Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I can see from Amendments 154A and 154B that we share the same underlying aim to see more co-operation. That is precisely why we have attempted in subsection (1) to broaden the scope of what these joint overview and scrutiny committees may consider, thereby enabling local authorities to make better use of what is turning out to be a very efficient way of working, as my noble friend Lord Smith put it. The problem we are addressing in the clause, which is why we want to expand it, is that currently the committees may make reports and recommendations only on matters strictly connected to the particular local area agreement. I can see from Amendments 154A and 154B that noble Lords are concerned about whether the clause restricts the scope of what overview and scrutiny committees may consider. My first job, therefore, is to reinforce what I have said. Clause 28 is there precisely to expand the scope of what joint overview and scrutiny committees may consider to bring them into line with single authority overview and scrutiny committees so that they may consider any matter affecting the area of the group of partners or the inhabitants of the area. That is already provided for in the language of the clause. If a matter affects part of an area, it can also be said to affect the area. So they will not be bound by the limits of the LAA, for example, if green space or the health of the voluntary sector have not been selected as a priority. The joint overview and scrutiny committee, like the single overview and scrutiny committee, will now be able to scrutinise the policy. I understand the intention behind Amendment 155 and why it seems like a good idea. It is certainly worthy of consideration as it is consistent with what we are trying to do with the MAAs. The key challenge is to consider how practically it could work within the balance of the burdens that would flow from it. My noble friend Lord Smith pointed out that, at the moment, this is perfectly possible because it is happening on an organic and innovative basis. I am sure it is the case that local authorities are proceeding on an informal basis. Any amendment that sought to put any partnership together with any other partnership to form an extended joint overview and scrutiny would have to have a formal footing and would have to be considered in the context of the enhanced powers for overview and scrutiny committees contained in the 2007 Act. We would need a formal structure around that. We have taken advice on the issue of putting authorities together in any combination in our recent consultation on improving local accountability. We sought local government and stakeholder views on what issues should be considered as part of any new power to establish area scrutiny committees. The view that came back to us, not surprisingly, was that we needed to be balanced in our approach and to bear in mind that joint overview and scrutiny committee membership should not become so large and so unwieldy that it became ineffective and could not do the job it was there to do. There is also another consideration. We have made substantial changes to overview and scrutiny through the 2007 Act. We have to consider whether any new joint overview and scrutiny committees could accommodate those relatively recent changes. New powers were given to the committees with respect to local partners. We must consider whether it would be appropriate for such powers to be extended across boundary scrutiny arrangements. For these practical arrangements, I think that it is a very positive provision. I am sympathetic to what noble Lords are saying, to the arguments behind their proposals and the need to be able to move across boundaries. The time is not right to accept the recommendation, because of its practical implications. Amendment 155A would add a list of partners that should be required to provide information to overview and scrutiny committees to the lists set out in new Section 22A of the Local Government Act 2000, which was inserted through the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. We use the definition of partner authorities because the enhanced provisions for overview and scrutiny provided for in that Act are primarily aimed to ensure that there is scrutiny of LAAs. That is important in delivering the priorities of the local area. The requirement to provide information should be placed squarely on the authority and partner authorities entering into the local area agreements, since they are responsible for the services that they supply, including those that they commission. A number of bodies in Clause 2 are not included in the list of partners that I have described—maintained schools, FE colleges, the Greater London Authority, parish councils and strategic health authorities. However, we have to recognise that overview and scrutiny will work only if its partners also have a capacity to respond effectively. We debated about a lot of that in 2007. In this Bill, we have achieved the right balance of powers and we should not seek to add partners outside those named in Part 5 of the 2007 Act. In the break, when we were away from the Committee, I may have lost track of some of the other questions asked in the debate. I am very happy to read Hansard carefully tomorrow and respond in writing to anything that I may not have answered.