As set out by UCL’s Tasneem Ghazi in a recent post on the Constitution Society blog, petitions have a long history in British democracy. Their meaning and role, however, have changed over time. This is particularly true in local government, where – thanks to technology, legislative requirements and efforts to encourage greater public participation in decision-making – petitions have been experiencing something of a renaissance.
Compared to national politics, local government should be fertile ground for petitioners. Petitions submitted to Parliament often call for major shifts in government policy, significant investment of public funds or far-reaching legislative change. At the time of writing, for instance, there are live petitions for suspending all immigration, rejoining the European Union, reducing the state pension age and changing the parliamentary electoral system.
In local government, the subjects of petitions are often hyper-local issues and, in theory at least, much more realistic in their ambitions. To take one example, the live e-petitions submitted to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council in Greater Manchester call for a reduction in charges in one local car park, building a playground on a piece of unused land, and converting a former school building into a leisure facility.
Catherine Bochel and Hugh Bochel have studied the use of petitions in English local government and described the benefits to both local authorities and their residents. In summary, they have found petitions can provide access to politics for citizens without requiring a significant amount of resource. A well-run petitions system can come to decisions that are seen as fair by the petitioners, even if they do not get their desired outcomes, and provide an educative function. For councils, a petitions system can be a means of receiving ideas and information, which may inform future policy development and service provision.
The above examples of petitions submitted to the UK Parliament and Stockport Council are derived from online petitions systems, or e-petitions, the introduction of which is perhaps the most important development of recent times in this field. A ‘petition’ would traditionally have referred to a formal request from an individual or an organised group, asking their governing institution to take a particular action. Over time, emphasis has been placed on petitions as a mechanism for demonstrating the level of support for – or opposition to – a policy or decision. Petitioners gathered as many signatures as possible to show how many people shared the same view.
Until recently, this might primarily have been achieved by dedicated activists going door to door in a community, or approaching shoppers in the local high street with a clipboard, or leaving a sign-up sheet on the noticeboard of a local library. Those forms of engagement certainly still exist, but they have now been supplemented or overtaken by the use of e-petitions.
Another change that has coincided with the rise of e-petitions is that, from being the somewhat passive recipient of petitions generated externally, governing institutions are now playing an active role in hosting the online platforms on which petitions are managed.
Researchers have been studying the use and impact of petitions in local government for some time, in a number of different countries. A study of Swedish local government by David Karlström, Gustav Lidén and Leif Sundberg, published in 2023, found that only just over a fifth of Swedish municipalities had implemented an e-petitions system, and these tended to be larger in terms of population size. But within the group that had implemented e-petitions it was, perhaps counter-intuitively, the smaller municipalities that saw greater levels of citizen engagement with the e-petition system.
Judging whether petitions have been ‘successful’ in achieving their aims is a rather difficult matter. There is some research in this area, notably by Sumin Lee and Minkyu Kim in Japanese local government, though. Their findings suggest that local petitions can be effective in furthering the aims of petitioners. Importantly, procedural aspects of petitions – the sponsorship by a local politician, the transparency of the process – are important in allowing petitions to impact policy:
The procedural components of petition adoption foster accountability among executive officials, and this increases the likelihood that petitions will be implemented, which, in turn, improves democratic responsiveness in Japanese local politics.
The London Assembly Research Unit has recently conducted research into how petitions are used in local government in London, both by the Greater London Authority (GLA) – the city-wide strategic authority led by the Mayor of London – and by London’s 32 borough councils.
Regarding boroughs, we found that 28 of the 32 boroughs (87.5%) offer an e-petitions platform on their websites. In a couple of boroughs these are only accessible to registered users of the site – that is, local residents with an online account with the council – but in most cases they were accessible to any visitor to the site. Of the four boroughs without an e‑petitions platform, three did set out online how residents could submit a more traditional form of ‘offline’ petition, while the other confirmed that it was open to receiving offline petitions, although had not published information on how to submit them.
Our research did not consider population size as a determinant of e-petition adoption, given the small number of non-adopters, and the fact that London boroughs are, broadly, of similar sizes. Yet the overall rate of adoption is clearly far above that found in the Swedish study. This was no doubt assisted by the 2009 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act, which places a requirement on English local authorities to operate schemes for the handling of petitions from local residents. Although this requirement was repealed just two years later in the Localism Act 2011, systems had been introduced and in many cases have remained.
Where information was available, we considered what rules boroughs had placed on e‑petitions to determine how they would be processed. We found most boroughs set low thresholds for the number of signatures required before an e-petition would be ‘accepted’ onto their system. For instance, Brent Council required five signatures, and Barnet required 25; others did not use a threshold at all. In some cases, there were quite high thresholds for when petitions would be debated within a full council meeting: Wandsworth Council was the highest we identified, requiring 10,000 signatures for a debate to be held.
Looking at the calendar year 2023, we were able to obtain data on the number of submitted petitions for 26 boroughs. There was significant variation, with Barnet Council receiving 45 petitions and some not receiving any. The average per borough across the year was 11 petitions. The average number of signatures received per petition was 187, with 11 petitions across all boroughs receiving more than 1,000 signatures.
The GLA operates a different kind of petition system, without an e-petition platform. Londoners are able to submit petitions to Members of the London Assembly, the 25-member body elected to scrutinise the Mayor of London. Members can then present the petition to an Assembly plenary meeting, and the Assembly then decides whether to forward it to the relevant person or organisation for a response. In most cases, the Assembly itself would not be the ‘target’ of a petition; this would instead be the Mayor, a GLA department or one of the functional bodies of the GLA Group (for instance Transport for London).
Over the last five financial years, the Assembly has accepted an average of 6.4 petitions per year. For 2023-24, the average number of signatures on accepted petitions was 2,051. At the time of our research, 87.5% of petitions accepted in 2023-24 had received a formal response from the person or body to which they were forwarded. Petitioners can also send their petitions directly to the Mayor, rather than via the Assembly, but there is no public information available on the petitions submitted in this way.
While these are nascent findings, there is clearly evidence that e-petitions systems are being used within local government, in London and beyond. As well as those platforms provided directly by councils, petitioners are also able to use independent platforms such as Change.org, and is some cases they may deploy both.
Citizens have long had the opportunity to contact their elected representatives to press for policy change, whether through a traditional petition or other forms of communication. Any politician can testify to the amount of correspondence received from residents of their constituencies and ward. The significance of the move towards e-petitions is the way in which this process is becoming part of routine administrative processes in local government, as it has in Parliament.
Considering the role of elected representatives, Edmund Burke famously juxtaposed the trustee and delegate models of representation. It is not too difficult to imagine e-petitions contributing to a shift towards a newer form: elected representatives as conduits for their constituents’ concerns.
Thresholds for the number of signatures a petition needs before being accepted or debated differ between councils, but in many areas, there are clear mechanisms for citizens to put their issue on the agenda of decision-makers. For a local councillor, this is perhaps not radically different from the traditional practice of being contacted by a constituent and taking up their cause. But petitions make it easier for local activists to influence not just the outcomes of a decision, but the basic question of which issues are considered within local authority processes. Further research into how and whether this activity translate into higher levels of democratic engagement, or changes in public policy, would be welcome.As set out by UCL’s Tasneem Ghazi in a recent post on the Constitution Society blog, petitions have a long history in British democracy. Their meaning and role, however, have changed over time. This is particularly true in local government, where – thanks to technology, legislative requirements and efforts to encourage greater public participation in decision-making – petitions have been experiencing something of a renaissance.
Compared to national politics, local government should be fertile ground for petitioners. Petitions submitted to Parliament often call for major shifts in government policy, significant investment of public funds or far-reaching legislative change. At the time of writing, for instance, there are live petitions for suspending all immigration, rejoining the European Union, reducing the state pension age and changing the parliamentary electoral system.
In local government, the subjects of petitions are often hyper-local issues and, in theory at least, much more realistic in their ambitions. To take one example, the live e-petitions submitted to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council in Greater Manchester call for a reduction in charges in one local car park, building a playground on a piece of unused land, and converting a former school building into a leisure facility.
Catherine Bochel and Hugh Bochel have studied the use of petitions in English local government and described the benefits to both local authorities and their residents. In summary, they have found petitions can provide access to politics for citizens without requiring a significant amount of resource. A well-run petitions system can come to decisions that are seen as fair by the petitioners, even if they do not get their desired outcomes, and provide an educative function. For councils, a petitions system can be a means of receiving ideas and information, which may inform future policy development and service provision.
The above examples of petitions submitted to the UK Parliament and Stockport Council are derived from online petitions systems, or e-petitions, the introduction of which is perhaps the most important development of recent times in this field. A ‘petition’ would traditionally have referred to a formal request from an individual or an organised group, asking their governing institution to take a particular action. Over time, emphasis has been placed on petitions as a mechanism for demonstrating the level of support for – or opposition to – a policy or decision. Petitioners gathered as many signatures as possible to show how many people shared the same view.
Until recently, this might primarily have been achieved by dedicated activists going door to door in a community, or approaching shoppers in the local high street with a clipboard, or leaving a sign-up sheet on the noticeboard of a local library. Those forms of engagement certainly still exist, but they have now been supplemented or overtaken by the use of e-petitions.
Another change that has coincided with the rise of e-petitions is that, from being the somewhat passive recipient of petitions generated externally, governing institutions are now playing an active role in hosting the online platforms on which petitions are managed.
Researchers have been studying the use and impact of petitions in local government for some time, in a number of different countries. A study of Swedish local government by David Karlström, Gustav Lidén and Leif Sundberg, published in 2023, found that only just over a fifth of Swedish municipalities had implemented an e-petitions system, and these tended to be larger in terms of population size. But within the group that had implemented e-petitions it was, perhaps counter-intuitively, the smaller municipalities that saw greater levels of citizen engagement with the e-petition system.
Judging whether petitions have been ‘successful’ in achieving their aims is a rather difficult matter. There is some research in this area, notably by Sumin Lee and Minkyu Kim in Japanese local government, though. Their findings suggest that local petitions can be effective in furthering the aims of petitioners. Importantly, procedural aspects of petitions – the sponsorship by a local politician, the transparency of the process – are important in allowing petitions to impact policy:
The procedural components of petition adoption foster accountability among executive officials, and this increases the likelihood that petitions will be implemented, which, in turn, improves democratic responsiveness in Japanese local politics.
The London Assembly Research Unit has recently conducted research into how petitions are used in local government in London, both by the Greater London Authority (GLA) – the city-wide strategic authority led by the Mayor of London – and by London’s 32 borough councils.
Regarding boroughs, we found that 28 of the 32 boroughs (87.5%) offer an e-petitions platform on their websites. In a couple of boroughs these are only accessible to registered users of the site – that is, local residents with an online account with the council – but in most cases they were accessible to any visitor to the site. Of the four boroughs without an e‑petitions platform, three did set out online how residents could submit a more traditional form of ‘offline’ petition, while the other confirmed that it was open to receiving offline petitions, although had not published information on how to submit them.
Our research did not consider population size as a determinant of e-petition adoption, given the small number of non-adopters, and the fact that London boroughs are, broadly, of similar sizes. Yet the overall rate of adoption is clearly far above that found in the Swedish study. This was no doubt assisted by the 2009 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act, which places a requirement on English local authorities to operate schemes for the handling of petitions from local residents. Although this requirement was repealed just two years later in the Localism Act 2011, systems had been introduced and in many cases have remained.
Where information was available, we considered what rules boroughs had placed on e‑petitions to determine how they would be processed. We found most boroughs set low thresholds for the number of signatures required before an e-petition would be ‘accepted’ onto their system. For instance, Brent Council required five signatures, and Barnet required 25; others did not use a threshold at all. In some cases, there were quite high thresholds for when petitions would be debated within a full council meeting: Wandsworth Council was the highest we identified, requiring 10,000 signatures for a debate to be held.
Looking at the calendar year 2023, we were able to obtain data on the number of submitted petitions for 26 boroughs. There was significant variation, with Barnet Council receiving 45 petitions and some not receiving any. The average per borough across the year was 11 petitions. The average number of signatures received per petition was 187, with 11 petitions across all boroughs receiving more than 1,000 signatures.
The GLA operates a different kind of petition system, without an e-petition platform. Londoners are able to submit petitions to Members of the London Assembly, the 25-member body elected to scrutinise the Mayor of London. Members can then present the petition to an Assembly plenary meeting, and the Assembly then decides whether to forward it to the relevant person or organisation for a response. In most cases, the Assembly itself would not be the ‘target’ of a petition; this would instead be the Mayor, a GLA department or one of the functional bodies of the GLA Group (for instance Transport for London).
Over the last five financial years, the Assembly has accepted an average of 6.4 petitions per year. For 2023-24, the average number of signatures on accepted petitions was 2,051. At the time of our research, 87.5% of petitions accepted in 2023-24 had received a formal response from the person or body to which they were forwarded. Petitioners can also send their petitions directly to the Mayor, rather than via the Assembly, but there is no public information available on the petitions submitted in this way.
While these are nascent findings, there is clearly evidence that e-petitions systems are being used within local government, in London and beyond. As well as those platforms provided directly by councils, petitioners are also able to use independent platforms such as Change.org, and is some cases they may deploy both.
Citizens have long had the opportunity to contact their elected representatives to press for policy change, whether through a traditional petition or other forms of communication. Any politician can testify to the amount of correspondence received from residents of their constituencies and ward. The significance of the move towards e-petitions is the way in which this process is becoming part of routine administrative processes in local government, as it has in Parliament.
Considering the role of elected representatives, Edmund Burke famously juxtaposed the trustee and delegate models of representation. It is not too difficult to imagine e-petitions contributing to a shift towards a newer form: elected representatives as conduits for their constituents’ concerns.
Thresholds for the number of signatures a petition needs before being accepted or debated differ between councils, but in many areas, there are clear mechanisms for citizens to put their issue on the agenda of decision-makers. For a local councillor, this is perhaps not radically different from the traditional practice of being contacted by a constituent and taking up their cause. But petitions make it easier for local activists to influence not just the outcomes of a decision, but the basic question of which issues are considered within local authority processes. Further research into how and whether this activity translate into higher levels of democratic engagement, or changes in public policy, would be welcome.
Richard Berry.
Richard Berry is the manager of the Research Unit at the London Assembly, which provides an impartial research and analysis service designed to inform Assembly scrutiny. The author would like to thank Kate First and William Weihermüller for conducting research cited in this article. All publications from the London Assembly Research Unit are available here.
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.