The webcasting of Parliament has continued on www.parliamentlive.tv and demand for the service is growing.
R17. An improved website should engage the widest range of citizens, using well-designed publicity and targeted advertising to help people understand that there is a virtual route through which they have easy access to their Parliament.
The Internet Redevelopment Project sets out what an improved website could achieve. The expressed aims of the web team are: to make information easily accessible to all users; promote Parliament; and investigate tools that will allow Parliament the opportunity to listen to those who wish to communicate with Members or the administration. By summer 2006, usability testing had been undertaken with a small sample of approximately 30 people, representative of different target groups. It has yet to be seen how a redesigned site will be publicised.
R18. Parliament should consider its role in consistently developing citizenship education resources and the different curriculum approaches across the UK. It should work closely with other organisations to support more training for teachers, and more and better materials for young people.
The GIP business plan explains Parliament’s corporate aim in relation to young people: ‘The parliamentary service should play a full part in ensuring that all schoolchildren have a good understanding of Parliament, young people reaching voting age understand the importance of democracy, and education about Parliament is embedded in the curriculum.’
The Parliamentary Education Unit (PEU) plans to have revised all its publications for young people by 2007, and young people visiting Parliament will now receive educational material on the role and work of Parliament. The PEU has also produced new educational packs, based on the citizenship strands of education. It also plans to enhance the content of the Explore Parliament site – the parliamentary website for young people. These changes have built on previous work produced by the PEU. More significantly, the PEU has begun to build links with LEAs and schools. Further information about this is set out below.
In addition, a New Voters’ Guide was launched by the House of Commons in July 2006. Guides are now sent to all young people when they reach the age of 18.
R19. Parliament’s facilities, including the Chambers, should be made available during recess for groups of young people.
The House of Lords has agreed to make its Chambers available for debating competitions for young people. The first debate is due to take place in 2007 and, if successful, this may be widened to include groups of young people on educational visits to Parliament. The House of Commons has not formally considered this, although it was proposed by Lord Adonis, Government Spokesperson for Education and Skills, during a House of Commons Modernisation Committee evidence session in March 2006.
On a broader point, the employment of visitor assistants has improved the experience of those visiting Parliament. Seventeen visitor assistants should now be in place, and the visitor reception centre should now be completed.
R20. Parliament should take young people, including pre-voting citizens, far more seriously by involving them in its processes and decision-making.
Parliament has not developed long-term proposals to involve young people in its processes and decision-making. However, the Parliamentary Visitor and Information Centre Development Project – set up to consider the viability of a parliamentary visitor centre – may establish a young people’s working group to sit alongside five other working groups feeding into the Programme Board. The key objective of this youth consultation project would be to involve young people in a meaningful way in the development of proposals for a visitor centre.
R21. In line with recent joint recommendations from the Accommodation and Works Committee and Administration Committee, the Parliamentary Education Unit should have a well resourced and dedicated teaching space with multi-media facilities.
Parliament has not allocated a designated teaching space for the PEU. The greatest likelihood of this happening is the creation of a visitor centre for Parliament. Plans for such a centre are, as indicated above, in their early stages, but it is anticipated that proposals will incorporate enhanced provision for young people.
In the meantime, the PEU has extended its autumn visits programme for 16-18 year-olds into a new year round visits programme. It plans to increase the number of young people taking part in such educational visits from
8,000 in 2005-06 to 18,000 in 2006-07.
R22. Parliament should employ more full-time and contracted staff who are fully trained and experienced in working with young people in a range of different settings.
Shortly after the Puttnam Commission reported its findings, Parliament employed two outreach officers with previous experience in the education sector. More recently, two additional education visit officers have been employed to assist young people on visits to Parliament, both of whom are trained teachers.
R23. A young persons’ consultative group should be established with the right to attend and advise at key administrative meetings of both Houses.
There has been no progress towards establishing a young persons’ consultative group with the right to attend and advise at key administrative meetings.
R24. More should be done to enhance the effectiveness of parliamentary outreach work.
The PEU employed two outreach officers, as set out above, who are now in the process of developing an outreach strategy. This strategy considers how the PEU can support people who work with children and young people.
A new year-round visits programme should be in place by March 2007, as should an outreach programme to schools and LEAs. A full programme for schools was due to begin this autumn, following pilot visits during the first half of the year. Outreach officers plan to undertake teacher training in regional areas and to concentrate their work in areas of political and social exclusion. Parliament is using focus groups of young people to input into the educational outreach strategy.
The House authorities have been considering outreach for the wider public, in the form of a network of regional centres. A business plan for the establishment of regional outreach centres is due in early 2007.
R25. There should be a thorough review of the language and terminology Parliament uses in accordance with our communication principles.
A thorough review of the language and terminology Parliament uses has not taken place. In the absence of this, there have been modest attempts to explain terminology to visitors, such as the House of Lords’ glossary for visitors to its public gallery.
More promisingly, the Coroners Reform Draft Bill, published in June 2006, had an easy-to-understand interpretation of every clause running alongside the text. Harriet Harman MP, Minister for Constitutional Affairs, predicted that soon every bill would carry a ‘plain English’ translation. A recent Modernisation Committee Report on the Legislative Process indicated its support for plain English summaries. The Committee recommended that a simple summary of the main points of each bill should be published on the front page of new legislation gateways, which should be made available to the public on the internet.
The Modernisation Committee Report on the Legislative Process also recommended that the name of Standing Committees be changed to ‘Public Bill Committees’ or ‘Delegated Legislation Committees’. The Committee stated that it saw ‘no reason for persisting with a nomenclature which is inaccurate, confusing and anachronistic’. It is hoped that this approach will encourage a wider review of parliamentary language and terminology.
R26. Parliament should hold more meetings outside London. Select committees, for example, should hold more formal proceedings and public events beyond Westminster.
There has not been an increase in the number of meetings or parliamentary proceedings held outside London.
R27. All parliamentary procedures should be comprehensively reassessed from the perspective of the communication principles we have advocated.
The Modernisation Committee reviewed some parliamentary procedures as part of its inquiry on the legislative process. The Committee reported that: "The House of Commons should revise its procedures so that it is easier for the general public, as well as lobby groups, representative organisations and other stakeholders, to influence Parliament’s consideration of Bills."[Modernisation Committee (2006), The Legislative Process: First Report of Session 2005–06, HC 1097, p. 3.] The Committee called for an effective democratic legislative process to be as open as possible. It regarded this as not only a fundamental point of democratic principle, but also a prudent strategy.
This Modernisation Committee Report is an indication of some degree of willingness to reassess procedures from the perspective of the communication principles advocated by the Commission, but the report is only a first step; much more needs to be done to meet this recommendation.
R28. Parliament should revisit and implement the recommendations on topical debates put forward both by the Hansard Society Commission on Parliamentary Scrutiny (the ‘Newton Commission’) and by the Liaison Committee.
Members of the House of Lords favoured the introduction of weekly one-hour opposition debates on a topical issue, and this is being actively reviewed by committees of the House. The House of Commons has not revisited earlier recommendations on topical debates and there continues to be a sense from broadcasters that topicality is missing from debates in the Commons. Jack Straw MP, Leader of the House of Commons and Chair of the Modernisation Committee, points out earlier in this report that changing the format of parliamentary questions to make them more topical may help make those sessions more attractive to the public.
R29. The authorities in Parliament as they appoint staff, and the political parties as they select candidates, should recognise the need for greater diversity if Parliament is to function well.
The House of Commons Strategic Plan sets out the importance of having a diverse workforce in Parliament. Political parties have been participating in renewed debates on the need for diversity amongst their candidates. In an attempt to increase the number of women and Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) MPs in their parliamentary party, the Conservative Party has introduced new selection procedures, including primaries, and has drawn up a list of priority candidates. The Labour Party continues to be committed to the use of All Women Shortlists (AWS) – and of those Labour MPs elected for the first time in 2005, the majority were women. The Liberal Democrats’ Campaign for Gender Balance is working to increase the number of women on its list of approved candidates and assist women through the local selection process. In addition to this, the Liberal Democrats recently announced a diversity fund to provide additional campaign resources to those constituencies that select women or BME candidates.