I have faxed Lord Redesdale (Lib Dem, and a thorn in the Government's side on the Licensing Bill) as follows.

Feel free to do likewise and to use bits of my letter if you wish.


"Dear Lord Redesdale,

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill
Vote (Lords) Thurs 2nd Nov.

You may remember me from the Licensing Bill. This time I write to urge you to press at least for the radical reform but possibly the rejection of the above bill. For centuries Parliament has been the supreme legislative body in the UK, but this bill would if passed without amendment enable ministers (and we have for decades seen how the ministerial point of view may sometimes be inappropriately partisan or worse) without Parliamentary discussion to amend or repeal legislation. The Bill at present requires the minister to consider whether his proposals will "reduce burdens". That is an insufficient safeguard. You will recollect the irrational certifications by government ministers that the Licensing Bill did not affect human rights and was compatible with EU law.

An obvious example might be a Conservative minister certifying that the removal of the Human Rights Act would "remove burdens". No doubt, from his perspective, such a removal would be convenient.

But there lies the rub. The temptation provided by the Bill in its present form is too much. At the very least the courts should be entitled and enabled to review whether a ministerial measure under the Bill (if enacted) was genuinely only deregulatory. That, however, runs the risk of encroaching on the enrolled bill rule, and in my view the better approach would be for the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill not to pass. It should then go to the Law Reform Commission who might succeed in preparing something that did not show such a likelihood of being used as a party political tool.



Yours sincerely,


Richard McD. Bridge"