Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

It is evident that noble Lords understand what we are trying to do, although there is clearly concern about how we are trying to do it. Perhaps I could clarify some of that. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, got it right. The noble Lord described how the scrutiny functions had grown in recent years, with the changes in governance, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that this was about raising status and visibility. I shall respond to both those points in the context of some uneven and patchy practice. I am glad to have support in principle for the value that we want and the visibility of scrutiny. Clause 27 inserts a new section into the Local Government Act 2000, requiring local authorities to designate one of their officers as the scrutiny officer to support the work of the overview and scrutiny committees. Amendment 153, a probing amendment, seeks to make the designation of the scrutiny officer discretionary. The second amendment requires that it is met within existing budgeted expenditure. Local authorities have very broad powers in respect of their staffing arrangements; they can already designate an officer to support their overview and scrutiny committee. Amendment 153 therefore adds no practical effect . The purpose of the clause is simply to raise the status, visibility and effectiveness of the overview and scrutiny function to ensure that all local authorities have a chance to rise to the standards of the best. We have based this on substantial evidence; all the studies on the development of overview and scrutiny have shown that officer support is an important condition for effective scrutiny. Our conclusion is that if overview and scrutiny is to be effective, it is crucial that officer resources are in place to provide support and advice to those committees. The evidence suggests that it is not always in place or in place in the most effective way. We have considered the work of the Centre for Public Scrutiny, whose recent survey sought views from the local government sector on the single element that would do most to improve the overview and scrutiny function. That is what we are trying to achieve. One of the biggest responses was in favour of providing more resources and staff. So there is quite a lot to commend this proposal to place a requirement on lead councils to have a scrutiny officer responsible for supporting the work of the committee to ensure that there are strong arrangements in place to review and drive outcomes. We have arrived at a point where the local area agreements are about to be refreshed and we know that a lot of work has gone into constructing them. It is clear that overview and scrutiny will be an increasingly important part of the local government landscape. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, asked some very important questions. He is quite right that we are not doing anything new in the sense that what we have in place already came under the Local Government Act 1972. Under Section 151, the local authority is required to have an officer who is responsible for its financial affairs. The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 enhanced the role and created two further statutory officers: the head of paid service, recognising the importance of the senior management functions, and the monitoring officer. We are following a similar approach in this Bill by creating a statutory officer, which evidence suggests is the critical thing to do. Local authorities can sort it out for themselves; we are making the requirement, because we think that this function ought to be performed, and visibly so, but we are not prescribing the level of the post. We are simply saying that it is for the authority to decide, in recognition of local circumstances, what will suit it best. We are providing funding for this. We are trying to ensure that there is an officer in place that everybody knows that that job is to be done and the support is there. There will be one statutory scrutiny officer in each local authority, just as there will be one head of paid service and one monitoring officer. Obviously, actual staff and officers are included in support services and we hope that there will be more than one officer employed in undertaking this. We are paying additional money; it will be ring-fenced and authorities can use that additional money for support if they wish. We are trying to make this a visible and standard part of all local authorities, which it is not at present. We need to achieve a balance between providing a new resource but letting local authorities decide how this is best managed in their local circumstances. Amendment 154 on funding demonstrates a concern that the provision might have an adverse impact on council resources because of the requirement to make savings elsewhere. As I have said, we are very sympathetic, not just to the wider economic challenges facing councils but to the resource implications of having this in the Bill. I can, again, give the assurance that the costs will be met in full. I know that Members of the Committee are sympathetic to what we are trying to do. I hope that I have given sufficient reassurance that this will be a matter for local authorities to manage as they see fit under the circumstances. I respect the experience of Members of the Committee and take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. I would be very happy to talk to him further about how we think this can best work and some of the implications that arise from it.