Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

Following that brilliant speech, I do not know whether I can do justice to the debate. However, I want to raise several issues, although I was broadly content with what the Minister said. I understand that there are organisations other than just public companies in the sense of plcs and limited companies. Indeed, the Minister even talked about limited partnerships, yet a limited partnership would have been an oxymoron—is that the right word?—a few years ago because partnerships usually have no limits on their liability. I was reassured when the Minister said that one of the main objects of this group of new clauses was to ensure that the public sector borrowing requirement could be more closely monitored, although I have to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) that the goalposts for the economic cycle frequently move to ensure that the golden rule is never breached. Sadly, there are no explanatory notes to the Bill. I understand why, and I am not condemning the Government for it, but it does not make things any easier. I guess that it is a compliment to the civil servants, in that it shows how helpful explanatory notes are when they do produce them. Subsection (5) of new clause 22 says that an order under the new clause may make provision in relation to "““every entity connected with a local authority””," although it does not actually say owned by the local authority. Subsection (7) carries on from that because it says, in marvellously unclear English:"““For the purposes of this section an entity (‘E’) is ‘connected with’ a local authority at any time if—""(a) it is an entity other than the local authority; and""(b) according to proper practices in force at that time, financial information about E must be included in the local authority’s statement of accounts for the financial year in which that time falls.””" I guess that ““E”” must be the name of a particular entity at that time. It is the phrase ““connected with”” that I do not understand. The Minister’s explanation was perfectly logical, but the new clause does not seem to make any sense. Subsection (8), which contains some definitions, says that"““‘entity’ means any entity, whether or not a legal person””," but it says nothing about its being owned by the authority. In Lichfield—I always find myself mentioning Lichfield because it is such a beautiful place—we have a new theatre called the Lichfield Garrick. That would certainly be an entity because it is owned by the authority and, quite rightly and properly, its debt—because all theatres need subsidy and it is a particularly good theatre and it is good that it is subsidised—relates to the debt of the council. However, I wonder whether the wording of new clause 22 would cover other entities, not just those that are owned by local authorities. Why does the new clause refer to every entity as that which is ““connected with””? Why are the words ““connected with”” used?