APPENDIX 1: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE
HOUSE OF LORDS INFORMATION COMMITTEE REPORT: 'ARE THE LORDS LISTENING?
CREATING CONNECTIONS BETWEEN PEOPLE AND PARLIAMENT'
The Government welcomes this report: its focus on
openness, transparency and communication are key themes in constitutional
reform and democratic renewal.
As the Leader of the House of Lords told the House
in the Constitutional Renewal statement on 10 June 2009, the Government
believes that it should do more to spread the culture and practice
of freedom of information and that government information should
be accessible and useful for the widest possible group of people.
The appointment of Sir Tim Berners-Lee as the Government's special
advisor on opening up data highlights the Government's commitment
to such values. Across Government departments work is underway
focusing on developing innovative ways to improve information
and communication flows to better meet the public's needs. The
Cabinet Office's Digital Engagement team is encouraging use of
new technologies to improve Government's engagement with citizens
and The National Archives are applying both modernisation of licensing
and new technology to make information more transparent and re-usable.
In the debate on 16 June the Leader of the House
of Lords gave an undertaking on behalf of the Government to work
with the House to share best practice and to ensure that where
information passes from the Government to the House, and vice
versa, it does so smoothly and in ways that support the objectives
of the House to provide open information.
(1) We recommend that the Government should work
with Parliament to implement common information standards so as
to improve the flow of information between Government and Parliament
and to enhance the public's ability to re-use that information.
The Government shares the view that common information
standards and the use of digital data flows are fundamental to
achieving not only public re-use of data, but also efficiency
and effectiveness in the administration of Government and of Parliament.
We will continue to work with Parliament towards implementing
common information standards.
Initial discussions have already taken place between
the Officers of the House and the relevant officials in the Cabinet
Office and The National Archives. Discussions are continuing with
the objective of agreeing an approach to each of the major data
flows. Apart from the specific issue about Bills in Recommendations
2 and 3, the Government suggests that the first data flow to be
addressed should be Written Questions.
The Government supports the principle of information
re-use and sees close parallels with the remit of the newly established
Digital Engagement team. A key theme of Digital Engagement is
open information which focuses on publishing public information
on public services in a reusable format. Sir Tim Berners-Lee and
Professor Nigel Shadbolt are advising the Government on the implementation
of re-usable data, and the Government will share the standards
and approaches developed in this work with the House to assist
its own work.
(2) We recommend that the Government produce its
bills in an electronic format which both complies with "open
standards" and is readily reusable.
The Government shares the view of the Committee that
there would be advantage in streamlining the production and dissemination
process of legislation. Also, electronic formats which use open
standards and enable re-use should be used. The National Archives
has developed an Extensible Markup Language (XML) Schema for Legislation.
However the production and processing of Bills involves a complex
series of data flows between Government and Parliament, which
need to be of high quality and meet extreme time pressures. With
current technology, achieving a fully Schema compliant version
of an Act of Parliament, is a process-intensive operation.
Following a seminar which brought together Parliamentary
Counsel, the Bill Offices, Parliamentary Information Communication
and Technology (PICT) and The National Archives it was agreed
that a group comprising of these different offices should be convened
to take the work forward. This group would develop the standards,
the revised processes, the requirement for updated technology
and the implementation plan, as well as the case for the additional
investment required.
(3) We recommend that, for each Government Bill
that significantly amends an earlier Act, the Government produce
as a matter of course an accompanying informal document to show
the original legislation and how the Bill would change it.
The Government agrees in principle that it is important
to be able to explain the effect of Bills on existing legislation,
and notes that an explanation of the intended effect of an amendment
should be given in the Explanatory Memorandum.
The Government also notes that, in due course, the
use of open data standards both in the processing of Bills in
Parliament and for the publication by The National Archives of
Acts of Parliament should lead to the ability to develop a largely
automated process to show directly the effects of Bills on existing
legislation. This would not go as far as incorporating the amendments
into the text of the affected legislation. However it would bring
together, in one place, the effects contained in the Bill and
the text of the legislation they will change. The same use of
Extensible Markup Language (XML) would also potentially lead to
reductions in time and cost of making amendments to the UK Statute
Law Database once Royal Assent has been given. However, as noted
in recommendation 2, the present technology in place does not
enable this to be done in a cost effective manner.
Of course the Government would wish to explore with
Parliament a number of practical considerations about implementation
of the recommendation, including:
(1) Timing. Producing the document for Introduction
would add a further task at a time when the work of Bill Offices,
Parliamentary Counsel and Departmental Bill Teams is already at
a peak. Furthermore it is likely to be most useful at Committee
stage when the detail of the Bill is being examined.
(2) Status. The Committee helpfully suggests
that this should be an informal document, but the Government would
wish nevertheless to do the work to ensure that it was as accurate
as possible.
(3) Revision. Consideration would need to be
given to whether, and at what stages, the document would need
to be revised if the Bill itself is amended during its passage.
(4) Amendments covered. The Committee suggested
that the document should focus on "significant" amendments.
Consideration would need to be given to which amendments should
be covered—in some cases a single amendment to an existing
Act could be regarded as significant. A question would also arise
about what unamended provisions providing context should also
be produced with the amended text.
(5) Mode of publication. Initial investigations
have shown that it could be possible to show the effect of amendments
on a website using data from the Statute Law Database and colour;
this could be difficult and expensive with a printed publication.
(6) Resources. Undertaking such work has significant
resource implications for Parliamentary Counsel and for Departmental
Bill Teams, as well as Parliament itself.
To allow these issues to be addressed in a practical
way, the Government would like to explore with Parliament the
possibility of a web-based "proof of concept". This
could be run in parallel with a suitable Bill, but essentially
decoupled from the formal processes. The National Archives and
Parliament would work together, combining technology and expertise
and seeking help from the Bill team and Parliamentary Counsel,
to link a Bill's amendments to the latest available version of
the text of Acts from the Statute Law Database. Amendments will
not be incorporated into the text of affected legislation but
will be brought together, in one place, to show the effects contained
in the Bill and the text of the legislation they will change.
The work would explore the technical and practical issues, and
establish the feasibility and costs of a more systemic implementation.
It would also be valuable to generate "user feedback"
from Members and others to ensure that the information provided
was useful to them.
| 
