Introduction

The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (referred to in this paper as ‘The Local Democracy Act’) introduced a brand new responsibility on all local authorities in England and Wales. It is known as the ‘duty to respond’1 and obliges every Council to have an e-Petition facility and to draw up a comprehensive Petitions Scheme to help citizens receive better responses from local service providers.

The Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched a consultation in December 2009 on the detailed application of the new duty in England, and this Briefing Paper considers some of the issues arising in that exercise.

Section Two explains the attractions of Petitions as a form of public engagement and outlines the Institute’s view that they are here to stay regardless of the outcome of the forthcoming General Election. Section Three considers some of the issues arising as Councils prepare to implement the new duty, and highlights particular challenges that may need further action. In Section Four, we focus on the e-Petition systems that Councils have to make or buy and in Appendix One we publish an Alternative Model Petitions Scheme which Authorities may find useful as they prepare for the new legislation

1 S.14(5) of The Local Democracy Act requires that, ‘A principal local authority’s petition scheme must secure that, where an active petition is made to the authority, the authority must take one or more steps in response to the petition’

Why petitions are popular

They are often branded as the least onerous form of public engagement but in reality the attraction of petitions is their flexibility.

Consider their scalability. When local residents wish to campaign for a school crossing patrol to be operational for 30 minutes longer, a handwritten petition of 30 signatures may well do the trick. Hand it in to the Town Hall, get a story in the weekly paper and maybe the friendly officer from the Education department can help. At the other end of the spectrum, a million and a half people sign the e-Petition on the 10 Downing Street website critical of the Government’s plans for Road Pricing; coincidentally, those plans are watered down.

Internationally, in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate conferences, various multinational petitions gathered thousands of signatures – all designed to put pressure on their own national negotiating teams, and of course to influence the overall process. So they don’t all succeed!

But that is to miss the point of petitions.

People who sign petitions do not always subscribe to the demands they make. Sometimes they just want to register general support for those who have organised the petition. They want to ‘stand up and be counted’ or stand ‘shoulder to shoulder’ with those with whom they make common cause. It is not unlike the (even less onerous) practice of clicking the ‘like’ button on a Facebook entry; it tells others that you’re there … and that you are with them.

Critics, however, argue that the strength of support – as measured in numbers is far less significant than the quality of the arguments. If you have 500 signatures for your campaign, it does not necessarily mean you have a strong case, or that recruiting another 100 supporters would make it any better. Petitions often reflect the organisational capabilities of those who promote them rather than any intrinsic value in the messages they convey. So, it can be argued, far from being a reliable measure of public opinion or even a barometer of public engagement, they can be downright misleading.

Despite this, there are a number of reasons why petitions are likely to become more – not less important in the coming years, and that public bodies will need to learn how to cope with them – regardless of what legislation or recommended guidance suggests.

Here are 5 factors to bear in mind:-

1. Civic society is still remarkably strong and underpins the fabric of communities. Hundreds of thousands of voluntary and community bodies provide a mechanism for concerned individuals to become involved in all manner of activities – and a proportion of them will interact with public bodies. Petitions provide a tool – admittedly one amongst many – that these groups can use to express their opinions and to request change. Research has shown that petitions are the most popular form of civic engagement after voting.

2. As the reputation of representative democracy suffers in the wake of Westminster scandals and media vilification, people are turning to self-help forms of political engagement. The petition is well established as a reflection of grassroots mobilisation, and is currently being used by campaigners to respond to formal consultations. Wherever decision-makers lurk, petitioners are likely to follow.

3. High-profile use of petitions enhances their publicity value. When Sky News was campaigning for Party Leaders to confront each other in a TV debate in the forthcoming General election, it invited its viewers to ‘sign’ their petition. In May 2009, The Sun newspaper initiated a petition calling for an early General Election and received backing from the Leader of the Opposition. David Cameron also gave visible support to a local petition in Manchester (The Christie petition) and politicians at national and local levels are happy to ally themselves with petitions from campaigns which they support.

4. The internet has provided a massive boost for active citizenship, even though many argue that this is disproportionately biased to well-educated higher income earners, and may well therefore reinforce public engagement by the ‘usual suspects’ The advent of e-Petitioning is an ideal tool for these people and now that early experiments (eg in the Scottish Parliament) have run their course, their use is being mainstreamed. Young people, as well as new “hard-to-reach” groups such as busy working parents, are more active with the internet and so e-Petitioning will help to involve them more in our democracy.

5. Petitions used to be a slow process, but e-Petitions have the potential to be very quick. Add to this the amazing power and influence of social networking sites and the ability to mobilise vast numbers of people behind a cause becomes frighteningly potent. Recent examples include complaints to the BBC over the Jonathan Ross affair or to the Daily Mail over their columnist’s ill-chosen words about the death of Stephen Gately. Whilst these may not have been petitions per se, the message that thousands of ‘signatures’ can wield tremendous influence will be lost on no-one.

There is one final but important trend and that is away from professional journalism and towards an increasing amount of user-generated content. From local newspaper to international news agencies, the crisis in traditional media is leading everyone towards new ways of gathering and synthesising news – and petitions will receive more and more publicity as a result.

Issues arising in the DCLG consultation

For simplicity we have grouped the issues into 5 main sections.

3.1 The Petition Scheme

One of the best features of the new legislation is that every Council is required adopt its own Petitions Scheme2, thus avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach, and allowing Authorities with existing arrangements to carry forward successful practices whilst according those who are new to this process the flexibility to take account of local preferences and circumstances.

The Act prescribes mandatory elements and the Government will offer a Model Petitions Scheme to assist Councils to prepare their own. The full Council must approve the scheme and it has to be published on its website. If the Government is unhappy with a particular Scheme, it has reserve powers to intervene, but the Institute thinks this is unlikely to be invoked.

Among the issues arising from the Guidelines, the Institute thinks Councils may wish to consider the following:-

3.1.1  Design of Schemes

We think there is a strong case for Councils to consult with its key stakeholders – especially over the thresholds to be adopted (see below). It should also consult local partner agencies and neighbouring Councils. Elected members should be encouraged to play a part in this process.

3.1.2  Style of Schemes

In the draft Guidelines, the Department has drafted a Model Scheme that is clearly aimed at an audience of the general public (“If we can do what your petition asks for …” etc) but the Institute believes that the Statutory Scheme itself should be written in more precise language, and include better defined process details and performance targets. For this reason we offer an Alternative Model Scheme in Appendix 1.

2 S.11(1) of The Local Democracy Act requires that, ‘A principal local authority must make a scheme for the handling of petitionswhich are made to the authority and to which section 12 applies’

3.1.3  Content of Schemes

In one important respect, we have a disagreement with DCLG over the content of its Model Scheme. As published, it contains ‘examples’ of

‘specific actions’ the Council might take, as four categories:-

• Alcohol related crime and disorder
• Anti-social behaviour
• Under-performing schools
• Under-performing health services.

Whilst we understand the Department’s eagerness to promote some of its favourite policies in respect of such issues, we think it may be a bad idea to include such material in a statutory scheme which should basically be about the process of handling petitions, and not about what a Council may do. Moreover, the inclusion of any list – will suggest that these are the subjects – and not others – upon which a Council might expect or encourage petitions. The Institute’s Alternative Scheme excludes this material.

3.1.4  Promotion of Schemes

We agree totally with the DCLG on the need to make information about Petition Schemes easily accessible, particularly to people likely to wish to initiate or sign them. But the Statutory Scheme itself isn’t necessarily the same as a well-drafted Information leaflet, and for that reason we prefer to keep them totally separate.

We also like the suggestion that the Petitions Scheme should form part of a Council’s response to the other major imitative of the Local Democracy Act – the Section 1 ‘duty to promote democracy’

One aspect where we think the public needs every possible assistance, is distinguishing the responsibilities and functions of one public agency from its partners delivering services in the same area. It might be

therefore helpful to list the functions as part of the Scheme whilst signposting petitioners towards the more appropriate level. This is a particular issue for English District Councils who will need to refer petitioners to County Councils if the issue for which they wish to petition relates to functions of partner bodies.

3.2 Thresholds

There are three thresholds which Councils must set, and others which they may wish to consider.

3.2.1 To require a statutory response

DCLG’s Model Scheme assumes that a Council will respond to every petition it receives, regardless of the number of signatures it attracts. Some may however feel that this is too onerous, and that a petition with one or two signatures should maybe be treated as a letter. Also, there may be some Councils which receive very large numbers of petitions and where it might be more appropriate to provide an incentive before the statutory duty to responds is triggered. The Institute’s Model Scheme stipulates 50.

3.2.2  To require evidence to be given from a senior officer

CLG’s Model Scheme has assumed a threshold of 750 signatures for an Authority of 150,000 population (i.e. 0.5%). We broadly agree that this is set at about the right level

3.2.3  To require a debate in full Council

DCLG’s Model Scheme has assumed a threshold of 1,500 signatures for an Authority of 150,000 population (i.e. 1%). We broadly agree that this is set at about the right level

Note that the draft Order – also included in the Guidance consultation specifies a maximum of 5% for thresholds, but there is a consensus that this is unreasonably high and would deter many from using this mode of expressing public views. What may be of greater interest is the ratio between the two requirements; current figures assume a ratio of 2:1 for full council debate/officer evidence.

There has been speculation that some Councils might find it useful to agree other thresholds to cover specific situations, such as issues affecting only a small minority of citizens. Our view is that it is difficult to devise a set of supplementary thresholds that will work in a sufficient range of circumstances, or that avoid over-complexity. Ours solution therefore is to include in our Alternative Model Scheme a provision whereby the Scheme Administrator can replace the default thresholds with more appropriate numbers when these situations arise.

3.3 Valid Petitions

Several issues arise here:

3.3.1 Status of Signatures

Once thresholds confer an entitlement to one or more form of action, it can become important to validate that they are real. The Act says that Schemes must apply to petitions from people who ‘live, work or study’ in the Council’s area, but there is nothing to stop an Authority from taking a more liberal stance. Visitors, for example may be very relevant for a Council receiving many of them, and some may be attracted to the idea of accepting signatures from those born in the area. In our view, care must be exercised, for the first time a community disagrees with opposing views represented by rival petitions, one can envisage difficulty if one side accuses the other of garnering inappropriate signatures.

In some e-Petitions, signatories are offered an opportunity to ‘withdraw’ their signatures. Whilst this is technically possible with e- Petitions (but not, of course with manual ones) we believe this may not be a good idea. It may encourage signatories to act frivolously and provoke disputes if subsequently withdrawn signatures are significant in achieving threshold targets.

3.3.2  Verification

No Council will have the resources – or the will, to check signatures except on a random sample basis. But the possibility that over- enthusiastic campaigners might overlook the rules still exists, and to keep the Schemes honest, it will be necessary to insert an appropriate cautionary Paragraph. The Alternative Model Scheme makes provision for this.

3.3.3  Exclusions

There is widespread agreement that issues which are subject to other formal consultative arrangement (eg planning or licensing) should be excluded. But the fact remains that many citizens feel strongly about such issues and may find it difficult to accept this restriction, and may petition anyway!

We think the solution is for Councils to be far more pro-active in publicising those alternative processes. In the case of Planning, Statements of Community Involvement (SCI’s) for example, might be strengthened to ensure that citizen views are fully and consistently heard.

We agree fully that vexatious, abusive or defamatory petitions should not be regarded as ‘valid’ but note that, whereas in the case of e- Petitions the Facility Administrator may have the opportunity to assist the petitioner redraft the petition to fall within the rules, in the case of manual petitions, there is no such opportunity. For the ‘mediation’ role of e-Petitions – see below

3.4 Joined-up responses

Surprisingly few commentators have noticed what the Institute regards as the single most significant aspect of the new duty – that it requires a Council to respond to petitions that may relate to other local service deliverers – or partners. In some ways, this could be as important, and more useful, than the ‘duty to co- operate’ found in the 2007 Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act.

The key provision is Section 14(2)(b)(ii) of the Local Democracy and it only applies to Top-Tier authorities – effectively just excluding English Districts.

What the Section says is that petition can be valid if it 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”

Note how widely this is drawn. It does not limit its application to certain – maybe obvious partners such as the NHS or Police, but may extend to any of its partners – and to anything to which they could contribute. We assume that the intention is to be congruent with Local Area Agreements, but the range of partners many Councils have extends this principle very widely. We welcome the provision as evidence of the ‘community leadership’ This fits well with the Conservative Party’s statements on ‘localism’ and should not therefore be impacted by any forthcomingchange of Government Several issues need clarification and guidance

3.4.1  Who are these ‘partner authorities’?

We think it is essential for each Council to identify and publish who they are; we recommend it becomes part of the Petitions Scheme

3.4.2  How committed will these partner bodies be?

For partners to assume shared responsibility for local outcomes, they also need to co-operate in providing constructive responses to petitions. There is therefore a significant premium on successfully engaging with such partner bodies before Petition Schemes are finalised so that everyone buys into the process.

3.4.3  Ensuring co-operation

Several Councils have recently expressed concern that they may lack leverage with Partner authorities whose co-operation they need to respond to petitions addressed in full or in part to matters falling within that partner authority’s functions. A case in point is the NHS and we think it is vital for the DCLG Guidelines to specifically mention the need for Trusts to co-operate fully. Maybe it requires a full Department of Health Circular as DCLG Guidance may not of itself carry sufficient weight. Ditto Home Office with Police. Ditto Department of Innovations & Science with Universities etc…

Local Government Officers likely to be involved with implementing the new duty have expressed concern to the Institute that there is no effective sanction if a partner authority fails to co-operate. In theory, the Audit Commission may have the sanction of commenting through the Comprehensive Area Assessment, but ultimately we believe that media monitoring and the reputational damage to a non-co—operating organisation would have the effect of making this self-enforcing.

3.4.4  Inter-agency use of data

We recommend that Petition Schemes make it clear that the information contained in petitions (including the signatories themselves) will be shared with ‘partner authorities’ to forestall any likelihood of difficulties under the Data Protection Act.

3.5 Performance standards for Acknowledgements, Responses and Reviews

The Act requires Schemes to specify a period of time within which the Council issues a formal acknowledgement of the petition. Note that this may differ according to whether the petition is in a traditional form or is submitted electronically. Essentially, Authorities become formally aware of a traditional petition the moment it is ‘presented’ or ‘received’ and by that time, the number of signatures it carries is already known. But in the case of e-Petitions, they are originally opened for signatures on the system, and may remain ‘open’ for a period of time whilst support is gathered.

Acknowledgement periods may therefore be different. In the Alternative Model Petitions Scheme, we have recommended 5 days for e-Petitions and 10 days for traditional Petitions, though each Authority may wish to select performance standards that are consistent with others they observe.

More significant is the performance standard for the response itself. The Act does not require any such standard, but we believe that best practice needs to influence the petitioner’s and the signatories’ expectations by prescribing a response period that starts when a petition is formally ‘received’ or ‘submitted’

We recognise that early practice for e-Petitions allowed them to remain ‘open’ indefinitely, but we disagree with this and in our Alternative Model Scheme, have suggested a ‘default’ period of 90 days, except that the Petitioner could override this and seek to present the petition earlier or later than this.

In our Alternative Model Petition Scheme, we have stipulated that a Council should indicate which of its Scheme-specified responses it intends to pursue, and that this should be within 28 days of its ‘receipt’ or ‘submission’

When the response has to be in stages, because, maybe the Council has decided to launch an investigation or some other diagnostic process, there should be some standard to ensure that there are no avoidable delays in communicating with the Petitioner. In the case of the threshold for a debate in full Council, there may be a need for a clear period of time for notifying the Petitioner of the outcome. We suggest 5 days In any event, there is probably a need for an end-date beyond which the Formal Response should not be delayed, and we have recommended this to be 90 days

Where the Petitioner exercises the Act’s provision for a Review (it will probably become known as an ‘appeal’!) we also think there should be a time-limit. We suggest 28 days from receipt of the Formal response. We also propose that 28 days be sufficient to undertake the Review, and so we recommend that the Review Response should be despatched within 28 days of the receipt of the review request.

Note one curiosity which Councils may wish to consider.

The Review provisions of the Act state that the appeal is to the Overview & Scrutiny Committee, but we envisage situations where this Committee has already had an involvement in the petition – and for that reason, might not be the most objective forum to handle the Review.

Our suggestion is that a Reviewing Officer, without any prior involvement, be appointed to reconsider the issue (including referring it to the Overview & Scrutiny Committee if this is appropriate), and our Alternative Model Petition Scheme provides for this.

The introduction of e-Petitions

One of the most innovative aspects of the legislation is the requirement on all Councils in England and Wales to build or buy an e-Petition ‘facility’ Only a handful of such systems have been implemented in local Government, though a well-known system has operated in the Scottish Parliament for years, and the No 10 Downing Street system receives hundreds of petitions each year. There is active debate on the possibility of a Petition Scheme for the UK Parliament, with the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown endorsing the idea this month.

Note

A full Procurement Guide has been prepared in anticipation of this legislation and includes, inter alia a summary of the functionality recommended for such systems. We hope this document – prepared for DCLG, will be made available shortly. If there is undue delay, the Institute will prepare its own Guidance on this important subjectOf greatest relevance to Councils wishing to plan ahead might be the following:-

4.1 ‘Make or Buy’

ICT departments will advise many Councils that an e-Petitions facility is inherently a relatively simple application and that they are capable of developing a satisfactory facility in-house.

Whilst this could be a good option for Authorities with a track record of excellent in-house systems development, the Institute believes this could be a risk for many Councils. A number of specialist suppliers have devoted considerable efforts to understand the dynamics of e-Petition systems and Councils who buy from them will have a choice of open-source or proprietary solutions.

Whichever course of action is adopted, Councils will need to take into account that the time available, which the Department has not yet specified, may not be sufficient to allow a leisurely approach to this investment. We expect the Department to allow approx 12 months for Councils to equip themselves with these systems, so a possible implementation date for this part of the Act may be 1 April 2011.

Councils should, however remember that there are relatively few genuine specialists in this field and that those who plan early may have the first call on those who can help them with these purchases.

4.2  Link to other Public Engagement processes

e-Petitions have to be viewed alongside the ‘duty to promote democracy’ (assuming it is implemented) and the ‘duty to inform, consult and involve’ in its many statutory forms. All of these are part of a Government policy to strengthen public engagement by requiring public bodies to make it easier for citizens to influence decision-making about local services.

The difference between consultation, for example, and petitions is that whereas the former usually takes the form of a public body asking the public or stakeholders for their views, petitions are a way in which local people can initiate the dialogue – unasked!

We therefore believe that consultation applications, now found on most Local Authority websites should be closely integrated with the local e-Petition system. It would be like saying ‘These are the matters upon which we want to hear your view… But if other issues concern you, here is a way to express your feelings …’

There are interesting possibilities here. If a citizen signs a petition asking for a lower road traffic speed limit in his or her village, might a sophisticated system immediately draw that signatory’s attention to the fact that there might simultaneously be a consultation about speed limits throughout the area … and might the signatory like to take part in…

In all this, Councils must remember that a significant proportion of the public might not choose to communicate with them electronically, and even though an e-Petition may be visible to those who are digitally-inclined, maybe they also need to post notices of current petitions at Council offices and afford those citizens the opportunity to append their signatories to it in the traditional way.

Many will view this scenario as unnecessarily cumbersome, but it illustrates the potential problem of having e-Petitions sitting alongside the conventional manual kind. Locally developed Petition Schemes may well provide imaginative solutions here; maybe the local newspaper can help! But whatever is done, Councils will have to take care not to discriminate against older people and others who are reluctant to use electronic communications when it comes to providing access to the ‘duty to respond’

4.3 The range of Users

Clearly, the e-Petition system will need to cater for those members of the public who want to use it for initiating – or for signing petitions, but their design will also have to take account of other users. In any Council, there will be a range of designated people who may be called ‘Responding Officers’ and it is these who, for each petition will need to investigate the issues and navigate through the various responding options. Ideally the emails written and the informal consultations undertaken by such people should be as transparent as possible and there is a case for including all this correspondence in the e-Petitions system itself, so that petitioners and their supporters can see what is going on.

The Facility Administrator – who effectively manages the e-Petitions system

– and not to be confused with the Systems Administrator, who handles technical aspects such as access rights, security and data standards – becomes an important official. It is he or she who decides whether an e-Petition is valid or not, and maybe enters into dialogue with petitioners on contentious petitions.

The Facility Administrator may also play an even more important role in ‘mediating’ between the citizen and the Council. After all, the first sign of a new petition is an ‘early warning’ of an issue that may (or may not, of course) attract public support. Sometimes, the petitioner may be unaware of helpful initiatives, or need help to pursue the cause in some other way … or with another agency.

Some commentators, including Catherine Howe of Public-i believe that this opportunity to enter into dialogue with concerned citizens is one of the most valuable by-products of e-Petitions and that progressive authorities could systemise and promote this part of the process to make sure that the overall goal of helping citizens feel engaged and their views value is achieved.

Finally there will be a range of Management users, from Chief Officers downwards who can use the ‘status’ and ‘historic’ reports of Petitions to check upon the issues exercising their citizens. This category will also include elected members who may find e-Petitions an even more attractive way to pursue local issues, and who will be keen to track their progress through the various stages of the Council’s process.

In all these aspects, Councils will need to consider not just the technical aspects of implementing a new system; that is comparatively straightforward. They will also need to look carefully at a whole range of democratic services and public engagement activities, and ensure that their Petition Scheme integrates well with their arrangements.

One simple example is that many Councils already have formal arrangements whereby citizens can secure a full Council debate on issues, or perhaps have audience rights. Clearly in the light of the new duty, and when developing their local Petition Scheme, authorities will need to look again at those processes.

Conclusion

The Institute believes that there is a lot of ‘devil’ in the detail of this new duty and has attempted to shed light on some of the options available to Councils in this paper.

It also believes that elected members should be fully involved in the development of local Petition Schemes. We are working on a Workshop/Toolkit whereby Councillors and officers can work through the many alternatives available to them as part of local Schemes, and as a ‘taster’ for what the Institute has in mind, we are publishing in Appendix 1, our current Alternative Model Petition Scheme. This is work-in-progress and we are open to further comments and suggestions in order to improve it.

It is also possible that, in the wake of the current consultation, the Government’s own Model Scheme might receive modifications.

In either case, the Institute proposes to help Councils – and their Partners to think through the issues arising.

It proposes to deploy experienced Associates including:-

Fraser Henderson – who is our e-Petitions specialist, and delivers our Effective eParticipation courses
Davy Jones – who is a leading expert on local government and delivers our Implementing the duty to Involve course
Sam Cranston –  our Project Consultant, who has undertaken much of the preparatory work for our Roundtables on this subject and who is co-author of this paper
Rhion Jones – the Institute’s Programme Director and also co-author of this paper.

This is the 19^th Briefing Paper; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement