Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I shall draw a veil over this; let us press on. We want to have a balance of access and burden. With regard to Amendment 84, we considered the alternative formulation of referring to people who use local services or facilities. We were attracted to it, as it should capture pretty much everyone affected by the local council’s decisions and in practice it overlaps with ““live, work and study””, but the extra terms in the amendment capture other people too and we rejected it on the basis of the burden on local authorities. The noble Lord has given us lots of examples of people wandering the streets of Westminster, and if the local authority wants to respond to people from abroad who bang in a petition then it can do so, just as it can take petitions on the space effort from Hounslow. It is up to the authority. We are trying not to overburden councils, and to get a balance. We do not want to tie them up in knots where they have to respond to petitions that have nothing to do with the concerns of local people but are submitted by those with no real investment in the community. Consider, in contrast, the drafting of Clause 12(1)(c), under which the signatory can always give an address where they live, work or study. Many councils will choose not to verify them because that could be more burdensome than simply responding, but if they want to, they can follow them up through the address which must be supplied on the petition. Clause 11(7) makes clear that it will be open for the council to respond to petitions signed by people who do not live, work or study within the authority area, and that any authority may choose to verify whether they meet the criteria. I hope that I have explained how we have tried to find the right balance in a definition that is familiar to local authorities.