MPs vote on extension to Coronavirus Regulations

[raysofhope]

MPs are voting next Wednesday 30th September on whether to extend the Coronavirus Regulations that grant ministers the emergency powers to enact lockdown restrictions. Regardless of whether of not you agree with the present coronavirus restrictions in the UK, I for one would much prefer that changes were debated and made with the usual Parliamentary involvement, instead of via the 'emergency legislation' route as per the last 6 months which seems to enable the few at the top to make significant decisions for the UK largely unscrutinized. The problems with the 'emergency' approach are outlined by Lady Hale in the article below. Please consider writing to your MP about this important matter.
www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/20/parliament-surrendered-role-over-covid-emergency-laws-says-lady-hale

I've seen this mentioned on a couple of threads.

I think that this time round, the review is bound to carry, and I doubt they will make any changes at all to the Emergency Powers Act (the Government will vote to continue it as is, and the Opposition won't vote against - the Act, which gave the powers, was passed unopposed)

But it should be properly debated, as the six month reviews are an important safeguard for these powers. I would be very disappointed if attendance was scanty

I’m glad that it’s been mentioned by others, seems to be a bit under the radar. Yes I agree with you that it’s likely to go through this time but I do hope that better parliamentary scrutiny is applied in future, we can’t indefinitely allow a few people to make all the decisions on the basis that it’s an ‘emergency’.

The PM said in the questions followng his statement in HOC yesterday that he agrees that MPs should be able to debate the issue of restrictions and not be just presented with them as a fait accomplis. He said time was being made available next week to debate the issues.

Debated and discussed in Parliament yes to ensure any new restrictions have greater clarity and clear for everyone to understand and for open discussions about the scientific evidence leading to proposed decisions.

Parliament vote for any change in restrictions - This is a difficult one whereby it could stop stupid restrictions being implemented that clearly have no justification whatsoever but on the other hand, measures that have clear justification and urgent need to be implemented why should they have to go to a vote. If a second national lock down for example is required in the UK based on reliable scientific evidence - that should be implemented, it shouldn't have to go through a vote. MPs don't want a second lockdown and I'm worried that if the evidence requires a need for one - MPs will still vote against one as well as voting against any other necessary measures.

If our MPs, when presented with the evidence and having examined and debated it, don't think there should be a second lock down, then I would prefer to accept that, than allowing the government to impose whatever restrictions they want, without any checks and balances.

I would hope that our representatives would balance out the risks and benefits of measures and vote according to their conscience.