Impact case study database

The principal impacts of this research have: 1) contributed to the establishment of a new petitions system and Petitions Committee in Westminster; 2) informed the workings of the new system; and 3) supported the creation of an e-petitions system in the Parliament of Canada.

Background

In March 2013, Bochel submitted written evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee Inquiry and was invited to give oral evidence [5.1a, 5.1b]. Her evidence highlighted the failure of the existing system to meet public expectations, and that the ‘hybrid’ nature of the existing system was a source of confusion to the public. She recommended that the ownership of the system should rest with the House of Commons, that users who do not have access to the internet should be able to submit paper petitions, that the focus on the number of signatures attached to a petition as a way to make decisions about actions on a petition be reconsidered, and that a Petitions Committee be established. These were cited extensively in the inquiry report [5.1a], and also reflected in its recommendations, with the Committee concluding ‘that the House should be invited to agree a Resolution on public petitions which would outline the principal features of a new system’ (para 134).

Impact in REF period

On 8 May 2014, the House of Commons agreed a motion supporting the establishment of a collaborative petitions system with the government in the 2015 Parliament. The motion called on the Procedure Committee to work with the Government and other interested parties on the development of detailed proposals. Following this, Bochel was invited to give oral evidence to the Procedure Committee inquiry into ‘E-petitions: a collaborative system’ [5.2b].

The Committee accepted a number of her recommendations, including, crucially, that:

• a new select committee, the Petitions Committee, be established;

• and that the Committee have a wider range of options in how they could respond to petitions.

Also, following Bochel’s recommendations to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, in addition to actions being triggered by signature thresholds, the new Committee was enabled to respond to petitions by:

• asking for further information from relevant organisations on the topic of the petition;

• inviting petitioners to give oral evidence to them;

• or undertaking an inquiry into the topic raised by the petition.

In December 2014 the House approved the subsequent report E-petitions: a collaborative system, resulting in the introduction of a new substantive petitions system and a new Petitions Committee. This was a significant step, suggesting that Government and Parliament were taking the concerns of petitioners seriously. The new Committee was able to draw on a more appropriate range of responses, and to provide some petitioners with the opportunity for more in-depth engagement with Parliament [5.2a; 5.2b].

Bochel’s research continued to have further impact on the implementation of the new system. The Clerk to the new Committee asked Bochel to ‘advise the Committee as it thinks about how to address the task ahead of it’. This involved Bochel attending meetings with the Clerk and sending the Clerk a written statement of recommendations [5.3a] which were ‘… enormously helpful’ [5.3b]. The Committee adopted a number of these, including that:

• statements about what petitioners can and cannot achieve be included on the website for the new Committee, and

• the purpose of the new system be communicated to petitioners by a variety of means, including a short video on the website to set out the process of submitting a petition, and potential outcomes for petitioners.

A further email from the Clerk noted that the Committee had launched a consultation on its working methods and stated, ‘You will recognise some of your recommendations in there (sometimes adapted to fit the framework the House has given us)’ [5.3c].

The Chair of the new Petitions Committee wrote to Bochel recognising her contribution [5.3d]. The significant influence of her research on the development and implementation of the new system were underlined by a letter from the Clerk to the Petitions Committee [5.4] saying ‘… your research has played, and continues to play, a hugely important role in informing the establishment of the UK Government and Parliament petitions system. …your evidence to that [Procedure] Committee assisted in the development of the proposals that were finally implemented. …I am hugely indebted to your work on the concept of “procedural justice” in shaping my thinking about how a petitions system should work in practice. It has underpinned the development of a framework for the new petitions system and the working methods of the Petitions Committee’. The Clerk of Committees also recognised Bochel’s contribution, ‘… your evidence to the Procedure Committee helped it in its development of the framework for the new petitions system which was agreed by the House of Commons in 2014 and put into effect after the 2015 general election. Your work continued in your assistance to the Clerk of the new Petitions Committee in developing its working methods’ [5.5].

The research has also begun to have an impact in other legislatures, most notably in the Canadian Parliament where Kennedy Stewart MP brought a motion, to establish a system for electronic petitions [5.6a], in which he cited Bochel’s research in support of his case. Her work having informed his original arguments [5.6a; 5.6b], Bochel was then invited by the Canadian Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to give oral evidence in 2014 [5.6c, 5.6d] on the proposal to introduce e-petitions to the Canadian Parliament. Drawing on her research on petition systems in the UK, including in Scotland and Wales, she provided examples of features that might be taken into account when designing an e-petitions system including providing an educative function, and demonstrating a variety of potential outcomes for petitioners. A new system was subsequently agreed and launched in December 2015. The MP wrote to Bochel saying that ‘Both the committee and I found your insights invaluable’ [5.7].

It has also been cited by the Scottish Parliament in response to requests by other legislatures for their inquiries into e-petitions, including to the Chair of the Standing Committee, House of Representatives, Parliament of Australia, and the Parliament of New South Wales [5.8a; 5.8b].