---

Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I tried, inadvertently and wrongly, to raise the issue that I now want to raise briefly. It is on the same point and I raise it in a benign, rather than a malignant, manner. Before we get to Clause 16, Clause 14(5) states: "““A principal local authority’s petition scheme must secure that, where an active petition is made to the authority, the authority must take one or more steps in response to the petition””." Clause 16(2) says that, "““the petition requests that an officer of the authority (whether identified by name or description) be called to account at a public meeting of the authority””." That is one sanction. Then, at the top of page 11 of the Bill, Clause 16(7)(a) says that, "““the exercise by an overview and scrutiny committee of the authority of its power under subsection (13)(a) of section 21 of the Local Government Act … to require the relevant person to attend before it to answer questions””." My question, which is shared with the trade union UNISON, is: can the Minister inform us of the kind of criteria that would guide a council in deciding whether to use a public meeting or a scrutiny committee, or both, in dealing with a petition of this kind? The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, quite rightly and fairly, raised this issue. I have in mind the Baby P petition. I recall, many years ago, attending very angry public meetings but they related to issues. Phrases such as ““witch hunt”” or ““hanging out to dry”” can be bandied about and may very well apply if someone is invited to a meeting. I am anxious only to ensure that the Minister and the Government are satisfied that, if a petition includes a demand that a person be brought to a public meeting, they know what they are doing.