Public Petitions Committee, 14 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 14, 2000

Official Report 291KB pdf

---

Electronic Petitions

I call the meeting to order and welcome everyone to the fifth meeting this year of the Public Petitions Committee.

We have a full agenda today. The first item is a paper that has been prepared by the clerks on electronic petitions. It has been issued beforehand to all members of the committee. For the benefit of those who do not have copies, I shall briefly summarise the contents of the paper.

Currently, we allow electronic petitioning to the Scottish Parliament. A form on the Parliament's website must be completed and submitted by e-mail, which must be backed up with a hard copy. We do not allow a list of signatures in electronic form to accompany the electronic petition, as it is difficult to authenticate such signatures.

The clerk has engaged in discussion with the director of communications in the Parliament, as well as with the director of the international teledemocracy centre at Napier University, where an electronic petitioning system called e-petitioner has been developed—these new names are marvellous. The paper tells members exactly what e-petitioner does. It is a web-based electronic petitioning tool, which allows anyone to create, view, sign or add background information to a petition on the web, and allows access to a discussion forum about the petition on the web. It also allows individuals to submit a petition from that site on the web.

The international teledemocracy centre understands our reluctance to accept lists of signatures in electronic form, in view of the difficulty of checking the authenticity of such material. However, it offers some reassurance concerning its e-petitioner system. For example, checks will be carried out to ensure that there is no obvious duplication in a petition that is submitted electronically, and that no attempt has been made maliciously to increase the level of support. There can be no ultimate guarantee of authenticity, but there is no guarantee that written petitions are authentic either. It could be argued that the electronic petitions that are presented by e-petitioner are, in some senses, stricter, as cross-checks are carried out on the postcodes of the people who have put their names to them.

I concur with the clerk that we should enter into an agreement with Napier University. That would allow us not only to keep abreast of advances in technology in this area and to evaluate the success of such a system, but to determine, in the longer term, whether the Parliament should develop such a system. The feedback from the committee to Napier University could help to shape the kind of e-petitioner system that is set up in the final instance. We have our first e-petition before us, from the World Wildlife Fund for Scotland, which will be considered later in the meeting.

Before we move to recommendations, does anyone have any comments on this item?

I apologise for not reading this paper in detail. I would like to ask about the issue of security. Before publicity is given to names that appear on an electronic petition, are they validated? Someone might find that their name is on a petition that they had nothing to do with.

That is a fair point. However, that could happen with any petition.

The trouble is that, if the petition appears on the web, it is much more public and anybody could access it immediately. Other petitions are sent only to us.

A balance must be struck. The idea is for the Parliament to widen access for ordinary people to petition and involve themselves in the Parliament. This is one way in which that could be done. If we become too security-conscious, we put people off. We could, for example, insist on people having a password or e-mail address before a petition could be validated. That would greatly restrict the number of people who could submit a petition.

Should there be a disclaimer to say that the first petitioner would be responsible for ensuring that the names that were appended to the petition were accurate? That would allow redress against one person if names were simply added.

The responsibility for the petition will always remain with the main petitioner. If the Napier University system acted as a host, it would try to ensure that names were properly validated. There are limits, however, and not every name could be checked.

I appreciate that. I just wonder whether there might be a disclaimer to state that the Public Petitions Committee recognises the signatures, to the best of its knowledge, as authentic. There should also be a statement that the first-name signatory has primary responsibility.

A health warning will always be issued to say that there is no guarantee that the names are genuine.

Okay. That is my only concern.

It does not matter how many people sign a petition anyway. Public petitions can come from a single person; it does not make a great deal of difference.

The issue is not the number of petitioners, but the appearance of specific names on a public access site.

We will recommend the use of a pilot scheme for a year, to review how the system operates. Such flaws could be ironed out during that year.

Fine.

I accept the recommendation to proceed with this experiment, although there are concerns, as Christine Grahame has mentioned. I attended a presentation at Napier University, at which I heard Lesley Beddie cite examples from Finland and other countries—where people are more familiar with the use of electronic modes of communication with their elected representatives—and I was very impressed. I am sure that, if we work closely with Napier University, the Parliament can remedy any problems that we encounter.

When I was a councillor, someone purporting to live in my ward signed their name to a letter in a newspaper. When the name was checked out, it was found that the person was not on the electoral register; no one of that name was living at that address. Misinformation of that kind can be given whether in the form of an electronic petition or a letter to the newspapers. We must be vigilant and ensure that, if we discover any problems, they are addressed.

I have some reservations on the recommendation. It sounds fine, but a pilot study should be carried out with Napier University. We are a new committee and have just issued rules for the way in which petitions should be submitted. There was considerable discussion before we did that, but we are now considering amending those rules. There are other issues that come to mind. I frequently find with constituents that they feel that a petition should be more than one signature on a piece of paper. We need to reconsider that at a later date.

This is a new committee, which has just issued rules and regulations governing the submission of petitions. To a degree, electronic petitions could be seen as elitist, but what we are expected to do in this committee is register with the people of Scotland. What guarantees are there that some of the petitions that come in by e-mail are based in Scotland? Do we have to accept petitions that originate in America, South America or Asia, as long as they relate to a Scottish issue? There are basic questions that have to be asked and answered before I would give a blanket acceptance to this proposal.

It is already the position that people do not have to be based in Scotland to petition this Parliament. We have had one Canadian gentleman petitioning about his title to a clan chiefdom somewhere in the north of Scotland. It is permissible to submit petitions from outwith Scotland in written or electronic form.

We should remember that this is a pilot scheme. There is no contract involved and nobody is being paid to do anything. Napier University is offering to act as a host to vet electronic petitions, just for a year, to see how they work. That is an important technology that the Parliament should be embracing. It would send entirely the wrong message if this committee were to decide not to support electronic petitioning, at least in its pilot form. Of course there will be problems, but we will find out what those are during the year. We are not committing ourselves to a long-term relationship with anyone.

The same rules will apply to electronic petitions as apply to written petitions. We are enhancing the role of the Public Petitions Committee and opening it out. This is a good idea, and because it will be a pilot scheme for a year we will be able to keep an eye on it. I am in favour of it.

I detect that the mood of the majority is to go ahead with the pilot, although reservations have been expressed by some members.

In that case, will the rules and regulations that we established a few weeks ago on the submission of petitions be amended to make this possible?

People are already allowed to petition the Scottish Parliament electronically. This is simply about the method by which people do that. At the moment, they have to do it through the Scottish Parliament website. We are suggesting that for a year we will accept as a host site to forward petitions to this Parliament the international teledemocracy centre at Napier University. Petitions that the centre forwards over the next year will be admissible.

I think that Phil Gallie is asking whether that will be added to the guidance on submission of petitions on our website.

Yes. It will be added to our website so that people know that they can do this.

Is it agreed that the first electronic petition from the World Wildlife Fund Scotland is admissible?

Members indicated agreement.

Is it also agreed that for one year we should enter into a pilot scheme with the international teledemocracy centre, and that at the end of the year we should review the position?

Members indicated agreement.