Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 126, in clause 81, page 54, line 40, after ‘authority’, insert—

‘( ) other non-statutory partners to the Local Area Agreement’.

Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 127, in clause 86, page 57, line 9, after ‘authority’, insert—

‘( ) other non-statutory partners to the Local Area Agreement’.

Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

The amendment gives us an opportunity to talk about the importance of the voluntary sector and the involvement of non-statutory  partners. The voluntary and independent sectors are important in the future of local government.

I have the honour to sit with the hon. Member for High Peak on the Commission on the Future of Volunteering, which was set up last year by Volunteering England, under the leadership of Baroness Neuberger. We are conducting a review of what is currently happening in volunteering around the country and hope to make recommendations in future about how volunteering can be spread even further throughout society and be made most effective.

On talking to groups that involve volunteers, one cannot doubt that their engagement as service providers throughout the community and the increasing reliance of local authorities and other statutory authorities on volunteers is a key issue for them. Most volunteers, who come into organisations to be useful and to provide something for society, are only too pleased to work hand in hand with the statutory authorities that need them. Equally, however, they do not want that enthusiasm to be drowned out in the process of making contracts and find their determination to work being channelled in such a way that they are not necessarily volunteering on their own behalf, but feel more that they are being asked to follow somebody else’s agenda, which detracts from the spirit that brought them into volunteering. I say that simply to illustrate how important their commitment and involvement is. The amendments are designed to give them statutory recognition in a way that the clause does not quite do.

The clause is permissive. It allows, in subsection (2)(a)(ii), for the responsible local authority to consult

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

as opposed to “each partner authority”, with which it must consult. That provision would cover bringing on board those in voluntary organisations and others. However, the amendment states that where such people have been engaged as partners, they should have a status beyond that of any others and should not be brought along as an afterthought.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

Is the hon. Gentleman talking about individual voluntary sector organisations, umbrella associations of voluntary organisations, or both?

Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I am talking specifically about those who have been engaged as partners within an area agreement, so that will vary according to what the agreement is. I am trying to ensure that, when consultation is taking place, the involvement of those people will not simply depend on whether the authority considers them to be “appropriate”, but will be mandatory because of what they are doing and how they are working with a local authority.

Let me expand on the role of the voluntary sector, because it is important to put in on the record. I thank the National Council for Voluntary Organisations for the briefing that it provided for Committee members, to which I am referring. In its main briefing, when referring to the whole background to the Bill, it states:

“The future of local government is a key issue for the voluntary and community sector. The sector is particularly keen  to see modernisation and change in partnership working, scrutiny and accountability, best value, community governance and capacity building support for the VCS...Voluntary and community organisations interact with local authorities and other statutory organisations in numerous ways and at numerous levels, playing three very important roles...they provide information and give advice to individuals or communities; they enable people’s voices to be heard, by supporting and encouraging people and communities or by acting as advocates (very often for marginalised groups who may not have any other way of being heard) and they provide activities and services.”

I am particularly concerned with that third element.

It would be appropriate for the Government to recognise the involvement of the sector in providing services by following it through under the amendment. Voluntary and community organisations need to be involved in the local area agreement process from the outset and enabled to engage fully with the agreement process, setting targets and discussing funding. It is important to recognise that, for many voluntary and community organisations, risks are inherent in the LAA approach. Whereas good local authorities will make use of the freedoms and flexibilities to determine their own priorities in partnership with a broad range of local stakeholders, others will take the opportunity to pull back all control to themselves. If local partnerships are to be benefit from the sector’s expertise and insight into such issues, there must be support, including some financial support, to facilitate the sector’s engagement.

Alison Seabeck (PPS (Rt Hon Geoff Hoon, Minister of State), Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s points—indeed, I made some of them myself on Second Reading. However, the voluntary sector is a complex beast. Some voluntary sector organisations are engaged in partnerships and deliver services, while others work within the community but none the less regard themselves as partners. I am not sure how the amendment can differentiate clearly or whether the requirement should be in the Bill or be covered by guidance.

Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point. When voluntary organisations are involved formally in partnerships, they ought to be statutory consultees. When they are not formally involved and are fulfilling the role that she mentioned, they are properly covered by subsection (2)(a)(ii).

Alison Seabeck (PPS (Rt Hon Geoff Hoon, Minister of State), Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman will be aware from his experience that voluntary organisations move in and out of partnerships, according to what is available and other factors. Is there enough flexibility to accommodate that movement?

Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

Again, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making a fair point. The problems of voluntary organisations and their contractual arrangements, and how difficult it sometimes is, particularly as they come to an end of a contract, to know whether it will continue and whether they will survive, are a wholly different debate.

I maintain that the position is clear. When voluntary organisations are involved in a partnership, they should have the opportunity statutorily to be joined with other partner authorities and be a key part of the  consultation process. I appreciate that they are included elsewhere in the Bill, but I want to put on record their opportunity to take that chance and be consulted in a particular way.

I have explained the purpose of the amendment, but I think that all of us would pay tribute to the work done by voluntary organisations and their tremendous provision of services. If those reading and following the proceedings of the Committee wish to give evidence to the Commission on the Future of Volunteering, I ask them please to take the opportunity to go to the appropriate website. The commission offers them a tremendous chance to get on the record their views on where they think volunteering is going and to talk about some of the difficulties they encounter. The intention behind the commission is that it should benefit everyone by creating better and stronger partnerships in the future. I should be grateful if the Minister would recognise the strength of the amendments and give them a fair wind.

Tom Levitt (PPS (Rt Hon Hilary Benn, Secretary of State), Department for International Development; High Peak, Labour)

It is indeed a pleasure to follow my fellow member of the Commission on the Future of Volunteering. I am happy to endorse in principle pretty well everything that he said, especially asking people not only to visit the website, but the consultation events, some of which both he and I will be chairing throughout the country during the next few months.

As well as being chairman of the Community Development Foundation, which is a Government appointment, I chair the all-party parliamentary group on the community and voluntary sector, the administration of which is provided by the NCVO, which provided us with the briefing on the amendment. The NCVO also provided a rather excellent gala dinner last night, which is perhaps why I was a little subdued this morning.

The NCVO strongly supports the thrust of the amendment, and quite rightly so. I am very sympathetic myself. I hope that the Ministers will go away and think about the implications of the amendment and some of the strong points that the hon. Gentleman has just made, and then come back with an amendment that encapsulates rather better the arrangements for those voluntary sector organisations that are partners in the delivery of services and in local agreements of one form or another. I believe that local strategic partnerships and local area agreements are going to become very much more important, with an ever greater role for the voluntary sector as formal members of those organisations.

Healthy communities, which is what the Bill is all about, are those where the third sector is active and involved. It is involved in three ways: delivering services; representing people through processes of consultation; and, on a 24-hour-a-day basis, serving the communities in other ways. Communities themselves often give birth to those organisations, particularly in what we now call the community sector, as opposed to the more vertical silos of the old idea of the voluntary sector. In my constituency there are some smashing examples of voluntary sector organisations engaging with the formal partners in service delivery in many different ways.

The community in Gamesley, which is among the 10 per cent. most deprived wards in the country, has a  wonderful infrastructure, with public and voluntary sector partners operating in many different ways. I was very pleased when £250,000 of lottery money for community development was awarded to the ward just before Christmas. High Peak Community Housing is the arm’s length management organisation serving the Gamesley community; the ALMO management board, which in effect consists of volunteers, is chaired by the former chair of the Gamesley residents association. I was very impressed when High Peak Community Housing was represented at a local voluntary sector forum, which I organised with my hon. Friend the Minister for the Third Sector in my constituency just a couple of weeks ago.

I contrast that with what I overhead at a conference on local strategic partnerships about 18 months ago. Two councillors, who did not know each other previously, were talking. One said to the other, “I don’t know who these voluntary sector people think they are. Don’t they realise that we are the elected people around here? It is our responsibility to deliver services.” The other replied, “We don’t have that problem with voluntary sector people on our LSP. We don’t have voluntary sector people on our LSP.” Both those attitudes and experiences will, I hope, be things of the past, because of the extra qualities and value that can be obtained for services through working in partnership with the community and voluntary sector.

High Peak borough council is acknowledged as a beacon council for partnership working and, in that sense, the league tables published by the Audit Commission, which have already been mentioned a couple of times today, are perhaps a little remiss. Although they look at a number of important ways of assessing the performance of local councils, they do not take partnership working into account. I hope that we can add the way in which councils engage with partners to those league tables of achievements. Indeed, my local strategic partnership has for much of its life been chaired by a voluntary sector representative, partly because there are two local authorities—district councils—involved. Therefore, the voluntary sector representative held the balance, rather than one or other of the local authorities taking control.

Good councils and good councillors see a strong voluntary sector, and a strong community sector, as an opportunity and not as a threat. That concept is shared across the House—I am sure that the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire would agree with it. That is why he feels that the amendment is necessary, and it is a matter on which I agree in principle.

Local strategic partnerships have got to include the third sector. It is now, and will be in the future, an essential dimension for them to have, not least because the voluntary sector will be a key provider of services, and that will present challenges to the sector and to partners. I digress by saying that there are issues about local area agreements that will have to be addressed—perhaps in the Bill or in other legislation. There are fears in the sector that smaller providers of services will get pushed out of the procurement process by the bigger boys—those who can perhaps deliver a county-wide service. There may be an organisation that delivers a county-wide service in the next county.

There has to be a continuing role for local service delivery and local partners. That is why I hope that the Minister will give some consideration to making local area agreements the norm for the contractual basis of service delivery by partners such as those in the voluntary sector. Putting local area agreements on to a stronger statutory basis, as is called for in the LGA’s briefing, would be valuable and is well worth considering. The way in which local area agreements and local strategic partnerships function should be subject to the local authority scrutiny process more formally than perhaps they are.

While I am speaking to amendment No. 126, I will draw to the attention of the Minister the briefing given by the English National Parks Authorities Association. The matter is not related to the discussion about the voluntary sector, and perhaps discussion of it might more properly belong in a clause stand part debate, but national parks authorities could well be covered by the text of the amendment. I hope that, if necessary, we can build in to the provisions the idea of ensuring that the development and management plans drawn up by national park authorities are not challenged or undermined by decisions taken in the consultation processes. There are national parks in both the Minister’s constituency and in mine, and he will recognise that nothing in the Bill should undermine how national parks principles are adopted.

I have some questions to put to the Minister. Will he ensure that national park management plans are fully respected and not undermined by the process? Will he put consultation with the community and voluntary sector on some form or other of a statutory basis, although not necessarily conforming to the wording of the amendment? Will he look at the issue of whether LSPs and LAAs are included in scrutiny procedures? Will he look at the pros and cons of having LAAs as the basic unit of delivery, and therefore of procurement?

We are yet to see what guidance comes out in relation to clause 81, and what regulations are presented in respect of it, and we will not see them in Committee. Nevertheless, the Minister’s words will be in Hansard and I hope that the powerful words spoken by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire, and my own modest contribution, will enable the Minister to go away and think carefully about the matter and that perhaps the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment in favour of finding something about which we can all agree.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

Let me try to explain to the Committee the Government’s routeway of meeting the objectives that my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak and the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire have set. There are three main problems in addressing the issue. First, the voluntary and community sector, and the business sector, are not statutory bodies, so one has to take a different approach to them. Secondly, as constituency Members of Parliament know, the size and scope of voluntary bodies vary enormously, ranging from one or two people undertaking worthwhile causes in localised geographical areas to big organisations such as Age Concern, which in my constituency delivers more than half the social services for the elderly on behalf of the public.

The third problem can be summed up as, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.” Some local authorities unfortunately display the attitude that my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak outlined: they see the voluntary and community sector and the business sector as a nuisance or a fly in the ointment, because they believe that they are not accountable as councils are and that they are sometimes the awkward squad. Sometimes organisations in those sectors are the awkward squad because the voluntary, charitable sector has an advocacy role, as well as that of service delivery. Hon. Members will recall that the Charities Act 2006 grappled with that problem.

If Mr. Chope were here, I am sure that he would back me up when I say that Local Government Ministers spend half their time listening to the voluntary sector’s complaints about councils and the other half listening to the councils’ complaints about the voluntary sector. That is the negative side.

The positive side is that we cannot deliver our agenda in local communities without the voluntary sector. We cannot involve people, or consult them, or reconnect people with policy, let alone politics, without the voluntary sector. We cannot get the innovation, the focus, the flexibility or, crucially, the trust of the public without the voluntary sector facilitating the relationship.

What is the Government’s routeway through the Bill? I refer hon. Members to the clauses on local area agreements and to future clauses on overview and scrutiny, on best value and on the duty to involve and consult, which is directly relevant outside the framework of the duty to co-operate with partners.

The amendments would require the local authority when it is preparing its local area agreement or a revision to consult non-statutory local area agreement partners. Clauses 81 and 86 provide for the local authority to consult

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

when preparing a draft local area agreement or a revision proposal. Using those provisions, we would expect local authorities to consult relevant non-statutory organisations and persons. In other words, that part of the Bill puts the onus on the local authority, or gives it the option, to consult, in a way that it sees fit, the non-statutory sector; but that does not satisfy the demand of the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire who wants to be able to say that it should have to do so. I believe my routeway does what he wants while avoiding the pitfalls that relate to the fact that these are non-statutory bodies.

Tom Levitt (PPS (Rt Hon Hilary Benn, Secretary of State), Department for International Development; High Peak, Labour)

I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification and for referring the Committee to clause 86. Will there be a mechanism by which a voluntary sector organisation that believes that it is an appropriate consultee can insist on, or at least appeal against, a decision that is taken not to include it in the consultation?

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

The problem with having experts on Committees is that they ask expert questions. My answer is that I think such an organisation can already do so, but I will check on it.

I will finish my point, which I hope will satisfy my hon. Friend. What is different, and what is changing—I completely agree with the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire—is that the voluntary and community sector should be part of the LSP. Indeed, it must be part of the LSP under the guidance that results from this Bill. That is an important policy development, which the Government have discussed with colleagues in the Cabinet Office and the third sector. The LSP is subject to overview and scrutiny, and the LSP consultation that we held earlier this year and last year welcomed the proposal. There was strong support for the idea that the voluntary and community sector should be part of the LSP—it was stronger than I expected, given my scepticism, which I indicated to the Committee before.

It might benefit the Committee if I report that independent evaluation of existing LAAs shows that the voluntary and community sector’s role in an LAA is increasing. That is to be welcomed, and we need to build on it. What will that mean for partners who are not named as service providers and community representatives? The answer is that the LSP must represent the full range of service providers as well as the local community. It is critical that non-statutory organisations, including voluntary community groups and businesses, are part of the LSP and, consequently, part of the process for determining targets—either as members of the LSP or of its thematic partnerships, or engaging by other routes.

Another important point, which, I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak, confirms that my guesstimate was correct, is that if the body were relevant to the local authority, the local authority would have to consult or risk the consultation being invalid. In other words, it must act reasonably. If the body were to say that it had a right to be consulted and had not been—that is, to show that the local authority had acted unreasonably—it could challenge it.

I can go further; that is why I asked the question of the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire. In practice, it is often the case that the VCS is understandably and rightly represented by an association of voluntary bodies within the local area, an umbrella group that acts as a service provider to the voluntary sector and as an advocate for it—a channel. We have to ask, therefore, whether we could establish a process for duly constituted and recognised associations to be included as statutory partners. We would still have the problem that they would not be statutory bodies. Therefore, my intention is that such bodies should be included within the statutory guidelines. Indeed—if you will allow me to stray from the amendment just on this point, Mr. Benton—as part of the Government’s wider community cohesion strategy, which is outlined in chapter 6 of the local government White Paper, we state our intention to build the capacity of the VCS in each area through such a provision.

By including the necessity in the LSP, by including the overall duty to consult and involve, and by including in the statutory guidance the role that the VCS should play, we believe that we can build on what is already happening, and I can avoid the problems that I would have had in this Committee had I named the VCS and the business sector as statutory bodies. I note  that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South, who is a former council leader, and others here who have experience were nodding in recognition of that point.

I hope that that addresses the issue that the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire raises in his amendment, but I accept that the full picture will not be clear until we have debated further clauses, so I ask for his indulgence in that regard.

Tom Levitt (PPS (Rt Hon Hilary Benn, Secretary of State), Department for International Development; High Peak, Labour)

Will my hon. Friend address the matter of not undermining national park values?

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

I do apologise to my hon. Friend. I missed that point in my efforts to explain the voluntary and community sector issue. He and I share a boundary and share a national park and he knows of the importance of this issue. The national parks are named; they are a statutory body; they are a partner in this process that we have described; and they are local authorities. So the answer to the question is yes.

Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I appreciate the Minister’s remarks. As usual he has taken the matter genuinely and seriously. We look forward to the explanations on the rest of the Bill and the statutory guidance that the Under-Secretary mentioned may well do the trick. We will talk further with the NCVO and others, but I hope that we will find a way through to deliver what it is looking for. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Robert Syms (Shadow Minister (Local Government), Communities and Local Government; Poole, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 89, in clause 81, page 55, line 3, after ‘being’, insert—

‘( ) the interests of the commissioners of general medical services;

( ) any guidance issued by the Director of Public Health;

( ) any guidance issued by the Chief Medical Officer;’.

Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 90, in clause 81, page 55, line 11, after ‘authorities)’, insert

‘the Director of Public Health, the Chief Medical Officer’.

Robert Syms (Shadow Minister (Local Government), Communities and Local Government; Poole, Conservative)

These amendments pick up the theme of proper consultation. The reference to the director of public health and the chief medical officer could be described as the dead turkey part of the Bill. I should be interested to learn why these amendments are totally misguided. Perhaps the Minister will give us the benefit of his advice.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

The effect of amendment No. 89 would be that the local authority would have to have regard to the interests of the commissioners of general medical services, to any guidance issued by the director of public health and to any guidance issued by the chief medical officer when it is preparing its local area agreement. The effect of amendment No. 90 would be that the Secretary of State, before issuing his guidance, would have to consult the director of public health and the chief medical officer rather than just

“such representatives of local government (including representatives of partner authorities) and such other persons (if any) as he considers appropriate.”

There is already a link in this Bill between the persons named in the amendment and the process of negotiating local area agreements. Primary care trusts are commissioners of general medical services and they must themselves have regard to guidance issued by the director of public health and the chief medical officer. Primary care trusts are included in the list of partner authorities in clause 79(2)(i), and clause 81(2)(b) states that a responsible local authority must co-operate with each partner authority.

It will therefore be through the primary care trust, as the commissioner of general medical services, and its negotiations with responsible local authorities and other partners, that any guidance issued by the directors of public health and the chief medical officer will be taken into account when targets relating to health matters are being negotiated. That model fits in with our devolutionary approach because it works through the PCTs.

The serious point is that the goals and the targets of the general medical services and the director of public health are very important to local authorities in working for their communities. We are talking here about longevity, heart and lung disease and ensuring that all the partners move towards promoting good health. It strikes at the heart of why partnership is important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford pointed out, the activities of a school through the provision of meals, fruit, exercise and sports can have a huge impact. It can have a bigger impact on public health in the long run than the direct work of the acute services in the hospital, for example.

The hon. Member for Poole makes a valid point, but we believe that we can cover it through the primary care trust, which now has 80 per cent. coterminosity in this country due to the sensible reorganisation of the health services that we undertook in consultation with the Department of Health before the framework was put into place. That is the answer to the question.

Robert Syms (Shadow Minister (Local Government), Communities and Local Government; Poole, Conservative)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Having reflected carefully on what he said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 67, in clause 81, page 55, line 4, at end insert—

‘(iii) the comprehensive area assessment which shall be phased in to coincide with the commencement date for Chapter 1 of this Act’.

The amendment takes us in a slightly different direction. It deals with the comprehensive area assessment, its timing and the need to phase it in as soon as possible. With the transition in local area agreements expected to begin in April 2008, it is most disappointing that the supporting comprehensive area assessment system for measuring progress is not due to be introduced until April 2009.

To deliver, the local area agreement must be, as promised, streamlined and less bureaucratic. We  believe that running an old-style, heavy-handed performance framework alongside the new approach will be cumbersome and could inhibit success. We therefore agree with the LGA that there would be a significant advantage to introducing the mutually reinforcing elements of the new framework at the same time. The LGA is happy to work with Government and the regulators to ensure that time scales are met, and hopes that the Ministers will reconsider the measures.

I spoke today to Steve Bundred of the Audit Commission. He is not particularly keen on the amendment, as he believes that there is a good reason for the separation of the two elements. I am not convinced—I think that the LGA makes a reasonable case—but it is an area of dispute, and I put it on record to be fair. It was good to meet Steve Bundred to discuss it.

The LGA’s point is straightforward. It is always difficult to operate two systems. It believes that there would be an advantage in bringing the date forward, and I tabled the amendment to test the Minister’s thinking. Does he think that further negotiations on the matter might be the way forward, rather than drawing a line under it now?

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

I rise briefly to say that I think that the amendment is sensible if there is an opportunity to synchronise the two elements. As the LGA, the representative body of the councils responsible for delivering it, supports the amendment, I shall listen carefully to the Minister. If he does not believe that it is a sensible way forward, what explanation can he give?

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire for moving the amendment, because it gives me the opportunity to do exactly what he invited me to do. The Government’s attitude is that if we could do what he wants, we would. Our reasoning is that 1 April 2008 is an important beginning point for local government in the new framework that the Bill will introduce if it is agreed by Parliament. It will be the beginning of the three-year financial settlement and of the new, so-called refreshed local area agreements, and will herald the beginning of the new performance assessment framework, to which we shall come.

The amendment’s effect of bringing the date forward would mean that a comprehensive area assessment would have to be phased to coincide with the coming into force of the local area agreement clauses, which is fixed in clause 175 for two months after Royal Assent. The Audit Commission will be working with other inspectorates in the next two years to develop a detailed methodology for the comprehensive area assessment so that it can be introduced by 2009. The comprehensive area assessment is a crucial piece of local evidence—we shall come to debate that matter. In essence, it will judge the whole place—the whole town, city or county—as well as the institution. It will consider the range of partners and service delivery and the outcome from the citizen’s point of view, and will make for interesting reading when it is published.

The hon. Gentleman accepts the Audit Commission’s robustness and independence. He does not need to say so; I know that he does. The commission was established in 1981 as part of the package to bear down on local government’s alleged profligacy with public money. I  am keen to ensure that its core function is re-emphasised. Its main job is to keep the books balanced, and to ensure that expenditure is controlled properly and value for money is delivered. That will work towards the introduction of the new regime. I have stated that it would be better if we could have started the data collection from 1 April 2008, but I am advised that that is not possible, and it would be wrong to force such a change. Having said that, I believe that I have honestly and fairly answered the hon. Gentleman’s question about our attitude.

Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister. I think that local authorities will be disappointed, but I take the point that he genuinely believes that it is not physically possible to do what he and the local authorities want to do. If that is the case, nothing more needs to be said, beyond congratulating Bedfordshire county council on its fine performance in the comprehensive performance assessment today. It moved up a level and has been deemed to be improving well. I wanted to put that on the record, but have not had a chance to do so until now.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way because it gives me an opportunity to commend Sutton council, which achieved a four-star rating.

Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

Are there any other takers for this opportunity?

Tom Levitt rose—

Robert Neill rose—

Mr. Dunne rose—

Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

Perhaps it would be in order if hon. Members found their own way to put their comments on the record.

We take the Minister’s point—the change cannot physically be made. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.