Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 14, page 8, line 43, at end insert—

‘(4A) A principal local authority’s petition scheme must secure that where a petition is made to the authority that relates to matters set out by the appropriate national authority under section 14(4)(a) or by the Secretary of State under section 14(4)(b), the authority must within the specified period—

(a) forward the petition to the relevant department of state it considers responsible for the matters,

(b) notify the petition organiser in writing of this and of the authority’s reasons for doing so, and

(c) publish a notification on the authority’s website.’.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 42, in clause 14, page 9, line 23, after ‘to’, insert

‘the appropriate cabinet member or leader of’.

Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

The amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne relate to a couple of issues on which we, again, seek clarification about the Government’s intention.

Through amendment 42, we are seeking to explore what the appropriate route would be for a petition to be considered. We have a system in which executive members are responsible for the functions of an authority and who have a particular role in setting out those functions and presiding over the delivery of them, as was alluded to by the hon. Member for Peterborough with regard to the old committee situation. The way that we do things now in local authorities means that particular members have responsibility for the delivery of functions and so, through amendment 42, we seek to explore whether it is appropriate for petitions to be directed to those responsible members and for them to respond as to what the council’s policy is and what the response is.

Amendment 43 covers an issue that is certainly missing. If we accept—as we seem to have done following a vote on an earlier clause—that provisions will set out what the response to a petition should be, under the clause we are now considering, the local authority is committed to deciding whether the petition is a matter for that local authority or for a local partner body. So, if a petition on an issue is submitted to a council, it can say, “This is for us and is something to which we must respond” or, “This is something for another local body and it must be passed on to them.”

The omission there seems to be in relation to matters for central Government—a Department or an agency of a Department—and therefore amendment 43 would provide the extra option of passing the petition on to the responsible Department. That is important. If we are in the business of encouraging people to understand what the different levels of government do, what their functions are and how they interact, it would be rather strange for a local authority to be forced in some way to consider a policy matter that is clearly determined by a central Government Department. The amendment would be a sensible way of resolving that situation.

Stewart Jackson (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Peterborough, Conservative)

I shall make a brief general point; I hope that you do not rule me out of order, Mr. Amess. In respect of clause 14, I think that hon. Members across the House might be concerned about the loose definition of subsection (1)(b) in respect of petitions that are vexatious, abusive or otherwise inappropriate. In practical terms, we have seen the recent controversy in Mid Bedfordshire district council—as it then was—over a petition concerning Gypsies and Travellers. I understand that a value judgment was made by council officers without recourse to elected members—or, at least, elected members were sent the letters but did not read them—that branded petitioners potentially racist. I know this is rather tangential, but perhaps the Minister will dwell on the value judgments that are made about what is inappropriate or vexatious.

I shall come back to order, Mr. Amess, and return to the point of the hon. Member for North Cornwall point concerning the appropriate cabinet member or leader. If we are to be consistent in our philosophical approach to the Bill, we are not predisposed to support this point simply because there is a practical issue with it. I should like to quote the good Lord Greaves again on that. If a small cul-de-sac wants its pavements to be looked at by the local authority or highways maintenance and has 15 signatures, or if there is a petition against the third runway that has 75,000 or 100,000 signatures, it might not be practical to remit that petition or all petitions, through the Bill, to one named individual or office holder. That would set a dangerous precedent and it would not be consistent with our ideological and philosophical approach to accept that.

We are minded to look favourably on amendment 43, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North Cornwall. I think that he seeks, by a circuitous sleight of hand, to do what we pressed the Minister and the Government to do earlier and practise what they preach. If local authorities are to have responsibilities cascaded down to them, they should not be responsible for discharging duties in relation to people for whom they have no democratic influence or accountability. On that basis, if the hon. Gentleman presses the amendment to a vote, we will support it.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Pensions Reform; Minister for Yorkshire and Humber), Department for Work and Pensions; Doncaster Central, Labour)

I shall deal first with amendment 42. I am sure that the hon. Member for North Cornwall did not intend it to create a barrier, but I fear that what has already been said is correct and that it would make things difficult for people who are petitioning. Local people do not always know who their local councillor is, let alone who the cabinet member is, so the amendment would create a problem and I do not want to accept it.

On amendment 43, I understand that the hon. Gentleman is trying to increase the transparency of the way that petitions are dealt with, and I am in favour of that, but the amendment is not necessary because in many ways its aims have already been achieved. Members of the public can already ask the Secretary of State to call in planning applications. Recently published direction on that prioritises the cases that we think most appropriate for the Secretary of State to consider, such as those affecting green belt land, but the Secretary of State can call in any application.

In some cases, the aims of the amendment are already achieved, and in others I am not convinced that it would be useful. We have yet to consult on the issues  that should be excluded by order under the clause 14 power, but depending what the exclusions are, the relevant Department may not always be able to act on the petition. Again, we cannot pre-empt the consultation that we are going to undertake in this case, and there is therefore a risk that the amendment proposed would put an additional administrative burden on local authorities without having the effect that we are trying to achieve of empowering petitions. I am sorry that I cannot ask the Committee to support amendments 43 and 42, but I hope that I have been clear as to why.

Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

I should like clarification from you, Mr, Amess, that the selection list shows amendment 42 and then amendment 43. I believe that when you began a debate was called on amendment 43.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

Apparently, there has been a misprint on the selection list. Amendment 43 is the correct amendment.

Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

Thank you, Mr. Amess, that is helpful. As we have already heard that other Committee members might be willing to support a vote on amendment 43, that would make life a little easier—rather than having to withdraw amendment 42 and attempting to move 43.

I am pleased that the Conservative spokesman was supportive of the idea that petitions should be referred to central Government Departments. That would be a helpful additional to the Bill. If strictures are to be placed on local authorities when dealing with petitions, it is unreasonable that they should be asked to deal with issues that are not relevant to them. Indeed, local people’s understanding about which level of government is responsible for which function—the issue that we were debating this morning—would not be increased if there were not the facility for petitions to be referred back to the authority that can best consider them.

On amendment 42, I accept what the Minister said about the matter going to the appropriate cabinet member or leader, although that would be consistent with the approach to local democracy that the Government have advanced, which puts the executive function in the hands of a certain group of members. If that is not the correct way to do it, perhaps another way could be arrived at that would allow those executive members to consider petitions that are referred to the authority, after which the appropriate cabinet member or leader would be able to respond to them, with support or information provided by officers. So although we would not expect all the work to be done by the poor cabinet member, they would certainly have a role in justifying the position of the authority in line with the office that they hold.

I am pleased that some Committee members, at least, believe that amendment 43 is worthy of further consideration and I wish to push it to a vote.