House of Commons - Procedure - Written Evidence

Select Committee on Procedure Written Evidence

Management Board, House of Commons (P20)

INTRODUCTION

1. This memorandum responds to the Procedure Committee's request for evidence in respect of its inquiry into e-petitions. It aims to set out, as far is possible at this relatively early stage, some of the resource implications that might result from the introduction of a system of e-petitioning. This tentative analysis suggests that the running costs of the proposed system might be in excess of £¾ million per annum in addition to set up costs of around £½ million.

WRITTEN PETITIONS: THE EXISTING SYSTEM

2. The Clerk of the House described the operation of the existing system of petitioning the House of Commons in some detail in his submission to the Procedure Committee's 2006-07 inquiry into Public Petitions and Early Day Motions.[6] The system is managed by a Clerk of Public Petitions, based in the Journal Office, who advises Members and prospective petitioners on the rules relating to public petitions. This often involves redrafting the main text or "prayer" of a petition. At present, the Clerk of Public Petitions has a number of other responsibilities, and deals with an average of two or three petition-related matters a day. Two Office Clerks work to support the Journal Office and are involved with the preparation of petitions for printing and receipt of observations on petitions from Government Departments. These Office Clerks have considerable other responsibilities, matters relating to petitions taking up a small fraction of their time.

3. From the start of the current session, all presented petitions have been printed in Hansard. The full text of a petition is printed directly after the presenting Member's remarks on the floor of the House. Observations on petitions are printed, along with the full text of the original petition, in a section of the daily Hansard which appears immediately after Written Ministerial Statements. In the first weeks of this session (up to the 18th December), 37 petitions were presented on the floor of the House, taking up 44 minutes and just over 11 Hansard pages. 21 observations on petitions have been printed, using a little over 101/2 Hansard pages. Petitions presented on the floor are recorded by the usual Hansard team. Observations on petitions are dealt with by two people under the supervision of the editors.

4. On average it takes a little over one minute to present a petition on the floor of the House. The table below shows, by session, the number of petitions formally presented on the floor, and the number of hours spent on their presentation.

Table 1

PETITIONS PRESENTED TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN SESSIONS 1989-90 to 2005-06

Session	Total Petitions Presented	Formal presentation (floor of House)	Time spent on formal presentation (floor of House)	Informal presentation (via bag)	Petitions receiving observations	Petitions on which no observations made
1998-99	99	56	1.06 hrs	43	37	62
1999-2000	87	68	1.22 hrs	19	55	32
2000-01 (a)	36	28	0.37 hrs	8	26	9
2001-02 (b)	129	109	2.26 hrs	20	97	32
2002-03	220	194	4.27 hrs	26	178	42
2003-04	128	112	2.31 hrs	16	82	16
2004-05 (a)	51	44	0.59 hrs	7	43	10
2005-06 (b)	294	258	4.44 hrs	36	201	50 (c)
2006-07	161	142	3.16 hrs	19	112	49 (d)
(a) Short session; (b) Long Session; (c) Awaiting observations from 43 Petitions; (d) This figure includes petitions which may have received observations in the current session. Source: House of Commons Library Factsheet No 7—Public Petitions and Journal Office Records.

PROPOSED SYSTEM

5. Although the Procedure Committee has not yet set out its proposals for an e-petitioning system, it recommended in its earlier report that any e-petition scheme be based on the following principles: Members should be engaged with e-petitions as they are with written petitions; e-petitions should be open for the addition of e-signatures for a certain period before formal presentation; and, once presented, they should have the same status as written petitions. On this basis e-petitions would be presented formally, in the same way as written petitions.

6. We understand the Committee is looking at a web-based system on which members of the public would be able to draft and submit e-petitions. If the e-petition complied with the rules, the author's constituency Member would be asked to act as its facilitator. By doing so the Member would be, at least provisionally, agreeing in due course to present the e-petition to the House thereby mirroring the role of a Member in respect of traditional petitions. The e-petition would then be published on the website and other members of the public could sign it. Both the initiator and the subsequent signatories might be required to provide a postal address and postcode as well as their name and email address.

7. After a certain length of time the e-petition would be closed for further signatures and could then be formally presented to the House. The system might allow emails to be sent to the petitioners informing them of any subsequent actions in respect of the petition (such as receipt of any Government's observations).

8. In many respects a system along these lines would have more similarities with the system set up by No.10 Downing Street than with any other parliamentary system. The No.10 Downing Street e-petitions website, which opened in November 2006, has received over 29,000 petitions. Of these 8,500 are currently live and available for signing, over 6,000 have finished and 14,601 have been rejected outright. There have been over 5.8 million signatures, originating from over 3.9 million different email addresses.[7]

9. We cannot say that a House of Commons e-petitions system would be as heavily used as the No.10 site has been, but it would be unwise to assume otherwise. It is possible that people petitioning the Prime Minister through the Downing Street site would also want to submit their petitions to Parliament. The Procedure Committee has stated that it believes that "Parliament should be the primary recipient of petitions from the public", and this was also stated by the Government which suggested that Parliament should be the natural recipient of "national petitions".[8] It seems reasonable to expect that a House of Commons e-petitioning system would attract considerable attention. It is already the case that the presentation of written petitions on local issues often gains press coverage in the relevant area.

10. On this basis, if, for example, 20,000 petitions were received per year, this works out at just over 384 per week. If the same number of petitions was processed only during sitting weeks, the figure would be 555, which translates into about 135 per sitting day. It is unlikely that all of these petitions would meet the rules, but they would still have to be processed by House staff. Downing Street rejects slightly less than half of the petitions it receives as inadmissible. A possible option which could be considered would be to establish a procedure which restricted the number of petitions to a specified number, for example through a ballot. The number allowed might be adjusted each year if the number presented proved more or less than expected. This could help the House manage the risks involved.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED SYSTEM

ICT Considerations

11. Any e-petitions system will, by definition, be dependent for its operation on the robustness and capacity of the ICT systems which underpin it. The Downing Street e-petitions system was built in partnership with mySociety using open source software However, we understand that this system has at times been unable to cope with levels of use, and requires significant ongoing maintenance. Software resilience, robustness, maintenance and ongoing support arrangements will need to be considered as part of the procurement process. Given that a system to be used by the House will need to be compatible with the associated procedures (eg for identifying the Member to facilitate the petition), it is likely to be more complex than the present No.10 site. This will tend to increase both the cost and timeframe required to design, build and test the system.

12. There are essentially three options for procuring and building an e-petitions system:

— Tender for complete solution including hosting.

— Tender for separate aspects of the solution (ie web application, hosting, mass e-mailer) but internally manage the solution.

— Build the system using internal resources and contractors.

13. The first option is most attractive as it reduces risks to Parliament of systems failure. Compatibility with other Parliamentary systems is of lower importance, so long as the content can be easily transferred. The second option is high risk as it splits the overall responsibility for a solution. With the third option there is a high risk as Parliamentary ICT has no experience of managing the volume of transactions that might be called for.

Risk Management

Supplier Choice

14. It will be extremely important to find a supplier that has both a proven track record of providing complex systems, and one that will engage fully with the House on the right level. Given the lack of other comparable e-petitions systems, there must be some doubt over whether there are many existing suppliers with the requisite experience to tender for a complete system.

System Failure

15. No ICT system can be entirely guaranteed against failure. One approach to managing that risk would be to set a level of use beyond which the system would not be expected to cope. The system will be more expensive and challenging to build and maintain the higher that level is set. The consequences of a complete system failure must be considered when setting that level. If e-petitioning has a high public profile, there may be more severe consequences than for other internet-based systems (for example, a select committee's e-consultations system failing due to high demand). A further possibility is to build the system so that it could be scaled up to cope with demand as and when it arrives. This may be more expensive at the outset but it could be difficult, and potentially more expensive, to enhance a "simple" solution as this would require a fundamental re-design or re-build.

Increase in e-mail and other traffic

16. The introduction of e-petitions may result in an increased flow of traffic through the existing e-mail system. Not only would large volumes of e-mails need to be sent in connection with the petitions, possibly including e-mails to all signatories of a petition updating them on its progress, but Members of the House may also receive more correspondence about petitions. A figure of up to 6,000 extra constituent queries per year was suggested in oral evidence to the Committee.4 At a conservative estimate that there might be half that number of constituents contacting Members by e-mail and that each contact will be once-for-all, that still amounts to almost 2 million e-mails per year. The system at present averages 2 million incoming e-mails per calendar month so those numbers would represent an 8% increase in e-mail to the Parliamentary Network.

Costs

17. The costs are likely to vary significantly between the different methods of procurement and can only be estimated in very broad terms at present. On that basis we would estimate about £500,000 for system build, plus an annual contracted maintenance support figure, which would typically be about 20% of the cost of the build. In addition, an in-house ICT Contract Manager may be needed. It is also possible that, as well as the increases in e-mail traffic referred to above, there would be a significant increase in queries to the web-centre once an e-petitioning system went live.

Timescale

18. On the basis of the resolution of the House on 25 October 2007, approving the proposals for changes in the procedures and practices of the House set out in the Government Response to the Procedure Committee's report on Public Petitions and Early Day Motions, some preparatory work on e-petitions is being undertaken. However, 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.

Other Resources

19. It is difficult to estimate what non-ICT staff resources might be required. No.10 initially underestimated the amount of staff time required to process individual e-petitions. The No.10 site has at times taken several weeks to process submitted petitions. Such delays may not be considered acceptable in a parliamentary context. As noted above, all submitted petitions would need to be processed by staff to ensure that they were in order. These staff would also have to deal with queries from Members and petitioners.

20. Very often the House has chosen to resource new activities with a small staff on the basis that additional staff could be provided at a later date if demand warranted it. This approach has two drawbacks in this case. Firstly there is a risk that a small staff could be overwhelmed leading to delays in processing petitions or assisting Members and thus damaging the reputation of the new procedure and even potentially of the House and its relations with the public more broadly. Secondly, No.10 found that traffic increased very rapidly after their scheme was launched. It would be very difficult to scale up a small team with the necessary speed if the House scheme experienced a similar phenomenon. (If the No.10 website is discontinued or redirects potential petitioners to the House, traffic could be significant from the beginning.)

21. Taking these factors into account, and recognising that at this stage any estimate must be hedged with uncertainties, our view is that it would be sensible to provide a team of, say, seven staff-similar to the size of a departmental select committee team. Initially, at least some of the staff would be engaged on a temporary basis until the continuing demand was established. If the Committee decides to recommend the establishment of a Petitions Committee to oversee the new procedure this team could also provide support for that committee.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES

Sitting Hours

22. The formal presentation of e-petitions on the floor of the House could add significantly to the length of sittings. If the House of Commons received 10,000 petitions over an average session (half that suggested in the calculation in paragraph 9 of this memorandum), and 5,000 were orderly, this could mean, on average, more than 30 presented each sitting day, taking up approximately 30 minutes on the floor of the House. Over a session this could amount to as much as 73 hours. Longer sittings would add to the cost of allowances for night duty staff and have implications for late-night transport. The costs are tentatively estimated at some £150,000 per annum. If the number of petitions to be presented proved to be so high as to affect significantly the length of sittings, it would be possible to consider alternative modes of presentation eg in Westminster Hall or in a designated Committee sitting.

Printing

23. Based on the printing of petitions since the start of the current session, a petition takes up just over two Hansard columns, including both the presentation, and the printing of the Government observation on the petition. Using the same scenario as for sitting hours, this could amount to more than 10,000 columns per session, adding roughly £170,000 to printing costs. Most of the staffing cost of this would be absorbed into any cost of the House sitting longer as presentation would be recorded by the usual Hansard team. However, additional resources may be required to manage the printing of observations.

Progressing a Petition

24. At present Members can follow-up a petition or observations on a petition by, for example, asking parliamentary questions or seeking an adjournment debate on the issue raised by the petition. In practice this happens only very occasionally. In response to the Procedure Committee's recommendation that there should be a regular opportunity to initiate debate on a specific petition, the Government suggested that Members use existing adjournment debate opportunities to debate petitions and stated that "it would be open to a Member to "tag" the petition on the Order Paper".[9]

25. Under the current system petitions, and Government observations on petitions, are sent to the relevant select committee. Select committees have not to date taken any substantive action on the basis of petitions sent to them, and the Procedure Committee concluded that they should not be compelled to do so. As the Government noted in its response to the Committee's report, the situation may change if committees receive petitions that have received wide publicity or support. The Government has also suggested that consideration of public petitions should be incorporated into the "core tasks" of select committees.[10]

SUMMARY OF RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

26. Based on the assumptions set out above, the running costs of the proposed system are tentatively estimated to be at least £¾ million per annum in addition to set up costs of around £½ million. The breakdown of this figure is shown in the table below:

POSSIBLE COSTS

	Initial costs £k	Running costs £pa
System cost	500	—
Maintenance contract	—	100
Contract manager (a)	—	70
Petitions staff (a)	—	350
Later sittings	—	150
Hansard printing	—	170
Total	500	840
Notes: (a) Based on mid-point of pay scales. Includes employees NICs, pension contributions and ICT costs, but not other costs such as accommodation, recruitment and training.

DATA PROTECTION

27. Any information collected by an e-petitions system about the individual petitioners is likely to include at least some personal information under the Data Protection Act (DPA), to ensure that the "signatures" collected are genuine. The House will therefore be responsible for the proper holding and processing of that information. Similar responsibilities will fall on any individual Member (eg the facilitator of an e-petition) to whom that information may be passed.

28. Under the DPA, any person asked to provide personal information must be told in advance of what uses will be made of that information. This usually takes the form of a prominent data protection notice made available at the point the data is collected. Such notices should include whether the information might be passed to another party, such as the Member facilitating the e-petition and provide an option to either "opt-in" or "opt-out" of any further use being made of their personal data (the former is a fairer option and better practice but the latter gives a higher return of usable data).

CONNECTING PARLIAMENT AND THE PUBLIC

29. If the opportunity to submit and sign e-petitions is taken up by large numbers of people, it is possible that e-petitions may become one of the principal avenues for public involvement with Parliament. The success of the system may therefore have a direct impact on the wider standing of the House and of the services it offers to the public. However, a system of e-petitions is only likely to be a successful means of connecting with the public if citizens can see that signing a petition has some effect. It will be important, therefore, to explain what actions will follow the presentation of a petition. Possibilities range from simple acknowledgements sent to those signing, through a follow-up parliamentary question or adjournment debate, to consideration by a select committee (see paragraphs 24 and 25 above). Unless such measures are in place and seen to be an effective form of "listening" by the House, it is likely that the public will react negatively, thereby undermining rather than enhancing other measures to connect Parliament and the public. Whatever proposal is agreed it will be essential to explain it carefully so that expectations of what people can expect are clear and not overstated.

INTERNATIONAL COMPARATORS

30. No Parliament has a system of e-petitioning that is directly comparable to what is envisaged for the House of Commons. The Scottish, German, European and Portuguese Parliaments have all introduced electronic versions of their written petitions systems, but already had a Petitions Committee, or similar entity, to progress or refer petitions.[11] The examples described below include systems that manage from a few hundred, to thousands of petitions a year. The Committee may wish to examine why some Parliaments have received relatively few e-petitions.

31. Under the Scottish Parliament's system, petitions are hosted online for an agreed period, after which the petition is formally submitted to a Petitions Committee for consideration. Petitions to the Scottish Parliament must be limited to policy and relevant concerns within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament receives around 120 petitions a year, of which 50% are e-petitions. Two Clerks and an administrative officer support the petitions process full-time.

32. The German Bundestag started accepting e-petitions September 2005. By the start of 2007 the e-petitioning system had received 252 public petitions. The Bundestag has a Petitions Committee with 80 staff and receives more than 20,000 petitions a year on average. The European Parliament expects to receive at least 1300 petitions this year, 40% of these being e-petitions. The European Parliament has a Petitions Committee which may conduct its own investigation, refer the matter to a committee or, in exceptional cases, submit a report for the Parliament to vote on.

33. In Australia, the Queensland and Tasmanian Parliaments and the Australian Senate accept e-petitions and the Australian House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure has recently recommended the introduction of electronic petitioning.[12] The Senate system of petitioning is very similar to that of the House of Commons. Senate Standing Orders do not refer to e-petitions, but in practice they are accepted. The Senator presenting or "lodging" the petition (which is a print-out of the terms of the petition and its signatures) is required to verify the authenticity of the petition. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the percentage of such petitions is not high. The Queensland Parliament, which requires a Member to sponsor a petition from the outset, received 36 e-petitions in the 18 month period from August 2002 to April 2004.[13]

January 2008