Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I hear what the Minister says, and I thank her for that reply. I showed all this lot to two local government officers, one a lawyer and one a person who deals with petition schemes, but their replies were not parliamentary so I cannot repeat exactly what they said. The lawyer, in particular, said that it was some of the worst drafting he has ever seen. I pass that on. Certainly, when reading it, it took me a very long time to understand exactly how it would work. I say again, I do not expect to agree with everything the Government do, but I do expect this Chamber to attempt to ensure that legislation is clear and understandable, even if we do not agree with it. I do not think that this legislation is either understandable or clear. In particular, I do not think that Clause 13(1)(b) states what the Government intend it to—if I understand their scheme correctly. The noble Baroness has not at any stage explained why there is this process, distinction and classification whereby a petition becomes valid after it has passed certain hurdles and then becomes an active petition after it has passed further hurdles. This is a recipe to put burdens on local authorities in dealing with the scheme locally, if they want to deal with it in that way. I should be happy to see the words ““valid”” and ““active”” disappear and for the legislation simply to say what happens to petitions at various stages along the process. I do not think that I am putting more detail and more prescription in the Bill; I am taking some out. I am really keeping the same amount that the Government want to see, but putting it in a more understandable and a clearer form. It might become clear if I do what I should have done originally and put all my proposals together as one and show how my version of the legislation would sit as a whole rather than as individual amendments. I understand the need for legalistic language and for legally tight language, which is why we were arguing previously that stuff in the Bill should not be ambiguous. I do not accept the need for incomprehensible language. There is a difference. The problem of excluding petitions from this provision, unless I have missed something, is that the acknowledgement is not simply to say, ““Yes, we have got it, thanks””, but to tell people how it is going to be dealt with. Clearly, if an e-petition is accepted on the council’s e-petition facility, the petition exists. At some stage, it will close and be dealt with. Therefore, it does not need an acknowledgement to say, ““Yes, we have got it”” because it has been there for some time. The question is at what stage the council decides to do something about it—put it through the processes and the system—and at what stage it tells the petition’s organiser or signatories what it is doing. That is the question and the purpose of tabling the amendment. Perhaps the noble Baroness would think further about that matter. Moreover, who decides when an e-petition closes? Presumably it is the petitioners who say, for example, ““Right, we have 200 signatures, and we now want the council to deal with this””. Presumably, that process takes place once the petition stops being an active e-petition on the council’s e-petition facility. I am not sure how that works on the Downing Street website, but for a council there needs to be a clear decision at some stage to put it into the council’s system. I assume that the petitioners make that decision. Perhaps the noble Baroness will confirm that. That decision then needs acknowledging by the council, does it not? This is an extremely important group of amendments. I am grateful to the Conservatives for putting forward their amendment, as I think it makes a valid point and sounds eminently supportable. Somehow or other, Clauses 13 and 14 have to make more sense than they do at present when the Bill leaves this House. I hope that these amendments have made some slight contribution to getting the Government to think about that problem. If they would like to discuss the matter with us further, we will do so. We certainly want to see something better than what is in the Bill coming back for discussion on Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 104 withdrawn. Amendments 105 to 115 not moved. Clause 13 agreed. Clause 14: Requirement to take steps Amendment 116 not moved.