Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I should like to use my noble friend’s objection to Clause 10 standing part of the Bill to ask a couple of questions, but I should say that, like my noble friend, I feel that the provisions covering petitions could be set out in a very few lines; indeed, the amendments in my name in the next grouping are my suggested design to achieve that end. I have already indicated to the Minister a number of questions on this chapter and I am grateful for her long letter in answer to those. However, it might be useful to put some of her responses on the record. In asking these questions again, I do not in any way dismiss the Minister’s letter. I asked why the Greater London Authority was not included in this provision. It would not be necessary to differentiate between the functions and method of operation of the GLA and those of other principal local authorities—because the GLA is not a local authority—if there were simply an outline framework scheme for petitions. I understand that the Secretary of State could add the GLA to the scheme but does not plan to do so. The Minister asked whether I wanted to see the GLA included and my response is that I do not particularly want it to be; rather, I want to tease out the differences. The London Assembly, which is the overview and scrutiny arm of the GLA, recognised very quickly after its formation in 2000 that petitions would be presented to the authority but that members of the public would not know to whom they should be addressed. The Assembly, of which my noble friend Lord Tope and I were members, adopted a procedure whereby the Assembly was asked to agree whether it would accept a petition—there is a public function here that fits in with the Government’s approach. In almost every case, the subject matter of the petition was not something that the Assembly could deal with, so it would simply agree to pass it on. That is important. My second question was why it is impossible simply to include electronic petitions in the other provisions for petitions. I understand that the council needs as a first step to consider whether to host the petition. Why is that? I assume that it may be something to do with it being unlawful or inappropriate, which is what my noble friend seeks to address in Amendment 78.