---

e-Government

: It was quality rather than quantity, of course. The debate has been entirely different today and I start by thanking you, Mr. Hancock, and all those hon. Members who attended or participated in the debate: my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey), for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks), for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Derek Wyatt), and for Luton, South (Margaret Moran); the right hon. Members for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot); and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). The remarkable thing about a relatively consensual debate is that it generates a substantial number of reasonable questions. I have no intention of taking 60 minutes to answer all the detailed questions and shall respond in the spirit in which they were asked. If any hon. Members do not think that I answered the questions that they asked, I am happy to chat with them after the debate, or if they would like more detail about specific questions, even to have a formal discussion at another time. The right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) said that he was here in the Chamber in two minds. I do not know which mind persuaded him to come, but I am glad that it did. He spoke about the success of the occupational therapy project in north-east Hampshire, which deserved its award. As the Member of Parliament for East Renfrewshire, I was not as pleased as him that it beat the competition from Renfrewshire. The right hon. Gentleman identified the challenge, which I have seen as I have travelled throughout the country. Innovation is often led by talented or driven individuals, rather than by the centre. That is as it should be. It should become normal practice, rather than exceptional or innovative. When it came to computers, we had an insight into the right hon. Gentleman's personal life; a certain addiction, which not every member of his party on the Front Bench wishes to discuss. I thank him for his honesty. The right hon. Gentleman asked some entirely reasonable questions to which I wish to respond. The National Infrastructure Security Co-ordination Centre has assessed that the threat of electronic attack is increasing in the UK. We do not believe that such attacks are imminent or that they critically threaten the infrastructure, but the determination to launch them is increasing. In respect of e-voting, the Government remain committed to innovative, multi-channel means of voting. However, in conjunction with the Electoral Commission, we are considering how security could be guaranteed through e-voting and other methods, so we are not seeking a pilot for e-voting in the 2006 local elections. That is the sensible way to progress until such time as we can ascertain specific means of security. Fraud, information protection and information assurance affect the public, private and voluntary sectors and everywhere else, and there is important work to be done on information assurance. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of it from his work on the Intelligence and Security Committee. I should like to draw Members' attention to an initiative called Get Safe Online, which has had some but not enough publicity. Its profile will become higher in the weeks ahead. The initiative is about improving people's confidence—that of users and of business—in transactions online. The right hon. Gentleman reasonably asked about protections on information. There must be careful protections on what information is held, how it is handled and who gets access to it. There is no question whatever of the information on any of the databases being shared with commercial organisations. Earlier, while preparing for the debate, I was intrigued to hear about a novel experience in one Scandinavian country, Norway. It puts online, freely and fully accessible, everyone's tax returns, so one could in passing investigate one's neighbour's, boss's or anyone else's tax returns. I should like to reassure the House that the Government are not persuaded to undertake that course of action. Whether it is the different culture or the different level of acceptance of the availability of information, it nevertheless shows a remarkable contrast in the tolerance that we rightly expect towards the availability of personal information. The right hon. Gentleman asked, quite reasonably, who pays. He asked the question and gave the answer in almost one breath. The IT strategy, which I can confirm today will be published later this year, identifies ways in which central and local government must work more closely together, breaking down a lot of false barriers that have built up over decades. They built up initially for, perhaps, good reasons, as such services and systems were created and designed in a world that never envisaged the level of IT innovation that exists today. A lot of efficiency gains that are being envisaged are not about organisations doing more, but doing things differently. I have seen good examples of local authorities where that is happening. I am sure that is happening in Hampshire, although I have not yet had the opportunity to witness that at first hand, but I have seen it in various parts of the country. Local authorities are rolling out responsibilities using IT, breaking down barriers, and ensuring that the customer—the council tax payer, the citizen—has one source of information and one point of contact, regardless of what their question about local authority services is. The hon. Member for Cheltenham made a thoughtful speech and I was intrigued by one comment that he made. He said, ““Forgive me for sounding like a Conservative.”” I thought that that was a natural tendency for a Liberal candidate in Cheltenham; how else would a Liberal get elected there? He spoke about changes in personal circumstances, and the way in which our lives are adapting. I have not yet bought a house online, but it has certainly become normal in my household to buy our weekly shop and the children's presents online and to look for bargains on eBay, if am I allowed to say that. Well, I have said it. My family is in Glasgow, 400 miles away, and the least high-tech way I communicate each day is to send suggestions about my children's homework, such as sums, by fax. That is the least IT-enabled way I help with my children's homework; it is usually online, and often includes exchanging e-mails and using other innovations. Only a decade ago parliamentarians would never have envisaged that. The hon. Gentleman talked about his experiences as head of a consultancy, having had clients as diverse as the Alzheimer's Society, the British Humanist Association and others. He talked, quite rightly, about his local IT successes, not least the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service. I think that I am right in saying that 65 per cent. of university applications in the UK were completed fully online. That is a remarkable turnaround in UCAS's management systems. The important thing is that it is customer-focused and allows potential students to access universities in a way that suits their needs. On other aspects of his comments, the hon. Member for Cheltenham allowed his proximity to GCHQ to go to his head. Of course, freedom of information is important; that is why the Labour Government introduced the Act. That is why we campaigned for the Act, and why we defend and promote it. Comments about change and fear of change have always been made, and I am reminded that, at a time when it was first envisaged that trains could travel at over 30 mph, people were cautious about whether the human body could cope with that, and whether more than 30 mph on a speed train would lead to human suffocation. I remember the pictures of the first cars in which a man—I assume it was a man rather than a woman because of the era—had to walk with a red flag in front of a motor car because of the supposed inherent dangers of the new technology and innovation. The ID cards to which the hon. Gentleman referred will necessitate far stronger data protection than all the other cards that are available at present, for which people in their millions voluntarily provide information; store cards, which I do not have, and credit cards and debit cards, which I do have. Some of that need for information was driven by his previous profession; marketing and direct marketing companies. I am sure that he has experience of his previous profession driving some of those trends. I wish to give him an absolute, cast-iron guarantee, as I did the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire, that none of the information will be shared with commercial organisations. Hon. Members will have another opportunity to comment when the Identity Cards Bill is debated in the Chamber next week.