Freedom of Information: information refused or not held by EDDC

Freedom of Information – Requests for information where it was refused or where they say no information is held dealt with by East Devon District Council in the last six months (September 2015 – February 2016)

Bear in mind these are only those published on the What Do They Know website – there will have been others submitted directly and refused and a large number are awaiting reply which may be refused or “awaiting internal classification” [no idea what that means!] or are subject to appeal.

Refusal to say by how much EDDC is subsidising the Leisure East Devon Ocean facility in Exmouth
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_ocean_complex_exmouth_what_f#comment-66779

More detailed information on past electricity consumption at Knowle and saying that EDDC does not “hold” utility bills like domestic consumers so it cannot provide the information requested:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/electricity_consumption_at_the_k#incoming-754358

A request as to how much temporary staffing is costing EDDC is long overdue for reply:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/temporary_staffing_121#incoming-741085

Refusal to publish the contract agreed between EDDC and PegasusLife for sale of Knowle:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/temporary_staffing_121#incoming-741085

Gas consumption at Knowle (see electricity consumption above):
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/gas_consumption_at_the_knowle#incoming-734172

Evidence for more retail outlets on Exmouth seafront – information not held so cannot be divulged:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/evidence_of_need_of_more_retail#outgoing-492759

Reports: were they critically examined or simply accepted as fact? Information not held:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/were_commissioned_reports_critic#incoming-724381

What strikes Owl: how much information EDDC ought to have at its fingertips and doesn’t.

How can they know relocation is the right thing if they don’t have numbers? How can they be sure reports are accurate if they are not critically reviewed and transparent? Why can’t we know how much our council taxes are subsidising Leisure East Devon? Why can’t we know how much temporary staff cost when Jeremy Hunt is so profligate with this information for the NHS?

Ombudsman criticises council for lack of transparency in planning decision

“The Local Government Ombudsman has criticised a council after members of its planning committee approved an application against an officer’s recommendation but failed to give reasons for doing so.

The decision by Erewash Borough Council related to an application for a development in the Green Belt. The applicant wanted permission to extend his bungalow by adding a first floor and garage extension.

The complainants to the LGO were neighbours of the site, which was on the edge of a village.

They submitted a number of complaints, including that the initial application was not advertised properly, and that members did not give any reasons for granting planning permission.

In its report, which can be viewed here, the Ombudsman upheld these complaints, but did not uphold some others.

The LGO found that Erewash posted a site notice, which notified adjoining neighbours and the parish council, but did not advertise it in a local newspaper as a departure from the local plan.

A planning officer recommended refusal because the proposed extensions were disproportionate to the size of the original building and would increase the building’s prominence.

The officer’s report to the committee included details of the neighbours’ objections and those of the local parish council along with representations from the applicant and his agent.

Following a site visit, members decided to approve the application against the officer’s recommendation. However, no record was made of the reasons for their decision.

The LGO has recommended Erewash BC:

apologise to the neighbours for failing to publicise the application as a departure from the local plan and for also not giving reasons for the decision to grant planning permission. “The council should recognise that residents will now be uncertain of what the outcome might have been but for the council’s fault”;
review its working practices and procedures regarding how it makes and records the reasons for its decisions; and
provide training to members on giving proper reasons for their decisions.
Dr Jane Martin, Local Government Ombudsman, said: “For people to have confidence in the local planning system, decisions must be made in as transparent a way as possible. This includes making records of the reasons for those decisions.

“This is particularly important when members decide against planning officers’ recommendations. Without written reasons people who are affected by a decision cannot know exactly what has happened or feel reassured that decisions were taken fairly.

“I now urge Erewash council to provide the remedies I have recommended and improve its practices and procedures to ensure people can have faith in its planning decisions.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26049:ombudsman-criticises-council-for-lack-of-transparency-in-planning-decision&catid=63&Itemid=31

Law Commission Consultation: Misconduct in public office

“To launch our consultation, we have published our first paper on Misconduct in Public Office.

Misconduct in Public Office: Issues Paper 1 – The Current Law is a background document that sets out the current law of misconduct in public office, highlighting problems that arise through areas of uncertainty, as well as gaps and overlaps with alternative offences.

We launched the first phase of our consultation with a symposium of eminent speakers and delegates, which coincided with the publication of Issues Paper 1 on 20 January 2016 (we have published a selection of tweets from the day). Our focus at this stage is on the current law and its problems. The aim of the paper and symposium is to provide us with an opportunity to stimulate informed debate on the problems identified, explore the options for reform and engage with practitioners and experts who deal with the offence. We seek responses to the questions set out in this background paper by 20 March 2016.

The second phase of consultation will begin later this spring with the publication of a paper exploring options for reform. A final report will be published in 2017.

Our project

Our reform objectives are to decide whether the existing offence of misconduct in public office should be abolished, retained, restated or amended and to pursue whatever scheme of reform is decided upon.

The legal concepts involved in the offence of misconduct in public office are highly technical and complex and not easily accessible to non-lawyers.

Furthermore there is often some confusion between what the law is and what it should be. The question of the appropriate boundaries of criminal liability for public officials is clearly a matter of broad public interest.

The offence and its problems

Misconduct in public office is a common law offence: it is not defined in any statute. It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The offence requires that: a public officer acting as such; wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself; to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder; without reasonable excuse or justification.

Historically the offence held public officers to account for their misconduct, where there were no other adequate ways of doing so. Nowadays such misconduct will usually amount to another, narrower and better defined, criminal offence.

The offence is widely considered to be ill-defined and has been subject to recent criticism by the government, the Court of Appeal, the press and legal academics.

Statistics suggest that more people are being accused of misconduct in public office while fewer of those accusations lead to convictions. One possible reason is that the lack of clear definition of the offence renders it difficult to apply.

We have identified a number of problems with the offence:

“Public office” lacks clear definition yet is a critical element of the offence. This ambiguity generates significant difficulties in interpreting and applying the offence.

The types of duty that may qualify someone to be a public office holder are ill-defined. Whether it is essential to prove a breach of those particular duties is also unclear from the case law.

An “abuse of the public’s trust” is crucial in acting as a threshold element of the offence, but is so vague that it is difficult for investigators, prosecutors and juries to apply.

The fault element that must be proved for the offence differs depending on the circumstances. That is an unusual and unprincipled position.

Although “without reasonable excuse or justification” appears as an element of the offence, it is unclear whether it operates as a free standing defence or as a definitional element of the offence.

Please contact us if you have any enquiries about this project.”

Misconduct in Public Office

Friday deadline to apply for Independent Standards Committee Member

Details here:

Click to access independent-standards-committee-member-job-pack.pdf

Has Owl applied? Not telling!

The government’s new consultation guidelines

In order that no-one gets their hopes up with these new guidelines, Owl publishes the last sentence of this document first. It reads:

This document does not have legal force and is subject to statutory and other legal requirements.”

Consultation Principles 2016

Consultations should be clear and concise

Use plain English and avoid acronyms. Be clear what questions you are asking and limit the number of questions to those that are necessary. Make them easy to understand and easy to answer. Avoid lengthy documents when possible and consider merging those on related topics.

Consultations should have purpose

Do not consult for the sake of it. Ask departmental lawyers whether you have a legal duty to consult. Take consultation responses into account when taking policy forward. Consult about policies or implementation plans when the development of the policies or plans is at a formative stage. Do not ask questions about issues on which you already have a final view.

Consultations should be informative

Give enough information to ensure that those consulted understand the issues and can give informed responses. Include validated assessments of the costs and benefits of the options being considered when possible; this might be required where proposals have an impact on business or the voluntary sector.

Consultations are only part of a process of engagement

Consider whether informal iterative consultation is appropriate, using new digital tools and open, collaborative approaches. Consultation is not just about formal documents and responses. It is an on-going process.

Consultations should last for a proportionate amount of time

Judge the length of the consultation on the basis of legal advice and taking into account the nature and impact of the proposal. Consulting for too long will unnecessarily delay policy development. Consulting too quickly will not give enough time for consideration and will reduce the quality of responses.

Consultations should be targeted

Consider the full range of people, business and voluntary bodies affected by the policy, and whether representative groups exist. Consider targeting specific groups if appropriate. Ensure they are aware of the consultation and can access it. Consider how to tailor consultation to the needs and preferences of particular groups, such as older people, younger people or people with disabilities that may not respond to traditional consultation methods.

Consultations should take account of the groups being consulted

Consult stakeholders in a way that suits them. Charities may need more time to respond than businesses, for example. When the consultation spans all or part of a holiday period, consider how this may affect consultation and take appropriate mitigating action.

Consultations should be agreed before publication

Seek collective agreement before publishing a written consultation, particularly when consulting on new policy proposals. Consultations should be published on gov.uk.

Consultation should facilitate scrutiny

Publish any response on the same page on gov.uk as the original consultation, and ensure it is clear when the government has responded to the consultation. Explain the responses that have been received from consultees and how these have informed the policy. State how many responses have been received.

Government responses to consultations should be published in a timely fashion

Publish responses within 12 weeks of the consultation or provide an explanation why this is not possible. Where consultation concerns a statutory instrument publish responses before or at the same time as the instrument is laid, except in exceptional circumstances. Allow appropriate time between closing the consultation and implementing policy or legislation.

Consultation exercises should not generally be launched during local or national election periods.

If exceptional circumstances make a consultation absolutely essential (for example, for safeguarding public health), departments should seek advice from the Propriety and Ethics team in the Cabinet Office.

This document does not have legal force and is subject to statutory and other legal requirements.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/492132/20160111_Consultation_principles_final.pdf

When and how does £265,000 of savings become £400,000 of savings?

What does one make of this, on the agenda of the Joint Overview and Scrutiny meeting to be held on Tuesday 9 February 2016 at 6 pm from the agenda papers and talking of the potential savings to be made on a new refuse and recycling contract:

“The recommended Lot being proposed in the report does give a saving to the Council in the order of £0.265m along with providing an enhanced recycling service. The draft budget however assumed a saving of £0.400m in line with our Transformation Strategy thereby giving us a shortfall of £0.135m in our budget proposals should members wish to adopt the recommended option. This issue is dealt with the Revenue and Capital Estimates Report 2016/17 contained on this agenda on the assumption that members adopt
the recommendation”

Click to access 090216-joint-overview-and-scrutiny-agenda-combined-public.pdf

It seems to say: This contract will save us £265,000 but the draft budget assumed that it would save us £400,000 and we have found a way to make it come to £400,000 …. by some sort of wizardly accounting?

How many committee members will take the time and trouble to look at the Revenue and Capital Estimates Report 2016/17 to see exactly how this wonderful accounting is dealt with and reassure themselves that 265 really does mean 400?

MPs investigated by police for criminal offences but not named and allowed to stand in last general election

In any other area of life these people would have been suspended whilst investigations were completed.

“The expenses watchdog has been accused of eroding public trust after it emerged that five MPs have been secretly referred to the police for investigation over the past year.

Ipsa, the expenses watchdog, has refused to name any of the MPs despite admitting that there is “reason to suspect a criminal offence has been committed”.

The watchdog has only named two of the 55 MPs it has investigated since April 2014 after concluding the cases were either unfounded or reaching secret agreements.

The secrecy of arrangements means that several of the MPs were re-elected in May despite the investigations. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/12143508/Five-MPs-referred-to-police-over-expenses.html

Lobbying: OK if you are a mega/non-taxpaying multinational or Tory donor but not if you are a charity

Charities have said new rules on how they spend government grants amount to making them take a vow of silence.

From May, charities and organisations will no longer be allowed to spend taxpayers’ money on lobbying ministers.

The Cabinet Office said the new clause in grants would mean funds go to good causes, not political campaigns.

Sir Stuart Etherington, chief executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, said it was an “insane policy” that would not work in reality.

“Take a service charity funded to run a helpline. They may well be dealing with ex-servicemen, there will be policy issues that emerge from that. They’re not allowed to tell the government?” he told the BBC.

“The other reason is, if you’ve got mixed funding, how are you going to know which is the government’s and somebody else’s?”

The “draconian” move was “tantamount to making charities take a vow of silence”, he added.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35509117

SO, AS LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIPS GET GRANTS FROM GOVERNMENT WILL THEY ALSO BE BANNED FROM LOBBYING – WHAT DO YOU THINK, OF COURSE NOT!

Beer to take over beach management, tourist area. open spaces and car park announces Councillor Pook

“Councillor Geoff Pook (pictured) unveiled proposals to take over the management of the beach, Charlie’s Yard, Jubilee Gardens, the cliff-top car park and a number of open spaces around the village at a parish council meeting on Tuesday.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/if_we_own_it_we_can_shape_our_future_1_4406343

No doubt the news that Exmouth, Budleigh Salterton, Branscombe and Seaton will be taking over beach management, tourist spots, car parks and open spaces will soon follow, as Beer seems to have no unique or special qualifications to take over such lucrative assets.

“Independent” Councillor Pook is Chairman of EDDC’s Asset Management Forum – a currently secretive EDDC group which has only recently been forced to publish its agendas and minutes but does not allow public scrutiny by open meeting.

It was responsible for the initial idea to sell short-term leases on beach huts (which got thrown out after massive public outcry) and for the recommendation on new huge price increases that followed.

In his capacity as a member of Beer Parish Council, Councillor Pook stated that Beer was uniquely placed to take over management of EDDC-owned sites.

Watch this space.

Greenwich insists that all developers publish their (non) affordable housing data

All planning applications in Greenwich must now include full details and cost calculations of calculations relating to affordable housing (or lack of it) in their initial planning applications.

http://www.publicsectorexecutive.com/Public-Sector-News/council-bans-developers-from-keeping-their-affordable-housing-viability-studies-confidential?utm_source=Public%20Sector%20Executive&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=6740360_PSE%20Bulletin%20Feb%2016%20wk%201&dm_i=IJU,40GW8,KSFJZ3,EI3XE,1

Is EDDC confident enough to take a ” peer challenge”?

“Mayor, Gordon Oliver, [Torbay]invited the Local Government Association to carry out the review talking to councillors, officers and other organisations. This took place over four days in November and December last year. …”

http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/experts-say-way-Torbay-Council-run/story-28616024-detail/story.html

“Government fail to declare reappointed National Gallery trustee is Tory donor”

” …David Cameron granted City financier, John Singer, a second term on the board of the Trafalgar Square gallery last week.

In keeping with rules to ensure that public appointments are made on merit, a Number 10 statement said that the financier had declared “no political activity” over the last five years.

But documents at the Electoral Commission uncovered by the Guardian show that Singer, the former European chairman of Advent International, has given the Tories £146,202.38 over the past five years, £48,500 of which was handed over in the last year. Since 2005, he has given £302,703 to the party.
The failure to disclose donations has prompted concern among MPs and staff at the gallery that Singer’s reappointment is part of a gradual ‘politicisation by stealth’ of the gallery. …”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/25/government-fail-declare-reappointed-national-gallery-trustee-tory-donor

“Independent Person” needed for EDDC Standards Committee

Fancy dealing with what EDDC decides are its naughtiest parish, town and district councillors and being involved in the process of ever-so-lightly rapping their knuckles and/or sending them on rehabilitative training (since no other sanctions exist)?

EDDC is seeking to recruit what they call an “Independent Person” to join its Standards Committee. However, not so independent that they can over-ride the Monitoring Officer or even vote about the outcome of cases – just be there as an “independent” observer.

Advertisements appear in this week’s local press and the closing date for applications is 19 February 2016.

The process for dealing with recruitment of this very, very special person was shrouded in mystery – however, a Freedom of information request in 2011 threw light on the process:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/independent_person_appointment

Unfortunately, the vacancy does not appear in EDDC’s online list of current vacancies. Interested parties are told they can contact Monitoring Officer Henry Gordon-Lennox 01395 517408 for more information.

You must not be a relative or close friend of an officer or member of EDDC and you must not have served as an officer of any local authority in the last 5 years. Previous applicants are told they cannot apply.

Owl has been thinking of filling in an application form …

One thought: it says that the person must not be a close relative or friend of any officer or member of EDDC. However, there is now so much close working with Exeter City Council, Teignbridge and the like, could there not be conflicts of interest from even wider circles these days.

What if a member of the Local Enterprise Partnership were to apply, for example!

New MP’s expenses watchdog to be paid £700 per day to work 2 day week

“New boss of MPs’ expenses watchdog to be paid over £70,000 a year fo two days a week.

The next chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority will receive as much as MPs do for less than half of their working week.”

The postholder will get £700 a day for a two day working week.

Would you upset your bosses if you were getting paid this much!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/12105995/New-boss-of-MPs-expenses-watchdog-to-be-paid-over-70000-a-year-for-two-days-a-week.html

Civil servants not writing things down to avoid Freedom of Information Act

Civil servants will be secretly working on ‘Brexit’ plans but not writing them down to avoid having to reveal them under the Freedom of Information Act, according to a former Cabinet secretary.

Lord O’Donnell of Clapham, who as Gus O’Donnell was Cabinet secretary to three Prime Ministers including David Cameron, said there was a lot of work being done “mentally” by officials on planning how Britain would leave the European Union, a process known as “Brexit”.

However he said that this would was unlikely to be written down to avoid having to disclose the plans to campaigners and journalists.”
The comments are likely to be seized on by transparency campaigners concerned about a Government review which it is feared will curb the extent of FOI.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12104609/Civil-servants-are-mentally-working-on-Brexit-plans-to-avoid-FOI-says-Gus-ODonnell.html

Just like EDDC’s think tanks, forums, working parties, panels and the like!

Vanity project creative accountancy starts at the top

“George Osborne avoided official channels and Department for Transport oversight to offer the London mayor, Boris Johnson, funding for the garden bridge scheme, parliament’s spending watchdog has found, warning the project may not have been approved if the normal processes had been followed. …

… Sir Amyas Morse, of the National Audit Office, said of the project: “It is important to note that the results would not in normal circumstances suggest a compelling value for money case … The department’s own quantitative analysis suggested that there may or may not be a net benefit and, especially once concerns over deliverability were taken account of, the project might well not have met the department’s normal threshold for allocating its finite funds. …

… Gareth Thomas, MP for Harrow West, on Friday called on Osborne to justify the use of public cash on a “vanity project”. He said: “At a time of deep public sector cuts, this money could have been spent on countless other projects where the business case has already been proved.” …

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/jan/16/garden-bridge-george-osborne-avoided-official-channels-mayor

Cloudy Transparency

10 EDDC meetings listed in this week’s Knowledge:

1 cancelled ( but would have been in private)
2 not needed (Licensing meetings, no licenses up for discussion)
3 meetings in public: Scrutiny, Housing Review and Development Management Committee, where it would be hard to justify secrecy

4 meetings in private:

Asset Management( in spite of assurances that this could be public with only commercially sensitive matters in Part B)

Recycling and Refuse Board Partnership

Community Fund Panel (ANOTHER group with no minutes and no agendas, save a passing reference in January 2015

Transparency gets more opaque.

10 EDDC meetings listed in this week’s Knowledge:

1 cancelled ( but would have been in private)
2 not needed (Licensing meetings, no licenses up for discussion)
3 meetings in public: Scrutiny, Housing Review and Development Management Committee, where it would be hard to justify secrecy

4 meetings in private:

1. Asset Management( in spite of assurances that this could be public with only commercially sensitive matters in Part B)

2. Recycling and Refuse Board Partnership

3. “Community Fund Panel” – which appears to meet in secret to decide whaT to spend money on. As its funds totals only about £22,500 per year it is hard to see why its deliberations are in private. Wouldn’t you want to know why your parish didn’t get funds yet another one did?

4. An intriguing meeting on “Work and Issues facing the Major Project Team in Development Management” ( another secret group with no agendas or minutes? Anyone seen anything about this group and its remit?). Presumably called to justify the hundreds of thousands of pounds being spent on more staff in Development Management. But we will never know!

Click to access the-knowledge-8-january-2016-issue-33.pdf

MP says: “Stop us marking our own homework”

” … MPs have long been criticised for ‘marking their own homework’ by only allowing a watchdog who they appoint to police their affairs.

Mr Flynn, the MP for Newport West asked Commons Leader Chris Grayling for a debate on whether “Parliament is slipping back into its bad old ways that led to the expenses scandal?”

He said: “In recent cases involving Malcolm Rifkind, Jack Straw, Tim Yeo and Lord Blencathra, very lenient decisions were made by bodies in this House but very harsh decisions were taken by independent voices outside, including Ofcom.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12088034/Stop-us-marking-our-own-homework-MPs-tell-minister-after-Jack-Straw-and-Malcolm-Rifkind-rulings.html “Stop us marking our own homework

Bit like a Monitoring Officer, paid by a council, adjudicating on his or her own councillors and officers … and being dependent on them for their jobs …

“Distorting Discourse: Transparent debate needs sincerity, not soundbites”

” … Generic party line phrases distort meaning.

An unpopular imposition becomes a ‘settlement’.

The Conservatives oversaw a protracted real wages fall, cut income support, yet sought to position themselves as the ‘party of working people’

Circumventing an informal convention to protect low-income workers creates ‘constitutional issues’

A minimum wage increase still below the Voluntary Living Wage becomes a ‘National Living Wage’.

The last government’s headline slogans of ‘Big Society’ and ‘Green Government’ quietly disappeared. Related policies steadily faded. Environmental NGOs criticised the disconnect between stated green intentions and actions.

Reneging on election-campaign promises protecting tax credits, and subsequently U-turning, [is] either inconsistent or deliberately deceptive.

This attitude pervades government rhetoric, even unbelievably calling the opposition leader a ‘threat to national security’.

When ministers replace reflective, honest arguments with disingenuous soundbites it masks real motivations and undermines democratic debate. This makes it difficult for many to trust and engage with political discourse, and it needs to change. …”

http://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=18652

Housing Bill debate: started 8.50 pm ended 2 am

The government has been described as “not grown up” for going ahead with a debate over its housing bill that did not begin until 8.50pm and continued to 2am.

The debate on the report stage of the bill was pushed back to late on Tuesday after a series of urgent ministerial statements, by the prime minister and the home secretary, were announced in the Commons.

Labour tried to get the debate postponed until a later date, but MPs voted by 303 to 195 in favour of pushing on with a session to scrutinise the legislation on Tuesday evening.

The housing bill will offer discounts of up to £102,700 in London and £77,000 in the rest of England to people renting from housing associations who want to buy their homes. The policy would not apply in Scotland or Wales, where the right to buy is being abolished.

The policy would be partly funded by requiring councils to sell the top third of their most valuable council homes from their remaining stock. The government also quietly tabled an amendment to the housing and planning bill that sets a maximum of five-year terms for new secure tenancies.

Fiona Mactaggart, the Labour MP for Slough, told MPs: “I am very unhappy about the programme motion, merely because of the time we are starting to debate it: 10 minutes to 9pm.”

She said this meant that “really important clauses” would be considered after midnight. “There are a number of really important issues which, frankly, I think our constituents, who are concerned about housing and planning, would not expect to be decided after midnight,” she said.

That is not grown up; it is a return to the days when I first came to this house and voted against beating children at 4am. I vowed never to have such important votes at that time of the morning again.”

Brandon Lewis, the minister for housing and planning, said the arrangements for the debate had been “agreed through the usual channels to ensure proper and full scrutiny of the bill”.

“Given the comments made by some members about the time until which we may be here tonight, all colleagues have the ability to exercise self-restraint if they wish, and from a ministerial point of view, I will do that to ensure that backbenchers have a good opportunity to speak,” he said.

Roberta Blackman-Woods said:

Never in my experience of many bills in this house have I witnessed 65 pages of government new clauses and amendments being produced at the last minute for a bill that is 145 pages long,” she said. “That is simply appalling and means that there will be no proper scrutiny in this house of almost a third of the bill.

“We wish to register our strong view that that is no way for legislation to be made, and the government should do the honourable thing and reprogramme this debate.”