2023-06-14 09:44:58
Just in case you are wondering, the HOL voted the "serious disruption" regs through with Labour peers (and some others) preferring to instead table a motion of regret.
And I will tell you why.
Because they are scared their "jobs" would be in question given the last time they tried anything similar the government said it would review their powers.
People should be very concerned about this. The government may now use such power to change any existing law it pleases.
If anyone is interested here is a good article on the constitutional issues caused by the government's actions on this.
"The case of the draft Public Order Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to the Life of the Community) Regulations 2023 appears to be a unique example of Henry VIII powers being used to amend primary legislation in circumstances where the same amendments have been rejected by Parliament during the passage of a recent Act. It represents another example of the difficulties presented by the proliferation of Henry VIII powers and the challenges that this poses to the orthodox understanding of the ordering of our constitution, with Parliament as the apex body to which the Government is subservient. A prominent strain of our constitutional law has been the restriction of prerogative powers and preventing them being used to contravene or side-line the will of Parliament (e.g Case of Proclamations, De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd, The Fire Brigades Union case). The present situation throws up the same issue in a modern form, with the Government seeking to invoke broad executive powers to circumvent the need to obtain an Act of Parliament to achieve its policy goals".
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2023/05/22/tom-hickman-kc-and-gabriel-tan-reversing-parliamentary-defeat-by-delegated-legislation-the-case-of-the-public-order-act-1986-serious-disruption-to-the-life-of-the-community-regulations-2023/
2.2K views06:44
W
