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.