Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

The Questions whether Clauses 213 and 214 should stand part of the Bill are in this group. I want to probe more widely than my noble friend Lady Hamwee about why we have this part of the Bill, what it means and one or two of aspects of that. This part of the Bill was added on Report in the House of Commons, where it perhaps did not get quite the scrutiny that it might have done had it gone through Committee stage. I have read Hansard of the Report stage very carefully and have noted that the then Minister, Phil Woolas, referred to it being rather technical. He said that, "““you ain’t seen nothing yet””.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/5/07; col. 1150.]" He claimed that that came from the wild west, but I suspect that it came from Nelson when he was growing up in the town. I have read this part carefully and I still am not completely clear what it is about, why it is there and what it means. Why is this in the Bill? Why did the Government feel that it was necessary to add it at Report stage in the Commons? It was obviously an afterthought. Some questions asked in the short debate in the Commons were not answered. Are thing really going wrong now? To what extent are things going wrong now? Is this a response to concerns of auditors? Is it a response to concerns of government that local authorities are finding too many innovative ways to get involved in ““entities”” and they want to pull them back or what? It is fairly clear that one reason for having it is to include trusts as opposed to entities in the scope of the Bill. I shall ask a question about that in a minute. From a layman’s point of view, what on Earth is an entity? Having read the Bill and Hansard of the House of Commons, I still am not sure what an entity is. It is not in common parlance in our part of the world. If people say, ““Where are you going tonight?””, I say, ““I am going to another meeting””. They may say, ““Oh, what is it?”” and I shall say, ““Oh, it’s the entity”” and everyone will know what I am talking about. However, I do not think that I am on any entities. The definition of an entity in the Bill states that, "““financial information … must be included in the local authority’s statement of accounts””." It seems to be a body in which the local authority is involved, has invested or perhaps is represented. I am not quite sure what that means or what level of information is required. Can it simply be one line in the accounts or does it have to be full information? What does that mean in practice? Linked to that, if trusts are being brought in, what is a trust in this context? What kind of trusts will be involved? Can the Minister give us some practical examples of the kind of companies, trusts and other bodies which might be involved? Slightly cheekily, perhaps I may ask whether local strategic partnerships can be entities. I think that the Minister’s shake of her head suggests that she does not want to answer that question. My next question follows a comment made by my honourable friend Andrew Stunell, who made a brief intervention at Report stage. He said that the whole thing has about it, "““a sniff of control freakery””.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/5/07; col. 1155.]" I would have said that it looks rather more draconian than that. It appears to allow the Secretary of State to make decisions about anything and everything to do with this. It is very much a part that Henry VIII would have been proud of. It is clear that all the detailed rules and regulations will be in regulations, which perhaps is why it is difficult to understand what Part 12, which is fairly brief, means. I shall put trusts, which have been brought into this, on one side, and stick to entities, whatever they may be. Does it change the existing provision or is it simply a re-enactment of existing provisions in a way which Phil Woolas described as less complex and outdated? Does it give more powers to the Secretary of State than previously? If it does, what is the purpose of them? In what ways does she intend to use them? Does it broaden the concept of entities, or are entities defined exactly as they were before the Bill was produced, or as they are now before the Bill is enacted? Those basic questions lead to a concern that the welcome freer, more liberal regime under which local authority companies have been able to operate in recent years—which has led to a whole series of different and innovative projects in different areas—might be restricted and pulled back. It would be helpful to have guarantees from the Minister that that is not the case.