Local Audit and Accountability Bill — Clause 39 — Protocol for Issuing Direction Relating to Code of Practice on Local Authority Publicity — 17 Dec 2013 at 16:15
The majority of MPs voted against a proposal to only allow the Secretary of State to issue a direction to a local council relating to compliance with the code of practice on local authority publicity where evidence of a breach of a code has been sent to the authority and, if the authority has replied, that a report from the Secretary of State in light of that reply has been published.
MPs were considering the Local Audit and Accountability Bill[1]. The amendment rejected in this vote was:
- Amendment: 15, page 26, line 25, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
- ‘(4) A direction can only be made by the Secretary of State if—
- (a) evidence of a breach of a code has been published by the Secretary of State to the local authority;
- (b) a local authority, on receipt of a letter from the Secretary of State notifying them of evidence which purports to demonstrate a breach of the code has made a response to the Secretary of State within 28 days; and
- (c) upon receiving any response the Secretary of State has published a report detailing his conclusions
The subsection 4 referred to which this rejected amendment would have deleted is within a proposed new section 4A to the Local Government Act 1986 which the Local Audit and Accountability Bill sought to introduce. The section is titled Power to direct compliance with code and gives the Secretary of State powers to direct local councils to comply with the code of practice on local authority publicity, and sets out criteria, and protocols for the use of those powers. The subsection the rejected amendment sought to delete stated:
- The Secretary of State may give a direction to an authority whether or not the Secretary of State thinks that the authority is complying with the code to which it relates.
==
Party Summary
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
| Party | Majority (No) | Minority (Aye) | Both | Turnout |
| Con | 243 (+1 tell) | 0 | 0 | 80.0% |
| DUP | 0 | 1 | 0 | 12.5% |
| Green | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Independent | 0 | 2 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Lab | 0 | 219 (+2 tell) | 0 | 85.7% |
| LDem | 44 (+1 tell) | 0 | 0 | 80.4% |
| PC | 0 | 1 | 0 | 33.3% |
| SDLP | 0 | 2 | 0 | 66.7% |
| Total: | 287 | 226 | 0 | 81.3% |
Rebel Voters - sorted by party
MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division
Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote
| Name | Constituency | Party | Vote | |
| no rebellions | ||||