Jump to content

Middle levels, New Parliamentary Bill


NigelMoore

Featured Posts

On 01/04/2018 at 12:01, Scholar Gypsy said:

That's good to hear. There are some pipes on the (little eye) sluice gates at Denver, and I was wondering if they were used to blast silt out around the gates when they are raised and lowered.  

 

 

They are certainly used to clear silt. My understanding is that they emit compressed air,  but I may have the wrong end of the stick. If the these work by blasting the silt with compressed air, then using the flow through the little eye to move the loosened silt, then the technique may not be applicable to the Old Bedford sluice or Salters Lode, where there is not a large water flow available. 

 

MP

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

12 minutes ago, MoominPapa said:

 

They are certainly used to clear silt. My understanding is that they emit compressed air,  but I may have the wrong end of the stick. If the these work by blasting the silt with compressed air, then using the flow through the little eye to move the loosened silt, then the technique may not be applicable to the Old Bedford sluice or Salters Lode, where there is not a large water flow available. 

 

MP

 

 

Slightly off topic, I was crewing on one of the boats that spent a week at the end of May moored up in the semi-derelict lock at Dartford. For much of the time we were sitting on the bottom - the lock is very silted up - and so quite a strong fresh-water flow past the boats, as we occupied most of the cross-section. This led to quite a strong scouring action that moved quite a bit of the silt out of the way and meant sleeping got somewhere near to horizontal!DSC_3440.JPG.b4ff1d27159b61ea37ed9f3c4660faf3.JPGDSC_3493.JPG.60f18d02b92d79e0f0406fb094e1034b.JPG

 

https://nbsg.wordpress.com/fivecreeks/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MoominPapa said:

 

They are certainly used to clear silt. My understanding is that they emit compressed air,  but I may have the wrong end of the stick. If the these work by blasting the silt with compressed air, then using the flow through the little eye to move the loosened silt, then the technique may not be applicable to the Old Bedford sluice or Salters Lode, where there is not a large water flow available. 

 

MP

 

We have just spent a few days on ML and will be continuing our cruise in a short while, across to the Great Ouse and later back through ML. As a result we are acutely aware of the provisions for boaters!

 

What may be interesting to grind into your mix is that the MLC state very clearly in their guidance notes that none  of the moorings are provided by them. Hence any commitment needs to ensure that this does indeed become their responsibility - if they promise to double what they provide at the moment it will not make any difference! Indeed I am unclear whether the MLC currently provide any boater facilities, other than maintaining the actual navigation (including locks). But I may be doing them an injustice.!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two members of the committee have declared an interest: Lord Thomas as Fellow of Trinity Hall, Cambridge, and Lord Hunt as Friend of the Canal and River Trust. What that means in terms of individual predilections I do not know.

 

Lord Thomas served as Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales from 2013 to 2017, which could provide an interesting viewpoint on some of the legal argument.

 

Members have agreed the following sitting times (subject to the progress of proceedings):

 

Monday 25 June               1:30pm – 5:30pm

Tuesday 26 June               10:00am – 1:30pm

Weds 27 June                    10:00am – 5:00pm

Thurs 28 June                    10:00am – 1:00pm

 

As with the Commons, the proceedings will be televised - and we have been requested to be “smart and comfortable and not overly formal”. All part of the ‘approachability’ portrayal no doubt, and a laudable effort to put us at ease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have just opened my emails to discover one from Nicholas Evans - Partner and Parliamentary Agent, Government and Infrastructure "For and on behalf of Bircham Dyson Bell LLP" representing the MLC.

They claim that the legal lady from the MLC wrote to me 12 days ago, asking what interest I have in their Bill. If they wrote by post, I will not have received it, being away in the Fens; certainly I have no emails from her. Anyway, having had no reply to this supposed missive, they intend to object to my giving evidence to the Lords! Why they did not do so at the Commons stage on the same grounds must be a question to pose, but regardless "the Commissioners intend to challenge your right to be heard on your petition. Please find attached a notice setting out further details. This challenge will be considered by the Opposed Bill Committee when it meets on Monday."

Deja Vu; I am beginning to feel personally persecuted by waterways authorities! I speak in jest, it is a compliment really - but rather petty.

1. petition of objection.jpg

3. petition of objection (3).jpg

2. petition of objection (2).jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

, they intend to object to my giving evidence to the Lords! Why they did not do so at the Commons stage on the same grounds must be a question to pose,

Nigel, it's a back-handed compliment! You were so much of a pain in the arse during the Commons stage that they are looking to find a means to exclude you from more of the same in the Lords. 

As the note explains, the parliamentary rules strictly allow only those with a relevant property interest to object, but they will also hear more general objections from local people. Unfortunately you fall in neither of these categories.  

In practice the parliamentary authorities allow some latitude to objectors, and so the rules aren't always strictly applied in the first house. But in the second house, any objector who has taken a lot of the committee's time is liable to be scrutinised for his eligibility. 

I think your only grounds for challenging this is likely to be that in the context of the waterways, under SO118, the area injuriously affected by the bill should reasonably be interpreted more widely to cover much of the waterways network.

The other approach you can take is to get yourself appointed (in writing) as an agent for someone else who does have a direct relevant property interest, and then turn up to speak on that person's behalf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks David – and the suggestions are appreciated.  However, I rather think it is too late in the day to be an ‘appointed agent’ for someone who would have to have been a petitioner in the first place, probably.

 

So far as I understand it, one has to be “injuriously affected” by the Bill, which I take to be the core basis for standing. As such, I believe that I should be taken to qualify – as should any boater having used, or intending to use, the waterways involved.

 

The emphasis on land ownership within the area is a curious one in this context, because the landowners – who alone form the membership of the MLC - are the ones seeking outside contributions for the cost of protecting their lands, who benefit; those who derive no financial benefit from the drainage (the boaters) who are seemingly disqualified.

 

Nobody is more “injuriously affected” by a Bill to acquire controls over and contributions from them, than the subjects of that control, yet on the face of it, unless they are also amongst those who profit, they cannot protest! My interest in the Middle Level navigations and occasional small-boat use of them seemingly counts for nothing, and the prospect of direct involvement with the same legal issues on behalf of others is even more irrelevant, according to (apparently) the rules.

 

But we will see. Even the IWA welcomed the improvements to the Bill arising from the Commons deliberations; one might hope that their Lordships would see benefit from further debate in the interests of better legislation. Expressions of support from MLC boaters in the Forum – few though they have been, amongst NBTA decrieders - might go some way towards demonstrating a form of ‘agency’ on their behalf.

 

Although personally against increased legislation as a matter of principle, my objections are not seeking to set the Bill aside, but rather to ensure that the legislation is fair, fit for purpose, potential for abuse minimised, and opportunity for litigation over ambiguities removed so far as is possible. Similar legislation covering other waterways contains elements I have been promoting as helpful in this regard. The MLC ought to be embracing of those aims, rather than seeking to stifle assistance with a very poorly thought-out Bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Thanks David – and the suggestions are appreciated.  However, I rather think it is too late in the day to be an ‘appointed agent’ for someone who would have to have been a petitioner in the first place, probably.

 

So far as I understand it, one has to be “injuriously affected” by the Bill, which I take to be the core basis for standing. As such, I believe that I should be taken to qualify – as should any boater having used, or intending to use, the waterways involved.

 

The emphasis on land ownership within the area is a curious one in this context, because the landowners – who alone form the membership of the MLC - are the ones seeking outside contributions for the cost of protecting their lands, who benefit; those who derive no financial benefit from the drainage (the boaters) who are seemingly disqualified.

 

Nobody is more “injuriously affected” by a Bill to acquire controls over and contributions from them, than the subjects of that control, yet on the face of it, unless they are also amongst those who profit, they cannot protest! My interest in the Middle Level navigations and occasional small-boat use of them seemingly counts for nothing, and the prospect of direct involvement with the same legal issues on behalf of others is even more irrelevant, according to (apparently) the rules.

 

But we will see. Even the IWA welcomed the improvements to the Bill arising from the Commons deliberations; one might hope that their Lordships would see benefit from further debate in the interests of better legislation. Expressions of support from MLC boaters in the Forum – few though they have been, amongst NBTA decrieders - might go some way towards demonstrating a form of ‘agency’ on their behalf.

 

Although personally against increased legislation as a matter of principle, my objections are not seeking to set the Bill aside, but rather to ensure that the legislation is fair, fit for purpose, potential for abuse minimised, and opportunity for litigation over ambiguities removed so far as is possible. Similar legislation covering other waterways contains elements I have been promoting as helpful in this regard. The MLC ought to be embracing of those aims, rather than seeking to stifle assistance with a very poorly thought-out Bill.

I'm not sure that I agree with the 'poorly thought out' epithet but, as I indicated a few days ago, I do rather cringe at MLC seeming to claim that they will, as a result, increase their provision of facilities for boaters when, at the moment, they provide none at all (save for their statutory duty to provide a navigation).

 

I see no reason to alleviate them from that particular duty as it was - in effect - the price they paid for having their land at all. Yesterday I was reading a slightly dated EA publication (whilst researching the history of the Denver Sluice complex) and it went out of its way to make it clear that without on-going maintenance of the water management, the land would very very quickly cease to have any value at all - no-one pays very much for land under the sea! In fact, without quite considerable maintenance, the continuing shrinkage of the peat as a result of drainage, inundations would become increasingly frequent. This applies as much to the ML as the catchment of the Great Ouse. Ironically, the navigable waters have maintained their level whilst everything else is sinking around them! Hence the need for extensive pumping as the water can no longer be removed by gravity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly, I just came across the IWA webpage from October 2017, urging everybody to support the Middle Level Bill.

 

https://www.waterways.org.uk/news_campaigns/campaigns/support_middle_level_bill

 

It contains this, in the final paragraph –

 

The argument that the Bill potentially extinguishes historic rights of way falls down on several grounds. Ancient rights of navigation may exist on rivers, but without obvious exception, licence fees must be paid to the Navigation Authority on all our rivers.  The Middle Level waterways are generally man made in any case, with leisure boating only having developed since the 1960s, prior to which all the boats on the Levels were commercial boats which were subject to the payment of tolls.”

 

The Bill does not extinguish the PRN, of course, it ‘merely’ superimposes a registration requirement on the exercise of those rights.

 

Also, to be pedantic perhaps, no “licence fees” are payable on ANY of the public navigable rivers; only registration requirements exist on most of them – but certainly not all. “Licence” implies permission, whereas navigating these waters is of right, not permission.

 

The Middle Level navigations include major rivers, both natural and modified, and the drains in between had PRN’s imposed on them by way of compensation for the loss of other navigational channels and broad waters.]

 

It is patently untrue to claim that pleasure boating did not exist prior to the 1960’s, “prior to which ALL the boats on the Levels were commercial boats which were subject to the payment of tolls [my emphasis]. On the contrary, the 1753 Nene Navigation Act expressly provides:

 

Pleasure boats exempt from tolls.

 

13. Provided always, and be it enacted, that this Act shall not extend to restrain any person from keeping a pleasure boat for the purpose of rowing or sailing upon the said rivers, creek or drains, as he or she shall think fit; nor shall any toll or duty be demanded upon account of such pleasure boat, so as no goods or merchandise be carried therein.”

 

It is a common misconception that pleasure boats were never envisaged within early canal and river navigation Acts. Such anticipated use was publicised by the Grand Junction Canal Co for example, as an encouragement for public support of their proposed Paddington Arm extension.

 

The eager take-up of the leisure opportunities was so tremendous – especially in the London region – that by the dawn of the 19thC new Acts had to be brought in to curb aspects of the burgeoning leisure use that threatened the commercial viability of the enterprises.

 

For such a venerable institution as the IWA to get things so very wrong is a sad example of the decline in standards of their public voice. Thing is, that following the result of the Commons Select Committee examination - with around 10 significant amendments and additions to the Bill, the IWA welcomed those improvements - but they would never have been achieved without those who participated in the petitioning process. I fail to understand why they would not have supported efforts to improve it yet further as it goes to the Lords.

 

edit to add: to correct my obviously roseate recollection, having just looked up the relevant IWA bulletin, I see that they did not actually welcome the amendments per se; they welcomed the fact that "compromises" had been made which meant that the Bill could proceed further. Not the same thing at all.

Edited by NigelMoore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yesterday was the first session, with first order of business getting me disqualified from taking part, on the grounds that I had no property interests within the Middle Level area. I had tried a last minute move to arrange a mooring agreement, which the other 3 individuals had, but nothing came of it. I had not been too concerned, because I thought it too ridiculous that relevant Standing Orders could apply to the effect that only those benefiting from the Bill could object, while only those most directly affected could not – but those, apparently, are the rules.

 

It is admittedly personally disappointing, but at least the possibility exists, as the Chairman suggested, that the issues I raised in my petition could be taken up by the Committee itself under their broad powers. They will not, sadly, understand the immediate relevance of the material documentation I submitted, because I had not yet had time to prepare a detailed statement with reference to those. I must say, though, that I am enormously impressed with this Committee's sharpness and insight, especially into fundamental issues of accountability and representation and autonomy.

 

The objection to the NBTA was dropped, and the other individuals were not objected to, so the hearings are proceeding, just without me. One new guest to the party though, is the RBOA, who will today be giving their unqualified support to the Bill as a witness for the promoters. Evidently they are happy with the Bill as it is, and unconcerned over the more insidious extremes of control that are introduced.

 

It rather illustrates the truth of the observation by a constitutional analyst of the last century, that we all get the governance we deserve. If too few bother to examine proposed laws carefully enough, they become law, and it is too late afterwards to complain that ambiguities make deployment of the powers difficult [on the authorities part], or that they lead to gross abuses [as suffered by the governed].

 

You can watch current proceedings live at the moment here -

 

http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/eda7785e-af40-452a-94ba-46d47a19276d

 

Mr Thomas is still being questioned by petitioners as I write; the other witnesses will follow, with 3 hours yet to run today.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well, in the event, I had 2 goes at giving evidence before the Select Committee as witness for a couple of the other petitioners, which caused the QC some consternation when I first sat in the witness chair. His attempts to 'remind' the chairman of the rules had to rate amongst the most entertaining exchanges of the proceedings.

 

Latest news is that, despite the earnest endeavours of the Commissioners, further amendments WILL be made to the Bill as a result of the 4 days of hearings before the Committee.

 

We are still seeking to agree the content and nature of these with the promoters’ solicitors, and the coming final hearing next Thursday will determine the final content of the Bill, if passed at all [which does not seem to be in any doubt].

 

Following this, the Bill will return to the Commons for consideration before being passed into law. The calibre and interest of the Lords and Lady on this Committee have contributed hugely to the marked improvements envisaged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NigelMoore said:

Well, in the event, I had 2 goes at giving evidence before the Select Committee as witness for a couple of the other petitioners, which caused the QC some consternation when I first sat in the witness chair. His attempts to 'remind' the chairman of the rules had to rate amongst the most entertaining exchanges of the proceedings.

 

Latest news is that, despite the earnest endeavours of the Commissioners, further amendments WILL be made to the Bill as a result of the 4 days of hearings before the Committee.

 

We are still seeking to agree the content and nature of these with the promoters’ solicitors, and the coming final hearing next Thursday will determine the final content of the Bill, if passed at all [which does not seem to be in any doubt].

 

Following this, the Bill will return to the Commons for consideration before being passed into law. The calibre and interest of the Lords and Lady on this Committee have contributed hugely to the marked improvements envisaged.

4

And a mighty fine job you have done, Mr. Moore, despite all the obstacles placed in your way!

 

I agree that the exchange between Lord Thomas and an otherwise very competent and confident QC was pure theatre, the moment when the plot turned and it became clear to all, including said QC, that the MLC still had work to do. 

 

We hear lots of criticism of the House of Lords but the three Lords and one Lady on this Opposed Bill Committee have undertaken a very thorough examination of the Bill and demonstrated very creditable attention to detail and an impressive understanding of the contentious issues, far better than we saw in the earlier Commons' Committee.

 

The Bill, if and when it finally receives Royal Assent, will be much improved thanks to their Lordships and Nigel.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one issue I felt I had failed to convince the Committee over, was the power of the MLC to refuse ever to let a boat back onto the Middle Level if it had been the subject of enforcement previously. They seemed to think that s.10 granting a right to appeal to a magistrates’ court provided enough protection – and yet that section very specifically restricted appealable issues.

 

However, in subsequent correspondence with the promoters’ solicitor, they have volunteered amendments to relevant sections in order to meet my objections, so full credit to them for that. Any boat refused a registration certificate for prior enforcement actions would now, thanks to the amendments, need written justification which could also be appealed.

 

While my preference remains for removal of that reason for refusal, at least the proposed amendments gives a boater the chance to argue their case. At least this equalises to some extent, MLC powers with those of the EA (Inland Waterways) Order 2010.

 

It should not go unremarked that all the petitioners made powerful and effective presentations; happily, as an example, some of their issues paralleled current moves within Parliament for addressing homelessness issues, and the Committee picked up on those and ran with them, such that live-aboards remaining within marinas will at least now have to pay only for administrative charges - not for navigation uses which they would never avail themselves of.

 

Every one of us also hammered home the need for a quid pro quo for the charges, which the Committee tacitly acknowledged, so an amendment is proposed committing the MLC to devote at least 25% of registration income to the provision of facilities on the Nene-Ouse link, to the minimum standards published by the IWA.

 

[Just why, given the IWA recommendations over provision of such facilities, they did not fight for this themselves, is a mystery to me.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
53 minutes ago, erivers said:

The Middle Level Bill (as significantly amended by the Opposed Bill Committee) passed its Third Reading in the House of Lords yesterday and will now be returned to the House of Commons.

Do you have a link to the new text and the amendments that were made?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Do you have a link to the new text and the amendments that were made?

Yes Mike, it is available here:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2017-2019/middlelevel/Middle-Level-Bill-as-amended-in-committee-Lords.pdf

and a summary of the amendments here:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2017-2019/middlelevel/OBC-Amendments.pdf

 

There were also a number of enforceable undertakings given by the Commissioners:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2017-2019/middlelevel/Middle-Level-Bill-Undertakings-by-the-Promoter.pdf

Edited by erivers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Do you have a link to the new text and the amendments that were made?

The Bill as amended does not show what specific amendments were made at the Lords Committee Level. From the Bill progression site that Scholar Gypsy has linked to, the relevant documents are:

 

Amendments agreed -  https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2017-2019/middlelevel/OBC-Amendments.pdf  

 

Undertakings agreed -  https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2017-2019/middlelevel/Middle-Level-Bill-Undertakings-by-the-Promoter.pdf

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that information - most interesting - what is your reaction now that this stage has been reached? How do the Middle Level folk feel about it?

 

Some of the Undertakings do seem to require a non-trivial improvement from a navigation point of view, not least that the responsibility form maintaining navigability seems enshrined and not limited to the Link Route.

 

If I have not missed something, it does seem that the whole process has resulted in (as it is intended) an outcome that is more balanced than originally proposed.

 

I am particularly pleased that the provision of moorings and other boater facilities is also enshrined - as I said a while back when we were passing through various parts of the Middle Level, the MLC currently do not provide any facilities a far as I can see, other than the actual navigation. Facilities such as there are, are provided by various small local authorities. We must hope that the new Committee is well constituted and has people who can really stand up for the boating side of things.

 

Well done to all those who openly or behind the scenes have worked on this Bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My reaction is some satisfaction at having had my every criticism and suggestion addressed to greater or lesser extent – given, of course, that the preferred option of throwing the mess out entirely and beginning again was not on the cards. I am also very pleased for the other petitioners that not only were the greater part of their own representations addressed, but that the Committee itself, from their  members' own research, took some of the topics even further than any of us had thought of. The principle underlying 'no taxation without representation', for example, was taken very seriously.

 

It may have ended up a rather clumsy and unsatisfactory patchwork quilt of a Bill, but at least minimal essential protections for the public have been incorporated, with rights of appeal and an oversight body to include only boaters and those with navigation interests of at least some sort; eviction/seizure of boats will have to be demonstrably used only as a last resort, and at least a proportion of the registration income will have to be spent on provision of facilities.

 

As to how the Middle Level folk feel about it (boaters, anyway) I can only answer from what I have been told – that active contributors to influencing the Bill for the benefit of boaters have been severely castigated for not having done better – and that from boaters who had never bothered to lift a finger for themselves or others in the matter. One of the petitioners certainly, was considerably upset and perplexed at this reaction.

 

As can often prove to be the case in such things, those who sit back and do nothing benefit most from the efforts of those who place themselves in the front line – who have done so at their own cost and time (and some of them were badly stretched in sacrificing both), some of them with no personally affected interest in the topics they campaigned for (and I am not talking of myself).

 

As to the provision of facilities - we were assured by the Lord Chairman that any failure to live up to the formal undertakings would render the MLC liable to be brought before the Lords for contempt, the undertakings being legally enforceable. One caveat I should mention, though, with respect to this provision of facilities – the undertaking binds the MLC only to providing these along the main through route between the Ouse and the Nene, not elsewhere. We did not manage to budge them further on that. Not only that, it is effectively (as it seems to me) time limited also, in that once the main route has been brought up the IWA recommended standards, the obligation to provide more elsewhere does not exist. At least we managed to have maintenance of the facilities included as an accompanying obligation that would necessarily be continuing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

On 16 October Parliament voted to approve the 20 Lords’ amendments to the Bill, together with the Undertakings, and Royal Assent is supposedly imminent.

 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-10-16/debates/18101645000002/MiddleLevelBill

 

A rather delicious historical precis of the 19thC legislative background from Luke Pollard – “The existing legislation dates from the 18th and 19th centuries, primarily the Middle Level Act 1862—who does not remember that gorgeous piece of legislation? The foreign policy mastermind, Henry John Temple, Third Viscount Palmerston, was in his second term as Prime Minister. A member of the now defunct Liberal party, he was grappling with the American civil war. Queen Victoria was on the throne. We had riots in Lancashire over the cotton recession. The new Westminster bridge opened in London, and criminal law was amended to make robbery with violence punishable by flogging. We remember that year well. Across the pond in 1862, Abraham Lincoln announced that he would issue an emancipation proclamation the following year—what a time to be alive. We had the Middle Level Act on top of that—indeed, our cup overfloweth.

 

Amongst his very pertinent closing remarks was the always relevant observation: “The challenge will be how the powers in the Bill are used by the Middle Level Commissioners.” It is up to us to keep tabs on that.

 

Another snippet that caught my eye was the happily expressed comment from Dr Therese Coffey, which hopefully everyone here could agree with – “. . . it is important that people can access our canals. They are our blue lungs, running throughout the United Kingdom . . .”

 

Also, from the ever-vigilant Sir Christopher Chope: “Is it not good that we are having a debate about these amendments so that comments can be put on the record and people looking at the history of the Middle Level in future can say, “This is what these amendments were about.”?” I appreciated his care also, to highlight the importance and effect of the Undertakings, which nobody else had demonstrated any cognisance of.

 

The Members were all (no doubt properly) self-congratulatory over the Parliamentary scrutiny applied, but it is worth re-iterating that none of the 15 amendments to the original Bill at the Commons Opposed Bill Committee, nor any of the 20 amendments at the Lords, let alone any of the vital 13 Undertakings, would ever have come about without those who petitioned against the Bill as it stood originally, so compelling the attention of Opposed Bill Committees. It was Mr Pollard who expressed his gratitude to the Lords’ committee “for editing the Bill and tabling amendments based on the concerns of petitioners” and Sir Christopher who noted: “I am pleased to have been able to pursue this debate on behalf of the petitioners, as I can now see the beneficial results.

 

The boating public will still have a significant part to play in the drafting of the byelaws now to be empowered – and these will be the medium through which the new powers will impact most directly upon us all. The consultation yet to begin will be the last opportunity to ensure that these comply with the expressed wishes of Parliament as informed by the petitioners, so I do hope that many more will pay due attention to getting their views heard at that stage, than saw any need to intervene previously.

 

The history of this Bill’s progress should surely illustrate the encouraging reality that we can indeed make a difference to the legislation that affects us.

  • Greenie 2
  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.