HC Deb 21 June 2000 vol 352 cc98-104WH

1 pm

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I sought this debate—I am grateful for the opportunity to hear the Minister's reply—because I am concerned that use by the Government of websites to communicate with the public is ineffectively regulated.

The Public Accounts Committee reported last week on managerial and technical issues arising from the Government's use of websites. Although it was a damning report, to which the Government will no doubt respond in due course—I am not attempting to preempt that formal response—the focus of my concerns is different. My concern is with the threat to the integrity and propriety of Government information flowing from what I perceive to be weak accountability, which is leading to inadequate control of advertising and sponsorship on Government websites. I am also concerned about the absence of effective guidelines and policing to prevent the Government's abuse of their valuable access to the public by the dissemination of politically controversial and tendentious assertions as public information on the net.

The Minister will be aware, I have no doubt, that I have tabled a substantial number of written questions to different Departments on the cost of the Government's websites and on sponsorship and advertising on those sites. I have been dismayed by the responses that I have received. Some questions have still not been answered; some have been answered misleadingly, and some inaccurately; other answers are incomplete. In sum, I take this opportunity to ask the Cabinet Office to recognise that it needs to take a grip of the situation and require conformity with rules that are open and properly adhered to.

I remind the Minister—I am grateful for his presence—of the recommendations of the sixth report of the Neill committee, particularly recommendation 35, to which the Government have not yet formally responded, although they are expected to do so quite soon, which states: There should be disclosure in departmental annual reports, and to the public on request, of the details, including the value received, of sponsorship of government activities by the private and voluntary sectors. I am afraid that it is clear that that is not happening. No such indications are given in departmental annual reports and it has proved extraordinarily difficult to elicit information, even by means of parliamentary questioning.

The lack of candour, I am sorry to say, starts in the Cabinet Office. So it is perhaps unsurprising that it is not exercising the control that one might look to it to exercise over other Departments. In replying to the debate, the Minister might make plain his view of the role of the Cabinet Office in ensuring the integrity and propriety of Government information on websites.

I should like to draw attention to certain advertisements that the Cabinet Office is hosting on the Government's principal site, www.open.gov.uk, such as by Lycos, which is a search engine, and IBM. I also draw attention to advertisements of what are called "Government Opportunities", owned by private limited company Business Information Publications Ltd. That is to be found at another site used by the Cabinet Office, www.bipcontracts.com, which is described as the only officially sponsored UK source through which government service contracts are advertised. That site has logos of companies that provide technical services—Ultraseek Server and Cable & Wireless Communications Ltd.

The Ministry of Defence began by denying that it carried advertisements or sponsorship-acknowledging advertisements that generate revenue and that such advertisements appeared on its principal websites. However, it includes on its website the Peregrine Trophy, which is named after Peregrine Associates. The Ministry explains, however, that sponsorship of major service events or, for example, the Royal Navy submarine museum, which recognises British Aerospace Systems and Equipment Ltd., may lead to advertising with company logos.

The Department of Health claims that there is no advertising on departmental, agency or non-departmental body websites. However, there is a live link on the NHS Confederation website to the American pharmaceuticals firm, Merck Sharp Dolme, which is a large supplier of the NHS. The NHS Confederation comprises 95 per cent. of NHS hospitals and health authorities. Although a charity, it is directly funded by NHS hospitals and health authority members and therefore clearly receives departmental money. To deny that that is an agency over which Government rules ought to apply must make one highly critical of the extent of coverage of the rules.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has come closer, but not all the way, to an admitting the facts. It states that two companies—Eagle Star and Glaxo Wellcome plc—have contributed £35,000 and £6,000 respectively to the Planet Britain website, www.planet.britain.org, on which the companies' logos appear. That site is linked to many groups that provided information for the site, including I D Magazine, Rough Guides and Millennium Products. Cable & Wireless is also there, presumably for technical services rendered.

The most remarkable case that I found was that of the Treasury. It appears that, although the Treasury claims not to have accepted advertising or sponsorship for its websites, that disclaimer does not cover the Treasury's private finance initiative taskforce, which is accessible through the Government's main portal, www.open.gov.uk. The taskforce was set up by the Government to oversee negotiations on PFI deals, in which hospitals, schools, roads and other projects attract private money. The taskforce's website is www.treasury.treasury-project-taskforce.gov.uk. It is sponsored by none other than Berwin Leighton, the City solicitors who specialise in private finance initiative projects. The site, which has the firm's own logo, is linked live to its website, which discloses that it is involved in 16 PFI deals with the Department of Health alone—those deals are valued in total at more than £473 million.

According to the taskforce website: The taskforce has become the focal point of all PFI activity. Therefore, it follows that that firm of solicitors has been allowed to sponsor the website of a taskforce that directly impacts on the company's commercial interests as it has handled the legal side of dozens of PFI deals with the Government. Will the Minister say whether what has happened in that case, which received a little publicity earlier this week in The Observer, reveals—as I believe it does—that the rules, if they exist, are not biting sufficiently tightly?

Government websites have developed to such an extent that the Government have effectively become a broadcaster. The appearance of sponsors and advertisers on those sites makes that a commercial activity. I searched in vain to find any adequate guidelines from the Government on how that activity should be regulated. One can find general guidance about matters of propriety, but nothing is targeted on websites. The "Government Information and Communication Handbook" contains a section entitled, "Toolkit". Although there is also a section on sponsorship propriety, the only section on websites—that headed "Building Websites"—includes nothing on the propriety of the content. Nor is there any reference to the propriety of the content in the "Framework, policy and guidelines for Government websites", which is to be found on a such a website. The document "Guidance on the work of the Government Information Service" does not deal with sponsorship or advertising on websites.

The underlying failure of the Government appears to be their complete unwillingness to acknowledge that sponsorship involves mutual endorsement—endorsement of the Government by the company and vice versa. As the Neill committee report pointed out, one of the aims of sponsorship is to achieve credibility. It is worth asking where that credibility would come from if not from implicit endorsement by the recipient of the sponsorship. The Cabinet Office general guidelines lack the understanding that endorsement is intrinsic to the nature of sponsorship.

The need for a rethink by the Government on the issue is demonstrated by the flawed statement by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in reply to my question, which concluded: Above all, acknowledgement of any sponsorship— on websites— would not imply any endorsement of the sponsor's goods or services, nor be open to misinterpretation as influencing policy making.—[Official Report, 19 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 489W.] I submit to the Minister that that statement from that important Department demonstrates a complete failure to grasp the nature of sponsorship and the risks to the perception of objectivity.

From the parliamentary answers that I have received, it is clear that the average annual costs of Government websites are expected to run at more than £4.5 million. I have not yet received answers on the matter from several significant Departments, including the Treasury.

Some Departments are recording the number of hits. The Department of Trade and Industry received 67 million hits in the year to May, averaging 1.3 million per week. The Treasury website receives around 20 million hits per annum. I am advised that it is commercially calculated that 1,000 hits are considered by the industry to be worth £25. It appears—however difficult it may be to quantify—that the value of the advertising space of the Government's webs must run well into millions. What is not clear is how the Government are seeking to evaluate that and what they are giving in return for sponsorship and advertising facilities on the websites.

My conclusion is that since the rules, in so far as they exist, seem incapable of ensuring openness and preventing abuse—never mind delivering value for money to the taxpayer—it would be appropriate for the Government to end advertising and sponsorship on their websites.

Finally, on a different aspect of guidelines for the use of the websites, the Mountfield report made the general recommendation on political propriety that the aim of the Government Information and Communication Service should be to retain a politically impartial service and sustain the trusted values of the service embodied in its rules of guidance. That was stated by the service to be merely a restatement of essential principles in its third annual report. Unfortunately, none of the handbooks or existing codes are working to ensure that those principles are sustained on Government websites.

I shall give one broad example from the No. 10 site where, under "facts" the site purports to track the progress of all 177 manifesto commitments of the Labour party. The information there imparted is certainly not regarded as incontrovertibly factual and, indeed, would be contradicted by much information that has been obtained from the Government, the House of Commons Library and other objective sources. The information is highly tendentious and certainly does not accord with statistical information from the sources that I mentioned. Worse perhaps, are the press releases, which are often placed on websites and are highly partisan and undoubtedly breach the guideline on objectivity.

The guidelines indicate that information should always be directed at informing the public. I shall cite a few examples that fall short. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury issued a press release headed, A good way to explain what the Government is trying to do is that we want to build a new Britain that will be modern and decent. I question whether that could be regarded as providing either information or objective information.

In a press release of 30 March, the Home Office announced: Straw announces an "increase" in the funding of police authorities to reflect the enlarged size. In fact, that was a transfer of funding from the authorities with decreased areas of responsibility. It was a highly misleading statement, and certainly not objective. It is a rule of Government publicity that it should be objective.

Finally, let me cite an example from the Department for Education and Employment. One of its press releases was headed "World Class Guides for Employers launched—Hodge". No objective justification is given for the use of the phrase "world class" in that press release.

The problem is far wider than I can hope to tackle in the ambit of a short debate, but I hope that I have at least opened the subject. I look forward with great interest to the Minister's remarks. We are at a formative stage in dealing with websites, and it is extremely important that the independence and objectivity of Government information on sites are secure; that advantages are not improperly given to sponsors; and that the public's right to be informed is protected.

1.20 pm
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney)

I thank the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) for providing us with the opportunity to discuss websites and for the intellectual case that he made in respect of some of the relevant issues.

In the 10 minutes available to me, I cannot deal with all the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised, but I give him an assurance that I will write to him and place my reply in the Library, so that other hon. Members who take an interest in the matter can link that to the debate. I will consider the right hon. Gentleman's comments in the same way as the Government are considering the issues around the reports that he mentioned, to which we shall respond.

I am clear that my role is to ensure the best possible access for the citizen to Government services, and to ensure that we have in place appropriate guidelines and working arrangements and that the system is transparent and cannot be abused by Departments, individuals or, for that matter, politicians. It is crucial that the information provided by Government websites is trusted.

The right hon. Gentleman made a general complaint about the cost of development of Government websites. It has always been the task of Governments to provide information to citizens—information about taxes and benefits and employment regulations; personal information about insurance records or tax details; records of change of address or change of circumstances; information about payments to Government by the citizen, such as vehicle licensing, general taxation or council tax payments; and information about payments by Government to the citizen, such as benefits and student grants.

By using new technology, we are opening up access to every citizen far more effectively. That means that the right hon. Gentleman's constituents in Caithness and Sutherland can access information and services from the Government as readily and as quickly as someone who lives in central London. It is vital that communities in the highlands and islands, in the mountains and in large tracts of rural England have the same opportunity to do business with the Government or to seek information from the Government. Information technology provides such an opportunity.

In the process of establishing websites or service delivery modules, it is important that we listen to customers. As the Government introduce a new service or a new link-up to a portal, it is essential that we continue to consult our customer base, and that we produce guidelines on the basis of consultation. Guidelines must be regularly updated, so that they incorporate the improvements in practice for which the right hon. Gentleman called. We will soon be going out to further consultation on the revision of our website guidelines, as I promised a few months ago.

The right hon. Gentleman implied that he was worried that the Government's new knowledge network would be used as a party political tool. That is not the case. Strict safeguards and rules have been put in place to ensure that it is not misused for party political purposes. New types of information exchange have been used within Government for years. The only difference is that large amounts of information which were previously accessible only to the Government will now be available to everyone—Members of Parliament and the citizen. It is crucial that access to Government information is opened up. That is the purpose of the knowledge network.

A website without links is a poor website. The Treasury website does not endorse the firm that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—in fact, it contains a disclaimer. The Cabinet Office website points to other websites, in the same way as other Government websites point to The Guardian for jobs, for example. Do The Guardian or The Observer complain about that? It seems a reasonable approach.

Websites should give people additional information that they can use if they wish to do so. The Government websites merely signpost the way to further information and services, some provided by Government and some not. It is nonsense to suggest that because we provide signposts and access to the citizen, that is a corruption of Government websites. It ensures that the websites maximise the potential for the citizen to obtain information.

Sponsorship on websites is not special. New guidelines to take account of the Neill committee's recommendations are in their final draft. As soon as they are ready, I shall make them available to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments.

Links are what make websites work. For example, the BBC has links on its news pages, but that does not compromise its editorial integrity. For those who use the sites, links provide further opportunity to seek out information or services, and the same is true of Government websites. That is a sensible and reasonable approach.

No Government Departments have advertising on their websites. The Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency—CCTA—is an executive agency and has a banner advertisement clearly distinct from any Government messages. The recommendation of the Neill Committee in January 2000 was: There should be no ban on sponsorship of Government activities subject to our other recommendations. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned www.planet.britain.org. I hate having to read out such things—in fact, this is the first time that I have done it. In the past, I have always avoided doing so, but the right hon. Gentleman has me in a corner. He referred to it specifically, so I have to read it out for the record. That website is sponsored throughout by various organisations, including the provision of editorial content. It is supported by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office but has no Government content. It is not a Government site.

The Treasury taskforce website is an old one, with links to Brown Leighton, but there is a statement specifically disclaiming any endorsement. In any event, the website is due to be replaced. When that has been resolved, I shall send the details to the right hon. Gentleman.

Guidelines are needed, and they exist. Branding should not detract from a Department's own branding. Advertising should not imply endorsement and should not contradict Government messages. Standard sizes of banners are recommended.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Cabinet Office also publish guidelines on sponsorship. Sponsorship must not appear to place a Department under any obligation, and must not be able to be read as an endorsement by a Department. It must not come from firms that are currently engaged in negotiation with the Department. Sponsors must be suitable and must not appear to contradict Government messages. Sponsorship must not be for the activities of a particular Minister. Other similar companies must have been offered sponsorship opportunities. In accordance with a recent revision, any sponsorship worth more than £5,000 must be listed in the Department's annual report. Clearly, the Government are moving to ensure probity in these matters.

The right hon. Gentleman complained about costs of Government websites and delay in responses to his parliamentary questions. For every avenue of communication used by the Government, there is a cost. The question is whether that represents value for money. The Department of Trade and Industry had 5.6 million hits last month on its website. How much would that cost in postage, telephone calls and other communications with those 5.6 million people? Some of them will have hit the website more than once, of course, so I should speak of 5.6 million communications, rather than people. Traditional methods of responding to those inquiries would have been far more expensive.

The Department of Social Security has 2.5 million hits per month, and the Cabinet Office and The Stationery Office have 1.8 million hits. We are communicating with far more people and providing them with far more detailed information about their rights as citizens.

I take on board the right hon. Gentleman's comments and the spirit in which they were made. I assure him that the Government will ensure that our guidelines operate effectively and that they are drawn up on the basis of consultation.