Rebel Conservative MPs hoping to force the government to give the House of Commons more power over sweeping coronavirus restrictions are set to agree a deal with party whips, after an amendment was thwarted by parliamentary procedure.
Amid rising anger at the lack of scrutiny of new rules, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, is expected to address the concerns at the dispatch box before a vote to renew the Coronavirus Act 2020.
Earlier on Wednesday, the Commons Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, accused the government of showing “contempt” for parliament but said he was unable to select an amendment by the Conservative MP Graham Brady that would have granted MPs greater powers to vote on significant new restrictions.
Up to 100 Conservative MPs had been ready to vote for Brady’s amendment to defeat the government.
Leading Conservative rebels, including Steve Baker, met on Wednesday afternoon to try to reach an accommodation with the government to give MPs more say.
“The way in which the government has exercised its powers to make secondary legislation during this crisis has been totally unsatisfactory,” Hoyle said, saying new powers had been published “a matter of hours before they come into force” and the explanations had been “unconvincing and shows a total disregard for the house”.
UK coronavirus cases
The Speaker said MPs should have the opportunity to amend, debate and vote on the new powers and the operation of the Coronavirus Act, which MPs are voting whether to renew later on Wednesday.
He said he had been advised there would be legal uncertainty if any amendment were accepted to the act. “Lack of clarity in such important matters risks undermining the rule of law,” he said.
“I have not taken this decision lightly, and I am looking to the government to remedy a situation I regard as completely unsatisfactory. I now look to the government to rebuild trust with this house and not treat it with the contempt that it has shown.”
Some MPs are expected to vote against the renewal of the act entirely, and others have said it should not be renewed again in six months’ time.
The Conservative backbencher Peter Bone said: “They were brought in because we were at the height of a pandemic when parliament was not sitting and operating … I don’t see why government ministers making decisions is better than parliament making decisions. So the logic is: why do we need the act?”
The Lib Dems have said they will vote against renewing the act. Its leader, Ed Davey, said the party had “deep reservations about the serious implications for people’s wellbeing, rights and freedoms … Most alarming to me is the watering down of care for elderly, disabled and vulnerable people. That is a red line issue.”
Labour, which had given its backing to the Brady amendment, is expected to vote to renew the act, making it unlikely the government will be defeated.
Baker had said a deal would be based on a “common understanding” on three things – “the government needs to retain the capacity for swift and effective action, that we shouldn’t be creating opportunities for vexatious opportunism from the opposition parties, and, thirdly, that we need prior approval of measures, major measures on a national scale, and indeed I think on a regional scale, which take away people’s liberties.
“That is the fundamental point of parliament – to legitimise, to authorise, restricting people’s freedom’s for the sake of the public interest. And at the moment MPs feel increasingly helpless as they find themselves unable to stand up for their constituents.”
Свежие комментарии