Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I shall also speak to Amendment 122, which is grouped with this one. This group that refers to relevant matters in relation to partner authorities that we began to half debate earlier. It is about the process that I mentioned in the last group by which a valid petition, which has been handed in, has gone through the hoops, been determined as valid and has been acknowledged, becomes an active petition. The definitions of a valid petition and an active petition can be found in Clause 22, but an active petition simply has the meaning given by Clause 14(1) and the valid petition has the meaning given by Clause 12(1), so those definitions do not take us much further. The petition has to go through a series of tests to establish that it is valid and another series to establish that it is active. So ““active”” simply means another layer of assessment and sifting, with more chances for a council to reject or restrict a petition. It is not at all clear to me why there is a two-stage process between deciding that a petition is valid and deciding that it is active. To make it simple for councils to undertake this and, more importantly, to make it simpler for petitioners to understand the process, surely it should be a one-stage process. Surely, all the reasons why petitions might be rejected as invalid and all the things you have to do to ensure that a petition is valid should be set out in the same section and in the same rules locally. To determine whether the petition is active, you have to refer to Clause 14(1)(a), which says: "““For the purposes of this Chapter, an ““active petition””, in relation to a principal local authority, is a valid petition made to the authority where … the petition relates to a relevant matter””." That will have them dancing in the streets. Amendment 117 deletes that paragraph. Meanwhile, Amendment 122 deletes subsections (2) to (4) of Clause 14, which determine what is a relevant matter. Those three subsections do nothing but restrict and confuse the issue of what a petition should deal with, or not. What is relevant? The first test is, "““a matter which relates to a function of the authority””." I have no problem with that; if a petition is something to do with what the council does, presumably the council deals with it. But the second qualification for what is relevant is more difficult. Clause 14(2)(b) refers to, "““a matter which … does not relate to a function of the authority, but … relates to an improvement in the economic, social or environmental well-being of the authority’s area to which any of its partner authorities could contribute.””" When an authority assesses whether a petition is active and should continue to be dealt with under the petition scheme, it has to think about whether it relates to an improvement. It might relate not to an improvement but to opposition to things that people think make matters worse. It may relate to something that some people think is an improvement, such as a new road, and others think is a disaster and want to oppose in a petition. The question of what is an improvement will be wide open to argument. The requirement to take steps will be in relation to petitions which relate to the functions of partner or connected authorities. It is in relation also to the, "““economic, social or environmental well-being of the authority’s area””." We can argue for hours about what is economic, social and environmental well-being. Why does the Bill have to include these words? Why does it not just say, ““anything that the other authorities are responsible for””? If a petition relates, for example, to a primary care trust, why do you have to start working out whether it relates to an improvement in the economic, social or environmental well-being of an authority’s area? It may be that the local hospital trust has just closed an accident and emergency facility and there is a substantial reduction in the economic and social well-being of people in the area as a result—or there is thought to be. When the authority closed the A&E at Burnley, it argued that the facilities at Blackburn were better and that it would therefore be better for everybody to go 10 or 15 miles to Blackburn, forgetting that they might find an hour-long ambulance queue at Blackburn because the local hospital was not coping. These are arguable matters. Putting in the Bill that the relevant matter has to relate to an improvement to which any of an authority’s partner authorities could contribute is gibberish. If the Bill wants to refer to the functions of partner authorities, it should simply state that the relevant matter is not a function of the principal local authority but relates to a function of a partner authority. It should be absolutely neutral. The wording is not clear. The Bill, so far as I can understand it, appears to try to tie it in with the local area agreement, because it relates to the things that the local area agreement is about. However, trying to tie in the wording in this way is restrictive, confusing and will lead to a huge muddle, because some councils with very legalistic staff will have a monitoring officer who rules that it does not apply, and there will be a big row about it. The final insult is that the provision does not refer at all to petitions to district councils. It is clear that, as the local area agreement is put together by the county council in a two-tier area—we argued about this at great length during the passage of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act—the provision applies in this way. If the county council receives a petition about a district council function relating to the economic, social or environmental well-being of the authority’s area, it can refer it to the district council, but if it goes to the district council and refers to a county council function, the county council cannot do anything about it under the Bill because it is not a ““valid””, ““active”” petition. If it goes to the district council and refers to the PCT or any other partner authority as defined, the district council would not be able to do anything about it under the legislation. The Government might say, ““Well, they’ll send it anyway””, but that is not the point. The point is that the Bill defines ““valid”” and ““active”” petitions in great detail, giving them a very special status, but then states, ““Well, if petitions go to a county council, it can refer them to partners; if they go to a district council, it cannot””. That surely is wrong. I know that I am a bit sensitive about district councils and the respect and authority given to them in legislation, but this provision is wrong and has to be changed. I beg to move.