Post by nickd on Sept 14, 2011 20:42:33 GMT 1
Getting government to show an interest is far from easy..
but an e:petition signed by at least 100,000 means they have to consider a debate.
I am trying to see if we can drum up enough interest in an e:petition against yesterday's vote in the House of Lords not to hold the committee stages of the welfare reform bill in the open chamber. I don't think this important bill should be heard in committee rooms which severely restrict people from being able to attend and see how the debates take place.
The proposed law could be something along these lines:
Should new law be proposed which requires that any legislation subject to committee consideration be conducted in surroundings which are freely accessible to a proportionate numbers of those likely to be affected by the enactment of the bill?
This would give disabled people more access to the debating chambers in the House of Lords.
Between our networks and using the combined skills of our users and contributors we can do this!!
Read more to find out what's involved...
It's plainly obvious by the massive interest in welfare reform on Mylegal & Ilegal and on the internet that there is huge concern over the way government is steam rolling its way to get far reaching and damaging reforms passed in its hurried legislation to suit its political agenda.
So why don't we really do something about it, and I mean REALLY do something?
Can we get together 100,000 signatures? - I reckon we can!
In a little under two weeks we've had over 40,000 view the welfare reform post, nearly 10,000 on Tribunal costs and many more, so we can do this on numbers alone; - but it means those who read this have to go a little bit further and do something, otherwise it simply won't get anywhere.
There are over 2 million out there on incapacity related benefit, 3.1 million on Disability Living Allowance, and thousands on other benefits too. Many of you may not realise that over 30 million people in the United Kingdom claim at least one state benefit, so these welfare reforms will hit many.
We have seen how those in power are giving the less well off, the vulnerable and the disabled, nothing short of an absolute kicking. Mylegal - part of the Ilegal network - supports social welfare law practitioners who themselves face massive cuts averaging 69% across the Country. We're not fat cat lawyers who are in this for a profit, we do this in our own free time because we passionately believe in social justice.
And that's why we want to help those who are least able to help themselves by running an E:petition article which could lead to us gathering enough interest to raise a well prepared petition, using the skills of some of those who follow the Ilegal and Mylegal network.
We really can do something about this injustice by raising a compelling e:petition. It's no good doing this in a half hearted way, lots of people have tried it and many fail because frankly they just don't get enough interest.
Some also fail because they propose a petition which has already been raised, others are unlikely to succeed because they are very unlikely to become a law which government would consider passing in the House of Commons, in short it has to be credible.
What are e-petitions?
'E-petitions' is an easy way for you to influence government policy in the UK. You can create an e-petition about anything that the government is responsible for and if it gets at least 100,000 signatures, it will be eligible for debate in the House of Commons.
To read more about e:petitions, use the following link; - but before starting one, please read what we have to say.
epetitions.direct.gov.uk/
Some background to what this is all about
I watched some of the welfare reform bill yesterday and have since read much of the transcript. It's true that there was a lot of good points raised by way of well informed debate but I am deeply concerned over what will happen as the bill progresses through the House of Lords.
What concerns me most is how good debate in the open chambers can turn to a much less constructive debate when it is heard in closed quarters. After the second reading of the bill, it goes through a committee, then a reporting stage prior to the third reading. Amendments can then be tabled prior to the bill receiving Royal assent. Other amendment debates can be secured as the bill goes forward for legislation. Some legislation can be passed by way of delegated legislation using statutory instruments which don't need fully debating; - although in some cases a question arises as to whether a new law should be delegated in this way.
Debate in the Lords can be subject to a committee of the 'whole house' (where voting is allowed) or by way of 'grand committees' where agreement must be unanimous.
Today, a question arose as to whether the welfare reform bill, in its committee stages, should stay within the physical surroundings of the main chamber rather than to the more restricted committee rooms which would cause great accessibility problems, particularly for the disabled.
Here's what happened in the House of lords when the debate too place.
The issue which was raised today was this:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (conservatives) moved "that the bill be committed to a Grand Committee".
The House divided:
Essentially, The Government won by a majority of 263 votes against 211. Voting is expressed as 'content' for the motion and 'not content' when against; - 167 Labour peers, 36 cross party and 4 bishops were 'not content'.
There were 159 Conservatives who supported Baroness Analey's move, along with 74 Liberals, 27 cross benchers and 3 others.
You can view the names here..
www.parliament.uk/business/publications/business-papers/lords/lords-divisions/
You can watch the debate here:
www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=9002&wfs=true
(You'll need to forward it to when Baroness Aleney speaks)
Generally speaking a bill would go to grand committee rather than the whole house for the committee stages.
The issue which arose, amongst many others, was over accessibility and having a much more open debate on the floor of the House of Lords, rather than in the far less accessible committee rooms. There is likely to be a great deal of interest in the committee stages of the welfare reform bill and it would be difficult for large numbers of disabled people to access both the chamber (as lords who want to take part) and in the public galleries where people may wish to observe.
A key concern over these welfare reforms is over how closely the committee stages examines the bill. I expressed this concern when I wrote a a write up late last night; - if this bill proceeds in the relatively shielded confines of smaller committee rooms there is a real danger that only small numbers of participants will be able to attend. Smaller committee rooms are unlikely to be filled with disabled groups who can have a pressuring influence on those participating and can listen to those speaking. It's simply not the same to say it is televised, people have a right to be present when it affects them as much as these reforms will.
The main voting (3rd reading) comes after the committee and reporting stages, and will always be in the main house so everyone gets to vote.
Personally, I see some sense in grand committee because of the need to have a unanimous vote. It also leaves the main chamber free to hear other bills; but the issue here is over accessibility. The danger of committees not being publicly observed in a proper way is that things will get swept under the carpet and tidied up before going back to the main house.
Be it in a committee room or main chamber, there is an absolute need for the consideration and passing of this far-reaching legislation to be heard in surroundings where those who have a major interest can physically attend. Far fewer numbers will be able to attend the committee rooms than they could the main chamber.
Labour's case was that the bill would take some 60 to 70 hours to look at in the committee stages and they pressed for around 7 to 8 days to be heard in the main chamber with the remaining parts heard by grand committee (not in the main house). You have to be a little bit suspicious why a government which promotes so much transparency voted to secure itself some privacy glass.
Essentially, a deal over how the committee stage should be heard could not be agreed and government won, which means it will now ALL be heard in grand committee; effectively taking the spot lamp of it.
Here is the new law which we could propose.
Should new law be proposed which requires that any legislation subject to committee consideration be conducted in surroundings which are freely accessible to a proportionate numbers of those likely to be affected by the enactment of the bill?
I think the following law may be relevant:
Access to goods, services, facilities and premises
The Equality Act 2010 provides important rights not to be discriminated against or harassed:
in accessing everyday goods and services like shops, cafes, banks, cinemas and places of worship
in buying or renting land or property
in accessing or becoming a member of a larger private club (25 or more members)
in accessing the functions of public bodies [my emphasis]
Can we argue this?
Can we argue that the equality act be used in so much as the passing of a bill by government (which I assume to be a public body) which affects thousands of disabled people should require that any government considering legislation allows free access to a proportionate number of affected persons in being able to see that proposed law is being adequately considered.
If government says it is not a public body under the equality act, then the petition will need to worded 'to ensure access to observing any government passing legislation which indirectly or directly affects a public body in its delivery of public services.
If enough people show an interest in adding to this we could very quickly put in an e:petition, I am open to any suggestions as to what YOU would like to see. But we need to do this very quickly if we are to do anything, we would need a fair number to show an interest on Mylegal to develop this. By interest I mean more than views or glances, I mean signing into Mylegal to tell us what you think about the pros and cons of taking this forward.
Please have your say, we're here to listen and do things to help those affected oppose this, but it's time to put words into action.
Frankly, contacting MP's and Lords just isn't working, we need to do something radical and we need to make it urgent!
We need to collect your thoughts on here first, before working out what the petition will look like. Then when we have a consensus on how it should look we need to promote it around the web in a massive way to ensure everyone signs it via the Mylegal or Ilegal sites.
So what do you think? Come on as they say, it's over to you to have your say!
