Reform: solicitors attack plans to let ministers amend primary legislation and common law

The Law Society and City solicitors have joined the chorus of concern over government plans to give ministers powers to amend primary legislation and the common law.


Dubbed the Abolition of Parliament Bill by some, the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill overhauls the 2001 Regulatory Reform Act with the aim of cutting red tape. Clause one empowers a minister to reform legislation and/or implement Law Commission recommendations by order - in doing the latter, the minister will be able to codify, amend or abolish 'any rule of law'.


Ahead of last month's second reading in the House of Commons, the Law Society told MPs that while it cautiously supported improvements to the 2001 Act, the Bill goes much further.


Law Society President Kevin Martin said: 'It introduces worryingly wide powers that affect all legislation, with inadequate safeguards. In theory, ministers could make orders allowing "any person" to legislate, including creating new crimes carrying up to two years in prison.


'If the government sees regulatory reform as a priority, then it could simply allocate more parliamentary time to it in the ordinary way. Otherwise the Bill risks reducing the amount of say MPs have in what goes onto the statute book.'


Michael Smyth, head of public policy at City giant Clifford Chance, said he too was unconvinced by the safeguards. 'This Bill takes the Parliament out of the parliamentary process. Our business clients obviously welcome a reduction in red tape, but the powers in the Bill give the executive authority that goes well beyond what's required.'


During the second reading, MPs from all sides expressed worries about the Bill's scope and none backed it.


Shadow Solicitor-General Jonathan Djanogly, a City solicitor, quoted from a report by the Commons' regulatory reform committee, which said the safeguards were dwarfed when set against the increased powers for ministers.


Cabinet Office minister Jim Murphy gave the House an undertaking that the powers would not be used to implement highly controversial reforms, which MPs said should be written into the legislation.


In a letter to The Times last month, six Cambridge University law professors said the Bill would be a major shift of power, and allow the government to, among other things, curtail or abolish jury trial and allow the prime minister to sack judges.