Procedure Committee
From Democracywiki
Central Lobby
Contents |
What the Committee does
The Procedure Committee considers the practice and procedure of the House in the conduct of public business. The Committee was nominated on 13 July 2005. Mr Greg Knight became Chairman of the Committee on 9 November 2005.
Membership
A list of current members can be found here
Relevant Inquiries and Reports
Below are a selection of the inquiries and reports published by the Committee that relate to the work of Unlock Democracy. For a complete full details of the Commitee's work please see its website.
E-Petitions
In May 2007, the House of Commons Procedures Committee expressed support for the idea of an e-petitioning system for the House of Commons. In March 2008 it produced a report setting out the pros and cons of an e-petitioning system and their proposed system
Arguments against
Setting out the arguments against an e-petitions system for the House of Commons, the Committee pinpointed volume as a potential problem, noting that the No 10 e-petitioning system had experienced very high volumes of e-petitions, with 29,000 petitions and 5.5 million signatures received in its first year. This could mean extra work for MPs – members may be asked to sponsor 2 petitions per week and to deal with additional work surrounding this.
They also feared trivial or mischievous petitions. It was noted that on the No 10 site, one of the most popular petitions was to make Jeremy Clarkson Prime Minister. It may also be possible that illegal or offensive causes could be submitted.
One of the worries of the Commission was that if public expectations were too high, they may be disappointed in what the system can achieve and that failure could undermine faith in the system and the House.
Other arguments against e-petitions included costs: the Committee estimated their system would cost £500,000 to set up and £750,000 per annum in running costs.
Arguments for
Overall, the Committee was in favour of a system of e-petitions and set out the arguments for this in its report:
Firstly, it would restore the primacy of Parliament and would reinforce the House’s historic role as the principal recipient of petitions. It could also help to clarify the public’s understanding of Parliament’s role separate to government.
Additionally, with the internet being the modern way of communicating, an e-petitioning system might help to reconnect with the public and could help to engage young people in particular. Another major benefit would be increasing transparency – the system could act as a gateway to encourage the public to scrutinise the wider activity of Parliament. E-petitioning could also open up the possibility of greater interaction via a system of two-way discussion.
Proposed System
After considering various options, the Committee outlined their preferred system:
Parliament would run its own website for e-petitions. Initially, an individual or group could submit a petition on the website, but would need an MP to sponsor, or “facilitate” it. This would be their constituency MP, or an alternative suggested by the MP or constituent if the constituency MP was not willing to facilitate it. If three MPs are unwilling to take up a petition, it would be rejected and rejected e-petitions would be shown on the website (as rejected). Speakers and ministers would not be able to facilitate e-petitions but could suggest alternative facilitators. The MP facilitating the petition would aid the petitioner to ensure it conforms with the House’s rules.
The petition would include the subject, simply defined, and the reasons for proposing it (max 250 words). It should state what it expects Parliament to do and Parliament should have the power to do what is asked. The petitioner and signatories must submit their name, address and postcode. There would be a separate list of MPs signing the petition alongside public signatures.
Once submitted to the House website, an e-petition would remain on the website for a maximum of 4 months, during which time signatures could be added. At the end of this period, there would then be 7 days during which MPs would be informed of how many of their constituents supported the petition and MPs would have an opportunity to sign the petition. It would then be “e-presented,” to the House, or a member could present the e-petition formally in the House if they wished. Thereafter, the government would have 2 months to respond to the e-petition. Following this, the e-petition would be printed in Hansard, submitted to a select committee, and there may be parliamentary questions and debate on it.
The Committee also proposed there would be three dedicated slots per year of 1½ hours for debating e-petitions in the House, with 1, 2 or 3 petitions being debated each time. It suggested that the Committee itself would decide which petitions would be debated.
In the Committee’s proposed system, all signatories would have the option to receive updates from Parliament and/or 2 e-mails from their constituency MP informing them of the progress of the e-petition. The Parliamentary website would also have updates on the progress of petitions and may show the geographical/economic breakdown of signatories. The Committee was keen to point out however that all data would be protected by the Data Protection Act.
The earliest date for the system to be up and running would be the beginning of 2010. It was pointed out that the No 10 e-petitions site might have to close down to avoid public confusion if two systems were allowed to operate simultaneously.
