I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for raising these issues. On Amendment No. 209CC, I begin by explaining why the sustainable community strategy is important. It is an evolution of the community strategies that were introduced in 2000. The purpose of the sustainable community strategy, which sets it apart from and above the specific service delivery plans and strategies, is that it must identify and address the most difficult cross-cutting issues affecting the area and respond to community views and priorities. The strategies already have to take account of national and regional priorities and established long-term goals and are the foundation of local area agreements. In future, we see LAAs as being the delivery plan for the sustainable community strategy. Their status sets them apart and beyond the other separate elements.
The police are absolutely vital partners in all this, and I respect and understand completely what the noble Baroness has said. All community partners will be—and, indeed, are—consulted on the community strategy, which obviously includes the police. As the strategy covers economic, social and environmental issues, it is also very important that other plans made locally should be more specific and less strategic. However, we will set out in guidance how the other statutory plans will relate to each other. That is very important, given what we say about the status of the sustainable community strategy overall.
The guidance is also important, and I know why the noble Baroness framed her amendment in the way that she did. Nevertheless, in the implementation plan we committed to ensuring that this and all other guidance issued by the Government relating to the White Paper would be phrased strategically. By no means should it set out every last detail on how things should be done, but it should indicate what we conceive to be best practice and solid advice. We are committed to developing that collaboratively, and we will continue to honour that commitment and to work with others—not least, for example, with the LGA.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with the substantive amendment and Amendment No. 212, tabled by my noble friend. I take on board his argument but the amendment is unnecessary. I understand that the intention behind it is to create a system that holds partners to account for delivery and not just the design of targets. That is clearly important but it is exactly what Clause 110 currently provides for. The clause states that, once the Secretary of State has approved a local area agreement and it therefore has effect, the responsible local authority and each partner authority must, when exercising their functions, have regard to every local improvement target within the local area agreement that relates to it. When they sign up to a particular target, they are saying that they agree with the target and that it lies within the scope of their individual remit to contribute to its achievement. In the light of the previous amendment that we discussed on the voluntary sector, that is a good way of putting it. Therefore, charming although it is, the amendment is not necessary. I am grateful to noble Lords.
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Andrews
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 16 July 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
694 c104-5 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:44:50 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_411300
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_411300
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_411300