Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

My noble friend Lord Tope and I have added our names to this amendment, which is part of the package. I agree very much with what the noble Baroness has just said. Amendments 88 and 90 in this group also stand in our names. Amendment 88 seeks to remove the reference to ““duties”” in Clause 11(7). I do not need to spell out our objection to there being a duty to comply with a petition scheme. I assume that is what Clause 11(7) means because it has been amply—some noble Lords might think more than amply—aired this afternoon. One might regard Amendment 90 as technical, but I think it is more than that. It states: "““Failure … to comply with a petition scheme shall not give rise to a cause of action””." A number of people to whom I have explained this part of the Bill on petitions have said that there will be claims about failures to deal with the process. They maintain that there will be lots of rows and lots of claims. That would be a great pity because what is important is the substance of a petition, not the procedure that is followed or the form of it. I fear that the Bill could provide a lot of material to those who wish to challenge a local authority by way of judicial review, either because it constitutes a political opponent or simply because they do not like politicians or the response to a petition. Clause 12—I thought of this point after I drafted the amendments, so it may not be extensive enough—deals with what is valid, and requiring a specified number of valid signatures would give rise to a lot of scope for challenge if the dates of signatures are not there. There might be a temptation on the part of the local authority or the organiser of a petition to tidy it up a bit and stick some dates in before handing it in. That would, frankly, not be a good thing, but one can see that an organiser might do it. I am sure that noble Lords who have had experience of local government will be familiar with the procedure open to residents, council tax payers or anyone, I suppose, to take matters to the district auditor in a complaint that a local authority is spending time on a petition that it should not spend time on and that this is a misuse of council funds. I do not think that these are as wild examples as one might think. This comes from sad experiences in real life, if you like. In the analysis of what was a valid petition, I asked the Minister before today whether it is necessary to identify a petition organiser. If it is not clear who the organiser is, most authorities will treat the first signatory as the organiser and deal with that person. That is just common sense. The response was that there needs to be a person who receives the response and who can appeal to the overview and scrutiny committee. That goes again to the validity of the petition. The Minister agreed that the process will continue much as it does now and, if there is no one who identifies himself as the organiser, they expect local authorities to act sensibly. My noble friend Lord Greaves has used that word countless times today, and it appears in the Minister’s letters. In those circumstances, the first one or two names on the petition will probably be used. Could that not lead to a complaint to the district auditor that the local authority had dealt with a petition without a designated lead signatory?