text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill - New Clause "5" - Laying a rejected order
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  <p>Those voting No rejected a proposed <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/141/rs1411605.559-565.html">new clause</a> for the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/141/06141.i-ii.html">Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill</a> that would have said: </p>
  
  <blockquote>
  Where within the period set out in <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/141/06141.1-7.html#j021"> section 13</a> either House of Parliament resolves that the content of an order is inappropriate for provision to be made under <a href="http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2006-05-15&number=231&dmp=856">"New Clause 19"</a>, there shall be no further proceedings in respect [of this order], and [no] order which has the same or similar effect to [this] one... may... be laid... [before Parliament] within the subsequent two-year period.
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>This would have prevented the government from re-submitting an order over and over again to Parliament until it got it past a veto.  In other words, once an order had been rejected, the change in the law would no longer be a candidate for this fast-track procedure, and must be submitted through the usual Parliamentary process.</p>
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  