Conclusions and recommendations
A "collaborative" system?
1. We do not consider
that it would be sensible to set up a separate House system. Rather,
we believe that a better way for the House now to achieve the
objective our predecessors set out of "reinforc[ing] [its]
historic role as the proper and principal recipient of public
petitions" will be for ownership of a joint system to be
shared between the Government and a re-established Petitions Committee,
on behalf of the House. (Paragraph 19)
Platform for a joint system
2. A joint system
should be based on the existing Government e-petition site, redesigned
and rebranded to show that it is owned by the House and the Government.
To emphasise the Parliamentary oversight of the system, and in
line with the House's historic role as the principal recipient
of public petitions, it should use the URL epetitions.parliament.uk.
There should also be a clear link from the Parliament website
www.parliament.uk to
the e-petition site, including from the pages which explain the
existing paper petitioning system. (Paragraph 20)
Role of the Committee
3. We are persuaded
that, in a jointly-owned system, there should be a House of Commons
Petitions Committee charged with oversight of the e-petitioning
system on behalf of the House, liaising with the Government. The
Committee should also assume responsibility for oversight of the
paper petitioning system in the House of Commons. (Paragraph 28)
Chairing and membership
4. We consider that
a committee charged with such responsibilities on behalf of the
House should have a chair elected by the whole House and members
elected by their parties, as with the majority of existing select
committees. (Paragraph 30)
New committee, or allocate the responsibilities
to an existing committee?
5. Our preference
is for a separate committee to be set up which can focus exclusively
on the significant task of considering and responding to petitions.
(Paragraph 33)
Engagement with petitioners and potential petitioners
6. The potential is
there, we believe, for the establishment of a new system overseen
by a Petitions Committee to improve significantly the House's
engagement with petitioners and prospective petitioners. (Paragraph
44)
Moderation of e-petitions
7. We recommend that
moderation of the jointly-owned system—that is, examination
of e-petitions submitted to ensure that they comply with the terms
and conditions of the site—should be carried out by Petitions
Committee staff, advised as necessary by officials of Government
departments. (Paragraph 49)
Threshold for publication
8. We recommend that
an e-petition be required to attract at least five signatures
in addition to its creator before it will be submitted for moderation
(and thereafter publication). (Paragraph 52)
Terms and conditions or the submission of an e-petition
9. The terms and conditions
of the site which we consider appropriate to a jointly-owned system
are published in the Annex to this report. (Paragraph 53)
10. Petitioners should
be required to include a clear statement of the action which they
want the Government, or the House, to take as a result of their
petition. (Paragraph 54)
Duration on the site
11. We recommend that
the period for which a petition should be open for signature on
the new site should be six months. (Paragraph 64)
Presentation to the House
12. We recommend that,
once it is closed for signature, the title of each e-petition
be recorded in a list in the Votes and Proceedings (or elsewhere
in the formal record of House proceedings), together with the
number of signatures it has attracted. (Paragraph 65)
Debates on petitions
13. We recommend that
the Petitions Committee should assume responsibility from BBCom
for determining debates on petitions in Westminster Hall. If the
Petitions Committee decides that a petition deserves a debate
on the floor of the House, it would take that request to the Backbench
Business Committee, which could (but would not be obliged to)
allocate backbench time for it. (Paragraph 68)
Paper petitions
14. We have concluded
that the rules and procedures for paper petitions should remain
as they are. (Paragraph 72)
15. We recommend that
the Government should retain its practice of responding to every
paper petition presented to the House. We recommend that the requirement
that all paper petitions should be referred to the relevant select
committee, and formally placed on their agenda, should be removed.
(Paragraph 73)
| 
