Agenda item

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report.

The Select Committee received a report from the Assistant Director, Governance regarding the Council’s Petition Scheme which was originally adopted on 14 December 2010, in accordance with the requirements of Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

 

The duty on local authorities to operate a petitions scheme was abolished by the introduction of the Localism Act 2011. Members had previously requested that a periodic review of the operation of the Petitions Scheme be undertaken to assess its effectiveness and the Scheme was last reviewed by the former Constitution and Members Services Scrutiny Panel in September 2012.

 

Members were advised via the Members Bulletin dated 8 December 2017 that a  periodic review of the operation of the Council’s Petition Scheme would be undertaken in the new year and were asked if they had any comments or observations that they would like to contribute to the review of the Scheme, to inform the Democratic Services Manager by 2 January 2018, unfortunately there were no comments from Members.

 

Petitions Scheme

 

A copy of the current Petitions Scheme can be found within the Council’s Constitution (Part 4 – Council Rules). The following types of petition did not fall within the scope of the Scheme:

 

(a)         petitions submitted by email, as email systems were not secure. Petitioners must use either paper-based petitions or the Council’s ePetitions system;

 

(b)         petitions that were considered to be vexatious, abusive, anonymous or otherwise inappropriate;

 

(c)         petitions relating to a planning decision, including applications, development plan documents or the community infrastructure levy;

 

(d)         petitions relating to a licensing decision;

 

(e)         petitions relating to an individual or entity in respect of which they have a right of recourse to a review or right of appeal;

 

(f)           any matter for which the Standards Committee had powers for determining complaints received under the local assessment process;

 

(g)         any complaint made against an employee of the Council;

 

(h)         any matter which was substantially the same as a petition submitted in the previous twelve months;

 

(i)           issues where the subject matter was subject to ongoing legal proceedings; and

 

(j)           petitions in response to formal consultation processes instigated by the Council.

 

Written Petitions

 

During the period from September 2012 to December 2017, the Council received 21written (paper-based) petitions. All submitted petitions were reviewed by the Director of Governance to ensure that they met the criteria set out in the Petitions Scheme.

 

It was suggested that the following issues be considered in the review of the operation of the Petition Scheme, with regard to written petitions.

 

Signature Threshold

 

The Petitions Scheme made provision for written petitions, which contained more than 2400 signatures, to be debated by the Council at its next ordinary meeting. Petitions containing more than 1200 signatures were subject to a report by the relevant Portfolio Holder for debate by the Cabinet at its next available meeting.

 

Petitions with fewer than 20 signatures were normally dealt with by the appropriate service directorate as ordinary or ‘business as usual’ type correspondence, unless the Service Director considered that the subject matter was sufficiently important or contentious to warrant the referral of the matter to the relevant PortfolioHolder. Petitions containing more than 20 but fewer than 1200 signatures were considered and dealt with by the relevant Portfolio Holder, who may take appropriate action if they have delegated powers to act alone, or prepare a report to the Cabinet or a Sub-Committee of the Cabinet fordecision if required.

 

None of the petitions received during the period from September 2012 to December 2017 met the thresholds for debate by either the Cabinet or the Council. The Committee might therefore consider that these thresholds were discouraging the submission of petitions.

 

Members could choose to reduce the current signature thresholds for petitions. However, this approach could greatly increase the number of valid petitions received. To enable members to consider this aspect of the Petitions Scheme, the following comparative information had been obtained from several neighbouring authorities with regard to the handling of petitions, in terms of signature thresholds (for which statutory levels no longer applied):

 

Brentwood Borough Council (Population (mid-2016) 76,400)

1,500 signatories - considered by full Council

500 signatories - considered by Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Broxbourne Borough Council (Population (mid-2016) 96,800)

No signature threshold. All petitions received reported to the Cabinet

Chelmsford City Council (Population (mid-2016) 174,100)

2,000 signatories - considered by full Council

Harlow District Council (Population (mid-2016) 86,000)

650 signatories - considered by full Council

50-650 signatories - considered by Cabinet or appropriate Committee

Uttlesford District Council (Population (mid-2016) 86,200)

3,600 signatures - considered by full Council

 

The Select Committee requested that officers contact the authorities listed above and asked them how many petitions they had received over the last year.

 

Signature Requirements

 

The Petition Scheme required that written petitions should include contact details, (including an address) for the petition organiser and the name and address and signature of any person supporting the petition.

 

This element of the Scheme has caused operational difficulties in a number of recent instances, where details of the name, address and signature of persons supporting the petition had not been provided.

 

On some occasions when written petitions had been submitted, the lead petitioner had failed to collect the correct information (i.e. a name, address and signature) from petitioners, thereby resulting in the petition being rejected. There have also been a number of occasions where it had been difficult to ascertain who the petition organiser was, as contact details had not been made clear on the petition. If no details for the lead petitioner were submitted, an acknowledgement was sent to the first signatory to the petition. This could cause confusion if the first signatory did not know who organised the petition and therefore no further action was taken as there was no lead petitioner.

 

To address these issues, a pro-forma had been developed for the completion of written petitions. Whilst the use of a pro-forma was not compulsory, it was designed to assist those members of the public who were unsure of the information required and would help to reduce the number of petitions where doubtful or unclear information was provided. Although the pro-forma template was clearly available on the Council’s website, it had not been used for any petition submitted during the period from September 2012 to December 2017. It was therefore proposed to review the template and its online location, to ensure its visibility within the petitions area of the website.

 

The Select Committee expressed concern that there were some inconsistencies between the Petition Scheme whereby it stated the maximum time an ePetition would run for was 3 months and the Guide to ePetitions stated the maximum time and ePetition would run for was 6 months. Members asked that this be corrected in the review.

 

Paper Petitions Received

 

When a paper petition was received by the Council the process taken would be to:

 

·        Acknowledge receipt to the Lead Petitioner within seven working days, advising of the procedure that will be followed;

·        Send an email the relevant Officers with a Memo outlining the procedure and attach a scanned copy of the petition; and

·        Send an email to the Portfolio Holder, Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the relevant Ward Members attaching a letter outlining the procedure, attach a copy of the memo to officers and a copy of the petition.

 

ePetitions Received

 

When an ePetition was received by the Council the process taken would be to:

 

·        The content of the ePetition would be checked to ensure that it was suitable before it was made available for signature. Once the content and length of time was agreed the ePetition would be made available for signature. This process could take up to a maximum of ten working days;

·        An email would be sent to the relevant Officer with a Memo outlining the procedure; and

·        An email would be sent to the Portfolio Holder, Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the relevant Ward Members attaching a letter outlining the procedure.

 

The Council’s response to a petition would depend on what the petition asked for and how many people had signed it, this may include one or more of the following:

 

·        Taking the action as requested in the petition;

·        Consider the petition at a council meeting;

·        Holding an enquiry into the subject matter;

·        Undertaking research in the matter;

·        Hold a public meeting;

·        Hold a consultation;

·        Hold a meeting with petitioners;

·        Referring the petition for consideration by Cabinet or a Cabinet Committee; or

·        Writing to the petition organiser setting out the Council’s views about the request in the petition.

 

In addition to the steps above, the Council would consider all the specific actions it could potentially take on the issues highlighted in a petition.

 

The Select Committee expressed concerns that they felt the Council’s Petition scheme was not prominent enough on the website and that the instructions on how to submit a petition should be made clearer to members of the public.

 

            RESOLVED:

 

(1)             That Portfolio Holders be reminded that they are responsible for the consideration of all petitions containing more than 20 but fewer than 1200 signatures;

 

(2)             That, in future, all members be advised of the submission of an electronic petition, through the Council Bulletin;

 

(3)             That a review of the existing guidance for the Petitions Scheme be undertaken, to ensure that this is clear and consistent;

 

(4)             That the Council continue to only accept electronic petitions created and submitted through its website and that petitions hosted by third-party websites continue to not be accepted;

 

(5)             That a re-launch of the Petition Scheme be publicised appropriately on the Council’s website;

 

(6)             That the location of the Petition Scheme on the Council’s website be reviewed, in order to ensure that it is easier to find;

 

(7)             That those local authorities from which comparative information was obtained with regard to the signature thresholds for petitions, be requested to provide details of the number of petitions received in the last municipal year; and

 

(8)             That the revised Petition Scheme be publicised in the Council Bulletin.