b'could, in turn, encompass joint legal service provision (which is a growth area in local government at present). Such cases are likely to become more frequent, and the 1970 Act makes it clear that these arrangements are permitted provided the bodies with which the local authority is dealing is designated as a public body. This, however, is not as easy a task as it should be as the designation orders are contained in statutory instruments made over several years. The 1970 Act remains particularly useful where authorities are seeking to provide goods or services of a relatively modest value, and the costs and time associated with setting up a trading company under section 95 of the 2003 Act (see below) would be disproportionate. What is in doubt, however, is Central Governments willingness to extend the categories of designated public bodies under the1970 Act. Whilst review of these categories is unlikely, new additions to the list are made from time to time. For example, there was an order at the end of 2014 to include the Community Rehabilitation Companies to the list.Central Government expects local authorities to use their commercial trading powers (rather than the 1970 Act) if they wish to trade with a wider range of organisations. This may be problematic (particularly for smaller authorities) where the costs of setting up and managing a trading company could outweigh the benefits. There could be vires problems where local authorities wish to enter into arrangements with other public bodies who are not designated. With all the change that is taking place in the public sector at present, this is a live and potentially problematic issue. Making profits or cost recovery? 5.5 It may be worth recalling that, in the case of R v Yorkshire Purchasing Organisation, ex p British Educational Suppliers Association (1998) ELR 195, the Court of Appeal held that the 1970 Act empowered local authorities to trade with other public bodies for profit (not merely cost recovery) using these powers and that they could purchase supplies necessary for trading operations, as well as undertake speculative trading within this environment. However, there may be reasons why public bodies would rather seek to break even and simply recover costs involved in inter-authority trading or at least agree to plough any surplus back into the business for the public good. The reasons include demonstrating the shared services arrangement is not market orientated for EU procurement purposes. This issue is explored in more detail below. Less bureaucracy and prescription 5.6 Crucially, the 1970 Act powers do not require trading to be carried out through a company but permit such arrangements to be formalised simply by way of agreement. Another option, not involving a company would be to establish the shared services enterprise through a public administrative arrangement such as a joint committee under section 101 of the 1972 Act. Jumping straight into forming a company, with all the additional baggage that it brings in terms of company law, directors duties, potential conflicts of interest and extra expense, may not be the most appropriate initial step and, accordingly, the 2003 powers may not always be the best fit for a shared services enterprise. 60'