, when it happens, is not only secure and trusted but adds educative value to the voting experience. Crude e-plebiscites are not the way forward. We also need to create quality content for digital television, including citizens channels and links between constituents and their representatives. Leading on from that will be the provision of e-service delivery, in which public services of value to my constituents—including education, training, child care and job placements—get to those who need them.
Given the shortness of the debate tonight, I shall concentrate on only one area—the impact of e-democracy on parliamentary democracy. As much is expected of the new digital technologies as was expected of television in the 1930s, and rightly so. The e-revolution, if it is to mean anything, must deliver for our democracy. It must produce ambitions that match the reach of that technology. It must be bold enough to strike at the heart of political cynicism. It must create something that revives our tired, downtrodden Parliament and makes us, once again, the forum of our nation. It must make quake the rotten duopoly of the media and an over-centralised Executive.
That is a tall order, but there is a way to deliver all the above. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has pushed forward the concept of pre-legislative scrutiny, in which the principles and practicalities of a Bill can be examined for, say, eight weeks by a group of Members of Parliament taking evidence openly and without votes. It is a brilliant innovation, worthy of my right hon. Friend, which will transform Members of this House from rubber stamps to something almost akin to real legislators.
However, we can take the proposal one step further, and invite the public—our electors—to the party. If the proceedings of those Committees are webcast, with the schedules known well in advance, any group or individual with a PC will be able not only to see live TV coverage, but to respond to the evidence or the debate by e-mailing the address running across the bottom of the screen as the sitting is televised. That could be done immediately, or after reflection and consideration.
Such thoughts and insights would be e-mailed back to the Committee and go to a mediator. His or her task would be to filter out the e-garbage familiar to all hon. Members, and distil the essence of the responses, the bright ideas and the experiences of those responding. The mediator would then report to the Committee, which would consider the responses and, where convinced by them, incorporate them in its report, and then perhaps in legislation. As knocking on doors and passing resolutions fade into political history, democrats can use the new technology to realise a dream—that electors can help make better laws.
I led for Labour on the Bill establishing the Child Support Agency. All parties agreed on the principles of that Bill, but the absence of an effective parliamentary or public process put into law an insensitive, unamended, Whitehall Bill. It caused suffering and suicide, as many hon. Members know. Online pre-legislative scrutiny would have prevented much, if not all, of that anguish. It would have meant that we listened to the right people before deciding the contents of the Bill.
865 Such scrutiny must be undertaken seriously. Respondents must be acknowledged, given feedback and referred to relevant parts of the final report. Some respondents should even be personally acknowledged and publicly recognised for especially useful or insightful contributions. The result will be better service delivery, more value for money, healthy participation in our democracy, and better law.
However, if the process is not undertaken properly, or if the House merely goes through the motions, it will add to, rather than diminish, cynicism about our politics. Members of Parliament may be content to be rubber stamps, but the public will walk away from such a charade, and from us. It is possible, too, that they will walk away from our democracy.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say that we should seize the moment. If we can overcome the electorate's fear and take people with us, we will be on the edge of a new era of genuine participation in our democracy. Using new technology in the way that I have described would strengthen our democracy and be a bold and creative step. The UK Parliament could be the first parliamentary institution in the world to meet that challenge. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell me when we can make a start.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on securing this important Adjournment debate which, as he said, gives me an opportunity to set out the progress being made by the new e-democracy Cabinet Committee. I am pleased to take up his challenge that our Committee should avoid being nerdy on these issues. Anyone who knows my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who chairs the Committee, or myself will realise that neither of us is in any danger of being a computer nerd or, I hope, nerdy in other respects.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the intense interest and great commitment and enthusiasm that he has shown in electronic democracy and, more broadly, in taking up issues relating to the renewal of our democracy. It is a timely debate, because the new Cabinet Committee on e-democracy met yesterday for only the second time. We are working towards publishing the consultation document to which my hon. Friend referred. I am afraid that I have to disappoint him as I am not in a position to take up his challenge to give the date of the report's publication. However, I can say with some confidence that my hon. Friend should not have to wait too long, and neither should others in the House. This consultation is an important opportunity for us to take the debate out into the wider public arena.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to seek to place this subject in the broader political context. In many debates in this House, reference is rightly made to the low turnout in recent elections. Most notably, the turnout at last June's general election fell to 59 per cent.—the lowest since universal suffrage was introduced in this country. Especially disturbing was the fact that turnout fell most dramatically and to an all-time low among young people who were entitled to turn out and vote for the first time 866 in their life. Surveys suggest that among 18 to 24-year-olds, the numbers voting were probably fewer than two in five. The problem is not confined to this House or this country, but is being witnessed across the democratic world, with significant declines in turnout in general and among young people in particular.
Against that background, my hon. Friend is right to say that when we look at e-democracy, we are looking at how to renew interest in our politics and in this place so that Parliament can once again be seen to be at the centre of these debates in our country. How best can we harness advances in technology to strengthen democracy?
We are all aware of the technological background—the context, technologically—with the growth of the internet and mobile phone use. About two households in five have the internet at home, widening the possibilities of public access to information. The average adult will spend something like eight years of their life watching television. I understand that more telephone votes were cast in the recent final of "Pop Idol" than were cast in total for the Conservative party at the 2001 election. To be fair to the Conservative party, I suspect that people voting Conservative last year voted only once, whereas those voting for Will or Gareth had the opportunity to vote many more times, and I know that many did.
§ Mr. Derek Wyatt (Sittingbourne and Sheppey)Fortunately.
§ Mr. TwiggI assume that my hon. Friend means that it was fortunate that people could not vote more than once for the Conservative party, or indeed for other parties.
§ Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)Unfortunately.
§ Mr. TwiggMy hon. Friend rightly prefaced his remarks by highlighting the threat posed by the digital divide. I have already said that two households in five are signed up to the internet. My hon. Friend pointed out that access to personal computers at home in his constituency is barely more than 10 per cent. In my constituency, which is very different, the figure would be well above 50 per cent. It is of great importance that we do all that we can, in Government and in Parliament, to hit the target that has been set by the Government and extend access to the internet to all households by 2005. That will not be easy: it is not simply about access but about ensuring that people have the skills and confidence to use the internet. The Government, partly through the Office of the e-envoy, are tackling that as a matter of priority.
E-democracy is often seen simply as internet voting, giving people the chance to cast their votes over the internet, over the telephone or by text message. Clearly, that is part of the process, but it goes much wider than that. As my hon. Friend suggested, the key issue in e-democracy is participation and involvement by using the new technologies as a way to enhance opportunities for citizens to participate in the democratic process.
That can be achieved in three ways. First, new technologies can facilitate participation by making it easier for citizens who otherwise are not involved to access information, follow the political process, scrutinise Government and other public bodies and, of course, to vote in elections. Secondly, we can use the new technologies to broaden participation by opening up new 867 channels of communication so that involvement in democratic activity can he increased especially, as my hon. Friend suggested, among those previously excluded. Thirdly, we can harness technology to deepen participation and to strengthen some of the connections between citizens and levels of representative institutions.
We can cite many examples of that, and I shall refer to just one or two. Parliament has its own website, and webcasting is being trialled in the House of Commons and the House of Lords and a specific experiment will run until the end of the year. The Scottish Parliament provides live audio-visual coverage of all its proceedings in its Chamber and main Committee Rooms.
In terms of broadening participation, the Hansard Society has an e-democracy programme that involves several successful and excellent projects. I refer, for example, to one that has been mentioned many times in debates and questions in this Chamber. The online consultation that the society conducted in partnership with the all-party group on domestic violence considered the thorny question of domestic violence. About 1,000 messages of evidence were received from women, many, if not most, of whom would not have come forward otherwise and certainly would not have been prepared to face the great personal risk of coming to Parliament to give evidence in public.
Another recent Hansard Society consultation before the last election with the then Select. Committee on Social Security considered the issue of people receiving the working families tax credit. It gave those receiving the credit an opportunity to give online evidence direct to the Committee. About 75 per cent. of those giving evidence said that they had never previously been involved in any form of consultation exercise.
§ Mr. AllenI thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the invaluable work of the Hansard Society and of Dr. Stephen Coleman and his team. They have pioneered many of the techniques that we are debating and have drawn the wider public's attention to the fact that, as my hon. Friend pointed out, webcasting is already taking place in the House. The only thing that is missing is the return path. People can see Committees or the Chambers in this House or the other place in action, but they do not have the return path to e-mail their views back. I am talking about a very simple add-on to the webcasting of pre-legislative scrutiny.
§ Mr. TwiggI thank my hon. Friend for that point, to which I shall return in a moment.
Another aspect of the issue is seeking to deepen participation. For example, my constituency is in the London borough of Enfield, which is represented by three Members of Parliament. The local branch of the United Nations Association has recently launched an interactive website in which it conducts what it describes as "MP Watch". It sounds rather ominous, but the three of us have signed up to it and, every fortnight, we receive a question from the group to which we reply. A discussion group and forum then follow from that. The project is in its early days, but it is a positive and innovative example of a local voluntary organisation harnessing the technologies to seek to deepen participation and the connection between political representatives—in this case Members of Parliament—and local people with a particular interest in a policy matter.
868 The Government are keen for such initiatives to be taken up throughout the country so that we can learn from best practice, and strengthen involvement in democratic activity. My hon. Friend referred to UK online, which includes the CitizenSpace area where people can already take part directly in Government consultations and discussion forums. We want to consider how to take that forward—partly through our consultation document—to make CitizenSpace a showcase of e-democracy.
The substantial part of my hon. Friend's speech addressed the question of how, as part of the modernisation of this place and the wider reform of Parliament, we could harness new technologies to increase citizen involvement and our responsiveness to citizens. In his proposals to the Modernisation Committee in December, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House put great emphasis on strengthening pre-legislative scrutiny. Technology can play an important part in achieving that.
I welcome the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North that we harness new technology to enhance pre-legislative scrutiny and, as he said, to realise a dream that electors themselves can help to make better laws. I shall pass on his specific proposal to my right hon. Friend and to the Modernisation Committee.
I am well aware that the Committee is determined that the debate on modernisation should not simply be for those of us in this place—the Westminster village—but must be taken outside. The best test of a more effective Parliament is whether we are held in higher esteem and have greater credibility with the public.
§ Mr. WyattI am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene, as I had not asked Mr. Speaker for permission.
The advertising industry bases its assessment of television watching on 1,000 telephone interviews. That is a very concentrated process for providing ratings. Is it possible to feed such a system into the e-democracy debate? We could invite an outside agency to telephone 1,000 people to test a debate or an issue. It has been statistically proven that that is the best method. The current system is often only one-way.
§ Mr. TwiggThat is a welcome idea and I shall be happy to pass it on for the consideration of the Modernisation Committee.
Similar ideas have been brought to my attention during the debate. For example, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations suggested that we might set up a citizens panel to which we could refer major questions in Parliament. Departments could also refer to that panel and the consultations could be conducted partially or fully via new forms of technology.
Several Select Committees are considering ways in which they can use new technology to reach out to smaller voluntary organisations that might not be able to give evidence in person, but could provide it through the web or e-mail. Greater access for the public could be a great gain. However, I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North that we must do that 869 properly or we shall increase the cynicism that we want to dispel. If we ask people to respond through new technology but fail to acknowledge those responses or take them into account, it would be preferable not to ask for those views in the first place. We must ensure that systems are in place to deal properly and fully with the concerns that people raise—whether in this place or with the Government.
The Select Committee on Procedure is currently holding an inquiry into parliamentary questions which will report later this year. I understand that there is overwhelming support among Members for e-tabling of parliamentary questions.
Let me move on briefly to e-voting by the electorate. There is great potential for us to use new technology to make the voting process in elections more convenient to the elector, more accessible to all sections of the electorate—particularly those who are less likely to vote, such as young people—and more efficient, thus possibly leading to greater turnout at elections. There are obvious areas of caution such as security issues involving the internet, let alone telephone voting and, of course, the digital divide issues, to which my hon. Friend referred. That is why the Government are moving forward with caution on such matters.
Last month, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions announced 30 pilot schemes for this May's local elections. Those schemes range from all-postal-vote elections in certain authorities; some trial use of mobile phone text messaging and local digital television for voting; trials of internet voting from home, local libraries and council information kiosks; early and extended voting; and electronic counting. The Electoral Commission is giving financial support and advice to the pilot authorities.
870 The aim of those pilot schemes in new forms of voting is to help to develop secure online voting, so that we can open the possibility that e-voting will play a role in a future general election after 2006—roughly translated, that means not at the next general election. Nevertheless, that is something to which we can all aspire.
In consulting on the various issues of e-democracy, it is very important, as my hon. Friend implied at the beginning, that we reach out beyond the usual suspects, whether computer experts—my hon. Friend had another word for them—or constitutional reformers, who may take a certain view on the wider context of such issues. We want the consultation to reach the wider public. That is why we want to ensure that we get the consultation document absolutely right when we launch it.
Finally, I pay tribute to all those who worked hard on such issues inside and outside the Government, the e-envoy and his team, various hon. Members on both sides of the House and, in particular, the Information Committee. I see in his place its former Chairman, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who has been a trail-blazer on many of these issues. I also pay tribute to many people in the wider civil society—notably, as my hon. Friend said, the Hansard Society, which has done so much take this issue forward.
We have the potential, as a country, to be at the cutting edge on this issue and, as a Parliament, to be ahead of many other Parliaments in other advanced democratic countries. The consultation document, which will be issued shortly, will enable the public to have their input into that debate, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend has given me the chance to update the House on how our discussions are going.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o'clock.