Home Office Website (Hansard, 25 May 2004)

§ The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
My Lords, the answer is "Yes". However, across all of our public-facing communications, we constantly look at ways to improve users' experiences. In the current year, we are redeveloping the Home Office website to make it even more user-focused and to enhance its accessibility.

§ The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I applaud the fact that an immigrant who wishes to become a British citizen will have to take the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, but can the Minister explain what are the "aires", mentioned on the website, to which an immigrant is swearing allegiance?

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, I have missed the point of the noble Lord's question. Is it a spelling error?

Noble Lords
Yes!

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, they didn't use the spellchecker, did they?

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, has any progress been made on the aim of giving government websites a common look and feel? In the case of the Home Office, will that principle be extended to the subsidiary sites, such as those of the IND and the Prison Service, so that people can find their way around more easily?

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a valid point. As I have said, the main Home Office website is being refocused this year. On 30 June, just a few weeks away, a new IND site will be published and I understand there will be common accessibility. I had not looked at the Home Office website for more than two years but I did so early this morning. I found it much easier to get around than in the past but the idea of a common page for the various subsidiary sites is useful for the users.

§ Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us who regularly use the Home Office website are quite impressed by the great improvement in how frequently it is updated? Two years ago, those updating it were so far behind that it was hard to believe. Now, it seems much more current, and many people find that helpful.

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, I am sure that those who have been responsible for vastly improving the website in the two years since I left the Home Office will—like those who are currently working on the site and those auditing it to increase its accessibility—justifiably take great comfort from the noble Baroness's comments.

§ The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, as the Minister has said that there will be a revamp of the website, will he take this opportunity to ensure that all the other, rather less insulting spelling mistakes are also checked? The Home Office is not particularly good at having checked what it has put under the press.

§ Lord Rooker
Yes, my Lords; needless to say, in view of the way in which the noble Earl has raised the issue, we will certainly look into it. However, he has defeated us all in trying to work out what on earth his Question was about.

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I support everything to do with open government and the virtue of websites. However, can the noble Lord tell us the cost of the Home Office website and the number of "hits"—I believe that that is the technical term—it has had and how that has grown in comparison with other departments of state over the past couple of years?

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, I am told that it was "hits"; these days, the phrase is "page impressions".

Noble Lords
Oh!

§ Lord Rooker
Yes, my Lords; I had to look through the jargon myself. That is a difficult question. The Home Office has a main website and a huge number of subsidiary sites. I believe that the latest figures available to me are being given today in the other place in Answer to a Parliamentary Question. In 2002–03, the cost of running the site for a full year was just over £1.6 million. The number of page impressions was about 6 million, although I am told that the total number of "hits"—as in the jargon of all the other sites—was well over 30 million.

§ The Earl of Northesk
My Lords, can the Minister tell us what conformance level is achieved by the 1196 Home Office website and those of other government departments in respect of the web accessibility initiative of the World Wide Web Consortium?

§ Lord Rooker
No, my Lords. But the Home Office website did come fifth in an independent check of website user-friendliness published by an independent company, the name of which I cannot remember. I have it. The Home Office website was rated fifth overall in the second annual report on key government websites published by Porter Research. Having seen that, needless to say, I asked, "That's all very well for the Home Office. Where did the ODPM come in?". As copies of that report are apparently very expensive, we do not own one. However, I am told that we are not in the top five or the bottom five.