Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

The debate so far has exposed the difficulties of being prescriptive. When you produce lists, you are always asked difficult questions about what you have included, what you have not and why. We are exposing that difficulty. I speak specifically to Amendment 41 standing in my name and that of my noble friend, which would add regional development agencies to the ever growing list. However, if the noble Baroness has her way, perhaps it will be a slightly reduced list. I look forward to hearing the answer to the probing questions asked by my noble friend Lord Greaves, because we are trying to get at what determines what is, or is not, on the list. I should have thought that understanding how an academy school functions—to take the example already mentioned—and what its democratic arrangements are, however they are defined, is at least as important in those areas that have them as understanding the role of maintained schools, which is probably better known, as maintained schools are not so new as academy schools. Therefore, why not include that requirement? I was our party’s education spokesperson during the 1990s and had a long and good association with the Association of Colleges—indeed, I was president of its charitable trust for a while—and I have every sympathy with what it says. I lived through the period of incorporation when colleges moved away from local authorities and I well understand all the sentiments and emotions in that regard. That process ended some years ago, but in the context of the Bill I do not see why colleges should be excluded, given all the others that are included. I understand why the AoC is concerned about that and I am sure that other bodies have similar concerns for similar reasons. The problem with the list is how you make it all-encompassing, whom you include and whom you leave out. From our point of view, the answer is fairly simple: do not have the list in the first place.