Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I thank the Minister for that reply, although at times I think that we were a little at cross purposes. We are not hostile to these arrangements. Indeed, we welcome greater understanding of all these arrangements—that is the motivation behind the amendments. I am surprised, to be frank, that what I thought was the mildest amendment in the group, which seeks only to add the words ““(if any)””, has created the most heat. Whether one likes it or not, it is a given that a number of the bodies listed simply do not have democratic arrangements in the sense that I would understand the phrase. Whether they should or should not have them can be debated another time, but in my opinion they do not. All that this tiny amendment sought to do was to recognise the reality, whether one likes it or not. I do not know why it has created so much heat. I am grateful to the Minister for her offer and I look forward with enormous interest to hearing about the democratic arrangements for each of the bodies in the list. Before the noble Baroness writes, perhaps I may ask her to start with a definition of her understanding of what ““democratic arrangements”” means. I have to say that appointment by the Secretary of State, whether that is right or wrong, is not what I understand to be a democratic arrangement, certainly in relation to local democracy. We are talking about a Bill to promote local democracy. Whether this is the right way to do it is not the point; the point is that we cannot see how an appointment made by the Secretary of State is part of the local democratic process. However, we can pursue that argument another time. I am grateful to the Minister for her commitment to look at partnerships in her response to our main amendment. Amendment 24 addresses an important issue and I was concerned when she almost compared a primary care trust with the Arts Council. There is no comparison at all. Primary care trusts and the other bodies listed in the clause are to varying extent statutory bodies. The Arts Council, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the entire range of voluntary bodies play an enormously important part in the local community and often in its democratic arrangements. I accept that it is not entirely appropriate to specify them in the Bill and I do not think that I suggested that they should be. I have concentrated primarily on local strategic partnerships and CDRPs but there are many others; I did not attempt to list them all. The point that I am trying to make is that in a Bill that seeks to promote local understanding of how democracy works and the wider role of governance, as distinct from government, in a local area—an objective that we fully support, although we have doubts about how this is being done—the role of these partnerships and the purpose and achievements of local area agreements and, even more, of multi-area agreements are enormously important. I suggest, and I do not think anyone would deny it, that they are probably least understood by the public and many of the participants, including many local councillors. That is partly because these partnerships are fairly new, partly because they are complex and partly because, rightly or wrongly, they tend not to be much in the public eye—the local media do not understand them any more than anyone else does, and tend not to report them. I am sure that the Minister will think seriously about this: if anything needs better promotion and better understanding with regard to local democracy and local governance, it is the role of these partnerships and the agreements that go with them. For the time being, I rest my case that this is an important matter to be listed specifically and separately in Section 2(1), as suggested in the amendment. In anticipation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 24 withdrawn. Amendments 25 to 30 not moved.