Proceeding contribution from Lord Shutt of Greetland (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 28 June 2011. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Localism Bill.
Localism Bill
My Lords, I am delighted to respond once more to further rejoicing. I thank the noble Lords for their contributions. At present, local authorities are required to make, publish and comply with a scheme for the handling of petitions made to the authority. It must include centrally prescribed information, and the scheme and any subsequent changes to it must be approved by a meeting of the full council. Local authorities are also required to provide a facility for making electronic petitions to the authority. The current legislation means that local authorities must respond to a petition in a certain way and must hold a full council debate if it is signed by the number of people specified in the council’s petition scheme. Senior officers can also be called to account and are required to take part in a public meeting if a petition meets a signature threshold. Petitioners can request that the council’s overview and scrutiny committee reviews the council’s response to the petition if it feels it is not adequate. The prescription and cumbersome bureaucracy this has piled on local authorities is unjustifiable. I am not aware of any evidence that the service received by local people has improved, yet unlike the previous matter it has already resulted in a burden of £4.2 million across the sector, as well as money spent on set-up costs. I am delighted that the Local Government Association has been brought into this because it says that the prescription around petitions is one of the ““top five”” burdens that it has asked this Government to review. I want to remove this prescription while protecting and enhancing the democratic voice of local residents and saving money. When I served for 25 years as a member of Calderdale Council we had many petitions. They came in many ways but they often came to full council. They were brought to the council, handed to the mayor by a member and then the council either looked at them on that occasion or more likely then said that the appropriate council committee would look at them. I never recall a problem about a petition being ignored; petitions were always looked at. If we are about localism and local people doing their own thing, I believe that people who are involved locally and involved in local authorities know what to do with petitions and how to cope without this overarching prescription.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 728 c1653-4
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Devolved matters Business Air pollution Arts Fees and charges Land Fines Infrastructure European communities EU action Domestic waste Local government Northern Ireland Pay Payments Property transfer Public sector Business rates Referendums Procurement Local government services Public participation Staff Low pay Scotland Small businesses Wales Waste disposal Tax rates and bands Regeneration Sanctions Petitions
- Legislation
- Localism Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-01-22 18:40:18 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_753711
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_753711
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_753711