Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I speak to Amendments 80 and 83 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, which have been referred to. Our two amendments constitute alternatives to achieve exactly the same objective that my noble friend Lord Greaves mentioned. For once, all of us sitting on these Benches agree with everything that he said. That is not necessarily always the case, as he well knows. I say that not just to amuse the Committee; I have a serious intent. My three noble friends and I have spent virtually our entire adult lives petitioning local authorities, encouraging and helping others to petition local authorities and responding to petitions received by our local authorities. Whether we like it or not, we have considerable experience of local authority petitions. All of us believe that the Government are mad to go down this course. If I remember rightly, all the speakers in the Second Reading debate who referred to this part of the Bill cautioned against it; certainly those with experience did so. I hope that the Government will listen to that. Although we do not think that it is necessary, we accept that the Government feel the need to impose a duty on local authorities in regard to petitions. However, like my noble friend Lord Greaves, I ask the Government please to leave that as a framework. To go further would lead us into more and more difficulty. My noble friend Lord Greaves referred to the Minister’s comment at Second Reading, which I consider a startling and astonishing statement. I brought the relevant copy of Hansard with me to quote it exactly. She said that, "““the LGA found that fewer than a third of local authorities guaranteed a response to petitions””." That just did not sound right to me. I asked myself what was meant by ““guarantee””. As my noble friend has said, the actual question produced the answer that fewer than a third provided an automatic response. I do not know how people interpret ““automatic response””. I tend to think of an auto reply to an e-mail as an automatic response. To me it is incomprehensible that local authorities would, as a rule, receive petitions, simply ignore them and not respond to them in any way. Reference has been made to Salford, which I believe is now a city. I do not know why there should be particular interest in Salford, but my noble friend Lady Hamwee, out of interest, looked up its constitution on its website and found that the only reference to ““petition”” was to a statutory petition for a directly elected mayor. That may well be the case for Salford, but to legislate for the rest of local government on the basis of what one local authority does is surely a mistake. Later in her Second Reading speech introducing the Bill, the Minister said: "““We have worked closely with the LGA in developing our proposals; we intend to continue this to ensure that any guidance on petitions is informed by the sector’s view””.—[Official Report, 17/12/08; col. 852.]" We did not have then, but have now, the briefing from the Local Government Association to which my noble friend referred. Indeed, he read out much of it. It states in bold type: "““The LGA believes the Government could be much lighter in its approach by just setting out the duty and then leaving it to local authorities to decide what works best for their communities and residents””." That could not be clearer and more specific. If the Minister meant what she said in her Second Reading speech—I am sure that she did—about being informed by the sector’s view, she could not have it much more clearly, and I am sure that that will be reflected in her response. The amendments are intended to accept the duty but remove the prescription. They may not be perfect—