Written evidence submitted by the Petitions Committee (BBB0005)

1. I am responding on behalf of the Committee to your letter of 11 March. We welcome the opportunity to contribute to your inquiry into Backbench Business Committee and Petitions Committee Debates. Our written submission focusses on questions 1 and 5 of your letter since the other questions concern the role of the Backbench Business Committee.

2. Before answering your questions directly, we would like to set out the context for the current work of the Committee, as that bears both upon how we use our current time and our thinking in respect of possible Chamber time.

3. In an age that is increasingly digital by default, the capability of a member of the public to start a petition and to acquire the necessary minimum of 5 sponsors for the petition to enter moderation is now ubiquitous. The digital processes underlying e-petitions are much more accessible to a wider spectrum of people than they were when the system was brought under the auspices of the Leader of the House in 2011, and the subsequent success of e-petitioning means the system is now more widely known.[1] This has the benefit of opening to a wider section of the population the ability to start a petition and, if it conforms to the Standards requited for a petition to be opened, to see it published and gain support; but inevitably this creates additional work for the team that supports us and for our Committee.

4. Last year we experienced the fourth highest number of opened petitions since the system moved from Government to parliamentary stewardship – with only the ‘Brexit’ year of 2016 and the Covid years of 2020 and 2021 provoking higher numbers.  Based on the number of petitions so far opened in 2026, we expect that number to be exceeded this year by a clear margin.

5. This has significant implications for our resources. The time and effort required to moderate petitions is very considerable. Moderating is a process that involves checking petitions with a minimum of five sponsors against the petitioning standards before accepting, rejecting, or redrafting the petition in collaboration with the petitioner to make it orderly. It is a process that is necessarily taken seriously to preserve the utility and reputation of the petitioning system, and to treat each petitioner fairly. We know that perceptions of procedural fairness can protect and even improve the public’s trust in political institutions.[2] Additionally, while some petitions are submitted with relatively little consideration behind them, all petitions require time to be spent on them and some, motivated by personal experiences of bereavement, harm or hardship, require appropriately sensitive handling.

6. It is worth stressing that over 90% of petitions that are opened following moderation do not reach the 10,000-signature threshold for receiving a Government response. Additionally, on average, over three times as many petitions are rejected as are opened. In the current Parliament to date, 18,269 have been moderated (with another c1,000 waiting to be moderated by the Petitions Committee team, 13,739 have been rejected and 4,530 have been opened (figures taken from data analysed on 25 March 2026). Since 2015, 114,694 petitions have been rejected compared to 31,563 opened.  All these petitions, whether opened or rejected, require work from the Petitions Committee team.[3]

7. The team also works to ensure that the decisions we make at committee meetings are based upon the best available advice and information, and to provide assistance for our members who are leading the debates in Westminster Hall; this level of support required is, we feel, likely to increase over coming years.

8. In part because of the significant demands of moderation and support for the debates in Westminster Hall, we have not yet had sufficient capacity to carry out many of the other activities we would have liked to – namely, to engage actively with petition creators and with other stakeholders and communities in less well-represented sectors of society. In the past, our predecessor committees have scheduled debates on petitions that did not reach 100,000 signatures that were thought to be of particular merit; they have undertaken inquiries, taking written and oral evidence, on the subjects raised by petitions; they have entered into detailed correspondence with government departments about the requests of petitioners; and there was more capacity in general terms to connect the e-petitions community – a considerable proportion of the public – with the activities of other committees of the House and with broader parliamentary business.

9. We are anxious that, as things stand, we may not find it possible to carry out similar activities in this Parliament.[4] Our answers to the two questions you have posed us have to be considered in the above context.

Q1. Is the current allocation of time for Petitions and Backbench Business debates appropriate and effective?

What impact, if any, does timing and scheduling of debates have on attendance?

10. We believe that the system of allocating petitions for debate on a Monday afternoon and evening in Westminster Hall broadly works well, and the amount of time we have at our disposal has generally proved adequate for petitions which have reached over 100,000 signatures. We have had 57 debates so far this Parliament on 50 sitting Mondays covering a total of 65 petitions (some debates have dealt with two petitions on more-or-less the same subject).

11. At the start of this Parliament, our practice was to schedule a single three-hour debate on each Monday. In October 2025, we decided to start scheduling, at our discretion, consecutive 90-minute debates on a Monday. This was in recognition of the increasing number of petitions that were reaching the 100,000 threshold which we wanted to deal with in as timely a way as possible, and also a reflection of the fact that some petition subjects were more specialised or narrow in scope and therefore probably less likely to draw in large numbers of Members to participate.

12. We would very much like to retain access to all sitting Westminster Hall Mondays. We have no control of the number of petitions that might be opened and reach the 100,000 threshold but we know we have access only to a finite number of sitting Mondays each Session which we would not want to see reduced. We are conscious that we may in future need more frequently to use our discretion not to allocate for debate petitions that have passed that threshold and perhaps instead to take other steps in those cases to draw the Government’s and the House’s attention to the petitioner’s request.

13. It is worth noting that approximately 1% of petitions each year, on average, reach the 100,000 threshold, something that has remained broadly consistent regardless of the number of petitions that are opened. Nonetheless, the more petitions that are submitted the more will be opened, and therefore there will be a greater number of petitions reaching the 100,000 threshold even if that c1% remains constant.

14. In some recent Sessions, the Committee has lost sitting Mondays when the House has returned after a recess on a Tuesday rather than a Monday (setting aside those instances when the Monday was a Bank Holiday). Even the finite number of sitting Mondays that we have at our disposal can fluctuate considerably per Session. As of the beginning of April 2026, we have 14 petitions that have reached the threshold and are still awaiting a debate, yet we have only about 13 sitting Mondays between now and mid-October by which time more petitions will have entered the queue for debate.  It is not impossible that we reach a point where the number of petitions we decide not to allocate becomes uncomfortably high on account of the limited time we have at our disposal.

15. We are aware that there are some disadvantages to Monday debates, particularly on a Monday following a recess when there is light business in the House or no division expected until the Moment of Interruption.  On such days, attendance at our debates can be lower than usual. Likewise, attendance – in particular at the first debate – can be affected by a run of Urgent Questions and/or Statements in the House.

16. We are usually able to give between three and five weeks’ notice of forthcoming debates. The week before a debate, we send an email to all Members containing the data on how many people in each parliamentary constituency signed the petition(s) in question, which I know Members find useful. Attendance by Members can be very high (see below) and we know that these debates continue to be some of the most publicly viewed parliamentary proceedings.

17. All in all, Monday petition debates work well in their present configuration notwithstanding the points made above about the factors that might impinge upon Members’ capacity to attend, the length of the debate queue and the need sometimes to consider shorter debates so as to not delay debates on other petitions for too long. There are issues relating to the capacity of Westminster Hall which we deal with late in this submission.

Q5. Are the existing mechanisms available for the Petitions Committee to hold debates in the Chamber (to apply via the Backbench Business Committee, or to be allocated time by the Government) sufficient, or should the Petitions Committee have guaranteed time in the Chamber?

18. The Petitions Committee has not historically taken advantage of the options cited in this Question, except for some petition debates that were held in the Chamber following discussions with the Government on account of the non-availability of Westminster Hall as a venue during ‘Covid proceedings’. The pressure of the Government’s business on its own time, the demands for the number of Opposition Days set out in Standing Orders (almost always on Tuesdays or Wednesdays), and the strong continuity of demand from backbenchers for debates from the Backbench Business Committee meant that our predecessor committees never felt that either the Government or the Backbench Business Committee would necessarily be forthcoming in any timely manner to requests for Chamber time from a committee that already has access to three hours of debating time practically every sitting Monday in a non-election year.[5]
19. We are conscious that changes to the processes for setting down select committee debating time agreed a few years ago by the House (in the context of Estimates Day debates) and consequently between the Backbench Business Committee and the Liaison Committee mean that the shape of this understanding has changed. The Backbench Business Committee’s modus operandi in this Parliament has as a result been more open; but it still seemed inappropriate to take time from backbenchers when we already had access to debating time in our own right – albeit not in the Chamber: a sort of self-denying ordinance.

20. We are supportive of the idea of having access to Chamber time for debates on some of the petitions that reach the 100,000-signature threshold that would otherwise fall to be debated in Westminster Hall. Such debates could take place under an identical form of motion to that which is currently used for debates in Westminster Hall. We believe that the prominence of some of the subjects that e-petitions deal with deserves Chamber time – prominence not just in the eyes of the public but also in the minds of Members who would wish to speak in such debates. It would also increase the overall amount of time at our disposal, which, given our concerns about the number of petitions reaching the threshold (see our response to the previous question), would be welcome.

21. In the past, Members have on occasion experienced difficulties in securing a seat in Westminster Hall for debates on prominent or controversial topics. Only Members who have a seat can usually be called on to speak in Westminster Hall debates and the seating capacity has on a few occasions (most recently for the Digital ID petition debate on 8 December 2025) been exceeded, leaving Members unable to contribute. In that debate we had a total of 75 contributions from different Members during the course of the debate (interventions or speeches). Similar numbers were also experienced in a debate on SEND on 15 September 2025 (in which there were 83 individual Member contributions to the debate) and more recently on a debate on ILR on 2 February 2026 (in which there were 66 individual Member contributions to the debate).

22. We do not want to see Members turned away from debates in which they wish to participate on account of the lack of seating capacity. The larger seating capacity of the Chamber would of course ease this problem, and the larger capacity for attendance by visitors would also be appreciated by those who have come to listen to the debates.

23. It is difficult to gauge how many petitions in any particular calendar year or Session might be suitable for Chamber debate, nor is it possible to predict when such suitable petitions might emerge. Most petitions that reach the 100,000-signature threshold do so during the second half of their six-month life as open petitions, but we can allocate debating time to a petition that has closed. We of course have no control over when a petition reaches the 100,000 threshold, so any Chamber debating time to which we were to have access would ideally have to be allocated on an ‘as and when’ basis – preferably upon our request rather than pre-determined at set intervals or on set dates.

24. A workable model might be for us have an expectation of access to six slots for Chamber time each calendar year/standard-length Session. These would be available to us upon request, the exact date to be determined by discussions between the Government and our team, with the final date established ideally within a calendar month of the request being made (except where a long recess intervenes). If it is considered preferable to have some more predictability in the parliamentary schedule, then having an expectation of slots to be set down at regular intervals during the year which the Committee could take advantage of – or not – depending on whether there were any suitable petitions to allocate for Chamber debates, would also be feasible.

25. Protection for the time so allocated would be important. As the recent report by the Backbench Business Committee makes clear, non-Government/Opposition Day debates are frequently under considerable pressure from other business, principally Urgent Questions and Statements, and are very seldom protected as matter of course.[6] This can lead to a notional 3-hour debate being reduced to less than 90 minutes and, in some cases, having to be pulled due to the lack of time available. Having this happen to a debate on a petition that has been signed by over 100,000 people, with the petition creator travelling to attend and in which a considerable number of Members were wishing to speak, would be regrettable and would do nothing for the reputation of the House. A Business of the House motion protecting a Chamber petition debate for three hours should in most circumstances suffice.

26. Ideally, the time provided should not clash with the Westminster Hall debates on petitions on a Monday. Thursdays, although sometimes used by the Government for general debates or particular legislative business, have become largely the preserve of Backbench Business Committee debates. The current Standing Order provides 20 days each Session for such business suggesting that it would be impractical to expect any Thursday time for petitions debates under current circumstances. While Tuesdays and Wednesdays are usually dominated by Government business and Opposition Day debates, provision of just six three-hour Chamber debates on petitions on either those days each Session should be possible within those constraints. As the sort of petitions we would choose to allocate for debate in the Chamber would be those on which we felt a large number of Members would wish to speak, Tuesdays and Wednesdays would probably be the most appropriate days anyway.

27. The committee team spends a considerable amount of effort in supporting members of our Committee who lead the debates in Westminster Hall. They ensure that Members have a thorough grasp of the subject of the petition in question and the opportunity where appropriate to meet with the petition creator and other relevant stakeholders to discuss the issues pertaining to the petition. This effort is of course multiplied over the same period when there are two petition debates set down on a Monday, rather than one, something that has happened more regularly as the number of petitions reaching the 100,000-threshold has grown.

28. We are conscious that additional support for Chamber debates would add to the team’s workload and that of Committee members who put themselves forward to open the debates; but we believe the opportunities offered by Chamber time would be nonetheless worth grasping if offered.

29. We do have some concerns about the way in which the nature or sensibility of debates may change as a result of their taking place in the Chamber rather than in Westminster Hall. The differences between the two venues for debate are well-attested, both anecdotally and in academic literature.[7] We would have to think carefully about which debates will benefit most from those differences. The Chamber is often a more confrontational space, one that is perhaps better suited to controversial petitions or those which will end up being debated largely along party political lines, so it may be that we do not simply select the petitions which have the largest number of signatures for Chamber debates and instead think more deeply about the nature of the debate that is likely to arise from the petition in question.

30. Westminster Hall on the other hand can be a more consensual space for deeper deliberation on cross-party or more specialised subjects, which we know that Members, as well as petition creators and signatories, respect and appreciate.
31. We are aware that the task of choosing a petition for debate in the Chamber would be a serious matter and we would have to be careful in thinking through the sort of criteria we adopt, and the extent to which it might be of benefit to make those criteria clear and public. Additionally, we would need to bear in mind what the likely attendance of Members would be – one possible criterion ought to be that a Chamber debate on a petition, or group of related petitions, should be likely to secure possibly higher levels of attendance than those we retain for debate in Westminster Hall.

Other thoughts

Members initiating petitions

32. At present, Members are able to initiate petitions which might then engage with government departments for responses at the 10,000-signature threshold or fall to be considered by the committee for a debate at the 100,000-signature threshold.

33. The practice of this committee since 2015 has been, where possible, to dissuade Members from initiating petitions.  As Members, they have other opportunities to secure debating time and also to press Ministers for action or for information. Any petition created by a Member that reaches the 100,000-signature threshold is liable to be held back in the queue by the committee, in favour of petitions that have been created by people who do not have those opportunities. We are aware that this could be seen to disadvantage those who have signed such petitions.

34. The Committee would be reluctant to allocate a petition initiated by a Member to a debate in the Chamber, feeling that the proper route a Member should take to secure a debate in the Chamber is via the Backbench Business Committee.

Changes to sitting times or provision of additional venue

35. While we are keen for the provision of additional time for debates on petitions, and for that addition to be in the form of Chamber time, one suggestion might be to create additional Chamber time overall, so that the time that we might be allocated does not necessarily limit the current amount of time available. One possibility might be to extend Wednesday sittings to earlier in the morning for two-hour debates, as was done for private Members’ motions under the Jopling reforms (albeit that was before the House commenced sitting at 11.30am rather than 2.30pm that day).

36. Another possibility to allow more petition debating time overall (setting aside Chamber time) would be to make use of the largest general committee room on the Main Committee Corridor for 90-minute debates on e-petitions on an occasional basis, perhaps when the queue of petitions reaching the 100,000 threshold that we have judged should receive a debate has grown very long.

ANNEX: The tables show (a) the number and (b) the percentage of petitions that reached the 10K and 100K signature thresholds for each calendar year since 2016. Other signature ranges are provided for further information.

The data for these tables were sourced during March 2026.

                                                                                                                                                          May 2026