Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180-197)
MR TOM
STEINBERG, MR
ROSS FERGUSON,
MR WILLIAM
HEATH AND
MS RUTH
KENNEDY
8 MARCH 2007
Q180 Kelvin Hopkins: I am not making
a personal comment but Ms Kennedy has worked at Number 10 and
I am particularly interested in her view of these things. Undoubtedly,
there are enormous benefits to be derived from the Internet, and
for some authoritarians it can be threatening. There might however
be populists on the political right who could wish to whip up
mass feeling in asking for example, "Shall we go to war?".
A Prime Minister might say that there is a very bad man in a particular
country who is doing terrible things and we have to go to war.
He might ask: "Do we go and get rid of this bad man and restore
democracy or give in to the wimpy liberals who do not like to
fight?". There might then be a majority vote in favour and
we would go to war. That is the kind of politics that we are in
danger of embracing.
Ms Kennedy: I find that abhorrent
but I do not think that that is necessarily anything to do with
the technology. We could have an interesting discussion about
cabinet government and so on, but I do not believe that the manner
in which, for example, the current Government has conducted itself
both in terms of its relationship with Parliament and to the population
out there has been driven by any sort of technological developments.
I agree with you that every new technology can be used for ill.
Q181 Kelvin Hopkins: Is not the point
that it is another medium of communication which must be regarded
with care and controlled? Hitler used film, for example the work
of Leni Riefenstahl, and loudspeakers at Nuremberg rallies. He
controlled the press and destroyed it, but he did it with mass
popular support.
Ms Kennedy: I think you are absolutely
right that it is a medium that needs to be addressed with care,
but interestingly it is schizophrenic. There is no doubt that
the Internet allows somebody to have new methods of getting his
or her voice heard but, as Mr Heath said, it also provides the
opportunity for anyone to challenge in a powerful way from underneath.
Both things are true.
Q182 Kelvin Hopkins: There are a
number of films, plays and books on this subject, for example
1984. We have had Big Brother on the television as a reference
back to Orwell. We have to be very careful. There are lots of
examples of how things start gradually, with what seems to be
a wonderful democratic process, usually with a charismatic leader,
and before we know where we are we have abolished democracy. Are
not these things dangerous?
Mr Heath: You are speaking more
closely to my deeper concern about how we are computerising government.
Obviously, we do have the Internet; we did go to war, and it has
not cured that. In what we are doing to change the architecture
and basis on which the state deals with people we must work harder
to ensure that it is built on an explicit foundation of trust
and, when it goes wrong, we can see that everything possible is
done to look after it. For example, when we are planning our data-sharing
policies, how we do ID management and operate surveillance we
need to be really clear that justice, honesty, transparency and
accountability are part of it. That is an architectural and deep
technical question. There does not seem to be a desire to discuss
it or implement it in a really safe way. I do not think that we
are heading towards something Orwellian; it is more Kafkaesque
and a world in which something bad will happen to you and where
it comes from will be untraceable. I think that people will find
that really disturbing.
Q183 Kelvin Hopkins: You referred
to democracy and—I cannot remember the phrase you used—essentially
that it was too complicated for simple folk and therefore you
had to simplify it. A little later you said that you really wanted
to simplify the role of an MP down to 25 words; it was too complicated
to explain it. You also said—you did not pursue it—"that
is what people are like." I should like to know what people
are like.
Mr Heath: To take the initial
point, I believe I was trying to say that democracy was a complicated
thing to understand and we were trying to get our heads round
how it works in practice because it keeps throwing up surprises.
Last night is just the latest example of that. As to the 25 words,
I think that was Mr Steinberg's point.
Mr Steinberg: I think that our
democracy is complicated and needs to be and the way we explain
it is really bad. That was all I was saying. Apparently, for many
years in the newsroom of The Times—I do not know
if it still applies—rather like the famous slogan "The
economy, stupid" in the Clinton campaign, there was a notice
on the wall saying "Remember they are 12", meaning the
average reading age of the readership. I do not believe that it
is patronising to speak in language that people can understand;
I think it is the opposite. I was about to use the word "elitist"
but I do not approve of that word. I think that it is inefficient
and unhelpful to describe things in obscure ways that are hard
to find and are locked in cabinets at the bottom of staircases
or inside cubicles with signs that say "Beware of the panther",
which is the sort of philosophy or explanation that we have at
the moment. If you can have a link on the home page of the government
websites which says "How do I change a law?" and you
are sent through a set of processes and told that you cannot do
it on your own; you have to join a bigger group of people and
then talk to the MP and need to get together, that is not patronising;
it is essential. That is my view on simplicity.
Q184 Mr Walker: Mr Heath and Ms Kennedy,
I think that unwittingly you are part of the conspiracy which
basically says that your elected representatives are useless so
you should go over the top of their heads and go directly to government.
The proof of the pudding is in the fact that turnout in general
elections has dropped very rapidly over the past 10 years from
about 80% to just below 60%. I believe that you must have a long
think about the ramifications and implications of what you argue
for. Unwittingly I think that you are diminishing our parliamentary
democracy and the role of elected Members of Parliament within
it.
Ms Kennedy: Do you suggest that
because there is a move to consult people about stuff and those
consultations are run by the local authority or a government department
it means that people believe that they have had their say and
they do not need to turn out and vote?
Q185 Mr Walker: I think that there
is a mood among the intelligentsia, the media and the new media,
which would be classed as yourselves, to denigrate the parliamentary
democracy that we have had for the past 350 years basically by
saying that Members of Parliament are totally useless and are
paper-sifters. Therefore, we must have direct democracy and take
the people straight to the Prime Minister. Our role as Members
of Parliament is to take our constituents' concerns to the executive
and that is why one has MPs. I am sorry if this sounds like an
attack, but what you are doing is to reinforce the view in people's
minds that we now have a quasi-presidential system and the executive
operates completely separate from Parliament; MPs are redundant
to the whole process and people should be taken directly to the
executive.
Ms Kennedy: I am sorry if anything
I have said suggests that that is what I believe because it is
absolutely the opposite. I would love to see a massive increase
in the quality of engagement between MPs and their constituents.
They know their local areas and the local people; they are engaged
with real people and real lives in a way that civil servants sitting
in departments are not. There needs to be more of that. The sorts
of things that Mr Steinberg and his folk do, which I hope are
understood to be an effort to provide tools to help people to
engage at local level, are really important. I speak as a former
official working in complicated social policy areas. I believe
there is enormous value in people developing policies understanding
what those policies mean to people and how they would be interpreted
and would work on the ground. I am talking of people as individuals
but also civil society, NGOs and those who are important in local
communities. The two should be happening; they are different but
both are critically important. But in terms of the sustainability
and health of our democracy it is a matter for you, and that is
absolutely where it must sit.
Mr Heath: I hope it is absolutely
clear that I respect MPs as much as anybody else.
Q186 Mr Walker: You do not have to
respect us, and I do not care what you think of us.
Mr Heath: I have taken a morning
off work to join your deliberations because I think that the work
of Select Committees is really important. We enjoy and take a
great interest in the output of such committees. It is simply
a matter of historical fact that the Internet has been invented
and computers are becoming massively more powerful. This is a
new medium which is changing things. Our job is to try to research
and understand this change as it affects public services in the
UK. This may come up with certain challenging insights. I suspect
that greater clarity in these processes may support the notion
that we can all do our jobs better. If that is a difficult message
that is regrettable, but we ought to try to understand it to the
best of our ability and have a good dialogue about it.
Q187 Mr Walker: Perhaps the two of
you should spend time with some Members of Parliament so you understand
what it is we do. Surely, that would help you in improving the
service that you offer to your users.
Mr Heath: That is a kind invitation,
if that is what it is.
Q188 Mr Walker: It is not an invitation
but a suggestion.
Mr Heath: That is not part of
my core job but I am sure that it is something I would find very
interesting.
Q189 Mr Burrowes: I certainly support
the moves in terms of e.Democracy and the fact that it is bottom
up. Is not the problem we have identified that the communication
top down has the potential to discredit the value of electronic
communication? The problem is that one has the David Miliband
blogs and other blogs that essentially are self-serving. The value
of MySociety is that it has been driven by volunteers and that
essence of it starts to become lost and, in a low-level way, essentially
becomes corrupted top down, whether it is the Government or individual
politicians using it for their own purposes. We are unfortunately
self-serving essentially.
Mr Heath: I do not think that
e.Democracy is a helpful term because we have democracy and we
add a communications to it. We still have democracy but just another
tool. In this very transparent world things like censorship or
spin become more painfully evident. For example, if there is a
webchat and only half the questions are answered it is pretty
obvious; or if one receives a formulaic email response that simply
does not answer the question it is pretty obvious. That may indeed
give rise initially to more dissatisfaction.
Mr Ferguson: If one looks at the
deliberative end of politics online, where it involves elected
representatives, even in the case of David Miliband's blog, people
may not always be satisfied necessarily with what they get; they
may find it bland and perhaps a bit boring but they learn a lot
from it. The point was made that potentially we are giving government
more access to our lives; they capture more data. There is a bit
of a paradox here because we are also able to use the same technology
to spread information and make elected representatives more accountable
and the process more transparent. A common thread running through
all this is that at either side of the bridge there are elected
representatives and citizens and both need to come together and
the technology can be used to do that. But we are at an early
stage and it needs to be treated with care. The process needs
to be evaluated and we should not let the technology run away
with us.
Mr Steinberg: One thing to be
optimistic about here is that if one tries to use the net basically
to communicate in a dumb broadcast way it is really bad; it is
rubbish. I have often told people that I do not believe the Internet
is terrifically useful at elections. I think that the real power
of the Internet in politics and democracy lies in the millions
of decisions that happen between each of those five years. At
election time buying advertisements on bus shelters is probably
still better value for money. One optimistic note is that those
are the places where the discussion is more frank and people can
do what they want and are not controlled—they can file their
own petitions, even though the Government will not like them—to
which people flock and they grow. That is great and means that
the natural tendency is to produce non-broadcast politics but
more interesting and constructive, some anarchic, discussions.
Q190 Mr Burrowes: The value of it
lies in the fact that it is generated by people; they generate
it among themselves and their peers. To pick up some of the scepticism,
is not the problem that, whilst things like 18 Doughty Street
have their place, if it is said that in terms policymaking the
Internet is the only game in town that is going to an extreme
level.
Mr Heath: I agree
Q191 Mr Burrowes: Looking at the
limitations, what are the characteristics of the person who is
using electronic communication? I appreciate that it is extending
but there are limits in terms of the number of people who become
involved and other hard-to-reach groups, but what are the particular
characteristics of the people who respond to the David Miliband
blogs who are bloggers and are involved in this system of communication
with Members of Parliament? Have you seen a particular characteristic
developing? We see people coming into our surgeries carrying carrier
bags. We do not see that on the Internet. I am not sure whether
there is an equivalent in cyberspace of inboxes full of emails
or anything like that. Is the characteristic one where the individual
likes the barrier of electronic communication which perhaps creates
some limitations?
Mr Steinberg: Are you asking what
sorts of people we think are using this medium?
Q192 Mr Burrowes: Yes. Does it develop
a particular type of person who will be in the forefront of the
communication?
Mr Steinberg: I think that if
there were not intermediaries like us trying to build things specifically
for less engaged people it would tend towards the already more
engaged, knowledgeable people who know who their own MPs are.
To introduce an optimistic note, I started off by talking of the
1% of people Demos think can be engaged and the 3% who had signed
up to the petition. A company analysed this and looked at just
that enormous petition related to congestion-charging to find
out what sort of people had signed up. I do not know how good
their methodology was, but they said that the biggest group were
aged over 55. Leaving aside whether or not one agrees with those
petitioners and what they said, that is a change from the norm.
That fights the idea that it is only elites who respond. Just
under half the people who send messages to Write To Them tell
us that they have never written to a politician before. One can
just about go out and build things that target mainly that audience.
In the case of Parliament if you do not start really hard you
will always get written to by the elites and the well organised
people. If one tries really hard one can sometimes get people
to talk who might not otherwise have written in, but it is not
easy. One has to work quite hard and use all the other offline
channels for those who hate computers. I hate computers and so
I understand that. The point is that it is not just for geeks.
Ms Kennedy: It is not just about
computers and the Internet; it is also about mobile technology.
There was a very interesting social exclusion report about a year
ago which talked about the extent to which homeless people have
mobile phones and use them to get services. I believe that it
is quite diverse.
Mr Ferguson: It is much more diverse
than one might appreciate. There are online communities for just
about every sort of marginal group you can think of. Some are
bigger than others. A lot of them discuss politics online and
the work that you do in Parliament. I recently came across an
interesting site called MuslimYouth.net where there are some vibrant
and very diverse discussions taking place about a whole host of
political issues that are not necessarily immediately associated
with young Muslims. Go there and engage with them. Sometimes there
is perhaps a reason for government to create its own sites to
consult, but there is also work to be done in going out and using
existing online communities. It may be a better use of time to
go out and reach unusual suspects. I refer you again to Digital
Dialogues where we have been able to capture a bit of demographic
information, but those are small case studies and the subject
definitely needs more evaluation.
Q193 Mr Prentice: Mr Steinberg, are
there MPs out there who do not have websites?
Mr Steinberg: There must be a
handful. I am more familiar with those who do not have emails.
There are about two or three who do not accept emails. When I
have phoned up and asked about it I am told that if I want to
contact them on the Internet I have to go to WriteToThem.com.
We have reached the 99th percentile.
Q194 Mr Prentice: We read recently
that the Government had closed down 500 sites. What was the problem?
Was the proliferation of websites confusing people?
Mr Ferguson: A lot of the information
was outdated. Each of those sites has a hosting cost, so it was
to bring down the overheads.
Mr Heath: I think that there is
more to that decision than meets the eye. There is no point in
spending public money on a poorly designed website, but sometimes
there is a very good purpose in having a separate one that may
have very low traffic but is the right way to communicate with
a specialised community. I think that it is worth looking behind
that decision to see whether it is based on fitness for purpose.
Q195 Mr Prentice: Is there a publicly
available document that explains why the Government decided to
close down those 500 sites?
Mr Heath: I think that the Varney
review would be the closest to that.
Q196 Mr Prentice: I have been told
that there is such a document. Someone mentioned—perhaps
it was Mr Heath—that Directgov cost £50 million.
Mr Heath: That is an estimate
of the accumulated expenditures since the first government website
was launched which, from memory, was in about 1995.
Q197 Mr Prentice: Are we getting
value for money from Directgov?
Mr Heath: I have doubts about
that because I do not believe that a government portal should
be about editorialising; it should simply be about efficient access,
so it is a different approach. I do not think that it is good
value, but maybe a case can be made that it is.
Chairman: That is perhaps for another
day. We have had a longer session than I thought we would have
and that is a tribute to all of the witnesses and the intrinsic
interest of the subject. I am sorry it seemed to be suggested
at various times that you were responsible for the decline of
parliamentary democracy, which is not the official position of
the Committee. We are very interested in what you are doing and
trying to make sense of it. Ms Kennedy's comment about "both
and" is crucial as is Mr Steinberg's point about making the
process richer all the time but not thinking that one can substitute
for the other. We are all thinking our way through how we can
make this work better for us. Thank you very much for coming along
and your time this morning.
| 
