Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 209A: 209A: Clause 107, page 69, line 2, at end insert— ““(1A) In this Chapter ““national improvement target”” means a national target for improvement designated by the Secretary of State in respect of which there shall be a maximum number of 35.”” The noble Baroness said: Many of your Lordships will remember how positively received the idea of setting an upper limit on improvement targets was when it was originally floated in the White Paper. I think the upper limit there was, as in my amendment, 35. Virtually everyone, including local authorities, the LGA and Unlock Democracy, welcomed that proposal. Their commentary was approving. Subsequently the implication has been that that number is likely to be the upper limit, but thus far the intention has not been formalised in the Bill. Our discussions earlier today suggest that the fewer government targets the better, so that there were not so many, but if 35 was what was mentioned, 35 is what we believe it ought to be at present. We listened very carefully about lessening the regulatory burden and entrusting councils with delivering on their objectives but, until issues such as the question of targets are cleared up or formalised within the legislation, none of us will quite believe that this will happen. In the past the requirement to meet central targets has proved to be hugely costly, and in many cases has diverted resources away from areas that are of more concern to local people. The more targets there are, the less flexibility there is within the system for providing services. We must try to ensure that there is an upper limit on the Government’s intervention in this matter. That is the burden of the amendment. I beg to move.