Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I thank the Minister very much for the careful and considered response that she has given us. Amendment 155 came from the Local Government Association and, I believe, has all-party support—it certainly has two-party support, which was voiced here today. I was not quite so sure about the third party. The Minister made the point, and I am very grateful to her for agreeing to consider the matter, that what we are discussing may well be happening through good practice, as most of what we have considered in this Bill so far is happening. However, the point made here and by the LGA is that there is no legislative basis for it happening; it is outside the law. I am very grateful to the Minister for agreeing to consider how best it can be achieved. I do not speak for the Local Government Association, but I am sure that it will be more than happy to have those discussions on its proposal. I hope that we can discuss Amendment 155A further with the Minister. I really do feel, speaking from experience, that the ability to require those various bodies to appear before a local authority’s overview and scrutiny committee, or one of the others, will do far more to enhance the status, visibility and effectiveness of scrutiny in the public mind than designating an officer as a scrutiny officer. The two are not necessarily alternatives; they can of course go together. But I hope the Minister and her colleagues will give serious consideration to how we can achieve that as the next logical step forward in enhancing the role for scrutiny. Amendment 154A withdrawn. Amendment 154B not moved. Clause 28 agreed. Amendments 155 and 155A not moved. Clause 29 agreed.