Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I echo my noble friend. Many petitions typically relate to planning applications, and it is not always possible to comply with the petitioners’ requests. I accept that probably many local authorities are more deficient than they should be in actually telling petitioners what has happened. If they are present and hear the proceedings, they will know, but I accept that most people who simply sign a petition never hear any more about it. I do not recall her exact words, but the Minister said that the Government do not want to overburden local authorities. I hope that we have not given the impression that our concern is solely about the burden on local authorities, because that is absolutely not the case. Our concern is very much for petitioners, and we share the objective of the Minister to make petition schemes as readily accessible as possible. Most of the petitions that local authorities receive do not come from professional or experienced campaigners but from local residents who are particularly concerned about an issue. They get a piece of paper and go around to their friends and neighbours, or at the most stand in the high street, and collect signatures. The simpler the system that is in place to allow that to happen, the better. Something laid down in legislation that prescribes a scheme, even in fairly minimal detail, will make people worry about whether they are getting it right. Over the years, I have been asked time and again, ““Have we got the wording right?””. Unlike a petition to Parliament, there is no formal wording for a petition. Of course, I can offer advice about how to address the mayor and burgesses, but frankly that does not matter two hoots to the validity of a petition. The more that is set down, the more of a barrier it starts to become. I accept that the key lies in striking the right balance. There has to be some sort of regulation, if that is the right word, and we believe that it is best left to local authorities to determine such regulation in accordance with the duty being placed on them, in concert with local circumstances and practice and, indeed, with political wishes. That is why people are elected and why we are held to account. Again, some will do it better than others. Many of us have spent years campaigning for councils to do this better. The Minister referred to the research done by her department, and I would be interested to hear more about it. I suspect that quite a lot is actually research into websites, which should be descriptive and of good quality; however, I suspect that many are not. I am now going to look at my own council’s website because, to be frank, I have no idea what it says about how to petition. I should know, but I do not. It may not be particularly adequate, because the entire site could be better than it is. But, again, there is a difference between looking at a website, which I accept is all that can be done on the scale we are talking about, and knowing fully the actual practices in place. Finally, rather than prescribing in legislation and in the guidance that is to follow, we would support the dissemination of more good practice through the LGA. There is a world of difference between learning from good practice and adapting good procedures to meet local wishes and circumstances, and trying to follow guidance laid down from the centre, however ““loose”” that guidance may be. I am grateful to the Minister for undertaking to think about this further. We shall certainly debate it again as the Bill moves forward. I hope that she will listen to the advice, which is based on experience, that is now coming from all sides of the Committee. We have a shared objective here, but we have very different views on the best way to achieve it.