Sounds like good grounds to challenge it. This thing of having Lords put through a bill that Parliament rejected would set a terrible precedent.
The change, through a statutory instrument in the Lords, came after the chamber rejected the same change, proposed months earlier in a heavily debated and scrutinised new public order act. Peers do not by convention normally vote down statutory instruments.
That sucks. We have had a similar problem here (NZ - parliamentary democracy with only one House) where they increasingly use “under urgency” to avoid debate and scrutiny.
Sounds like good grounds to challenge it. This thing of having Lords put through a bill that Parliament rejected would set a terrible precedent.
They’ll just keep pushing it through until it gets by. I don’t wanna be cynical but we’re running out of options for stopping them
That sucks. We have had a similar problem here (NZ - parliamentary democracy with only one House) where they increasingly use “under urgency” to avoid debate and scrutiny.