Conclusions and recommendations
1. In
reaching our conclusions on an e-petitions scheme we have made
the broad assumption that the number of petitions submitted would
be substantially closer to the figures for the No. 10 website
than those the House currently experiences. (Paragraph 18)
Arguments for introducing e-petitions
2. Introducing
e-petitioning would reinforce the House's historic role as the
proper and principal recipient of public petitions and would help
ensure that the public has a better understanding of the work
and role of Parliament as distinct from Government. (Paragraph
34)
3. E-petitioning has
the potential to open up the House's proceedings in new and to
some extent unpredictable ways and that overall it could make
a major contribution to the House's strategic objective to 'make
itself more accessible, to make it easier for people to understand
the work of Parliament and do more to communicate its activity
to the general public. (Paragraph 42)
Our preferred option
- E-petitions can be submitted
via the parliamentary website
- If they comply with the House's rules, the petitioner's
constituency MP will be asked to act as facilitator
- The e-petition is then posted on the parliamentary
website for a set period. Others may add their names to it.
- At the end of the period, it is closed. Members
will be able to indicate support for it.
- It is then presented to the House, either electronically
or on the floor.
- Petitioners and signatories may opt in to receive
updates on the progress of the e-petition and/or up to two emails
from their constituency MP
- E-petitions will be printed in Hansard and sent
to select committees and may be considered by them
- The Government will normally be expected to reply
within two months of presentation
- On three occasions each year, certain e-petitions
will be debated by the House of Commons in Westminster Hall
4. The
development and implementation of an e-petitions system such as
we describe can only effectively be achieved through an iterative
process. That process may lead to changes in the detail of what
we describe. It should not, however, challenge the basic principles.
(Paragraph 58)
5. We emphasise that
throughout this description of our preferred scheme the detailed
arrangements which we set out must be seen as illustrative. The
development and implementation process may well suggest better
ways of achieving the same outcome. Where it does, the necessary
delegations and flexibility must be in place to allow such refinements
to be made. We were also advised 'to design a very simple first
version.' The proposed system which we describe below may not
seem simple. In part that is because we have attempted to give
the House a full picture of what an e-petitions scheme might look
like. It does not necessarily follow that we would expect every
element to be in place from the very start. As well as the benefits
of being able to develop the system iteratively and respond to
user experience, we also note that probably it would be much easier
to add new features to the scheme than it would be to remove elements
which proved unsustainable. (Paragraph 59)
6. We recommend that
when Parliament is dissolved, all current e-petitions should be
closed and the website should be suspended, so that no new e-petition
may be submitted until the new Parliament has met. (Paragraph
67)
7. Our view is that
the involvement of the constituency Member of Parliament is central
to the historic petitions procedure in the House of Commons. The
vast majority of Members see the presentation of petitions on
behalf of their constituents as one of their responsibilities
whether or not they support the petition itself. This involvement
strengthens both the petitions procedure itself and the broader
relationship between constituents and their Member of Parliament.
We believe that it can and should be preserved in any e-petitions
system. (Paragraph 75)
8. We recommend that,
if after proper consideration of the potential risks, the House
decides to press ahead with e-petitioning, it should be on the
basis of our proposed scheme. (Paragraph 102)
9. We do not believe
that the steps we have described, such as the requirement to designate
a facilitating Member or several opportunities to opt in to receive
further information, if clearly explained, should act as a significant
deterrent to anyone with a considered and committed intention
to submit an e-petition to the House of Commons. However, if during
the implementation or following the introduction of the scheme,
problems become apparent, there should be the flexibility and
agility within the scheme to address them. (Paragraph 104)
Outcomes
10. We
recommend that initially there should be three one and a half
hour slots each year (i.e. one each term) in Westminster Hall
dedicated to debating petitions. On each of those occasions one,
two or three petitions or groups of petitions could be debated.
We would expect the House regularly to review the adequacy of
this debating time as experience of e-petitioning develops. (Paragraph
113)
11. We recommend that
while we continue to perform that role we, the Procedure Committee,
should initially be responsible for deciding which e-petitions
are debated in a manner similar to the way the Liaison Committee
chooses the select committee reports to be debated in Westminster
Hall. (Paragraph 114)
Rules on admissibility and content
12. We
recommend that, in order to be admissible, e-petitions should
clearly and specifically state what action the petitioners desire
the House of Commons to take to remedy the matter about which
they are petitioning. There should be a mechanism within the system
to allow a Member who has been asked to facilitate a constituent's
petition to respond that the petition is unclear or misdirected
and to offer instead to correspond with the petitioner in order
to bring the petition within these tighter rules. (Paragraph 119)
13. We intend to keep
under review the differences in the rules and, if necessary, will
report to the House on any action that may need to be taken in
respect of them. (Paragraph 124)
Implementation
14. 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. (Paragraph 129)
15. 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. (Paragraph 133)
16. 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. (Paragraph 138)
17. 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. (Paragraph
140)
18. We conclude that
the earliest date from which an e-petitions system could be operational
is likely to be the beginning of 2010. (Paragraph 145)
19. 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. (Paragraph 148)
| 
