9 Conclusion
149. A project to establish e-petitioning can only
be initiated by a decision of the House. We have set out our preferred
option in this report. But there are other viable options and
it will be for the House as a whole to decide which it wishes
to pursue.
150. We have identified a number of risks in proceeding
with e-petitioning on the model we propose. We have also set out
how any web-based project such as this needs to be able to adapt
and respond to the demands, and even the preferences, of its users
if it is to be successful. Even if that flexibility is built in,
we cannot be certain that e-petitioning will be a success. But
what we can say is that we have recognised a demand for new and
more effective means of communication between the public and Members
of Parliament and for the House to be able to be more responsive
to the concerns and interests of the public. E-petitioning will
not on its own be the answer to that demand, but it could make
an important contribution.
151. To some readers of this report e-petitioning
might seem to involve simply the development of a discrete item
of parliamentary procedure so that it can be supported and enhanced
by an electronic dimension and a presence on the parliamentary
website. To the public, however, e-petitioning is likely to be
perceived as just one function among many offered on the House's
website, and the opportunity to submit an e-petition as just one
of many ways of communicating with Parliament or with individual
Members of Parliament. Whether it is successful will largely depend
on how many people choose to use that opportunity and whether,
in terms of outcomes, it offers something that is distinctive
and is what people want. In other words, introducing e-petitioning
is something of a gamble, possibly an expensive gamble, but a
gamble which in our opinion is worth taking.
|
