Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

My Lords, Amendment 97 was alluded to at the end of the previous day’s proceedings, and the procedures require us not to move it. Amendment 98 would take out of the Bill Clause 29, which relates to scrutiny officers. In proposing this, I do not suggest in the slightest that we do not support good scrutiny. I did not explain my concerns terribly well in Committee, and therefore wish to bring back the amendment. I will also ask the Government to expand on comments that the Minister made then. She said: ""The purpose of the clause is to raise the status, visibility and effectiveness of the overview and scrutiny function"." She added that there was, ""substantial evidence … that officer support is an important condition. … If overview and scrutiny is to be effective, it is crucial that officer resources are in place".—[Official Report, 3/2/09; col. GC172.]" I agree very much with that. I declare an interest as a member of the advisory board of the Centre for Public Scrutiny, which has worked with the Government on this. I agree that more resources and staff should, if applied well, lead to better scrutiny. However, designating an officer does not mean that there will be any extra officer resources. The Minister said that having a statutory officer was the critical thing, and that there was evidence to this effect. Will she—or perhaps he, as it looks as if the noble Lord, Lord Patel, will be answering—tell the House what that evidence is? As regards funding, the Minister gave an indication—I could not find the reference when I looked for it—about the amount of funding. Certainly she said that the Government would provide funding, that this would be ring-fenced and that the costs would be met in full. I recall thinking when I heard the figure that it was not very much funding. However, ring-fencing and meeting the costs in full in the way that she described seem to be inconsistent with the assurances that the Government gave in the same debate that it will be up to the local authority to decide what suits it best. In short, we support good scrutiny, but we do not believe that the Government have found the key to unlocking it. Also in this group are government Amendments 99, 100, 170, 171 and 172. We welcome these. The first expands on an amendment that we tabled at the previous stage. I believe it came from the Local Government Association. The Minister will explain the now rather longer clause, allowing for joint scrutiny by two or more local authorities. Given the constraints at this stage of the Bill, I will ask him some questions on his amendment, even though he has not yet had an opportunity to introduce it. The new clause says that regulations may provide for arrangements for joint scrutiny to be made, ""only in circumstances, or subject to conditions or limitations, specified in the regulations"." Will the Minister give us a clue what that might cover; and, importantly, do the Government expect that local authorities will take the lead in proposing any prescriptions that might come through regulations? Could he also confirm that this is not intended to be a provision that would allow the Secretary of State to take particular action against particular local authorities? I cannot think what the Latin equivalent for ad hominem would be, but I am sure that the Minister understands my point. New Section 5C would allow regulations to provide that an authority must or may not disclose information to a joint scrutiny committee. I was surprised to see this. The essence of good local government lies in its openness and transparency. In providing for restrictions on disclosure, perhaps the Minister could tell us whether there is some equivalent that this replicates in the case of a domestic committee, an overview and scrutiny committee, within an authority. I am quite concerned about that restriction. I beg to move.