Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-139)
PROFESSOR JONATHAN
DRORI CBE, MR
PETER RIDDELL,
DR LAURA
MILLER, MS
KATHY BUCKNER
AND MS
ELLA TAYLOR-SMITH
30 JANUARY 2008
Q120 Mr Gale: I will come back to
that in a moment, but I do not want to exclude everybody else.
I do not know if any of our university friends have anything to
say? Yes, Professor?
Professor Drori: I am not sure
about the filtering process via MPs and I am not sure how the
public see the involvement of their MP in the process. I think
the public are probably aware of large bundles of papers being
presented to Number 10 in news stories as petitions, and I think
that is probably the popular view, but I also note how the Scottish
system seems to operate perfectly well, as I understand it, without
going through the Scottish MPs as filters. So I am not sure it
is the only way. I may have misunderstood that.
Q121 Mr Gale: The Scottish Parliament,
as I understand it, only gets 120 petitions a year and half of
those are written, so we are talking about two very different
volumes, are we not, between Downing Street on the one hand and
the Scottish Parliament on the other?
Professor Drori: The volumes may
be different, but I do not think that is an argument necessarily
either way for having to have MPs as the gatekeepers. This is
just my hunch. I do not know the research on this, but 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 Number 10. That is how I would
imagine the public would regard this.
Ms Buckner: I think there are
differences, are there not, between local matters and national
matters, and also about who does the filtering? I think there
can be two levels of filtering as well, so we have got kind of
two different steps in two directions. Some of the filtering,
for example if you get petitions which are not really valid or
should not really be presented, could be done not by the MPs but
by the Petitions Committee or by clerks to the Petitions Committee.
That sort of filtering could restrict some petitions going through
which were not really valid. Then probably there are issues which
should be directed to specific MPs because they are constituency
issues, and those are the Members who should then be supporting
those petitions and adopting those petitions. Then there are the
national ones, and I think those are probably the more problematic
ones, about where they go, things which perhaps deal with health
issues, for example, which are not to do with a specific constituency,
or things to do with war and those sorts of issues. So there are
those sorts of larger issues and I do not really have an answer
to that, but they are not necessarily constituency matters and
so perhaps there should be a different home for those or some
more thinking about where those sorts of petitions should go.
Q122 Mr Gale: A final point, Ms Buckner,
and one or two of you may wish to answer this: local issues, the
local Member of Parliament, fine. We would want, I suspect, to
become involved in that anyway. The bigger picture is graffiti,
unless it leads to something. There is an argument which says
that the Downing Street petitions are so much Downing Street wallpaper,
and nothing happens and they disappear into a black hole and eventually
somebody may get a response saying, "Thank you very much.
We have read your petition." That is it. The only people
who are capable of making something happen actually are Members
of Parliament. We started talking about engagement. If the public
are led down the petition path and then nothing happens, far from
improving the engagement issue, is that not going to make it worse
and is it not, therefore, better to have somebody managing it
with a view to taking it on board and trying to see it through
to some sort of activity at a parliamentary level?
Professor Drori: I absolutely
agree that it would be very unfortunate if the public was led
to believe that something will happen and then nothing ever does.
When it comes to how that process is managed, though, from people
signing a petition or creating a petition for others to sign and
then the matter being directed at those who might have a proper
response, that can happen in a lot of different ways and I do
not think the MP route is the only way to make that happen. So
it may be that there is a committee which directs it at the right
government department, for example, to give a response. It does
not necessarily have to be filtered by MPs.
Q123 Chairman: You are quite right
in saying that, but I think it is only right that I should point
out that our thinking thus far has been very strongly that if
we are to go ahead with this process there is a case for reinforcing
the link between the member of the public and his or her constituency
MP, rather than seeking to bypass it, which can lead to all sorts
of friction and difficulties in other areas. For example, a city-wide
campaign which did not involve any of the city's Members of Parliament
could lead to the whole system being brought into disrepute with
the MPs bringing forward their own petitions via their own supporters.
We have not got a closed mind on this, but our initial thinking
very strongly was that it is better to bind in the constituency
Member as the first port of call and, as happens now, of course,
a constituency Member can always decline to present a petition
and then the member of the public is free to go elsewhere.
Mr Riddell: Can I take up a point
on that, Chairman? I agree with you entirely. That is why the
Hansard Society believes the strengthening of the MPs' links is
the key to this. It is not the undermining, it is the strengthening.
Equally, I strongly agree with Mr Gale's question, that the risk
of disillusionment is absolutely crucial, and therefore I think
the real thing is to get the response right. What has been wrong
so far with the existing system is that you get a pro forma response,
and what was totally wrong with the Number 10 site—and they
did not realise it initially—was that people would just
say, "So what?" You get 1.8 million on the roads one
and then Number 10 woke up and said, "Oh, we've got to give
another answer." I think with the filtering process—after
all, the Commons does this all the time—when, for example,
the Liaison Committee picks which select committee report should
be debated, it has got to make a choice. Similarly, you are faced
with a variety of criteria on the nature of the petition. Some
may be about schools in Kent, say. Some of that actually should
then go to the Department of whatever it is now, on families and
schools, and there is a response back from them, and then it comes
back via the MP to the petitioners, which can be done electronically
so that more people can be reached extremely cheaply. On other
matters it may be a subject for inquiry by a Commons committee
and the filtering committee, some of its staff, would be the people
who would decide the appropriate body to aim at, but the people
would feel at least they were being taken seriously. I think that
is the essence of it.
Chairman: Thank you.
Q124 John Hemming: There is a sort
of issue when you design computer systems as to what extent you
specify in minute detail at the start what it is supposed to be
and to what extent you "sup it and see" and adjust things
as you go along. Obviously, both ways are feasible. Where would
you be inclined to go in terms of an e-petition system?
Professor Drori: I feel slightly
more confident of the ground here. I think you need to lay down
some ground rules of what the system is meant to do, and effectively
in broad terms what success will look like for you. You then need
to ensure that all the key stakeholders in Parliament, as well
as someone representing the audience research that you will need,
are consulted. Then let one editorial lead group, the parliamentary
internet group, or whoever it is, just get on with designing it.
I would recommend doing a pilot, and I think this is something
which has been recommended by others here as well. You need something
for a pilot which is circumscribed, so that it is either a topic
or a region, something where you can test what the public response
will be not only to your design but also the scalability of the
technical systems, and so on, to make sure it all works. What
you really do not do in the internet world is specify every last
nut and bolt at the outset. You need to specify the broad functionality
pretty well, but not the design and the individual design features,
the things that you will discover as you go along—what it
is the public wants. So the set-up you need is one which is pretty
agile—and I do not think Parliament is set up for this—where
you develop something, you tell the public it is a beta version,
it is a pilot, so they are under no illusion, so that it is kind
of eighty per cent right of what you want. You learn from what
they are telling you and you quickly make the changes that you
need in order to make it better and better as you go along. This
is how the Web operates and it is not really how the IT industry
has traditionally operated.
Q125 Chairman: Are you suggesting
a geographical pilot, perhaps covering one county?
Professor Drori: You could do
that. I do not think I am in a position right now to be able to
say just how you circumscribe the pilot. It needs to be something
which has some sort of definite boundary around it, either a geographical
or topic boundary, or something, so that you do not have to do
everything all at once and you are limiting the number of people
who are going to take part. Inevitably, you will develop something
and you try it first with friends and family, volunteers, and
then you want something a bit bigger which you test with a potential
audience of thousands rather than millions, to see whether the
procedures work, that the system as a whole hangs together, that
it does not fall apart, that people understand what they are meant
to be doing with it, and then you scale it up. So I would say
it might be a particular geographical region, that might be quite
nice. You might find an MP who is onside and try it in one constituency
over one particular issue and publicise it, maybe using a local
radio station to publicise the event.
Q126 Chairman: But it would have
more value, would it not, if it was across the whole of the UK
but maybe narrowed by topic, because then you would get a better
indication of demand?
Professor Drori: Yes, except you
may also find that it is harder to manage for various technical
reasons or just in terms of getting the number of users and publicising
it. That may be difficult. So I do not think this is the right
place to make that decision, actually. I think one should lay
down the ground rules of what it is you are trying to test and
then allow people, on the basis of audience research and the kind
of actual practical design, to work out what is the best way of
piloting that.
Q127 Rosemary McKenna: Can we not
use the Number 10 pilot? That is already there. Can that not be
the basis upon which a system would be built to petition Parliament?
Professor Drori: Yes, there is
no reason why not.
Q128 Rosemary McKenna: That requires
the necessity for doing the pilot that you are suggesting?
Professor Drori: It depends what
it is you want to test, because if the Number 10 system did everything
we all wanted we would just use that and that would be it, and
we would not be having the debate. Something needs to change.
Q129 Rosemary McKenna: No, that is
not accurate because Number 10 is Government. Parliament is Parliament
and we want people to be able to petition Parliament.
Professor Drori: Right. So this
is one of the things that you are piloting is what I am saying.
Q130 Rosemary McKenna: Yes, but you
are talking about the structure. What I am suggesting is that
we already know that that structure worked.
Professor Drori: If it does everything
you want it to do.
Ms Buckner: I think it is not
just the technical system that you are piloting, it is the whole
process about how the petitions are handled, how the filtering
works, what happens to them when they come in and they are gathering
the signatures, and then what happens after. So it is that whole
process that really you will be looking at.
Q131 Rosemary McKenna: But that is
something that this Committee would look at rather than the people
doing the—
Ms Buckner: In terms of the evaluation,
I think after your pilot you would want to have an evaluation
which is not just looked at by the Committee but which does go
out to the users and finds out what their views and feelings are
as well.
Ms Taylor-Smith: Could I add to
this as well? I think the most important thing about specifying
the system is the process, what happens to the petition before
and after it is submitted, not just the signing on the site, and
that is something which needs to be very public. One of the gentlemen
was talking about leading people down a path as though the process
was not clear to everybody. It must be absolutely clear on the
website, possibly using a diagram, exactly what stages the petition
will go through before and after it appears on the website. In
terms of that, Rosemary McKenna's idea is not unreasonable at
all, because if a petition had been accepted on the Number 10
site which was really more suitable for parliamentary remit, you
could use that part of the system for the gathering of signatures
and add an extension which used the rest of the process, because
that is really what the Number 10 site is missing. Then you would
test out how you dealt with the petition. I do not think you are
really going to be able to use the pilot to test, what did you
call it, the demand for a petition, because it is not going to
be realistic. Like the Number 10 site, it started like that and
then it kind of levelled out. You have seen the graph for the
number of petitions submitted over the year, and maybe next year
it will drop down a bit. They are flavour of the month. So earlier
you will get a bulge and that will go down. I do not think you
can test the volume with a pilot, but what you can test is the
robustness of your processes. Equally, that is not something you
want to be messing about with too late on. If you change what
will happen to a petition, then you really are going to upset
the petitioners.
Dr Miller: I just want to concur
with what Ella and Kathy have been saying. I think it is a mistake
to assume that when you are introducing e-petitions you are just
introducing a technical instrument that you can evaluate and pilot
in that way. You have to look at it in a process-orientated way,
which means evaluating the outcomes for Parliament, for MPs and
for the public, and each of those factors has to be considered.
Therefore, ways of evaluating it, ways of assessing the impact
cannot necessarily be quantified but can certainly be observed.
That is, I think, probably the central thing about the pilot.
In terms of the actual website itself and whether or not it can
be developed at different stages in different ways, of course
it has to be iterative, so there have to be different versions
being brought out which respond to the different kinds of outcomes,
so that it is shown to progress and therefore is more transparent
and is more fair.
Q132 Chairman: Before I come back
to John Hemming, can I ask Professor Drori, have you seen our
last evidence session, and if you have, do you agree with the
comment of Tom Loosemore when he said that he felt PICT would
be a major part of the problem of introducing e-petitions?
Professor Drori: Yes, I have seen
it. I think there is a problem with PICT in that it has a dual
role, as I understand it, both as an advisor on the best technical
methods and also as a deliverer of those things. I think it puts
those in PICT in a very difficult position and in the parliamentary
Internet project, to which I am a consultant, I see that problem
borne out. So I think that generally things work best when there
is a clear relationship between a commissioner who commissions
on behalf of users and a supplier, and I think that is fudged
in the way that Parliament operates its information technology.
I would also say that there is a need to manage day to day ICT
(by that I mean the sort of office systems and all the technology
that runs your desktops in Parliament, and so on) rather separately
from the way Web development is run, which is a much more agile,
iterative process, to come back to your question, with much shorter
timescales. So I think there is a need for PICT to agree technical
guidelines on behalf of Parliament, in other words anything that
we plug into our systems, "These are the broad technical
guidelines. This is how it should operate and interface with our
systems," and then to enable the commissioners to go to the
best possible source of that technology and those systems, which
may be internal or may be external.
Chairman: Thank you.
Q133 John Hemming: I am not too sure
about the technical guidelines. PICT will not allow port 110 in
the firewall, which means you cannot get external email into Parliament,
which is why I do not use the parliamentary network because all
my email systems are completely independent. The question is really
about outcomes and what outcomes you think could be achieved.
What evidence is there that e-petitioning produces better outcomes
for the people generally?
Dr Miller: The Hansard Society
has done quite a lot of research into political engagement, obviously,
because that is a huge area of interest to us, and there is a
huge disconnect at the moment and the potential for engagement,
if implemented in the right way, is massive. Evidence from our
research has suggested that the more people are communicated with
by Parliament and by Government (so that is either by Members
of Parliament or by government departments engaging them in consultations,
and so forth) the more they feel confident. It is not necessarily
that the two measures rise completely together in tandem, but
there is definitely a raised level of efficacy and trust and further
engagement. What you lose is the mediation, and by that I am obviously
talking about the messages which are put out by the media which
say, "This is what Parliament is doing," "This
is what Parliament thinks," and so on and so forth. You cut
that out by engaging directly, and again the benefit of that is
evidence from our research, and I can provide further information
about that to the Committee if necessary.
Mr Riddell: Just one very small
addition to what Laura has said. After all, the point of e-petitions
is that it just makes it easier. We have now got the technology
to make it much easier to do. There are two different issues there,
but the difference in technology just makes all this easier. It
is not just the Hansard Society, there is other evidence too of
the ability to respond to people's protests, the feeling that
they are not being either patronised, or in a more general sense
that it is a distant group doing things away from them. I think
it is absolutely central to it and the technology just makes it
easier. The "e" bit just makes it easier. The fundamental
political point is that sense of communication.
Q134 Mr Chope: I want to talk about
numbers, but before I do that can I clarify whether people think
e-petitioning in Parliament would be a replacement for Number
10, which is certainly the vision I have got, that people will
be petitioning their democratically elected Members of Parliament,
asking them to hold the Government to account, instead of petitioning
the Government direct. Is that the view of the Hansard Society?
Mr Riddell: Because there is only
one in existence at present it is slightly difficult to answer
the question. We have only got Tesco, we have not got Waitrose!
I am sorry, I do not mean to demean by that comparison. Certainly
our view has been that it was unfortunate the way round it has
occurred, and that fundamental petitioning should be about Parliament
because you are our representatives and that is the traditional
method of airing grievances. Obviously we cannot market test this
because it is entirely a notional question to most people at present,
but that ultimately it would replace it, yes. Of course, some
of the responses would come from Government by definition because
the Government would say you could respond, although then they
would come back through Parliament. As I say, it is almost impossible
to answer, Mr Chope, at present because we have only got one mechanism
on it, but I think the problem shown with that mechanism means
that if you get a system up and running, no doubt in a gradualist
way, it is very difficult to see what argument there is for retaining
a Number 10 site.
Professor Drori: A previous witness
said, I think quite rightly, that petitions should go to the people
best able to deal with them, and I think there is great confusion
on the part of the public about where petitions should go. Someone
mentioned earlier that even witnesses here mix up the role of
Parliament with Government, and so on, so what hope for the general
public? It just occurred to me as you were speaking that I think
there would be great confusion in having a petitioning system
both for Number 10 and Parliament. I think that would lead to
a lot of confusion. I was just wondering about a system which
might also encompass local government. According to the nature
of your petition, an online system could direct your petition
to local government within your area or it could direct it towards
Parliament, depending upon which was actually the appropriate
thing, because people are signing petitions locally all the time
about things which should not really come here and they do not
know which way to go. You could short-circuit this by giving people
advice at that point.
Q135 Chairman: Except we would have
to persuade every local authority to adopt such a scheme!
Professor Drori: Rather than having
to do that right off, you might say, "If your petition is
about this, this or this," and almost take people through
a little kind of flowchart of decisions, "If it's about this,
you might find writing to your local authority more effective,
and here's a way of doing that."
Q136 Chairman: That is one way of
doing it. One of the reasons why we were keen to keep the link
with the constituency Member was because we felt in cases where
it was exclusively a local government issue the Member of Parliament
is then going to try and wean his constituent petitioner towards
his local authority, so we thought that would act as a statistical
filter.
Professor Drori: Yes, I can see
that.
Ms Taylor-Smith: On the Number
10 issue I wanted to come in, because I think I am coming from
both sides of the argument. On the one hand while the Number 10
site is up and running in a way it is helping you with your pilot
because it is doing a bit of the filtering for you, it is keeping
your volume down, but as soon as you set up your system you are
going to have to explain the exact difference between the two
systems and it is going to be very difficult for you to do that
without undermining the Number 10 system.
Professor Drori: You would need
something on the Number 10 system to direct people towards Parliament
for the things which are properly dealt with here.
Chairman: Okay. Thank you.
Q137 Mr Chope: I was looking at it
the other way round, that basically the Number 10 system has been
undermining Parliament. That is why I was so keen to get this
inquiry going forward, so that our system could replace the one
they have got at Number 10.
Mr Riddell: I think part of the
answer was in the Chairman's introduction. The Prime Minister
and the Leader of the House, and indeed the former Leader of the
House, the current Lord Chancellor, are both in favour of the
parliamentary system. They almost have the power in their own
hands to do what you want, Chairman.
Q138 Mr Chope: Yes. Now, numbers.
To what extent do you think the number of signatures on a petition
is an indicator of public support for that particular issue, because
some people have suggested that we should ignore the numbers and
we should just go for the substance, and a committee could assess
the substance? Others are saying, "Well, the petitions which
have got the largest number of signatures should be automatically
the subject of debate," or perhaps could be selected from
a number of petitions with a large number of signatures. You could
have an automatic debate. Where do you stand in that particular
argument?
Ms Buckner: I think it is very
difficult just picking on numbers really because if, for example,
the media takes up a story which is in a petition and promotes
it widely, as it has been known to do in the past, then of course
that petition is much more likely to get a large number of signatures
than another one which might have an equally worthy cause or be
an equally worthy issue. So the numbers game is a bit difficult
to agree to, but then if you are looking at what is in the topic
itself, that equally then becomes rather subjective. So I am not
sure that I can see an easy answer here. Numbers might give you
an indication of whether there is a concern generally, but whether
the one which reaches the top is really more worthy than one which
is halfway down I think is really debatable.
Q139 Chairman: Our initial thinking,
if it helps you, is that you would need a system, some form of
arbiter, because you could well have a petition with the most
signatures suggesting that a particular footballer receives a
knighthood, or that a particular actor be honoured in some way
because of an entertainment or sporting event, and I am not sure
that is a petition which here we would view as the one most worthy
of debate.
Mr Riddell: On that, in practice
it has got to be a mixture of the two, because numbers have something
in them but it should not be arbitrary. That is absolutely the
crucial thing. I noticed that in fact David Cameron hinted at
a trigger, when he was replying to, I think, the democracy task
force of the Conservative Party. I am very sceptical about triggers
because, as we saw with the road pricing, it becomes self-generating.
The technology makes it easier to generate and I think you should
operate against that. Nonetheless, numbers should have some weight,
but I agree, to come back to the point, that is why you need a
Petitions Committee or something like that to act as arbiter and
to be accepted. It may be rough and ready some of the time, but
these are sensible people who are acting impartially.
Professor Drori: I agree. I think
it needs to be both on numbers and substance, and I think some
kind of group of people who are seen to take those decisions would
be a good, transparent way of doing it. We need to know who they
are and also what criteria they are going to use. As long as those
are transparent, I think it will be an improvement and I think
people would be pretty happy with it. This is the sort of thing
which human beings do rather well, rather than technology. It
is just a finger in the wind, saying, "This feels about right."
I think people would go with that as long as the way those people
are appointed and who they are, and the criteria they use, are
open and transparent.
|
