House of Commons - Procedure

Select Committee on Procedure First Report

8 Implementation

126. The introduction of an e-petitions system will only be successful if it is used, and understood, by the public. We have discussed how we believe a system should be designed and what outcomes might reasonably be expected from it. But if the system is to be taken up and used, it will be crucial that would-be petitioners are properly informed about it. The Hansard Society wrote in their memorandum to us—

It is vital that Parliament should raise awareness that the e-Petitions system has been changed and that e-Petitions are positively welcomed. Efforts should be made to make the public realise that their concerns will be taken seriously even if it cannot be promised that Parliament will necessarily agree or take action. As a first step, advertising in various forms of media, and most obviously on Parliament's own website, should be used.[

106

We do not intend in this report to describe a detailed public information strategy for the introduction of e-petitions. We do, however, believe that such a strategy will be necessary. Its potential cost will need to be included in any assessment of the total costs of introducing e-petitioning (see paragraph 138).

127. One of the specific aims of the House of Commons Commission's strategic plan for the period up to March 2011, in respect of public information, is to ensure that the public has a better understanding of the work and role of Parliament as distinct from Government.[107] It will be important to ensure that this distinction is clearly understood in respect of e-petitions, but that task could be made significantly more challenging by the existence of the No. 10 e-petitioning system. In Jonathan Drori's opinion 'there would be great confusion in having a petitioning system both for Number 10 and Parliament.'[108] Ella Taylor-Smith told us—

109

128. Our witnesses were divided on whether, if the House of Commons had an e-petitioning system, the No. 10 website should also continue to operate. Tom Steinberg[110] and Ella Taylor-Smith[111] both argued that the public should be able to petition whichever body seemed best placed to address their concerns and supported a multiplicity of e-petitions systems, but others argued that if there was a House of Commons system, the No. 10 website could, or even should, close down. Peter Riddell stated—

112

Tom Loosemore told us that his preference would be for the No. 10 website to close down[113]—

114

129. It is not, of course, for us, or indeed the House, to decide to close down the No. 10 e-petitioning system, although Peter Riddell did point out that, since 'the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House, and indeed the former Leader of the House, the current Lord Chancellor [were] in favour of the parliamentary system,' they had the power to do so, if they thought it appropriate. We believe that it is very likely that the public would find the continuing operation of a No. 10 website and a House of Commons system confusing. We believe that, in that eventuality, both the Government and the House would agree that the House of Commons for both historic and constitutional reasons should be the primary recipient of e-petitions.

Information for Members

130. Since the start of the current Parliament in May 2005, of the House's 640 Members[115] who could have presented a petition, 206 so far have and just 38 of these have presented more than two petitions. It would seem reasonable to assume that many Members have little or no experience of the existing petitions procedure. We are aware that some Members believe that the present procedures have little or no value.[116]

131. We believe that our proposed e-petitioning system has the potential to be a valued and useful addition to procedures of the House of Commons and to the House's objective of improving its engagement with the public. But it may not achieve that potential if Members are either unclear how they should be involved in it or are unwilling to be so involved. We have tried in this report to spell out what that involvement would be. Members may choose to what extent they engage with many of the House's procedures. Early Day Motions (EDMs) are a good example of such a procedure. Some Members simply do not either sign or table EDMs. That is a matter of personal choice and it has no direct bearing on the use of the procedure by other Members.

132. The same would not, however, be the case with e-petitions. Firstly, no e-petition, under the scheme we propose, could be posted on the website unless a Member was willing to facilitate it. In practice as we describe in paragraph 77, prospective e-petitioners would be put to considerable inconvenience if their constituency Member refused to facilitate their e-petitions. We suspect that most e-petitioners put in that position would simply give up and conclude that the system had failed them. We believe that the vast majority of Members would be keen to respond positively to a constituent who submitted an e-petition and would happily take on the task of facilitating it. But, if a sufficient number of people had a negative experience, that could discredit the system as a whole and lead to the sort of reputational damage which we warned of in paragraph 32.

133. It will therefore be essential that all Members, and their staff, are properly informed about the e-petitions system and what may be required of them. As well as understanding the role of facilitator, Members will also need to be aware of the opportunities they will have to communicate with their constituents who have signed e-petitions which are not facilitated by their Member. We recommend that the House service should set up a programme of opportunities for Members and their staff to be briefed on their roles in an e-petitioning system. We also recommend that the Petitions Office should consult Members on their preferred methods of internal communication in respect of e-petitions.

Costs

134. In its memorandum the Management Board, while emphasising the uncertainties involved in making any estimates at this stage, estimated that the initial set up costs of an e-petitions system might be around £500,000 and the annual running costs around £750,000. The set up costs are almost entirely the procurement of the ICT systems; the majority of the running costs are to cover additional staff to handle petitions and other non-ICT elements. The additional costs from printing e-petitions in Hansard is estimated to equal the costs of the ICT systems maintenance contract and its contract manager.[117]

135. The Management Board's estimates for the ICT systems are in the same broad area as the estimates of our witnesses. Tom Loosemore suggested costs of 'the order of £200,000 on the build and … a similar amount for running costs.'[118] Jonathan Drori told us that the technology part of the system 'is not tens of thousands and it is not millions, it is somewhere between the two, so I would not be surprised if it was hundreds of thousands.'[119]

136. The estimates of other costs are no less uncertain. The Management Board draws attention to the potential risks of starting with a small staff on the basis that additional staff could be provided at a later date in response to demand—

120

On this basis the Board suggests an initial team of around seven staff—similar to the size of a departmental select committee team.

137. There may be additional costs which have not been captured by the Management Board's estimates. There may for example be a significant increase in queries to the web-centre or to the Public Information Office. Members, as we noted above (paragraph 28), may experience increases in email or other correspondence as a result of facilitating, or indicating support for, e-petitions. There may even be resource implications for select committees if they take a greater interest in petitions than in the past.

138. The estimates were, of course, all made before we agreed this report and the proposed scheme which we have set out in it. They have therefore been framed in very general terms. Even with the benefit of this report, some costs will be impossible to estimate with any certainty. In respect of other matters, such as the costs of the ICT system, it may be unwise to be too specific about what the House expects to pay in advance of issuing commercial tenders for their procurement. Nonetheless we recommend that the Management Board should produce, before the House considers this report, a memorandum setting out, so far as these limitations allow, an estimate of the costs of an e-petitions system along the lines of our preferred option. It would further assist the House if these costs could be compared with the costs of other Parliamentary activities, such as the cost of the Education Unit, or the parliamentary website, or a select committee or taking a public bill through all its stages.

139. Although we are inviting the House to agree to the introduction of our preferred e-petitions scheme, we are not inviting the House to agree to a blank cheque in respect of its costs. We have no doubt that the Management Board will provide the House with the best available information, but it is clear that there is and will continue to be a significant level of uncertainty, which is not unusual or surprising in a project such as this. We have noted the damage which a failure in the ICT systems could cause to e-petitioning and to the House itself. The more robust a system is made, the more it is likely to cost and to seek to make the system 100 per cent robust may well be prohibitively expensive. At some point a judgement will have to be made that the system is robust enough. Similarly there may be a temptation to add features, perhaps in response to perceived user demand, perhaps because of benefits identified by the developers. We listed a number of features which were suggested in evidence to us (paragraph 105). But additional features are likely to lead to additional costs, in some cases potentially significant additional costs.

140. In implementing an e-petitions scheme the House must ensure that adequate financial disciplines are in place. The agreement of the House that an e-petitions scheme should be introduced is not a replacement for proper scrutiny of how that scheme should be implemented. We see a role for ourselves in that implementation (see paragraph 148), but our involvement must be complemented by proper financial oversight and accountability. The arrangements for financial accountability must be clear and transparent. We encourage the Finance and Services Committee to maintain oversight of the costs of the implementation of e-petitioning.

141. There may also be costs which do not fall directly on the House of Commons. Government departments will be expected to reply to e-petitions as they do to traditional petitions. If however e-petitioning activity moves from the No. 10 website to the House of Commons, there may not be a significant increase in the overall numbers of petitions requiring responses; and there may be savings to Government from reduced activity on the No. 10 site or indeed from closing it down completely.

Delivery

142. E-petitioning cannot be introduced simply as a reform of parliamentary procedure. Instead it must be approached as a major project with a substantial ICT element. We have already expressed our support for the approach to delivery advocated by several of our witnesses: that

the proposed system should be piloted before introduction;

once introduced it should be capable of continuing refinement in response to user demand;

in ICT terms it should be established as a 'beta' site (paragraph 59) .

143. Any decision to introduce a scheme must include clear parameters as to the content and structure of an e-petitioning system, but, as we described in paragraph 58, the House must be prepared to allow those with responsibility for its implementation sufficient flexibility to respond to changing circumstances both before and after its launch. Tom Loosemore emphasised the importance of delegating responsibility for delivery to a named individual and giving that person the freedom to achieve that delivery without undue interference.[121]

144. Several of our witnesses were critical of PICT.[122] Tom Steinberg questioned whether an e-petitions system could be successfully implemented 'unless there are substantial changes within the way that PICT delivers projects.'[123] Tom Loosemore described PICT as 'a major part of the problem in the way that it manages itself.'[124] Jonathan Drori described the problem as being PICT's dual role 'both as an advisor on the best technical methods and also as a deliverer of those things.'[125] He told us—

126

It is not our intention to prescribe the approach to be taken to the procurement and development of the necessary ICT systems, but we have been told that PICT itself believes that in this case the best approach to procurement of a system might be by means of an open tender. We have reflected this approach in our assessment of a possible timescale for implementation. We should also note that throughout this inquiry we have found PICT's advice to be helpful and constructive.

TIMESCALE

145. The Management Board memorandum notes that following the House's debate of our report, Public Petitions and Early Day Motions, in October 2007, some preparatory work on e-petitions has been undertaken. Indeed we have ourselves been able to incorporate some of the products of that work in this report, for which we are grateful. The memorandum then sets out what the timescale might be following publication of this report—

until the House gives its express authority for an e-petitioning system, tenders cannot be invited. It is very likely that any such invitation would fall within the scope of EU procurement rules. It is estimated that, given the likely requirements for both functionality and reliability, establishing an e-petition system would take 12-18 months from the date of the House's decision to proceed.[

127

We broadly endorse this timescale and conclude that, as a consequence, the earliest date from which an e-petitions system could be operational is likely to be the beginning of 2010.

MANAGEMENT

146. We have noted the importance of clear delegation of responsibility for the successful delivery of a project such as the introduction of e-petitioning. It will be for the House service to establish a team to take it forward on a day to day basis and to ensure that whoever leads that team has the necessary authority to follow the implementation strategy we set out earlier. In addition, however, to those structures, there must be clear lines of political accountability in order to give Members and the House confidence that their priorities are being given due weight and to provide the implementation team with a means of obtaining political authority for any changes to or revisions of the scheme endorsed by the House.

147. In this inquiry we have considered whether we should revisit the conclusion of our previous report that the House should not establish a Petitions Committee. The Hansard Society, who had recommended the establishment of such a committee in its memorandum to that inquiry, repeated their recommendation in their memorandum to this inquiry. The International Teledemocracy Centre at Napier University argued that

a coordinating body is essential to support Members' involvement with petitions, including e-petitions, not just in terms of assisting Members, but to create an even and sustainable process that the public can have confidence in. We feel that some sort of Petitions Committee is the logical answer.[

128

We agree that the functions which they identify are important. We believe that those functions, at least initially, go together with the provision of political authority and accountability for the development and implementation of e-petitioning. We do not, however, agree that the establishment of a new committee would necessarily be the best solution.

148. The priority of whatever body is given this task will be to provide consistency and certainty to the implementation team, in terms of the House's overall objectives for the scheme, and to the House, as the representative of its intentions to the implementation team. We believe that, as the authors of this report and the committee set up by the House to oversee its procedures, we are currently best placed to undertake that role. We recommend that, if the House agrees to set up an e-petitions scheme as we have proposed, we should be given the responsibility, at least initially, to provide the political oversight of the implementation of that scheme.

106 Ev 31 Back

107 See House of Commons Corporate Business Plan 2008, p 14 Back

108 Q 134 Back

109 Q 136 Back

110 Q 109-10 Back

111 Q 116 Back

112 Q 134 Back

113 Q 109 Back

114 Q 63 Back

115 Five Sinn Fein Members have not taken their seats and the Speaker by practice does not present petitions. Back

116 See Ev 55 Back

117 Ev 59 Back