Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill — New Clause "19" — Power to remove or reduce burdens — 15 May 2006 at 20:15

Those voting Aye agreed that a new clause be added into the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill that was understood to be replacing the old clauses 1 and 2.

The major change was to replace the original proposal:

A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision for... reforming legislation... or implementing recommendations of any one or more of the United Kingdom Law Commissions, with or without changes.
In this Part "legislation" means... any public general Act or local Act, or any Order in Council, order, rules, regulations, scheme, warrant, byelaw or other subordinate instrument made under a public general Act or local Act.


A Minister of the Crown may by order under this section make any provision which he considers would serve the purpose... [of] removing or reducing any burden, or the overall burdens, resulting directly or indirectly for any person from any legislation.
In this section "burden" means [either]...
  • a financial cost,
  • an administrative inconvenience,
  • an obstacle to efficiency, productivity or profitability, or
  • a sanction... for doing or not doing anything in the course of any activity.
The provisions that may be made... include
  • conferring functions on any person (including functions of legislating or functions relating to the charging of fees),
  • modifying the functions conferred on any person by any enactment,
  • transferring... the functions conferred on any person by any enactment,
  • abolishing a body or office established by... any enactment,

The original version was widely criticised as representing the abolition of Parliament since it appeared to transfer all the prerogatives of Parliament onto ministers of the government. The new version is slightly more limiting, representing a climb-down by the government, which is why all parties voted on the same side.

A small amendment to this new clause was rejected in Division 232, a new clause referring to the implemention of law commission reports was voted in by Division 233, and a clause to limit the powers of people outside Parliament on whom legislating functions were converred was rejected in Division 238.

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Con119 4 (+2 tell)063.8%
Independent1 00100.0%
Lab262 (+2 tell) 0074.8%
LDem52 0082.5%
PC2 0066.7%
SNP2 0033.3%
Total:438 4071.7%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

Bill CashStoneCon (front bench)no
Christopher ChopeChristchurchCon (front bench)tellno
David Heathcoat-AmoryWellsCon (front bench)no
Richard ShepherdAldridge-BrownhillsCon (front bench)no
David WilshireSpelthorneCon (front bench)no
Ann WintertonCongletonCon (front bench)tellno

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive