moved Amendment No. 209ZA:

The direction of the noble Baroness’s amendment has taken me slightly by surprise. The Government signed the European Charter of Local Self-Government on 3 June 1997 and it was ratified on 24 April 1998. I am not sure that it would add anything to incorporate it in the Bill. However, I will read what the noble Baroness said and take advice. If I can answer her, I will write to her.

The amendment would require the Secretary of State, when wishing to use the order-making power in Clause 106(7) to add or remove functions of the Secretary of State from the list of named partners, to have regard to the European charter.

Clause 106(7) has been drafted in the way it has because the statutory basis of certain local service providers is a function of the Secretary of State. In an earlier amendment we gave the example of Jobcentre Plus as an agency created to fulfil a function of the Secretary of State.

Other local or regional agencies may be created that use a similar “Secretary of State” formulation that is very useful. We may need in some instances to remove the present references to a Secretary of State’s functions if, for example, Jobcentre Plus were established with its own independent legal status. Before making such an order under Clause 106(7), the Secretary of State is required under Clause 106(8) to ensure that representatives of local government and other appropriate persons would be consulted. That approach is very much in the spirit of the European Charter of Local Self-Government.

I am afraid that the amendments do not make sense. I understand the noble Baroness’s broad political point about incorporation, and will write to her on that.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I raised the amendment precisely to make the point about incorporation. The charter was ratified but it has never been incorporated into domestic legislation as it has in other European states. I was simply trying to use this opportunity to probe whether the Government had any intention of incorporating it into domestic legislation, or, indeed, whether any discussions had taken place. I will wait to hear from the noble Baroness in writing and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 106 agreed to.

Clause 107 [“Local improvement targets”: interpretation]:

moved Amendment No. 209ZB:

I shall certainly try to help the noble Baroness. Clause 107(1)(c) is drafted very broadly because it must cover the broad range of providers of public services outside the list of named partners in Clause 106. By definition, therefore, it includes voluntary, community and private sectors. It permits these sectors to sign up to targets in the local area agreement which they can help to deliver. That, in a nutshell, is what the partnership with these other bodies will seek to deliver. As we said in the local government White Paper, in order to deliver the ambitions set out in it, local authorities will be required to work not only with other statutory bodies but with the third sector. We could just as easily have said that about the private sector as well.

I need tell no one in this Chamber—we will have opportunities to develop this theme—how pivotal the role of charities, the third sector and businesses is across the field, whether we are talking about health, education or housing. The richness and diversity of the voluntary sector lies in the way in which we deliver as effectively as possible in so many areas. It would make absolutely no sense to leave them out in any way if they were not positively held to be important partners. A major employer might wish to sign up to the targets in a local area agreement that reflect corporate social responsibility in volunteering or in reducing waste. Housing developers may want to sign up to affordable housing targets. Churches or other community groups may sign up to youth improvement schemes or looking after the elderly. When we talk about signing up, we include voluntary sector partners in the local strategic partnerships who have a very important iterative role in articulating not only their ambitions for the area but how they will contribute, talking through the targets as they are derived from the whole business of negotiation.

The effect of this amendment would be that a local improvement target could never relate to a person other than a named partner, and so could not relate to a charity or other not-for-profit organisation or to a local business. Such organisations could not sign up to a local improvement target, so the amendment would prevent the recognition that we need. I am sure that the noble Baroness would not want that. We will discuss how those organisations will be involved when we discuss a later group of amendments. To reiterate, if local partnerships are to succeed, they must include representatives of the local voluntary and community sector bodies and local business. That will be made very clear. By that we mean not only the large, powerful charitable organisations but the little, nimble ones across the country that are doing essential work in some of the interstices of local areas.

On Amendment No. 209AA, Clause 107(3)(b) seeks to ensure that a person to whom a target relates has given consent. This enables that target to be included in the local area agreement. The noble Baroness asked what the term “person” covers. It covers partner authorities, as one can see from Clause 106, which sets out who the named partners are. Clause 106(1) refers to the persons set out in the rest of Clause 106. I hope that that will help the noble Baroness and that she will be able to withdraw her amendment.

Yes, I will do that. We will come to some of this later, but I question whether the third sector, as distinct from the activity relating to the third sector, should be subject to a target. All of this comes back to targets. I still have not quite got my head around whether this imposes a duty on the third sector. On the second of my amendments, we have just heard that, because the third sector is not a partner under Clause 106, its consent to a target is not required. I think that I heard the noble Baroness say that. I am trying to piece this together.

The third sector could be involved in formulating a target as a contributor—I am thinking on my feet. If we take for example a target to reduce drug addiction, some of the key representatives of the work would be local voluntary drugs organisations. The target would be to reduce drug addiction by 10 per cent. The local drugs voluntary sector would commit to saying, “Yes, that is a sensible target, which we think collectively we can reach. Our contribution to that target and our activity would be to provide treatment for a further 1,000 cases a year”. That is how it would relate. If local voluntary drugs organisations did not think that the target was achievable, I am sure that they would work with the other partners to make a sensible and achievable target.

That is obviously the right way to go about the work. My concern is the implications of this Bill. Are there any sanctions against the voluntary sector if it does not do its bit? What happens to the whole target if the voluntary sector fails?

We cannot put a duty on the voluntary sector. The aim is simply to get it to sign up, to commit and to do its best to make its contribution in relation to the ambition set in the local area agreement.

I am glad to hear that. No doubt there would be implications because the voluntary sector is funded to a considerable extent at a local level by local authorities. To pursue the point one stage further, the voluntary sector may say, “We believe that this is what we can do to contribute to dealing with drug addiction”, but the voluntary sector, particularly voluntary organisations, then may be unable to deliver because it was overoptimistic—we are not in the business of casting blame at this moment—and overambitious. In that case, the local authority and other formal partners would be unable to meet the overall target because the voluntary sector, which is not a partner, had not been able to do its bit. What would be the knock-on effects for everyone else involved?

One has to be common-sensical about this. The voluntary sector will contract with the local authority to deliver a certain amount of services. If it is unable to do that because it lacks capacity or whatever and was contributing such a significant amount that the target is put in jeopardy, the local authority will be able to do a number of things, such as contracting with another element of the voluntary sector. If it turns out that targets are too ambitious, local targets can be revised, which is within the scope of the arrangement.

I am sure that we will return to this because that raises again the question of the Secretary of State’s role in setting the target and, as I have said before, the fact that money so often follows the target. I have certainly given myself enough to think about for the next stage. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 209A:

The amendment raises an important question. I shall demonstrate the distinction between designated targets and local targets, because that will help as we come on to talk about later amendments. The draft LAA will be composed of local improvement targets that have been agreed by the responsible authority and the named partners following negotiation with each other—not set by the Secretary of State, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said on a previous amendment. That negotiation will be informed by local plans, particularly the sustainable community strategy; it might be a lengthy negotiation, but it will be thorough. Around the table, those local priorities will have been identified.

Within that process, some local targets will be identified that are drawn from the core national policy priorities, as identified in the bank of 200 indicators. Those are the designated targets, and they carry different processes with them. They are set against national policy priorities, against which every area will have to report. One of those 200 indicators might be reducing worklessness. Against that, the local authority will have to look at how, in relation to that national target, it can deal with its own local problems.

In those 35 targets, the national policy priorities posit a framework against which local areas will have to report, and which will cover everything the local authority delivers on its own or in partnership. When the draft LAA is submitted to the Secretary of State—with those negotiated targets—via the government office, the Secretary of State, on behalf of the Government, will formally designate the targets that are drawn from the national indicator set. That will not be a surprise at all to the LAA partners, because the indicator set will be made public this autumn. As the process for negotiating the local improvement targets as a whole goes through, everyone will be well aware of what the key national priorities are, and will therefore be able to make a judgment about how those priorities will be refracted in the local area so that they will be of paramount importance in the negotiation.

The local improvement targets within the LAA are not designated. They are not critical from a national point of view, but they will obviously be very important locally if one of the targets is, for example, to reduce a particular type of anti-social behaviour. Achieving that, however, will be a local priority. Such targets will obviously remain important to the LAA. The designated targets and the local targets are of equal weight in terms of the local area. Therefore, the named parties remain under a duty to have regard to them. However, those targets can be amended without reference to the Secretary of State; they will not be reported on to central government; they belong to and will be discharged by the local authority. There can be as many of them as the local authority wants.

Designated targets refer to those targets within an approved LAA which are negotiated and are of both national and local interest. However, it would be inappropriate to establish in the Bill an upper limit to the number of designated targets. We want the Bill to establish a sustainable and flexible framework for agreeing priorities in a locality. We have tried to make the process as flexible and responsive as possible. Putting an upper limit in legislation would be restrictive and arbitrary.

However, there is no doubt that we are committed to the radical reduction of targets. We want to see indicators coming down from 1,200 to 200. The LAA will be the only place in future where central government will agree targets with local authorities. There will be no other processes outside that. We also remain committed to the principle of ensuring that, where agencies and partners need to collaborate, they work towards shared targets as opposed to the present situation, where individual targets are often set separately and in conflict.

While I understood what the noble Baroness said, we believe that around 35 is a sensible number and that this issue is best dealt with in the statutory guidance. We have already said in the document, Developing the future arrangements for Local Area Agreements, that we expect LAAs to contain up to 35 improvement targets and 18 statutory early-years/education targets. I am happy to state on the record that we will reiterate that upper limit in the guidance for the next round of LAAs. I hope that that will reassure the noble Baroness.

I thank the Minister for that reply. We need the figure 35 somewhere in writing. If the Minister says that 35 targets as the upper limit will be in guidance, that is perhaps acceptable on the basis that it could then be adjusted downwards at a later stage, whereas it might be more difficult if it were in the Bill. On the basis of the Minister’s assurance that it will be in guidance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 209AA not moved.]

[Amendment No. 209B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Clause 107 agreed to.

Clause 108 [Duty to prepare and submit draft of a local area agreement]:

If Amendment No. 209ZBA is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 209BA due to pre-emption.

[Amendment No. 209ZBA not moved.]

I could have saved myself the breath.

[Amendment No. 209BA not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 209C:

My Amendment No. 209CAA would do exactly what the noble Baroness has just outlined. It also gives the Minister an opportunity to outline exactly what the Government’s expectations are of the relationship between local authorities and the voluntary sector, with regard to not only local area agreements but best value sustainable community strategies and all the other statutory arrangements that pertain.

I have Amendment No. 210 in this group. I am grateful for the comments of my noble friend earlier on my Amendment No. 205 on further education. I recognise that schools are different, although the principle of involving schools in LAAs is important. I welcome the comments that she made about statutory guidance, and I hope that she will tell me that this will also apply to schools.

The amendment proposes a mechanism by which schools would be involved. From the comments that my noble friend made, one thing that we need to remember is that partnership is a two-way street. We need to ensure that schools and further education are involved in the processes of developing LAAs as well as expected to implement them. I hope that my noble friend will respond by saying how the Government think that schools will be involved in the LAA process.

I have one amendment in this group, which is Amendment No. 209CAC. This group is about the bodies that will be consulted when the local area agreements are being put together. We are probing what,

“such other persons as appear… to be appropriate”,

actually means.

I previously suggested that local strategic partnerships should be a formal part of the local area agreement and among the partners, and I was given reasons why that should not be the case. I am now suggesting that they should be statutory consultees. I remind the Minister that we are talking not about one local strategic partnership in two-tier areas but about perhaps seven in Cumbria—that is six districts plus one county—about nine in north Yorkshire and 13 in Lancashire—that is 12 districts plus one county. So it is a lot of people.

The Government themselves said in their statement of intent that district LSPs are expected to,

“act as the overarching co-ordinating partnership”,

in that district,

“to take responsibility for cross-cutting issues”—

which presumably are all the partnership issues—

“and … ensure that district-level plans such as the Sustainable Community Strategy and the Local Development Framework take account of county-wide priorities”.

If that is so then they ought to be consulted as of right. I have to say that “ensure” is a strange word to use there, but we will leave that for the moment. This is to probe further the status and role of LSPs at district level, in what are inevitably going to be horrifically complex and convoluted countywide local area agreements, if that is what we get.

I support the points that my noble friend Lord Greaves has just made but from the perspective of a different part of the country. In Cornwall we have a very similar situation to the one he described—the LSPs are inevitably complex because of the number of participants. However, there are some general points here that need to be carefully addressed and analysed.

I heard the Minister refer just now to a “sustainable and flexible framework”. The difficulty that we are all faced with is that by developing a flexible framework you can leave some very loose ends. The dilemma constantly facing Ministers when they are trying to provide the right framework for local government is that they cannot be so directive that they are producing effectively a corset of restrictions while at the same time trying to insist on a level of delivery and consultation that is sufficiently flexible to enable the local authority to use its own intelligence—which we hope it will always have—to deal with local circumstances. All these amendments form a pattern. We are trying to devise a “sufficiently flexible framework”, to use the Minister's own expression, while not being so directive that we do not allow changing circumstances to provide changing solutions over the years.

I am reminded of the old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So often in this building, in both Houses, we try to devise a system that is not only flexible but also tries to provide a clear intention on the legislature’s behalf so that those responsible for delivery can do their very best to meet the required targets. Every time I come into this Committee I am ever more fearful of the legislation’s consequences, because it is an extremely complex Bill. I am very glad that I am no longer, and have not been for many years now, a local authority member let alone a local authority officer. I can see that a new generation of local authority officers will have to interpret this legislation in order to meet the requirements that Parliament has laid on them.

In this Bill we are not getting on the right side of the balance, and I accept that it is a very difficult balance, between providing a flexible framework and ensuring that the consultees in this case are as widely drawn as possible, while recognising the facts at local level. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that that balance has been recognised and that the Bill incorporates it.

This debate on the notion of partnership, especially as it concerns the voluntary sector, very much illustrates the notion of boundaries. We recognise the realities of how things are done and how they could be done better. It is not as though we have presented a Bill that we have invented from scratch. We are building on successful practice in local authorities. We are working with local government and the Local Government Association. This is also a challenge laid down by Michael Lyons. There is some prehistory to this to which we are responding. It means working in new ways and it will not be as simple as we would like, but the challenges of the future are not simple either. We need to use the skills and imagination that we have across the statutory and voluntary sectors. That is what this is about. I am very aware of the situation in Cornwall. It is a very good example of the voluntary sector playing a critical role in a child poverty strategy and it is an example that other parts of the country could well learn from.

Amendments Nos. 209C, 209CAA and 212RA concern how to establish credibility in relation to the voluntary sector while not overburdening it. This group of amendments would require the responsible local authority when preparing the LAA or the sustainable community strategy to consult non-statutory local area agreement partners. That is achieved in the Bill. Clause 108(2)(a)(ii) already provides that the responsible authority must consult,

“such other persons as appear to it to be appropriate”,

during these preparations. The relevant word is not “may” but “must”.

The question has been raised as to the sort of organisations that might be appropriate. That will be entirely for the local area to decide—that is where the discretion will lie—and its decision will be based on experience and ambition. However, the amendments would remove that discretion so that it would have to consult all non-statutory organisations in the area. That clearly does not make sense. We build in discretion so that it knows who the key delivery partners from that sector are. We have the experience of the LSPs, 80 per cent of which have voluntary sector umbrella organisations among their membership. Nearly two-thirds involve businesses. We have a great deal of experience on which to draw. I think that we can rely on the common sense of local authorities to do that.

Local strategic partnerships are where the collective intelligence and experience of making local area agreements resides. The ones with which I am associated and have watched in action bring together an extraordinary range of dedicated, committed and experienced people. They know what they want to achieve in their local areas and by and large they know how to do it. For the first time they have been able to work together to show how they complement and add value to each other’s work. That will continue because there is no other body like the LSPs. They will have to contribute their experience and be part of the formative process of making the LAA. There is no choice in that regard. However, for the reasons I explained, we cannot put this in statute. We cannot make them named partners or cannot refer to them as statutory consultees because they are not legal entities—they are partnerships. But, my word, they will be consulted because they will have to be. We shall make that perfectly clear in guidance if anyone is in any doubt, but I do not think that there will be any doubt at all.

I have absolutely no disagreement with my noble friend on schools. I believe passionately that schools are at the heart of our communities. We ask an inordinate amount of them and they contribute an inordinate amount to the welfare of the community far beyond what is provided in the school day and in the buildings. The 18 statutory early years and education performance targets will form part of every local area agreement. They are built up from the statutory targets that are set each year for local authority maintained schools. Schools are engaged in local partnerships in many different ways such as through children’s trusts and the Children and Young People’s Plan. That all feeds into the sustainable community strategy.

Section 38 of the Education and Inspections Act places a duty on school governing bodies to have regard to the Children and Young People’s Plan. A number of strategies make it clear that schools are involved in place shaping activity where it is appropriate. That is the point. It is a matter of burdens and effectiveness. Some local authorities have well in excess of 300 schools. Many of them are small primary schools which have a very limited capacity to contribute to strategic level discussions, as they would admit themselves. To place a duty on responsible local authorities to consult or co-operate with them without discretion would add a huge burden and huge bureaucracy. However, schools will be involved in many different and more effective ways.

I hope that the Committee is satisfied with those remarks.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Earlier we discussed the impact on residents of registered social landlords—a matter we shall come back to. The Minister’s advice was that they were not an authority or a body within the terms of the clause. The same has now been said about the voluntary and third sector. Here we have two major players in local communities which are being left on the branch on the basis that they are so important they are bound to be consulted. Voluntary organisations are not at all comfortable that that will happen unless they are added to those bodies which must be taken into account in local area agreements, and whether they are part of local strategic partnerships is not what we are talking about.

We have a problem here in that two major bodies which have a big investment in local areas are not to be included in the Bill. I think I have understood the Minister correctly, and we will probably come back to this because it is important. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 209CA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

[Amendment No. 209CAA not moved.]

[Amendment No. 209CAB had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

[Amendment No. 209CAC not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 209CB:

I hope to give the noble Lord reassurance on both sets of amendments. As regards Amendments Nos. 209CB and 212MB, the noble Lord argued that it is critical that countywide LAAs are able to reflect the different characteristics of the individual districts. The community strategy, of course, is an expression of local difference and is a vital and accurate evidence base for the local area agreement, which it will reflect to a large extent. Because we want it to be reflected in that way, we have anticipated concerns in regard to district community strategies being represented in the county strategy and we have proposed changes to the way in which a county sustainable community strategy is drawn up in Clause 116 of the Bill to ensure that counties take on districts’ priorities in the countywide plan. If the noble Lord looks at Clause 116(2), he will see that we are providing that the responsible authority, when preparing the community strategy, must consult each named partner in Clause 106, which will include district councils in two-tier areas. The views and the assessments of the needs of the county’s various districts will be taken into account by the countywide sustainable community strategy. We stated that in the local government White Paper, and we will reiterate that in guidance. I hope that will be of some help.

The noble Lord asked how the designated national targets affect what happens on the ground, which is important. In Amendment No. 210A, he has asked about the scope for targets to address specific geographical areas within the overall county and two-tier authorities. It is absolutely vital that those targets are flexible enough to address particular geographical areas. As the noble Lord said, one size will not fit all, and the example that he used of worklessness is absolutely valid. The characteristics and the needs of districts and of groups of districts will be very different across the country. Therefore, we have made arrangements within the scope of the Bill and the LAAs to set some indicators in the national indicator set to make sure that they are set at the district and neighbourhood level, and they can be picked up in the statutory guidance. The fact that they are designated targets does not mean that they will be national targets that will essentially be applied locally; they can also be set—if that is what the negotiation arrives at—by district and neighbourhood level. I hope that will reassure the noble Lord on both points.

I am very grateful to the Minister for looking at this matter quite so seriously, as it is important. This is the first flicker of light that I have seen on the horizon on this vexed issue of counties and districts and two-tier areas. I had picked up the clause that the Minister referred to. Again, the problem is that the county council as the responsible authority will be consulting districts, and that it will not be about the county and the district working it out on the basis of agreement or of equality. It comes back to the question of what is an agreement and, if there is a difference of opinion, how that will be resolved. That is where a lot of the fears are.

However, the fact that—if I understood what the Minister said, and I will read it carefully—local targets can vary locally at will, and some of the national targets will be variable locally where appropriate, is good news. It gives some hope that the very wide so-called local area agreements, which do not appear local at all to a lot of the people involved in them—they are too wide to be local—nevertheless can be broken down into localities, where they can have some meaning. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 209CC:

In speaking to Amendment No. 212 in this group, I am also concerned that many local partners which participate in LAAs still have responsibilities through their vertical relationships. Health is probably a prime example of this. A local health body would be subject to influence, targets or advice coming down to them from the regional health authority, the NHS nationally, the Department for Health and the Secretary of State himself. This can cause confusion about local targets and targets set from outside.

In the Bill, all that local partners are asked to do is simply to “have regard” to the targets in the LAA. My one-word amendment helpfully states that they should not just “have regard” to local targets—I am sure that there are laws that we all have regard to—but attain them. We need to put more responsibility on local partners to attain what they want to do.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for raising these issues. On Amendment No. 209CC, I begin by explaining why the sustainable community strategy is important. It is an evolution of the community strategies that were introduced in 2000. The purpose of the sustainable community strategy, which sets it apart from and above the specific service delivery plans and strategies, is that it must identify and address the most difficult cross-cutting issues affecting the area and respond to community views and priorities. The strategies already have to take account of national and regional priorities and established long-term goals and are the foundation of local area agreements. In future, we see LAAs as being the delivery plan for the sustainable community strategy. Their status sets them apart and beyond the other separate elements.

The police are absolutely vital partners in all this, and I respect and understand completely what the noble Baroness has said. All community partners will be—and, indeed, are—consulted on the community strategy, which obviously includes the police. As the strategy covers economic, social and environmental issues, it is also very important that other plans made locally should be more specific and less strategic. However, we will set out in guidance how the other statutory plans will relate to each other. That is very important, given what we say about the status of the sustainable community strategy overall.

The guidance is also important, and I know why the noble Baroness framed her amendment in the way that she did. Nevertheless, in the implementation plan we committed to ensuring that this and all other guidance issued by the Government relating to the White Paper would be phrased strategically. By no means should it set out every last detail on how things should be done, but it should indicate what we conceive to be best practice and solid advice. We are committed to developing that collaboratively, and we will continue to honour that commitment and to work with others—not least, for example, with the LGA.

Perhaps I may deal briefly with the substantive amendment and Amendment No. 212, tabled by my noble friend. I take on board his argument but the amendment is unnecessary. I understand that the intention behind it is to create a system that holds partners to account for delivery and not just the design of targets. That is clearly important but it is exactly what Clause 110 currently provides for. The clause states that, once the Secretary of State has approved a local area agreement and it therefore has effect, the responsible local authority and each partner authority must, when exercising their functions, have regard to every local improvement target within the local area agreement that relates to it. When they sign up to a particular target, they are saying that they agree with the target and that it lies within the scope of their individual remit to contribute to its achievement. In the light of the previous amendment that we discussed on the voluntary sector, that is a good way of putting it. Therefore, charming although it is, the amendment is not necessary. I am grateful to noble Lords.

The difficulty may be that there will be confusion and differences between the local targets that the local health partners may have signed up to on a voluntary basis. They will think that they are the right ones but may find that something different has been imposed by a regional health body. That is where we need clarification. Which target would the local health partner need to follow?

I think that that can be achieved through Clause 115, which states that the responsible local authority must publish a memorandum relating to the LAA and that it must set out all the targets in the LAA, including who has signed up to delivering them. Once that document is in front of the various partners, they should be in no doubt.

The Minister tells us that we will get a great deal from the guidance. I reiterate the plea made earlier by my noble friend—it was partly a plea and partly a common-sense comment—

A common-sense plea.

It was a common-sense plea that we need to see a draft if we are to make sense of some of the points which we would otherwise pursue on Report. I should have thought that autumn continued beyond October, so I was a bit more worried than my noble friend was when I heard that we will see the draft guidance in the autumn. I do not know whether State Opening defines the seasons.

Although he did not put it this way, my noble friend also referred to a new professional class of officers that will be required to make sense of the interrelationship between these things. I should have thought that he was entirely right about that, and it adds to my concern that we should seek to avoid creating a huge amount of paperwork as opposed to good service, which, after all, is what this should be about. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 209D:

My admiration for Essex knows no bounds. It is at the leading edge of practically every new initiative. It is a wonderful example.

The CAA will be a crucial piece of local evidence. I hear what the noble Lord said about not wanting anything heavy-handed or clumsy. The whole point of moving away from the comprehensive performance assessment is to settle on a methodology that will cover risk, to ensure that the right things are being inspected and in the right way, and not to overburden authorities. Over the next two years the Audit Commission will work with other inspectorates to develop a detailed methodology for the comprehensive area assessment. I am delighted to know that Essex will be there, with the guidance of the noble Lord.

The aim is to introduce that by April 2009. As we have to trial what will be possible and effective and to ensure security and the right amount of risk, it is not the kind of thing that we can have in place in time for the new-style local area agreements. However desirable that might be, we have to bow to reality and ensure that when it is introduced, it is as good, robust and sensitive as it can be.

It is a very important process. The LAA and the local improvement targets must reflect the analysis. However, they are only one of a number of plans and sources of data that local authorities and partners will wish to consider when looking at their performance. I agree with the noble Lord that we do not want to create a rigid and bureaucratic process that details all sources of evidence in primary legislation or imposes an impossible timetable. It is more appropriate that that link is outlined again in the statutory guidance that will accompany the Bill. I take the point made on the previous amendment about guidance. One of the reasons why we put out the statement of intent was so that noble Lords had some sense of the detail and direction. I hope the Committee found that useful and that the noble Lord will be able to accept that explanation on his amendment.

I thank the Minister for that response. My understanding is that the Audit Commission could be ready for piloting and introducing the CAA in the middle of next year. It seems a bit pointless, right at the end of a much more target-based, detailed process, and when we want to move into the wider partnership basis of a CAA, for those authorities to wait until Christmas next year. I hope that the Minister will look again at the phasing out of the old process and the phasing in of the new one. It seems ridiculous to be doing two at the same time if there is going to be a pilot for the CAA. This is Essex’s point of view. Perhaps the Minister might look at the timing and discuss with the Audit Commission what would be a practical way of doing it next year. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 210 and 210A not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 210B:

I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness, because I think that she has possibly misread Clause 108(4), which is not at all usual for her. She seems to think that the Secretary of State would have to consult representatives of partner authorities only where they were also part of local government; for example, a fire and rescue authority or joint waste authority. In fact, it provides that the Secretary of State must consult both representatives of local government and representatives of partner authorities. It treats partner authorities in exactly the same way as it treats local government, and I assure the noble Baroness that the amendment is unnecessary and the Bill provides what she wants. That is the meaning of that subsection.

I am grateful for that. The provision does refer to,

“such representatives of local government (including representatives of partner authorities)”,

but there we go. I am perfectly willing to believe I have misread it, but I still do not see it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 210C and 210D not moved.]

Clause 108 agreed to.

Clause 109 [Approval of draft local area agreement by Secretary of State]:

moved Amendment No. 211:

I am very grateful for the opportunity to write.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 211A:

Amendment No. 212BA, which is tabled in my name, is a little gem among this large group of amendments. It probes the Minister on a similar issue: the role of the Secretary of State in altering designated targets. The Bill establishes a procedure through which a local authority is required to go if it wishes to amend a target. I should like to give the Minister the opportunity to explain a little more about how this works because the Bill suggests that it is a pretty cumbersome process. If a local authority needed to amend one of these targets, it could be in for a pretty lengthy procedure. Will she also say how this will be done? Will it be done by the Secretary of State in the form of a government regional office? Will there be any indication of how long it might take to alter one of these targets as I can see that it might end up sitting on someone’s desk for quite some time? Will she also confirm that these provisions apply to the national targets rather than to the locally agreed ones?

I have two amendments in the group. Amendment No. 212CA is on a different issue altogether and I shall speak briefly to it when we get to the clause stand part debate. Amendment No. 212MA appears to be a computer error—at least, that is my excuse.

This is an important group of amendments because it focuses on the role of the Secretary of State and the degree of power in designating local improvement targets and the balance of power between the responsible authority and partner authority in changing local improvement targets as part of revision proposals. They are clearly two areas of concern.

I will not reiterate everything I said earlier about the making of targets, as I went into that in some detail. All I will say is that we are trying to ensure that all signatories to the agreements, whether it is the Secretary of State, the responsible authority, a named partner, or another voluntary partner, are treated appropriately in the whole process of determining, refining, submitting and revising targets.

We know that the LAA will comprise a series of local improvement targets, which will have been agreed to, and through that process partners around the table will have identified their local priorities and set targets against them. In doing so, they will have identified which local targets are drawn from the core national policy priorities as identified in the national indicator set.

When the draft LAA goes to the Secretary of State, via the government office and has been approved, the Secretary of State on behalf of the Government collectively will formally “designate” those targets which are of key national importance and which will have been drawn from the national indicator set. So it is working from the bottom upwards in an iterative way. As I have said, those designated targets will hardly come as a surprise because people have been looking at the indicator set, looking at their local circumstances and relating the one to the other.

The local improvement targets within the LAA that are not designated remain in the LAA and, vitally, they have equal weight in the agreement; hence the named parties remain under a duty to have regard. They can be amended without the consent of the Secretary of State and will not be reported on to central government. Local improvement targets, which have been signed up to voluntarily by partners who are not named partners in the Bill, are also part of the LAA, but those partners, as we agreed earlier, are not bound by the duty to have regard to the targets.

That is the model and those are our expectations. This group of amendments, therefore, seeks to differentiate from the outset of the LAA negotiation those targets which are of national importance and those which are of purely local interest, and to treat the two sets of targets very differently throughout the process. However, the distinction between national targets and purely local ones will not always be clear cut. Let me explain. They will need to be teased out in negotiation. For example, Sheffield is in the current feasibility testing. It is looking to tackle health inequalities in relation to the 2010 life expectancy target. The target may be one included as one of the national indicator set. That would make sense as life expectancy is a large target. However, Sheffield has already met the national target and, as such, it may not be designated. There is no need for that. As it wants to continue improving health inequalities in the area, it could include a more stretching or demanding target in its LAA as a local improvement target. That is a way of demonstrating that the LAA is a mechanism not just to address areas of poor performance—to catch up—but also to deliver greater local ambition.

Amendment No. 209A, which we discussed in a previous group, has a bearing on Amendment No. 211A. It sought to define national improvement targets as,

“a national target for improvement designated by the Secretary of State in respect of which there shall be a maximum number of 35”.

That amendment and Amendment No. 211A, which would require the Secretary of State to designate national targets only at approval stage, would be unworkable. Amendment No. 209A defines a national target as one that has been designated, while Amendment No. 211A would allow the Secretary of State to designate only a national target; that is, one that has been designated. The process would be circular, and we must be careful not to fall into that sort of trap.

I think that the noble Baroness has answered a question that I was going to ask later—so I will not ask it now. As I understand it, locally agreed targets agreed outside the process of setting up an LAA or a revision proposal and agreed just between the partners have to be unanimous. In other words, the partner affected by it can veto it and, if it does that, it does not go ahead. For example, if a county council, which was a responsible authority proposed a change and the district said no, it would not happen, but if it happened as part of a revision proposal and went to the Secretary of State, the requirement for unanimity would not be there. Have I read it correctly?

I am not sure that the noble Lord has or that I quite understand the point. The idea of a negotiated process is that everyone is in agreement and that everyone signs up. But I am told that the noble Lord is not quite right, so I will have to look at that and write to him. It is important to spell that process out.

I am very grateful for that. The Minister seems to think that national indicators will be set to give an idea of the kind of things that might be designated, but not necessarily, in certain circumstances. There will be no involvement of the Secretary of State until the proposal comes in for the local area agreement or for a revision proposal. At that stage the Secretary of State will designate some of the targets which have been set locally. Is that not the case?

We are talking about two processes. When the targets are negotiated with the local authority by the regional office representing the Secretary of State they will have regard to the 200 indicators. We used the example of worklessness, but we could use reducing childhood obesity, which might be sufficiently important across the country for every local authority to have a plan for dealing with it. They will have a very good idea of those designated targets because they will reflect those national priorities.

Those national targets will be formally designated when they go to the Secretary of State, but the whole local area agreement will go to the Secretary of State to be signed off. It will be a formal process because the regional offices will be involved. When there is a revision, the Secretary of State will come into the process. The LAA will request a revision and there will be negotiation about why it is necessary and which of the targets have changed. As I have said, in a national emergency, there would be a new designated target to which all local authorities should have regard. This is all speculative, but the first process is the essential process.

I am most grateful for that response. It explained how discussion and negotiation will work between the responsible authority and the regional office acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, which will be fundamental to the process but is not obvious from simply reading the Bill. That is what I was trying to tease out of the Minister.

I have a question after listening to that exchange. I would like to understand some of the terminology. The phrase “the person to whom the target in question is to relate” has been used a good deal. Am I to understand that that is in fact equivalent to “a person subject to the target”? “Person to whom a target may relate” is potentially very wide but, where consent is required, I suspect that one could not go as wide as that, and that it will be someone who is subject to the target.

That is my understanding. It is the person or organisation charged with delivery.

I thank the Minister for her usual—I was going to say “urbane”, but I mean “competent”—reply to an enormous number of questions. This is an important area, because we are in some disagreement about how much the Secretary of State should be involved in the whole question of local area agreements and how much she ought to be able to bring national focus into those agreements.

There were a great number of amendments, which shifted slightly in different directions; that is the trouble with a mega-grouping. The Minister kindly replied to all of them. I want to read those replies again and see the exact emphasis, but I must make it clear to the Minister, as I am sure is clear from the amendments, that we are unhappy, even now, about the extent of the role that the Secretary of State will play in local area agreements and the amount of influence that will be wielded in negotiations by the government offices representing the Secretary of State. I feel sure we will come back to this aspect of the Bill in some way, even if not to the same amendments, at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 211B:

The noble Lord has raised an important point. For the new statutory LAAs to work, there is no doubt that everybody must act in an appropriate and timely fashion. Without a clear understanding of timings, there is the potential for delay and agreements could become out of date. We intend to put the timetable for clearance expected of central government into guidance. That is probably better than putting it in the Bill. We will show how that can be arrived at through partnership. We will also make sure that all the partners are on board when those expectations for timing are set. That will include the behaviour that is expected of central government as well.

That is all that I can commit to on the record. I cannot give the noble Lord any details of the timetable other than the one month that is specified in the Bill for the designation of targets. However, I acknowledge what he said. We will certainly think about the timetable. If it is in guidance, we will have some flexibility to get it right.

I shall give the Minister six and a half out of 10 for that, which is probably a pass. Guidance is better than nothing. It would be nice to know what it is going to say. We will look forward to that with interest. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 109 agreed to.

Clause 110 [Duty to have regard to local improvement targets]:

[Amendments Nos. 211C and 212 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 212ZA:

It is unlikely that there would be a conflict. It is rather counterproductive to have a conflict in a local area agreement. We are clear that the LAA targets must be derived from the priorities identified in the sustainable communities strategy. That is agreed as the overarching plan only when everybody has agreed what that community needs to sustain itself economically and so on. Local authorities have the opportunity to set out in that strategy the agenda that they believe the area should follow. There is no implication that the commitments which the local authorities have publicly made can be ignored or negated by the process.

The whole point about the scope of the new performance framework is that it covers everything that the local authority does on its own or in partnership with others. Certainly, central government are not going to be involved in any targets other than the designated ones; that is the only place where the two bits of government will meet. That does not mean that local authorities cannot have their own additional targets, plans or strategies, but central government will not be involved in agreeing them. I would not want to say that this will never happen but, given the fact that these agreements will be the product of so much prehistory and sustained relationships, those sorts of issues will have to be resolved before they come forward. There will be things that people will not be able to agree about and I am sure that they will not end up being identified as targets because, by definition, deliverability will be an issue in such instances.

I know that the noble Lord is speaking from experience but, with these caveats in place, I hope that we can be fairly optimistic about this.

I am always happy to be optimistic but it does not always work out like that. If the Minister thinks that there will not be conflicts and difficulties, she is not necessarily observing the real world that we will see—but we will see it in practice.

Local authorities nowadays possess great big piles of strategies, plans and all sorts of things and employ loads of people to produce them. Ten or 15 years ago, most of these did not exist, but are the authorities that much better as a result of having all these strategies and plans? I would hope that as a result of local area agreements, if this system comes in and is found to be practical and works, the Government may find that as part of the letting go process to which the Minister referred on our first day in Committee most of these other strategies and plans could be done away with. In my experience, a large number of them are produced in many authorities; they go through the inspections, get the ticks and the rest of it and are then put on shelves and brought out again the next time they have to be revised. Meanwhile, everyone gets on with providing the services and making the investment that everyone was going to do anyway. A lot of people in local authorities are being employed on non-productive work at the moment when they could be redeployed on frontline services, producing things. My fear about local area agreements is that they will make the situation worse.

I have one final anecdote. When I got back on a local authority three years ago, I was aware of all these things and asked for a copy of them all. I was asked whether I really wanted them because it would be an inordinate use of the council’s resources for someone to go around and find them all. We have improved a bit in the past three years and that is no longer the case—or I hope not—but there is a serious problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 212ZB:

I am very happy to join the noble Lord in his gesture of defiance; I am passionately in favour of local democracy and think that that is what local area agreements are about—not least the democracy of partnership which will require people to work together in ways at which they have not succeeded in the past, for the good of the local community. It seems nothing but more likely that, once those priorities and the needs of local premium are properly articulated, people coming forward for election will have a very clear idea of their duty. Nothing will take away the independent voice of the local councillor. Elected councillors do not by themselves come under the scope of the duty to have regard to LAA targets. We will always have people such as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in local government and they will always be a defiant and important voice. Although we hope that they will subscribe and support LAA targets, the council’s role will go far beyond that. I recognise the defiance and think that that is echoed round the Committee.

Could the noble Baroness say what would be the position of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, or someone else elected to a council if there was new political control in an authority and they really did not agree with the agreed targets? The targets may not match their political priorities and may not even match their manifesto commitments. Would there be enough of a process for them to do what they were elected to do and change the direction of the council?

As for the social targets that will be negotiated, it is hard to think of a political party that would be for worklessness or childhood obesity. Those targets should stand above party politics because they are in the national interest, and the national interest serves the nation. Most of those targets will be self-evidently important and important locally. If the situation which the noble Baroness describes should come about, there would be an opportunity to revise the targets. Certainly the local targets can be revised at any time at all without reference to the Secretary of State.

The targets will reflect priorities. Of course nobody will be for worklessness; the issue is how you place the different concerns against one another as well as separately in their own little pigeon holes. That is what politics is so much about—the comparisons and priorities. My noble friends have raised extremely important questions. We have talked before on this Bill about the importance of encouraging people to come into local government and our related structural concerns. If they feel that they cannot affect priorities, that is another disincentive to getting involved and stuck in politically as distinct from, for instance, through a special interest organisation.

I reiterate that these arrangements give added purpose and focus to local politics because the local area agreement visualises what the local area is about and why it is important. But the noble Baroness is absolutely right that if a new set of councillors with different preoccupations and priorities is elected, politics is the language of priorities, in the famous words. They may well seek to have different local priorities and may well feel that anti-social behaviour is a higher priority than something which another party might have elevated above that. Clearly, this will be a matter for local discretion; that is what devolution is about.

It does not feel very much like that in local government at the moment. It is right to say that things can be done but we have to do them almost by getting round the system and operating it—I do not want to say fiddle the system—in ways that were not necessarily intended, and it is not easy.

I ought to respond to the suggestion that there are “lots of people like Lord Greaves in local government”. I assure the Minister that I do not think there are, for good or ill. No doubt she is pleased that there are not very many of us here either, especially at half past 10 on a Committee night. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 110 agreed to.

Clause 111 [Designated targets]:

[Amendments Nos. 212A and 212B not moved.]

Clause 111 agreed to.

Clause 112 [Revision and addition of targets]:

[Amendments Nos. 212BA to 212E not moved.]

Clause 112 agreed to.

Clause 113 [Designated targets: revision proposals]:

[Amendments Nos. 212EA to 212P not moved.]

Clause 113 agreed to.

Clause 114 [Approval of revision proposal]:

[Amendments Nos. 212Q and 212QA not moved.]

Clause 114 agreed to.

Clause 115 [Duty to publish information about local area agreement]:

[Amendment No. 212R not moved.]

Clause 115 agreed to.

Clause 116 [Preparation of community strategy]:

[Amendment No. 212RA not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 212RB:

The noble Baroness is absolutely right to say that this is an important matter, and it is rather nice to have the memory of the GLA Bill raised at this point. We made it clear in the local government White Paper that councils would have a pivotal role to play in achieving sustainable development and mitigating and adapting to climate change. Indeed, it is a great pleasure to see how many local authorities are doing so, with places such as Nottingham at the forefront. I am completely sympathetic to the aims of the amendment, but I do not think we can privilege any policy, however worthy, above others in the well-being power framework, because it would distort its purpose. Further, it would invite a range of other amendments from those who felt equally strongly about other issues. It would not add anything to the current legislation.

Section 3 of the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006 already places a duty on local authorities when exercising their functions to have regard to reports published by the Secretary of State on ways in which they might improve energy efficiency, increase microgeneration, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, alleviate fuel poverty and so on. At this moment, the new Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform is consulting on the shape that report will take, but it is anticipated that it will set out steps that local authorities can take to do all those things through land-use planning, building control, transport and waste management, housing and so forth, particularly in improving energy efficiency. Things are happening fast in this area, and a whole range of actions will help local authorities to take forward these issues.

With that information, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

It would wake some people up if I did not do so. I realise that the current Climate Change Bill will deal with these matters, but I do not agree that this should not be dealt with on its own. However, I shall not develop the argument at this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 116 agreed to.

Clause 117 [Orders under Part 1 of Local Government Act 2000: Wales]:

moved Amendment No. 213:

moved Amendment No. 214:

moved Amendment No. 214ZA:

The other amendment in this group stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott. It would provide that the Secretary of State should publish comments on each assessment of relevant needs and on the funding to meet them. I was prompted to table this amendment, not because I have any doubt that working together is a good thing—indeed, co-operation between the social services, other parts of local authorities and the health services is hugely important to the clients—but because of the “cost shunting”, which I think is the term used, by the health services on to local government. Colleagues currently serving in local government tell me that this exercises them very much and has become a big problem, particularly recently. The amendment would not address it, but at least it will bring the issue into the light of day. I feel it is important to raise it.

As noble Lords will know by now, we are trying to drive coherence across an area, and that coherence will obviously involve health and social care as well as all the other things that local authorities do. It is very important that there is one joint strategic needs assessment. That is new, and it is extremely important that it is there, with all the PCTs joined, if there is more than one PCT in an area. The suggestion that somehow each PCT should negotiate separately would completely undermine the purpose of that. The PCTs in a local authority’s geographical boundaries will feed into the same joint strategic needs assessment, and that will help to identify the health and well-being needs of the whole area.

That was a more disappointing answer than the last one that I got on diversity, but I will read Hansard carefully. I do not want to continue the debate tonight, except to say that PCTs are interested in their own areas, and it is not clear to me whether they will have to come together before they negotiate with the wider authority. The noble Baroness said that she did not want them to negotiate separately. I am not sure about “separately”, but each PCT will want to negotiate on behalf of its own area, and it will not be interested in another area on the other side of a far-flung county, perhaps 50 miles away. There is thought to be had there but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 214ZB not moved.]

Clause 118 agreed to.

Clause 119 [Interpretation of Chapter]:

[Amendment No. 214A not moved.]

Clause 119 agreed to.

Clause 120 agreed to.

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.