Agenda item

1. Mr Cook introduced the report and advised that it was felt a review was appropriate following recent discussions with Members.  The number of signatures needed to meet the thresholds for debate at County Council and Cabinet Committees, was one of the areas raised as a concern.  Mr Cook added that last time the Petition Scheme was reviewed, the Committee had chosen not to make any significant changes. 

2. Mr Cook provided Members with a presentation to give context around how the Petition Scheme currently operated.  During the presentation the following points were noted:

a.    All petitions must go to Democratic Services to be verified.

b.    Before setting up a petition, organisers were encouraged to contact the Democratic Services team; they were available to offer advice and ensure that the petition was relevant to a service provided by KCC. 

c.     The most common subject of a petition related to highways matters.  The most common outcome of a petition was to issue a written response from the relevant Cabinet Member.  Petitions were often about very localised issues.

d.    Petition organisers were encouraged to coordinate with others when similar petitions took place simultaneously.

e.    KCC’s signature thresholds were compared to the thresholds at other councils.  There was a significant degree of variation in the number of signatures required by each council.

f.      The Green and Independent Group (G&I Group) indicated that they wished for the threshold for County Council debate to be reduced from 10,000 to 2,000 signatures and for the threshold for Cabinet Committee debate to be reduced from 2,500 to 1,500.

g.    If the G&I Group  proposed thresholds had been in place over the last 9 years, the number of petitions considered by County Council would have increased from one to ten, and the number of petitions considered by a Cabinet Committees would have reduced from eight to six.

h.    Consideration could be given to a mechanism that would handle small, localised petitions more effectively. 

3. Members asked questions and made comments.  The following points were noted during the discussion:

1. The county populations needed to be considered when comparing other council’s signature thresholds.
2. The eligibility to sign a petition should be reviewed, for example, a signatory should have a local connection or be over a certain age.  Currently KCC required signatories to live, work or study in the county; the Committee intentionally left the eligibility requirements relatively open when the Petition Scheme was reviewed last time.
3. For small petitions, considered at a local meeting, the number of signatures should be comparable with number required at District/Borough Councils.
4. If a petition related to an executive function, which was often the case, neither the County Council or Cabinet Committee could act upon the petition directly.  They could only make recommendations to the Cabinet for consideration.
5. 10,000 was a lot of signatures, people do a petition when they have been told to gather evidence that people want something.  If the threshold was reduced, more voices would be heard.
6. The G&I Group’s suggested the threshold for County Council debate was proportionally in line with the Parliamentary threshold.  This reduction would increase democratic engagement.
7. Officers could send a survey to petition organisers to incorporate their experience and feedback into the review.
8. There were some advantages to hosting petitions on the KCC ePetition system, it could be used to provide updates to those who have signed the petition. The ePetition user experience was an area that could be further explored as part of the review.  There were reports that the KCC ePetition system was a cumbersome experience for users.
9. In cases where there was a paper petition and an ePetition running simultaneously about the same issue, the number of signatures could be combined.  There was petition guidance that advised people not to sign both petition formats as there would be checks for duplication. 
10. In cases when there were multiple petitions about a similar, but not identical issues, the number of signatures were not combined, however they would be grouped together to enable to decision maker to see what had been received. 
11. Part of the review would look at to handle multiple different petitions that had a strategic connection.  The aim was to help ensure peoples voices were heard.  It was recognised that petitions were often submitted as an act of last resort.
12. There would always be the opportunity for an individual to submit a paper petition.

4. Members comments would be incorporated into the review and proposals would be brought back to the Committee for further consideration.