Time for AI in Parliament!
ONE of the things we inherited from the British parliamentary system is the practice of keeping record of debates. Hansard is a “substantially verbatim” report of what is said in sessions at Jamaica House where members’ contributions are captured by stenographers and then edited to remove repetitions and apparent mistakes without losing the intention of the speaker. Hansard also saves decisions taken during a sitting and records how members voted.
Back in the 18th century Luke Hansard of Great Turnstile, Lincoln’s Inn Field, was the official printer to the House of Commons. He was responsible not only for the publication of the Commons Journals but for editing and archiving parliamentary papers, including transcripts of select committee reports and evidence sessions.
In Britain, steam printers and pen shorthand have given way to digital recordings and online publications — but the need for a full report remains. Along with televised proceedings, it is the way people keep up to date with what is happening in Parliament and, within three hours of a member giving a speech in the Chamber, Hansard publishes his/her words online.
Speaker Lord Fowler who regards Hansard as “a central part of parliamentary transparency and helps voters to hold politicians accountable for their words and actions” believes “we need it today as much as we ever have”.
But the challenge facing our Parliament is that there are fewer and fewer people available to capture these debates and convert them into the official record.
We learn that the team of stenographers is exhausted by the sheer volume of work involved in tracking the debates and providing up-to-date reports for the public to scrutinise. The number of people trained for this vital role has dwindled, and this is already having an impact on operations.
Since the Government has embarked on the extensive deployment of technology in its e-Gov drive, it is time for the new Leader of Government Business Edmund Bartlett to seize the opportunity to address the challenges at Jamaica House. It is time to engage technology — specifically artificial intelligence (AI) — to capture the proceedings and allow stenographers to act as editors in producing a final edition for the public. There are many types of software available that can speedily convert spoken word to text.
The British Parliament boasts that the public can get a copy of proceedings within hours. As John Bercow, the former Speaker of the House of Commons noted, “The text of debates in the Commons and Lords is published online during the day — a speech is made available about three hours after a member has finished delivering it. The paper version of Hansard is produced by 6:00 am the following day. Bound final versions follow, proofread to eliminate any errors that may have occurred in the original.”
We should be following the lead of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), which has used its technological resources to speed up justice. The CCJ boasts a system which does not require the sitting judges to take notes longhand or for a team of stenographers to track the deliberations. Instead, the court relies on the recording of sessions, which are easy to review. It is part of the openness of the court, which facilitates addressing the justices from across the region and for the general public to follow proceedings online.
This approach allows for quick representation and dispatch of cases, saving thousands of dollars for litigants and is another sign of the complete repatriation of justice from the benches of the Law Lords at the Privy Council in London.
As the debate about republicanism is revived with the recent news from Barbados, it is time for Jamaica to take a most critical step in its parliamentary procedures by capturing the debates with modern technology and giving the public the ability to review the contribution of members of the House.
We urge Minister Bartlett to engage the technology leaders in the government service to provide the framework for the transformation of the recording and archiving of debates for the timely benefit of members and the wider public who elect them to serve their interests.
Decisions about the future of our Parliament should not only focus on accommodation for members and the support staff but the installation of technology in line with modern practices of capturing and securing the historical records of debates.