The ‘Community Empowerment’ agenda
Two years ago (March 2006), the Development Trusts Association (DTA) consulted with its members on community trigger mechanisms to inform the Local Government White Paper (Strong and Prosperous Communities, October 2006).
Our conclusions at the time were that‘community trigger’ mechanisms would be a powerful addition to crisis engagement and neighbourhood governance, and that they could lead to tangible community benefits. For example, they could help people, particularly in poor communities, feel that they are not powerless, and that there is a way to challenge a poor service, or unblock an obstacle to progress. We also recognised that local petitions could play a role in giving citizens and communities a bigger say
We also noted that a lot would depend on the detail of any mechanisms that was introduced; we had a particular concern that it should not become unduly bureaucratic or expensive. As one DTA member put it at the time: “ Indeed it would be a dreadful shame if the resources that might be used to effect the transfer of a derelict building to a community and to bring it back into use were spent instead on administering and managing a costly and cumbersome 'community trigger' mechanism!”
We were pleased to see that the Local Government White Paper recognised the important role of petitions and stated a commitment to encourage local councils to deal with petitions systematically; however, we found that the ‘Community Call for Action’ placed too much emphasis on local councillors acting as ‘gatekeepers’, effectively giving them ultimate decision powers on when local concerns should and should not be addressed. Our view is that ‘Councillor Calls for Action’ clearly have their place in this ‘Community Empowerment’ agenda but because of local dynamics they cannot constitute the only form of ‘community trigger’ mechanism.
Thresholds and format for community petitions
The DTA welcomes the proposal by the Department to introduce a legal obligation for local councils to respond to petitions submitted by local people. We suggest the term ‘community petition’ and believe this should be promoted energetically, and has the potential to become an important part of local democracy, and we hope it will be a key element to the Forthcoming Community Empowerment White Paper.
We also recognise the need for a balanced approach to the petitioning process which will offer reasonable prospects for change in local communities without placing unreasonable burdens on local councils.
We think the key to a successful petitioning process stands in the recognition that different settings will need different approaches to setting the appropriate threshold of signatures before local council are required to provide a substantive response. In practice this would mean setting a threshold both in percentage and in absolute terms.
With a mind not to create bureaucratic barriers for local people or place an unreasonable burden on local councils, and to reduce the risk of mischievous use of the petitioning mechanism, we would propose that normally a minimum threshold of 500 signatures would be required before the council has a legal duty to respond. However where population is low (i.e. rural districts), we would suggest a threshold at 10% of the affected population, with an absolute minimum of 200 signatures.
Where the subject of the petition is of particular concern to a specific minority group (e.g. older people, or a religious group, etc) we suggest that the same thresholds should still apply.This would place a requirement for members of a minority group to explain the purpose of the petition and seek support from a sufficient proportion of the wider community. We believe this would be a positive contribution to bridging as well and bonding social capital.
To give some examples:
A petition calling on a council to transfer a redundant council building in City X to a disability community group.This would require 500 signatures from people living in City X – they would not all need to be disabled.
A petition calling on a council to review its contract for street cleaning in town Y (population 3,500) This would require 350 signatures from people living in town Y.
A petition calling on a council to improve traffic calming devices in village Z (population 700).This would require 200 signatures from people living in village Z.
Councils should still be able to choose to consider any petition that did not meet these thresholds, but they would not be required to do so.
Our assumption is that local petitions addressed to a local council would exclusively deal with matters that are within the powers of local councils.
Petitions would of course have to stay within the law (they could not for example be used to promote racial hatred).
We would also suggest some clear but simple guidelines on the format of community petitions which would include no more than the following: (1) the petition statement; (2) details of the person or persons proposing the petition; (3) name and address of each signatory, with signature and date.
