The electronic petitions process enables members of the public to submit a formal request calling upon Parliament or the Government to undertake some form of action. On 6 January, Parliament debated an electronic petition calling for another general election which had received well over 3 million signatures. This petition gained traction not merely as a result of its widespread support, but because it was publicised by the billionaire owner of Tesla and X, Elon Musk, and the former film star Sir Michael Caine. But this is hardly the first-time that petitions have caused a stir. In 2016, a petition calling for a second referendum was signed by over 4 million people, and the following year a petition to prevent Donald Trump from undertaking a state visit to the UK was supported by 1.8 million people. In the UK, even if a petition garners millions of signatures, it does not typically lead to political action, prompting some to argue that the petition process is futile and should be scrapped. This blog post explores the UK’s petitions process, how they have been used, and what petitions should be for.
Context
The use of petitions in the UK has a long history which predates the right to universal suffrage itself. As Lord Lisvane, the former clerk of the Commons explains, “petitions were the origin of legislation and were a way of saying ‘fix this’”. In 1669, the House of Commons passed a resolution recognising “the inherent right of every Commoner in England to present and prepare petitions” of their grievances and the “undoubted right and privilege of the Commons to judge and determine” these petitions. Historically, the use of petitions was one of the most popular forms of public participation in the UK. Hussey and Miller found that between 1833 and 1918, there were records showing over 165 million signatures of public petitions to the House of Commons. However their use declined dramatically during the twentieth century, and only re-emerged following the introduction of a new online process.
How to Start a Petition?
In July 2011, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition reinstated a process which allowed people to initiate, sign and share petitions online: “e-petitions”. Such E-petitions can now be initiated by anyone who is British citizen or who resides in the UK. For a petition to begin, it must articulate a brief call for action and be supported by a minimum of five individuals. The only information that needs to be provided by petitioners is around 50-60 words offering a background on what they would like the Government to do, and around 90-100 words explaining why. There are a few very general standards regulating their language and substance. Petitions must be built on a serious and clear request about a matter of policy or an action that Parliament or Government are responsible for. New petitions cannot concern the exact same issue as old ones. Petitions must steer clear of any matter being litigated in the courts, and of specific individuals who work in public bodies. Petitions cannot contain confidential or commercially sensitive material, or deploy offensive language or contain offensive, libellous or materially false language. Petitions should not be satirical, although some of the topics that have received support might seem far-fetched. Examples of latter ranger from scrapping GCSE exams and school uniforms to banning the sale of plastic food coverings or caged birds.
The Petitions Committee
Once a petition receives over 10,000 signatures, the Government formally responds with a statement. After a petition receives over 100,000 signatures, it is formally considered by the Petitions Committee of the House of Commons for debate in Parliament. This committee is composed of 11 backbench MPs of differing party affiliations that are proportionate to the membership of the House as a whole. Its primary task is to consider e-petitions which have received considerable support, or those that merit parliamentary attention because they concern a matter of public interest. The Petitions Committee has the power to take evidence, call for persons and papers, write to the Government or public bodies to press for action or seek justifications. When a petition is deemed worthy of debate, the Committee may invoke its power to schedule a debate for up to three hours, on a given Monday in Westminster Hall. Although petitions which cross the 100,000-threshold are those most likely to be considered, the Committee might also call for a debate if the subject is topical and if MPs across the House support it. On occasion, petitions are referred to a departmental select committee if it is already inquiring into the subject, or if it would be likely to result in action.
Widely Supported Petitions
Over the years, numerous petitions have attracted millions of signatures. The most widely supported petition to date called for the UK to revoke its invocation of article 50 of the Treaty on European Union and for the UK to remain in the EU. Launched in February 2019, this anti-Brexit petition received 6.1 million signatures. The second most supported petition also concerned Brexit. In September 2016, 4.1 million people signed an e-petition calling for a second referendum which would require a 60% majority and would only be legitimised by a turnout of 75%. Coming in close third with over 3 million signatures was the recent petition calling for another general election on the basis that the “current Labour government have gone back on the promises.” This petition was debated in Westminster Hall on 6 January, when the Chair of the Petitions Committee, Jamie Stone expressed frustration surrounding the lack of accountability following elections. As Stone explained, Michael Westwood launched the petition as he believed “it is too easy for political parties to mislead the public in order to gain their vote”, and that in this particular case, there was increasing frustration surrounding “no sight of Labour’s pledge to kickstart the economy.” Given that both Brexit and public trust are among the top issues in politics, petitions clearly provide a helpful indication of the public mood. Under the present Labour Government, controversial policies which have been subject to petitions include cuts to Winter Fuel Allowance, the lack of compensation scheme for WASPI women and changes to the inheritance tax for farmers.
Insufficiently Transparent and Pointless?
Nevertheless, e-petitions have been criticised for lacking transparency, seldom leading to change and for being incompatible with the principle of representative democracy.
At present, the parliamentary website does not indicate who exactly has signed a petition, and it is easy to duplicate numbers. This lack of transparency and rigour in accounting means that the number of signatures is not necessarily an accurate indicator of popular opinion.
As the Hansard Society argues, it is also not clear whether the House of Commons or the Government are responsible for petitions, or what it is that e-petitions are meant to achieve. Expectations surrounding the process are confused: although people expect an issue to be debated once the threshold is passed, they react negatively once this does not lead to change.
Moreover, the process has been criticised for being inconsistent with the UK’s form of representative democracy, which emphasises the role of MPs in making decisions on complex policy issues on behalf of the population. Writing in the Law Society Gazette, John Hyde described the petitions website as “terrifying”, with entries that “may as well have been copied into the Daily Express”. Hyde argues that petitions are “a monumental waste of time and resources” and provide a platform not for democracy, but for those who shout the loudest. According to him, the petitions process goes against the UK’s existing system, under which citizens exercise their democratic rights primarily through the ballot box every five years. Until then, he suggests citizens should “trust the elected guardians of the nation to do what is right – not what screaming headlines demand”.
Subtle Benefits
Hyde is right to suggest that government policy should not be made reactively to events or emotions on the street. The format of e-petitions oversimplifies complex issues that cannot be magically resolved. Whether or not a petition garners support does not depend on how important it is, but on how much support it receives on social media by popular figures, like actors and businesspeople. Precisely because the process fuels populist narratives and lacks transparency, it should not directly lead to political action.
But this does not mean that e-petitions are pointless. Since petitions are a platform for political venting, they provide a snapshot of the current public psyche. Despite seldom directly leading to change, petitions might still have a subtle form of influence on policymaking. As Leiston-Banderia argues, critics tend to oversimplify the policymaking process as straightforward, quick and linear, though in practice change is ill-organised and reactive to different pressures. Petitions do exert pressure on governments, and subtly influence policy through setting the political agenda. Leiston-Banderia cites a few important policies which have received significant political attention and debate because of petitions, such as how to better fund treatment for brain tumours and the introduction of a tax of sugary drinks.
Apart from increasing visibility for causes that would otherwise be ignored, petitions serve a broader political purpose in mobilising political action and building links between campaigners, supporters and policymakers. From organising political action to allowing governments of the day to better understand the public mood, the benefits of petitions are subtle. We should, of course, continue take petitions with a handful of salt, but their value is in bolstering public participation and as a form of freedom of expression. Petitions are valuable to our democracy. They must remain a part of it.
Tasneem Ghazi.
Tasneem is a PhD student at the UCL Faculty of Laws. Tasneem previously completed the Barrister Training Course while working part-time as a research assistant at the Constitution Unit. In 2021, she interned at the Institute for Government and at the UK in a Changing Europe. Tasneem holds an MA in History from King’s College London, and an LLB in Politics, Philosophy and Law.
The Constitution Society is committed to the promotion of informed debate and is politically impartial. Any views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and not those of The Constitution Society.