House of Commons - Procedure

Select Committee on Procedure First Report

5 Our preferred option

55. In deciding between these options we have asked ourselves two key questions—

If the House of Commons is to accept e-petitions, should it also provide the means by which those petitions can be created?
Should the rules of admissibility (as opposed to stylistic requirements) for e-petitions be substantially the same as for traditional petitions?

On both these questions we have concluded that the answer must be 'yes.'

56. Only by hosting an e-petitions website itself can the House exercise any control over the authentication or validity of the signatures on those petitions or secure the principal benefits of e-petitioning. Leaving it to others to host e-petitions to be presented to Parliament carries risks but affords no benefits, other perhaps than the prospect that Members and the House would not be much more bothered by petitions than they currently are. We do not therefore support the first option.

57. The experience of the No. 10 site warns us of the volumes of petitions and petitioners which we could face. It may be tempting to consider introducing measures which would act to restrict the numbers of petitions submitted. But we believe that that temptation should be resisted. Firstly much of the benefit of allowing the public to engage directly with Parliament and Members would be lost if at the same time as introducing e-petitioning that engagement was made more difficult by the introduction of new restrictions or limitations on access to the system. The House would be seen as taking away with one hand what it was claiming to offer with the other. One of the key measures of the success of an e-petitions system will be the extent to which it has increased the numbers of people engaging directly with the parliamentary process.

58. For these reasons we have concluded that we should not propose the second option. We have therefore considered what an e-petitions system modelled on the third option should look like. We have included the three basic requirements that we set out in our earlier report—

e-petitions should be sponsored by Members;

they should be open for the addition of e-signatures for a certain period before formal presentation;

We have attempted to think through the consequences of these requirements as they interact with the potential capabilities of a web-based system. But before embarking on a detailed description we should make one important caveat: the development and implementation of an e-petitions system such as we describe can only effectively be achieved through an iterative process. That process may lead to changes in the detail of what we describe. It should not, however, challenge the basic principles.

59. Jonathan Drori described how a system of this sort should be developed and introduced—

We agree with this approach and emphasise that throughout this description of our preferred scheme the detailed arrangements which we set out must be seen as illustrative. The development and implementation process may well suggest better ways of achieving the same outcome. Where it does, the necessary delegations and flexibility must be in place to allow such refinements to be made. We were also advised 'to design a very simple first version.'[55] The proposed system which we describe below may not seem simple. In part that is because we have attempted to give the House a full picture of what an e-petitions scheme might look like. It does not necessarily follow that we would expect every element to be in place from the very start. As well as the benefits of being able to develop the system iteratively and respond to user experience, we also note that probably it would be much easier to add new features to the scheme than it would be to remove elements which proved unsustainable. We consider the appropriate way of delivering our preferred solution in Chapter 8.

Our proposed system

ARRIVAL ON THE SITE

60. A member of the public wishing to set up an e-petition would be directed by the parliamentary website homepage to an e-petitions page. This page would explain what a petition to the House of Commons is and the steps that the applicant will need to go through to set one up. It would also advise the applicant that not all matters are best pursued by means of a petition and that he or she should approach his or her constituency Member of Parliament directly for advice before proceeding to submit an e-petition.

61. The precise lay-out of this initial page will be important in setting the tone of the e-petitions system. Too much information may put people off proceeding any further; too little may lead to frustration further down the line.

SUBMITTING AN E-PETITION

62. From that initial page, the applicant would proceed to a page on which an e-petition could be drafted. Traditional petitions have two effective parts: the first sets out the reasons why the petitioner is petitioning the House; the second contains the request, or 'prayer', to the House for a remedy. The No. 10 website reverses this order by inviting the petitioner first to set out what he or she is petitioning the Prime Minister to do and then providing an opportunity briefly (no more than 1,000 characters) to provide further details on the petition. We see no reason to reverse the House's traditional order, but neither do we see a need for extensive explanation of the reasons for a petition. Very often they are evident from the prayer itself. The first box should therefore be short, intended simply to be an opportunity to set out the subject of the petition.

63. There is no specific word limit on petitions, although they are expected to be concise. Furthermore a petition which runs to several pages may be disorderly since a signature on the final page does not prove support for the material in earlier pages. There would need to be a word limit on e-petitions, if only to restrict abuse. The precise level might be set in the light of experience and might vary over time. The limit of 250 words for Early Day Motions seems to work well, and might be an appropriate initial figure for e-petitions.

64. Inevitably some e-petitions will not comply with the House's rules. The No. 10 website allows petitioners two attempts to bring a rejected e-petition within its rules. Despite this, it still rejects nearly half of those submitted. It is probable that a similar arrangement would be appropriate for e-petitions to the House of Commons. Tom Steinberg explained how rejected e-petitions were treated—

because we were trying to encourage Number 10 to show really exemplary best practice in terms of privacy and transparency of the process, when you have your petition rejected on the Number 10 site, if it is completely rejected …, it appears on the site itself, censored only in so far as it does not show the bit that causes the problem, so if most of the petition is okay but the title is libellous, then it will show everything except the title.[

It is important that where e-petitions are rejected there is clarity and transparency in that process and we support the proposal that rejected e-petitions should have some visibility on the website. In our view, however, it would be sufficient to list the subject and the name of the petitioner, rather than its full or redacted text.

Submitting during recesses

65. Petitions may be presented to the House only on sitting days. We do not propose that that rule should be changed in respect of e-petitions. There is however no procedural reason why the submission of e-petitions should be limited to sitting days. The principal obstacle to such submissions is likely to be the availability of Members. There may be delays in contacting Members who are working in their constituencies to ask them to act as facilitators for e-petitions (see paragraph 77).

66. We do not see this as a major problem as long as the website is clear as to what the public can expect. When the House is not sitting that should be clearly stated and the likely consequence that there may be a delay in setting up an e-petition should be spelled out. Since communications relating to e-petitions will principally be by email, Members will very often be able to respond as quickly in recesses as when the House is sitting. It is possible that Members may have dedicated inboxes for e-petitions communications. In that case they could use the out-of-office facility to give information about their availability to the House staff responsible for processing e-petitions.

Prorogation and dissolution

67. A petition does not become formally part of the House's proceedings until it is presented to the House. This would be equally true of e-petitions. Consequently there is, in our view, no reason why the e-petitions posted on the website should fall at prorogation in the way that, for example, Early Day Motions and parliamentary questions do. The position in the case of a dissolution, however, would be different. During a dissolution there are no Members of Parliament. Therefore no e-petition could be facilitated during that time. Furthermore, if e-petitions were permitted to remain open on the parliamentary website during a dissolution there is every chance that attempts would be made to use them for electioneering purposes. This would be unacceptable. We therefore recommend that when Parliament is dissolved, all current e-petitions should be closed and the website should be suspended, so that no new e-petition may be submitted until the new Parliament has met.

AUTHENTICATION OF SIGNATURES

68. In order to submit an e-petition, an applicant would need to provide, as well as an email address, a postal address and post code. Once the e-petition was submitted, the applicant would receive an email informing them that it had been received and asking the applicant to confirm that he or she had sent it, thereby checking that the email address was genuine. A similar procedure would be followed in respect of anyone wishing to add their name to an existing e-petition. This procedure, which follows that used on the No. 10 website, was described by Tom Loosemore as 'best practice'[57] and providing 'about the right level of protection.'[58] Only the e-petitioner's name would be publicly visible on the website. The remainder of the information, which would be classed as personal information under the Data Protection Act 1998, would be held by the House and used (or 'processed') only in accordance with that Act (see paragraphs 93 to 96).

69. It would be possible to seek further authentication of e-petitioners by checking postal addresses against the electoral roll. There might be occasions when that was appropriate, but we must also recognise that there are people who would be entitled to petition the House of Commons but who do not appear on the electoral roll for one of a number of perfectly valid reasons. For example there is no reason why persons under the age of eighteen should not petition the House of Commons. Initially and given the absence of any procedures systematically to check the signatures on traditional petitions, we believe that a relatively light touch should be adopted on the issue of authentication.

70. Even so, these authentication procedures will be more onerous than the current rules and may in various ways impose limits on the submission of e-petitions which do not apply to traditional petitions. For example, petitions are frequently expressed as being from a group, rather than simply a list of individuals. Sometimes these groups are no more than a description of the people affected by the subject of the petition, often with reference to a particular geographical area. But sometimes they have a more established existence. Corporations, for example, are permitted to petition the House under their corporate seal.

71. Additionally the requirement to provide a postal address and post code in the UK could exclude some persons who would otherwise be entitled to petition the House. There may be ways round this problem. No. 10 for example allows e-petitions from members of the Armed Forces stationed abroad. These issues might be considered during development and implementation, but in principle we favour the introduction of a simple system, to which additional features might be added at a later date, if there was a clear demand for them.

ROLE OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

72. Petitions can only be presented to the House of Commons by a Member. This is not true of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the European parliaments whose petitions procedures we have considered. In our previous report, we concluded that the involvement of a Member was a strength of our system and we recommended that it should continue.[59] In its reply, the Government agreed that the link was valuable.[60]

73. Only one of our witnesses argued that the link was wrong in principle.[61] Others raised some practical concerns. Tom Loosemore, for example, argued that involving a Member could be perceived as an extra complication which would deter people from engaging with the system: 'My gut reaction would be the name of the game here is to make the barriers as low as possible to broaden the engagement.'[62] In a similar vein, Jonathan Drori told us, 'my hunch is that the public see their MP as someone who helps them with local issues, whereas if they have an opinion about whether we go to war or not, or something like that, I think they would expect to sign a petition straight to No. 10.'[63]

74. Others, however, supported the link. The Hansard Society was strongly in favour.[64] We were aware from our previous inquiry that many Members valued their involvement with petitions. This was reiterated during this inquiry. Mr Andrew Miller MP told us—

A number of Members expressed reservations about introducing e-petitioning not least because they feared that any e-petitions system would weaken or undermine this link.[66]

75. Our view is that the involvement of the constituency Member of Parliament is central to the historic petitions procedure in the House of Commons. The vast majority of Members see the presentation of petitions on behalf of their constituents as one of their responsibilities whether or not they support the petition itself. This involvement strengthens both the petitions procedure itself and the broader relationship between constituents and their Member of Parliament. We believe that it can and should be preserved in any e-petitions system.

76. E-petitions, unlike traditional petitions, will have a parliamentary life before their presentation, in that they will have been posted on the website for the collection of signatures. We believe that Members will wish to be involved in the procedure from that initial stage. Firstly this would make the role of Members in the procedure absolutely clear to prospective signatories and the public at large. Secondly it would prevent petitions appearing on the website which would not then be presented because a Member could not be found to do so. Thirdly we recognise that, in many cases under the present system, the Member is closely involved in the preparation of a petition, whether simply as an adviser or as an active supporter of the thrust of the petition itself. Thus each e-petition would have, in effect, a sponsoring Member. We propose, however, that such Members should be described as 'facilitating' (rather than 'sponsoring') the e-petition, since, as we have noted, currently presentation of a petition does not necessarily imply support for it.

77. We propose that once a petitioner has submitted an e-petition which is in order, the petitioner's constituency Member of Parliament will be asked to act as facilitator for it. We believe that in the vast majority of cases the Member will agree. But if, exceptionally, he or she declines, the petitioner would be informed of that fact and invited to propose another Member to act as facilitator. Since there is no obligation on Members to present (or, in the case of e-petitions, to facilitate), the petitioner will be advised first to contact that Member to ascertain whether they would be willing to act before formally proposing them. We suggest that a petitioner who has been turned down by both his or her constituency Member and first alternate suggestion should be entitled to propose a third potential facilitator but no more. This we believe provides a reasonable balance between giving petitioners the opportunity to find a facilitator and preventing multiple requests to Members.

78. In agreeing to facilitate an e-petition, a Member would be implicitly agreeing also to present that e-petition, but he or she could not be required to present it. There may be a number of reasons which would lead a Member to be unwilling or unable either to present, or indeed to continue to facilitate, an e-petition which they had formerly agreed to facilitate. In such circumstances the petitioner should be given a similar opportunity to that described above to find a replacement.

79. Although Members do not normally sign petitions, there is no rule that prevents them, except that a Member may not sign a petition which he or she presents. We have emphasised that strengthening links between Members and their constituents should be an objective of an e-petitions system. We believe that on occasion constituents would welcome the public support of their Member for a petition which they had signed (but not initiated). The Member could simply sign the petition, but we believe that it would be more useful to have a separate list of Members who supported an e-petition. An e-petition will become a parliamentary proceeding. It is therefore worth distinguishing expressions of support for it by Members of Parliament from the list of members of the public who have signed it. We propose that there should be a separate parallel list of Members who have indicated their support for an e-petition. Since this support may often be indicated in response to the signing of the petition by their constituents, Members should be able to add their names to the list in the period between the closing of the e-petition and its presentation (see paragraph 98).

80. By practice the Speaker does not present petitions.[67] It would therefore not be appropriate for him to facilitate an e-petition. Equally it would be unfair that the Speaker's constituents should be disadvantaged by virtue of being represented in Parliament by him. We propose that when a constituent of the Speaker submits a petition, the Speaker would be informed and could propose another Member to facilitate the petition in his place. Once that Member had agreed to do so, the petitioner would be informed of that fact and the reason for it.

81. There are other Members, such as the Deputy Speakers and government Ministers, whose offices might make it inappropriate for them to facilitate e-petitions either in principle or in individual cases. A similar facility to nominate another Member to take their place should also be available to them.

TIME ON THE WEBSITE

82. Since it is our intention that e-petitions are made available on the website for additional signatures as preparation for their formal presentation to the House, it follows that the time so spent should be of limited duration. The No. 10 website sets a limit of one year. Petitioners may choose a shorter period, but in practice the vast majority of their e-petitions are live for the maximum period.

83. It seems likely that most e-petitions to the House of Commons would similarly be open for whatever maximum period the House chooses to set. In our view a year is longer than necessary or, in a parliamentary context, appropriate. We propose that the maximum period for e-petitions to the House of Commons should be four months. E-petitioners should be encouraged to consider choosing a shorter period where that might suit the petition they were submitting. To encourage this, we propose that the facilitating Member should be invited to endorse the time proposed by the petitioner. If appropriate, the Member could propose an alternative period to the petitioner.

COMMUNICATIONS

84. As we stated in paragraph 68, anyone wishing to add their name to an e-petition would have to provide the same details (email address, postal address and postcode) as a person seeking to set up an e-petition. The requirement for this information would be in part for purposes of authentication; but it would also enable the House and/or Members to communicate directly with e-petitioners. This opportunity for communication would be a major benefit of the system we are proposing, but who would be permitted to take advantage of it, how often and on what subjects needs to be carefully considered and must be consistent with the provisions of the Data Protection Act.

85. As part of this inquiry we held an e-consultation exercise. Among the principal concerns of those who contributed were the protection of any personal information provided in connection with submitting an e-petition, the uses that might be made of that information and the extent to which petitioners would be subjected to unwanted subsequent communications. We consider the protection of personal information in paragraphs 93 to 96 below.

86. A person who initiates or signs an e-petition is in effect making a public statement of their view on that issue. They are also deliberately engaging with a parliamentary process. That process will normally involve the formal presentation of their views (i.e. the e-petition) to the House and a response from the Government. The e-petition is sent to the relevant departmental select committee. It may also be followed up by parliamentary questions or by a debate. We might expect that petitioners would welcome receiving communications (i.e. emails) informing them of each of these events as they occurred.

87. Petitioners might also welcome the views of their constituency Member of Parliament on the issues raised by an e-petition. For the e-petition initiator the facilitating Member will normally be his or her constituency Member, but this will not necessarily be true of the other signatories. We discuss the idea of having a distinct class of constituency or local e-petitions in paragraph 105, but we do not propose that it should be possible to impose geographical restrictions on the eligibility to sign specific e-petitions. We have already stated that we believe e-petitioning should strengthen the bond between the public and their constituency Member of Parliament. For this reason we do not think it would be right to allow the facilitating Member to communicate with signatories of the e-petition who were not his or her constituents. Instead we propose that when an e-petition closes, Members should be told how many of their constituents have signed it and should, subject to the proviso in paragraph 88 below, be entitled to send no more than two emails to their constituents. Those emails would be restricted to the subject matter of the e-petition, although it would be permissible in them to invite constituents to sign up to receive other communications from their Member, such as newsletters.

88. The proviso mentioned above is that petitioners should have the choice whether to receive further communications. Tom Steinberg told us that in setting up the No. 10 website they had decided that—

the right response was you cannot opt out, you will never get more than two mails, so there is quite a lot of conversation but it ends.[

At first sight this seems an attractive option. After all, as we have noted, signing an e-petition is a public statement. It might not seem unreasonable that, by doing so, you should be taken to have agreed to receive a response to that statement.

89. On the other hand, we were warned by Tom Loosemore—

And, when asked whether petitioners should have to opt in or opt out, Jonathan Drori told us it should be opt in: 'The default condition should be that you do not get spammed.'[70]

90. We agree. We note also that the House is bound by the Data Protection Act and its restrictions on the uses made of personal information. We therefore propose that all signatories to an e-petition should be offered the opportunity to opt in to receiving—

a) Information on the progress of the e-petition and parliamentary activities related to it; and/or

b) Up to two emails on the subject of the e-petition from their constituency Member.

Although these latter emails would be sent in the name of the constituency Member, they should not be sent directly by the Member. This is for two reasons. Firstly such emails may need to be sent out in very large volumes which would place unreasonable and potentially unmanageable demands on Members and their staff. Secondly the House as a whole could best demonstrate that it was fulfilling its responsibilities to protect personal information under the Data Protection Act by retaining possession and control of that information itself (see paragraphs 93 to 97).

91. This should not, however, be the only means by which petitioners can be kept informed about e-petitions they have signed or initiated. The parliamentary website will contain regularly updated information on their progress which anyone could access. Additionally petitioners should be able to track what has happened to specific e-petitions as they progress through the system. This facility might be similar to the systems which allow a person to track a retail order made on the internet.[71]

92. The parliamentary website could also provide general information on the signatories of e-petitions which would not contravene the Data Protection Act. It would for example be possible to give an anonymised geographical breakdown of the signatories, so that in the case of an e-petition against, say, a proposed by-pass the number and percentage of signatories living in the town or village to be by-passed could be shown. Similarly Tom Steinberg told us—

Data Protection

93. The Data Protection Act protects personal data by requiring that any 'processing' of the data by or on behalf of the 'data controller'[73] must be fair and lawful and must comply with the data protection principles which are set out in a Schedule to the Act. The term 'processing' is very wide and covers not just disclosing the information to a third party but any 'use' of the information by the House itself including disclosure of the information by one person within the House to another person also within the House.

94. Anyone from whom personal information is requested (which would include e-petition initiators and subsequent signatories) should be informed, before that information is taken, why it is being requested and what uses will be made of it. It was clear from the e-consultation which we ran during our inquiry that the protection of personal information was a particular concern. An e-petitions website should set out very clearly the limited uses which would be made of petitioners' personal information and that some of those uses (for example, communicating back to them about e-petitions they had signed) would depend upon their explicit consent. The website should also explain that the information would be held by the House of Commons, not by the Government. Government responses would be (as now) passed from the relevant government department to the House; the Government would not be able to communicate directly with petitioners.

95. The House should, however, be aware that it may not be able to guarantee absolute protection for this personal information. Firstly it is possible, although in our view unlikely, that in certain circumstances its release could be required in response to a freedom of information request. The provisions of the Data Protection Act and the Freedom of Information Act relate to each other in complex and sometimes uncertain ways. We believe that the House authorities should argue against any disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, particularly since such a disclosure might risk discouraging participation in e-petitioning. But the ultimate decision on disclosure would be for the Information Commissioner or the Information Tribunal.

96. Secondly, there is the possibility that the House could be required to release the information under other legislation. The Regulatory and Investigatory Powers Act, for example, allows certain public authorities (including the police, Revenue and Customs and the intelligence agencies) to acquire 'communications data' where that is 'necessary' in the interests of national security or public safety or for the prevention or detection of crime. It is difficult to foresee circumstances in which such powers might be used in respect of information relating to e-petitions, but the House should be aware of the possibility.

OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION

97. Richard Allan suggested that one of the most useful outcomes for e-petitioners might be information on what was already going on in Parliament on the issues raised in the petition.[74] We agree, and note that it is likely to be an area in which more can be offered over time as the system develops (see paragraph 106).

PRESENTATION TO THE HOUSE

98. At the end of the allotted period an e-petition would be closed and no further signatures could be added to it. Its next formal stage would be presentation to the House. We do not believe that the closing date should be followed immediately by formal presentation. There should instead be a period of a few days in which Members would be informed of the numbers of their constituents who had signed the e-petition. This would also be an opportunity for them or other Members to indicate their support for the e-petition before its presentation (see paragraph 79). We propose that the minimum period between an e-petition closing and its presentation should be seven days. There may be occasions on which the period will be longer either because the facilitating Member believes a later day would be more appropriate, or for some other reason, for example that the House is in recess at the time.

99. The Management Board pointed out in their memorandum the possible implications for the House of presenting e-petitions in the traditional way—

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 …, 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.[

In practice, of course, the numbers presented would not be evenly spread over the House's sitting days. On certain days very many more than the average might be presented. One possible solution would be to limit the number which could be presented on the floor and select that number by ballot. Indeed this might be seen as reverting to the previous practice of the House when faced with very large numbers of petitions. Ballots were used in the first part of the nineteenth century to decide which Members could present their petitions.

100. However, we are not attracted by the prospect of ballots for the presentation of e-petitions. Even if the number to be presented on any day was restricted to, say, 10, we doubt that the House would welcome the extra time taken. We rather agree with Tom Steinberg, who told us—

An alternative would be to preclude e-petitions from being formally presented on the floor and require them instead to be bagged. But what would be put in the bag would presumably be a print out of the e-petition; it would not be the petition itself. The exercise would therefore be fairly pointless.

101. Andrew Miller encouraged us to recognise that in some respects e-petitions would have to be treated differently—

Taken together these are powerful arguments and we are persuaded that it should be possible to 'e-present' e-petitions. There may, however, be occasions when a Member wishes to present an e-petition formally on the floor of the House in the traditional manner. This should also be possible. In both cases, e-petitions would be published in Hansard, as petitions currently are.

Recommendation

102. We have taken some time to describe our preferred e-petitions scheme (see Box, opposite, for a summary of its principal features). Our intention has been to propose a system which is as straightforward and easy to use as possible while at the same time incorporating necessary and valuable parliamentary characteristics. A number of illustrative web-pages, produced for us by PICT, are published at the end of this report.[78] We have also attempted to be clear about the risks that go with an e-petitioning scheme. We recommend that, if after proper consideration of the potential risks, the House decides to press ahead with e-petitioning, it should be on the basis of our proposed scheme.

OUR PREFERRED OPTION

E-petitions can be submitted via the parliamentary website

If they comply with the House's rules, the petitioner's constituency MP will be asked to act as facilitator

The e-petition is then posted on the parliamentary website for a set period. Others may add their names to it
At the end of the period, it is closed. Members will be able to indicate support for it
It is then presented to the House, either electronically or on the floor

Petitioners and signatories may opt in to receive updates on the progress of the e-petition and/or up to two emails from their constituency MP

E-petitions will be printed in Hansard and sent to select committees and may be considered by them
The Government will normally be expected to reply within two months of presentation
On three occasions each year, certain e-petitions will be debated by the House of Commons in Westminster Hall

COMPLEXITY

103. Inevitably our scheme is more complex than that on the No. 10 website. We recognise that complexity can act as a disincentive to use. Tom Loosemore told us—

If the Houses of Parliament system is even only 30% less easy to use [than the No. 10 system], less easy to go through the process, you would lose well over half of your potential applicants.[

On the other hand there are risks in making the system too easy to use, such as, for example a multiplicity of frivolous or ill-considered e-petitions. Jonathan Drori commented—

104. We discuss in paragraphs 116 to 124 what changes to the existing rules for the form and content of petitions might be introduced to discourage abuse of the system. We do not believe that the steps we have described above, such as the requirement to designate a facilitating Member or several opportunities to opt in to receive further information, if clearly explained, should act as a significant deterrent to anyone with a considered and committed intention to submit an e-petition to the House of Commons. However, if during the implementation or following the introduction of the scheme, problems become apparent, there should be the flexibility and agility within the scheme to address them.

105. During our inquiry a number of additional features have been proposed, which we have not initially supported in our description. These include—

Petitioner to petitioner communication. Jonathan Drori argued that 'people are likely to want to find other people of like mind.'[81] Tom Steinberg said that if he could make one change to the No. 10 website, 'it would be to allow the people who have made petitions to write back to the people who then sign them.'[82]
Discussion forums. The Scottish Parliament allows discussion forums alongside its e-petitions. Ms Kathy Buckner, Director, International Teledemocracy Centre, Napier University, described them as useful in several ways[83] but agreed that they were 'not something you would want to start with.'[84] Dr Laura Miller, Hansard Society, told us that the Hansard Society supported the use of forums, because 'if e-petitions are not just to be a gimmick or a kind of one-off, quick-fire form of engagement, there needs to be some kind of deliberative element.'[85] Tom Loosemore, on the other hand, told us that he 'would go nowhere near forums' because 'you are unlikely to attract a reasoned debate in that forum' and 'The debate on the internet happens all over the internet. You do not need another place to have that debate.'[86]
Facility to sign against (i.e. indicate opposition to) an e-petition. Jonathan Drori was in principle in favour of this.[87] Kathy Buckner thought that it was 'something that some petitioners would be quite interested to know, how much feeling there is against what they are saying.'[88] Ella Taylor-Smith, however, cautioned that 'people's reasoning for supporting or not supporting a petition is often very, very important … and this "Yes/No" is quite a blunt thing.'[89] Peter Riddell suggested that the same object might be achieved by means of a counter petition.[90]
A formal distinction between local (or constituency) petitions and national petitions so that only those who lived in the area affected (as determined by their post code) could sign a local e-petition. This, according to Tom Steinberg, would be technically possible, but he doubted whether 'it would ever be worth that extra effort because I do not know how many people who live in Scotland are actually going to sign a petition about the post office in Devon.'[91] Tom Loosemore argued against such a facility on the grounds that it risked raising the barrier to engagement.[92] Ella Taylor-Smith argued against it because—

She suggested that instead a 'map could be made available which had an indication of the volume of signatures from each post code.'

106. Since we believe that initially at least the system should be kept fairly simple, we do not recommend that any of these features should be included from the outset. Neither are we convinced of their desirability. Some might be considered for addition to the scheme if over time a demand for them arose. The ability to include such additional features should be built into the original design. The design should also as far as possible allow the addition of other, as yet unidentified, features. In other words it should be both scaleable and flexible.

53 Ibid, paragraph 58. Back

54 Q 124 Back

55 Q 106 (Tom Steinberg) Back

56 Q 75 Back

57 Q 86 Back

58 Q 113 Back

59 HC (2006-07) 513, paragraph17 Back

60 Cm 7193 paragraph 6 Back

61 See Q 9 (Mr Carswell) Back

62 Q 63 Back

63 Q 121 Back

64 Q 119 Back