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 / Parliament Matters Bulletin: What’s coming up in Parliament this week? 13-16 April 2026

Ministerial Statements are expected on developments during the recess, particularly in the Middle East and on Russian submarine activity. The English Devolution Bill completes its final Lords stages, while legislative “ping-pong” continues on the Pension Schemes, Victims and Courts, Crime and Policing, and Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bills. MPs scrutinising the Courts and Tribunals Bill will examine proposals to restrict jury trials. In the Lords, two bills – on the Grenfell Tower Memorial and ministerial salaries – will be fast-tracked through all stages in a single day. MPs will debate SEND reform, statutory menstrual leave, children’s safeguarding, and accessibility in the House of Commons. The Lords will consider changes to Immigration Rules and access rights for departing hereditary peers. Chloe Mawson becomes the first woman to serve as Clerk of the Parliaments. And the Treasury Committee will hold an appointment hearing with the new chief executive of the Prudential Regulatory Authority.

News / Will key Government bills pass by the end of the parliamentary Session? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 138

With the King’s Speech set for 13 May, attention turns to the end of the current parliamentary Session and the frantic “wash-up” period before prorogation, likely in late April. We assess which Bills can still make it through in the remaining sitting days. With major Lords amendments on issues including revenge porn, social media access for under-16s, court transcripts and AI safety, Ministers face intense pressure and possible concessions. We also examine the political stakes around the Chagos Islands Bill and the stalled Hillsborough Law. The episode also answers listener questions on parliamentary procedure and reform, before exploring the sharp rise in Written Parliamentary Questions and what it means for effective scrutiny in Westminster. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

News / Who really decides Immigration Rules: Parliament or the Home Secretary? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 137

Who really controls immigration law when Ministers can rewrite key rules with minimal parliamentary scrutiny? Jonathan Featonby of the Refugee Council explains the Home Secretary’s far-reaching powers over Immigration Rules. We also discuss the Crime and Policing Bill, where amendments on AI and abortion highlight the challenges posed by rushed law-making and executive overreach. And we look ahead to the next phase of the assisted dying debate, as supporters in the House of Commons prepare for a renewed legislative push in the next parliamentary Session. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

Submissions / Written Parliamentary Questions - Our evidence to the House of Commons Procedure Committee

The use of Written Parliamentary Questions (WPQs) is rising sharply. Since July 2024, MPs have tabled questions at unprecedented levels. By late 2025 MPs were tabling over 600 per sitting day, more than double the long-term average. WPQs are a cornerstone of parliamentary scrutiny, helping MPs obtain information, challenge government policy and put issues on the public record. But this surge raises important questions about how Parliament balances transparency and accountability with the practical limits of the system. The House of Commons Procedure Committee is now examining the issue and has just published our submission containing our latest data and analysis.

News / Jury trials under threat? The Courts and Tribunals Bill explained - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 136

Plans to restrict the right to a jury trial have cleared their Second Reading in the Commons, but the proposals in the Courts and Tribunals Bill face growing resistance, including from Labour rebels. We discuss the legal and constitutional implications with barrister Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, examining what the reforms could mean for defendants’ rights and the criminal courts system. We also assess the passage of legislation removing hereditary Peers from Parliament, and the late compromise that eased opposition in the House of Lords. Meanwhile Sir Lindsay Hoyle clashes with the Chief Whip over delays in the division lobby, and newly released papers on Peter Mandelson’s Washington appointment raise fresh political questions. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS