[Nick Beale]

ssharma Wrote:Ed, agree with what's on your list.

Also just to add support to the statement by Martin Vickers in respect of "...The biggest problem is to do with officer resources. Scrutiny officers, however hard-working and dedicated, are answerable to senior officers who are rightly charged with implementing the policies of the ruling group. Where is the incentive to create a powerful group to scrutinise and criticise the work of the controlling group? Senior scrutiny officers need to be more independent..."

Sunita

If elected members were fallible - which they aren't, of course - then we might also worry that non-execs from the ruling group (who form the majority on scrutiny committees) might not be inclined to rock the boat for their Executive. Requiring political balance on the Executive would change that dynamic but it would also be wickedness and flyin' against Nature (***Literary Reference).

Sheer luck perhaps, but in the absurd number of years I've been doing this job my own line management has never been a problem. What's more difficult is that senior officers in general quite understandably come to identify with achieving the Executive's programme, not with those questioning it.

[Suzanne O'Leary]

mgarrard Wrote:Ed

Don't forget to include the implications of other bills that amend acts that provisions within the bill amend when the bill becomes an act and the bill amending the act that amends the act also becomes an act,

GENIUS! lol

[Suzanne O'Leary]

I really hope the final Act just allows scrutiny to scrutinise anybody that provides services to local residents. IMO this would be a really straightforward way of bringing in some transparency/accounability to localism and the big society.

as they would say on twitter - justsaying.

[Steve Sienkiewicz]

I've had flick through the transcript from the second Committee discussions that took place yesterday:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...201s01.htm

Interesting reading!! Barbara Keeley appeared to give the suggested amendments her best shot - shame about Andrew Stunell, what a spoilsport he is and how dare he refer to CFPS as a quango?!

The amendments appear to have been withdrawn by leave but will be returned to at the report stage - probably the expected course of action.

[Ed Hammond]

Hi all - quick update for you.

We are having a meeting with CLG on Monday, and will be discussing the Bill and the scrutiny provisions with them.

One particular point that Ministers have made in debates on this is that the existing powers are adequate, so it would be good if you have time if you could let me know instances when you've come up against problems caused in part by existing legislation. I expect that this will predominantly relate to partnership working. Any additional evidence that we can present to them to support our approach will be all to the good.

Don't get your hopes up, however.