Overview of UK ePetitions in 2009

1. Smarter Petitions…everywhere!
Fraser Henderson
www.particitech.com
11th November 2009

2. The petition imbalance
There is a long
tradition of petition
writing in the UK.
Signing a petition is
a simple way for
members of the
public to call for
action
It is the most popular
civic activity in the
Citizenship Survey.
Research by
Leicester
DeMontfort
University shows
that petitions
empower people
when there is a
clear relationship
between the
petition and
decision making
A 2007 Local
Government
Association survey
found that less than a
third of local
authorities guarantee
a response to
petitions
CLG research shows
that even fewer
councils make
information available
about how to petition

3. Motivation
•· To express anger
•· To exert power and control
•· To make a difference
•· To increase the status,
elevation and positioning of an
issue
•· For publicity reasons
•· For transparency
•· To force a response
•· To establish a collective voice
or for aggregation of opinion
•· To cause mischief
•· Because there is an
expectation (‘feel good factor’)

4. A new petitions duty (by April 2010!)
The duty requires local authorities to draw up and publicise a petitions
scheme which will give citizens :-
•the right to a public response if they sign a local petition – both
paper and electronic
•the ability to trigger a full council debate on their concerns
•the ability to trigger a senior office to give evidence at a
meeting of the overview and scrutiny committee
•the ability to appeal to the council’s overview and scrutiny
committee if they feel the response from their council is not
adequate.

5. What is a valid petition?
is signed by the requisite number of people who live,
work and study in the local area
The appropriate number of signatures required for
triggering a debate (limited to max. of 5% of the local
population)
Relate to a function of the authority OR (upper tier
only...) relates to an improvement in the economic, social
or environmental well-being of the authority’s area to
which any of its partner authorities could contribute

6. Exclusions
On the face of the Bill
vexatious, abusive or otherwise inappropriate petitions are
excluded on the face of the Bill (Cl.14(1)(b))
petitions under other enactments (Cl.12(1)(c)
By secondary legislation
•any matter relating to a planning decision;
•any matter relating to a licensing decision;
•any matter relating to an individual or entity in respect
of which that individual or entity has a right of recourse
to a review or right of appeal conferred by or under any
enactment;

7. Tip of the iceberg challenges
Language and translation
Thresholds and the certainty of validation
Data protection
Guaranteeing a response from partner agencies
Council versus the world
Politicking

8. …but also
Local authorities will need to provide an ePetitions facility (2011?)

9. To support the bill
•A “petition expert group” consisting of 6 Local Authorities
•An I&DeA community of practice (providing peer support)
•Case Studies
For ePetitions
•A recommended data standard for interoperability
•Guidance on ePetitioning

10. ePetitioning history (UK)
Scottish Parliament: 1999 – Napier University (ITC), Edinburgh
Bristol & Kingston : 2004 – Local eDem National Project (via ITC & NLC)
Bundestag : 2005 (ITC)
No.10 downing street : 2006 - MySociety
Bristol revamp & National Assembly for Wales : 2008
Europetition (EC funded) : 2009 - MAC & Public-i
2010 : New system for UK Parliament

11. ePetition Appraisal
For
Against
Transparency and feedback
Escalation in the democratic process
Data collection
Speed of raising and collecting
Pre-petitioning phase
Improves validation
Catching media interest
Duplicates
Astroturfing
“Graffiti” – time consuming
Moderation?
Raises expectation of a
response

12. However
•In the case of four parliamentary systems it was generally be concluded that
the introduction of the ePetition systems failed to significantly mobilise nonparticipating or underrepresented social groups.
•The typical user of the German, the Scottish and the Queensland
•systems tends to be a middle-aged male with an above-average level of
formal education
•Local politicians tend to deal with petitions, irrespective of the submission
channel
•Available data gives no indication that the introduction of ePetitions in
Queensland and Germany has significantly contributed to an overall
increase of petitions submitted

14. Effective ePetitions
ePetition design matrix
Council
Citizen
S3.3
Committee
Statutory
Requirements
Getting feedback
Format
Vetting, Rules and
Regulation
Progress
Validity and
representation
Set expectations
Avoiding Duplicates
Actions
Supporting the
petitioner
Integrating with offline Responsibility
Back-end process
Marketing
Validating
Connecting with
supporters
Evaluation
Signing

15. Volumes
In Bristol, 101 ePetitions since 2004
Over 40,000 signatures (Population c.400,000)
In Birmingham : 9 petitions, 960 signatures (since May 2009)
Since 2006, the No.10 site (to 2008) : Over 29,000 petitions have been
submitted, of which over 8,500 are currently live and available for signing, over
6,000 have finished and 14,601 have been rejected outright. There have been
over 5.8 million signatures, originating from over 3.9 million different email
addresses.
NB the set-up costs of the Downing Street site were £17,500 and the annual
running costs are £109,000,

16. ePetitioning in Bristol

17. ePetitioning in Bristol

18. ePetitioning in Bristol
Biggest responses
• Against call for Banksy removal (3,187): Councillor
• Recycling plastics petition (4,867): Councillor
• In house Home Care Services (7,923): Citizen
• Save cycle path from becoming bus route (10,000+): Citizen
Profile of Bristol ePetitioners (2007):13% under 25, 64% aged 25-50, 19% over 50
86% White, 3% BME
4% stated they had a disability
45% male, 51% female
43% home user, 49% work
58% first time e-petitioners

19. Europetition : European Parliament
European Citizens Initiative (>1m signatures)
Bristol
400,000
Kingston-upon-Thames
150,000
Birmingham City
1,000,000
North Lincolnshire
150,000
Norfolk
824.000

20. 2007 = 1,506 Europetitions
Environmental issues, water, etc
Fundamental rights
Urbanisation
Education & cultural issues
Social Affairs & Discrimination
Internal Market & Consumers
Health
Justice
Transport issues & Infrastructure
Property & Restitution
288
226
131
103
207
192
105
99
88
72

21. Expanding possibilities
Multimedia evidence of citizen and committee work (photos / videos)
Videoconferencing with petitioners, SMS signatures

22. What Next?
Health Authorities? Police Authorities? Other agencies?
Internally – staff petition managers?
National aggregator / router?
Petition maps?
National ‘mood’ barometer?

23. www.particitech.com