Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons Written Evidence


Paper from the Directors of Information TV

1.  CONNECTING PARLIAMENT WITH THE PUBLIC

  1.1.  The role of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons is to consider how the practices and procedures of the House of Commons should be modernised and reformed. Under its remit the inquiry is also aimed at finding ways in which the House of Commons can make itself more accessible and understandable to the general public. The current online consultation asks the specific question, "How could proceedings in Parliament be made easier to follow?"

  1.2.  These aims are by no means mutually exclusive as a more modernised Parliament, in terms of the way it operates, can only help in connecting more seamlessly to a citizenship that is increasingly used to accessing information where, when and in the form that it wants it.

  1.3.  This paper concerns itself with the challenge of communicating the workings and proceedings of parliament in an effective and compelling manner. The prize of success is an active, motivated and cognizant electorate that supports the democratic process in larger numbers than in more recent elections.

2.  THE PHILLIS REPORT

  2.1.  We believe that the aims of the Select Committee are also entirely complementary with the findings of the recent Phillis Review on Government Communications. Whilst we should hasten to point out that Parliament is not "the Government" per se, the citizens of the UK obviously make a strong connection between Parliament and Government. The positive and negative emotions towards a government of the day are often a reflection of Parliamentary occurrences and therefore we would suggest that this Select Committee use some of the core recommendations of the Phillis review to give context to how it might tackle its own brief.

  2.2.  R.1 of the Phillis Review Executive Summary states:

    "We found that, as a whole, the Civil Service has not grasped the potential of modern communications as a service provided for citizens.

    "Our central recommendation is that communications should be redefined across government to mean a continuous dialogue with all interested parties, encompassing a broader range of skills and techniques than those associated with media relations. The focus of attention should be the general public."

  2.3.  So, how do you engage the general public, and how do you put across the workings of Parliament in a compelling and absorbing way?

3.  THE AUTHORS OF THIS PAPER

  3.1.  The central theme of this paper comes from the Founder of Information TV, Fred Perkins. Mr Perkins used to run TSO—The Stationery Office—and so is very familiar with the issues surrounding public sector-citizen communication, having managed the conduit for many government departments in their communications and interactions with citizens, in multiple media. He has also been heavily involved with many government initiatives; for example covering Broadband, Digital Content, and Multi-Channel Convergence. He left TSO in early 2003 to pursue a new venture in Digital Television, largely inspired by his involvement in e-Government, and driven by realisation of the opportunities only now available through digital television.

  3.2.  A fellow Director of Information TV is Tony Blin-Stoyle, formerly Managing Director of UpMyStreet, the pioneering local information service often highlighted by Government as demonstrating best practice in the communication of government information to the citizen. UpMyStreet built one of only two government "Pathfinder" iDTV services, for SomersetOnline. Tony is also a Director of the IT Forum Foundation and Chairman of its Government Group.

4.  THE USE OF TELEVISION

  4.1.  Parliament already recognises that television is an important way of connecting the public with the proceedings of Parliament. But, although full coverage from the House of Commons is now broadcast, we would argue that this has not gone far enough.

  4.2.  One of the great things about DTV is that it allows whole new forms of communication which just aren't possible or feasible in other formats. Programmes can not just be targeted at the many types of "citizen" groups, but also at business and public sector communities. And DTV also provides, through signing, subtitles and dubbing, a valuable extension to ethnic or disabled groups, which are relatively poorly served in communication terms.

  4.3.  We would therefore recommend the following.

    —  A regularly broadcast tour of the Palace of Westminister—including the history; an explanation of the relationship between the Lords and Commons; the role of the House of Commons as part of the United Kingdom Parliament etc.

    —  A regularly broadcast programme "The Parliamentary Process" which explains how the parliamentary legislative process works, showing how a bill is introduced, then following its progress through both Houses and the various stages until it becomes (or does not become) an Act; and which explains the other elements of the parliamentary timetable. The programme would illustrate the various ways (and media) through which the public can follow what is going on. Such a programme would very much be the "glue" holding together the many existing components of citizen/parliament interaction (websites, informational and statutory publications, visits).

    —  Citizen access to edited highlights of Parliamentary proceedings. Eg;

    —  Prime Minister's question time;

    —  Key Select Committees.

    —  Grouped citizen access to edited highlights of Parliamentary proceedings. Eg; what has happened in Parliament this week of relevance to;

      —  Farmers;

      —  Small business employees; and

    —  The disabled.

  4.4.  No doubt, internet delivered video-streaming will be proposed to fulfil this type of communication. But we would ask the Committee to recognise that whilst the internet undoubtedly has a role to play, many citizens still do not have access to the internet and will never have regular access. Secondly, broadband penetration is still such that the viewer experience of internet delivered video is that of slowness, unreliability and ultimately, frustration.

  4.5.  Third, and perhaps most importantly, compelling video programming does not work effectively via the PC screen. There are numerous academic studies of the sit-back versus sit-forward impact of the televisual experience compared to the PC. The television is part of every citizen's life. Use it in the way it was designed to be used!

5.  LINEAR TV—THE MISSING LINK IN IDTV

  5.1.  Interactive Digital TV will also undoubtedly be assessed by the Committee, and some of those giving evidence will propose its application—right through to voting! But we would suggest caution in this respect as it is not the panacea for this type of communication. At present, the technology is poor and expensive, the user interface very weak, and user acceptance extremely low. Asking people to spend money on a dial-up return path (assuming they have their phone connected at all) then to struggle with the inadequacies of the Interactive remote control as a keyboard is not going to generate the interaction and connection with citizens that you are seeking.

  5.2.  First, it's necessary to inform the public. That need starts off with a proper understanding of their "issues". What are the things that the public really want to know? How can they be packaged together in a digestible, compelling way? Broadcast Linear Television is great at handling this and will help connect the public with Parliament. Indeed, we would propose that the Committee attacks the challenges of communication from this "pull" perspective, rather than the "push" suggested by the question of how to connect Parliament with the public.

  5.3.  When we have a public that is fully informed, we can move on to dealing with the interactions that may be desired between Parliament and the citizen. This is where the interactivity is required. We will before long have convergence between digital television (satellite, cable and terrestrial) and broadband, with useable, standard, user interfaces, able to deliver video and textual content. Then, we can move into true interaction. In the meantime, as the TV industry knows well, the most cost-effective and acceptable form of interaction is via the telephone, the SMS message, or the internet.

  5.4.  Broadcast-quality programmes can now be made, at modest cost, by any of the hundreds of independent production companies. £1,000 per minute of programme is a reasonable rule of thumb.

6.  CONCLUSION

  6.1.  We are concerned that the Committee will be bombarded by cries for new technology; and, of course, new technology has a role to play. But at the heart of the matter is the need to communicate with citizens in a compelling and effective way and thus for them to connect with the democratic process.

  6.2.  This paper strongly recommends the use of linear broadcast television to educate, inform and engage citizens. It may not be new technology, but it is most certainly appropriate technology.

Fred Perkins

Chairman and CEO

Tony Blin-Stoyle

Sales and Marketing Director





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 16 June 2004