Tuesday 22 July 2008

Leader of the House of Commons

WRITTEN MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

e-Petitions

Procedure Committee Reports on Public Petitions

The Procedure Committee published a Report on e-Petitions on 6 April (First report, 2007-08, HC 136). This followed its 2007 Report on updating the traditional petitions procedure. Both these Reports arose in part out of the growing search for measures to re-engage the public with Parliament and with politics, together with awareness of developments elsewhere including the way the petitions process operates in the Scottish Parliament. A number of changes were made to the House's petitions processes as a result of the 2007 report, including agreement within Government to respond to almost all petitions, for petitions and responses to be published in Hansard, and for encouraging individual backbenchers to select petitions for debate or to 'tag' them to existing debates. The Committee indicated its intention of conducting a further inquiry into e-petitioning, noting the then recent introduction of the No 10 petitions website.

This Written Ministerial Statement responds to the Committee's further Report on e-Petitions, ahead of a proposed debate in the autumn, referring as applicable to the recommendations in the Report.

The Government welcomes the Report from the Committee, as foreshadowed in the July 2007 Governance of Britain Green Paper, and endorses the basic recommendation for the House to develop an e-petitioning system. Such a system is likely to lead to a very significant increase in the number of petitions received. The Government agrees with the Committee that e-petitioning will reinforce the House's historic role as recipient of public petitions and help to make a major contribution to making the House more accessible to the public. (Recommendations 1-3).

Basic features of an e-petitioning system

The Report proposes that an e-petitioning system should have the following basic features:
. e-petitions to be submitted via the parliamentary website
. If they comply with the House's rules, the petitioner's constituency MP would be asked to act as facilitator
. The e-petition would then be posted on the parliamentary website for a set period, with others able to add their names
. At the end of the period, the e-petition would be closed; Members would also be able to indicate support
. It would then be formally presented to the House (either automatically or on the floor of the House)
. Petitioners and signatories could opt in to receive updates on the progress of the e-petition and/or up to two emails from their constituency MP
. E-petitions would be printed in Hansard and the Government will normally be expected to reply within two months of presentation
. There would be opportunities for petitions to receive further consideration with the House or by committee

The petition website would close when Parliament is dissolved. The Committee indicates that these elements are to some extent illustrative and that a range of further details remains to be worked through. The Government agrees with this basic approach. Further consideration will need to be given to whether it will be possible or proportionate for the Government to respond to all e-petitions given the large increase in the number envisaged. (Recommendations 4-6 and 8-9)

Filters to ensure focussed and relevant petitions:

The Procedure Committee proposes that the traditional 'Member link' to a petition, under which a petition should be sponsored  by a Member (even if the sponsoring Member does not agree with the petition) should be retained. The constituency Member would be asked to act as facilitator (where the constituency Member is not willing or-in the case of a Minister-able to act as facilitator, another Member could act). The Committee also proposes that e-petitions should clearly state the action the petitioners desire the House to take and that the rules for petitions should be kept under review.

The Government agrees that e-petitions should so far as possible be well focussed and relevant to the role of the House and national Government rather than about matters which are the responsibility of other authorities, such as devolved administrations and legislatures and local authorities. This should be reflected in the rules and in the instructions to officials dealing with petitions, which may therefore need to be tighter than the current rules.

There would therefore be three interlinking filters to promote effective engagement between potential petitioners and the system:

(a) the first point of contact for a potential petitioner would be via the website, operated by a petitions office, which would provide a first opportunity for the public to be guided as to alternative approaches if a petition was not an appropriate course (petitioners could also be required at this stage, as in the Scottish system, to confirm that they had already taken appropriate previous steps to resolve their issue)
(b) the rules of order for petitions would be clearly set out on the website, minimising the scope for inappropriate petitions and assisting the petitions office in enforcing the rules; the rules would be drawn more tightly than the current rules, in terms of relevance to the role of the House and central government
(c) the constituency MP would automatically be approached to act as the facilitator for the petition,  allowing a further opportunity for the Member to help to suggest alternative ways of addressing the issue raised where this would be helpful.
This process would help to retain a clearer distinction between petitions to the House of Commons and other petitioning or similar processes. (Recommendations 7 and 12-14)

Outcomes

A vital aspect of e-petitioning, if it is to resonate with the public, is that petitioners should be able to see the effect of their pressure. At the same time, the structure should not raise expectations unrealistically.

As well as petitions generally leading to a Government response, the Procedure Committee proposes that e-petitions, as with traditional petitions, should be sent to select committees, which may choose whether or not to consider them further, and that provision should be made for debating certain e-petitions in Westminster Hall on three occasions each year. (Recommendations 10-11)

The Government considers that there is a case for going further than this. One of the most effective features of the model of petitioning in the Scottish Parliament is the provision for some petitioners to be able to give direct evidence to an appropriate committee, usually in Scotland the Petitions Committee itself. Capacity at Westminster is already very stretched and it would not be appropriate to set up a specific committee. The existing departmental select committees are also stretched but could do this as one of their core tasks. The Government considers that over the course of a year it would be reasonable for them each to devote one day to the taking of oral evidence on petitions sent to them which they themselves had sifted for importance. They could then support the petitioners if they felt it appropriate. The mechanics for all of this would require further consideration. The Government would welcome the views of the Liaison Committee on this proposal.

Selection in committee would be a matter for the committee concerned, while the mechanisms for selection of any debates in Westminster Hall would be for further consideration. In both cases selection would need to take into account all relevant factors (including other House and committee business). But while sheer number of signatures alone could not be the sole determinant-since this would fail to take into account the importance of the subject or the extent to which it had already been considered by the House-it would clearly be a significant factor.

Implementation and next steps

The Procedure Committee Report emphasises that introduction of a new system will take time, not least because of the need to commission and procure the relevant IT systems. It proposes that debate on the proposals should be informed by a fuller estimate of likely costs and also that if the principle is agreed then  the House service should also set up a programme for briefing Members and Members' staff on their roles under such a system. Importantly, the Committee notes that the new system will require a structure of political governance with a Committee given an oversight role to resolve detailed issues which will need deciding or refining. The Procedure Committee has indicated that it is itself prepared to undertake this role. It may have to report to the House from time to time, in an iterative process, to seek the endorsement of the House for the more high level issues (such as proposed rules of order for petitions). Significant further work would therefore be needed before the system comes into operation. The Government agrees with these conclusions. (Recommendations 15-19)

The Government therefore envisages providing time later in the year for a debate on the Committee's Report and the proposed way forward. The debate would be on the basis of a Motion which would seek the House's endorsement for the principle of e-petitioning on the basis set out in this statement, instruct the House service to begin the design and tendering process, and charge the Procedure Committee with oversight of the introduction of the system and with consideration of more detailed rules of order for petitions to make the system work and to report back to the House as necessary. The Committee would also identify areas in which Standing Order changes may be necessary to make the system work, which would be considered by the House nearer the time of introduction of the new system.

The Government hopes that the House will endorse this way forward, allowing it take a significant step forward in helping to promote better engagement with the public. The Government notes that in due course the House of Lords may also wish to look at its own petitions procedures.