Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Andrews (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 15 October 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.


Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

My Lords, we have debated the status of RSLs and their relationship with the Bill in different ways, and I wish that I could give the noble Baroness as positive a response as I could to the previous amendment. These amendments try to bring RSLs within the scope of the enhanced scrutiny powers for unitary and county councils, which relate to partners under the duty to co-operate. We have had some very eloquent debates about the concerns that there should be better co-operation between RSLs and local authorities in line with the Cave recommendations, and I agree absolutely that it is desirable that there are changes in how the two sectors interact, but the amendments, unfortunately, do not solve the problem. I shall start by saying a bit about the Cave review and the partnership arrangements. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness that housing is bound to be part of what overview and scrutiny committees will be concerned with, because it is what the whole business of place-making is concerned with and what local authorities are concerned with in a local area agreement. It will obviously have a very large role to play in determining how people will be housed in future and the conditions in which they have lived and live in the past and present. The ability for registered social landlords to be represented and be part of this process is extremely important. I am sorry that the noble Baroness will not be here when we consider the Housing Bill, although she has a very worthy successor in the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. We shall be considering the partnership arrangement that would be most suitable between local authorities and RSLs. We must carefully consider the full implications of how that will work in practice, as we do not want to add disproportionate burdens on to the RSL sector. That was very clear in the Cave review. We do not want either to duplicate the responsibilities of he regulator or to compromise the independent status of RSLs. Nevertheless, we are absolutely clear that we need them to be part of the dialogue and the process, so we shall be addressing that issue. As the LAAs have worked through some of the early stages of the new statutory requirements as we have practised them across the country in different situations, that has been addressed. We shall certainly bring forward legislation in a future Bill to deal with this matter. It will be done in a robust way and will be something acceptable and wanted by all stakeholders. With that commitment, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that she can withdraw her amendment.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
695 c535-6 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disciplinary proceedings Disability Disclosure of information Councillors Convictions Byelaws Housing Health services Legislative competence Functions Ethics Local government Misconduct Public participation Local government executive NHS foundation trusts Standards Social rented housing Social services Unitary councils Overview and scrutiny committees Patients' forums Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health Local strategic partnerships Local area agreements Local involvement networks
Legislation
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk