Melissa Darcey of the Fight 4 Life Lincolnshire group believes the government's 'important and controversial' Health and Social Care Levy Bill should not be 'rushed through' in just one day.

The move will see an Care Levy Bill will see a 10% increase to National Insurance to ordinary working class and Melissa says it is not acceptable for government "to rush decisions through parliament without any consideration as to how this will affect a large amount of people in this Country."

Melissa continued: "I have attached a screenshot from the gov website that shows a summary of who will be affected by the sharp increase in National Insurance to the lower paid population of this Country including employers, employees and the self-employed."

She added: "The cost of living is dramatically increasing for the lowest paid people in this Country, we need change, real change for the people. This is not acceptable!"

Melissa's letter to the MP for Grantham and Stamford is published in full.

Dear Gareth Davies, This is an urgent request that you, as my MP, speak out in the House of Commons today against the Government's attempt to rush through the Health and Social Care Levy Bill in just one day today, only a week after announcing the policy. The Hansard Society has published a highly critical statement, pointing out that, "Parliament's scrutiny of financial matters is generally poor, and the treatment of the new Health and Social Care Levy demonstrates many of the worst aspects of both the financial and legislative scrutiny processes: acting at speed with insufficient policy detail available for MPs to consider; important constitutional questions brushed aside; and broad powers delegated to Ministers with a lack of clarity about how they are to be used in future." It raised four crucial questions about scrutiny and accountability that need an answer:

1. Why is the government rushing the legislation through Parliament? It is not clear why there needs to be such a rush to legislate when important details about the policy implications are not yet clear.

1. How will Parliament scrutinise the way in which the revenue raised by the Levy is spent on health and social care?

1. What are the implications for the devolution settlement?

1. How will Ministers use the broad regulation-making power conferred in the Bill?

The Hansard Society statement adds: "MPs should be clear about the level of authority they are delegating to government Ministers, and be confident that they will not regret forgoing their ability to fully scrutinise future government decisions or the decisions of future governments of different political complexions. "Given the significance of the regulation-making power sought in this Bill, MPs may wish to consider whether a higher degree of parliamentary scrutiny should apply to all uses of it, not just to regulations that limit, reduce, or remove an existing relief or exception to the Levy." The Parliament webpage says the Bill is now at the Report stage, which is a "Chance for the whole House to discuss and amend the Bill." Please use this opportunity to tell the Government more time is needed for a higher level of Parliamentary scrutiny to all uses of the Bill, and ask the four questions identified by the Hansard Society, above. Yours Sincerely

Melissa Darcey

• Nub News welcomes a response from Gareth Davies MP, which we will publish in full.