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