Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

My opposition to the clause in its entirety is grouped with these two amendments. I am something of a Pollyanna as regards scrutiny, as I am probably too much of an advocate in relation to what it can achieve. Therefore, it may seem a little odd that I am opposing the clause, but I do so for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has explained and perhaps for other reasons too. I think that it is for local councils to decide how they allocate their resources, and staffing is, of course, a resource, but I believe that scrutiny will generally need more than one officer. I do not think it is possible for an individual, on a given subject, to support the executive in the morning and the scrutiny of the executive’s work in the afternoon, which I believe is what happens too often at the moment. I can understand that the Government’s intention, through this clause, is to boost the status of scrutiny but the Explanatory Notes say that the impact will mean each authority appointing one officer. If anything, ring-fencing to one officer will reduce the status. I absolutely agree with the point that has been made. I, too, wrote down ““finance officer””, ““Section 151 officer”” and ““monitoring officer””. This post would be entirely different in quality. I also wrote down ““children’s services””. I am not sure of the legislative status but I think that authorities have a children’s officer, and this, again, is different. The Government are right to advocate stronger and more effective scrutiny than some authorities have been able to achieve, but I do not think that this is the way to do it. If, after all, we believe that each local authority should be autonomous in the way that it goes about its business, from these Benches I must consistently oppose central government telling it how to set about that.