Hansard Society (P7)
1. INTRODUCTION
The Hansard Society is the UK's leading independent,
non-partisan political research and education charity. We aim
to strengthen parliamentary democracy and to encourage greater
public involvement in politics. We welcome the Procedure Committee's
inquiry into e-Petitions, which starts from the premise that Parliament
needs to include e-Petitions within a revamped public petitions
system. We are pleased to take part in this inquiry and take this
opportunity to highlight the need for a designated Petitions Committee—as
discussed in our submission to the Procedure Committee's inquiry
into Petitions (October, 2006)—that will allow Parliament
to consider e-Petitions during its deliberations.
2. THE CURRENT
SYSTEM OF
PETITIONS
e-Petitions provide one of the most direct and
popular means by which the public can engage with political processes.[1]
At present, they are not given the same weight as handwritten
submissions, and there are no systems in place within Parliament
to accept or process them.
The absence of an established mechanism by which
the House of Commons considers and acts upon e-Petitions means
that decisions about whether they are considered and by whom are
discretionary. At present, the Number 10 website which hosts e-Petitions
can request that Ministers follow up on the issues raised within
them, but there is no obligation for them to do so. As a result,
public expectations are raised and often left unfulfilled.
Any practice that has the effect of disappointing
the public should be changed—particularly since public disconnection
and alienation from Parliament is now widely acknowledged. To
overcome the "democratic deficit", it is important that
the public knows that there is an established and effective mechanism
which allows them to express their concerns in ways that may influence
the parliamentary agenda. Satisfaction when taking initial steps
towards political engagement (by signing an e-Petition) will lead
to longer-term efficacy.
3. E-PETITIONING
The Hansard Society has undertaken a successful
programme of research and development in the field of eDemocracy.
Our work highlights how new technologies can be used to enhance
the work of Parliament, in particular enabling it to connect with
the public. If the House were to decide not to make use of electronic
petitioning, it would send a signal that it was rejecting the
advantages that new technologies can bring. These advantages are
recognized by the public, and in particular by young people (by
which we mean those in the 18-34 age groups) who use new technologies
to communicate daily and among whom disconnection from politics
and Parliament is well documented.
We refer the Committee to a 2002 study, Digital
Democracy through Electronic Petitioning, by Ann Macintosh and
Anna Malina, International Teledemocracy Centre, Napier University
and Steve Farrell, Scottish Parliament, which looked at the use
of electronic petitioning in Scotland. Their report included these
concluding points:
"Findings from this indicate considerable
support for the e-petitioning system, with signatories applauding
various advantages, in particular the opportunity to be included
in what was viewed as more democratic interaction. There was,
however, some marked concern that security and confidentiality
may yet be problematic... E-petition sponsors indicated that they
viewed e-petitioner as a useful tool in influencing politicians
about issues they considered important. They generally felt e-petitioner
was a useful tool complimenting more traditional methods of petitioning.
Indeed the ability to access at a convenient time and reach wider
sections of society alongside the slower more deliberative processes
made possible by e-petitioner were considered inherently more
democratic".[2]
Given the positive aspects of e-petitioning
identified by the International Teledemocracy Centre, and while
recognising that concerns about confidentiality, security and
verification need to be addressed, we endorse its introduction
at Westminster. Any system adopted should be piloted and monitored
to evaluate its effectiveness as well as its compatibility with
other parliamentary mechanisms and procedures.
Indeed, there is a case for considering the
additional establishment of a Public Engagement Committee, to
undertake consultations and debates, surveying and opinion polling
(including e-Petitions). These specific models are outside the
direct remit of the Committee's current inquiry but it could be
argued that e-Petitions are simply one of a number of ways of
connecting with the public and providing an opportunity to influence
the agenda. Broader methods could be introduced. A Public Engagement
Committee could liaise closely with other committees, including
the Petitions Committee, and with the Scrutiny Unit and external
bodies.
4. THE E
-PETITIONS SYSTEM
IN SCOTLAND
The situation at Westminster, where e-Petitions
have very little impact, stands in marked contrast to the Scottish
Parliament. At Holyrood the Public Petitions Committee plays a
pivotal role in connecting the public and the Executive. All Petitions
(handwritten or electronically submitted) go to the Committee
which then assesses the merits of each submission by consulting
with the Executive, MPs and, if necessary, by taking evidence
from the petitioners, other individuals and organisations. The
Commission filters out petitions where action is already being
taken or where the case is weak.
Following this stage, there are multiple options
including:
— The committee can agree that a more
detailed investigation is required and the Petition can be referred
to the relevant Subject Committee.
— If there is a particular point within
a Petition that's noteworthy, the Petitions Committee may set
up an inquiry. Its findings can be reported in the Parliament,
and followed by a debate or Executive response.
— Points within the Petition can be
Included into the scrutiny of relevant legislation.
— Petitions can be sent directly to
the Executive for consultation but the Public Petitions Committee
retains ownership.
Even when the Petitions Committee or the relevant
subject committee or the Executive decides no action should be
taken, a point of connection is established between citizens and
campaigns around particular issues and meanwhile the possibility
of ongoing engagement is created between signatories and elected
representatives.
5. THE OPERATION
OF A
PETITIONS COMMITTEE
The Hansard Society has argued that a Petitions
Committee for Westminster, along the lines of the Scottish model,
represents the most straightforward and effective way of dealing
with Public Petitions and e-Petitions. Such a Committee if established
in the Commons would assess the merits of the petitions and the
issues arising and if appropriate to make referrals for the further
consideration. This might happen in a number of ways:
— through a short debate (in the main
Chamber or Westminster Hall);
— by referral to a select committee
for an inquiry or evidence session;
— by enabling individual Members to
speak on behalf of the Petition in the Chamber; and
— through a referral to a Government
department for a formal response.
It is vital that expectations of petitioners
are managed realistically and that Parliament has sufficient capacity
and mechanisms to deal with petitions (whether handwritten or
electronically submitted). It is also important to avoid overburdening
select committees by binding them to certain work as well as avoiding
taking up too much parliamentary time.
6. CREATING THE
APPROPRIATE CULTURE
Procedural changes and new mechanisms will not
be sufficient on their own to create a successful e-Petitions
system. The introduction of a successful e-Petitions system would
require some cultural change.
It is vital that Parliament should raise awareness
that the e-Petitions system has been changed and that e-Petitions
are positively welcomed. Efforts should be made to make the public
realise that their concerns will be taken seriously even if it
cannot be promised that Parliament will necessarily agree or take
action. As a first step, advertising in various forms of media,
and most obviously on Parliament's own website, should be used.
Once an e-Petition has been received by Parliament, petitioners
should be able to receive feedback on its progress and find out
about the action being taken. It is also crucial that a newly
established Petitions Committee should act as a filter to ensure
that offensive or inappropriate petitions are excluded.
7. CONCLUSION
The Hansard Society very much welcomes the Procedure
Committee's inquiry into e-Petitioning, which follows on from
its earlier inquiry into Public Petitions. We have recommended
on a number of occasions that Parliament should reform the system
of Petitions, most notably by establishing a Petitions Committee
of the House of Commons. Such a Committee would provide a clear
mechanism by which the public would be able to make a case to
influence the parliamentary agenda as well as a means of providing
a connection between the public and government. The Committee
itself would play a mediating role between issues of concern raised
by the public and other parts of the parliamentary process, such
as select committees. The most obvious model, and parallel, is
the Public Petitions Committee in the Scottish Parliament.
At present, the only opportunity for members
of the public to send e-Petitions to the UK government is via
the Number 10 website. Launched in November 2006, the e-Petitions
site has received over 29,000 petitions: over 8,500 are currently
live, over 6,000 have finished and 14,601 have been rejected outright.
E-Petitions have attracted just under 6 million signatures from
just under 4 million email addresses.[3]
During its first year of existence, the Number 10 website has
implemented systems for dealing with repetitive or malicious or
extreme petitions. The lessons learnt by the Number 10 website
and the systems developed by the Scottish Parliament could be
drawn upon at Westminster if it adopts e-Petitions.
One of the themes of our recent work is that
Parliament should make greater use of pilots in order to monitor
and evaluate the effectiveness of innovations, and an experiment
with e-Petitions would be an ideal candidate for such an approach.
Dr Laura Miller
November 2007
1 The most popular e-Petition on the Downing Street
website (against road pricing) was signed by 1.7 million people.
Approximately 3.9 million people have signed e-Petitions, yet
these have no policy impact, serving at best to alert ministers
to the scale of public sentiment. Back
2
Digital Democracy through Electronic Petitioning, Macintosh, A
and Malina A, International Teledemocracy Centre, Napier University
and Steve Farrell, The Scottish Parliament, (2002). Back
3
This data comes from the 10 Downing Street Website (url: http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page11051.asp). Back
| 
