May I suggest that we return to the issue at hand?
Listening to the contributions on the veto power, I am struck by a curiosity. Yesterday there were many contributions from hon. Members who argued that the powers set out in new clause 19, 20 and 21 were perhaps an improvement on the original version of the Bill, but that they were still far too wide. They could be used, for example, to abolish trial by jury—we heard that again a few minutes ago—introduce euthanasia, and possibly even recast our relationship with the European Union, yet today, in the discussion of the veto, which is related to those same clauses, the powers in them appear to have shrunk. We are told that the veto is not worth much because it is related to those powers, which yesterday were criticised as being so wide. Today they seem to have shrunk so much that they might not apply to our friend the Wolverhampton butcher. There is a curiosity in the criticisms of tying the veto to the powers set out in new clauses 19, 20 and 21.
Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Pat McFadden
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 16 May 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
446 c921 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 23:56:37 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_324160
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_324160
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_324160