Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I listened with interest to the Minister taking apart Amendments 82, 85 and 86; they are there only because I am removing the word ““valid””, and they are therefore attempting to rewrite the rest of the text to make sense in a context in which there is no reference to valid petitions. I was sorry that the Minister did not tackle the basic issue behind the amendments in any way whatever. The word ““valid”” is totally confusing. If you have a system in which an officer in the authority has to rule on whether a petition is valid, that will create a two-tier system. In some authorities, it will result in the invalid petitions—as they will be described—being cast aside as being of no value and not having to be dealt with. That is the inevitable consequence of using the word ““valid””. If one lot of petitions is valid, the other is not valid. That is what the English language means. I am not thrilled to be pushing the word ““statutory””; it is just the best that I could think of. I ask the Government, if they want to carry on with this madcap scheme, to think of a word other than ““valid””. If they persist with ““valid””, they will cause immense damage in authorities, and only one of the petitions that I have been holding up today would be valid—the one coming from a political party. It is a serious point. That is the only issue behind the amendments; ““valid”” is not a good word to use. The Government should please find another word and put it in the legislation. This is not the time to do it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 81 withdrawn. Amendments 82 and 83 not moved.