What next for e-petitions? How does the UK Parliament and government petition system work and how should it be reformed?

Publications / Briefings

What next for e-petitions?

18 May 2012

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.

Download the briefing

,
Director , Hansard Society

Get our latest research, insights and events delivered to your inbox

Share this and support our work

What are the problems with the e-petitions system?

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.

What reforms of the e-petitions system were recommended?

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.

Ongoing impact

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.

Cite this

Fox, R. (2012), What next for e-petitions? (Hansard Society: London)

Latest / Highlights

News / Should Parliament, rather than Ministers, oversee public inquiries? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 67

With the Government still under pressure to set up an independent inquiry into child grooming gangs should Parliament have a role in setting up inquiries into state failures and national disasters? Currently, Ministers take crucial decisions about who should chair an inquiry and what its precise remit should be. But a House of Lords Committee last year proposed giving Parliament a greater say and adopting a more systematic approach to implementing inquiry recommendations.

Briefings / The Assisted Dying Bill: A guide to the Private Member's Bill process

This briefing explains what to watch for during the Second Reading debate of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on 29 November. It outlines the procedural and legislative issues that will come into play: the role of the Chair in managing the debate and how procedures such as the 'closure' and 'reasoned amendments' work. It looks ahead to the Committee and Report stage procedures that will apply if the Bill progresses beyond Second Reading. It also examines the government's responsibilities, such as providing a money resolution for the Bill and preparing an Impact Assessment, while addressing broader concerns about the adequacy of Private Members’ Bill procedures for scrutinising controversial issues.

News / The 'Musk Factor': Is the world's richest man driving Parliament's agenda? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 66

This week, we examine how Elon Musk’s tweets have steered the UK parliamentary agenda in the first sitting days of the New Year. From a viral petition demanding a general election, to intense debates on child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs, Musk’s influence has left its mark on this week’s key political discussions. Ruth and Mark also unpack the rise of identical parliamentary questions and share their plans to cover the Assisted Dying Bill’s next stages later this month.

News / Parliament's role in a failed state: A conversation with Sam Freedman - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 62

In this special episode of Parliament Matters, we sit down with author and researcher Sam Freedman to explore the themes of his book, Failed State. Freedman delivers a sharp critique of Britain’s governance, examining how bad laws and weak parliamentary scrutiny are contributing to systemic dysfunction.

News / Whipping Yarns: A rebel whip's tale - A conversation with former MP Steve Baker - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 65

In our latest ‘Whipping Yarn’ we sit down with Steve Baker, whose reputation as the "Hard Man of Brexit" made him a key figure in the UK’s departure from the EU. Baker reflects on his pivotal role as the "Rebel Commander" in orchestrating rebellions during the Brexit years, his methods of leadership, and the toll politics has taken on his mental health. The episode offers an unfiltered look into the mechanisms of political rebellion, party dynamics, and the personal costs of parliamentary life.