Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I thought that I was going to seriously fall out with the Minister just then, but her last sentence was fairly emollient. So long as she continues to think—because she is a sensible, thinking Minister—we will consider that there is a possibility of light at the end of the tunnel and we will go on discussing the matter with her. Everything that the Minister said in answer to these amendments was based on the notion that there will be a two-tier petition system in local authorities after this legislation is brought in. There will be valid petitions, some of which will become active petitions, and then there will be the rest, and inevitably that will cause problems. We discussed this briefly on Monday. It will result in a two-tier system and huge confusion. People will go around saying, ““That’s a valid petition””, and inevitably people will then think that the others are not valid. We must put in place a system whereby each local authority can cope with petitions in a sensible, locally based and flexible way. I think that I accept the Minister’s assurances on Amendment 103, which concerns extra information on the form. It was tabled for probing purposes to get those assurances, and I shall read what the Minister said in Hansard. That seems to be a fairly sensible way forward. The only argument that the Minister seemed to come up with in favour of including a date was that it would help local authorities to know how quickly the petition had been collected. I do not know of a single petition that has ever come to an authority of which I have been a member where that information has been in doubt. There is an assumption that the people, particularly councillors, who deal with these matters have no idea what is going on in their area, and that when they get a petition from someone, they have no idea who the person is, where they are from, what their background is, what their agenda is or what activity has produced it—whether it is a group of local residents, an organised pressure group in the area or a political party. We know all these things. We do not need dates to know whether a petition has been signed during the past fortnight or whether it has taken six months. We know what is on local websites and in the local press stories covering these issues. We know that if a petition is in response to an event that occurred a week ago, it has been signed in the past week. When I say ““we”” in this context, I believe, and hope, that I am referring to local councillors throughout the land. They are not stupid, although the Government think that they are. The Minister indicates that she does not think that they are stupid but, in that case, why does she insist on treating them as though they were? This two-tier system is to be found throughout this issue, and that is what we are trying to get away from. The Minister reprimanded me for being rude about the Bill and about civil servants. I accept the second reprimand but not the first. This part of the Bill is absolutely dreadful and I shall go on being as rude as I possibly can about it. I do so, as I think I said on Monday, partly because I want to rescue the Government from their own folly. When the Bill is enacted, they will be seen to be ridiculous, although the two Ministers here are certainly not ridiculous. I respect them both greatly and I do not want them to be seen as that, but the legislation that they are promoting is ridiculous. I have a caveat relating to civil servants: I do not say that a huge amount of diligence has not gone into all this; in my view, there has been far too much. Those people could have been doing a useful job. However, this part of the legislation is clearly the result of a great deal of time and energy. I say that to local government officials all the time when they are doing the Government’s bidding. Civil servants do not just have a responsibility to do Ministers’ bidding; they also have a responsibility to give Ministers sensible advice. If I criticise civil servants in respect of this, it is because they are not going back to Ministers and saying, ““What you’re asking us to do is a load of balderdash””, and I believe it is. I could say that it is baloney, but I had better not pursue that or I might get into trouble. I accept that the Minister is responsible, which is why we are arguing with the Government. She said that the Government will not use the guidance to add further requirements. Speaking personally, I do not believe her—guidance always provides additional requirements. If it does not, what is its purpose? She said that she did not want councillors to respond to so many petitions that it would be a huge burden with which they could not cope, and that it was not the aim to increase the number of petitions. I thought that that was the whole purpose of the clause; it is certainly what we would like. We would like to see much more activity and agitation, with people taking an interest in what is going on and submitting petitions, among lots of other things that they can do to take part in local democracy. So I am sure that the Minister did not really mean that. As for the numbers and thresholds, you can have big issues covering a whole area but with a small proportion of people on the petition, and then you have small local issues with only a few signing a petition but who make up a higher proportion of the people. How is the council going to set these thresholds? I accept that they will be set by local authorities, but just working out the thresholds and the regulations will be a burden on them. I do not think that we shall get any further today. I look forward to further discussion about this—I think. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 93 withdrawn. Sitting suspended. Amendment 94 not moved.