🙅‍♂️ Business without Debate

Commons Chamber

🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️

MPs objected to the second reading of multiple bills, including those on dangerous dogs, domestic energy VAT, and BBC licence fees for over-75s, delaying them until March 14. Only the Controlled Drugs and Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches bills moved forward to a Public Bill Committee. An administrative error prevented the Mobile Homes Act amendment bill from being discussed. The session highlighted a busy day of legislative proposals with most facing delays.

Summary

  • Statutory Instruments Act 1946 Amendment Bill: Proposed changes to the 1946 Act were opposed. The bill will be discussed again on March 14.

  • Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Amendment Bill: Amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act were opposed. The bill will be revisited on March 14.

  • Domestic Energy VAT Bill: A bill to change VAT on domestic energy was opposed. It will be discussed again on March 14.

  • BBC Licence Fee for Over-75s Bill: A bill to decriminalize non-payment of the BBC licence fee for those over 75 was opposed. It will be revisited on March 14.

  • Controlled Drugs Bill: This bill passed its second reading and will be further reviewed by a Public Bill Committee.

  • Quantitative Easing Prohibition Bill: A bill to prohibit quantitative easing was opposed. It will be discussed again on March 14.

  • Mobile Homes Act 1983 Amendment Bill: This bill was not moved due to a printing error and no fault of the proposer.

  • Pets Microchips Bill: A bill concerning mandatory microchipping of pets was opposed. It will be discussed again on March 14.

  • Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Payments Bill: A bill to address payments for vaccine damage was opposed. It will be revisited on March 14.

  • Anonymity of Suspects Bill: A bill to ensure anonymity for suspects was opposed. It will be discussed again on March 14.

  • Children’s Clothing VAT Bill: A bill to change VAT on children’s clothing was opposed. It will be revisited on March 14.

  • Child Criminal Exploitation Bill: A bill to address child criminal exploitation was opposed. It will be discussed again on March 14.

  • Highways Act 1980 Amendment Bill: Proposed changes to the Highways Act were opposed. The bill will be revisited on March 14.

  • BBC Privatisation Bill: A bill proposing the privatization of the BBC was opposed. It will be discussed again on March 14.

  • Illegal Immigration Offences Bill: A bill concerning offences related to illegal immigration was opposed. It will be revisited on March 14.

  • Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill: This bill passed its second reading and will be further reviewed by a Public Bill Committee.

  • Vaccine Damage Payments Act Review Bill: A bill to review the Vaccine Damage Payments Act was opposed. It will be discussed again on March 14.

  • NHS England Alternative Treatment Bill: A bill to address alternative treatments within NHS England was opposed. It will be revisited on March 14.

  • Terminal Illness Relief of Pain Bill: A bill to address pain relief for terminal illness was opposed. It will be discussed again on March 14.

  • Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill: Another bill concerning Covid-19 vaccine damage was opposed. It will be revisited on March 14.

  • Marriage Prohibited Degrees of Relationship Bill: A bill to amend the prohibited degrees of relationship for marriage was opposed. It will be discussed again on March 14.

Divisiveness

The session provided shows a repeated pattern where various bills are proposed and objected to by ‘Hon. Members’ without any additional discussion or debate. The objections seem to be a standard procedure for delaying or postponing the bills to a later date, rather than indicating a significant level of disagreement or conflict. The only variation from this pattern is the ‘Controlled Drugs (Procedure for Specification) Bill’ and ‘Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill’, which were read a second time and committed to a Public Bill Committee, but even these do not involve any recorded debate or disagreement within the transcript. The session as a whole does not reflect any notable disagreements, debates, or arguments, and the objections appear to be procedural rather than substantive in nature. Therefore, the level of disagreement displayed can be considered minimal, warranting a low rating of 1 on a scale of 1 to 5.