Many thanks for your comments about the Information Committee report.

It’s a strange feeling when you release a report summarising the information you have received in the last few months and your conclusions from it.

I have just welcomed into the world a new grandson. I watch him in my daughter’s arms yelling a good deal and beginning to grow, and I think he’s a bit like our Committee’s report.

Our ideas start small, but you hope that they will develop and really be of benefit to better understanding and more interest in what we do at Westminster.

The same with Tristan, the grandson. He is only seven pounds at present, but, of course, I hope he will grow into a useful and intereresting person who plays his full part in the world. He has a long way to go!

Matthew, I take your point about not unnecessarily duplicating TheyWorkForYou. That isn’t our intention. As Tim (a different Tim, not me) suggested, the responsibility is on Parliament to release parliamentary data in a form that others can use.

Senex, editorial decisions of what to show on BBC Parliament are made by BBC Parliament.

Alfred, I agree with your distinction about informing and engaging. And the Committee discussed your concern about representatives in Parliament taking decisions. After spending 23 years in the Commons, I certainly hold that to be important. Hopefully, what we’ve recommended in paragraphs 56 and 60 will add to that position and help those of us in Parliament to make more informed decisions.

Croft, I’m going to speak to my Chief Whip to try and secure a debate slot in the House for our report after the summer recess.

Tim Renton

I was interested to come across this comment quoted in the report:

“For a younger audience (<30) in particular a blog about a particular matter before the Lords or topical political issue is far more likely to get read about there than any speech in the house itself."

This is certainly true and made me think about the way we take it for granted that parliamentary debates and their equivalents across the world take the form of a number of people in one room taking it in turns to hear each other speak. In the past this was the only practical format. Today however, it seems to me that the advantages of holding debates online in a written format outweigh the disadvantages.

I suppose the question is to what extent the government is willing to act – not just give warm words – on those areas where only they can change the system? Is the report/recommendations as a whole likely to get debate time in the chamber?

I agree! However, copyright I understand belongs to the relevant Speaker and Parliament. Permission for embedding must come from the Speaker.

LoL, they fear that misuse of the content might bring Parliament into disrepute.

Maybe this is how it should be? I remember Lord Renton in committee interviewing somebody from the BBC. To paraphrase what he said: a person has only to sneeze in the Commons for it to be reported. A peer by contrast has to perform a handstand before it too will be reported.

Its the Commons that funds the BBC so I view this as a conflict of interest when it comes to fair coverage of the Lords.

Also, some very important debates take place in a packed Lords but live coverage from the BBC Parliament channel is often a handful of MP’s debating something that might be considered of lesser importance. It is truly bizarre to behold when it happens and I don’t accept the excuse of advertised programming constraints. Who is manning the editorial desk on these occasions, a Commons Minister?

I favour a private enterprise similar to the American C-Span cable network independent of Parliament. Perhaps then, we might get a dedicated HoL channel in its own right.

PS: Tim, if you are Lord Renton, then please consider that such informality is quite confusing. In the Commons they are talking about dropping terms like ‘my honourable friend’ etc to make it all a bit friendlier. When you cannot place somebody’s name how will the dears address each other with some degree of decorum? Heaven forbid this should happen in the HoL too.

This won’t prevent TWFY from doing their work, there is the big recommendation that data is all available and openly accessable – it just introduces some healthy competition. Even if they did decide to call it quits because the parliament website is too similar – that’s a big success in terms of what they’ve achieved up to now, and in getting it to happen in the first place.

There are two separate issues here – public engagement and the raw data. Raw data can drive public engagement.

This is not to mention that presumably the raw data will come out first, since that’s what the altered site will be building on, and the altered site will take a good time longer to make – extending TWFY’s lifetime.

A few points, if I may:

1.Parliament sites are there to inform. Isn’t it for individuals, ie MPs and Lords to engage? (Para 48)
2.How we got in the situation where ”the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL) cannot allow any of its licensees to offer embedding.” is strange. Surely publicly funded, public information should be publicly available. (Para 42) The PMQ YouTube site was providing a wonderful service, until it was forced to shut down. Whilst I was abroad, this service was invaluable.
3.We are not a pure democracy, thank God, so recommendations in para 58 should be looked at with great care. There is a balance to be struck between allowing our representatives to get on with the job, and the people providing continuous input. Who is to say that that input is representative?