House of Commons - Administration

Select Committee on Administration Written Evidence

Memoranda from Members of Parliament (October 2006, unless otherwise stated)

MR JAMES ARBUTHNOT (NOVEMBER 2006)

1. Information Technology is, world-wide, always a problem. People expect more from it than the underlying technology can provide. To some extent that reflects the reliance we all now place on it. But we do, and we need quick and competent support from those whom we ask to provide it.

2. PICT does not provide quick and competent support, and PCD before it did not do so either. It is not a good organisation. And it is a monopoly organisation. While there are shining individual exceptions to the string of whinges I set out below, they are exceptions:

— PCD/PICT was one of the last organisations in the House of Commons to deal with complaints by e-mail, an odd reflection on an IT support organisation.

— Complaints and requests for information are slow to be dealt with, whether by e-mail or otherwise.

— It took Alex Peterson, the Defence Committee media officer, a fortnight to be issued with a mobile, a ridiculous thing to happen in the media world.

— It seems the provision of equipment is decided on the basis of taking what PICT decides rather than what the customer wants. As an exception to this, the mobile computing trial was well handled, although PICT had insufficient clout to iron out a software glitch (the failure to indicate on e-mail icons that an e-mail has been replied to or forwarded).

— The Dell computers and printers issued to us all are sub-standard. The laptops are too heavy (Dell doesn't make a lighter one), the printers are often failing and the memory provided in the computers is inadequate. It seems all to have been dictated by price.

— In my office we use a case management system called CMITS, as do over 100 MPs. The impression we have gained is that PICT have been inefficient and obstructive in dealing with the suppliers of CMITS. One example is the obstacles put in the way of the concept of scanned documents and paperless correspondence being sent over the e-mail system. This concept needs to be embraced, not blocked.

— The approach to wireless technology has been old-fashioned, slow and obstructive.

— I understand that the way the system has been designed makes it impossible to have remote access from home to documents on servers in the House of Commons.

3. Resources, no doubt, are highly constrained. The results show in the quality of service we receive. Probably we pay very badly. Perhaps another trouble is that those who in the end make the decisions about IT are not knowledgeable about it and have no interest or understanding of the money it needs. More importantly, they have no vision of where IT could help, or of where it could take us (the good and the bad parts of that).

4. But on a positive note, when at long last the spam protection was introduced, it did work. In that, though in little else, there has been a dramatic improvement.

MR CLIVE BETTS

1. I am writing in response to the review which is being conducted into members' ICT services. I enclose some notes which have been done for me by Peter Carrington-Smith, my constituency assistant who deals with computers and IT matters. His notes indicate some of the problems we have with the current arrangements which I am sure other MPs also experience. (See Ev 28 below for Peter Carrington-Smith's response.)

2. There is a further problem. I have suggested I be given two e-mail addresses: one which would be public and would receive all my general correspondence and which my staff could filter first, and the second which would be a private address on which I would receive specific confidential correspondence. This would mirror the arrangements we have in the office for correspondence delivered by post. I am told other MPs have had similar requests denied because of the problem of capacity on the system. I have to say I do not understand this as there would not be any more e-mails generated but, simply, more ways of dealing with them would be available to myself and other MPs.

LORELY BURT

Service very good.

MS DAWN BUTLER (NOVEMBER 2006)

1. PDAs—regardless of the network should be able to connect to the server via WIFI or using push technology. As the decision has been made to use a windows based system all compatible phones should be accepted and Members should be able to access their emails/calendars etc.

2. Failing number 1 PDAs should be offered to members at cost price not inflated prices (average price £200).

3. Labour MPs—Labour Ministers—should be separate categories on emails. Members should have the option to opt in.

4. Remote access needs serious improvements in speed and connectability. Spell check should also be available when sending emails remotely.

5. There seems to be a high turnaround and this results in PICT staff being very inexperienced.

6. Please refer to Modernisation Committee in regards to other IT issues.

MR CHARLES CLARKE

1. I think that the central point that I want to make is the need for a greater flexibility in the equipment which we use. This can sometimes appear to be in contradiction with both security and the boundaries which Parliament rightly needs to enforce in ensuring that Parliamentary resources are used only for Parliamentary duties but I do believe that it is important if usage of parliamentary ICT support is to be maximised.

2. I can perhaps best illustrate the point by reference to my own experience over recent months.

3. As Home Secretary the IT system I used was principally the Home Office's own system. The software used for such basic functions as diary management, e-mailing and address book contact management was the government Home Office system. Security was obviously a particular concern with Home Office matters and this is reflected in their systems. I was able to divert my parliamentary e-mail address to my Home Office PC and this did help but otherwise there seemed to me to be little common ground between the governmental and parliamentary systems. This was also true, by the way, at the Department for Education and Skills.

4. During this period I also had a PC at home where I did a great deal of both Government and Parliamentary work, mainly over the weekends but also at other times. This was and is an independent system with my own home e-mail address and different software for diary management, e-mailing and address book contact management. Security considerations meant quite reasonably that I could not work on certain aspects of Government work from that PC. We changed the PC when at the beginning of this year the Parliamentary authorities installed a new Commons issue PC including connection by BT Broadband wireless rather than hard-wire, which I very much welcomed. By the way the Parliamentary service through this change was excellent.

5. Throughout this period I did little or no PC work in my Parliamentary office. However the various software incompatibilities (or so it seemed to me) meant that I could not access my diary, or update my address books in ways which ran across both of my systems.

6. When I left the Government, I decided to change my arrangements by working from my Parliamentary office in London and so moved my PC from my constituency to my office in Parliament. This highlighted again the software incompatibilities, so that for example on my laptop I work off Outlook Express, while in Parliament it's Outlook, on my laptop it's Microsoft Works while in Parliament it's Excel or Outlook Contact management. I can access my diary in my Parliamentary office but not on my laptop.

7. Very irritatingly I cannot use my laptop in Parliament at all. The wireless connection simply does not function in Parliament (though I can use it in Schiphol Airport or the Conference Hotel in Manchester for example) and the dial-up to my server does not seem to function from any 219 number. (Update (April 2007): I have subsequently been told that I could dial-up via a 219- fax number in my office, though not a phone number.)

8. The consequence of this is a constant juggling between my two systems so that diary, addresses, word-processing and so on have to be constantly e-mailed between my two systems.

9. I should add that it is perfectly possible that I have not fully understood how to maximise my current arrangements and I am not doing some things that I could do better. The PICT support service has been polite and helpful but, as I have understood what they have said to me, they simply cannot solve some of the problems I have.

10. So even on the basis of the experience I have described, I believe that there is a case for more flexibility, for example by having a wireless system in Parliament, allowing Outlook Express or Microsoft Works to operate on the Parliamentary system. No doubt the PICT experts can devise improvements in the current system.

11. I have solved my own problems by setting up a workstation in London outside the Parliamentary estate and putting in place the necessary connections between the two. But I cannot believe that this is an effective way of operating.

12. All the work which I have so far described has been Parliamentary or Governmental.

13. However, the flexibility which I have described becomes particularly important at the time of a General Election, when MPs can no longer have access to the Parliamentary system.

14. Disentangling the e-mail, address, word-processing and spreadsheet (less so diary) material as between "Parliamentary" and "political" is very difficult, and it is often necessary at the time of an election to create a whole new series of systems to deal with the election period. This problem may not be soluble, and I do fully respect the principle that sitting MPs should not secure Party advantage versus their opponents by reference to their incumbency, but I would urge you to consider whether there is any way in which the type of more flexible approach which I am suggesting could also be extended to cover election periods.

15. I hope that these observations are helpful and constructive, as they are intended to be. I am conscious that my own ICT expertise is limited and so I may well have missed solutions which will appear obvious to those more expert than I am, and I am of course happy to discuss the situation further if that helps.

ROSIE COOPER

1. I am writing in relation to Administration Committee's inquiry into computer and ICT services provided for Members. I have a very poor overall opinion of the services provided by ICT based on my personal experiences and those of my staff. There have been a number of occasions when we have been let down when it comes to resolving technological problems.

2. On occasions my Constituency Office has been brought to a standstill for weeks due to the failings of PICT and the companies with whom they have contracts. As a Member who does not have a staffed Parliamentary Office being electronically cut-off from the constituency has grave consequences. As I have commented to PICT if I was a business I could probably sue for loss of business. As you fully understand as MPs our failings are counted in the loss of votes at election time.

3. The first instance was the failure to inform me that the broadband connection was to be switched off because it was still registered in the name of my predecessor whose office I now occupy. This was just the start of the problems. It took nearly two weeks for the problem to be resolved. My concerns are not just about the initial error but the subsequent customer service failures that followed.

4. I think it is clear from this experience that the contractual relationship Parliament has with Demon and subsequently BT is not to our benefit. There are no special arrangements in place to resolve problems with any urgency. It was abundantly evident that PICT had no leverage with either company required to solve this problem. Given our reliance on electronic communication and our roles as representatives of the people this is wholly unacceptable.

5. I would not like to calculate the number of hours my constituency manager spent on the phone to Demon trying to resolve this issue. The responsibility for resolving the problems lay in departments that were not "customer-facing". This meant we went through a protracted process but could not deal directly with the people who could solve the problem. At no point were we able to speak to any senior people within Demon. Systemic failures are annoying enough without people breaking promises as well. There were occasions when we were promised people would return our calls but failed to do so.

6. Therefore, as a customer it appears that the PICT team whilst working hard to get a quick resolution have no leverage given I am sure this is not an inconsequential contract. If I decide to seek resolution myself then the customer service failings mean I am prevented from doing so. If this is how Parliament and its members are treated by these companies then I dread to think how other customers are being treated.

7. In September the constituency office lost connection to the VPN. The member of staff called the PICT helpdesk to sort out the problem. We were advised to turn off the router by the PICT staff at which point it ceased to function. After a discussion with the PICT team we were connected to Demon and informed that a BT engineer would be sent the next day to replace the router. It was not until Wednesday 27 September that the engineer arrived at the office. By this time the constituency office had got the router working again otherwise my constituents would have once again been without any service from my office and my staff would not have been able to carry out their jobs.

8. I have also experienced problems with the computer equipment purchased through Dell, which has meant swapping my laptop on several occasions as well as a staff members' computer in the constituency office. Once again I would not like to estimate the amount of time my staff have had to waste because of computer equipment failing. We have had PICT engineers travel up to the constituency in an attempt to resolve the problems without real success. One example is the virus software would work for a month then would prevent the user from logging on. This required my member of staff spend at least one hour at a time on the telephone to PICT in an effort to resolve the problems. After months of this problem returning and not being resolved I demanded new computer equipment from PICT. But this has meant a member of staff spending valuable time on the telephone to PICT rather than dealing with constituency work. It seems there is a failure in the process to identify a recurring problem. As a high street customer the product would have been returned to the shop and replaced. PICT does not appear to work in this way but instead persists with failing equipment.

9. From my personal experiences I believe there are fundamental questions that need to be asked as to whether Parliament is getting what it is paying for and if it offers value for money. There are serious failings in the infrastructure of the service, customer service and the quality of the equipment. It is evident there needs to be serious consideration in the tools PICT has at its disposal to effectively and efficiently deal with these problems.

10. I firmly believe there are clear systemic, process, and customer service problems that need to be tackled to ensure Parliament is receiving the level of service we need in order to serve our constituents. It is unviable for MPs staff to spend a large proportion of their time having to resolve these problems. PICT needs to take greater responsibility in cases were there obvious problems. They are the ICT specialists after all and it shouldn't really be the responsibility of an MP and their staff to solve the problem.

MR ANDREW DISMORE

We could do with another printer. Also a printer that does colour copy and fax combined like the old ones did.

Update: Also printers that are reliable. The Dell machine we have is continually breaking down even after replacement

MR DON FOSTER

1. In light of the Administration Committee conducting an inquiry into computer and ICT services, I'd like to take the opportunity to share some of my views and experiences with you.

2. I was delighted to receive several new computers in June of this year as part of the Refresh Project. However, since having these computers installed in my constituency office, my staff and I have experienced a number of problems which I have outlined below.

3. When my new computers were installed, it was necessary to network them via a local server so as to enable my staff and me to deal with my casework load more effectively. The networking work was undertaken by a local company, Computer Village. The software we use to conduct my casework, Casework Manager, is provided by yet another company, EARS.

4. We had numerous difficulties which began after about a week; at various times we were unable to access our Casework software, send files to any of our printers, access the parliamentary intranet and on several occasions were not able to logon to some machines whatsoever. As I'm sure you can imagine, this had a most disruptive effect on the workings of my constituency office and at times threatened to undermine my ability to serve my constituents.

5. Although all my employees are proficient computer users, they do not possess the necessary expertise required to solve these problems on their own. As a first point of call they contacted PCD but were subsequently advised to contact Computer Village. Computer Village visited my office and apparently "fixed" the problem, only for my staff to return to work the following day to find the same difficulties had reoccurred. Computer Village then referred us back to PCD, who referred us back to Computer Village who in turn suggested we contact EARS. This constant referral, with no one organisation willing to take responsibility, went on for at least 6 weeks until the difficulties were eventually overcome.

6. It would have been so much easier, and saved so much time, if a computer engineer from PCD could have visited my constituency office. I think it would also be extremely useful if PCD were able to take responsibility for all of the computer systems within a Member's office. This would presumably prevent other Members wasting so much time acting as "go betweens".

NICK HARVEY

1. The mobile computing services being offered are a big disappointment, not least the choice of network which is of limited use in many rural areas.

2. On a second but important point, I have lobbied without success for MPs to be offered a private inbox as well as our published e-mail addresses. It is bonkers that we employ staff to answer our phones and handle our correspondence, but our inboxes are clogged with every bit of nonsense anyone in the world chooses to send.

JOHN HEMMING (JULY 2006)

1. At the moment I am trying to get an ADSL link for my office as I cannot use the Parliamentary Network for email. I am told that there should be a report going to the next administration committee to establish this which would be useful for a number of Members. I hope this comes to pass.

2. There are some good things about the provision of services, but it is very inflexible and there are a lot of problems.

MARTIN HORWOOD (NOVEMBER 2006)

1. Thanks for the opportunity to respond to your inquiry.

2. My career has been spent in the national offices of a variety of charities of varying sizes and, for a few years immediately before my election last year, in a private sector marketing agency. ICT support was supplied in a variety of ways both in-house and contracted out.

3. I have to say that although individuals are often friendly, helpful and professional, the PICT service overall seems to me one of the poorest I have received in a professional environment and not very well tailored to the parliamentary pattern of work.

4. Some problems may be partly the result of having to operate systems in an ultra-secure environment but others just seem clumsy. Why for instance, do I have to log on first with a "PCD 2001' code, then Ctrl+Alt+Delete and then with my username and personal password? As everyone uses it and it hasn't changed in years, the first is hardly secure. The second is redundant as the screen tells you what to type. The third would therefore suffice.

5. Basic customer care processes also seem to be poor, with calls and problems having to be chased up for resolution, sometimes over weeks. If they are being systematically logged, it must be too easy to regard the call as resolved when it has only been responded to or when a few calls have been made. Only last week I responded to a call back from PICT only to find the job had been marked "closed" because they had left me a message!

6. My constituency office had months of problems when I was first elected and felt very neglected compared to the efficient provision for me in Westminster the day I arrived. Support for remote locations should be very good in an organisation like ours which has 600+ remote offices but their impression then was that PICT was much better geared up to support staff and offices in Westminster.

7. Having said all this, there are clear signs of improvement in the service and technical performance of the network. My constituency office in particular would say that the service now is generally good.

Update (January 2007):

8. Just to add a concrete and recent example for your ICT inquiry. I reported to PICT for the umpteenth time a few days ago my problems synchronising my PICT-provided PDA with the main server to update my diary, email etc. The software encountered repeated problems every time I changed my password.

9. I was helpfully told they thought they might have a fix and that I should arrange to bring the PDA over to Millbank. Today, as there was a risk of a vote at any time on the Sustainable Communities Bill I rang 2001 to see if someone could collect it if they were passing. I didn't have a reference number but suggested they might find the job by my name as I had reported it myself. They brought up a record for me but it had no recent mention of the PDA or any offer to fix it. Only the mention of the same problem reported several months ago. Anyway, it was duly collected, ActiveSync reinstalled and the PDA returned to me.

10. The Sync software still isn't working. No doubt the job is once again down as resolved.

11. I can't really speak for PICT's technical ability. The best ICT support I have ever had in previous jobs still had occasional difficulties resolving technical problems. What makes PICT pretty unique is its apparent inability to log and monitor jobs effectively so that it can't tell whether they've really been sorted out or not.

MR MICHAEL JACK (NOVEMBER 2006)

Note: Mr Jack was Chairman of the House of Commons Information Committee from September to December 2003.

1. I was flattered to be invited to contribute to your Committee's inquiry into Information Technology but have to say that I do not see myself as an expert in this field. When I was Chair of the Information Committee, I was about to embark on work which would have paralleled some of the very important areas you are to enquire into it.

2. It was my intention, as point (a) in your Request for Evidence indicates, to try and establish some form of benchmarking arrangement with other major users of IT to ensure that we were getting the best possible service in Parliament. To that end, it had been my intention to see if it might have been possible for the Committee to have visited other parliaments to see how they handle their IT needs. One of the problems we seem to face in the House is that service provision is handed down from on high. This in my judgement was witnessed by the way in which the roll-out of the new equipment took place. There was no user consultation about the types of equipment that it was hoped to purchase. We were simply advised that Dell had been chosen and this was the range of "kit" available. For example, when I pointed out that one of the printers selected would not fit under the shelves in Portcullis House, shocked looks went over the official's face but no action followed thereafter to try and correct the problem.

3. One of the major drawbacks is that there appears to be little discussion between PCD and users of the system about what would make life easier for us. For instance, I have a penchant for voice recognition systems. This could well help to improve the productivity of Members whose keyboard skills like mine are not particularly good. However, it is not until now that we have had a piece of software in the shape of the Windows XP Programme which I understand has built into it a voice recognition system. If this technology exists it might have been useful to have run some form of trial to see whether in fact Members' productivity via the IT system could have been improved by the use of this innovative form of technology. One of the problems which does concern me is the dependence we all have on the helpdesk for the resolution of problems. Whilst individuals on the desk are remarkable for their ability to get us out of difficulties, problem-solving can become a challenge, especially when local IT practitioners come up against some of the security barriers which are built in to our system and which can prevent an easy solution to what appears to be a straight-forward problem.

4. One problem you might care to consider is trying to influence the Chairmen's panel on where IT equipment can be used. Given the plethora of hand-held devices which enable Members almost anywhere in the Palace of Westminster to be connected with the outside world, it does now seem somewhat archaic that laptop computers and similar devices are essentially out of order when it comes to use in the Standing Committees.

5. Sometime ago I achieved a breakthrough in this respect by getting the House to agree that Members could take laptop computers into Select Committees. However, we have never fully exploited this potential partly because committee rooms such as those in Portcullis House are not wired up to enable Members to fully utilise the system in the context of Select Committee inquiries. Equally the same situation is true in our committee rooms. However, with the advent of wireless technology this could soon be remedied thus enabling Members to have access to the wealth of data on the internet thus improving their ability to cross-question and hold Ministers to account. Given that the House now provides the opportunity for Members to have hand-held devices which can connect to their parliamentary emails and the intranet, the old restrictions in Standing Committees does seem to be somewhat out of date.

6. I would certainly not advocate the use of laptop computers in the Chamber of the House as our procedures there do not lend themselves to the use of IT equipment

7. I hope these few thoughts are of assistance to your committee.

MR DAVID JONES

I would find a wireless network invaluable and wonder if one could be established.

MS SALLY KEEBLE

1. Thank you. I imagine you are being inundated with responses—so here are just a few points:

— The computer service needs to gear up—we got our new laptop upgrades too late—we need computers and upgrades faster.

— We could also do with some better software. I bought at considerable expense a casework management system—apparently the MSPs get the same software installed routinely for their offices.

— The mobile computing service is not very good. The synchronisation works well in my Westminster or Northampton offices, but does not seem to work when I am travelling around. This is very irritating, since a mobile unit needs to work when you are mobile. It may be that the technology is just not up to scratch yet to achieve this.

— The help line needs to improve—it is very hard when you are working at evenings or weekends out of hours and cannot get through. It is also incredibly irritating when you phone up on a Monday morning and find that all the specialists are busy! I do wonder whether the people who work on the helpline have had any induction into MPs' work.

— It seems sometimes as if there is a bit of a one-size fits all service. I'm not clear that the computer services have worked out the different way that different people on the parliamentary estate and in the constituency offices work, and therefore the different requirements we have of the computer service. MPs need easy access from four points—Westminster office, London home, constituency office and constituency home. I've lost track of who provided the access in my London or constituency homes—and what to do if it breaks down. I also think it is important that our two offices should be properly connected so that they can operate effectively as one office.

— There keep on being rumours that we may have to pay separately for our internet access from our constituency offices—that would be a disaster.

2. Having said this, the service is transformed from what it was in 1997 when you bought and serviced your own computers. It's just that comparing it with, for example my husband's, who works for a large accountancy firm, ours is pretty basic. The staff who provide the help line service are usually very helpful when you get through to them—it is a question of service design and training which I think is the problem.

3. Probably like a lot of colleagues, I rely on my computer a lot and find it incredibly frustrating when things go wrong.

Update (March 2007): One point I should have included before, but did not, is that the space we have on the system is too small—it means our inboxes get full too quickly. All it takes is a couple of PR firms to email around pictures and sometimes that is about enough to do it!

ROBERT KEY

Note: Mr Key was Chairman of the House of Commons Information Committee from January 2004 to May 2005.

1. I will answer the questions as best I can.

(a) Best practice in the world at large: How are ICT services provided in other organisations, both commercial and public sector? How are such services provided in organisations with distributed systems and multiple locations?

2. In other organisations and business units with which I have been associated, ICT services in both the commercial and public sector have always been centrally designed and centrally administered with centrally selected hardware and software. I am glad that the House of Commons has now moved to this position from the chaotic situation of a few years ago when Members could purchase any kit they liked— with disastrous consequences.

(b) Departmental structure and goals: How is PICT (the new joint service for both Houses) working, and how does it manage demand from different user groups? How are service levels being set? What strategy exists for providing Members' IT requirements?

3. Since the Information Committee was disbanded after the last General Election in 2005, I am not able to comment on the setting of service levels nor on strategies. However, I fear that PICT and its staff are not regarded by either themselves or the more "traditional" service providers in the House such as the Library and the Serjeant-at-Arms Department as "part of the team".

(c) IT stability v flexibility: Has the right balance been struck between (1) stability/quality of service and (2) flexibility for Members to arrange their ICT provision to suit their individual working patterns?

4. Yes.

(d) Constituency provision: How is progress being made towards meeting the target set by the House that "the level and range of IT support offered to constituency offices should be improved to a level comparable with that offered on the Parliamentary Estate"? When will the VPN be of a standard comparable with the network standard at Westminster?

5. Constituency provision is still unsatisfactory. The installation of the latest generation of computers and associated equipment was managed very badly indeed. Different contractors turned up at different times to address different faults and errors in the installation of the generic equipment provided by PICT. There were endless delays. There were extremely expensive visits involving staff from PICT at the House of Commons travelling down to Salisbury to find out what was going on. The service offered by the VPN is still not satisfactory. There is far too much "down time". I have always maintained that it would be far more efficient to allow on-site maintenance work in the constituency offices to be undertaken by a properly qualified local engineer—such as I have been using for years in Salisbury.

(e) Customer service: What human IT support do Members need and at what hours? How successfully does current customer service meet Members' needs?

6. Customer Service is getting good—when you can get it at all. The response to a telephone call to "2001" is much better than it was. However, I really do not think it is unreasonable to ask that Members of Parliament should have a different number to staff. Our needs are different. The time at which we can sit at our desks and do emails is limited. The time we can hang onto the telephone as we crawl up the queue is simply not reasonable. This is particularly true when our office staff are based in our constituency and we are often on our own in our offices at Westminster.

(f) New equipment roll-out: What lessons have been learnt from the roll-out of new IT equipment to Members following the 2005 election?

7. The roll-out of new equipment to my offices in Salisbury was many months delayed and when it happened it took some weeks to settle down. I hope lessons have been learnt

(g) Future equipment and service need: What progress is being made on the mobile computing project and on wireless networking within the Estate? How will Members benefit from the redesign of the Intranet? What provision will need to be made when the current (analogue) annunciators become redundant?

8. I cannot comment on mobile computing. However, I am quite astonished that it is still not possible to use mobile phones reliably within Portcullis House and other areas of the Parliamentary Estate.

9. Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to comment.

Ian Kirkbride, on behalf of MISS JULIE KIRKBRIDE

1. PDVN services are generally well provided compared to others I've seen. They have a good and straightforward provision of services to remote systems. The Contivity client is easy to use and importantly does not have the restriction of a static IP. This provides huge flexibility—hopefully not at the cost of too much insecurity. Services at the Commons are good but the network can slow at peak times. It has got better. External Internet access is quite slow compared with what a home user would expect. Perhaps due to the proxy, security, filtering.

2. Don't know.

3. Not quite. While stability and consistency of equipment is important the equipment choices remain somewhat limited. A little more choice would be better. There is also a good argument for allowing a Member to choose all laptops so they can be taken home etc. Having a desktop makes sense at the Commons but you just don't have the flexibility to take it away when needed. A secretary with home broadband, can work efficiently from home at weekends, or recess or if a child is ill.

4. We've generally found PDVN support to be good. Where problems arise it is usually because things are difficult to diagnose at a distance but the ability to take remote control of the machine usually helps.

5. Two things would help . . .

6. A default local administrator account (on this Computer) (not in the Parliament domain) on each machine. This lets you get to grips with problems better at the local level. It also allows network transfers between non-parliamentary machines for large files, backup etc. It adds a level of flexibility that is very useful. You have to ask for a default admin account it is not done automatically on provision.

7. Some way to see that you are getting the proper updates on remote machines. Am I getting Windows updates? Am I getting anti-virus updates? Am I getting anti-popup updates? Am I getting Cybergatekeeper updates? You can search for these things and look at the logs—but who does—but an icon, or a downloading popup would give a better level of confidence. At the moment I think I get AV every time I login provided I'm connected to the internet whether I'm connected to Parliament or not. I think I have to do anti-popups by hand. I think I get Firewall updates when I connect to Parliament. I do not know if I get Windows updates automatically when I connect to Parliament. I do not do manual Windows updates since I don't know what a locked-down Parliamentary laptop will allow to install. Could this be made clearer to users—maybe in a visual way?

8. The VPN is not bad and sometimes Parliament is slower! VPN speeds have improved in the last six months after the big search for the problem. We have found VPN into Parliament followed by Citrix-LAN is very efficient. The biggest headache is the number of times the VPN connection is lost. Not huge but probably at least once a day. We suspect it is happening at the Parliament end. This could be improved.

(e) Customer service: What human IT support do Members need and at what hours? How successfully does current customer service meet Members' needs?

9. Pretty acceptable now. Normal business hours seem reasonable. Sometimes you have to wait for a more technical person to get back to you. That can tie you down when you need to be elsewhere. A specific time callback would be nice even if it is a few hours away or the next day.

(f) New equipment roll-out: What lessons have been learnt from the roll-out of new IT equipment to Members following the 2005 election?

10. There needs to be a communal "wish list/check list" for items provided in the future. In the last resupply we got caught out that the new all-singing all-dancing printer couldn't do multiple envelope feeds but the old one could. Hence we had to keep the old one. Maybe we should have spotted it but for that kind of printer we should be able to expect batch envelopes as standard. It's a must for constituency mail!

11. Do we have the Windows cab files. We don't see them? It hasn't happened yet when we've loaded a program but we keep expecting the "insert your Windows installation disk" to appear. Without cab files that could cause problems.

12. Don't know.

13. The new Dell laptops which we will presumably have for the next 4-5 years run 802.11b,g. The b and g technologies have problems passing through stone and brick so I see that as a problem for a wireless Westminster unless there are very many local access points. I'm told the n technology goes a long way towards improving this problem but that would mean plug-in cards for all the laptops. Pity.

MRS JACQUI LAIT (JULY 2006)

1. Following on from the email dated 13 July, asking members to submit their comments for the forthcoming enquiry on the parliamentary IT provision, I wanted to supply the following information.

2. As you will remember, correspondence passed between us late last year, and I enclose copies of this, and other letters to PCD, for your reference.[6] On the point (f) on new equipment roll-out, many lessons must be learnt on the unnecessary duplication of work, and the lack of knowledge by engineers and especially those who visited my constituency office and had to be talked through the installation manual.

3. On the point (g) on future equipment, I understand that PCD were trialling I-mate K-Jam and that it would tie in with the parliamentary system. I think this is a good idea and would like to be kept informed on the outcome. You will be aware that each party's whips office also uses blackberrys and pagers for contacting members and it would be helpful if discussions could take place so that these could synchronise with the parliamentary system.

4. My Inbox/Delete Box needs to be deleted roughly every 300 items. This is ludicrous. I should be able to store thousands in my delete box. When are we to get a server upgrade?

PETER LUFF

1. I stand by the comments I made in my submission to the Administration Committee last November.[7] It is my strong belief that MPs should be free to buy the computer equipment of their choice, provided of course that it complies with the specifications laid down by the Parliamentary authorities. However, as I suspect that this is a battle that I will not win, I would like to focus my comments on the printers with which we have been provided.

2. Even if it is necessary for technical reasons to limit Members' choice of computers, it surely cannot be necessary to apply the same restriction to printers. Our printing requirements are so different that it is absolutely essential that we are free to choose our own printers. We must be able to choose the machines that suit our own particular needs.

3. To make matters worse, I think that the quality of the DELL printers is inadequate. My printer is unable to cope with large volumes of correspondence, and stages a mutiny every time I attempt to feed it more than a single envelope. As a result, I will be forced to dip into my allowance to buy a machine that is actually fit for purpose, which will leave my DELL printer redundant. I think that most people would agree that this is an inefficient way to spend taxpayers' money.

Update (February 2007):

4. I am finding the very limited size of the parliamentary mailbox increasingly frustrating. As constituents and others send me larger and larger attachments, the ridiculously small size of our mailbox is becoming a real problem.

5. I understand that the box is only in the order of 200 megabytes. My hotmail account, for which I pay a measly sum each year, has ten times that capacity.

6. The size of the box poses a particular problem when working remotely, as for some reason I don't seem to get warnings when the mailbox is approaching its limit. The material I send and then delete the original, gets lost.

7. We really do need bigger mailboxes.

KERRY MCCARTHY

1. I have an intern who has to work in the library on Thursdays because my office is full on that day—he has complained that the internet connection on the computers there, and in the PCH library, are very slow, and the PCs have crashed a number of times, causing him to lose work.

2. I've also had real problems with remote access on my laptop, to the extent I've stopped using it now and got myself a 3G datacard.

ANN MCKECHIN

I would wish to draw to the Committee's attention the issue of maintenance of IT equipment outside the Estate and the method by which this is organised. When equipment failures have occurred within the Estate I have found these are normally resolved quickly and I can easily speak to the person who is taking direct charge of the problem. However during the summer recess my constituency office lost all email/internet access. It also effectively turned off the networking between the office computers. We duly contacted PICT on the Tuesday and advised them that the problem was either with the phone line or the router box—the complaint was then passed on by PICT to Demon, the internet provider who in turn then passed it on to BT. By chance we were provided with the contact details of the staff member at Demon dealing with the problem although this is not normal PICT practice—my staff member pointed out that BT was a very large organisation and that as there were two possible sources for the problem, it should be reported to the two different divisions of BT. However despite this, three BT engineers turned up without notice at my office eventually on the Friday morning. I had to leave while they were still examining the line and returned to be told that they couldn't find a reason and had simply left without offering any further help. Back again to PICT then DEMON who had to report this again to BT's Broadband division and told that the earliest someone could arrive (from about no more than two miles away) with a router box was the following Tuesday. No one at PICT or Demon could or would reveal who was dealing with the problem at BT despite the fact that it was my problem! The replacement of a standard router box took all of 15 minutes but my office was effectively hamstrung for over a week. This is frankly a poor level of service and I see no reason why as a PICT customer I cannot be fully informed of who is dealing with a repair regardless of which organisation they are working for—the principle of customer service and a firm focus in problem solving rather than passing the buck was largely forgotten. I hope we can aim for a better service as I don't think our experience was an isolated incident.

MRS MADELEINE MOON

Time is tight so I hope you will accept bullet points:

— Constituency computers work extremely slowly and saving to the S drive is painfully slow though improved of late.

— The printer we have, Dell 1600 frequently breaks down and is expensive to buy toner.

JULIE MORGAN

1. Thank you for the invitation to contribute my views in the consultation over services to Members. I want to raise the following issues which I will take in order:

1. ICT Services.

2. Increased Telephone costs.

3. Standard advice texts.

ICT Services

2. Over the last year my constituency office has experienced an unprecedented volume of complex constituent casework. In May of this year the premises next door to my constituency office became vacant and accordingly I decided that it was opportune to rent this additional office space for a dedicated casework office and advertise for interns to work in my constituency office, releasing time for my senior caseworker to spend on more complex cases.

3. There was a need to move quickly to deal with the casework and I instructed my office manager to arrange to have the premises furnished and equipped as quickly as possible. I authorised the purchase of two new computers for interns to work on but on reviewing the PCD catalogue he was dismayed to find that it could take up to 28 days for the equipment to be delivered and installed. He then took the decision, as the interns were already in place and working, to purchase two brand new computers from Dell and these were delivered within days.

4. These steps happened to coincide with the renewal of computer resources in my office and my Office Manager, unaware that this might cause any problem, asked the PICT contracted engineer to connect up the two new Dell computers purchased for my interns and to configure them to access VPN. My Office Manager was present whilst this work was undertaken and overheard several conversations between the engineer PICT during this connection and configuration.

5. Unfortunately on 9 June one of the new machines installed by PICT—the lead machine—under the refresh developed a hardware fault which led to a system crash. A new component part had to be installed on this machine under warranty by Dell. This problem was not fully resolved until 16 June 2006 when network facilities were restored. However, VPN access for the two new computers purchased direct from me by Dell was denied. On enquiry, Jane Quirk, Customer Services Manager at PICT advised that the computers should not have been connected to the Parliamentary network in the first place as the computers were not purchased from PICT and that access would not be reinstated. I gather PICT then contacted the engineer's employer with the end result that he was rebuked for connecting up the two machines. I thought this unfair as all parties had acted in good faith, nobody was aware of PICT's rule that only computers bought through them will be given access—so far as I am aware there is no mention of this in the PICT catalogue—and PICT had actually collaborated with the engineer in the connection process.

6. Lack of access to the Parliamentary network from the two new computers has been a source of significant difficulty and frustration to my staff and interns in my constituency office. I now understand that if I had purchased the two additional computers from PICT there would have been no problem connecting them up to the Parliamentary network so clearly capacity is not an issue (and so far as PICT is concerned that is the solution open to me, purchase two further computers from them). I therefore cannot see any logical reason why new equipment which I have purchased from the same supplier as used by PICT, ie Dell, for the better discharge of my parliamentary duties cannot likewise be connected. I can understand the need to protect the network from attack by viruses and trojans etc but new computers connected up by PICT accredited engineers surely protect against that danger. For my part I would be prepared to meet the cost of a PICT accredited engineer to verify the system but I have to say I do not think that was necessary on this occasion because the work was done to PICT standards by an approved engineer.

7. I would be grateful if you could investigate this case with a view to securing access for my two "offending" computers, both purchased from my IEP budget. As you will appreciate the IEP budget is not large and when you are attempting to run a relatively large office to meet the demands of constituents it is essential that money is used wisely and I do not think it would be a reasonable use of these funds to replace the existing Dell computers with two new ones purchased from PICT. Access to the Parliamentary network will improve the services I can give my constituents from my constituency office. I would also welcome a review by your Committee of the need for this apparently draconian rule. As I say I appreciate the need to keep the Parliamentary network safe and secure but within this objective I think there is scope for some flexibility.

Increased Telephone Costs

8. Most people appear to have a mobile phone these days and require my office to respond to mobile telephone numbers with consequent higher telephone charges. I think the allowance built into the IEP for telephone expenses needs urgent review and upward revision to take account of this change in lifestyle of our constituents.

Standard Advice Texts

9. The casework brought to us by our constituents seems to present increasing complexity. An obvious example is in the field of tax credits. A caseworker cannot make relevant and effective representations without at least a basic understanding of how tax credits work and are calculated. The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) and the Legal Action Group publish a number of excellent handbooks and guides in the field of welfare benefits, child support, council tax valuation and enforcement, housing and council tax benefit, council housing disrepair, homelessness and immigration. New editions are brought out annually bringing the works up to date. CPAG are also the consultant editor to a Social Security Legislation series in 4 Volumes published by Thompsons. This series is used by the Tribunal Service and is updated annually. It affords excellent value as statutory provisions are annotated with helpful explanations including meanings and relevant cases decided by Social Security Commissioners are detailed.

10. It is hard to make the IEP budget stretch to all these resources and I wondered whether there is any scope for the House to bulk purchase the range of basic texts, securing a bulk discount from the relevant publishers, and provide these as of right free of charge (outside the IEP) to Members who wish to avail themselves of the facility for their constituency offices. I would be happy to provide further details and publishers of the relevant titles if this was helpful.

ALISON SEABECK

1. Thank you for your email. As a previous staff member in the House of Commons and now an MP, I would say that we are probably one main computer and printer short of what we could comfortably use. I have worked for a London MP whose constituency office was based in the Commons and now have both a constituency office and London office myself.

2. I am having to give my laptop to my second staff member to use in London and therefore I am without a connection I can use in my Plymouth home or when travelling to my constituency. In the constituency I have to hot desk with my staff and then have real problems accessing my account. This problem still has to be resolved.

3. In terms of the back up service—on the whole this is good but my recent experience was that it was slow. My Adviser was without a computer for five days. What might be helpful is being offered a laptop whilst work is being undertaken rather like a car is often offered if you are having your car serviced. It would at least enable word processing to continue if nothing else is possible.

4. Training is good but my difficulty is getting a staff member up from Plymouth to London in order to do the basic training before being given an email address. This man has trained people to use computers and therefore is very computer literate. He has caring commitments which make a day in London virtually impossible. Not sure we are set up to deal with this type of circumstance.

Rebecca Blake, on behalf of JACQUI SMITH

Thank you, for what is for me a good service. The only thing I would like to contribute is that I would rather have to log in only once to access the Parliamentary internet instead of twice.

MS GISELA STUART

1. The PDVN helpline is usually very good, but when the equipment was swapped over, the failure of PDVN staff to understand how our broadband connections worked was a source of major frustration [why did it take three months of frustration before I talked to Demon who told me that the boxes were no longer functioning and we needed new ones?]

2. Also it seems that the new printers use toner cartridges at a fairly speedy rate and unlike the previous arrangements we can no longer shop around for low prices.

JO SWINSON

The mobile computing devices are brilliant! The PCD helpdesk on 2001 are also excellent. The constituency VPN link is sometimes quite noticeably slow, however.

MR ANDREW TURNER (NOVEMBER 2006)

1. PICT is responsible for IT support for Members. Unfortunately the service that PICT has provided for us has rarely been of an acceptable standard, particularly in respect of services supplied to my constituency office. I have six workstations there (two laptop; four desktop—all PICT supplied) operating on a Local Area Network with two network printers, and in addition to standard issue software we use the CMITS case management system. This submission sets out the observations of my staff and me on the problems we have encountered with the service supplied.

2. There is a fundamental lack of communication within PICT. For example if a computer problem is referred by a helpdesk operative to an engineer there frequently appears to be no communication between the two. As a result any findings of the first technician are not relayed to the second. My staff and I often have to explain, again and again, what the problem is and even more frustratingly try to explain what the helpdesk have done to attempt to fix the problem. The process could be much more efficient and less time consuming with better communication.

3. On one occasion I was so frustrated by the poor quality of service and the number of outstanding problems that I instructed my staff to ask PICT to print out for me their record of all contacts we had had with them. When an engineer visited my constituency office he showed me the information on computer, which demonstrated not only that a print-out would have served no useful purpose, but also that it is well-nigh impossible to track an enquiry through PICT's customer management system and identify how a problem had been solved or what changes had been made to that customer's set-up.

4. Complaints made about PICT do not appear to be logged or recorded in any meaningful way, suggesting that the managers may hold a distorted and unrealistic perception of the quality of service and level of satisfaction experienced.

5. Solutions to problems which are suggested by PICT are often inappropriate. Often suggestions are irrelevant or do not solve the reported problem. For example, one engineer explained why our Outlook offline folders would not open by suggesting that they had not been set up properly, even though it was PICT who set them up originally.

6. Central IT provision is too prescriptive. It would be far more practical to give Members a list of more options from which to choose, instead of simply being handed generic equipment. For instance it may be appropriate to give the option of smaller, cheaper local printers rather than high capacity network printers. This would make PICT more adaptable to Member's needs. There is no option for fax provision or for high-throughput duplex scanning facilities.

7. Although some engineers are very good, the majority of helpdesk operators seem to be under-trained and inexperienced, and my perception is of rapid staff turnover. Furthermore there is not the "can do" attitude on the help desk that one might assume from a service with such a name—although I understand that the name has recently been changed to the "service desk"! Indeed, too frequently the most effective method of solving a problem is to take a top down approach, explaining the difficulty to the most senior member of staff available. This surely cannot be the most effective means of running an IT service?

8. There also seems to be no desire to collaborate with other suppliers to solve a problem collectively. For example PICT eventually decided that a problematic printer was faulty. On two separate occasions Dell engineers came to the constituency office to investigate the problem. The printer was then replaced, however the problem still continued. PICT and the Dell engineers seem to be working against each other instead of together to solve the problem. This attitude has also been painfully apparent with the supplier of my case management software CMITS, which I know is also used by a number of other Members of all parties. CMITS staff have had to spend considerable time solving PICT problems in the knowledge that they cannot otherwise make CMITS work properly. On one occasion almost an entire day set aside for training was wasted with the CMITS trainer sorting out problems that PICT should have taken responsibility for.

9. It should be possible for a refresh installation to be carried out over the weekend where requested by a Member. This approach would enable PICT to carry out the basic installation of computers when they are not being used, minimising disruption. The refresh installation in my constituency office took two days to complete and prevented any work from being completed during at this time.

10. PICT organized the delivery of refresh computer equipment to my constituency office. It was agreed that delivery was to be effected the day before installation, but the equipment was then delivered a week early. My constituency office was not large enough to accommodate these boxes and if it were not for the charity of a neighbour, who allowed us to use their storage space, we would have had to store the boxes in my office which would have posed a considerable health and safety risk and prevented effective access. There seems to be little understanding within PICT of the difficulties which can arise as the result of them not taking proper notice of such arrangements.

11. Most recently (2 November), BT Demon Internet amended the broadband access provided to my constituency office. No notice was given that this would happen; the connection went down; PICT blamed BT Demon Internet; PICT failed to call back when agreed or to keep records of calls made to them; and almost a day's working time was lost. The problem was eventually solved when by the boyfriend of an employee, unfamiliar with the PICT setup, suggested a course of action which worked.

12. I suggest that:

— PICT should provide an equivalent level of service to constituency as to Westminster offices;

— PICT should accept responsibility for local networks, casework management systems, etc, established in Members' constituency offices;

— Every contact between a Member's office should be logged and the record should be accessible (on a read-only basis) by both PICT and the Member;

— PICT should nominate a relationship manager for each Member who, while not undertaking all interactions with his office, ensures by regular review that records are properly kept after every call and promises implemented and who is the first, named port of call for escalation of any problem;

— PICT managers should be given regular and accurate management reports of the number of complaints by (as well as other contacts with) Members' offices, which should not shelter behind an unduly restrictive definition of a complaint; and

— PICT should offer an a la carte menu of hardware options.

13. Or better still,

— PICT should regard themselves as commissioners of services on behalf of Members, not suppliers; or

— Members should be able to opt out of PICT support and resources reallocated to enable the purchase of constituency support elsewhere.

STEVE WEBB

1. I am grateful to you for the work that you are doing on Parliamentary IT, and hope that you might be able to include one issue that I believe may be of general relevance. I apologise that your deadline for submissions was earlier this week.

2. Like many colleagues, I regularly work on trains etc. and like to be able to view my e-mails "offline". My understanding is that with the Parliamentary e-mail set up, I cannot do this—I can only see my Outlook e-mails when I am connected. Although there is technology to be "online" from a train etc., it is very unreliable and you keep being disconnected.

3. For this reason, I use my own e-mail setup instead of the Parliamentary one, as this allows me to use Outlook Express offline.

4. In my constituency office, I use the broadband setup to connect wirelessly to the internet and can send and retrieve e-mails straightforwardly. But at Westminster all the internet connections are via the cabled network which, because of security restrictions, I cannot use this to send/receive my POP3 e-mails.

5. If there was any way of having a standard broadband connection at Westminster—or if the proposed WiFI connection had lower security thresholds to allow sending and receiving of POP3 e-mails—that would make life a lot easier!

MISS ANN WIDDECOMBE (JULY 2006)

1. I am writing in response to the email I recently received regarding your committee's ICT inquiry.

2. As I am sure you are aware I am less than satisfied with the general service provided by PICT. I was never satisfied with PCD when they installed computers in my office several years ago and, while the latest installations have gone more smoothly, I was still left surprised by their inadequacies. I find it difficult to understand quite how the 158 staff in the PICT Service can fail to offer a more helpful, efficient and generally trustworthy service. If Parliament were a company it would not have the technological finesse to compete with the Third World.

3. Whenever a member of my staff or I telephone the PICT Service we can expect to wait 15 to 20 minutes before finally having the opportunity to speak to someone. I dread to think how many working hours are wasted each week by Members, Members' staff and House Staff being on hold.

4. One example which I think illustrates perfectly the ineptitude of the current service is the quality of the new equipment. As part of my package I opted for the all-doing multifunction Dell 1600N Printer which, I was led to believe, does not just print but can send faxes and photocopy as well. However, after only a few weeks the fax facility was continually breaking and my staff were forever on hold to a PICT engineer who would dutifully take a look and wiggle a few bits and bobs around until it worked again for another couple of days. This problem, the engineer said, was not uncommon on the 1600N model— yet the Parliamentary estate and constituency offices everywhere must be filled with these faulty machines!

5. At other times the printer refuses to believe there is paper inside it, and again this is apparently a common feature of this model. However, the defining point was to discover the Dell 1600N was not designed for paper of the quality that Members are provided with as original House stationery. This is unbelievable! Why had no one had the foresight to consider these issues, to examine how effective these printers were before placing an order?

6. Another area of concern is the distribution of email addresses. When a member of staff left my office I explicitly asked that when that member of staffs email address was closed it would not be reissued as the new email address would receive emails destined for my office. Several months later it had been reissued to the same person. Fortunately the former employee in question didn't leave under difficult circumstances but she quite easily could have, and then to have access to emails destined for me would be unacceptable. An email address, once activated, should belong to the Member and not the individual and only the Member should be in a position to release it or allow its reissue.

7. I look forward to reading the committee's report.

A MEMBER WHO HAS ASKED TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS

Constituency provision

1. The ICT service provided to constituency is inadequate. The response times are slow and services have been unstable—some days staff find the systems too unstable to be used productively.

2. Constituency staff also find that the remote support from PICT to be less helpful than I have found it on the Parliamentary estate.

Equipment and Service Needs

3. Laptop PCs should be able to be used in different parts of the palace—have we got wireless connectivity? There should be desks set up in the House of Commons for hot desking using laptops so that when members are away from their offices in the more remote buildings like Norman Shaw North they could use a laptop for some time while waiting for a vote. There are IT screens in the Library but this means that files on the laptop hard disk are not available and also phones can not be used in the library so this limits working.

Equipment Needs

4. There should be a wider range of equipment available—more types of printer and other IT equipment.

6 Copies have been deposited in the House of Commons Library. Back

7 Previously published with the Committee's First Report of Session 2005-06 on Post-Election Services, HC 777, Ev 6. Back