|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Lord Sharman carried out an important public audit review and I hope that the Government will meet its recommendations. The project would indeed make a good test case.
I want to return to the amount of investment. If the investment needed to put the website back online with a guarantee of good service was very large, QinetiQ may have been willing to make that investment, but no one may have been able to force it do so under the contract. That is a real concern, which takes me back to the inherent problem that lies behind this tragic episodeguessing the public demand for that new public service. As the apology on the PRO's website makes clear, the website was designed for 1.2 million visitors a day. On the launch, however, it received 1.2 million visitors an hour.
So we need to know how the projected demand figures were arrived at, what extra capacity will be built in for relaunch and what are the site's estimated settled or long-run capacity needs. Those were, and are, genuinely difficult questions, mostly because there has been no comparable site before. I am told that the PRO and QinetiQ looked at other sites, such as the American site on the passenger lists of ships arriving from Europethe Ellis island siteand at the Mormon genealogical sites and that they used the figures from those sites, and added some, but that still was not enough.
Should they have built more capacity? We are also told that many genealogists were worried that site capacity was not sufficient and that they told the PRO that in October 2001. Yet the PRO is locked into a Government-required PFI contract, so it has little room for manoeuvre. If QinetiQ is not prepared to pay for the extra investment, it will not happen; it did not before the launch, and, worryingly, the extra investment may well not be there for the relaunch. Is the Minister aware that no new extra capacity is planned for the relaunch? Does she think that wise?
We have read about the increased bandwidth, the firewalls, the divert sites. I have heard that cookies might be developed to knock people off the site if they stay on for too long, blocking others. But what about extra capacity? The aim seems to be to make the site more robust for the 1.2 million estimated visitors to ensure that they have a good experience when they finally get on, but that may well mean long waits and long queues because there is no intention to increase the capacity.
Does not the Minister realise that the site's capacity will not increase unless and until she and the Department intervene to make that happen? The PRO simply does not have that power over its contractor. I urge the Minister to think long and hard about that. The House will hold her and her colleagues to account if the relaunch does not work. People want to know when the site will be up and working. Can she give the House and the millions of people interested in the site in the United Kingdom and around the world the categoric assurance that the site will work when it is eventually relaunched? When does she expect it to be relaunched?
In the short time that remains to me, I want to explain to the Minister why I think the project and its success deserve her attention, and, with due respect to her, the attention of Ministers at the very highest levels. The project deserves significant political attention because the site was so popular. When so many millions of people overwhelmingly show that they want information on their own kith and kin that the Government hold, surely the Government should sit up and take notice.
More people visited the site than watched "Big Brother", than voted on "Pop Idol" or than voted in the last election. The focus groups may not have told those at No. 10 that, but the Minister should do so. Here is a chance to put family values back into the internet, rather than the smut and pornography that has dominated it. Pornography may speak to a human desire, but the desire to contact our familyto reach out to our past and our own genesis also a powerful human desire, and the Government can back that desire by backing the 1901 census website. Just as the website "Friends Reunited" has been so successful, appealing to the human desire to find long-lost friends, so the census appeals to another positive human instinct.
Let me put this huge opportunity another way. Rupert Murdoch realised that he needed sport to sell satellite television. He paid huge sums to win exclusive rights to screen test cricket and football, and it worked. With the public sector's monopoly over the census data, the Government could use the census website to build e-government. Let us compare the experience with that site to the hundreds of other Government websites. Yes, people find those websites useful, in their tens, in their hundreds and in their thousands, but which Government website has had millions of visitors in an hour? If we harness that public excitement and the curiosity that people have about their own families, we might transform the prospects and popularity of e-government. People who would otherwise never think of surfing the net might just try it out.
For example, I have tried several times to explain the internet to my grandmother, but she smiles at me and says, "Yes, dear. But it's so boring." However, when I talk to her about her parents, grandparents and our shared family history, she comes alive. I am not suggesting that I will ever get her surfing the net, but the 1901 census would certainly make it interesting for her. Therefore, for relatively tiny amounts of cashespecially in the context of the hundreds of other e-projects around Whitehallthe Government might just attract the interest of millions more to the web and eventually even to other e-government sites.
The 1901 census site has the proven potential to move online government on to a new, higher leveland cheaplybut only if the Government move fast and back the Public Record Office before the site's relaunch.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on securing this debate on the 1901 census website. The site has certainly generated considerable interest over the past few weeks and I now realise the personal interest that he takes in the subject, about which he spoke passionately.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to praise the staff of the Public Record Office. They certainly deserve our praise, and I too would like to praise them for putting together this project and for doing so in the way that they did. The project is a cornerstone of the PRO's strategy to use information technology to make the historical records in our national archive more accessible to the public.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. I shall try to answer as many as I can but if I do not answer them all, I hope that he will feel free to write to me. I shall certainly respond as best I can, bearing in mind that issues of commercial confidentiality are involved. Some of the questions that he raised are covered by that.
Let us start from the basis of the hon. Gentleman's argument, which was about how the project was funded in the first instance. It was clear that the creation of 1.5 million digital record images and complex IT systems could not be funded out of the PRO's resources. Its annual budget is about £25 million, and there is no doubt that the project would have required upfront several million pounds of additional funding. He mentioned many of the PRO's other commitments and, because of them, it was clear that partnership funding would be required if we were to get this exciting project off the ground. The PRO therefore rightly sought to establish a public-private partnership, the procedures for which it followed to the letter at all times.
I note the hon. Gentleman's views on the decision to use the process, but I think that the right decision was made. It is a good example of how the public and private sectors can work together to bring service benefits to the citizen at a lower cost to the public purse and at a reasonable cost to the customer, whether accessing the website from the United Kingdom or overseas, because many people outside the country were expected to use it.
The PRO began the process in November 1998. About 30 organisations expressed interest in the contract, and a full tender exercise was undertaken. Four organisations were shortlisted to produce a full submission. One could not commit to making the 1901 census available online by January 2002 and another withdrew, which left two organisations to provide full submissions. That gives an idea of the scale of the project and the possible risk involved.
The contract was based on the standard Office of Government Commerce model for information technology projects. The contracts are outcome-based, and the commercial and development risks are transferred to the contractor. The PRO established a dedicated team to work closely with the contractor through a joint programme board to ensure that the deadlines were met. That included the successful delivery of a pilot project, which I saw, using the 1891 online returns for the county of Norfolk.
In addition, the PRO spent £1.2 million on essential work related to the 1901 census, such as quality assurance. I emphasise that it has not made over any public funds to QinetiQ. The development costs for the online service have been met entirely by QinetiQ using its own sources of finance; it has not received payments,
An advisory panel comprising amateur and professional family historians as well as staff from QinetiQ was set up in January 2000. It met 11 times to give users a full say in the development of the online service. On estimated demand for the service, it is true that members of the advisory panel highlighted the problems that family history websites in the United States experienced at initial launch when attempted use was much heavier than anticipated. At the same time, the panel carefully considered the example of other US websites. It is always difficult to make precise comparisons because some sites provide different information to different audiences. However, the important lesson that was drawn from the US experiencethis is at the very heart of many of the hon. Gentleman's questionsis that, after the initial surge in interest, demand for the service markedly declined.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept that it would not have made business sense, or any sense, to construct a service that was capable of meeting all demand experienced daily between 2 and 6 January because, in the long run, all the evidence is that demand falls off. That would therefore have been a waste of resources and unnecessary expense.
There were initial problems with the launch, but they largely arose because the service's popularity outstripped even the generous estimates of likely use. Up to 1.2 million users per day were planned for, which is a massive site by general internet standards. By way of example in the United States, the Genealogical Society of Utah's website, which is probably the biggest such site and, incidentally, had the same kind of problems to start with and crashed at its launch, now has 89,000 users a day.
We know that nearly 30 million users a day attempted to access the 1901 census between 2 and 6 January. We are working to put right some of the problems that have arisen. I assure the hon. Gentleman of that. Officials from the Lord Chancellor's Department are working with officials from the Public Record Office and staff of the company to ensure that the website is up and ready as soon as possible.
I am aware of the time, so I hope that I have covered a number of the issues raised by the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton and for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). I know that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has shown an interest in the work of the Public Record Office recently, and I know that he visited it last week. His hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) has also shown a keen interest in and been very supportive of this ambitious and innovative project.
I am very aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, and assure him that we are doing everything we possibly can to ensure that the census site becomes the success that it deserves to be and provides enjoyment and interest for the many millions of people who wish to use it.