Skip to main content

1-20 of 1,192 results for subject:Misconduct

Session X
2006-07

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

We very much welcome this change of stance by the Government. I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he expressed it, and grateful to his noble colleague in another place for having listened and responded to the arguments. As he knows, this argument has been raised...

Member
Robert Neill (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 October 2007
Reference
465 c361-2
House
House of Commons

Berne.

Member
Chris Mole (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 October 2007
Reference
465 c352
House
House of Commons

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Member
John Healey (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 October 2007
Reference
465 c333
House
House of Commons

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. On a point of principle, and not in respect of any particular area, I seek clarification of the orders to be put before the House after the Bill has been enacted. Clause 7(3) states that the Secretary of State may not...

Member
Andrew George (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 October 2007
Reference
465 c332
House
House of Commons

I have already explained the nature and purpose of the Secretary of State's consultation, and the way in which it was conducted as part of the process. In drawing up the draft orders that will be required to set up unitary authorities there will be further discussions with interested parties...

Member
John Healey (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 October 2007
Reference
465 c332
House
House of Commons

When I used to do the job of the Secretary of State and answers were produced of the sort that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) mentioned, there was a covering note analysing them. It was not advice from civil servants to the Minister but a factual statement...

Member
Lord Deben (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 October 2007
Reference
465 c332
House
House of Commons

I do not think I can be clearer because I have said this twice already: we shall shortly publish a summary of the responses we received as part of the process—precisely the sort of document to which reference has been made. I shall ensure that a copy is placed in...

Member
John Healey (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 October 2007
Reference
465 c332-3
House
House of Commons

The point that I was making is that my hon. Friend has a sufficient and special interest to be in the House this afternoon and to contribute to the debate on the amendments in a way that some other hon. Members do not. I accept that he is reflecting the...

Member
John Healey (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 October 2007
Reference
465 c328-9
House
House of Commons

The Minister says that we have special interests in this issue. As I have pointed out time and again, the special interest in the case of Northumberland is that of the people. It is their special interest, not mine nor anyone else's.

Member
Ronnie Campbell (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 October 2007
Reference
465 c328
House
House of Commons

With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the single unitary proposal in Northumberland also had support—not significant, but minority support—from the results of the referendum in 2004. It had support from, as he rightly says, the north-east chambers of commerce and the chief constable. However, as I have tried to...

Member
John Healey (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 October 2007
Reference
465 c329
House
House of Commons

In the Secretary of State's letter to district councils, he acknowledged that"““whilst there is support””—" for the two-authority proposal—"““from a broad range of stakeholders””—" so it met that criterion—"““the proposals lack support from any key public sector stakeholders.””" So it is all right if one has broad support, but one...

Member
Lord Beith (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 October 2007
Reference
465 c329
House
House of Commons

The matter to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was not a question of Suffolk, but of Ipswich. The proposal for a unitary Ipswich met the five criteria, and in publishing the decision the Secretary of State made clear the way in which the proposal met them in that case.

Member
John Healey (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 October 2007
Reference
465 c329
House
House of Commons

As I apply those criteria to the decisions in Suffolk, it appears that the opposite decision was made and the opposite conclusion reached. I make no argument about whether that should have been the case or not, just that nobody understands because those five criteria have been applied differently in...

Member
Lord Deben (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 October 2007
Reference
465 c329
House
House of Commons

First, the right hon. Gentleman misquotes what I said about Northumberland. Secondly, we had more than 50,000 responses in the process of inviting and considering the unitary proposals. We will publish those shortly and he will be able to consult them for himself. There is an important difference between the...

Member
John Healey (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 October 2007
Reference
465 c330
House
House of Commons

But the Minister has just said that the public sector did not support the arrangements in Northumberland. Which public sector bodies in Suffolk supported the proposal that was then accepted? It would be much quicker to list those that supported the proposal than to list those that did not, because...

Member
Lord Deben (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 October 2007
Reference
465 c329
House
House of Commons

Before the Minister leaves the matter of the criteria, I hope he will reflect on the fact that the problem in Bedfordshire is even more confusing than my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) suggested. One of the criteria in Bedford borough council's unitary bid was...

Member
Alistair Burt (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 October 2007
Reference
465 c330
House
House of Commons

The hon. Gentleman's understanding of these matters is normally very precise and accurate, but I must correct him. The Government would not be minded to proceed with the bid to which he has referred if it did not meet the five criteria. However, it does meet those criteria, as the...

Member
John Healey (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 October 2007
Reference
465 c330-1
House
House of Commons

No, I do not. However, when such a figure is established, I should be happy to contact my hon. Friend.

Member
John Healey (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 October 2007
Reference
465 c331
House
House of Commons

Does the Minister have a figure for all the assets, reserves and capital receipts held by the districts involved?

Member
Ronnie Campbell (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 October 2007
Reference
465 c331
House
House of Commons

I give way first to my hon. Friend.

Member
John Healey (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 October 2007
Reference
465 c331
House
House of Commons