Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I shall speak also to Amendments 102 and 107 in the names of my noble friends Lady Warsi and Lord Hanningfield. We are somewhat puzzled by, and do not agree with, the fact that a petition must have nominated one person as its organiser through whom the local authority will communicate. On the face of it, this seems reasonable enough and I am sure that the Minister will reassure the Committee that this provision is solely intended to make things as easy as possible and minimise paperwork or confusion, but I am afraid that we see flaws in this plan. With regard to having a designated organiser in order for a petition to be valid, it seems odd, to begin with, that the Government, having gone to such great and detailed lengths to set out every stage of a petition’s life and what the local authority must do at every stage, then effectively wash their hands of what happens to it. The local authority will dutifully go through all the steps required, then communicate back to the single petition organiser who might lose the letter, miss the phone call, delete the e-mail, mix up the message, get the response wrong, tell some signatories but not others, or not inform any of his fellow signatories at all. The local authority will have followed all the steps the Government have set out but through some failure or error on the part of the single petition organiser, no one else who signed the petition will be any the wiser. The Minister said—and I hope that I am summarising her comments correctly—that the provisions on petitions are not here just for the sake of it but will improve the interaction between people and their local authority and get them to feel engaged and enfranchised. Yet I have suggested a scenario where the opposite could happen. What I have suggested is a worst-case scenario. However, I have been trying to work out what benefits might accrue from the provision. I have reached the conclusion, I am afraid, that benefits will indeed accrue, but to the so-called ““petition organiser”” who all of a sudden now has an important role that is laid down in statute, no less. Someone more cynical might start to wonder if the kind of person who would dominate petitions—an activist, one might call such a person—might spy in this provision an opportunity to seek influence and power for himself or herself. A ““petition organiser”” approved by statute would wield influence and sway over other signatories. Indeed, a very cynical person might suggest that the sort of activist who would most appreciate the creation of the role of petition organiser would be one who has failed to get elected, or who has failed to get re-elected in the past few local council elections. I hope that the Minister will agree with me that petitions should be about helping to solve genuine grievances. We drafted Amendment 107 in that spirit. It would allow local authorities to respond to all the petitioners in the best way they see fit, be it by notice in the local paper, a library window, a group e-mail, or whatever. The important thing is that people who sign a petition may be sure that they are being taken seriously, and not manipulated in some way. We have included ““valid signatories”” in the amendment. That does not negate any criticisms we have made of the Government’s plans to distinguish valid petitions from non-valid ones. We are simply trying to show accommodation so that we can achieve a better piece of legislation. I hope that the Minister will take these provisions away and consider them carefully. I beg to move.