Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

Yes, perhaps. However, if the airport is council-owned, there is no reason, just because you happened to be passing through, why you should not sign a petition about the appalling facilities to the people who run the airport, who might be the local authority. The local authority should therefore be under a duty to consider that petition properly, even if the people making it do not actually live there. Amendment 94 refers ahead, but it also deals with the question of valid petitions. Clause 12, on valid petitions, says that the petition must be, "““signed by at least the specified number of persons””—" I will not deal with that for the moment— "““who live, work or study in the authority’s area””." The amendment would delete the words, "““who live, work or study in the authority’s area””." Again, we must be careful not to put burdens on to authorities. Who will check whether all the people who sign a petition live, work or study in the authority’s area? They may go to the local college. They may not put their home address on the petition, but they may put the college address on it. Why should they not put their home address on it, if it relates to the college and its local authority? It may be a request for a pedestrian crossing outside the college, or for a better bus service. We do not want people to have to make detailed checks on these things. In any case, it is wrong. If people are using a council’s swimming pool, why should they not be able to sign a valid petition to the council that owns and runs it, whether or not they live in the authority’s area? The Minister said that she did not want petitions from everyone who uses Westminster pavements. However, if people are walking on the pavement outside this building and it is full of dog muck, which usually it is not—the pavements of Westminster are extremely well kept and well cleaned compared with some other places that I know—but if it was, why should not people sign a petition complaining about it, whether they come from Westminster, Sutton in London, Sutton in Yorkshire or Malawi? What difference does it make? If there is a problem, there is a problem, and the purpose of petitioning is to raise the problem with the authority that is responsible. If the petition is about school provision and it is a cross-border problem, it might be made and signed by the parents of children who go to that school. The children might be able to sign the petition because they qualify as students, but the parents would not. Why should they not be able to sign a petition about the future of a school that is under threat of closure, amalgamation or a change in status? We have been discussing the marine Bill in the House, and when we finally get to it, probably by around Boxing Day, we will consider coastal access. Indeed, I do not know whether we will be finished with this Bill by then. If people are not happy with the provision offered by an access authority, whether at the coast or to moorland under access rights under CROW, why should not walkers, ramblers and climbers be able to petition the responsible access authority even if they do not actually live in the area? Why should a petition be declared invalid when users are petitioning the appropriate authority? Again, that is an example of the Government being overly prescriptive and restrictive. All this ought to be left to common sense. If a petition has been signed by people with no direct connection to the particular area or issue, the authority can deal with it sensibly on that basis. Why should it not be able to do that? Why are the Government being so restrictive and undermining systems that work perfectly well in many places? I beg to move.