Walthamstow MP watch: Legislative & Regulatory Reform Bill

You may not have heard much about this bill. The media have paid little attention to it. But it is a first rate menace to the little bit of parliamentary democracy that we have. Put simply, it will take away from Parliament, if a Government minister so chooses, the right to vote on new Bills, or revisions to existing Acts (with a very small number of exceptions).

New laws will be made, if a minister so chooses, purely on the say-so of the minister. If the word `dictatorship' springs into your mind, you wouldn't be far wrong. The Save Parliament blog summarises where the bill is now (going through the House of Lords). I wrote to Neil Gerrard, MP for Walthamstow, back in March. He replied like this:

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is being justified on the grounds
of removing unnecessary burdens from business. I have no problem with removing outdated and unnecessary regulation. However I have a major problem if at the
same time powers are taken away from parliament in respect of other legislation.
This Bill has so far had very little attention, but I believe that will change
when it comes to the Commons again, as I know a considerable number of other MPs who like me are concerned about this Bill and will be seeking amendments to make sure it does no more than it should and relates to a narrow field only.

Well, that might seem reassuring, but what has Neil Gerrard actually done? You might think he would say something about such an important Bill on his website, but there is no mention of it. If you want to know, you have to check out his voting record at the Public Whip. And guess what? He has opposed every effort to amend the Bill in order to reduce its malignant effects. So I wrote to him to ask him what he was doing:

Dear Neil Gerrard,

I wrote to you previously about my deep concerns over the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. You replied as follows:

`The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is being justified on the grounds of removing unnecessary burdens from business. I have no problem with removing outdated and unnecessary regulation. However I have a major problem if at the same time powers are taken away from parliament in respect of other legislation. This Bill has so far had very little attention, but I believe that will change when it comes to the Commons again, as I know a considerable number of other MPs who like me are concerned about this Bill and will be seeking amendments to make sure it does no more than it should and relates to a narrow field only.'

I would be grateful if you could reconcile this statement with your actual voting record on the bill, where you appear to be doing nothing to support attempts to increase parliamentary scrutiny and control. In particular -

Division 232 - an attempt to increase the requirement for ministers to behave `reasonably'. You voted against.
Division 234 - an attempt to reduce ministers ability to change law commission reports without parliamentary approval. You voted against.
Division 235 - an attempt to ensure that the provisions of the act are demonstrably used for the stated purpose of `reducing the burdens on business'. You voted against.
Division 238 - an attempt to bring persons delegated by ministers to have the power to change legislation under parliamentary scrutiny. You voted against.
Division 240 - an attempt to increase the possibility of parlaimentary veto on an order passed under the bill. You voted against.
Division 241 - the Bill's Third Reading. I was absolutely stunned to see that you voted in favour of this extremely dangerous piece of legislation despite your previous assurances.

If you ask your constituents I am quite sure that a majority will tell you that they did not elect you to parliament to give away vital powers of parliamentary oversight to an already overmighty executive. So why on earth are you doing so,and how can you possibly justify it? I feel betrayed.

Yours sincerely,

Grouchy.

No reply as yet.