Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

This is what I call the ““more sensible scheme—part 2””. The amendment seeks to remove everything from subsection (5) to the end of the clause. One reason for removing the wording is that it is muddled—it includes a number of aspects which ought not to be muddled in the way they are—but the main reason for doing it is to introduce the second part of what I was trying to do in the group that started with Amendment 104, and that is to help the Government to put their petition scheme into a reasonable format which people can understand and which sets out clearly what should happen. To put the contents of subsection (6) in primary legislation is quite extraordinary. It states: "““A principal local authority’s petition scheme must secure that the steps which may be taken by the authority pursuant to subsection (5) include the following””." A few meetings ago we had a debate about the word ““include”” that the noble Lord, Borrie, did not like. The steps include, "““giving effect to the request in the petition””," but if my proposals are accepted the matter would have been dealt with way before it got to the stage of an active petition. If you are going to do it, you just do it; you do not go through the bureaucratic process of making an active petition. However, steps such as, "““considering the petition at a meeting of the authority … in the case of a principal local authority operating executive arrangements, referring the petition to an overview and scrutiny committee of the authority””," and, "““in the case of a principal local authority not operating executive arrangements, referring the petition to a committee of the authority with power … to review or scrutinise decisions made””," are procedural matters within the authority. That is all right but they do not include what most councils will do, which is to refer it to a committee which has got the power to do something about it. Therefore, in a principal local authority—for example, a district council—that does not operate executive arrangements, a petition about housing will not go to a scrutiny committee, it will go straight to the housing committee. In a council operating area committee arrangements the petition will go to the area committee. If it is within the purview of the area committee to do something about it, it will. If the council has an executive, and the matter clearly needs an executive decision, it will go to the executive. That is the real world. That is how it works. That is the sensible thing to do; not to divert the petition via an overview and scrutiny committee, with all the time that will take to put the thing on agendas, hold meetings and then refer it probably back to the council. The council will then refer it to a body, a committee or the executive that can do something about it. The Government have not set out in Clause 14(6) the most obvious and usual way that a council will deal with a petition. I can only say that that is because they do not understand how councils deal with petitions. By and large, petitions go to committees, executives, other bodies of the council, executive members, cabinet members or whoever has the authority to do something about them. Clause 14(6) says that the scheme must include certain things. Then it includes a number of things that will happen in some cases as a result of consideration of the petition by the appropriate committee of the council or public body, such as, "““holding an inquiry…holding a public meeting””—" there is a radical idea— "““commissioning research””," or, "““giving a written response to the petition organiser””." These are consequences of the decision-making process. They are all mixed up and muddled together in a totally unsatisfactory way. Therefore, what I suggest in my Amendment 123 is a logical step-by-step process by which a petition is dealt with. Once it has been decided that a petition is active, under the Government’s scheme, it goes to the appropriate body in the authority that makes a decision on what to do about it. That decision might include commissioning research. To put commissioning research into a petition scheme is quite extraordinary. Why commissioning research? Is this another consultant’s charter? There are far too many consultants in local government. Of course, if a major issue is raised and the council does not have information about it and nobody knows what is going on, you might commission research, but it is not something you put in a petition scheme. What you put into a petition scheme is which bodies on the council shall deal with the petition and who they then tell what they are doing about it, and particularly how they will involve the petitioners and other members of the public in that decision. The scheme I have put forward is clear, sensible and in the real world. The Government’s scheme is a muddle, some things in it are odd, and I am not sure it is entirely in the real world. Of course, overview and scrutiny committees can be involved if people think the process should happen that way. My amendment says if the petition organiser wishes the petition to go to the overview and scrutiny committee, then that is his right. I am not removing that provision; I am saying that it is not automatic. It is a bizarre idea that petitions should automatically go to overview and scrutiny committees, rather than to committees, which can do something about the petition much more quickly. The idea that a petition organiser should be able to require an overview and scrutiny committee to deal with it is on a par with what the Government calls the Community Call for Action, which is coming into practice fairly soon, and allows members of the public and councillors automatically to refer something to scrutiny. It is on a par with that; it is the same sort of thing. That is okay. However, it really should be voluntary from the point of view of the people organising a petition. Otherwise, people would be putting forward good petitions that just get tied up in overview and scrutiny and never go anywhere else. I ask the Government to look at this very seriously and not just to react against it because I put it forward and they did not. Clause 14 is a muddle. I am not suggesting that my drafting is perfect—I am not a parliamentary draftsman—but I am suggesting that a clearly set out and understandable scheme ought to be put in here, rather than the Government’s current muddle.