| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Gillan: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the infuriating problems about the internet is unsolicited e-mail, known in the business as "spam", and that the Government probably need to address the problems faced by internet users in that area? In the same way, we receive aggravating, unsolicited faxes through our machines.
Gordon Graham also warned that, in an education environment, those using the internet would have to be very discriminating; that was my point exactly. I accept that unsuitable material could be blocked in certain circumstances. None the less, children must not be led to think that messages flickering on a PC screen always represent educational gospel.
How do we monitor internet use, especially in the privacy of a child's bedroom? The internet may help to inform, but it may not always teach. It is no substitute for the subtlety of the pupil-teacher relationship.
When those questioned tell us that they do not know the exact extent of the advances that internet technology will make in the coming year, let alone in the next five years, there is a possibility that society's acceptance of the technology will not keep pace with developments.
If that is so, regulation--if it is possible to regulate the area at all--may also fail to keep pace. As our children so often know more than we do about the applications of the technology, it is possible that those legislating in this place will know less about the technology and its impact than those whom both the technology and the legislation affect. That would be an extraordinary position, which I have never heard of before.
Some say that the net should be linked free to homes not connected to the telephone system. I heard that suggestion in the Select Committee, when a question was put to a witness about allowing access to the net so as to overcome the problem of the contrast between information-rich and information-poor families.
However, is it right to encourage people with limited resources to be influenced and seduced by goods and services that they can ill afford, promoted in an endless stream? Such people should be encouraged to see the internet as a source of information, to enhance their quality of life, rather than being overwhelmed by everything that it can offer.
Can the Government offer any guarantee that material received through the net will not be subversive, immoral or unethical? I suspect that they cannot.
Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe):
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that nearly everything he says apples to the print medium too, and has done for many years? Would he expect the Government to give a guarantee that no schoolchild could obtain subversive or pornographic material from a newsagent?
Mr. Fraser:
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the difference is that the internet is international, and it would be far harder to sue a service provider thousands of miles away than to get hold of a newspaper editor. Also, as the debate is about the internet, I should like to confine my comments to that subject.
I should be happy for the internet to be available in every home and school in the country, but there is evidence that it is difficult to regulate and police effectively and efficiently throughout the world, with so many diverse ethical, moral, commercial and social standards to contend with.
The Government must consider regulation carefully. I welcome the establishment of the Internet Watch Foundation, and also the report that 2,000 items have been removed from the domestic web as a result of complaints. I support the foundation's work towards setting up an international rating system for legal material that would allow users to deny access to their children as well as to themselves.
However, that will not guarantee that certain information on the internet will not be seen by anybody, because the system has its own leaks. I do not want to be a merchant of doom, but we must address the serious issues of what the internet is, how it operates and how we should legislate to ensure that its standards are acceptable, given the few quantitative and qualitative checks currently in place.
Mr. Ian Stewart (Eccles):
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this important debate. It is clear that the internet and informing and communicating technology have revolutionised business and transformed the relationship with customers, but in the public sector their effects have been less dramatic.
We still have to see whether the full benefits of the internet and informing and communicating technology--ICT--can be realised in the delivery of public services. That was the subject of the recent POST--Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology--report, which I welcome as it outlines some of the key issues that we face in dealing with the internet and ICT in general.
I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the Minister, because I shall have to leave before the end of the debate to be involved in parliamentary business elsewhere.
I shall draw attention to another paragraph from the POST report "ICT and Democracy", because it clearly describes my own concerns and attitudes towards the internet and informing and communicating technology in that context. If those technologies are to do anything worth while, they must relate to people. That is fundamental to our role as public servants.
The paragraph says:
The report identified three key points. The first was
Now I shall come closer to home, to my city of Salford, and talk about some of the implications for my constituents in Eccles. Some interesting initiatives are taking place, one of which is the GEMISIS--government, education, medical, industrial and social information super-highway--project, run by a partnership between Salford city council, the university of Salford, the further
education sector, sixth forms and other schools, and the local hospital. Through an initiative called the "virtual chamber", members of the chamber of commerce in Manchester and Salford are linked to the GEMISIS project.
I am the pilot Member of Parliament, linked to the whole network. It is important for me, as a public representative carrying out such a pilot scheme, to evaluate the benefits--and also any aspects which may not be beneficial. Like most of my colleagues in the House, I am keen to enhance public access to Government. However, we must also ensure that we do not create an uncontrollable monster.
Mr. Ian Taylor:
I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the company that was involved in that project. If my memory serves me well, it was Nynex, which is now part of Cable and Wireless. I draw attention to the project because it is an example--it is not the only one in the United Kingdom--showing that one of the benefits of growth in the cable industry has been local cable franchises working with the community.
Mr. Stewart:
The hon. Gentleman has stolen my thunder. He is correct, of course, that Nynex, which is now part of Cable and Wireless, is the key provider in the project. I shall deal with its role later in my speech.
As I am the pilot Member in the project, Cable and Wireless is cabling my constituency office--putting me on line, cabled for video conferencing and e-mail, which I can use both in my constituency office and in my Westminster office. I shall therefore have access to all the partners that I have mentioned; and those partners--especially schoolchildren and other students--will have access to me as their Member of Parliament.
The implications of internet developments for democracy--specifically for local democracy--are immense. They will also force us to revisit our views on our function in society as representatives and to evaluate whether the benefits of such developments outweigh their disadvantages. I do not include in those disadvantages hon. Members' ability to relate and communicate directly and immediately with constituents and organisations; I believe that such direct communication is a benefit. However, hon. Members sometimes need respite, and should therefore ensure that there is integrity in any system we establish.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry will be mindful of what I said in my maiden speech about the millennium bug. I welcomed the Government's initiative in establishing Action 2000, which stood in stark contrast to the previous Government's inaction on the problem. Although they had long known about the problem, they took no initiative in solving it.
"In terms of their contribution to the processes and institutions of 'democracy', ICT could 'merely' improve the communication of facts and policies within the Government and with citizens, businesses and other governments. A more fundamental change would be to use ICT to facilitate greater participation and deliberation through formal consultation and informal debate using electronic means. Even more radical, 'reinventing democracy' postulates that the combination of globalisation and local autonomy enabled by ICT will change the entire raison d'etre of national government. In practice most experiments in using ICT in the democratic process have started at the community level, and could well comprise the type of community initiative supported by Lottery funds."
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) referred to the possibility of using lottery funds.
" 'teledemocracy' which could enable people to participate in debates and decision-making from their homes or community centres (e.g. 'citizens' juries')".
The second was the prospect of
" 'fully wired' MPs with public e-mail, homepages, electronic voting and electronic links into information and administrative systems".
The third was
"much improved electronic links between different tiers of Government to provide citizens with a coherent view of their Government and Parliament."
The report also identified some of the key issues facing us as Members of the House in connection with the relationship between us as public servants, and the community.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |