The next group is group 12, and the amendments relate to restructuring local authorities. Amendment 138 is the lead amendment, and I call on Mark Isherwood to move the amendment and to speak to the other amendments in the group. Mark Isherwood.

Amendment 138 (Mark Isherwood) moved.

Diolch. Well this, once again, is seeking to drive forward the localism and community agenda, putting people first, so amendments 138, 139, 140 and 141 remove provisions from the Bill that allow Welsh Ministers to make regulations to restructure principal areas without receiving a request to do so. The purpose of this amendment is to prevent the mandation of council mergers against the wishes of those councils. I can't imagine what sort of political leadership would wish to do otherwise. Any restructuring of councils must be carried out with the full support and involvement of the councils in question in a fully transparent and democratic manner, otherwise it simply won't deliver. I therefore will be moving forward to recommend Members to support these amendments.

I call on Members to reject amendments 138 to 141, which have the effect that a restructuring of a local authority could only take place where the principal council concerned had submitted an abolition request. There has to be scope for the Welsh Ministers to intervene if there is evidence that a principal council is not sustainable and the best interest of local residents may be for that council to be abolished and the area restructured.

Whilst it's very unlikely that this issue will arise, given the opportunities for support and intervention under Part 6 of the Bill, it is prudent to provide for a situation where Ministers may be confronted with a need to take the ultimate step and use the restructuring power. I need only point Members to circumstances over the border, where UK Government Ministers are in the throes of abolishing Northamptonshire County Council, which has problems so deep-rooted that the only solution is to abolish the county council in seven districts and replace them with two new unitary councils.

The ministerial power is constructed carefully so that it can only be used in a timely and considered way and where there is evidence from a range of informed sources that the council in question is not sustainable. The power is a necessary one, and I repeat my request for Members to reject these amendments.

The Government amendments in this group are technical. Amendment 44 is technical and inserts a definition of 'documents' for the purposes of Part 7 of the Bill. Amendments 39 to 43 and 73 are linked to this amendment and ensure that the Welsh Ministers may, when considering whether to transfer a function of a principal council, direct a principal council to provide documents and, in the case of amendment 73, require merging or restructuring councils to provide to a transition committee any documents that are reasonably requested.

Amendment 73 is a minor technical amendment that removes from the coming into force provisions a reference to a term that does not appear in Part 7 of the Bill.

Finally, amendment 78 provides that particular words in section 140, which relate only to restructuring, will not come into force on the day after the Bill receives Royal Assent. This is consistent with the rest of the provisions in Part 7 that relate to restructuring. Diolch.

Does Mark Isherwood want to respond to the debate?

Very briefly, just in terms of the comments made by the Minister about our amendments. The purpose of these amendments is not to prevent Welsh Government intervention when a local authority is unsustainable or not sustainable—quite the opposite; we would encourage more of that when a council needs intervention and support, not as a big stick, but as an opportunity to address issues to mutual benefit again. This is purely about ensuring that Welsh Ministers cannot simply intervene to restructure principal areas without the support and involvement of the councils in question in a transparent and democratic manner. I think we're conflating two separate issues. That is not our intention. Our intention, as I've stated, is to drive the localism agenda in the spirit of transparency and partnership.

The question is to agree amendment 138. Are there any objections? [Objection.] Yes. Open the vote on amendment 138. Close the vote. In favour 12, 12 abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, amendment 138 is not agreed.

Amendment 138: For: 12, Against: 27, Abstain: 12

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 139 in the name of Mark Isherwood.

Amendment 139 (Mark Isherwood) moved.

Move.

It's formally moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on amendment 139. Close the vote. In favour nine, 15 abstentions, 27 against, therefore amendment 139 is not agreed.

Amendment 139: For: 9, Against: 27, Abstain: 15

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 140 in the name of Mark Isherwood.

Amendment 140 (Mark Isherwood) moved.

Moved.

It's formally moved. [Objection.] There is an objection. Open the vote on amendment 140. Close the vote. In favour nine, 15 abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, amendment 140 is not agreed.

Amendment 140: For: 9, Against: 27, Abstain: 15

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 169 in the name of Delyth Jewell.

Amendment 169 (Delyth Jewell) moved.

Move.

It's formally moved. Any objections? [Objection.] There are. I will therefore open the vote on amendment 169. Close the vote. In favour nine, three abstentions, 39 against. The amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 169: For: 9, Against: 39, Abstain: 3

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 170 in the name of Delyth Jewell.

Amendment 170 (Delyth Jewell) moved.

Move.

It's moved. Any objections? [Objection.] There are. I will therefore open the vote on amendment 170. Close the vote. In favour nine, three abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 170 is not agreed.

Amendment 170: For: 9, Against: 39, Abstain: 3

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 39 in the name of the Minister.

Amendment 39 (Julie James) moved.

Move.

It's formally moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] I see that there are. I will therefore open the vote on amendment 39. Close the vote. In favour 44, four abstentions, three against. Therefore, amendment 39 is agreed.

Amendment 39: For: 44, Against: 3, Abstain: 4

Amendment has been agreed

Amendment 141 is formally moved in the name of Mark Isherwood.

Amendment 141 (Mark Isherwood) moved.

[Objection.] There is an objection. I will open the vote on amendment 141. Close the vote. In favour 21, three abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, amendment 141 is not agreed.

Amendment 141: For: 21, Against: 27, Abstain: 3

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 171 in the name of Delyth Jewell.

Amendment 171 (Delyth Jewell) moved.

Move.

It's formally moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on amendment 171. Close the vote. In favour nine, three abstentions, 39 against and therefore the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 171: For: 9, Against: 39, Abstain: 3

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 71 in the name of the Minister.

Amendment 71 (Julie James) moved.

Move.

Are there any objections to amendment 71? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on amendment 71. Close the vote. In favour 44, seven abstentions, none against. Therefore, amendment 71 is agreed.

Amendment 71: For: 44, Against: 0, Abstain: 7

Amendment has been agreed

Due to their nature, I propose, in accordance with Standing Order 12.40, that amendments 58 to 43, which appear consecutively on the marshalled list, are disposed of in a single vote. Does any Member object to that? No. Minister, do you wish to formally move 58 to 43?

Amendments 58, 59, 60, 61, 40, 41, 42 and 43 (Julie James) moved.

Move.

The question is that amendments 58 to 43 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. Open the vote on amendments 58 to 43. Close the vote. In favour 44, four abstentions, three against. Therefore, amendments 58 to 43 are agreed en bloc.

Amendments 58, 59, 60, 61, 40, 41, 42, 43 (en bloc): For: 44, Against: 3, Abstain: 4

Amendments have been agreed

The next vote is on amendment 172.

Amendment 172 (Delyth Jewell) moved.

Move.

It's formally moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] Yes. Open the vote on amendment 172. Close the vote. In favour 18, three abstentions and 30 against. Therefore, amendment 172 is not agreed.

Amendment 172: For: 18, Against: 30, Abstain: 3

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 44, in the name of the Minister.

Amendment 44 (Julie James) moved.

Move.

It's formally moved. Are there any objections to amendment 44? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on amendment 44. Close the vote. In favour 44, seven abstentions and none against. Amendment 44 is, therefore, agreed.

Amendment 44: For: 44, Against: 0, Abstain: 7

Amendment has been agreed