Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

There were recurring themes in the noble Lord’s contribution on the definition of partnerships, which points to the fact that it is difficult to define some legal terms, certainly partnerships. I will say no more, because my noble friend has agreed to look again at the important issue of the definition of partnerships. The noble Lord’s Amendments 31, 42, 49, 50, 52 and 53 would change the references to ““person”” or ““persons”” to ““body”” or ““bodies””. As he said, he wants to ensure that all the connected authorities in Clause 2 are covered, particularly the partnerships. However, the term ““person”” or ““persons”” is defined in the Interpretation Act 1978 and includes a natural person, or an artificial person such as a body corporate, and, most important, an unincorporated body, which would include local authority partnerships. The term ““person”” encompasses a broader range of legal entities than the proposed ““body”” or ““bodies””. Specifically, ““person”” would include the chief officer of police, whereas ““body”” would not, and would be at least as apt to include partnerships. There is a precedent throughout related legislation to the use of the term ““person””. In particular, I draw the noble Lord’s attention to Section 104 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, which refers to persons in the list of partner authorities. He also commented on the use of the word ““authority”” in relation to the connected authorities in Clause 2. They are referred to as connected authorities because that is how we have defined them. It is simply a convenient term designed to sound less legislative than ““connected persons””. I hope that that clarification will go some way towards reassuring the noble Lord, and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.