I’ve been watching BBC Parliament
I’ve been watching BBC Parliament coverage of a debate about Parliament’s relationship with the people and new technology such as blogs, twitter, and PR methods such as issuing pamphlets, inviting school children into visitors centres and education centres etc.The PR type stuff still has a feel of dreary pointlessness about it, but I suppose it may work on the brighter or more enthusiastic kids, but the tech stuff was in some cases just as dreary.
They are a pre-web generation embracing this new gadget because its a new gadget rather than because it will work or because its the best way forward. Eventually there were a few bits of good news, but in general I was discouraged about how much emphasis there was on well publicised gizmos of debatable value and not a lot of substance.
Then, a grey haired old Tory stood up and delivered this corker:
My noble friend has introduced a subject of extraordinary importance, much greater than we are giving it credit for today. My noble friend Lord Marlesford reminded us that Parliament was invented to control the Government. Before that, we had chaos and blood-letting. It actually cost a great deal of blood to build this institution that we now occupy so placidly. It is what stands between the British people and a reversion to some unsatisfactory, undemocratic and, quite possibly, violent existence. It is foolish to think that mere stasis will preserve it.
The line between government and Parliament has been so blurred since the reign of George I that many of the public do not understood the function of Parliament, because they see government functioning inside it. There are, I think, 140 Members of the Government and PPSs occupying Benches in the House of Commons. They are inside the machine invented to control them, into which none could have put a foot before the reign of George I, who did not speak English and had to have somebody here to do his work for him. We are looking at a precious thing. As the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who has not yet returned to his place, pointed out, the product is very good: it is liberty.
Now, if the British people do not understand that, and if Parliament becomes devalued, they will not stand to protect Parliament because they will not see it as protecting themselves. Therefore, we have a real duty to show the people how the power of Parliament has been eroded, is being eroded and will, if future Governments of all political colours have their way, continue to be eroded, because Parliaments are a thorn in the flesh of Governments. If the public are to understand that, they must understand what we are doing.
Absolutely nothing at all to do with the web or new technology at all – just an old fashioned desire to focus on what really matters and do it properly.
He continued talking, and demonstrated what I mean, with this proposal:
When I was a parliamentary candidate and started looking at these things, I well remember the furore of excitement if a Minister ill advisedly let a government policy out of the bag, deliberately or accidentally, outside the premises of his appropriate Chamber in Parliament. … [If] a Minister in the … House of Commons, were to make a policy statement outside it, as soon as that was known he was hauled back by the Speaker to face an emergency debate. He got a headline, but not the one that he wanted ….
What happens now, almost without comment and as a matter of routine, is that almost all government policies—or all but those of the hugest importance—are made outside the House, by the Government, to an audience invited by them… As a result, the only comments that the media hear come from Ministers… That means that not only are the voices of the enraged Opposition, of whatever party, not heard but the voices of the disenchanted Back-Benchers of the government party are also silenced. So what the public get is a picture that bears no relation to Parliament at all and nothing gets reported from these two Chambers.
…. Would it not be a simple matter for the House of Commons to take this matter back into its hands and to require the Government to release all news about their business that affects the electorate inside the Chamber? That is where the news would then be, as would the reporters, who would hear what Members of Parliament thought about it. That would be the news, and it would be broadcast on the traditional media, at least. That way, at no extra expense to anyone, Parliament would begin to come back to being the focal point of public interest, which is where it must be if this sovereign and free state of ours is to maintain its freedom in the years to come.
Simplicity is priceless, which is why another old Tory gets the prize for being the most forward thinking peer with this piece of good news:
We can do far more to utilise the internet. Bills are now published in XML format, so anyone can use the material to tag particular clauses and subsections. That takes us some way towards meeting the aims of bodies like mySociety. We should be able to build on this capacity so that Bills posted on the website are indexed in order to enable users to search text and sign up for more specific alerts.
Of course, if he’d said RDFa I’d have had kittens, but he scattered a few more precious stones around:
The Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House, … advocated the greater use of informal Keeling schedules, where a Bill amends an Act, enabling people to see how the original sections are amended by the Bill. The Modernisation Committee of the other place has also recommended exploring the possibility of publishing on the web the text of Bills as amended in Committee, with text that is added or deleted shown through the use of different colours.
I understand thought has also been given to interleaving Bills and Explanatory Notes, so that relevant material from the notes appears on the page facing the clauses referred to. That not only makes it easier to grasp the purpose of a clause, but may also encourage those who write the Explanatory Notes to ensure that a note on a clause does not simply repeat the provisions of the clause. I suspect it will be as helpful to parliamentarians as to members of the public…. These are examples of the sort of thing we should be pursuing.
Now there, emphasised, is an example of somebody understanding that presenting information differently can influence the people writing the information and really getting it in a detailed way and turning it into a simple practical proposal. Probably the Constitution and Modernisation Committees took days to trash those out, consulting all manner of experts, but that Lord Norton is citing them and giving them appropriate emphasis is very encouraging.
Less encouraging are the words of Lord Brabazon of Tara the Chairman of Committees who says:
In addition, Bills are already available in XML format—whatever that is—which allows individual clauses and subsections to be tagged, as mySociety wants.
The noble lord clearly does not recognise the power that you get as a computer programmer from using a standard syntax. Perhaps he doesn’t drive a car since its pretty obvious that standardising fuels, fuel caps, and pumps and other technical details in cars have enabled us to have a proliferation of petrol stations to our great benefit.
The reasons this is the case are much the same between the two fields and are not exactly complicated so it’s discouraging that Lord Brabazon regards it as an appropriate place to make self-deprecating jokes. Using XML to describe the activities of Parliament is a way to expand the community of people able to get involved with presenting the data in new and interesting ways. It will allow parties, think tanks, charities and search engine companies as well as an army of enthusiastic voters to help the public stay informed about Parliament.
In short, publishing XML is the cheapest possible way he can achieve the goals they agreed on during the debate. Not only bills but all Parliamentary data should be published in XML, and its should be reliable consistent good quality XML to enable the widest range of contributors to get involved in the widest range of Parliamentary activities.
