5 Conclusion
78. The then Clerk of the House, Sir Robert Rogers,
began his evidence to us by placing petitioning the House in its
historical perspective, noting that the concept of petitioning
for redress of grievance was "there in the earliest days
and […] is at the heart of the petitioning process we have
now".[63] He went
on to emphasise its continuing importance, telling us
I think it is highly relevant and, indeed, in
many ways central to the sort of business that Parliament should
be doing. This House is the central institution in our democracy.
It is owned not by its Members, I would suggest, but by the people
whom its Members serve, and it seems to me of fundamental importance
that our citizens have a way of bringing their issues to Parliament
directly.[64]
79. Dr Ruth Fox of the Hansard Society developed
that thought by placing petitioning into the modern context:
I would simply add from our "Audit of Political
Engagement"—which many of you will be familiar with—that
petitioning is the third highest form of participation that people
say they are most likely to do, after voting and contacting an
elected representative. Support for both e-petitioning and paper
petitions is relatively high compared to other forms of activity
and, therefore, that reflects the desire and demand. Petitioning
is an ancient right and e-petitions are simply the technology
to facilitate that right in the modern day.[65]
80. Our report on Debates on Government e-petitions
noted that the e-petition scheme introduced by the Government
had proved very popular with the public, and warmly welcomed the
level of public interest. Nonetheless it also noted the view of
the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, Natascha Engel,
that "a lot of the problems that have arisen [in the interface
between that scheme and the work of the House] were perfectly
foreseeable and had there been a debate, and perhaps even a vote,
they would have been highlighted". We regretted that the
Government did not see fit to refer its proposals for its e-petitions
system to us or to place its plans formally before the House for
debate and decision before the scheme was introduced.[66]
81. By bringing forward the motion which was debated
and passed on 8 May the Government has corrected that error. We
have now had the opportunity, working with the Government, to
develop an e-petition system which can meet the needs of both
the executive and the legislature—but more importantly,
also of petitioners themselves. The proposals we set out in this
report will enable the public to petition the House and press
for action from Government; they will establish a Petitions Committee
which can consider and respond to their concerns; and they will
improve the support and advice which is available for those who
wish to petition the House and Government. They have the potential
to bring about a significant enhancement of the relationship between
the petitioning public and their elected representatives, and
we commend them to the House.
63 Q2 Back
64
Q3 Back
65
Q23 Back
66
Debates on Government e-Petitions, para 2. Back
|
