Memorandum submitted by Unlock Democracy
ABOUT US
Unlock Democracy (incorporating Charter 88)
is the UK's leading campaigning think-tank working on issues of
constitutional reform and democratic renewal in the UK. We focus
on constitutional reform, political parties and active citizenship.
For more information please see www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
— Unlock Democracy welcome the creation
of this Committee and in particular the fact that it is examining
how the public can initiate debates and proceedings in the House.
— Unlock Democracy believes that there
needs to be a rebalancing of power between the executive and the
legislature. We believe that this rebalancing of power should
include the election of members and chairs of select committees
by secret ballot and the creation of a business committee for
the scheduling of business in the House.
— Unlock Democracy supports the proposal
made by the Speaker of the House of Commons that the debate of
Private Members' Bills should be moved from Friday afternoon to
Wednesday. We believe that this will strengthen the role of backbench
MPs and encourage civic society and the public to engage with
Parliament.
— Unlock Democracy urges the House
of Commons to establish a petitions committee, along similar lines
to the Public Petitions Committee in the Scottish Parliament,
at the earliest level.
— Unlock Democracy proposes that the
House of Commons should consider introducing a system of agenda
initiative so that voters can propose policies that they feel
should be debated by Parliament. We believe that this would be
a very moderate step towards the use of direct democracy tools
which would enable voters to constructively engage with Parliament
but would leave the decision making with Parliament.
— Should the House of Commons choose
to create a petitions committee or to implement agenda initiative
we would strongly recommend that the different stages of the processes
are made very clear to the public and that the petitioner or person
submitting the proposal is given feedback on what has happened
to their idea.
THE APPOINTMENT
OF MEMBERS
AND CHAIRS
OF SELECT
COMMITTEES
1. Unlock Democracy believes that that there
needs to be both a rebalancing of power and a clarification of
roles between the executive and the legislature. All too often
Parliament is seen as being the same thing as the Government and
this is not healthy for democracy or for encouraging participation
in politics.
2. The scrutiny work done by select committees
is a very valuable aspect of Parliament's work. Whilst we recognise
the excellent work done by those currently serving on select committees,
we believe that the select committee system would be strengthened
by increased independence from the executive. Therefore Unlock
Democracy supports the introduction of secret ballots for the
election of select committee members and chairs.
SCHEDULING BUSINESS
IN THE
HOUSE
3. As part of the rebalancing of power between
the executive and the legislature, Unlock Democracy would be interested
in the creation of a business committee for the House of Commons.
It is of course important that the Government is able to get through
its business, but we do not accept that this means they need to
unilaterally control the legislative agenda. Establishing a business
committee would also increase the openness and transparency of
Parliament.
4. Unlock Democracy also supports the proposal
made by the Speaker of the House of Commons made in his speech
to the Hansard Society,[31]
that the debating of Private Members' Bills should be moved from
Friday afternoon to Wednesday. We agree that this would strengthen
the role of the backbench MP and encourage the public and civic
society to engage with Parliament.
ENABLING THE
PUBLIC TO
INITIATE DEBATES
AND PROCEEDINGS
IN THE
HOUSE
5. Unlock Democracy believes that it should
be possible for members of the public to suggest issues for consideration
by Parliament. All too often political participation is seen as
nothing more than cast a vote once every four or five years. We
believe that enabling the public to propose ideas for discussion
in Parliament is one way to start fix the disconnect between Parliament
and the public. The measures we recommend would also encourage
the public to engage with the work that Parliament does outside
the media set-pieces such as Prime Minister's Questions (which
is far from representative of the work of the legislature).
6. There are two measures that Unlock Democracy
believes Parliament should introduce to enable the public to initiate
debates and proceedings in the House. Firstly there should be
a formal petitions committee as is currently the case in the Scottish
Parliament. Secondly the House of Commons should consider introducing
agenda initiative which is already used successfully at a local
government level.
PETITIONS
7. Petitioning is one of the oldest forms
of political participation in the UK and is very successfully
used as a means of citizen engagement in the devolved administrations,
as well as around the world. Submitting a petition is one of the
most basic ways in which a voter can seek to raise a policy issue
with the legislature and not just their constituency MP. It allows
individuals, community groups and organisations to participate
in the policy scrutiny process by raising issues of concern with
their Parliament. In the Scottish Parliament the public petitions
process is seen as a key part of the Parliament's commitment to
participation, openness and accessibility. Unlock Democracy believes
that the House of Commons should establish a Public Petitions
Committee, on a similar basis to that which exists in the Scottish
Parliament, as a matter of urgency.
8. While the current system for dealing
with petitions to the House of Commons may have a historic and
symbolic value, it does not serve the needs of a modern democracy.
It is unclear for members of the public who wish to petition Parliament
what happens to a petition once it has been submitted, and there
is no formal mechanism for the petitioner to receive any feedback.
9. We note that the Procedure Committee[32]
has previously proposed that the House of Commons should use an
e-petitioning system. However we have some concerns about the
proposals being put forward for e-petitions. Firstly any petitioning
mechanism should be as widely accessible as possible and so anything
that is available in terms of online participation should have
an equivalent offline process. The Internet provides a quick and
easy way for people with the skills and technology to participate,
but these are by no means universal among the UK electorate.
10. Secondly, the key aspect of any petitioning
system is how flexible and responsive it is. Where petitioning
works well it is not so much that petitions are frequently adopted
but that the institution or legislature responds to the issues
raised by popular petitions and acts of its own accord. This has
been the case with the petitioning system in New Zealand, where
if a petition reaches a significant number of signatures Parliament
acts pre-emptively and engages with the issue rather than waiting
to be forced to do so. The emphasis on the e-petitioning proposals
seems to be the petitioner "getting her day in court"
rather than Parliament engaging with the issue and deciding whether
to respond. As the day in court in this instance would be a reference
in Hansard we don't think this is a satisfactory outcome for either
party.
11. Thirdly, the focus on e-petitions does
not encourage engagement between citizens and parliamentarians.
An individual fills in a form online, if the issue is popular
and meets the regulations, then their MP is expected to take it
forward. If the individual has requested feedback then they will
get a response at the end of the process. Politics is all too
often seen as something that is remote, incomprehensible and only
conducted in Westminster. This mechanism will do nothing to change
this perception. Nor does it engage people meaningfully in the
legislative process.
12. While under the Procedure Committee's
proposals it would be possible for the petition to be referred
to an existing select committee we are concerned that they would
not have the time or resources to undertake additional investigations.
The workload of departmental select committees is increasing,
particularly with moves towards pre-appointment hearings for public
appointments. We are concerned that petitions from the public
would simply be lost in the system.
13. Fourthly we are concerned that in the
proposed mechanism MPs could become gatekeepers rather than facilitators.
Unlock Democracy recognises the need for MPs to have a key role
in the petitioning process, but we do not believe this proposal
is practicable, particularly as there is no filtering mechanism.
In theory each MP will present their constituent's petition regardless
of whether or not they agree with it. Most petitioning committees
use some kind of trigger system, so that they only consider petitions
that reach a certain number of signatures for example. Under the
current proposals MPs would be sent, and assuming they fell within
Parliament's remit, be expected to present every single petition
received from a constituent. In the nearly two years that the
Downing Street e-petitions system has been in place there over
29,000 petitions have been submitted. It would be all too easy
therefore for MPs to be forced to become the filter and decide
which of the many petitions they have received should be presented
to Parliament.
14. The advantage of a petitions committee
is that it gives the process a human face but also that the Committee
can go beyond Westminster. For example the Scottish Petitions
Committee has gone outside Holyrood to take evidence on a number
of occasions including going into schools to take evidence from
pupils on the public health impact of cheap alcohol.[33]
15. The Public Petitions Committee (PPC)
in Scotland accepts petitions from any individual who is not an
MSP, and there is no threshold in relation to the number of signatures.
An individual can submit a petition with one signature and as
long as it is a devolved matter it will be considered by the Committee.
We recognise that the House of Commons may be concerned about
the number of petitions that any equivalent committee may receive.
Therefore the House may wish to consider setting a threshold of
a certain number of signatures that a petition has to receive
before it can be considered.
16. The PPC meets fortnightly when the Parliament
is sitting and all its meetings are held in public. Its membership
broadly reflects the balance of the various political groupings
in the Parliament. About eight new petitions are normally considered
at each meeting as well as a number of current petitions. Should
the PPC consider it necessary, in order to broaden its understanding
of a petition, it may invite a petitioner to give oral evidence
before it. This may be where a petition raises a new issue. Petitioners
may also provide written evidence in support of their petition.
17. The role of the PPC is to ensure that
appropriate action is taken in respect of each admissible petition.
In fulfilling this function, it takes responsibility for the initial
consideration of the issues raised.
18. This may involve hearing oral evidence
from the petitioners or seeking written evidence from organisations
with an interest in the issues raised eg the Scottish Government.
Following consideration of the written and any oral evidence,
a decision will be taken as to whether the issues raised merit
further consideration. The PPC may also refer a petition to the
relevant subject committee of the Parliament for further investigation.
It can also bid for parliamentary time for a petition to be debated
by the whole Parliament. Having considered a petition the PPC
(or the relevant subject committee) may agree that no further
action is required and close it. In all cases, the petitioner
will be notified of any action.
19. Unlock Democracy believes that it is
the involvement of the petitioner in the process and the fact
that they are kept informed at each stage that makes the PPC a
particularly valuable example of how petitioning can be used to
enable the public to initiate debates and proceedings in the House
of Commons.
AGENDA INITIATIVE
20. Agenda initiative is a direct democracy
tool but it does not lead to a referendum and decision-making
rests firmly with the legislature, rather than being held jointly
with citizens. Generally speaking an agenda initiative leads to
either a committee of the legislature, or the legislature as a
whole examining the issue, deciding whether it has merit and how
if at all it should be taken forward.
21. An agenda initiative procedure is the
right of a group of voters, meeting predetermined requirements,
to initiate a process for the revision of a law, the introduction
of a new law or an amendment to the constitution. While it is
voters who make the proposal, the legislature retains full decision-making
power.
22. Agenda initiative procedures first began
to be used in Europe in the aftermath of the First World War and
are now used in 22 countries across Europe with a further seven
countries allowing agenda initiatives (though only at a sub-national
level). The types of issues that have been raised include proposals
to improve the teacher training programme in Poland and the introduction
of a 40-hour week in Austria. It should be noted that if the Lisbon
Treaty is ratified, as now looks likely, EU citizens will be able
to petition the EU Commission to bring forward proposals.
23. The predetermined requirements that
have to be met can include the subjects on which proposals can
be made, the number of signatures required for a proposal to be
considered, the amount of time allowed to collect the signatures
and how the signatures can be collected.
24. These requirements determine how easy
or difficult it is to use this tool and how likely it is that
the public will engage with it. For example, the requirement to
collect a high number of signatures, in a short period of time,
and with those signatures required to have been collected in specific
places means that very few proposals will be successful. This
may discourage people from trying to use the tool. However those
that are successful are guaranteed to have widespread support.
An agenda initiative system which requires a low number of signatures
which can be collected over a long period of time means that many
more proposals are likely to reach the threshold and be considered
by the legislature. This makes it more likely that the public
will use the tool but may create more work for the legislature.
Unlock Democracy believes that it should be difficult to submit
a proposal under an agenda initiative system but that it should
be possible. We would therefore support high thresholds.
25. Some countries restrict the subjects
on which an agenda initiative can be proposed. For example Austria,
Brazil, Cape Verde and Thailand do not allow agenda initiative
to be used for amendments to the constitution while Niger does
not allow agenda initiative on devolution.
26. Although petitions and agenda initiatives
are different mechanisms they are both tools designed to make
Parliament more responsive to voters in between elections. These
tools enable voters to raise issues, demonstrate that there is
a significant level of public support and provide a formal mechanism
for Parliament to respond. We believe that these mechanisms will
help to address the disconnect between Parliament and the public.
October 2009
31 Parliamentary Reform: The Route from Here to There,
24 September 2009, www.hansardsociety.org.uk Back
32
Procedure Committee, e-Petitions: Call for Government Action,
Second Report of 2008-2009, HC 493 Back
33
See the following links for just two examples http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/5116898.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5404808.stm Back
| 
