I am not reassured.

Thank you for writing to David Cameron – I’m replying on his behalf. I’m so sorry for the long delay in my reply, as I am sure you can appreciate there has been a massive increase in the volume of correspondence coming into the office since David Cameron took over as leader.

The Government claims that the Bill is designed to reduce regulation, red tape and bureaucracy. We believe that we would all support this aspiration, but unfortunately the Bill fails to deliver. There is no reference in it to deregulation. Instead, a wide power is granted to Ministers to amend, repeal or introduce new law, using a fast track Order making power. It extends the powers available to Ministers, whilst relaxing the constraints of Parliamentary scrutiny.

Conservatives have been dominant in the debates in Parliament about this Bill. Oliver Heald MP, Shadow Constitutional Affairs Secretary, has called for clear safeguards, so that the Bill concentrates on deregulation and only allows Ministers to use the powers in the Bill for non-controversial changes. Mr Heald has described the Bill as “a major move away from primary legislation towards Government by Ministerial edict”. That is why our Team has put forward dozens of amendments to the Bill and argued strongly for their inclusion.

I believe the Bill must be amended to provide the necessary safeguards. Firstly, order-making powers should only be used for specifically deregulatory purposes. Secondly, the powers should not be used to push through important or controversial changes, particularly those with constitutional implications. Finally, it is important that a procedure whereby Committees or either House of Parliament can veto an order is built into the legislation

Following concerted pressure from Oliver Heald in Committee, the Government has agreed to amend the Bill to write in a clear veto for the Regulatory Reform Committee over any order. This was described by the Minister in charge of the Bill, Jim Murphy MP, as a “great concession”, and certainly goes some way towards allaying my concerns. Unless further safeguards are built in, the Bill would have profound implications for democracy and would be a move towards government by Ministerial fiat.

I can assure you that we are continuing to work hard to ensure that the necessary safeguards are built into the Bill and that Parliament is not sidelined. Oliver Heald has tabled several new amendments to the Bill and will be pressing for their inclusion when it is next debated.

Thank you for taking the trouble to write on this very important subject

Yours sincerely,

David Beal

Why do I just feel like I’ve been comprehensively patronised? I didn’t add the capitalisation, it came like that. I also feel like I’ve been invited to be part of some strange cheerleading audience – applause cards held up each time Oliver Heald MP (cheering) is mentioned. And I don’t feel like handing a veto to a small committee is an improvement over having legislation scrutinised by parliament – it may be a great concession, but it isn’t anywhere near enough. There are never any deals done in corridors or committees after all, are there?

I much preferred the libdem response, (did I blog it?) which didn’t seem somehow to be quite so arrogant or testosterone laden. Perhaps it was the part where they suggested what we, the people, could do for ourselves.

Yet to hear back from Natascha Engel on this subject though.