Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I hope that I can clearly outline why the words that we have used have been used. Clause 14 requires principal local authorities to take one or more steps in response to valid petitions which meet the criteria set out in subsections (1) and (2) and are therefore active petitions. Subsection (1)(b) provides that there is no duty to take any substantive step in relation to petitions which are vexatious, abusive or otherwise inappropriate to be dealt with. Amendment 120 removes the exclusion for petitions which are ““otherwise inappropriate”” and replaces it with an exclusion for petitions which call for an action which is unlawful. This would give principal authorities less discretion over which petitions they were entitled to refuse to respond to. It is possible to think of numerous situations where what a petition calls for is not unlawful, but is nevertheless damaging to community relations or inappropriate for other reasons. For instance, consider the example of a petition calling for the council to purchase all its stationery from a local company which was in financial difficulties, signed by all the employees of that company. This petition would not be requesting anything unlawful, but authorities should not be obliged to take active steps in response to such petitions, which aim to publicise an organisation and promote its commercial interests. I genuinely do not think that local authorities will abuse this provision and decline on spurious grounds to respond to petitions which are really innocuous. I therefore believe that the drafting in Clause 14(1)(b) is preferable to that of Amendment 120, as it gives principal authorities an appropriate level of discretion over which petitions they respond to. On this basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.