Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I have a feeling that Amendment 87 is another amendment which the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, may be moved to call destructive. In so far as it is designed to criticise the Government’s efforts to create a prescriptive, one-size-fits-all approach that tells every local authority up and down the country how to deal with each and every petition they receive, she would be right to describe it as such. However, I see the amendment as an effort to protect local authorities from that interference. It would render the rest of Clause 11 somewhat superfluous. The clause and, indeed, the rest of this part, is unnecessary as primary legislation. Local authorities deal with petitions regularly. I have no doubt that practices for dealing with them differ from authority to authority. Equally, I have no doubt that many local authorities have hit upon a method of dealing with petitions that works to the satisfaction of both the authority and the petitioners. However, this established practice may differ in some detail from the scheme which the Government have created or propose to create. I do not see why the prescriptions of this Bill should trump the established working practices of local councils, whose daily job involves receiving, acknowledging, responding to and acting on petitions. I am sure that the Government feel that they have considered the case for this piece of legislation very carefully and have come up with the best method for dealing with petitions, but I am less sure of the merits of telling local councils that in this area central government knows best. It is not difficult to think of a case where a petition does not meet the exact standards laid down in the Bill. Earlier debates, and no doubt those that are still to come, have come about because, whether the Government care to admit it or not, Members of the Committee have grave concerns about what will constitute a valid petition and wish to address this very point. However, although I am sure we will haggle to and fro about what constitutes a valid petition, it remains the case that I do not think it appropriate, or desirable, to prescribe when a local authority must turn a petition away. I find it difficult to imagine why the Government are so determined to have these provisions on the statute book. I hope that the Minister will not bristle if I suggest that it is because they cannot help themselves when they see an opportunity to interfere and exercise control. The only other plausible reason I can think of is that the Government wish to set a standard of best practice to show local authorities the way. Yet I think, and I do not believe that I am alone in thinking this, that these clauses in effect place a straitjacket on the discretion of local authorities. If the Government really wanted to show local authorities how they should best handle petitions, they should take these provisions out of primary legislation, and if they insist on keeping them at all, place them in guidelines. If, even then, the Government feel that one or two local authorities are failing to handle their petitions in a suitable fashion, a more suitable remedy would be to offer targeted guidance instead of pointing to a central government prescription. Bodies such as Localis, the New Local Government Network, the LGA and no doubt others who have a close interest in seeing local authorities adhere to best practice could contribute to the voluntary raising of standards. The Government could do worse than work in partnership with others to reach the same goals that they say they seek without having to impose yet more legislation. This amendment boils down to a simple point: allowing local authorities to exercise their own judgment and common sense on how best to handle petitions. I beg to move.