[Steve Sienkiewicz]

I haven't read through all of the Hansard text, although from the extract it is encouraging that further and hopefully serious consideration will now be given to some of the amendments at least. It would appear however that the numbered amendments submitted by CFPS do not line up with those quoted in the Lords text? Maybe I'm missing something.

Ed - I'm assuming that by now (as well as having mowed your lawn) CFPS will know which of the proposed amendments have any chance of success and it is these that will form the basis for detailed discussion on 2nd July. I'm particularly interested in what is going to happen to the bits around partnership scrutiny, i.e. 'partner authorities' and the linkage to (now defunct) LAA targets.

If CFPS fails in its laudible argument to streamline partnership scrutiny arrangements as proposed in the amendment, is it worth asking simply for the requirement as it currently stands to link into LAA targets to be removed, thereby providing an unobstructed link from scrutiny to the list of partner organisations? This would not be an entirely ideal solution but I'm unaware of what other approaches are being considered by DCLG to sort out what is currently an unsatisfactory situation.

[Ed Hammond]

The amendments as listed in Hansard reflect their place on the order paper, rather than the actual section number, which means that you have to do quite a bit of cross-referencing, which is a pain. But it looks to me like they're reasonably happy with everything (as in, prepared to enter into a discussion) apart from the education co-optees thing.

On the partnership angle - yes, I agree with you Steve, the bare minimum must be the removal of the references to LAA and to local improvement targets.

[Clive Mentzel [2]]

A commitment to further discussion is indeed an opportunity. I've encouraged my colleagues across London to respond to this - it would be handly if you could post the list of CfPS amendments for ease of reference.