Examination of Witnesses (Questions 116-119)
PROFESSOR JONATHAN
DRORI CBE, MR
PETER RIDDELL,
DR LAURA
MILLER, MS
KATHY BUCKNER
AND MS
ELLA TAYLOR-SMITH
30 JANUARY 2008
Q116 Chairman: Can I thank you all for
coming. We are being webcast, I should point out, as well as a
record being taken of the minutes of evidence. As I am sure you
are all aware, we have expressed an interest in looking at the
proposal to introduce to the House of Commons an e-petitioning
system and we have been encouraged to pursue a very thorough inquiry
by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, who are rather
sympathetic to this proposed innovation. We have already had,
as you will know, a number of evidence sessions but we would be
interested to hear your thoughts on some of the questions which
we still are grappling with. If you feel you have nothing to add
to what someone else has said before you, please feel free to
say so. I will start by directing questions at you generally and
maybe we could start from my left, Professor, if you could answer
first, and then we will move across and let us see how we get
on. The Government has actually said it thinks Parliament should
be the natural recipient of national petitions and I wondered
what you saw as the principal role of an e-petitioning system
for the House of Commons were one to be introduced?
Professor Drori: Can I begin by
saying that I do not feel myself to be an expert on e-petitions.
I know something about the Internet and how to make services which
the public will use and be engaged by. I feel that my comments
about e-petitions are perhaps as valuable or invaluable as the
next person. Having said that, I think one of the things which
needs to be managed is the public expectation of what an e-petitioning
system will do and what they expect will happen once they have
submitted a petition, or contributed to one. I think the popularity
we have seen with the Number 10 petitioning system makes me wonder
whether the public think that if you want to get something done
that is where you go, rather than coming through their MP. I do
not know if that addresses your question.
Mr Riddell: I am here in my capacity
as Chairman of the Hansard Society and on my left is Laura Miller,
who is from our e-Democracy program. The Hansard Society is not
a campaigning organisation. We base the view we have on research,
on commissions, and in fact in answering your question we first
discussed this on a commission we had a number of years ago chaired
by your former colleague, Tony Newton, Lord Newton of Braintree,
on scrutiny—I was vice-chairman of that commission and it
was taken up in a subsequent commission on communication with
Parliament, which reported just after the last election—and
also in our other experience. Our view is that petitioning Parliament
is central to strengthening representative democracy and the core
belief of the Hansard Society is in relation to representative
democracy and the new techniques available to it. Our view was
that the Number 10 petition site missed the point. Indeed, going
back to some of the evidence you had before, when I think one
of your witnesses last time rather conflated Government and Parliament.
We do not do that. We regard petitioning Parliament as a central,
historic aspect of the role of an MP and there are various issues
I know you have raised, and which you will no doubt want to come
on to, about the MPs' role in relation to e-petitions as opposed
to the current written petitions, but we regard it 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,
both in relation to obviously constituency grievances (the closure
of hospitals, schools, and so on) and more general national issues.
That is the context in which we see it. Therefore, the view we
took was that Parliament must be central to petitions and in effect
it was a pity that petitioning went to Government first. It was
the view of the last Leader of the House, Jack Straw—and
he said this publicly—that it would be much better actually
starting with Parliament because Parliament is the forum where
some of the redress can be made. That is the general approach
we have. It is in relation to Parliament and Parliament's communication
with constituents that it should be seen.
Dr Miller: I have nothing to add
to that.
Ms Buckner: I would concur with
what has been said already. I think it is very much about the
engagement of the citizens with the e-democracy process and using
technology to do that, but other than that I have nothing to add
to what has been said.
Ms Taylor-Smith: I would say that
the recipient of the petition should be the person who has the
power to deal with it, and if that is Parliament then that is
Parliament, for each particular issue, not rather that it should
be the recipient because they have the perceived power. So Parliament
should not necessarily be the recipient if it is a devolved issue.
Q117 Chairman: Thank you. In the
course of our inquiries we have discovered that the Australian
Senate accepts e-petitions in the way we accept written petitions,
but that is it, there is no provision for online launching of
a petition. What extra benefits do you think would be derived
from having a purpose-built e-petitioning system where people
could go online and launch their own petition, which ultimately
is presented to Parliament? Shall we start from the other end?
Ms Taylor-Smith: I think there
are two advantages. There is one that you control to some extent
the petitions to make sure that they are appropriate in terms
that, as I said, you can deal with them, that they are an issue
you can deal with. If they are posted elsewhere, you have no control
over that. Secondly, I think it is a very big gesture. It is a
big open door for Parliament to say, "We are providing this
thing for you."
Ms Buckner: It gives the citizen
a sense of security, that this is a safe place to launch their
petition, and that can be to the good, I think, in terms of people
understanding about the process and their trust in the process
as well. That said, in fact in Scotland they do actually allow
petitioners to present signatures from a range of sources, so
a petitioner could actually present signatures from the Scottish
Parliament's e-petitioning site and from an external e-petitioning
site, and also with written signatures as well. So a multi-mode
type of presentation of signatures is not necessarily out of the
question; it could work.
Dr Miller: I just wanted to add
that the main benefit is of transparency, the fact that everything
is hosted or displayed on one website. So even if it is an aggregated
system of petitions from elsewhere, in fact it is all posted on
one website, and there are links to parliamentary debates, discussions,
and so forth, which we will come to later, I am sure, but I think
that provides a vehicle by which Parliament could be scrutinised
and can scrutinise itself.
Mr Riddell: The only point I want
to add is that it is not just the difference in technology, which
is a recognition of how your constituents and ourselves all now
communicate compared with ten years ago, which obviously is very,
very important, it is the other aspect of it which I think is
absolutely crucial, the response to the petition. Your report
in the last session, Chairman—and I know you recommended
some changes and improvements there— recognises some of
the deficiencies in the current system. I think as crucial as
the mechanism going upwards is the response and e-petitions provide
a mechanism. Firstly, because it is much easier to communicate
back to the people who put a petition in and I know (subject to
safeguards which have been raised about data protection, and so
forth) it is much easier to give a response back. That is why
it is in the broader context of the reassuring and building up
confidence in the political process. I see it very much in that
context of doing that, and e-petitions provide a much easier mechanism
for the two-way process, subject to the safeguards which I know
you have been inquiring about earlier.
Professor Drori: I think there
are advantages and some of those advantages lead to their own
disadvantages. On the one hand you have greater transparency,
and certainly the technical media will enable more people to feel
that this is something for them, particularly younger members
of the population, I would have thought. By lowering the barriers
to people contributing towards petitions you will get more people
able and willing to have a say, and that is all good. With it,
though, because it is so much easier, I expect there will be a
higher take-up, more people will contribute to the petitions.
Therefore, I would expect a somewhat greater number of trivial
matters to come across the desk of those who are dealing with
it, and possibly those of fleeting interest as well, which may
creep in. I would also say that this technology makes for an expectation
of immediacy and people will have expectations in hearing something
back as well, getting a response. These technologies enable two-way
communication and that is what people will expect.
Chairman: Thank you.
Q118 Mr Gale: The Hansard Society
evidence paper which you so kindly provided us with says at paragraph
2: "e-Petitions provide one of the most direct and popular
means by which the public can engage with the political processes.
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." One of the concerns which has
been expressed (and which some parliamentary colleagues certainly
share) is that there is already a plethora of parliamentary graffiti
and there is a serious danger that this will just add to it. Given
that statement in your evidence, why should we suppose that an
e-petition is going to deliver any greater engagement between
Parliament and the public than the written petition, which itself
already is very widely disregarded?
Mr Riddell: There is a variety
of points on that, Mr Gale. Also, I noted a point you have been
raising about the mechanism for how the petition is done, the
role of the Members in facilitating it, which I think is an extremely
important issue, if I may put that in parenthesis. I think the
answer to that is partly the hurdles you have, in other words
the degree to which you continue with the Member having responsibility.
As you put it in some of the questioning, facilitating whether
they agree with it or not, being the duty of the MP, which I think
is an extremely important point. I think there is a distinction
sometimes between the constituency petition and a national petition,
whether you have a higher threshold for a national petition of
signatures, or whatever. The answer to the second half of your
point, the graffiti point, is that I think it is the filtering
process. I take your point absolutely on graffiti. I think it
is a very serious point. On the second part of your point, insofar
as they are ignored, that is why I think the second part of it,
which is the degree to which Parliament itself then considers
petitions, refers them to committees, is where the Scottish parallels
come in, where its Petitions Committee looks at some and refers
some to sub-committees. I think that is where the answer lies
on that. On the first part, it is the filtering mechanism.
Dr Miller: Yes, emphatically the
filtering mechanism is a priority. I do not think there is anything
in what I have written which would suggest that we would advocate
a free-for-all petitioning system in which there are no barriers
to entry. It would have to be structured and there would have
to be processes in place which would make sure that the petitions
were judged on their merit and then processed accordingly. In
other words, if there is a good process for the facilitation of
e-petitions within Parliament, it would actually increase both
the interest of MPs and those of constituents and also the efficacy
of Parliament. So I think it is a win-win situation in that respect.
In terms of graffiti, I think having a Petitions Committee in
place would allow for proper scrutiny to make sure that MPs' time
was not wasted and that there was a proper measurement of response.
Q119 Mr Gale: I would like to bring
in the others in a minute, but if I could just pick you up on
the specific point you made, you said that it might excite the
Member's interest. It is clearly going to excite the Member's
interest more if the Member is responsible for it. I am not clear
from what you have said whether you think the Member should continue
to be involved in the process and management of the petition or
not.
Dr Miller: Absolutely, I believe
they should be, for example in terms of the facilitation of taking
the petition either onto the Floor of the Commons or elsewhere.
So whether it be in terms of facilitating a debate or raising
issues or inquiries within select committees, and so on and so
forth, there are all sorts of ways in which an MP can be involved.
Responding to petitions is another way in which MPs can be involved,
so there is absolutely no question. Also, if there was a Petitions
Committee, that is also another way in which MPs could be involved
because they would be sitting on it from across the different
parties.
Mr Riddell: I would strongly back
that. You raised some very interesting dilemmas in the questioning
I read in the first two sessions. That distinction you have between
the person who stands up at 10.30 or 7.30, whatever, and then
the ones at the back—you get into very dangerous mixed metaphors
there!—I think that can be replicated in the electronic
way. There is also the filtering process. The interesting question
is whether you allow a kind of free petitioning. If you do have
that, I think you have got to have a high hurdle on that. If you
also look at some of the Number 10 petitions, some have immediately
been knocked out. Perhaps you have a wonderful petition, "David
Beckham ought to get his 100th cap against Switzerland next week."
That would be filtered out immediately. I think your filtering
process would deal with that process without overloading you.
But yes, the Member should continue to be involved.
|
