Jump to content

Showing results for tags 'parliament'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Helpful Organisations
    • The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV/Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - Please register
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
    • Non-Retail subforums
    • Retail Subforums
  • Work, Social and Community
    • Work, Social and Community Subforums:
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
    • Debt subforums:
    • PayDay loan and other Short Term Loans subforum:
  • Motoring
    • Motoring subforums
  • Legal Forums
    • Legal Issues subforums


  • News from the National Consumer Service
  • News from the Web


  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start




Found 13 results

  1. And most other MP's for that matter, as with most things and in this case protecting the disabled and most vulnerable, just cannot be bothered and our part of the clog that is profiting from those who they should be protecting, SHAMEFUL but a reality.:mad2:
  2. In addition to her attempts to impose 'Henry VII' clauses to give senior ministers power to completely by-pass parliament and change even primary legislation by decree, May is now trying to give a minority government more than its normal share of (selected) members on standing committees which create legislation. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-rigging-parliament-committee-of-selection-standing-committees_uk_59b1a514e4b0dfaafcf68a04 "A controversial new motion tabled by Commons Leader Andrea Leadsom seeks to ensure that Conservatives have a majority on all standing committees that are the powerhouses of all prospective laws." "The motion, tabled by Leadsom on Thursday for a vote next Tuesday, states that Commons rules will be changed so that “where a committee has an odd number of members, the Government shall have a majority”." “The British people will not understand how having voted to deny the Conservatives a majority, the Tories can alter the rules of Parliament to ensure they have one." The powerful but little known Committee of Selection chooses which MPs go on select committees that scrutinise policy and ministers, and standing committees that govern legislation. The Leadsom motion sets the Committee up with nine members, but specifies that there will be five Tory members. "In 1995, then Commons Leader Tony Newton passed a motion guaranteeing a majority on committees only as long as a Government had a majority of the whole House."
  3. Safety of Scotlands High Rise Homes to be Examined - The Scottish Parliament READ MORE HERE: http://www.parliament.scot/newsandmediacentre/105470.aspx
  4. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/mar/22/peers-say-brexit-with-no-trade-deal-would-cause-signicicant-damage-to-service-sector-politics-live
  5. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-03-21/debates/382789C8-0168-4C4B-8260-0540AF83C7D3/DVLAAndPrivateCarParkingCompanies Kevin Foster:"We got rid of the cowboy clampers in the last Parliament. The suspicion is that the cowboy clampers have now become the cowboy finers and cowboy invoicers."
  6. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36188323 The headlines say its over plans to "strip MPs of their immunity from prosecution." Now we in the UK may quickly think - darn right they should be stripped so the crooks can be prosecuted ... BUT The opposition believe this is in line with new laws making dissent against the established regime a criminal offense and is intended to be used to arrest opposition members of the Turkish parliament if they oppose government bills as should be their right and duty.
  7. One of the people that we are helping here on this forum wrote a letter to their member of Parliament about the problems they were having with npower. Understandably, the recent election caused a delay in the response. However, remarkably quickly after the member of Parliament was returned, an excellent response was received offering to make representations and asking for further information. We think that this could be a very good move forward. It is a very simple matter to write to your member of Parliament and if people were prepared to let us know that they have written and also to publish the responses here, we could take steps to flag up to each member of Parliament which of their colleagues were also concerned about npower's shenanigans. I think that it would only take a few members of Parliament to realise that they were not alone and they would publish set up some correspondence or even a meeting and then the matter of npower might be raised in the House. If you have a problem with npower then I would suggest that you write your member of Parliament and use this thread to tell us about it. I would suggest that you update your own thread with the letter that you have written and also with the response you get. I would also ask people to post the letter in this thread as well along with the response so that we have them all in one place. The Consumer Action Group will then be pleased to act on all of your behalf's flagging up the issue to all the various members of Parliament – and also maybe to the national media as well, who I am sure will be extremely interested. We do not believe that asking for help from a member of Parliament should be used as an alternative to legal action. If a member of Parliament makes representations, it will not obtain any compensation for you. You should begin your legal action as well and maintain it all the way through.
  8. On 3rd September 2014, the House of Commons debated whether or not new legislation should be implemented to shut down energy companies who repeatedly breach the terms of their licence. It's quite a lengthy debate, but here's the full thing: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm140903/debtext/140903-0001.htm (scroll down to column 292) 214 voted yes to the proposal, 298 voted no. Naturally there are a lot of different, often conflicting, opinions throughout. Quite hard to summarise briefly but will try: ----------- It is proposed to the house that the belief is: Consumers have a right to be treated fairly Energy companies will meet their obligations and provide good services Should a breach occur, decisive action should be taken to put things right and prevent further breaches Since 2001, Ofgem has imposed at least 31 fines totalling at least £90 million. Despite this many energy companies face ongoing investigations. Whilst the energy regulator has power to revoke a licence in limited circumstances, it is powerless to do so where an energy company complies with a penalty notice and then commit further seperate breaches of their licence (i.e. the slate is wiped clean). Since 2010, average energy bills have risen by £300 (twice as fast as inflation, four times faster than wages). Some argument as to whether or not these increases are due to green energy initiatives. Noted that where wholesale costs rise, increases are quickly passed on to consumers. The reverse is not true. Suggested that lengthy enquiries (sometimes even spanning 18 months) don't actually acheive anything and instead, consumer protection law should be implemented to speed up the process. Argument that current financial penalties do not present enough of a deterrent to energy companies - merely "a cost of doing business". Also concerns that such fines eventually get passed on to the consumer anyway, in the form of higher prices. Proposal put forward that the regulator is granted new powers to revoke energy company licences when repeated instances of serious and deliberate breaches of licence conditions occur, especially when they harm the interest of consumers. Counter-argument that such a power is harmful to competition. If an energy company were to be closed down, how would those customers be redistributed to other suppliers? Whilst the secratary of state acknowledges there are far too many cases where energy companies let customers down (citing mis-selling, poor complaints handling, poor billing, unacceptable treatment) and acknowledges this has been going on for many years - he believes that revocation of a licence is the nuclear option and is instead harmful to the consumer as well as the company. The secratary of state believes the energy regulator already has the power it needs and that the right balance is currently attained. Npower and British Gas (Centrica) are specifically mentioned throughout for providing terrible service to customers for many years. Revealed that Npower, Scottish Power, E.ON and EDF energy refused to provide the full £50 reduction to customers on fixed price deals (result of government changes to green levies on energy bills announced December 2013). Although the government stated non-payment would be unacceptable, to date no action has been taken.
  9. Thanks to caro for providing this. To read the full report : http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/professional-standards-in-the-banking-industry/news/changing-banking-for-good-report/
  10. http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=12343 esther mcvey makes my blood pressure go through the roof and watching risks damage to my laptop.
  11. Grayling answering questions, http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Embed/GeneralEmbed.aspx?meeting=11307 Scroll down the page and hit the I agree button, fast forward the video to about half way.
  12. Denis MacShane http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmpublic/defamation/120626/pm/120626s01.htm
  • Create New...