House of Commons - Procedure

Select Committee on Procedure First Report

3 Arguments for introducing e-petitions

33. Now that we have set out the principal arguments against introducing e-petitions, we move on to consider the arguments in favour of them. We start with the general comment that the arguments against were principally about ways in which an e-petitions scheme could go wrong. They were not substantively arguments against e-petitioning in principle.

Primacy of Parliament

34. In our earlier report we said—

We are aware of concerns that the No. 10 e-petitions system risks by-passing Parliament or even taking on a role which is more properly one for Parliament. Although there is a long history of the public petitioning No. 10 directly, we believe that Parliament should be the primary recipient of petitions from the public.[

We continue to believe that those concerns are valid. We note that they are shared, at least to some extent, by the Government, which in its reply to our report stated—

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.

Means of communication

35. Communicating via the internet has become the preferred means of communication of increasingly large numbers of people and for an ever wider range of purposes. Mr Peter Riddell, speaking as Chairman of the Hansard Society, said—

we regard [e-petitioning] as crucial to the relationship between MPs and constituents, and indeed developing that role given new technology. The desirability of e-petitions is a recognition that that is the way people communicate now, but within the parliamentary context of strengthening communications between Parliament as an institution, MPs and their constituents.[

The Association of Professional Political Consultants, speaking of the historic right to petition, stated—

A similar view was expressed by Cancer Research whose memorandum stated—

Professor Drori summed up the argument when he said 'if you have got a medium [i.e. the internet] which can attract more people, why not use it?'[37]

Broader engagement

36. Use of the internet is particularly prevalent among groups which the House has targeted for increased engagement. In its report, Connecting Parliament with the Public, the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons set out three objectives for the recommendations it made to the House. The first was to make the House of Commons more welcoming and accessible to constituents, but the other two were—

To make greater efforts to engage young people; and

To encourage better use of information and communications technology.[

E-petitioning has the potential to contribute to both these objectives.

37. Mr Douglas Carswell MP argued that—

His prescription was for a significantly more radical programme of e-democracy than is encompassed in e-petitioning,[40] but we have sympathy with his argument and believe that, in the right circumstances, it could apply to an e-petitioning system.

Transparency and accessibility

38. A web-based e-petitioning system would itself be more transparent and accessible than traditional petitions, but it could also make a contribution to increasing the transparency and accessibility of the work of the House of Commons and its Members more generally. Richard Allan described how this might work—

Could [e-petitioning] enhance democracy? Definitely, yes. How it would do that is precisely in thinking through the classic transaction, which is the individual sitting at home, these days feeling comfortable with the Internet as their primary communication tool, not picking up pen and paper because that is the way they like to do things. They go to the parliamentary website, the official source. They find something attractive which draws them in and says, "Hey, come and express your view". They express their view through the petition engine and as a result they get back some really interesting information, and in the vast majority of cases telling them that far more is happening on this in Parliament than they ever knew … they get back something which says, "You're interested in fox hunting, here's all the stuff that has happened on fox hunting in Parliament", "Wow, I didn't know that", and then "Here's a way to talk to your elected representative about that", again an accessible way to take it further. Through that sort of mechanism you then end up with a citizen who is better informed and better engaged than you had at the beginning. The petition engine is one small piece of a process of better engaging people but it is one that I think is essential because it is how people are working, that is how they think.[

39. Ella Taylor-Smith, from the International Teledemocracy Centre at Napier University, described a parliament-hosted e-petitions system as 'a very big gesture. It is a big open door for Parliament to say, "We are providing this thing for you.".'[42] In the same vein, Tom Loosemore argued—

Interaction

40. An e-petitions system could provide more than transparency; it would create an opportunity for interaction. It could enable petitioners and signatories to receive emailed responses to their petitions. These might simply be information about the progress of the petition or other associated parliamentary proceedings. They might also include messages from the petitioner's constituency Member of Parliament. We were reminded that the internet is 'a conversation medium; it is not a broadcast medium or a post office. The opportunity to start a meaningful dialogue with people is very powerful.'[44] Describing experience with the No. 10 website, Mr Tom Steinberg of mySociety, said—

41. The potential scope of this interaction in a parliamentary context is considerable. As with the No. 10 site, e-petitioners could be sent government responses to their e-petitions. Following our previous report, the Government has agreed that it will now normally respond to all substantive petitions. E-petitioners could also be informed of other parliamentary activity directly consequent on their petition, such as its formal presentation, any follow-up parliamentary question (e.g. at Business Questions) which the presenting Member may have asked, even any action taken by the select committee to which it was sent.

42. Going further, it would be possible to offer petitioners the option of receiving further communications on the subject of the petition from the Member who presented it or from their constituency Member. The Scottish Parliament establishes web fora alongside its e-petitions. It was suggested to us that petitioners might welcome the opportunity to contact each other: 'people are likely to want to find other people of like mind. I think there will be some people who will want to be able to find other people who have signed the petition or agree with them.'[46] We were not convinced of the usefulness of all these points and we set out our views on them in more detail below (see paragraphs 105 to 106). For now we simply conclude that 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.'[47]

32 HC (2006-07) 513, paragraph 54. Back

33 The Governance of Britain-Petitions: The Government's Response to the Procedure Committee's First Report, session 2006-07, on Public Petitions and Early Day Motions, Cm 7193, paragraph 15. Back

34 Q 116 Back

35 Ev 51 Back

36 Ev 53 Back

37 Q 175 Back

38 HC (2003-04 368), paragraph 13. Back

39 Q 39 Back

40 See Ev 12-14 Back

41 Q 39 Back

42 Q 117 Back

43 Q 58 Back