Amendment 127 relates to Clause 18, and we will come to that in a later group. There are very serious flaws in Clause 18 at the moment, and I think we will want to discuss them in detail later but not now.
The Minister said that a few issues will be excluded by the powers in subsection (4), which I shall come to in a moment. However, I do not think that a few issues will be excluded if the provision is sensibly worded. I think that a large number of issues will have to be excluded, partly because very often petitions appear not in a vacuum but in relation to something that the council is already doing. I mentioned, for example, the budget-making process. If what the council does in its budget-making process is controversial, a lot of petitions will come in directly in relation to that and indeed to lots of other decisions that are on the agenda or are about to get on to the agenda of a meeting. Therefore, the issues that are already going through the council system are very important, and I do not think that there will be only a few.
I have already said that, unless the wording in Clause 14(4) is changed quite substantially, when people look at this legislation, they will think it is crackers. Subsection (4)(a) states that, "““the appropriate national authority—"
that is, the Secretary of State in England— "““may by order specify matters falling within subsection (2)(a) which are not to be regarded as relating to a function of the authority””."
Subsection (2)(b) refers to ““relevant matters””. However, for the Secretary of State to issue a document that says that planning applications are not to be regarded as relating to a function of the authority is madness. This is not real-world wording; it is crazy. It may mean that to lawyers, who will understand it, as perhaps will some of the rest of us, but you cannot tell a council to exclude planning applications because they do not relate to its function when they are one of the most important things that a council does.
I get the impression that this legislation has been written by people who are on a different planet but I think that the Minister will already have gathered that from what I have said. In the mean time, although there are important issues here that still have to be discussed and resolved, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 89 withdrawn.
Amendment 90 not moved.
Clause 11 agreed.
Clause 12: Valid petitions
Amendment 91 not moved.
Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Greaves
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 28 January 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
707 c79-80GC 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:03:46 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_523719
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_523719
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_523719