Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

They have limited ability to influence wider issues. There are some arguments around the edges of what counts as relevant, but I should make it clear that people can petition on issues that are not relevant, and principal authorities can, of course, respond to those petitions if they wish—we have said that many times—but according to this chapter, they would not have a legal obligation to do so. Amendment 117 deletes the requirement in Clause 14 that petitions to which principal local authorities must respond should be relevant matters. The definition of relevant matters is removed by Amendment 122. The experience of parish polls being held on the Lisbon treaty has shown that if legislation is not drafted carefully, there can be legal obligations on bodies to carry out engagement exercises about issues over which they have no influence. We certainly expect councils to treat misdirected but legitimate petitions sensibly, but we want to ensure that principal authorities can dispense with petitions on issues they cannot influence without any burden on the authority concerned. Does the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, wish to increase the burden on district councils? They can do what they want with petitions; the question is whether we should impose a duty to do so. Principal authorities can influence their own functions. Upper-tier and unitary authorities in England are also in a position to influence improvements in local economic, social or environmental well-being to which their partners can contribute. The limitation on the types of petition that require a substantive response by principal authorities is hardly unreasonable. Nothing that relates to anything over which a principal authority has any influence is excluded. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.