I did not get much joy with my question on e-petitions in the Lords. The Chairman of Committees replied that, as the last petition to be presented was in 2000, ‘I do not believe that expenditure on developing a system of e-petitioning unique to the House of Lords could be justified’.
This strikes me as a somewhat circular argument: because we don’t get many petitions presented in the traditional way, we should not encourage a machanism that may encourage people to submit petitions by a method that may be more convenient to them. Instead, the authorities will monitor what happens in the Commons. It is estimated that the earliest a system of e-petitioning could be operational is 2010: ‘The appropriate committees in this House may at the appropriate time wish to take stock of experience in the Commons, and consider whether a similar system should be introduced in the House of Lords’. This is one occasion where the Lords will be very much a follower rather than a leader in the the field of communications.
The answer by the Chairman of Committees is also revealing in another respect: the concern with expenditure. Some recent and fairly inaccurate press reports have picked up on proposed capital expenditure by the House. What they neglect is the extent to which the House is extremely careful with money. From the point of view of the public purse, that is a commendable approach. However, on occasion there is the danger of engaging in a false economy. This is not necessarily such a case, but the House at times is in danger of making too much of its frugality at the expense of its effectiveness and efficiency.
Hm, do petitions (or e-petitions) really tell you anything useful? I looked at the HoC e-petitions and wasn’t very impressed. Most of them consisted of an inflammatory and poorly thought out 2-sentence proposition with a bunch of names after it. Features that were lacking:
– ability to debate the petition
– ability to put your name down as against the petition
– ways of finding related petitions
– ability to take your name off a petition if you later rethought
I asked the guy who did the Commons e-petition system about this and he basically said there were no plans to implement any of these features, because it was meant to just be an electronic equivalent of the traditional system. Seemed backwards to me – if you go to the trouble of digitizing something, why not take advantage of all the new features that are possible? Simplicity is good, but too much simplicity is not.
BTW, how was the figure of “not before 2010” arrived at? How much of that time is HoL processes and how much is actually implementing the system? Even a quite sophisticated online petitions system shouldn’t take a competent developer more than a couple of months to implement. Robust hosting is available pretty cheaply these days also.
What could e-Petitions to The Lords be used for? Could, for example, a petition be created to stop the extradition of Gary McKinnon to the US? Please may we have some examples of what The Lords would expect to see such a system used for?
The biggest problem to my mind, is that the e-petition system for the lower house has turned out to be a bit of a debacle. It doesn’t seem to have an effect on the government’s actions. Having joined a few of the petitions, the reply always seems to be: ‘Party line on subject X.’ Written by Bernard Wooley, obfuscated by Sir Humphrey Appleby. Try to say as little, with as many words, as possible.
Lastly, would a new system be needed for The Lords? Could three option boxes be added to the existing petition system:
Which house do you wish to petition? The Commons x, The Lords x, Both x
Then just handle it all using the existing platform. Just a suggestion.
This sounds very backward indeed. Has any kind of fact finding mission been sent from Westminster to Holyrood to take note of the rather successful petitions committee there? It seems bizarre to have the Lords waiting on the Commons when there are devolved legislature already innovating in such areas.
nuttyxander: The Lords has not looked at how the petitions system works in Holyrood, but the Procedure Committee in the Commons did so as part of its examination of e-petitioning (though I know it did not quite get it right in terms of its analysis of what happens there). What you write is also relevant in the context of the contributions from Mike and Liam: that is, the need to learn from experience, even if in the cases they cite it is in terms of learning from deficiencies of systems that have been introduced.
Mike and Liam: you both raise relevant points. I have no idea of why it is considered a system could not be introduced before 2010. Liam: I take your point about offering a choice in terms of options. E-petitions could be used for what paper petitions are presently used for (albeit, in the case of the Lords, infrequently!). You both raise valuable points, which suggest that if the Lords did explore the option it could actually be a leader in terms of implementing an advanced system.