This 2012 briefing paper set out recommendations for reform of the-then e-petitions system. Many of its proposals, such as the creation of a Petitions Committee, were adopted by the House of Commons and form the basis of the current e-petitions system.
Dr Ruth Fox
Director , Hansard Society
Ruth is responsible for the strategic direction and performance of the Society and leads its research programme. She has appeared before more than a dozen parliamentary select committees and inquiries, and regularly contributes to a wide range of current affairs programmes on radio and television, commentating on parliamentary process and political reform.
In 2012 she served as adviser to the independent Commission on Political and Democratic Reform in Gibraltar, and in 2013 as an independent member of the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Committee Review Group. Prior to joining the Society in 2008, she was head of research and communications for a Labour MP and Minister and ran his general election campaigns in 2001 and 2005 in a key marginal constituency.
In 2004 she worked for Senator John Kerry’s presidential campaign in the battleground state of Florida. In 1999-2001 she worked as a Client Manager and historical adviser at the Public Record Office (now the National Archives), after being awarded a PhD in political history (on the electoral strategy and philosophy of the Liberal Party 1970-1983) from the University of Leeds, where she also taught Modern European History and Contemporary International Politics.
Get our latest research, insights and events delivered to your inbox
We will never share your data with any third-parties.
Share this and support our work
The paper examines how the e-petitions system existing at the time had developed and how it worked in practice. The paper noted that the introduction of the system was a step in the right direction, with the government deserving credit for setting it up quickly and cost-effectively.
However, the paper found the system to be falling short of public and media expectations. It identified four main problems with the system as it was then operating:
1. Unclear ownership and responsibility. The system was controlled by government but the onus to respond was largely placed on the House of Commons.
2. No agreement about the purpose of e-petitions. Were e-petitions 'an easy way to influence government policy', a 'fire alarm' about issues of national concern, or a 'finger in the wind' to determine the depth of public feeling on a range of issues? Or should they be used to empower the public through greater engagement in the political and parliamentary process, providing for deliberation on the issues of concern?
3. Confused expectations of the system, among both the public and the media. People expected an automatic debate once the signature threshold was passed, and reacted negatively when this did not happen.
4. Minimal public engagement with Parliament or government. Little or nothing happened with e-petitions, beyond the possibility of a parliamentary debate for those passing the 100,000-signature threshold. If an e-petition did not achieve the signature threshold but still attracted considerable support (e.g. 99,999 signatures), there was no guarantee of any kind of response at all.
The paper also compared the Westminster e-petitions system with those in place in Scotland and Wales. It concluded that, while there were valuable lessons to be learned from the devolved legislatures, the volume of e-petitions received at Westminster required a custom-made model, to manage petitioner expectations and the public engagement process.
The paper's recommendations were that:
Ownership of, and responsibility for, the e-petitions system should rest with the House of Commons, not government.
The House of Commons should create a Petitions Committee, supported by staff in a Petitions Office, to deal with public petitions in the future – to engage with petitioners, moderate the process and provide a single route for consideration of both paper and online petitions.
Members of the Petitions Committee should be elected, and have the power to: refer petitions to a relevant Select Committee; commission their own inquiries into specific petitions; question ministers on the issues; and invite petitioners and others to give evidence at public hearings.
The reformed e-petitions system, which has been in operation since 2015 and which implements key elements of our proposals, is widely regarded as more effective than its predecessor. Our subsequent research (such as in our annual Audit of Political Engagement), as well as work by others, show that e-petitions are one of the most widely-used and high-profile forms of public engagement with Parliament, although there continue to be challenges facing the system.
Fox, R. (2012), What next for e-petitions? (Hansard Society: London)
The UK Spending Review outlines how Government funds will be allocated over several years. Unlike the Budget, which raises revenue, the Review decides how it is spent. But how is it approved? What role does Parliament play if it doesn’t vote on the Review itself? This blog explores how the Spending Review works, how it differs from the Budget, and how Parliament holds the Government to account through the Estimates process.
On Friday 13 June, the House of Commons will once again debate the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. Specifically, it will hold a second day of Report Stage, during which the whole House will debate and vote on amendments. This briefing explains the structure of Report Stage, what happened on the first day of Report Stage, how amendments are selected and grouped, on which amendments a decision can still be taken, and the likely sequence of events this Friday, including whether a final vote will take place.
The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves MP, will deliver a statement on the Spending Review. MPs will resume Report Stage of the assisted dying bill and debate key legislation on football governance, mental health, and planning and infrastructure. Peers and MPs are expected to resolve their standoff over AI and copyright in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The Commons Defence Committee will hear from the lead reviewers of the Strategic Defence Review, while a Lords Committee will examine the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty issue. The Hansard Society’s Director will give evidence to the Modernisation Committee about access to the House of Commons and its procedures.
In this episode, we explore why ministers keep bypassing Parliament to make major announcements to the media — and whether returning to the Despatch Box might help clarify their message. We unpack the Lords' uphill battle to protect creators’ rights in the Data Use and Access Bill, challenge claims that the Assisted Dying Bill lacks scrutiny, and examine early findings from a Speaker’s Conference on improving security for MPs, as threats and intimidation against politicians continue to rise. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.
Our evidence on treaty scrutiny has been published by the House of Lords International Agreements Committee. Our submission outlines the problems with the existing framework for treaty scrutiny and why legislative and cultural change are needed to improve Parliament's scrutiny role. Our evidence joins calls for a parliamentary consent vote for the most significant agreements, a stronger role for Parliament in shaping negotiating mandates and monitoring progress, and a sifting committee tasked with determining which agreements warrant the greatest scrutiny.
