17 May 2011 : Column 215
Will Hutton said in his report that
“it is important that the Fair Pay Code and as far as possible the other recommendations of this Review are extended into the public services industry.”
I hope that Ministers—I welcome the Secretary of State to the Chamber—support Hutton’s proposals to extend pay transparency to those private sector contractors who are paid out of the public purse. Implementation of our proposals would help to ensure that executive pay does not spiral up, that low pay is challenged, and that people can be confident that their local council is spending their money fairly and wisely.
Finally, I support amendments 39 to 41, which are in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) and for Birmingham, Erdington. The proposals would remove the power of the Secretary of State, who has just joined us in the Chamber, to direct or order the imposition of shadow mayors. That is one of the most controversial measures in the Bill, and it represents the Government at their most centralising. The Government want to order a local authority to cease its existing form of governance and begin to operate a mayor and cabinet executive. Ministers spent months denying that they intended to try to impose shadow mayors.
I remind the Secretary of State that he gave the following answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on 21 October 2010:
“She seems to be suggesting that we would somehow impose mayors on those 12 cities, but of course we will not-that is completely out of the question. The proposals will be subject to referendums. Once we know the views of the people in those 12 cities, we will move on to the election of a mayor if people vote for that.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 1117.]
[Interruption.] I am getting some confusing signals from Government Members. On the same day, to be clear about the Secretary of State’s intentions, my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) asked him again whether it was his intention to turn council leaders into mayors before holding a referendum. He stood at the Dispatch Box and referred my hon. Friend back to the earlier question:
“I ruled out the possibility that we would be imposing mayors. This will be subject to a referendum.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 1125.]
He was absolutely clear. However, the proposal in the Bill directly contradicts what the Secretary of State said on that occasion and on other occasions. It is further proof of a Government who say one thing and do another, and it raises further questions about whether what they say can be trusted at all.
Since the debate began on the proposal to impose mayors on 12 of our largest cities, opposition has bubbled up and developed all over the place. Indeed, the day after the Localism Bill was announced, the leader of Bradford council, Councillor Ian Greenwood, told the Bradford Telegraph and Argus newspaper that he was uncomfortable with being given an office to which he had not been elected. In that article, he said:
“My view is this is not the right thing for Bradford… I am uncomfortable about being given an office I wasn’t elected to. I don’t feel it’s the right thing to do. Leadership is not about dictating, it’s about taking people with you”.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab):
Does my hon. Friend accept that we need a clear line on this? The Secretary of State’s apparent proposal for Birmingham
17 May 2011 : Column 216
would mean that the person who lost the election this May and will lose it again next May will be imposed on the people of Birmingham, irrespective of how they vote. Surely there is nothing democratic about that.
Barbara Keeley: No, there is absolutely not. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point.
Hon. Members will be interested to know the extent to which there is all-party opposition to these proposals in Bradford. The Conservative group leader on Bradford council also argued against the imposition of a shadow mayor in that city. In the same article, Councillor Anne Hawkesworth said:
“My colleagues and I are not supportive of elected mayors… We do not think that the proposals are suited to the needs of…Bradford.”
Last week, the same issue was reported on again, when the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) said:
“My view is that it should be for the councils to decide if they want to go down the referendum route. The referendum shouldn’t be imposed.”
The Opposition agree. Shadow mayors and referendums on having a mayor should not be imposed. In Bradford at least, it seems, there is Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative opposition to the Government’s proposals. However, there has also been opposition in other councils, including Leeds city council.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab): While my hon. Friend is running through a list of authorities, will she also refer to Sheffield—now a Labour-controlled authority, of course? There has been cross-party agreement between Labour and Liberal Democrats, and all are opposed to any mayoral system at all, and certainly opposed to shadow mayors. I am sure that were there any Conservative councillors in Sheffield—which there are not—they would be joining in the opposition as well. Is it not a strange system in which a mayor’s legitimacy comes from being elected by the public, but a shadow mayor’s legitimacy comes from being the representative of most councillors on a council? In Sheffield, that majority of councillors are opposed to the proposals.
Barbara Keeley: Absolutely. I was not going to go through a complete list, but I welcome hearing about what has happened in Sheffield.
It seems that Yorkshire is turning against these proposals en masse, and there has been opposition in other councils—for example, in Leeds city council. The Yorkshire Post quoted its leader, Councillor Keith Wakefield, as saying that these proposals are
“not acceptable in today’s democracy… If people decide they want an elected mayor that’s what they should have, but do it following a vote… I think the idea of a referendum is OK where people have an opportunity to say yea or nay. What’s not right is putting you in a position where there’s been no vote.”
I understand that he would turn down the position whatever happens.
I hope that the hon. Member for Bradford East and his colleagues will support our amendment 41, and vote against the imposition of shadow mayors and referendums on their local councils.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con) rose—
Barbara Keeley: I am about to conclude, so as to leave time for other Members to speak.
17 May 2011 : Column 217
I regret that a new group of amendments on scrutiny was not selected for debate tonight. It was debated in Committee, and I hope that it can be taken forward to the other place. I would like to underline again and again that we are still opposed to EU fines.
6.45 pm
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con): I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Report on this important Bill. I appreciate that there are a lot of amendments, however, and that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I will be as succinct as possible. I would like to refer to amendments 2 and 3. They are small but significant amendments that deal with the election of elected mayors. Because of their significance, I hope to press them to a vote tonight, unless Ministers see their merits.
I fully subscribe to the localism agenda. I believe that we have become an over-centralised state, with too much power at the centre, whether with Ministers or civil servants. The Bill will start to turn the tanker around. I accept that progress will be slow, but it will take the agenda in the right direction. On Second Reading, I said that a cultural change was required first in Whitehall, with less interference and prescription from the centre, and, secondly, in the town hall, with people there taking more responsibility. However, localism has three strands: the division of power; tax-raising powers; and governance. I would like to concentrate on governance, particularly elected mayors.
I am a strong supporter of the concept of elected mayors. That is the direction in which we should be going. They are open, transparent and accountable, and I also believe that they will help to revive local government. I thought that there was broad cross-party support for them, because they were introduced by a Labour Government in 2000, and because, obviously, the coalition Government are retaining the concept and looking to introduce 11 new mayors in due course.
Kelvin Hopkins: I accept that elected mayors were a Labour concept, although I was not in favour of them. It is noticeable that across the country many local authorities have rejected the idea, and that many of those who voted for them now regret doing so.
John Stevenson: I accept that they are not universally supported by all parties, but I believe that there is broad support. The hon. Gentleman raises a separate point, though, because there are several reasons why elected mayors have not caught on. However, I want to concentrate on my amendment 2 about their actual election.
At present, mayors are elected under the supplementary vote system, which is retained in the Bill. Effectively it is a form of the alternative vote. My amendment 2 would change that so that future elections are done under first past the post. That would provide a consistent approach to elections. Varying the voting system creates confusion and a lack of certainty for the average voter. Two weeks ago, this country went to the polling booth for a referendum on whether we wanted AV or first past the post. Had the voters supported AV, I would have withdrawn this amendment. I would have accepted the will of the people. In fact, there was an overwhelming and emphatic vote for first past the post. As one hon. Member said to
17 May 2011 : Column 218
me, “The people of this country did not say no; they said never.” I accept that judgment, but I believe there has to be consistency. I support the amendment on the basis that we should have a consistent approach to our elections and that elected mayors should therefore be elected under first past the post. I genuinely hope that the House will agree with what the people said two weeks ago and support the amendment.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab): I want to address new clauses 13 and 14 on EU fines. I believe that ministerial advice stated that individual fines to local authorities would be appropriate where there was a direct causal link, and where councils were guilty of action or inaction. One example is waste, on which I would like to address two key issues: EU directives on recycling and landfill taxes.
The Local Government Association briefing is dismissive of the Government’s proposals. It states:
“Moves to allow Ministers to force English councils to pay parts of fines imposed on the UK government by the EU are unfair, unworkable, dangerous and unconstitutional. This is an unprecedented power for Ministers to avoid Parliamentary scrutiny and will inevitably lead to legal battles as Government tries to apportion “blame” for EU fines.”
The LGA urges that the policy be scrapped, and continues:
“In effect it means a Minister may simultaneously be prosecutor, judge, jury, and co-defendant, when Ministers themselves may actually be responsible for fines being levied. This is neither impartial nor localist.”
There are reasons why the Government are responsible for such fines perhaps being levied, but I want to address the confusion that seems to exist in Government. The Minister for the natural environment—the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—said in Committee in March that local authorities would not face what I describe as “bin taxes”, which are charges on local authorities and their residents for not reaching the EU’s 50% threshold. I asked him:
“I want to press the Minister on EU fines for England and Wales on waste collection. Does he support the individual fining of authorities that do kerbside collection and that are struggling to reach 50%, as suggested by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government?”
“I can tell the Committee that local authorities will not be fined individually for not achieving 50%. I can give that assurance…If we are failing, it will be lamentable”.—[Official Report, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 8 March 2011; c. 9-10.]
There seems to be a great deal of confusion between the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on this issue. To be honest, I would like the proposal scrapped, but we at least need some clarity on how to reach 50% recycling rates and avoid EU fines.
The Bill does nothing to protect my constituents, particularly given that councils in east Lancashire have been hit extremely hard by DCLG cuts. Residents in my local authority, which was Conservative until last Thursday night—thankfully we now have a Labour authority—had achieved a 40% recycling rate, or just under. In effect, we are talking about a bin tax by any other name, and it is unfair. The message to the Minister this evening is that it is not the fault of the residents of Lancashire. The county council’s waste private finance initiative schemes would have resulted in a 90% recycling rate, but they were scrapped a few months ago. Up until a few
17 May 2011 : Column 219
months ago we had a strategy that would have enabled us to avoid EU fines, and we are talking about some of the most deprived communities in this country.
There are also issues around recycling centres. If the Government will not invest in recycling centres, or if the spread of recycling centres across the country is disproportionate, that is not fair either, but that is a Government policy. It is not an EU policy; it is a policy that the Government will be answerable for. The LGA is quite correct to say that the Government will be held to account; indeed, this issue could end up in the courts.
However, there is a second, more important reason why the scheme is not fair—a reason that I put to the Under-Secretary—and it concerns the difference between kerbside and co-mingled collections. Kerbside collection rates are around 30% to 40%, whereas co-mingled collections through recycling centres are hitting 80%, 90% and beyond. Local authorities in areas with co-mingled recycling will have high collection rates, but they will also have problems with contamination, which I accept. The Government are trying to encourage people not to co-mingle, but to separate. However, collection rates in areas with kerbside collections are much lower, so EU fines are unfair.
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark): I do not want to stop the hon. Gentleman in his tracks, but I think that I can reassure him. He is operating on completely the wrong premise. There is no suggestion at all that a fine would be levied on an authority because of its performance on recycling rates. The only suggestion is that if the authority does not adopt a plan as required—that is, something specifically required of that authority—and if it has been warned that it needs to have one, that will be the occasion for a fine. That authority’s performance is completely irrelevant, whatever it might be. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman and allow him to return to the issue at hand.
Graham Jones: I thank the Minister for that, because he is essentially saying that he has just ripped up his own new clause, which now has no teeth—he has just taken them all out. If local authorities are to come up with a plan, they will come up with one and carry on recycling at 30%. However, the Minister is not going to say to local authorities, “Well, actually, because you’ve got a plan, we’re going to do something about it.” Instead, he will be saying, “You’ve got a plan, so we’re going to do nothing about it.” He has taken all the teeth out of his own new clause, so why has he proposed it? Why has it taken him until today to say what he has said this evening, and why do ministerial statements say that the proposal involves waste? He is effectively telling people that—
Graham Jones: I would like to finish speaking.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. It is up to the Member speaking whether they wish to give way. The hon. Gentleman has given way once, and if he wishes to do so again, I am sure that he will let the Minister know.
17 May 2011 : Column 220
Graham Jones: I accept what the Minister has said on the record, which he made absolutely clear. The new clause has no value, but I would say—
The Minister of State had the opportunity before to say what he has said this evening, but there are real issues—[ Interruption. ] That is fine, but it is the Government who are putting forward their new clause, which now has no teeth.
In conclusion—because I was wrapping up—the LGA says that the proposal will be problematic to enforce. What are the Government enforcing? How can local government increase recycling rates for residents? If action is to be taken, it will hit some of the poorest communities that have higher recycling rates, not some of the wealthiest ones, and the same goes for landfill taxes. I appreciate Ministers’ comments, but as far as I am concerned, I am delighted that all the teeth have been taken out of this proposal.
Philip Davies: I certainly hope that the Minister will give me as helpful a response as he gave the previous speaker when he considers my amendments.
My new clause 8 would allow local authorities to vary Sunday trading hours in their areas. As hon. Members will know, under the Sunday Trading Act 1994, large shops over 280 square metres may open for only six continuous hours between 10 am and 6 pm on Sundays, excluding Easter Sunday, when they must remain closed. I think that this is rather anachronistic. Sunday trading is increasingly popular. I have no interest to declare, but I do have some experience to declare, as somebody who worked for Asda for 13 years. In my time there, Sunday trading hours were the busiest hours of the trading week. Contrary to common belief, Sunday trading hours were also the most popular hours that members of staff wished to work, because for many people Sunday was one of the few days on which they could do additional hours, as they had other people at home looking after their children and so on. If people want to shop on a Sunday or work for certain hours, I do not really see what business the Government have telling them what hours they can do.
Members may be aware that Scotland has a different regime. Sunday trading is fully deregulated in Scotland, although, under the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003, workers have the right to refuse to work on Sundays. I am not aware that the whole world has collapsed in Scotland as a result of deregulating Sunday trading hours. In fact, my experience is that it has proved to be incredibly popular with both customers and workers alike. I would like workers and shoppers in England and Wales to have exactly the same rights to shop or work in shops at a time of their choosing as people in Scotland have.
My new clause 8 would not give local authorities the opportunity simply to extend Sunday trading hours, because I believe in true localism. My new clause also offers local authorities the opportunity to restrict Sunday trading hours further, if they so wish. If we believe that decisions should be taken locally, we should give local authorities the widest possible ability to make decisions to suit their areas. In areas that need extra regeneration, the opportunity to open for extra hours on a Sunday
17 May 2011 : Column 221
might be welcome, as it may benefit the local authorities in such areas. I do not see why the Government should stand in those authorities’ way if they believe that to be an important part of their regeneration strategy. Other local authorities may wish to restrict Sunday trading hours. I would not advise them to do so—I do not think it would be very popular—but that would be up to them, as democratically elected local authorities. So I hope that the Minister will explain whether he agrees with my proposed extension of the principle of localism. If he does not agree, will he tell me what on earth his objection is to extending a right to the people of England that the people of Scotland already have?
7 pm
My other amendment is amendment 15, which relates to elected mayors. I fully support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) which proposes that such elections should be run on the first-past-the-post basis. I ought to declare a slight interest, in that my father is the elected mayor of Doncaster. He was elected under the system described by my hon. Friend, and he would not have been elected under first past the post, because he came second in the first ballot. Some might argue that my views are rather altruistic, in that I do not support a system that has benefited my dad; instead, I want to do what I think is genuinely the right thing for the country. Others might argue that my father being elected under the alternative or supplementary vote system could well be the best possible argument for first past the post. I would not like to comment on that; I will leave it to others to make that decision.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Philip Davies: I want to press on, because the Government have allocated a shameful amount of time for this debate and other people want to speak.
I support first past the post, even though my father would have been disadvantaged by it. My amendment 15 proposes that there should be a two-thirds reduction in the number of councillors in local authority areas that have an elected mayor. There are already far too many local councillors; Bradford has 90, for example. The US Senate has only 100 people in it, for goodness’ sake. Why do we need 90 councillors in Bradford? If we are to have an elected mayor as well, why on earth should we have an additional layer of bureaucracy, more expense and more levels of local politicians? If we are going to have an elected mayor, for goodness’ sake let us reduce the number of local councillors at the same time and save the council tax payer some money. I hope that the Government will accept my rather modest amendments, but if they do not, I will certainly be interested to hear their reasons.
Kelvin Hopkins: I entirely endorse what the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said about first past the post. I am not a supporter of elected mayors but, if we have to have them, they should be elected by the first-past-the-post system. He is absolutely right.
I rise briefly to speak to my amendments 353 to 357, which would delete clauses 30 to 34. The clauses relate to fines to be imposed by the European Union. I find
17 May 2011 : Column 222
the whole idea of such fines complete anathema—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I thought that I might get some support in the Chamber on that point. We could quite easily leave out all reference to the EU, and I would like to see that happen.
I note that the Minister, in introducing the new clause, said that he had already had discussions with the Local Government Association. The LGA is very concerned about this issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) rightly said. I hope that the Government will think again and simply delete any reference to the EU. Rather than giving freedoms to local authorities, their proposals will put an imposition on them. They would place more central control on them, rather than leaving them to their own devices and giving them more freedoms.
I hope the Minister will think about this and that the Government see fit, during the later stages of the Bill, to delete any reference to the EU. I strongly support the LGA’s view, which was ably set out by my hon. Friend, and I hope that the Minister will give this matter some thought. I shall not press my amendments to a Division, but I hope that he will bear in mind my feelings and those of many other Members.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD): I am grateful for this opportunity to place my views, with which those hon. Members who served on the Public Bill Committee will already be familiar, on the record, and I apologise for any repetition. I fully support amendment 41; indeed, there are many amendments that I could support, and many more that I would like to have seen that no one else would have supported. I feel strongly about this one, however. It relates to elected mayors and shadow mayors, and to the executive powers of the mayors. Amendment 41 deals with something that symbolises everything that is wrong with the Bill.
There is nothing worse than waste, and there is nothing worse than a wasted opportunity. The Bill is a colossal wasted opportunity for the House to consider the relationship between central and local government. We have profoundly let down the democratic system by not reviewing that relationship. We could have looked at what other countries do, and agreed some basic principles against which any measures relating to local authorities could have been evaluated. I agree with Professor Stewart and Professor Jones, who gave evidence to the Bill Committee, that this is a centralism Bill, rather than a localism Bill. How different it could have been if the will had been there to make it so.
Opposition Members will no doubt be delighted to learn that, in my local authority, the Lib Dems lost a seat to Labour. We lost it in an election in which nearly seven out of 10 electors did not turn out to vote. At a time when politics is divided, and when big issues are dividing the nation, we again need to ask profound questions about why people are so reluctant to turn out and vote. We need to ask questions about the quality of the candidates, as well as about the turnout. We also need to ask what the measures in the Bill will do to address the serious democratic deficit in this country. We know the reasons behind the problem. We know that, when we knock on the doors, people say that we are all the same. The reality is that that is largely true. It is hard to be different in local government. The discretion and freedom to be different have disappeared, year by year, Government by Government.
17 May 2011 : Column 223
In Committee, I mentioned local authority budgets. Bradford has a budget of more than £1 billion, yet we end up discussing only £1 million or £2 million. Local politicians expend a lot of hot air disputing those amounts, while the vast majority of the budget is beyond their control. Yes, we are largely all the same. The Bill could have removed barriers and restrictions. I do not understand why, when we are desperate to remove barriers to the private sector to encourage initiative, entrepreneurship, enterprise and freedoms, we do not do the same thing at local government level. Those barriers will remain after the Bill has been passed.
The Government are still overbearing, arrogant and interfering. They are still ruling by stipulation, by compulsion and by bribery. They provide handouts that local government can spend, but on one thing only. How many times have Members who were formerly councillors known that the only show in town involved doing whatever the Government were funding? They were not given the discretion to spend that money as they wished. The funding would go only to the private finance initiatives or to academies, for example. We, as locally elected councillors, were not given the money and asked how we would like to spend it. Remember the bribery involved in the swimming campaign and the free school meals? The initiatives lasted for one year only, and we had to pick up the tab the year after. They were introduced simply to facilitate ministerial press releases.
None of this will be changed by the Bill. Councillors are used and abused. The Treasury insists on controlling the finance, and without financial freedom, there is no democratic freedom. The low opinion of local government held by people in this place staggers me; I am appalled by it. An example is the outrageous front-loading of the cuts. Instead of local government being seen as a partner to help us through the financial crisis by contributing to the deficit reduction over a period of time and being asked for help to deal with it, the cuts have been imposed on it from above by a Government who claim to support localism.
I support amendment 41. My views on elected mayors are, quite frankly, my business and they should be expressed in a ballot if my council decides that that is what it wants to do. I will participate in that debate—not in this place, but where it should take place: in council chambers up and down the country. Yes, we should set parameters and controls; yes, we should demand disclosure, which was mentioned earlier; but for goodness’ sake, let us breathe life back into a vital part of our democratic system.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD): My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for the next localism Bill. Does he agree that it is important, even for those who might not support the amendments on the shadow mayors and related issues, to ask Ministers to look at these proposals again?
Let me conclude by saying that it is time to set local government free. In that respect, the whole Bill, despite some good bits, is a wasted opportunity and thus a complete failure.
Heidi Alexander:
I am conscious that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall limit my comments to a few. I applaud the hon. Member for Bradford East
17 May 2011 : Column 224
(Mr Ward) for his speech. I did not anticipate hearing comments like that from the Government side of the Chamber, but he is a man who says it as it is, and I respect his views and the way he put them.
I shall focus on two aspects of this group of new clauses and amendments: senior pay policy, dealt with in new clauses 27 and 28, and powers to make supplemental provision, as set out in amendment 37 to clause 5. Bringing transparency to senior council pay is entirely right. I accept that some people might have been paid excessively in some circumstances, but this constant bashing of chief executives and senior council officers by Ministers does a complete disservice to people who do an incredibly difficult job in councils up and down the country. Some of these people will have worked their whole lives in local authorities; others might have left good private sector jobs to work there.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con): The hon. Lady is adopting a strange position in defending the massive increase in pay at the top of the public sector. Does she accept that her Government could have done something about transparency? When she talks about a disservice, is not the real disservice to the electors of our communities who have to pay the bills for these people who have earned incredible amounts of money over the last few years?
Heidi Alexander: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman was listening. I said that I accepted pay transparency is a good thing at both the top and the bottom of an organisation. I accept that the previous Government could have brought forward measures to insist on pay transparency and I know that some local authorities were transparent. Many have independent remuneration panels that would take decisions about councillor pay. I know that my own local authority is certainly looking at having an independent panel to review executive pay. My point is that we should shine a light on abuses, but that this constant barrage is disproportionate.
These measures are, in my view, all about the Secretary of State getting a headline. Listening to him, anyone could be forgiven for thinking that if only 600-odd council chief executives were paid less, the national budget deficit would be dealt with. It will not. This is a complete red herring. Let us take the example of my local authority of Lewisham. The council’s overall pay bill is £280 million, which pays for thousands of staff. The top 32 jobs of senior management account for £4.1 million; the five executive directors and the chief executive cost the council in the region of £1 million. Yes, £1 million is a huge amount of money, but we have to take account of these individuals’ responsibilities and the repercussions they might face if they gave bad advice, took bad decisions or implemented bad management. When politicians make a bad decision, they might lose an election, but council officers doing the same could end up in prison.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con): The responsibility of chief officers has not changed. The last Government actively encouraged councils to be rewarded in inspections for being seen to pay high salaries, because that appeared to make the same officers better officers.
17 May 2011 : Column 225
7.15 pm
Heidi Alexander: I have no experience of that happening. I would be interested to speak to the hon. Gentleman after the debate to learn more about his experience.
What puzzles me most about this Government’s obsession with senior pay is that it comes at a time when they seem spectacularly unwilling to tackle excessive pay in the private sector. I represent a London constituency and I know that there are bankers, lawyers and accountants who, within five or six years of graduating from university, will be earning £60,000, £70,000 or £80,000 a year. That is not far off the wage of a head of children’s services. I ask whether it can be right to put all the focus on senior council pay.
I agree with the amendments tabled by Opposition Front Benchers that deal with bringing transparency to low pay. Lewisham is an authority that has led the way on implementing the London living wage. As a result of its London living wage policy, 800 contracted staff are better off from the council’s insistence on seeking invitations from contractors that put in a London living wage bid as well as a regular bid. I am proud of the work that the authority has done on that and I believe that there are ways of encouraging the public sector and local councils to do the same.
I had wanted to comment on amendment 37, but I am conscious of the time. It is strange how the Government are, drip by drip, telling us which duties they wish to protect—whether it be duties to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, or to provide allotments or whatever. Why did the Government not do this work before they put out their review of burdensome regulations? A couple of weeks ago, the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government heard the Minister for Housing and Local Government talk about the Department’s decisive leadership in abolishing the Audit Commission. I would urge the Government to show some leadership in saying which of the “burdens” they value and want to see protected. It seems to be one rule for one thing and a completely different rule for something else. I think it is sloppy and poor government—sadly, I think many of the Bill’s provisions are an example of poor government. I look forward to voting against some clauses and in favour of some amendments when we get the chance.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con): We have so little time that I am going to cut straight to the chase; I hope not to take more than a minute or two.
I speak in favour of new clause 10, which I tabled and which is supported by Members from both sides of the House. It concerns the recall of councillors. I view this as a simple, obvious, “no brainer” idea, which I hope will be met with a nod of approval by both Front-Bench teams. I will briefly make the case for it.
As Members know, the Government are planning to introduce a recall mechanism for parliamentarians, whereby Members face being removed from office if their constituents so choose. The plans, in my view, do not go nearly far enough. MPs will be subject to recall only if a Committee decides that they have committed an act of serious wrongdoing. Recall is supposed to be about empowering people, not parliamentary Committees, so I shall seek to amend that provision when I have a
17 May 2011 : Column 226
chance. In the meantime, I was pleased that the Secretary of State promised to consider introducing into this Bill a recall mechanism for councillors. That has not happened, so I have done it for him.
I am fortunate in that my constituency is served by some excellent councillors, but we all know that there are some councillors who do very little for their constituents, so there should surely be a mechanism whereby residents can hold councillors to account during the four years in between elections in the same way as employees are in every other field of human endeavour. It cannot be right to ask Members to vote for measures that will introduce recall for parliamentarians, but not for councillors in local government, which is just as important.
“25% or more of the… voters in the constituency of an elected local government member”
to petition for and trigger a recall election. I think that that strikes the right balance between preventing vexatious recall attempts and empowering local people to hold their elected councillors to account. The new clause would greatly empower local people and would keep councillors on their toes, and I hope that it can be put to the vote so that the House can support it.
Mr Raynsford: I wish to speak, very briefly, to amendments 365 and 366, which I tabled and which relate to standards.
In his opening remarks on the programme motion, the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark)—who steered the Bill through its Committee stage—expressed a wish to listen to the views of people, whether they were members of the Committee, other interested parties, or people who had given evidence to the Committee. As he knows, an awful lot of people gave evidence, and many who gave evidence on standards gave very interesting evidence. Sadly, however, the Government did not listen to the evidence, including that given by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The Government may be right in saying that there is a case for some streamlining of the standards procedure, and indeed I conceded that in Committee, but I am afraid that they are making a serious mistake in substituting for the existing machinery a framework that is incoherent, that is potentially extremely weak, and that will contain serious anomalies.
Let us examine those three problems. First, clause 17 allows the Secretary of State to require local authorities to establish a procedure relating to the declaration of interests, a breach of which will involve a criminal liability. Clause 16 allows the establishment of an entirely voluntary framework within which it will be up to a local authority to decide whether to adopt a code of conduct. That could lead to an extraordinary situation. Someone who had failed, perhaps owing to a technicality, to declare an interest as part of the mandatory requirement imposed by Government would be liable for a criminal action, whereas someone who had behaved in a deplorable way—who had bullied people, been dishonest, or behaved shamelessly in the council chamber—could emerge scot-free because the council concerned had chosen not to adopt a code of conduct. That is clearly unsatisfactory.
Secondly, there will be no code of conduct promoted by Government, like the model code that has existed in the past, that could serve as the default in the event of a local authority’s failure to adopt its own code.
17 May 2011 : Column 227
Thirdly, there is a serious risk that, under clause 16(2), a local authority that currently has a code of conduct could
“withdraw its existing code of conduct without replacing it.”
Ministers claimed that they would leave this to local government—that they would do the right thing. At a time when we are all concerned about standards in public life, whether at national or local government level, it is extraordinary that they should produce a half-baked proposal which has not been thought through, which allows loopholes and anomalies to exist, and which—most seriously—undermines the substantial progress that has been made in recent years in improving those standards.
Although Ministers appear unwilling to accept the case for amendments in the House of Commons, I sincerely hope that Members in another place with real experience of these matters will press amendments to ensure that there is a more coherent, more satisfactory and more demanding framework to maintain standards in public life.
Andrew Percy: I served as a local councillor for 10 years under the previous standards regime, which was an abuse of and an assault on local democracy. As long as councillors do not break any criminal law, it is for the public who elected them to judge their behaviour. I was once referred to the standards board by a political activist for having dared to be a school teacher. The process wasted public money, because someone had to investigate, only to find it was all a load of old guff. It was a politically motivated referral, and there were countless examples of the same thing in my council chamber. Members on all sides reported each other for everything. That is a load of old nonsense, and the sooner it goes the better.
As for pay policy, I cannot support the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). It is incredible that the Opposition should advance such proposals, having done what they have done to public sector pay at the top. I recall that when the Labour authority in Hull was seen as a failing council—I believe that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) was a Minister at the time—we were inspected by officials who told us that we must pay our senior staff more. We ended up with five corporate directors on outrageous salaries of £105,000 a year. [Interruption.] It is true: I was there at the time. We saw a massive explosion in pay. The suggestion that we should take lessons from the Opposition on the subject takes some swallowing.
I do, however, agree that there should be more transparency in regard to private contractors who work for local authorities. My local council, which was Labour-controlled until two weeks ago but is now Conservative-controlled, has spent £3 million on consultants in the last year, and spent millions of pounds in the preceding years. There should be more openness about how money is spent and how much people in the private sector are making. There is a good point behind the proposal, although, as I have said, it takes a little bit of swallowing given that the last Government presided over the pay explosion at the top.
Having made those few comments, I will yield to other Members who, I am sure, are keen to make their own contributions.
17 May 2011 : Column 228
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con): Let me first say how ably my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) spoke to amendment 2, which concerns the first-past-the-post system for electing mayors. I shall certainly support him in the Lobby if he presses it to a vote.
The Government are clearly in favour of the principle of elected mayors, given that they propose to allow 12 of them in the Bill. What I want to know is why they are making it so difficult for local authorities to initiate the process. Local authorities will rarely, if ever, vote for a referendum on the election of mayors. Because of the cosy relationship that often exists between councillors, they view elected mayors as a threat. However, elected mayors can provide leadership and transparency and revitalise local democracy, and we should do all that we can to encourage them. My amendment 1 would reduce the threshold of the electorate who can petition for an elected mayor from 5% to 2.5%. I hope that the Government will see the wisdom of my proposal, and will support it.
Gavin Barwell: I want to comment briefly on three of the amendments that have been discussed so far.
I have a huge amount of sympathy for the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) about a recall procedure for councillors, but, although I hope that the Government will reflect on the points that have been made and that such a procedure will be introduced eventually, I think it would be inappropriate for the House to introduce it before introducing a similar procedure for Members of Parliament.
I found it incredible that the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley)—who would not take an intervention—should criticise the Government for forcing referendums on the governance structure of local authorities, given that the Government whom she supported forced virtually every council in the country to adopt executive systems of governance with no recourse to referendums.
Finally—I am conscious of the time—I strongly support the new clause about Sunday trading that was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). He and I do not agree on many issues, but we agreed on two today, sentencing and Sunday trading. I also had a lot of sympathy with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) about first past the post. He spoke of the need for consistency, but his amendment would introduce a big inconsistency between the Mayor of London and other elected mayors. The Government should consider that issue in the context of the results of the referendum.
Andrew Stunell: The Localism Bill does what it says on the label. In Committee we tested and tweaked it, and today we are taking another step forward. I urge my hon. Friends and Opposition Members to give—
7.30 pm
Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 12 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
17 May 2011 : Column 229
The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).
‘(1) If 25% or more of the registered voters in the constituency of an elected local government member sign a relevant recall petition then a recall election must be held on the same date as the next election (whether or not a local election) to be held in the constituency of the elected government member, provided that that election is not less than 12 weeks after the threshold has been reached.
(2) In order for a recall petition to be relevant the appropriate returning officer must be satisfied that—
(a) the petition has been submitted in accordance with the rules provided for in subsection (3) and;
(b) there is evidence contained in the petition that the elected local government member has—
(i) acted in a way which is financially dishonest or disreputable,
(ii) intentionally misled the body to which he or she was elected,
(iii) broken any promises made by him or her in an election address,
(iv) behaved in a way that is likely to bring his or her office into disrepute, or
(v) lost the confidence of his or her electorate.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay regulations before Parliament within six months of the passing of this Act setting out—
(a) how notice of intent to petition for recall is to be given,
(b) how “registered voters” are to be defined for different types of constituency,
(c) the definition of “appropriate returning officer”,
(d) the ways in which registered voters can sign a recall petition,
(e) the ways in which signatures to such petitions will be verified,
(f) entitlement to vote in, and the conduct of, the recall election,
(g) rules on any other related matters as considered necessary by the Secretary of State, and
(h) consequential, saving, transitory or transitional provision (including amendments to existing statutory provision, whenever passed or made).
(4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to returning officers on how to make assessments under subsection (2)(b) within six months of the passing of this Act.
(5) The question that is to appear on the ballot papers in a recall election is “Should [name of elected local government member] be recalled from [name of body or office]?”.
(6) If at a recall election more votes are cast in favour of the answer “Yes” than in favour of the answer “No”, then—
(a) if the elected representative has been elected under a first past the post or alternative vote electoral system, he or she is recalled and a by-election must be held within three months in which the recalled candidate may stand, or
(b) if the elected representative has been elected under a system of proportional representation, the next candidate on the relevant party list shall take the seat.
(7) In this section “elected local government member” means any person elected to the Greater London Authority, a county council in England, district council, or London borough council, including an elected mayor of the council; and the Mayor of London.
17 May 2011 : Column 230
(8) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(9) Subsections (1) and (2) come into force six months after the day on which the regulations under subsection (3) are made.’.—(Zac Goldsmith.)
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Division off.
Amendment proposed: 37, page 4, line 22, at end insert—
‘(6A) The power under subsection (1) or (2) may not be exercised to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply—
(b) Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 section 7 or section 13,
(c) Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 section 23,
(d) Children Act 1989 Part 3 and Schedule 2,
(e) Childcare Act 2006, Parts 1 and 2,
(f) Child Poverty Act 2010 Part 2,
(g) Equality Act 2010, section 88,
(h) Equality Act 2010, section 149,
(j) Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 section 21,
(k) Transport Act 2000 section 145A,
(l) Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Exemptions for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000,
(m) Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2007,
(n) Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2007,
(o) Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000,
(p) Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995,
(q) Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986,
(r) Mental Health Act 1983 Part 8,
(s) Community Care, Services for Carers and Children Services (Direct Payments) England Regulations 2009,
(w) Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000,
(x) Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 section 40,
(y) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 section 25 or section 28E,
(z) Environment Act 1995 Part 4,
(z1) Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976,
(z2) Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949,
(z3) Hedgerow Regulations 1997,
(z4) Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 section 66 or section 72,
(z5) Ancient Monument and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 sections 12 and 13,
(z6) National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949,
(z7) Animal Welfare Act 2006 section 30,
17 May 2011 : Column 231
(z9) Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 Part 6,
(z10) Flood and Water Management Act 2010 Schedule 3,
(z11) Working Time Regulations 1998 Regulation 28,
(z12) Education Act 1996 section 15ZA,
(z13) Food Safety Act 1990 Parts 1, 2 and 3,
(z14) Freedom of Information Act 2000,
(z15) Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 section 1,
(z16) Housing Act 1996 Part 7,
(z18) Housing Act 2004 Part 2,
(z19) Local Government Act 1972 Part VA, section 99 or section 148,
(z20) Local Government Act 2000 Part 3 section 21 or section 37,
(z21) Children and Young Persons Act 1969 Part 1, or
(z22) Adoption and Children Act 2002.’.—(Barbara Keeley.)
The House divided:
Ayes 225, Noes 303.
[7.38 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Alexander, Heidi
Ali, Rushanara
Anderson, Mr David
Austin, Ian
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Balls, rh Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barron, rh Mr Kevin
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Bell, Sir Stuart
Benn, rh Hilary
Benton, Mr Joe
Berger, Luciana
Betts, Mr Clive
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Blunkett, rh Mr David
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, rh Mr Gordon
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Brown, Mr Russell
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Campbell, Mr Alan
Campbell, Mr Gregory
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Caton, Martin
Chapman, Mrs Jenny
Clark, Katy
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coffey, Ann
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Crausby, Mr David
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Alex
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Cunningham, Tony
Curran, Margaret
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
Davidson, Mr Ian
Davies, Geraint
De Piero, Gloria
Denham, rh Mr John
Dobbin, Jim
Dobson, rh Frank
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Dowd, Jim
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
Dugher, Michael
Durkan, Mark
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Edwards, Jonathan
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Engel, Natascha
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Chris
Farrelly, Paul
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Robert
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Francis, Dr Hywel
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Godsiff, Mr Roger
Goggins, rh Paul
Goodman, Helen
Greatrex, Tom
Green, Kate
Greenwood, Lilian
Griffith, Nia
Gwynne, Andrew
Hain, rh Mr Peter
Hamilton, Mr David
Hamilton, Fabian
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harris, Mr Tom
Havard, Mr Dai
Hendrick, Mark
Hepburn, Mr Stephen
Heyes, David
Hillier, Meg
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hoey, Kate
Hood, Mr Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin
Howarth, rh Mr George
Hunt, Tristram
Irranca-Davies, Huw
James, Mrs Siân C.
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Johnson, Diana
Jones, Graham
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Jowell, rh Tessa
Joyce, Eric
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeley, Barbara
Kendall, Liz
Khan, rh Sadiq
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lavery, Ian
Lazarowicz, Mark
Leslie, Chris
Lewis, Mr Ivan
Lloyd, Tony
Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn
Love, Mr Andrew
Lucas, Caroline
Lucas, Ian
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Shabana
Mann, John
McCabe, Steve
McCarthy, Kerry
McClymont, Gregg
McCrea, Dr William
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonnell, John
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGovern, Alison
McGovern, Jim
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne
McKechin, Ann
McKinnell, Catherine
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Mearns, Ian
Michael, rh Alun
Miller, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Morden, Jessica
Morrice, Graeme
(Livingston)
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Mudie, Mr George
Munn, Meg
Murphy, rh Mr Jim
Murphy, rh Paul
Murray, Ian
Nandy, Lisa
Nash, Pamela
O'Donnell, Fiona
Onwurah, Chi
Osborne, Sandra
Paisley, Ian
Pearce, Teresa
Perkins, Toby
Phillipson, Bridget
Pound, Stephen
Qureshi, Yasmin
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reeves, Rachel
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Robertson, John
Rotheram, Steve
Roy, Mr Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, rh Joan
Sarwar, Anas
Seabeck, Alison
Shannon, Jim
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Sheridan, Jim
Shuker, Gavin
Simpson, David
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Angela
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Spellar, rh Mr John
Straw, rh Mr Jack
Stringer, Graham
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Tami, Mark
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, rh Stephen
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Derek
Umunna, Mr Chuka
Vaz, rh Keith
Vaz, Valerie
Walley, Joan
Watson, Mr Tom
Watts, Mr Dave
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wicks, rh Malcolm
Williams, Hywel
Williamson, Chris
Wilson, Phil
Wilson, Sammy
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Woodcock, John
Woodward, rh Mr Shaun
Wright, David
Wright, Mr Iain
Tellers for the Ayes:
Jonathan Reynolds and
Lyn Brown
NOES
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Andrew, Stuart
Arbuthnot, rh Mr James
Bacon, Mr Richard
Baker, Norman
Baker, Steve
Baldry, Tony
Baldwin, Harriett
Barclay, Stephen
Barker, Gregory
Baron, Mr John
Barwell, Gavin
Bebb, Guto
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berry, Jake
Bingham, Andrew
Binley, Mr Brian
Blackman, Bob
Blunt, Mr Crispin
Boles, Nick
Bone, Mr Peter
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradley, Karen
Brake, Tom
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Mr Steve
Brokenshire, James
Brooke, Annette
Bruce, Fiona
Bruce, rh Malcolm
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Byles, Dan
Cairns, Alun
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cash, Mr William
Chishti, Rehman
Chope, Mr Christopher
Clappison, Mr James
Clark, rh Greg
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Crockart, Mike
Crouch, Tracey
Davey, Mr Edward
Davies, David T. C.
(Monmouth)
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh Mr David
de Bois, Nick
Dinenage, Caroline
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen
Dorries, Nadine
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Drax, Richard
Duncan, rh Mr Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Dunne, Mr Philip
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Eustice, George
Evans, Graham
Evans, Jonathan
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Featherstone, Lynne
Field, Mr Mark
Foster, rh Mr Don
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freeman, George
Freer, Mike
Fuller, Richard
Gale, Mr Roger
Garnier, Mr Edward
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, Mr David
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gilbert, Stephen
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glen, John
Goldsmith, Zac
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Graham, Richard
Grant, Mrs Helen
Gray, Mr James
Grayling, rh Chris
Green, Damian
Greening, Justine
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Griffiths, Andrew
Gummer, Ben
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hammond, rh Mr Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Matthew
Hancock, Mr Mike
Harper, Mr Mark
Harrington, Richard
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Heald, Oliver
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hemming, John
Henderson, Gordon
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollingbery, George
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Holloway, Mr Adam
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Huhne, rh Chris
Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy
Hunter, Mark
Huppert, Dr Julian
Hurd, Mr Nick
Jackson, Mr Stewart
James, Margot
Javid, Sajid
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, Mr David
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kelly, Chris
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Mr Greg
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Lancaster, Mark
Latham, Pauline
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leigh, Mr Edward
Leslie, Charlotte
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewis, Brandon
Lewis, Dr Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lidington, rh Mr David
Lloyd, Stephen
Lopresti, Jack
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Peter
Lumley, Karen
Macleod, Mary
Main, Mrs Anne
May, rh Mrs Theresa
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
McPartland, Stephen
McVey, Esther
Menzies, Mark
Mercer, Patrick
Metcalfe, Stephen
Miller, Maria
Mills, Nigel
Milton, Anne
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Moore, rh Michael
Mordaunt, Penny
Morgan, Nicky
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, David
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Mulholland, Greg
Mundell, rh David
Munt, Tessa
Murray, Sheryll
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
Nokes, Caroline
Norman, Jesse
Nuttall, Mr David
Offord, Mr Matthew
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Ottaway, Richard
Parish, Neil
Patel, Priti
Paterson, rh Mr Owen
Pawsey, Mark
Penning, Mike
Penrose, John
Percy, Andrew
Perry, Claire
Phillips, Stephen
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Prisk, Mr Mark
Pritchard, Mark
Raab, Mr Dominic
Randall, rh Mr John
Reckless, Mark
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reevell, Simon
Reid, Mr Alan
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Robertson, Hugh
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Rogerson, Dan
Rosindell, Andrew
Rudd, Amber
Russell, Bob
Rutley, David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sandys, Laura
Scott, Mr Lee
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Alok
Shelbrooke, Alec
Shepherd, Mr Richard
Simmonds, Mark
Simpson, Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Smith, Sir Robert
Soames, Nicholas
Soubry, Anna
Stephenson, Andrew
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Rory
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Mr Graham
Stunell, Andrew
Swales, Ian
Swayne, Mr Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Syms, Mr Robert
Teather, Sarah
Thurso, John
Timpson, Mr Edward
Tomlinson, Justin
Tredinnick, David
Truss, Elizabeth
Turner, Mr Andrew
Tyrie, Mr Andrew
Uppal, Paul
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Walker, Mr Charles
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Walter, Mr Robert
Ward, Mr David
Watkinson, Angela
Weatherley, Mike
Webb, Steve
Wharton, James
White, Chris
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Willetts, rh Mr David
Williams, Mr Mark
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
Williamson, Gavin
Willott, Jenny
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wright, Jeremy
Wright, Simon
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
James Duddridge and
Stephen Crabb
Question accordingly negatived.
17 May 2011 : Column 232
17 May 2011 : Column 233
17 May 2011 : Column 234
17 May 2011 : Column 235
Amendments made: 44, page 4, line 24, leave out from ‘must’ to ‘consult’.
Amendment 45, page 4, line 28, at end insert—
‘(8) Before making an order under subsection (1) that has effect in relation to Wales, the Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers.’.—(Robert Neill.)
Amendments made: 46, page 4, line 30, after ‘5(7)’, insert ‘and (8)’.
Amendment 47, page 4, line 33, leave out from ‘must’ to ‘undertake’ in line 34.
Amendment 48, page 4, line 36, after ‘5(7)’, insert ‘and (8)’.
Amendment 49, page 4, line 42, at end insert—
(ai) the Secretary of State’s reasons for considering that the conditions in section [Limits on power under section 5(1)](2), where relevant, are satisfied in relation to the proposals,’.
Amendment 50, page 4, line 43, after ‘5(7)’, insert ‘and (8)’.—(Robert Neill.)
Amendments made: 51, page 5, line 41, leave out ‘in England’.
Amendment 52, page 6, line 17, leave out ‘in England’.
Amendment 53, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
‘“Act” (except in a reference to the Localism Act 2011) includes an Act, or Measure, of the National Assembly for Wales;
“passed” in relation to an Act, or Measure, of the National Assembly for Wales means enacted;’.
Amendment 54, page 7, line 36, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘appropriate national authority’.
Amendment 55, page 7, line 39, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘appropriate national authority’.
Amendment 56, page 7, line 41, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘appropriate national authority’.
Amendment 57, page 7, line 43, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘appropriate national authority’.
Amendment 58, page 7, line 46, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘appropriate national authority’.
Amendment 59, page 8, line 1, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘appropriate national authority’.
Amendment 60, page 8, line 10, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert
17 May 2011 : Column 236
‘appropriate national authority proposing to make the order’.
Amendment 61, page 8, line 11, leave out from ‘must’ to ‘consult’ in line 12.
Amendment 62, page 8, line 16, leave out ‘the Secretary of State’ and insert ‘that appropriate national authority’.
Amendment 63, page 8, line 16, at end insert—
‘(6A) Subsection (6) does not apply to an order under subsection (3) or (4) which is made only for the purpose of amending an earlier such order—
(a) so as to extend the earlier order, or any provision of the earlier order, to a particular authority or to authorities of a particular description, or
(b) so that the earlier order, or any provision of the earlier order, ceases to apply to a particular authority or to authorities of a particular description.
(6B) The appropriate national authority’s power under subsection (1) or (2) is exercisable by the Welsh Ministers so far as it is power to make provision that—
(a) would be within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales if it were contained in an Act of the Assembly, and
(b) does not relate to a fire and rescue authority for an area in England.
(6C) The appropriate national authority’s power under subsection (1) or (2) is exercisable by the Secretary of State so far as it is not exercisable by the Welsh Ministers.
(6D) The appropriate national authority’s power under subsection (3) or (4) is exercisable—
(a) in relation to England by the Secretary of State, and
(b) in relation to Wales by the Welsh Ministers.
(6E) In exercising power under subsection (1) or (2), the Secretary of State may make provision which has effect in relation to Wales only after having consulted the Welsh Ministers.
(6F) The Welsh Ministers may submit to the Secretary of State proposals that power of the Secretary of State under subsection (1) or (2) in relation to Wales should be exercised in accordance with the proposals.
(6G) In subsections (1) and (2) “statutory provision” means a provision of—
(b) an instrument made under an Act,
and in this subsection “Act” includes an Act, or Measure, of the National Assembly for Wales.’.
Amendment 64, page 8, line 18, at end insert—
5CA Limits on power under section 5C(1)
(1) Provision may not be made under section 5C(1) unless the appropriate national authority making the provision considers that the conditions in subsection (2), where relevant, are satisfied in relation to that provision.
(2) Those conditions are that—
(a) the effect of the provision is proportionate to the policy objective intended to be secured by the provision;
(b) the provision, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it;
(c) the provision does not remove any necessary protection;
(d) the provision does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise;
(e) the provision is not of constitutional significance.
(3) An order under section 5C(1) may not make provision for the delegation or transfer of any function of legislating.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) a “function of legislating” is a function of legislating by order, rules, regulations
17 May 2011 : Column 237
or other subordinate instrument.
(5) An order under section 5C(1) may not make provision to abolish or vary any tax.’.
Amendment 65, page 8, line 19, leave out ‘orders under section 5C’ and insert
‘Secretary of State’s orders under section 5C(1) and (2)’.
Amendment 66, page 8, line 20, after ‘5C(6)’, insert ‘and (6E)’.
Amendment 67, page 8, line 21, after ‘order’, insert ‘of the Secretary of State’.
Amendment 68, page 8, line 23, leave out from ‘must’ to ‘undertake’ in line 24.
Amendment 69, page 8, line 27, after ‘5C(6)’, insert ‘and (6E)’.
Amendment 70, page 8, line 33, at end insert—
(ai) the Secretary of State’s reasons for considering that the conditions in section 5CA(2), where relevant, are satisfied in relation to the proposals,’.
Amendment 71, page 8, line 34, after ‘5C(6)’, insert ‘and (6E)’.
Amendment 72, page 9, line 1, after ‘Provision’, insert
‘proposed to be made by the Secretary of State’.
Amendment 73, page 9, line 4, leave out ‘5C(5)’ and insert ‘5C(6) and (6E)’.
Amendment 74, page 9, leave out lines 6 to 14.
Amendment 75, page 9, line 14, at end insert—
5E Procedure for Welsh Ministers’ orders under section 5C(1) and (2)
(1) If, as a result of any consultation required by section 5C(6) with respect to a proposed order of the Welsh Ministers under section 5C(1), it appears to the Welsh Ministers that it is appropriate to change the whole or any part of their proposals, they must undertake such further consultation with respect to the changes as they consider appropriate.
(2) If, after the conclusion of the consultation required by section 5C(6) and subsection (1), the Welsh Ministers consider it appropriate to proceed with the making of an order under section 5C(1), they must lay before the National Assembly for Wales—
(b) an explanatory document explaining the proposals and giving details of—
(i) the Welsh Ministers’ reasons for considering that the conditions in section 5CA(2), where relevant, are satisfied in relation to the proposals,
(ii) any consultation undertaken under section 5C(6) and subsection (1),
(iii) any representations received as a result of the consultation, and
(iv) the changes (if any) made as a result of those representations.
(3) Provision proposed to be made by the Welsh Ministers under section 5C(2) may be included in a draft order laid under subsection (2) and, if it is, the explanatory document laid with the draft order must also explain the proposals under section 5C(2) and give details of any consultation undertaken under section 5C(6) with respect to those proposals.
5F Determining Assembly procedures for drafts laid under section 5E(2)
‘(1) The explanatory document laid with a draft order under section 5E(2) must contain a recommendation by the Welsh Ministers as to which of the following should apply in relation to the making of an order pursuant to the draft order—
(a) the negative resolution procedure (see section 5G),
17 May 2011 : Column 238
(b) the affirmative resolution procedure (see section 5H), or
(c) the super-affirmative resolution procedure (see section 5J).
(2) The explanatory document must give reasons for the Welsh Ministers’ recommendation.
(3) Where the Welsh Ministers’ recommendation is that the negative resolution procedure should apply, that procedure applies unless, within the 30-day period—
(a) the National Assembly for Wales requires the application of the super-affirmative resolution procedure, in which case that procedure applies, or
(b) in a case not within paragraph (a), the Assembly requires the application of the affirmative resolution procedure, in which case that procedure applies.
(4) Where the Welsh Ministers’ recommendation is that the affirmative resolution procedure should apply, that procedure applies unless, within the 30-day period, the National Assembly for Wales requires the application of the super-affirmative resolution procedure, in which case the super-affirmative resolution procedure applies.
(5) Where the Welsh Ministers’ recommendation is that the super-affirmative resolution procedure should apply, that procedure applies.
(6) For the purposes of this section, the National Assembly for Wales is to be taken to have required the application of a procedure within the 30-day period if—
(a) the Assembly resolves within that period that that procedure is to apply, or
(b) in a case not within paragraph (a), a committee of the Assembly charged with reporting on the draft order has recommended within that period that that procedure should apply and the Assembly has not by resolution rejected that recommendation within that period.
(7) In this section “the 30-day period” means the 30 days beginning with the day on which the draft order was laid before the National Assembly for Wales under section 5E(2).
5G Negative resolution procedure for draft laid under section 5E(2)
‘(1) For the purposes of this Part, “the negative resolution procedure” in relation to the making of an order pursuant to a draft order laid under section 5E(2) is as follows.
(2) The Welsh Ministers may make an order in the terms of the draft order subject to the following provisions of this section.
(3) The Welsh Ministers may not make an order in the terms of the draft order if the National Assembly for Wales so resolves within the 40-day period.
(4) A committee of the National Assembly for Wales charged with reporting on the draft order may, at any time after the expiry of the 30-day period and before the expiry of the 40-day period, recommend under this subsection that the Welsh Ministers not make an order in the terms of the draft order.
(5) Where a committee of the National Assembly for Wales makes a recommendation under subsection (4) in relation to a draft order, the Welsh Ministers may not make an order in the terms of the draft order unless the recommendation is, in the same Assembly, rejected by resolution of the Assembly.
(6) For the purposes of this section an order is made in the terms of a draft order if it contains no material changes to the provisions of the draft order.
“the 30-day period” has the meaning given by section 5F(7), and
“the 40-day period” means the 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft order was laid before the National Assembly for Wales under section 5E(2).
17 May 2011 : Column 239
(8) For the purpose of calculating the 40-day period in a case where a recommendation is made under subsection (4) by a committee of the National Assembly for Wales but the recommendation is rejected by the Assembly under subsection (5), no account is to be taken of any day between the day on which the recommendation was made and the day on which the recommendation was rejected.
5H Affirmative resolution procedure for draft laid under section 5E(2)
‘(1) For the purposes of this Part, “the affirmative resolution procedure” in relation to the making of an order pursuant to a draft order laid under section 5E(2) is as follows.
(2) If after the expiry of the 40-day period the draft order is approved by a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales, the Welsh Ministers may make an order in the terms of the draft.
(3) However, a committee of the National Assembly for Wales charged with reporting on the draft order may, at any time after the expiry of the 30-day period and before the expiry of the 40-day period, recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.
(4) Where a committee of the National Assembly for Wales makes a recommendation under subsection (3) in relation to a draft order, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the draft order in the Assembly under subsection (2) unless the recommendation is, in the same Assembly, rejected by resolution of the Assembly.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (2) an order is made in the terms of a draft order if the order contains no material changes to the provisions of the draft order.
“the 30-day period” has the meaning given by section 5F(7), and
“the 40-day period” has the meaning given by section 5G(7).
(7) For the purpose of calculating the 40-day period in a case where a recommendation is made under subsection (3) by a committee of the National Assembly for Wales but the recommendation is rejected by the Assembly under subsection (4), no account is to be taken of any day between the day on which the recommendation was made and the day on which the recommendation was rejected.
5J Super-affirmative resolution procedure for draft laid under section 5E(2)
‘(1) For the purposes of this Part, “the super-affirmative resolution procedure” in relation to the making of an order pursuant to a draft order laid under section 5E(2) is as follows.
(2) The Welsh Ministers must have regard to—
(b) any resolution of the National Assembly for Wales, and
(c) any recommendation of a committee of the Assembly charged with reporting on the draft order,
made during the 60-day period in relation to the draft order.
(3) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Welsh Ministers want to make an order in the terms of the draft order, they must lay before the National Assembly for Wales a statement—
(a) stating whether any representations were made under subsection (2)(a), and
(b) if any representations were so made, giving details of them.
(4) The Welsh Ministers may after the laying of such a statement make an order in the terms of the draft order if it is approved by a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.
(5) However, a committee of the National Assembly for Wales charged with reporting on the draft order may, at any time after the laying of a statement under subsection (3) and before the
17 May 2011 : Column 240
draft order is approved by the Assembly under subsection (4), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.
(6) Where a committee of the National Assembly for Wales makes a recommendation under subsection (5) in relation to a draft order, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the draft order in the Assembly under subsection (4) unless the recommendation is, in the same Assembly, rejected by resolution of the Assembly.
(7) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Welsh Ministers wish to make an order consisting of a version of the draft order with material changes, they must lay before the National Assembly for Wales—
(a) a revised draft order, and
(b) a statement giving details of—
(i) any representations made under subsection (2)(a), and
(8) The Welsh Ministers may after laying a revised draft order and statement under subsection (7) make an order in the terms of the revised draft order if it is approved by a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.
(9) However, a committee of the National Assembly for Wales charged with reporting on the revised draft order may, at any time after the revised draft order is laid under subsection (7) and before it is approved by the Assembly under subsection (8), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the revised draft order.
(10) Where a committee of the National Assembly for Wales makes a recommendation under subsection (9) in relation to a revised draft order, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the revised draft order in the Assembly under subsection (8) unless the recommendation is, in the same Assembly, rejected by resolution of the Assembly.
(11) For the purposes of subsections (4) and (8) an order is made in the terms of a draft order if it contains no material changes to the provisions of the draft order.
(12) In this section “the 60-day period” means the 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft order was laid before the National Assembly for Wales under section 5E(2).
5K Calculation of time periods
In calculating any period of days for the purposes of sections 5F to 5J, no account is to be taken of any time during which the National Assembly for Wales is dissolved or during which the Assembly is in recess for more than four days.”’.
Amendment 76, page 9, line 15, leave out ‘In’ and insert ‘Omit’.
Amendment 77, page 9, line 17, leave out from ‘1972)’ to end of line 19.
Amendment 78, page 9, line 19, at end insert—
‘(2A) In section 60(1) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (meaning of “subordinate legislation”) for “by the Secretary of State under this Act” substitute “under this Act by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers”.’.
Amendment 79, page 9, line 23, after ‘order’, insert
‘made by the Secretary of State’.
Amendment 80, page 9, line 24, leave out ‘5D(5)’ and insert ‘5C(6A)’.
Amendment 81, page 9, line 25, after ‘order’, insert
‘made by the Secretary of State’.
Amendment 82, page 9, line 27, after ‘purpose,’, insert—
‘(ba) an order made by the Secretary of State under section 5C(2) that—
(i) amends any Act or provision of an Act, and
(ii) is not made in accordance with sections 15 to 19 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 as applied by section 5D(3),’.
17 May 2011 : Column 241
Amendment 83, page 9, line 28, leave out ‘which’ and insert
‘made by the Secretary of State, other than an order under section 5C, that’.
Amendment 84, page 9, line 32, leave out ‘“apart’ and insert ‘“legislation, apart’.
Amendment 85, page 9, line 33, leave out ‘“apart’ and insert ‘“legislation made by the Secretary of State, apart’.
Amendment 86, page 9, line 39, at end insert—
‘(4A) In section 60 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (orders and regulations) after subsection (5) insert—
(6) A statutory instrument containing (alone or with other provisions)—
(a) an order made by the Welsh Ministers under section 5C(3), other than one that it is made only for the purpose mentioned in section 5C(6A),
(b) an order made by the Welsh Ministers under section 5C(4), other than one that is made only for that purpose or for imposing conditions on the doing of things for a commercial purpose,
(c) an order made by the Welsh Ministers under section 5C(2) that—
(i) amends any Act or provision of an Act or amends any Act, or Measure, of the National Assembly for Wales or provision of such an Act or Measure, and
(ii) is not made in accordance with sections 5F to 5K, or
(d) subordinate legislation made by the Welsh Ministers, other than an order under section 5C, that amends any Act or provision of an Act,
may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the National Assembly for Wales.
(7) A statutory instrument containing any other subordinate legislation made by the Welsh Ministers, apart from—
(a) an order under section 5C(1),
(b) an order under section 5C(2) that is made in accordance with sections 5F to 5K, or
(c) an order under section 30 or 61,
is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.”
(4B) In section 62 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (application of Act in Wales)—
(a) in subsection (1)(b) (references to Secretary of State in sections 60 and 61) for “sections 60 and” substitute “section”,
(b) after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) The reference in subsection (1)(a) to Parts 1 to 6 does not include—
(c) omit subsection (3) (disapplication of section 60(4) and (5)).’.—(Robert Neill.)
Amendments made: 87, page 10, line 4, leave out ‘in England’.
Amendment 88, page 10, line 5, leave out ‘in England’.
Amendment 89, page 10, line 28, after ‘(1)’, insert ‘and section 18B(1)’.
17 May 2011 : Column 242
Amendment 90, page 11, line 16, leave out ‘in England’.
Amendment 91, page 11, line 22, after ‘State’, insert
‘in relation to fire and rescue authorities in England, and the Welsh Ministers in relation to fire and rescue authorities in Wales,’.
Amendment 92, page 11, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 12.
Amendment 93, page 12, line 5, leave out ‘this section’ and insert ‘subsection (3)’.
Amendment 94, page 12, line 15, leave out ‘In’ and insert ‘Omit’.
Amendment 95, page 12, line 15, leave out from ‘charging)’ to end of line 18.
Amendment 96, page 12, line 18, at end insert—
‘(3A) In section 62 (application of Act in Wales) before subsection (2) insert—
(1B) The reference in subsection (1)(a) to Parts 1 to 6 does not include sections 18A to 18C.”’.
Amendment 97, page 12, line 19, after ‘(3)’, insert
‘in relation to England or Wales’.
Amendment 98, page 12, line 21, after ‘in England’, insert
‘or (as the case may be) Wales’.—(Robert Neill.)
Amendment proposed: 2, page 199, leave out lines 30 to 43 and insert
‘The elected mayor is to be returned under the simple majority system.’.—(John Stevenson .)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided:
Ayes 29, Noes 279.
[7.49 pm
AYES
Bebb, Guto
Binley, Mr Brian
Brine, Mr Steve
Campbell, Mr Gregory
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Cash, Mr William
Chope, Mr Christopher
Davies, Philip
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Dorries, Nadine
Drax, Richard
Goldsmith, Zac
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hoey, Kate
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Hopkins, Kelvin
Lewis, Dr Julian
McCartney, Jason
McCrea, Dr William
Nuttall, Mr David
Paisley, Ian
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Shannon, Jim
Simpson, David
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Stevenson, John
Vickers, Martin
Walker, Mr Charles
Whittaker, Craig
Tellers for the Ayes:
Simon Reevell and
Andrew Percy
NOES
Adams, Nigel
Aldous, Peter
Andrew, Stuart
Arbuthnot, rh Mr James
Bacon, Mr Richard
Baker, Norman
Baker, Steve
Baldry, Tony
Baldwin, Harriett
Barclay, Stephen
Barker, Gregory
Baron, Mr John
Barwell, Gavin
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berry, Jake
Bingham, Andrew
Blackman, Bob
Blunt, Mr Crispin
Boles, Nick
Bone, Mr Peter
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradley, Karen
Brake, Tom
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Brokenshire, James
Brooke, Annette
Bruce, Fiona
Bruce, rh Malcolm
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Burt, Lorely
Byles, Dan
Cairns, Alun
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Chishti, Rehman
Clappison, Mr James
Clark, rh Greg
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Crabb, Stephen
Crockart, Mike
Crouch, Tracey
Davey, Mr Edward
Davies, David T. C.
(Monmouth)
Davies, Glyn
de Bois, Nick
Dinenage, Caroline
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Duddridge, James
Duncan, rh Mr Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Dunne, Mr Philip
Edwards, Jonathan
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Evans, Graham
Evans, Jonathan
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Featherstone, Lynne
Field, Mr Mark
Foster, rh Mr Don
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freeman, George
Freer, Mike
Fuller, Richard
Garnier, Mr Edward
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, Mr David
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gilbert, Stephen
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glen, John
Graham, Richard
Grant, Mrs Helen
Gray, Mr James
Grayling, rh Chris
Green, Damian
Greening, Justine
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Griffiths, Andrew
Gummer, Ben
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hammond, rh Mr Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Matthew
Hancock, Mr Mike
Harper, Mr Mark
Harrington, Richard
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Heald, Oliver
Heath, Mr David
Hemming, John
Henderson, Gordon
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollingbery, George
Holloway, Mr Adam
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Huhne, rh Chris
Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy
Huppert, Dr Julian
Hurd, Mr Nick
Jackson, Mr Stewart
Javid, Sajid
Johnson, Gareth
Jones, Andrew
Jones, Mr David
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kelly, Chris
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Mr Greg
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Lancaster, Mark
Latham, Pauline
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leigh, Mr Edward
Leslie, Charlotte
Lewis, Brandon
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lidington, rh Mr David
Lloyd, Stephen
Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn
Lopresti, Jack
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Lucas, Caroline
Luff, Peter
Lumley, Karen
Macleod, Mary
May, rh Mrs Theresa
McCartney, Karl
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
McPartland, Stephen
McVey, Esther
Menzies, Mark
Mercer, Patrick
Metcalfe, Stephen
Miller, Maria
Mills, Nigel
Milton, Anne
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Moore, rh Michael
Mordaunt, Penny
Morgan, Nicky
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, David
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Mulholland, Greg
Mundell, rh David
Munt, Tessa
Murray, Sheryll
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
Nokes, Caroline
Norman, Jesse
Offord, Mr Matthew
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Ottaway, Richard
Parish, Neil
Patel, Priti
Paterson, rh Mr Owen
Penning, Mike
Penrose, John
Perry, Claire
Phillips, Stephen
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Prisk, Mr Mark
Pritchard, Mark
Raab, Mr Dominic
Randall, rh Mr John
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reckless, Mark
Redwood, rh Mr John
Reid, Mr Alan
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Robertson, Hugh
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Rogerson, Dan
Rosindell, Andrew
Rudd, Amber
Russell, Bob
Rutley, David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sandys, Laura
Scott, Mr Lee
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Alok
Shelbrooke, Alec
Shepherd, Mr Richard
Simmonds, Mark
Simpson, Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Smith, Sir Robert
Soames, Nicholas
Soubry, Anna
Stephenson, Andrew
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Rory
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Mr Graham
Stunell, Andrew
Swales, Ian
Swayne, Mr Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Syms, Mr Robert
Teather, Sarah
Thurso, John
Timpson, Mr Edward
Tomlinson, Justin
Tredinnick, David
Truss, Elizabeth
Turner, Mr Andrew
Tyrie, Mr Andrew
Uppal, Paul
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Walter, Mr Robert
Ward, Mr David
Watkinson, Angela
Weatherley, Mike
Webb, Steve
Wharton, James
White, Chris
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Willetts, rh Mr David
Williams, Hywel
Williams, Mr Mark
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
Williamson, Gavin
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wilson, Sammy
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wright, Jeremy
Wright, Simon
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
Mr Robert Goodwill and
Mark Hunter
Question accordingly negatived.
17 May 2011 : Column 243
17 May 2011 : Column 244
Amendment proposed: 41, page 211, line 18, leave out from beginning to end of line 31 on page 213.—(Barbara Keeley.)
17 May 2011 : Column 245
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided:
Ayes 218, Noes 293.
[8.1 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob
Alexander, Heidi
Ali, Rushanara
Anderson, Mr David
Austin, Ian
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Banks, Gordon
Barron, rh Mr Kevin
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Bell, Sir Stuart
Benn, rh Hilary
Benton, Mr Joe
Berger, Luciana
Betts, Mr Clive
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Blunkett, rh Mr David
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Brown, Mr Russell
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Campbell, Mr Alan
Campbell, Mr Gregory
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Caton, Martin
Chapman, Mrs Jenny
Coffey, Ann
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, Rosie
Crausby, Mr David
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Alex
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Cunningham, Tony
Curran, Margaret
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
Davies, Geraint
Davies, Philip
De Piero, Gloria
Denham, rh Mr John
Dobbin, Jim
Dobson, rh Frank
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Dowd, Jim
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
Dugher, Michael
Durkan, Mark
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Edwards, Jonathan
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Engel, Natascha
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Chris
Farrelly, Paul
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Robert
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
George, Andrew
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Godsiff, Mr Roger
Goggins, rh Paul
Goodman, Helen
Greatrex, Tom
Green, Kate
Greenwood, Lilian
Griffith, Nia
Gwynne, Andrew
Hain, rh Mr Peter
Hamilton, Mr David
Hamilton, Fabian
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harris, Mr Tom
Hendrick, Mark
Hepburn, Mr Stephen
Heyes, David
Hillier, Meg
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hoey, Kate
Hopkins, Kelvin
Howarth, rh Mr George
Hunt, Tristram
Irranca-Davies, Huw
James, Mrs Siân C.
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Johnson, Diana
Jones, Graham
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Jowell, rh Tessa
Joyce, Eric
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeley, Barbara
Kendall, Liz
Khan, rh Sadiq
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lavery, Ian
Lazarowicz, Mark
Leslie, Chris
Lewis, Mr Ivan
Lloyd, Tony
Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn
Love, Mr Andrew
Lucas, Caroline
Lucas, Ian
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Shabana
Mann, John
McCabe, Steve
McCarthy, Kerry
McClymont, Gregg
McCrea, Dr William
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonnell, John
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGovern, Alison
McGovern, Jim
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne
McKechin, Ann
McKinnell, Catherine
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Mearns, Ian
Michael, rh Alun
Miller, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Morden, Jessica
Morrice, Graeme
(Livingston)
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Mudie, Mr George
Munn, Meg
Murphy, rh Mr Jim
Murphy, rh Paul
Murray, Ian
Nandy, Lisa
Nash, Pamela
O'Donnell, Fiona
Onwurah, Chi
Osborne, Sandra
Paisley, Ian
Pearce, Teresa
Perkins, Toby
Phillipson, Bridget
Pound, Stephen
Qureshi, Yasmin
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reeves, Rachel
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Robertson, John
Rotheram, Steve
Roy, Mr Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, rh Joan
Sarwar, Anas
Seabeck, Alison
Shannon, Jim
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Sheridan, Jim
Shuker, Gavin
Simpson, David
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Angela
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Spellar, rh Mr John
Straw, rh Mr Jack
Stringer, Graham
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Tami, Mark
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, rh Stephen
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Derek
Umunna, Mr Chuka
Vaz, Valerie
Walley, Joan
Ward, Mr David
Watts, Mr Dave
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wicks, rh Malcolm
Williams, Hywel
Williamson, Chris
Wilson, Phil
Wilson, Sammy
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Woodcock, John
Woodward, rh Mr Shaun
Wright, David
Wright, Mr Iain
Tellers for the Ayes:
Jonathan Reynolds and
Lyn Brown
NOES
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Andrew, Stuart
Arbuthnot, rh Mr James
Bacon, Mr Richard
Baker, Norman
Baker, Steve
Baldry, Tony
Baldwin, Harriett
Barclay, Stephen
Barker, Gregory
Baron, Mr John
Barwell, Gavin
Bebb, Guto
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berry, Jake
Bingham, Andrew
Binley, Mr Brian
Blackman, Bob
Blunt, Mr Crispin
Boles, Nick
Bone, Mr Peter
Bradley, Karen
Brake, Tom
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Mr Steve
Brooke, Annette
Bruce, Fiona
Bruce, rh Malcolm
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Burt, Lorely
Byles, Dan
Cairns, Alun
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cash, Mr William
Chishti, Rehman
Chope, Mr Christopher
Clappison, Mr James
Clark, rh Greg
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Crockart, Mike
Crouch, Tracey
Davey, Mr Edward
Davies, David T. C.
(Monmouth)
Davies, Glyn
de Bois, Nick
Dinenage, Caroline
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Dorries, Nadine
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Drax, Richard
Duncan, rh Mr Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Dunne, Mr Philip
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Eustice, George
Evans, Graham
Evans, Jonathan
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Featherstone, Lynne
Field, Mr Mark
Foster, rh Mr Don
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freeman, George
Freer, Mike
Fuller, Richard
Gale, Mr Roger
Garnier, Mr Edward
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, Mr David
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gilbert, Stephen
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glen, John
Goldsmith, Zac
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Graham, Richard
Grant, Mrs Helen
Gray, Mr James
Grayling, rh Chris
Green, Damian
Greening, Justine
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Griffiths, Andrew
Gummer, Ben
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hammond, rh Mr Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Matthew
Hancock, Mr Mike
Harper, Mr Mark
Harrington, Richard
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Hayes, Mr John
Heald, Oliver
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hemming, John
Henderson, Gordon
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollingbery, George
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Holloway, Mr Adam
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Huhne, rh Chris
Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy
Hunter, Mark
Huppert, Dr Julian
Hurd, Mr Nick
Jackson, Mr Stewart
Javid, Sajid
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Johnson, Gareth
Jones, Andrew
Jones, Mr David
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kelly, Chris
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Mr Greg
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Lancaster, Mark
Latham, Pauline
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leslie, Charlotte
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewis, Brandon
Lewis, Dr Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lidington, rh Mr David
Lloyd, Stephen
Lopresti, Jack
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Peter
Lumley, Karen
Macleod, Mary
Main, Mrs Anne
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
McPartland, Stephen
McVey, Esther
Menzies, Mark
Mercer, Patrick
Metcalfe, Stephen
Miller, Maria
Mills, Nigel
Milton, Anne
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Moore, rh Michael
Mordaunt, Penny
Morgan, Nicky
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, David
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Mundell, rh David
Munt, Tessa
Murray, Sheryll
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
Nokes, Caroline
Norman, Jesse
Nuttall, Mr David
Offord, Mr Matthew
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Ottaway, Richard
Parish, Neil
Patel, Priti
Paterson, rh Mr Owen
Pawsey, Mark
Penning, Mike
Penrose, John
Percy, Andrew
Perry, Claire
Phillips, Stephen
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Prisk, Mr Mark
Pritchard, Mark
Raab, Mr Dominic
Randall, rh Mr John
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reevell, Simon
Reid, Mr Alan
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Robertson, Hugh
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Rogerson, Dan
Rosindell, Andrew
Rudd, Amber
Ruffley, Mr David
Russell, Bob
Rutley, David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sandys, Laura
Scott, Mr Lee
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Alok
Shelbrooke, Alec
Shepherd, Mr Richard
Simmonds, Mark
Simpson, Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Smith, Sir Robert
Soubry, Anna
Stephenson, Andrew
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Rory
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Mr Graham
Stunell, Andrew
Swales, Ian
Swayne, Mr Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Syms, Mr Robert
Teather, Sarah
Thurso, John
Timpson, Mr Edward
Tomlinson, Justin
Truss, Elizabeth
Turner, Mr Andrew
Tyrie, Mr Andrew
Uppal, Paul
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Walker, Mr Charles
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Walter, Mr Robert
Watkinson, Angela
Weatherley, Mike
Webb, Steve
Wharton, James
White, Chris
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Willetts, rh Mr David
Williams, Mr Mark
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
Williamson, Gavin
Willott, Jenny
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wright, Jeremy
Wright, Simon
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
James Duddridge and
Stephen Crabb
Question accordingly negatived.
17 May 2011 : Column 246
17 May 2011 : Column 247
17 May 2011 : Column 248
Amendments made:99, page 223, line 4, leave out ‘and
“mayor and council manager executive”’.
Amendment 100, page 223, line 5, leave out ‘and
“mayor and council manager executive”’.
17 May 2011 : Column 249
Amendment 101, page 223, line 10, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
Amendment 102, page 224, line 21, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
Amendment 103, page 225, line 20, leave out ‘In section’ and insert—
Amendment 104, page 225, line 20, leave out ‘in’ and insert
‘is amended as follows.
Amendment 105, page 225, line 21, at end insert—
‘(3) In subsection (3) in the definition of “area committee” for the words from “means—” to “in Wales,” substitute “means”.
(4) Omit subsections (4) and (5).
(5) In subsection (6) omit “in Wales”.’.
Amendment 106, page 226, line 23, at end insert—
‘(2A) In subsection (2ZA) omit “in Wales”.’.
Amendment 107, page 226, line 25, leave out ‘, (b) and (e)’ and insert ‘and (b)’.
Amendment 108, page 226, line 26, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
(b) in paragraph (e) for the words from “committee—” to “a joint overview and scrutiny committee” substitute “committee”.’.
Amendment 109, page 226, line 28, leave out ‘sections’.
Amendment 110, page 226, line 28, leave out ‘section 21A’ and insert ‘21A and 21B’.
Amendment 111, page 226, line 33, at end insert—
‘(5A) In subsection (10A) omit “in Wales”.’.
Amendment 112, page 226, line 34, leave out ‘omit paragraph (aa).’ and insert ‘—
(a) in paragraph (aa) omit the words from “by virtue of” to “England) or”, and
(b) in paragraph (c) omit the words from the beginning to “in Wales”.’.
Amendment 113, page 226, line 35, leave out sub-paragraph (7).
Amendment 114, page 226, line 42, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) and insert—
‘(2) In subsection (3) omit the words from “(in the case of a local authority in England” to “Wales)”.
(3) In subsection (6)(a) omit the words from “section 236” to “2007 or”.
(4) Omit subsections (10) and (11).
(5) In subsection (12) omit “in Wales”.’.
Amendment 115, page 227, line 3, leave out paragraph 29.
Amendment 116, page 227, line 7, leave out ‘Omit section’ and insert—
Amendment 117, page 227, line 8, after ‘information)’, insert
‘is amended as follows.
‘(2) In subsection (1)(b) omit sub-paragraph (ii).
(3) In subsection (2) omit “or providing a copy of the document to a relevant partner authority”.
(a) in the definition of “exempt information”—
(i) omit “section 246 of the National Health Service Act 2006 or”, and
(ii) at the end insert “and”, and
(b) omit the definition of “relevant partner authority”.’.
17 May 2011 : Column 250
Amendment 118, page 227, line 10, at end insert—
32A (1) Section 21F (as inserted by the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2011) (Wales: notifying designated body of report or recommendations) is amended as follows.
(2) In the title for “Wales: notifying” substitute “Notifying”.
(3) In subsection (1) omit “in Wales”.’.
Amendment 119, page 227, line 11, after ‘21F’, insert
‘(as inserted by the Flood and Water Management Act 2010)’.
Amendment 120, page 227, line 12, at end insert—
33A In the title of section 21G (Wales: designated persons) for “Wales: designated” substitute “Designated”.’.
Amendment 121, page 227, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
(a) for the words from “Secretary” to “Wales),” substitute “Welsh Ministers”, and
(b) in paragraph (a) omit the words from “, or under” to “section 21B,”.’.
Amendment 122, page 227, line 31, leave out paragraph 39.
Amendment 123, page 227, line 33, leave out paragraph 40.
Amendment 124, page 227, line 37, leave out paragraph 41 and insert—
41 Omit section 31 (alternative arrangements).’.
Amendment 125, page 228, line 5, leave out paragraph 42 and insert—
42 Omit section 32 (alternative arrangements).’.
Amendment 126, page 228, line 15, leave out paragraph 43.
Amendment 127, page 228, line 18, at end insert—
43A (1) Section 33ZA (Wales: changing governance arrangements) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading for “Wales: changing” substitute “Changing”.
Amendment 128, page 228, line 19, leave out from ‘arrangements)’ to end of line 21.
Amendment 129, page 231, line 37, leave out sub-paragraph (5).—(Greg Clark.)
Amendments made: 130, page 16, line 18, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.
Amendment 131, page 16, line 19, leave out
‘any manner that it considers appropriate’
‘such manner as it considers is likely to bring the adoption, revision or withdrawal of the code of conduct to the attention of persons who live in its area’.—(Greg Clark.)
‘(1) This section applies to a local or public authority which has been given a notice under section 32 in respect of an EU financial sanction which is or includes a penalty payment.
(2) Before imposing a requirement on a local or public authority to which this section applies to make a further payment under this Part, a Minister of the Crown must give a further
17 May 2011 : Column 251
warning notice to the authority and follow the procedures set out in that notice (subject to any changes to those procedures made under subsection (8)).
(3) A further warning notice is a notice stating that the Minister believes—
(a) that acts of that authority may have caused or contributed to the continuing infraction of EU law for which the EU financial sanction in question was imposed; and
(b) that, if acts of that authority did cause or contribute to that continuing infraction of EU law, it would be appropriate to consider requiring the authority to make a further payment under this Part in respect of any relevant periodic payments.
(4) In this section “relevant periodic payments” means periodic payments falling due from the United Kingdom as part of the EU financial sanction in question which—
(a) have not already been the subject of an EU financial sanction notice given to the authority; and
(b) fall due before a date specified in the further warning notice.
(5) The date so specified must not be later than the day on which the further warning notice is given to the authority in question.
(6) The warning notice must also—
(a) set out the Minister’s reasons for making the statements mentioned in subsection (3);
(b) if the Minister thinks it appropriate to do so, specify the amount of the payment the Minister considers the authority would be required to pay on the assumption that the relevant circumstances have not changed since the most recent EU financial sanction notice was given to the authority;
(c) set out the procedures for determining—
(i) whether the authority should be required to make a payment in respect of any relevant periodic payments, and
(ii) the amount of any payment the authority is to be required to make;
(d) invite the authority to make representations to the Minister about—
(i) any change of circumstances since the most recent EU financial sanction notice, or
(ii) anything else that may be relevant to the determination of the matters mentioned in paragraph (c)(i) and (ii).
(7) The further warning notice may contain such other information as the Minister considers appropriate (including, in particular, anything of a description mentioned in section 31(3)(b) to (e)).
(8) The Minister may, before the matters mentioned in subsection (6)(c)(i) and (ii) are determined, give the authority a notice stating any changes that the Minister has decided to make to any procedures or other information set out in the further warning notice.
(9) A further warning notice given to a local or public authority may be withdrawn at any time before the matters mentioned in subsection (6)(c)(i) and (ii) are determined, but this does not prevent another further warning notice being given to the authority.’.—(Greg Clark.)
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
‘(1) A Minister of the Crown may give a further EU financial sanction notice to a local or public authority to which section [Further warning notices] applies in respect of any relevant periodic payments (within the meaning of that section).
17 May 2011 : Column 252
(2) A further EU financial sanction notice may be given only if the Minister is satisfied that acts of that authority have caused or contributed to the continuing infraction of EU law for which the EU financial sanction in question was imposed.
(3) Section 32(2) and (3) to (5) apply to a further EU financial sanction notice as they apply to an EU financial sanction notice under section 32.
(4) In the application of those provisions to a further EU financial sanction notice, references to the total amount of the sanction are to be read as referring to the total amount of the relevant periodic payments that are the subject of the notice.’.—(Greg Clark.)
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
Amendments made: 132, page 22, line 7, leave out ‘260’ and insert ‘260(2)’.
Amendment 133, page 22, line 14, at end insert ‘; or
(b) in the case of an EU financial sanction that is or includes a penalty payment, by a further EU financial sanction notice under section [Further EU financial sanction notices] given by the Minister to that authority after complying with the requirements of section [Further warning notices].’.—(Greg Clark.)
Amendments made: 134, page 23, line 29, at end insert—
‘(3A) If the EU financial sanction to which the warning notice relates is or includes a penalty payment, the sanction is to be treated for the purposes of the warning notice as excluding any periodic payment which falls due from the United Kingdom on or after a date specified in the warning notice.
(3B) The date so specified must not be later than the day on which the warning notice is given to the authority in question.’.
Amendment 135, page 23, line 39, leave out ‘a further’ and insert ‘another’.—(Greg Clark.)
Amendments made: 136, page 24, line 1, at end insert ‘and the total amount of that sanction,’.
Amendment 137, page 24, line 10, at end insert—
‘(2A) If the EU financial sanction to which the notice relates is or includes a penalty payment, the sanction is to be treated for the purposes of the notice as excluding any periodic payment which falls due from the United Kingdom on or after the date specified under section 31(3A) in the warning notice given to the authority.’.
Amendment 138, page 24, line 11, leave out ‘specified in the notice’ and insert
‘required to be paid by the authority’.—(Greg Clark.)
17 May 2011 : Column 253
Amendments made: 139, page 24, line , at end insert—
‘(d) the Council of the Isles of Scilly.’.
Amendment 140, page 24, line 37, at end insert—
‘(4) The following may not be designated under subsection (3)—
(a) either House of Parliament, a Minister of the Crown or a United Kingdom government department;
(b) a court or tribunal.’.—(Greg Clark.)
Amendments made: 141, page 24, line 41, at end insert
‘or section [Further EU financial sanction notices]’.
Amendment 142, page 25, line 3, leave out
‘an obligation under the EU treaties’
‘a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union made under Article 260(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union’.
Amendment 143, page 25, line 6, at end insert—
‘(2) For the purposes of this Part—
(a) references to a periodic payment, in relation to an EU financial sanction that is or includes a penalty payment, are to a payment due under the terms of the penalty payment; and
(b) a periodic payment is to be regarded as the subject of an EU financial sanction notice given to a local or public authority if it is included in the sum specified in such a notice as the total amount of the EU financial sanction to which the notice relates;
and it is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (b) whether the EU financial sanction notice in question is given under section32 or section [Further EU financial sanction notice].’.—(Greg Clark .)