Citizens' Initiatives

Citizens’ Initiatives Standard Note: SN/PC/04483 Last updated: 1 May 2008 Author: Lucinda Maer Section Parliament and Constitution Centre On 30 April 2008 Douglas Carswell MP introduced a Bill “to permit members of the public to initiate legislation; and for connected purposes”. This Note considers proposals for the introduction of a ‘Citizens’ Initiative’ process in the UK, where citizens would be able to petition for referendum questions to be placed on ballot papers of for legislation to be introduced in Parliament. Such systems operate in New Zealand, Switzerland, and in some parts of the United States. This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It should not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it was last updated; and it should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice or as a substitute for it. A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or information is required. This information is provided subject to our general terms and conditions which are available online or may be provided on request in hard copy. Authors are available to discuss the content of this briefing with Members and their staff, but not with the general public. Contents 1 Proposals for the adoption of Citizens’ Initiatives 3 1.1 Citizens’ Initiative (Legislation) Bill 2007-08 3 1.2 The Power Inquiry 4 1.3 Our Say 5 1.4 Unlock Democracy 6 2 Arguments concerning the introduction of citizens’ initiatives in the UK 7 3 Citizens’ initiatives overseas 9 3.1 The United States of America 9 3.2 New Zealand 11 3.3 Switzerland 13 2 1 Proposals for the adoption of Citizens’ Initiatives 1.1 Citizens’ Initiative (Legislation) Bill 2007-08 On 30 April 2008 Douglas Carswell MP introduced a Citizens’ Initiatives (Legislation) Bill. The Bill would “permit members of the public to initiate legislation”. He explained: Under the Bill, citizens could trigger debates and votes in Parliament on topics of their choice. Part of the House’s legislative agenda would be determined directly by the ordinary citizen, not just MPs and officials. Bills would be introduced on things that mattered to the people, not merely those that excite politicians.1 He continued by explaining the process for introducing such legislation: To initiate a law, a citizen would submit a written proposal to the Clerk in the Table Office. Just as in New Zealand, the Table Office Clerk could determine the precise wording and rule frivolous or fantastic proposals out of order. Proposals would be out of order if, in the opinion of the Clerk and the Speaker, a similar proposal had been put forward within five years. Once a proposal had been approved by the Table Office, citizens would have 12 months to collect signatures. […] Rather than having an arbitrary threshold selected, under my Bill those six proposals with the most signatures would qualify. Ensuring that each proposal was, in effect, in competition with other proposals would have advantages. It would encourage proposals that were, by definition, able to command widespread support and would favour measures that were inclusive and unifying, and progressive and uplifting, over and above what was narrow and sectional. The half dozen proposals with the most signatures would then be presented to Parliament during the state opening. Having listed those Bills that the Sir Humphrey Appleby types, the remote officials and even, it has to be said, the occasional Minister wanted, Her Majesty would then read out those Bills that the people wanted on the statute book. And what a Queen’s Speech that might be! Perhaps people beyond the Westminster village might want to watch and debate the contents for the Gracious Speech – a speech which would have purpose as well as pageantry. Every couple of months, the Commons would debate and vote on one of the people’s Bills. …2 Douglas Carswell explained that in his view: A right of initiative would strengthen Parliament and revive our much diminished standing. Far from bypassing or marginalising the Commons, my Bill would give this institution a little backbone. We would still be, in Edmund Burke’s memorable phrase, a “deliberative assembly”; it is just that those assembled here would deliberate what counted with the country. This House, under Governments of both parties, has grown less effective at holding those who wield Executive power to account. It should not surprise any of us that fewer people both voting in elections to determine who sits here.3 1 HC Deb 30 April 2008 c309 2 Ibid, cc309-310 3 Ibid, c310 3 The proposals in this Bill differ from other recent proposals for citizens’ initiatives in at least one important way: the proposals in the Bill do not involve popular referenda on citizens’ initiatives. 1.2 The Power Inquiry The Power Inquiry, chaired by Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, was established in 2004 to consider how political involvement and engagement can be increased in Britain.4 Their 2006 report Power to the People placed an emphasis on direct democracy, and what they had termed ‘Downloading power’. They explained that “many people want more influence over political decisions, but regard elections as far too blunt a tool for the exercise of that influence” and found that “the majority of citizens are attracted by such direct mechanisms and that many are willing to engage with them”.5 Power’s recommendations included that “all public bodies should be required to meet a duty of public involvement in their decision and policy-making processes” and “that citizens should be given the right to initiate legislative processes, public inquiries and hearings into public bodies and their senior management”.6 In a report on Democratic Innovations written for the Power Inquiry, Professor Graham Smith of Southampton University has stated that: Used widely in Switzerland and a number of states in the US, citizen initiative and popular referendum provide a mechanism for citizens to set the political agenda and for the whole population to make the final decision on their proposals. Most referendums held across the world are government-sponsored – in this innovation the government does not have the primary role in decision-making (although it can obviously campaign for or against proposals). Citizen initiative and popular referendum require citizens to mobilise support for their petition – without a significant number of signatures, the proposal will not be placed on a ballot. The lesson from the actual practice of citizen initiative and popular referendum is that governments need to ensure that money does not affect the outcome – both in terms of generating petitions or in the campaigns once the proposal is on a ballot. If this can be effectively achieved then they are powerful democratic innovations – one of the few direct democratic innovations that can be used in large-scale democracies.7 Since the Inquiry reported, a campaign associated with the Inquiry has been established called ‘Make it an issue’. This organization has made the case that: Our political system has always been self-policed by a professional political class, which in turn lacks the power (and often the will) to hold any Government elected on a large majority to account. Since the mid-twentieth century, the damaging effects of this elitism have been exacerbated by an ever increasing centralisation of political power. Along side this distant and antiquated power structure, and in today’s increasingly globalised world, the democratic rights won in past struggles feel like blunt instruments. 4 Library Standard Note SN/PC/3948, Power to the People: the report of Power, an Independent Inquiry into Britain’s Democracy 5 Power, Power to the People, 2006, p 220, http://makeitanissue.org.uk/devlog/2007/01/the_power_commission_was_estab.php (last viewed 19 October 2007) 6 Power, Power to the People, 2006, p 220, Recommendations 23 and 24 7 Graham Smith, Beyond the Ballot Box: 57 Democratic Innovations from Around the World – A report prepared for the Power Inquiry, May 2005, p41, http://www.makeitanissue.org.uk/Beyond%20the%20Ballot.pdf (last viewed 19 October 2007) 4 People no longer feel they have choice, voice or influence in a political process that has been frozen around the needs of last century’s mass political parties.8 1.3 Our Say A campaign associated with the direct democracy aspect of ‘Make It An Issue’ has also been established called ‘Our Say’. It is chaired by Saira Khan (who came to public attention after taking part in the television programme The Apprentice). They argue that: There is a serious problem with politics in Britain. Fewer and fewer people are voting in elections, there is widespread cynicism and opinion surveys show that, increasingly, mistrust is directed not just at politicians as individuals but towards representative government as a whole. Far from having a sense of ownership of their democracy, people feel impotent when it comes to influencing decisions taken by those in power. Unless this changes, things will only get worse. 21st century Britain is a highly sophisticated society but we still make do with a crude 19th century system of limited and indirect democracy that was designed in – and for – a different era. Almost every other aspect of our lives has been transformed by social, economic and technological progress, but the way we make collective decisions is now hopelessly outdated. In previous centuries, it was supposed that ordinary people were too ignorant and irresponsible to be allowed to vote at all. Under pressure, the franchise was extended gradually (and grudgingly) and it was only in 1928 that the right of every citizen to vote on equal terms was conceded.

Load more