Annex B Members' Questionnaire
SELECT COMMITTEE
ON MODERNISATION
OF THE HOUSE
OF COMMONS
The Modernisation Committee is currently
inquiring into how Parliament might better engage the public in
the parliamentary process. The Committee is keen to hear the
views of all Members on these issues, as well as any suggestions
that are not covered by questions in the survey. If you wish
to send a separate note please feel free to do so.
1. Communicating with constituents
1.1 We would like to know how you
inform your constituents about parliamentary business. On a scale
of 1 to 5, with 1 being the most useful, how would you rate the
following? Please circle.
(a) Constituency surgeries 1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 33 25 48 44 36
(b) Public meetings 1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 12 28 43 52 41
(c) Newsletters 1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 59 65 33 18 7
(d) Annual reports 1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 53 43 23 17 23
(e) Other large-scale mailing 1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 46 41 34 15 24
(f) Individual letters 1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 91 42 30 11 10
(g) E-mail 1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 26 52 43 38 15
(h) Website 1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 28 56 43 29 18
1.2 Are the existing parliamentary
rules governing MPs mailing letters, circulars or annual reports
to constituents clear enough?
(1- very clear - 5 - very unclear)
1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 40 54 39 31 13
Are the rules in need of updating?
If so how?
The restriction on writing to constituents
who have not first contacted the Member should be lifted; it is
circumvented or ignored by some anyway. Members should be able
to write to all residents of a given area in response to local
issues (e.g. planning, crime).
1.3 Is the Incidental Expenses
Provision sufficient to meet your needs in dealing with constituency
cases?
This question received one of the
largest numbers of responses: an overwhelming no, but a few Members
believe that it is sufficient. Individual casework places a huge
burden on the IEP. It is the only allowance which is really tight.
It is insufficient to pay even three staff a decent salary.
The IEP does not cover the cost of staff at both Westminster and
the constituency—some argue for free provision of staff/facilities
at Westminster, with a cash-limited budget for constituency offices.
1.4 Are there other ways the Commons
could improve your ability to communicate with your constituents?
Most answers refer to increased
funding: more funding for newsletters, reports and bulletins the
most common answer. Direct funding of locally-distributed Annual
Reports should be separate from IEP. All MPs should have standard
websites hosted on the parliament.uk servers. Give MPs the facility
to run their own e-consultations for constituents. Again, a significant
minority are happy with the status
quo.
1.5 How often do constituents inquire about specific
items of Commons business, either past or forthcoming?
(1- very frequently - 5 - not
at all)
1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 36 55 68 30
1.6 Do you have sufficient information to give
constituents about what is going on in Parliament?
(1 - sufficient - 5 - insufficient)
1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 56 84 22 19 6
1.7 Would you welcome a short Commons newsletter
on previous or forthcoming business to circulate to constituents? (1
- very useful - 5 - not at all)
Paper version newsletter 1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 60 29 24 24
38
Electronic version newsletter 1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 56 29 27 20
42
2. Improving public understanding of Parliament
2.1 Are the following Parliamentary publications
sufficiently clear?
(1 - very clear - 5 - not clear at all)
(a) Summary Agenda and Order Paper 1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 36 51 46 37
12
(b) Weekly Information Bulletin 1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 24 72 52 25 4
(c) Select Committee Publications 1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 31 83 49 15 1
(d) Bills and Explanatory Notes 1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 24 49 40 49
17
(e) Hansard 1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 77 70 24 6 5
(f) Library Factsheets 1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 83 55 10 2 4
(g) Other (please specify):
2.2 In some countries first time voters are sent
'voter introduction packs' guiding them through the implications
of voting. Is an 'Introduction to Parliament pack' something
you would support?
(1 - support strongly - 5 - not
at all)
1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 103 35 16 11
16
What kind of information might it
contain?
How to register and how to vote
(incl. postal and proxy voting); role and function of an MP, local
councillor, MEP, etc., especially an indication of which types
of problem are dealt with by each tier of government; how politics
affects people's everyday lives; a bit of history; citizens' rights;
how to make your voice heard
2.3 Should parliamentary business (eg Debates,
Questions, Committees) be re-structured or language simplified
that would enable better public understanding?
(1
- support strongly - 5 - not at all)
1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 53 32 24
26 38
If so, which ones and how?
Few responses. Some suggest simplifying
language, procedures and 'traditions', but no real concrete proposals.
Members could call each other by name. Improved information
for people in the public gallery. One or two Members are resistant
to what they see as 'dumbing down'.
2.4 Should explanatory material for legislation
or debates (eg explanatory notes for bills) be improved?
(1 - support strongly - 5 - not
at all)
1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 58 59 26 23 10
If so, how?
Again, few concrete proposals:
better integration of the bill, amendment papers and selection
lists was suggested by a few Members. One suggested that ENs
could contain more examples of how the legislation would work
in practice.
3. Debating public concerns
3.1 How effectively does the House respond to
issues of public concern?
(1 - very effectively - 5 - very poorly)
1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 10 58 57 41 12
Comments?
General consensus that the House
could better reflect issues of public concern. Several Members
welcome the shorter tabling time for questions. Other suggestions
include more general debates, as opposed to legislative business,
regular debates on EDMs, and greater use of Urgent Questions.
3.2 Are there sufficient routes for voters to
make their concerns known to Parliament?
(1 - sufficient - 5 - insufficient)
1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 46 60 37 26 10
How strongly do you agree with
the following statements (1 - agree strongly - 5 - disagree strongly)
3.3 The House of Commons requires
other means for responding to public concerns
1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 36 55 42 23
27
3.4 Members of the public be allowed to show support
for EDMs
1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 10 24 22 22
104
3.5 EDMs should be debatable
1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 44 54 25 22
37
3.6 More time be allowed in the Chamber
for the presentation of Petitions(for example, allowing the presenting
Member to make a short speech on the subject of the Petition)
1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 33 57 30 28 35
3.7 The Speaker should give priority
to proposals for adjournment debates which are based on petitions 1 2 3 4 5
No.
responses 13 33 44 40
55
3.8 Petitions should routinely be
referred to select committees for consideration
1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 15 40 42 35
51
3.9 A number of bills are currently
considered in draft each Session, allowing a select committee
to take public evidence on the bill before it is formally presented.
There should be more opportunity for the public to submit evidence
to select committees on bills
1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 85 56 21 8 9
3.10 Are there other ways that
issues of public concern could be brought to bear on the agenda
at Westminster?
Very few suggestions, though some
commented that, to the extent that business is driven by outside
pressure, it is from lobby/pressure groups, rather than individuals.
Electronic consultation, including chat rooms; a petitions committee;
more focus on MPs' constituency role; improve profile (and resources)
of select committees.
4. Public access to the
Parliamentary Estate
4.1 How often have you used the new Central Tours
Office to book tours for visitors?
(1 - very frequently - 5 - not at all)
1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 45 68 32 20 14
4.2 How effective has the Summer
opening of the Line of Route been in improving access for visitors
to the Palace?
(1 - very effective - 5 - very ineffective)
1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 18 62 58 13 4
4.3 How do you rate the new Jubilee Cafeteria
as a facility for visiting constituents?
(1- very good - 5 - very poor)
1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 23 93 46 8 4
4.4 Would you support more
tours for constituents which, if practicable, incorporate access
to the Chamber while the House is sitting, or to a Select Committee
meeting?
(1 - very supportive - 5 - not at
all)
1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 74 62 18 7 18
Comments?
Members from outside the South-East
of England commented on the difficulties faced by their constituents
visiting Westminster. Numerous comments on sitting hours. Divided
opinion on whether visitors want to see Parliament at work or
museum.
4.5 Bearing in mind the increased
expense involved, for example, in the provision of extra security
services, would you support tours of the Palace take place on
Saturdays and Sundays?
(1 - very supportive - 5 - not at
all)
1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 69 57 35 9 18
4.6 As part of the effort to provide
better visitors' facilities would you support a the creation of
a comprehensive citizens' education centre at Westminster?
(1 - very supportive - 5 - not at
all)
1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 89 54 18 8 18
4.7..What measures could be taken
to improve take-up of unused tour slots during the week?
Encourage groups / organisations
/ schools to come at those times; no reason why school visits
must be in term time. Negotiate cheap travel packages with national
rail/bus operators. More publicity/advertising.
4.8..Are there other ways it could
be made easier for your constituents to access the building?
Not many suggestions. Some concerns
about turning the Palace into a 'theme park'. Expand the resources
of the Education Unit.
5. The provision of information
for the public
5.1 How frequently do you use the following
on-line services in your work, or direct constituents towards
them as a source of Parliamentary information
(a) PDVN 1 2 3 4 5
No. responses
113 38 13 4 11
(b) Parliamentary Intranet Web
pages 1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 75 52 24 16 12
(c) Webcasting of Parliament 1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 6 15 32 41 78
(d) explore.parliament.uk 1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 5 11 21 38 89
(e) Library publications (Factsheets,
standard notes, etc) 1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 61 67 29 21 3
(f) Materials produced by the
Parliamentary
Education Unit 1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 13 50 54 40
19
5.2 How frequently do you organise activities for
schools in your constituency through the Education Unit?
(1 - very frequently - 5 - not at all)
1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 5 18 48 56 58
5.3 How do you rate the quality
of the webcasting of Parliamentary proceedings?
(1 - very good - 5 - very poor)
1 2 3 4 5
No. responses 11 23 56 19 6
5.4 Is there any other specific
information you would like to see the House produce for visitors/constituents?
Leaflets for visitors to the building.
Leaflets / factsheets for standing and select committee meetings
[These are already provided for select committee meetings.]
5.5 Are there other ways we might make
greater use of modern technology to improve the process of communications,
for example, by the provision of a facility for on-line surveys?
Greater use of the Internet is the commonest theme.
A number of Members favour the facility for them to run their
own on-line consultations and surveys. Some argue that the MP
should be the principal conduit of information between the public
and Parliament (and vice versa) and that expanding MPs' resources
is the best way of connecting with the public.
| 
