Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I send my good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I hope that he will dig himself out. I noticed that the road across the Pennines was free today and I must confess that I rejoiced that he would have an easy passage, not realising that he would not be able to get that far. It is very nice to have the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, back with us today. I shall start where the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, finished. I listened very closely and suspect that, in the course of the next few amendments, we will have an element of the debate about what is prescription and what is enabling and necessary. I shall think seriously about what noble Lords are saying about the degree of detail that we need in the Bill. I shall just address why Clause 19 is as it is and why it is important. Clause 19(1) provides a power for the appropriate national authority to make orders about what should be in petition schemes and what should not be. This power will be used only for situations in which, despite guidance and directions to individual local authorities, the local authority has signally failed to create a scheme which is accessible in the way we want it to be and effective. Clause 19(3) sets out particular issues that these orders can cover. I have said before in Committee that the Government intend to exercise the order-making power in Clause 19 to set a maximum threshold for triggering the debate. In order not to be exclusive and not to be impossible to reach, it should not be more than 5 per cent of local residents. Clause 19(2) provides for guidance to be made to help local authorities to meet the requirements under this chapter, and Clause 19(4) permits the guidance to include a model petition scheme. These clauses describe in general how guidance is designed to support agencies outside this House as a whole, not to be slavishly adhered to but to act as a guide to what, after consultation with local authorities, we believe will work best. If they have a better scheme and a better reason, local authorities can depart from the guidance. The amendment reflects the noble Lord’s concern, which has run through the Committee, that this provision will be a method to prescribe by the backdoor all the details of how principal local authorities should handle petitions that they receive, but I assure noble Lords that it is not the case. Principal authorities will be free to adapt the model scheme to reflect local circumstances, or not adapt it at all. We will work closely with them, drawing on best practice and communicating with them as much as we can to ensure that we come up with the best possible outcome in communicating with petitioners, and so on. It is a starting point for authorities without formal arrangements in place and will, therefore, act as a practical aid to implementing the duties. It is certainly not intended to tie their hands. Clause 19(5) underlines that point. It is a ““may”” construction; the clause says that local authorities, "““may … adopt … the … model petition””." I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord. On subsection (6), we are clear that we want local authorities to adopt effective petition schemes that give local people more influence in their areas. Should a principal local authority adopt a scheme that creates rather than lowers barriers to local involvement—although I do not expect that to happen—Clause 19(6) is necessary because it provides a power to direct an individual principal authority to amend its petition scheme. The obvious case would be if an authority set a threshold for stimulating a council meeting that was so high that it would be impossible to reach. In that instance, the appropriate authority could make a targeted intervention, requiring the principal authority to set a lower threshold without the need to exercise the order-making power. We see that power of intervention very much as a backstop, to be used in extremis if at all. However, we are committed to ensuring that standards everywhere can be raised to those of the best. Amendment 132 seeks to remove subsection (7). The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in his own inimitable words, said, ““It is there but I do not understand what it means. Why is it there?””. It is there because it clarifies that no changes to the requirements set out in this chapter may be made through the powers in Clause 19 to issue orders, guidance and directions. Essentially, subsection (7) makes it clear that this is not a Henry VIII provision which would entitle the appropriate national authority to change the primary legislation. It is a necessary safeguard. With that brief explanation, I hope that noble Lords will be content for Clause 19 to stand part of the Bill.