Natascha Engel believes the system of e-petitions needs to be reformed on the basis that the system is out of control and there is insufficient time to debate all petitions that cross the “magic 100,000 threshold” (Debate organiser warns of disillusionment, 16 November).

Since the scheme launched, almost 1,500 e-petitions have been created, of which only six have crossed the threshold.

The vast majority of e-petitions have failed to secure even 100 signatures. Even matters of significant public interest such as increasing policing have only obtained around 20,000 signatures. This suggests that it is only those matters which the public are really concerned about that are crossing the threshold, and which should be debated.

My e-petition gained over 140,800 signatures in three months. It called for my son Babar Ahmad, a British citizen, to be put on trial in the UK. Babar has spent over seven years in prison without trial. Engel refused to list my petition for a full debate in the Commons on the basis that there was not enough time. On the same day, she listed for debate an e-petition to reduce immigration which secured 20,000 fewer votes and which was run by the Daily Mail.

I had no national newspaper behind me and those who promoted the petition utilised many methods of obtaining support, such as collecting signatures on the streets and even going door-to-door. The reputation of British democracy, already tainted by the imprisonment without trial of a British citizen, will only be further damaged by refusing to address the concerns of almost 141,000 people who dare to say this is wrong.
Ashfaq Ahmad
London

• The e-petitions systems in the Scottish parliament and the National Assembly for Wales demonstrate that petitions systems can work. In both cases the systems are seen as an integral part of the relationship between parliament/assembly and civil society. In addition it is clear to petitioners what they can and cannot achieve by using the systems. This is in stark contrast to the government’s “populist” new system, which lacks clarity around the actual purpose of the system, fails to provide a mechanism for the consideration of petitions that do not reach the 100,000 threshold, and misleadingly claims to be “an easy way for you to influence government policy in the UK”. The new system may perhaps best be seen as a starting block upon which to build. If the government does not act to address these issues they should not be surprised if petitioners, and the wider public, become disillusioned.
Catherine Bochel
Principal lecturer in policy studies, School of Social Sciences, University of Lincoln

• A solution to Natascha Engel’s concern about public disillusionment with the e-petition system would be for all votes in the Commons arising from an e-petition to be un-whipped. To allow MPs a free vote based on their conscience would enhance public respect for MPs and the broader political system and would make it far harder for governments to ignore the will of parliament on matters of concern to voters. The fact that, from time to time, unpalatable issues such as the death penalty would arise is a necessary function of the operation of democracy, and should be welcomed for the much needed greater responsibility and status it would accord our elected representatives.
John Slinger
Editor, Pragmatic Radicalism: Ideas from Labour’s New Generation

• If Ed Miliband, Lord Owen and all those politicians who have “wrung their hands about executive pay” (How the morality of the markets has become politicians’ latest battleground, 18 November 2011) wish to inject some morality back into capitalism, perhaps they could all sign my e-petition: Link wages and bonuses of those at the top of an organisation to those at the bottom. At least that may prompt a debate in parliament to exercise all those other idle hands.
Mike Kellett
Cardiff

• Perhaps an e-petition would be a way to force a debate on an alternative to the current neoliberal austerity measures. An e-petition has therefore been created calling for the government to consider the suggestions of the People’s Charter.
Dr Thabo W Miller
Thornaby on Tees, North Yorkshire