THE UK Government has shown a "total disregard" for Parliament with its handling of Covid-19 regulations, according to the Speaker of the House of Commons.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, making a statement to MPs ahead of Prime Minister’s Questions, announced he has not selected any amendments to a motion to extend emergency coronavirus powers to avoid "undermining the rule of law".
The Prime Minister was facing a rebellion from more than 50 Conservative backbench MPs who are angry that the Government has imposed rules without Parliament's scrutiny.
They were set to back an amendment from Sir Graham Brady, the influential chair of the 1922 Committee of backbench Tories, which would have handed Johnson a defeat with opposition support.
READ MORE: Boris Johnson refuses to rule out riding roughshod over devolved parliaments
But Hoyle said he was unable to select any amendments ahead of a vote on the renewal of the powers.
He explained: "The way in which the Government has exercised its power to make secondary legislation during this crisis has been totally unsatisfactory.
"All too often important statutory instruments have been published a matter of hours before they come into force and some explanations as to why important measures have come into effect before they can be laid before this house has been unconvincing and shows a total disregard for the House."
Hoyle said he would not select any amendments to the motion to renew the Covid-19 regulations to avoid "uncertainty" and possible legal challenges.
He added: "When I became Speaker I made it clear that I would take decisions on matters relating to procedures guided by professional advice.
"I have concluded on the basis of advice that I received that any amendment to the motion before the House risks giving rise to uncertainty about the decision the House has taken.
"This then risks decisions that are rightly the responsivity of Parliament ultimately being determined by the courts."
READ MORE: Scottish Tory MP boasts Internal Market Bill is 'rebalancing devolution'
The Speaker explained the lack of clarity risks undermining the rule of law.
He concluded: “I have therefore decided not to select any of the amendments to the motion.
"As I hope my early comments show I have not taken this decision lightly. I am looking to the Government to remedy a situation I regard as completely unsatisfactory.
"I am now looking to the Government to rebuild the trust with this House and not treat it with the contempt that it has shown."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel