International Teledemocracy Centre (P13)
INTRODUCTION
Through its work with governments, parliaments
and NGOs across the globe, the International Teledemocracy Centre
(ITC) has established an international reputation as a research
centre that combines software engineering applications with political
and sociological analysis to investigate how ICTs can enhance
and support the democratic decision-making processes.
For almost a decade, ITC has been involved with
the design and management of electronic petition systems for organisations
at different levels of the political hierarchy: since 1999, at
devolved government level with The Scottish Parliament; since
2004, at Local Authority level with the Royal Borough of Kingston
and Bristol City Council; and since 2005, at national level with
the German Bundestag. Our e-petitions research and innovation
continues with current projects involving the Province of Flevoland
in the Netherlands, and interactive television petitioning with
Sheffield City Council.
The Committees Report into Public Petitions
and Early Motions[4]
includes accounts of meetings with those involved in e-petitions
in The Scottish Parliament and the German Bundestag.[5]
Added to this, a good account of The Scottish Parliament's e-petitions
system and its integration into parliamentary processes is included
in the submission to this inquiry from the Hansard Society. So,
we will not describe these systems again. However, we are happy
to answer questions about all the e-petitions systems we have
designed so far, especially in terms of adjustments or new functions
added to align them more closely to government processes.
Evaluation of feedback from the use of these
systems has mostly been positive—both from the authority
and petitioners. This applies to our own research and others.
These positive factors include:
— Extending opportunities for engagement
with the democratic process: for example by extending opportunities
to sign to a national level.
— Increasing the transparency of interactions
between citizens and parliament, as the stages are recorded and
publicly available.
— Giving people more time to consider
the petition before signing, especially if the petition is supported
by background information and a deliberative discussion forum.
— The data from those raising and signing
the petition (and contributing to any discussion) can provide
insights into the distribution and depth of feeling surrounding
the issues raised.
Though these advantages apply specifically to
e-petitions, many of our recommendations concern the processes
by which petitions are dealt with and apply equally to paper petitions.
Evaluation suggests that it is the processes associated with petitioning
and e-petitioning which govern the public's reactions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The parliament should provide an e-petitions
system on its website
We strongly recommend that the Parliament provides
an e-petitioning system on its own website, for reasons of transparency
and public confidence. It should be clear that the Parliament
endorses the system, while not necessarily agreeing with each
petition.
— This ensures that all petitions,
including supporting information and information about their progress
and outcomes, is available in one place.
— It enables Parliament to take some
control over petitions posted; for example to ensure that they
fall under the Parliament's remit.
— It gives the public confidence in
the legitimacy of the petitions, especially once information about
the progress of submitted petitions is included.
— It provides a space to clarify and
record the responsibilities of the petitioner, the Parliament
and its Members, so that public expectations are realistic.
— This information should include an
agreed list of reasons for rejecting potential petitions, including
information about who performs this task and how to appeal.
— This information should clearly indicate
where processes will differ from those used as part of the Number
10 e-petitions system.
2. The direct involvement of Members of Parliament
Establishing a strong relationship between individual
Members of Parliament and individual petitions has the potential
to become one of the strengths of the system. It reflects similar
practices elsewhere:
— Bristol City Council and the Royal
Borough of Kingston Upon Thames both use petitioning systems,
including e-petitions, where many petitions are initiated by councillors
prompted by their constituents' concerns.
— In Scotland, the petitioners are
encouraged to contact their MSPs prior to submitting a petition.
There are also specific advantages to specifying
a link between Members and petitions:
— It retains the representative role
of Members.
— It follows the method employed by
paper petitions.
— It enables Members to control the
e-petitions posted, in order to avoid petitions outside the parliament's
remit, offensive content and duplication. It could also enable
Members to control the number of e-petitions, to keep the process
active and sustainable.
— It encourages Members to ensure the
petition is processed according to best practice.
However, some aspects of this link are more
problematic:
— If Members and their staff are to
coordinate all the process involved, from assessing the legitimacy
of potential e-petitions to recording feedback on outcomes of
submitted petitions, this will add a considerable burden of diverse
tasks to their workload. To effectively perform this range of
tasks, support and coordination at a parliamentary level is advised.
Coordination is essential to avoid duplication of petitions, as
well as limit duplication of effort. This would also ensure a
more even quality of engagement for the citizens involved. In
The Scottish Parliament, these tasks are performed by the Public
Petitions Committee.
— The availability and preferences
of Members also needs to be considered. Citizens should not be
dissuaded from starting e-petitions because their representative
is known to oppose the issue or has a busy ministerial position.
— E-Petitions by their nature operate
at a national (or even international) level, whereas representation
is defined at a local level.
3. The establishment of a Petitions Committee
ITC therefore feels that, a coordinating body
is essential to support Members' involvement with petitions, including
e-petitions, not just in terms of assisting Members, but to create
an even and sustainable process that the public can have confidence
in. We feel that some sort of Petitions Committee is the logical
answer.
This body could perform the following essential
tasks for a successful e-petition system:
— Supporting Members in their agreed
roles.
— Management of public expectations.
— Providing guidance on the submission
of petitions and explaining the petitioning process.
— Filtering potential petitions to
ensure that they are admissible (within the agreed terms) and
duplication is avoided.
— Moderating the public list of signatures.
— Supporting the progress of the petition,
as necessary, until a resolution is reached and recording this
process.
— Moderation of petition discussion
if this is included.
4. Signatures
The e-petitions systems supplied by ITC use
a series of mechanisms to check signatures to avoid the automatic
addition of lists of names. These checks do not affect the public
appearance of signatures, but give a "confidence rating"
which is available to those administrating the system. The systems
also include a facility for administrators to remove signatures
which refer to obviously fictional characters (like Donald Duck)
or may cause offence.
However, e-petitions are little more reliable
than paper petitions in ensuring that all signatures are valid.
As such, we advise that each petition is taken on its own merit,
as in the Scottish system, rather than its influence being dependent
on the number of signatures. This also draws on lessons learned
from the Number 10 pilot, where the volume of signatures tends
to reflect the petitions level of publicity, rather than a meaningful
level of public sympathy. In practice this publicity could gather
support for petitions based on a false premise.[6]
5. Fostering Deliberation
The ITC e-petitioning systems all include discussion
fora. Each petition automatically has its own discussion. This
increases opportunities for public engagement and the quality
of that engagement. The discussions provide somewhere for people
to consider the petition, to disagree with it or to present their
own experience in support or otherwise. This gives Parliament,
especially the Member presenting the petition, a fuller picture
of the public's relationship with the issue.
It might also be useful to provide a public
space where the petitioning process overall could be discussed.
This could prove a useful resource both to petitioners and the
parliament.
The petitions system could use the technology
of the parliament's e-consultation system to increase usability
and reduce costs, though the fora would not appear in the same
part of the website, as they are for different purposes.
6. Evaluation
ITC recommend that an evaluation plan is created
as an integral part of taking on any e-petitioning process. Evaluation
mechanisms should be included in any technical specification.
(For example an evaluation questionnaire, as used in the ITC e-petitions
systems.) The e-petitions system and processes surrounding it
should be independently evaluated. This process should begin within
a year of the system's launch.
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
Some of the tasks involved in processing an
e-petition are supported by computers, however, there are implications
for human resources. The tasks we list under our recommendations
for the establishment of a Petitions Committee reflects our experience
with The Scottish Parliament system.
SUMMARY
— We recommend that the Parliament
pilots or establishes an e-petitions system as part of its own
website.
— We feel that Members could play a
variety of useful roles in an e-petitions system.
— We recommend that the Parliament
ensures processes surrounding petitions are consistent, transparent
and adequately resourced.
— We feel that the best way to manage
an extended petitions process is though a Petitions Committee.
— We recommend that petitions are considered
on their merit, rather than according to the number of signatures.
— We feel that deliberative discussion
can play a valuable role in the e-petitioning process.
— We acknowledge that this system will
require extra resources, but these should not be prohibitive.
— We feel that the resources given
to the e-petitioning process will be more than rewarded by an
improvement in citizen engagement and trust in the Parliament.
— We fully endorse the Hansard Society's
submission and recommendations.
REFERENCES
Adams, N J, Macintosh, A, and Johnston, J (2005);
"e-Petitioning: Enabling Ground-up Participation'; Challenges
of Expanding Internet: E-Commerce, F-Business and E-Government;
Matohisa Funabashi and Adam Grzech (eds); 5th IFIP Conference
on c-Commerce, B-Business and E-Government (13E'2005); October
26-28 2005, Poznan, Poland, pp 265-279.
Carman, C J (2007); Modelling Petitioner Engagement
with the Scottish Parliament's Petitions System: Procedural Fairness
and Participatory Democracy, Working paper presented at 2007 meeting
"Elections, Public Opinion & Parties" study group
of the Political Studies Association, Bristol 2007.
ICELE (2007); Effective petitioning—the
internet way, Bristol City Council; Bristol 2007. Available from
http://stores.lulu.com/icele
The Scottish Parliament's How to submit a public
petition which includes guidance on admissibility: http:// ~w.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/publicInfo/htsapp/LeafletIndex.htni
Whyte, A, Renton, A and Macintosh, A. (2005);
eDemocracy from the Top Down: An Evaluation of eDemocracy Activities
Initiated by Councils and Government Bristol City Council. Published
by Bristol City Council for The Local eDemocracy National Project.
Available at: http://itc.napier.ac.uk/ITC/Documents/eDemocracy
from—the—TopDown—ODPM—2005.pdf
December 2007
4 Published on 22 May as HC 513. Back
5
A selection of references are included at the end of the submission. Back
6
http://www.numberten.gov.uk/output/Pagei1051.asp Back
| 
