[ad_1]
More than 40 MPs are reportedly ready to back a move led by senior MP Sir Graham Brady to try to force the votes of the Commons on the new Covid restrictions “as soon as reasonably possible.” Labor sources also indicated that Sir Keir Starmer was likely to roll back a rogue amendment tabled by Sir Graham to his MPs in hopes of wiping out the 80-seat Commons majority of the Prime Minister.
But Johnson’s allies insisted that the administration will win the vote scheduled for next Wednesday to renew emergency powers for another six months.
A cabinet minister told the Daily Express: “It doesn’t seem like the rebels really have the numbers to defeat the government. There is a lot of noise about it, but there are not many deputies who are clear that they will rebel when it comes to voting ”.
The minister added: “We need to maintain emergency powers to be able to respond quickly to this rapidly advancing pandemic.”
Former Conservative Leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Damian Green, Sir Bernard Jenkin, Sir Bob Neill and former Brexit Secretary David Davis are among the Conservative MPs who have signed Sir Graham’s amendment.
Boris Johnson is said to be confident of defeating the rebellion (Image: NO10 / GETTY)
Boris Johnson’s allies have described the rebels as making ‘a lot of noise’ without substance (Image: PA)
DUP MPs and Labor Parliamentary Party Chairman John Cryer also support the move.
A Downing Street spokesman indicated that the government was unwilling to commit to the issue.
“We have made it clear at all times that it is legitimate for us to take action to stop the transmission of the virus and protect the NHS.
“Both houses have the opportunity to discuss and analyze all the closure regulations,” said a Downing Street spokesman.
Support for the amendment appears to be growing.
Senior backbenchers Tom Tugendhat, Huw Merriman and David Jones expressed their support for the amendment.
READ MORE: Coronavirus update: What stage is the UK with the vaccine?
Graham Brady has submitted the controversial coronavirus amendment (Image: PA)
Tom Tugendhat, an influential conservative, has backed the amendment (Image: GETTY)
Mr Tugendhat, Chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, said: “You can grant various general permits in emergencies, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have to come and ask for permission as soon as possible.
“It is quite clear that there are at least another six months as announced by the Government and in fact it may be longer depending on whether a vaccine arrives or not, so the idea that we can have a permanent state where the Government is making decisions emergency for people and effectively controlling the lives of 65 million people by court order is not sustainable. “
Conservative colleagues also criticized the government for parliamentary scrutiny of coronavirus measures.
Former Scottish Conservative Secretary Lord Forsyth of Drumlean told the House of Lords: “These powers are being exercised by regulations being made using the Public Health (Disease Control) Act.
“This gives the government the power to restrict the movements of people believed to be infectious and to close only infected premises.
“From what I can see, it does not foresee the control of people who are not infected or the closure of uncontaminated premises.
DO NOT MISS:
Coronavirus Cases in London: Which District Has the Highest Levels? [MAP]
UK coronavirus alert: Scientists issue warning to Boris for two mistakes [LATEST]
Aldi and Lidl: Supermarkets Reveal Latest Buying Rules and Limits [INSIGHT]
“Now, if the Government wants to exercise controls of this type on people who are not infected, it has the power to do so using the Civil Contingencies Law.
“But quite rightly, that legislation requires the consent of Parliament, is obtained within seven days of any regulation, and is renewed every 30 days.”
He added: “Has the Government used the Public Health (Disease Control) Act incorrectly to avoid parliamentary scrutiny and created today’s farce in which we are debating the regulations that were made seven weeks ago that have already been replaced? “
In response to the Government, Health Minister Lord Bethell said: “The Civil Contingencies Act is expressly concerned with threats that we could not have expected and unfortunately we are at a stage with this epidemic, and even at the beginning of this epidemic. , where the lawyers judged that this type of regulation does not conform to this regulation and that is why we work through the Public Health (Disease Control) Law ”.
Conservative Baroness Altmann, former CEO of the Saga Group, questioned the Prime Minister’s so-called “hit a mole” approach.
UK Coronavirus Map – Latest Statistics (Image: EXPRESS)
She added: “What is the end? Will we continue to lock up people, rejoice in reducing infections, loosening draconian restrictions, allowing people to see friends and loved ones again without risking arrest? I can’t believe I’m saying this, and then what?
“The virus has not disappeared. Does this strategy of hitting a mole start over? Parliament should be able to judge the data.
“What is the life risk of a Covid infection relative to the life risk of missed cancer treatments, mental breakdown, stroke, heart failure, all of which make the blockage worse?”
In conclusion Lord Bethell said: “We recognize the effect of the impact of these regulations, but it is the virus that causes this, it is not the fault of the Government that we have to introduce these regulations to slow the spread of the virus.”
[ad_2]
