Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act

From Democracywiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Central Lobby

Main Page | Index

1 What the Bill does
2 The Bill's Progress
3 October 2006
4 June 2006
5 May 2006
6 Select Committee Reports
7 Links

[edit]

What the Bill does

Our View

Don't be fooled by the dull title; this Bill proposes a radical shift the balance of power from the legislature and the executive. The Regulatory Reform Committee considered that the Bill has the potential to be the most constitutionally significant Bill that has been brought before Parliament for some years and the Constitution Committee has expressed its concern at the unprecedentedly wide powers the Bill seeks to confer on Ministers.

This Bill would enable Ministers to pass laws with virtually no parliamentary scrutiny. It gives enormous unchecked power to the executive and fundamentally changes the way we make laws. Under this Bill almost any law could be amended, repealed or replaced: the powers of the House of Lords could be changed; local government could be reorganised or even abolished. All this could potentially take place without a debate in Parliament.

The Bill is part of the Government's better regulation agenda and aims to reduce the regulatory burden on businesses and public services. The Government argues that the current process for removing legislative burdens is ineffective and that unless the process is changed many of the proposals the departments have for cutting red tape will not be able to be implemented. This Bill, it is argued, will make it quicker and easier to tackle unnecessary or over-complicated regulation and help bring about a risk-based approach to regulation.

This may well be how the Government intends to use these powers. They have repeatedly given assurances that they would not use this Bill to pass highly controversial measures. But the fact remains that there is nothing in this Bill to stop them. Future Governments may not be so scrupulous and would certainly not be bound by such assurances. As Alan Williams MP said in the second reading debate 'I welcome assurances but in Parliamentary terms, there is no assurance as good as and assurance written into the Bill'

[edit]

The Bill's Progress

Responsible Department

Cabinet Office

House of Commons stages

Introduced: 11 Nov 2005

Second reading: 9 Feb 2006

Committee stage: 28 Feb, 7 & 9 March 2006

Report stage: 15,16 May 2006

House of Lords stages

First reading: 17 May 2006

Second reading: 13 June 2006

Committee stage: 11, 19 & 25 July 2006

Third Reading 1st November

Royal Assent 8th November

[edit]

October 2006

Speaking in a debate on the 26 October about the power to reduce or remove burdens, Lords Desai said

"My Lords, this is a very interesting situation. We all agree that this Bill should not be allowed to alter the constitution, but we really do not know what the constitution is. We can neither find a one-line definition of what we can prevent nor decide whether the admirable effort of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, meets the requirement. This proves that we need a written constitution.

[edit]

June 2006

Although the House of Lords did not vote on the second reading debate concerns were raised about the scope of the bill to:

Automatically implement some Law Commission recommendations
Amend the Human Rights Act
Amend the first part of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill itself
Implement EU directives

From the 63 powers detailed in the first draft of this controversial bill, 27 are still intact. It is expected that the Lords will do much to curb its powers during the remaining stages of the bill.

[edit]

May 2006

The Government has published a number of amendments to the LRRB which can be found here

The amendments to include measures to:

Specify how the ordermaking powers in Clause 1 of the current Bill to will only be used to deliver better regulatory outcomes
Provide a statutory veto on the face of the Bill to be exercised by relevant Committees in both Houses of Parliament
Extend the period Parliament has to determine which scrutiny procedure should apply to an order is extended from 21 to 30 days
Bring current and future regulatory activity in line with the Better Regulation Commission's five principles of good regulation: that regulation should be proportionate, accountable, consistent, transparent and targeted.

These amendments are a very welcome clarification of the Government's intentions in proposing this Bill but we would argue they do not go far enough.

The veto power is an essential safeguard but it is by definition a very crude tool. Currently two Parliamentary Committees are able to scrutinise the order details and suggest amendemnts to an order rather thann just veto it. This is far more effective governance than the short cuts the Government is proposing.

Fundamentally, the Government have failed to appreciate the point made by the Regulatory Reform Committee that the delays in passing Regulatory Orders at the moment are not as a result of Parliamentary scrutiny.

[edit]