Lord Brabazon of Tara
Main Page: Lord Brabazon of Tara (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)House of Lords: Use of Electronic Devices (AWC Report)
Lord Brabazon of Tara Excerpts
The Chairman of Committees
That the Report from the Select Committee on the use of electronic devices in the House (First Report, HL Paper 92) be agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
My Lords, this report has been put before the House because the Administration and Works Committee identified a need to clarify the rules regulating the use of electronic devices in the House. Those rules are not only outdated and incomplete; in places they are also inconsistent and contradictory. As a result, many Members are unclear about which devices can be used in and around the Chamber, for what purpose and at what time.
Following careful deliberation over two meetings, the committee has proposed new rules on the use of electronic devices in the Chamber and Grand Committee, as well as in other locations on the Principal Floor. On the whole, the report only restates and clarifies the existing rules or proposes new rules and restrictions where there are currently none.
There is, however, one area where we have recommended relaxing the current rules, in which I am sure that many noble Lords will be interested. The committee has recommended that, for a one-year trial, Members should be able to use electronic handheld devices to access parliamentary papers and other documents that are clearly and closely relevant to the business before the House or Grand Committee.
For example, Members would be able to use electronic versions of the Order Paper, Bills, Marshalled Lists, Hansard or government reports. Although that may seem a big step to some, it seems perfectly reasonable that, if Members prefer to access documents electronically rather than relying on a multitude of paper copies, they should be allowed to do so, provided that the material is generally available to all Members by other means. The report is clear that Members should not use electronic devices to search for material for use in debate to which other participants do not have access.
It may be helpful if I give an example of how I see the rules working in practice. For instance, if there were to be an Oral Statement on a newly published White Paper, it would be entirely appropriate for a noble Lord to use an electronic device to consult the online text of the White Paper. We do not, however, think that a noble Lord should use Google News to search for media comment on the White Paper and then relay that comment in an intervention on the Statement. I hope that the House will agree that this is a proportionate, common-sense approach to a difficult area.
The committee tried to be as general as possible in defining which electronic devices should be permitted, as it was conscious that any rules agreed now could soon be overtaken by new technology. The key considerations are practical. In paragraph 10,
“we recommend that Members should be able to use electronic devices, in silent mode, for any purpose not related to the proceedings before the House or Grand Committee, provided they do not distract other Members”.
The noise of someone typing on the keys of a laptop could be rather distracting to other Members, a problem that does not arise to the same extent with handheld devices. Furthermore, while handheld devices can be held quite easily and discreetly out of view, laptops are altogether more intrusive. It is for this reason that we have decided to recommend that only handheld devices should be permitted and not laptops.
I hope that the report is clear in its propositions. I encourage noble Lords to consult the box on page 6 for a clear and concise summary of our recommendations. While the rest of the report provides the background of the committee’s deliberations, it is only the points in this box that we propose should be adopted formally. If the report is agreed today, the Procedure Committee will be invited to amend the Companion when it is next updated and the Members’ Handbook will be revised accordingly.
This House is well respected for the quality and depth of its debates and the way in which it conducts its proceedings. The committee was therefore extremely conscious of the need to maintain an environment that is conducive to good and proper debate. However, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that we need to move with the times and that, where there is a demand and good reason to use modern technology, we should respond positively. I therefore hope that noble Lords will agree that this report strikes the right balance between embracing the use of electronic devices while maintaining the dignity and self-regulation of this House. I commend the report to the House.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I think that the whole House will be grateful to the Chairman of Committees for the way in which he has introduced this item and the work that has gone into it by the Administration and Works Committee. There are many elements in the report that I am sure the whole House will welcome, in particular the reiteration of the importance of devices being held in silent mode.
I wonder whether the report quite deals with its prime focus, which, as I understand it, was to reduce the degree of confusion that Members might have as to what is or is not permitted. Although the report refers to devices such as iPads, the words in the box do not. It simply says: “Hand-held electronic devices”. How big is the hand? Does that include holding an iPad or a Kindle? What is or is not a laptop? Is it something that opens and closes? Perhaps an iPad will be permitted under the words in the box. My understanding is that the latest version of the iPad can have a little add-on, which folds over the top of the iPad and switches it off. Is a handheld device something that opens and closes? Many small, handheld devices also open and close.
If it is not the fact of opening and closing that is the issue, it is presumably a question of size. Laptops come in a variety of sizes. The marketing phrase now is “netbooks”, some of which are extremely small. Is it that they should be no larger than a certain size? I am raising all these questions because, although this has been a helpful move to try to resolve these matters, it has not removed the scope for confusion.
Secondly, perhaps it would be helpful if further consideration could be given to the question of what people can do with these devices. Of course it is sensible that, rather than lugging around large volumes of paper, people should be able to access paperwork, parliamentary material and so on electronically, but I wonder whether it makes sense to forbid the use of search. Perhaps I should apologise to the House at the outset for the fact that I have on occasion used a handheld device in this Chamber and that I once—
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I welcome this report, which will take our technology into the 21st century. It is of course right for us to update our rules and for us to make proper use of new technology, but we should be under no illusion; it will change fundamentally the way in which we work in this Chamber. That is not to say that it is a bad thing, but it will change it. iPads and other new technologies are absorbing and addictive and will change the way we work. As long as we are aware of that, that is absolutely fine.
The report talks about the policing of various uses of pieces of technology in this self-regulating House. I believe that for the new technology of which the report speaks, it has to be all or nothing. It is simply not feasible and not possible to police the use in the way that is suggested in the report. Like my noble friend, I refer to the box on page 6, which states that the new technology,
“may be used to access Parliamentary papers and other documents … but not to search the Web for information for use in debate”.
That is simply not possible.
Many interesting and valuable points have been made in this debate. I suggest that the report should not be referred back, because it is a good report, but that it needs to be revised in the light of what has been said to make it more coherent and to bring clarity. At the moment, I do not think it brings the necessary clarity. I advise the noble Lord to have a look at the box on page 6 to ensure that it is properly clear because, while it is suggested that this should be for a trial period, this is the sort of issue on which, once one has advanced, there is no retreat. We have to be clear about what we are doing.
The Chairman of Committees
My Lords, we have had an interesting debate on this subject, as I suspected we would. Given the opposing views of those in favour of this advance and those who I might say are more old-fashioned and do not want to see anything change, it looks as though we got the report about right.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, asked me a large number of questions, one of which was whether I could define the difference between a laptop and an iPad. I use the expression “iPad” in the same way that one uses the expressions “hoover” or “fridge”. It does not necessarily mean the Apple product—there are other varieties. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, who is a member of the committee, put her finger on this when she said that it should be used silently. We do not want people clicking away on a keypad—at least that was the idea. That is the fundamental difference between what I see as an iPad, such as the one that is now on the Table, and a touchscreen device. Of course, technology might move on. It has moved on enormously. Only a few years ago we changed the rules of the House on the use of mobile telephones.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. If the object is to clarify the position, in light of what he has just said are we to understand that iPads will be all right but netbooks will not?
The Chairman of Committees
I am not sure that I completely know the definition of a netbook and how it is different.
The Chairman of Committees
Then the answer is that we would prefer devices that do not click and that therefore do not distract noble Lords while they are in the Chamber.
I have slightly lost my thread now. I was referring to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. He held up his hands to say that he had used his handheld to search the web for something that was relevant to the debate at that time. The committee did not consider that an appropriate use, for the reasons that we set out at some length in the report, but I remind noble Lords that we specifically say that this is for a one-year trial period in the first instance. We will, of course, take into account the observations that noble Lords have not only made today but will no doubt make during the course of the year. The matter will then be reviewed again by the Administration and Works Committee, and we will have another debate. When we produce a report, we will have to bring it to the House.
As several noble Lords said, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, the matter relies on your Lordships’ good sense and self-regulation. My noble friends Lord Higgins and Lord Cormack worried that people working away on their handheld devices would be a distraction and that it would not look good on television. At least it would prove that those noble Lords were awake and not asleep. It would look no worse than that. That is unfortunately a picture that one gets occasionally in the television coverage of your Lordships’ House. I can tell my noble friend Lord Cormack that nothing in the present rules would prevent him getting on to his bookmaker. If he has been doing that, good luck to him.
My noble friend Lord Lucas asked a number of questions. I am glad to say that he was generally in favour of these proposals. We have measures in hand to improve wi-fi access in the Chamber and we will take those forward. My noble friend asked about various things, for example statutes in force. As it says in the report, those would be closely and clearly relevant to the business of the House and would therefore be just the sort of thing that it would be permitted to look at.
Other noble Lords made various other observations. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for his support. He is, of course, also involved in this as chairman of the Information Committee. No doubt it, too, will come forward with proposals in due course. He is right to have said that this is a step towards cutting down on the use of paper and going in the direction of a paperless way forward. The noble Lord, Lord Broers, suggested that one should be able only to read from one of these devices, rather than to access new information, while one was in the Chamber. However, the report makes it clear that it will be possible to download White Papers and that kind of thing, and if one happens to want to do so while one is in the Chamber I can see no objection to that.
I hope that I have answered most of the questions raised. I am sure that your Lordships want to get on to the main business of the day—
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me, but I did suggest that he should look at various aspects of the report again. For example, the box on page 6 is untenable, as is clear from this debate. I urge him to ensure that the report is clear, because point 2 in the box is not possible; we will not be able to police matters in that way. I urge the committee to look at it again.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, before the Chairman of Committees answers that point, I want to make a similar point quickly. Paragraph 16, the conclusion, says:
“If the House agrees this report”—
I have no doubt that it will—
“the Procedure Committee will be invited to amend the Companion when it is next updated”.
Can I have an assurance from someone, please, that the Procedure Committee will take account of this somewhat divergent debate in that consideration?
The Chairman of Committees
I can give that assurance. On behalf of the Procedure Committee, I may well have to produce another report on these matters and have that debated on the Floor of the House again. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, the main cause of concern in today’s debate has been about paragraph 8 of the main report rather than the box at the back that summarises it. As we say there, this is a one-year trial period in the first instance. We will just have to see how that trial works out, and come back in one year’s time.