Its report stage in the House of Lords took place on 26 October 2006, and it received royal assent on 8 November 2006.

[6] A similar procedure is possible under the existing RRA, which permits a minister to make Regulatory Reform Orders (RROs).

A review of the first 4 years of operation of the RRA, published by the Cabinet Office in July 2005, concluded that the RRA "presented a number of hurdles which inhibited the production of RROs", its powers were "too technical and limited", and the procedure should be "extended to deliver non-controversial proposals for simplification".

Before making an order, clause 3 of the Bill requires the relevant minister to be satisfied that a legislative change is required to secure the policy objective, that the proposed order is "proportionate", "strikes a fair balance" between the public interest and the interests of any persons adversely affected, does not remove any "necessary protection", and does not prevent anyone from exercising rights or freedoms that they "might reasonably expect to continue to exercise".

[9] Earlier in January, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution wrote to the Lord Chancellor to express its concern that the Bill could markedly alter the respective and long-established roles of Ministers and Parliament in the legislative process, and its disappointment that the bill had not been published in draft.

The Law Society published a briefing note before its Second Reading, expressing concerns that safeguards were too weak, that secondary legislation should not be able to authorise further subordinate legislation, that the powers of non-Ministers acting under delegated powers were not restricted, and that there was no procedure for Parliament to challenge use of the Bill.

[12] In a letter published in The Times, six professors of law at the University of Cambridge wrote that the Bill could be used to create a new offence of incitement to religious hatred, punishable by two years' imprisonment; curtail or abolish trial by jury; introduce house arrest; allow the prime minister to sack judges; rewrite the law on nationality and immigration; and "reform" Magna Carta, saying that "It would, in short, create a major shift of powers within the State, which in other countries would require an amendment to the constitution; and one in which the winner would be the executive, and the loser Parliament.

"[13] Joshua Rozenberg wrote in The Telegraph that Clifford Chance had pointed out that the Bill "usurps the power of Parliament",[14] and David Pannick QC wrote in The Times that the Bill "would confer astonishingly broad powers on ministers to make the law of the land".

[15] Barristers Sir Jeremy Lever QC and George Peretz pointed out in a letter to The Times on 23 February 2006 that the Solicitor General told Parliament on 13 July 1972 that the similar powers in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 would only be used for "consequential amendments of a small, minor and insignificant kind", although they have been used subsequently to implement EC legislation that has made substantial changes to UK law.

[17] An article published in The Independent in June 2006 that analysed the last nine years of legal reform attacked the Prime Minister and his Government, claiming that the numerous changes and laws passed since it has been in power have reduced the power of democracy in the UK; the Bill was one example the journalist gave of the kinds of methods being employed to do this.

"[20] In May 2006, the House of Lords Constitution Select Committee published a report which drew attention to a number of issues.

[21] The government minister responsible, Jim Murphy, said, in winding up the debate on Second Reading on 9 February 2006: "I give the House clear undertakings, which I shall repeat in Committee, that the orders will not be used to implement highly controversial reforms",[22] although there is no such restriction in the text of the bill itself.

[25] A bill of this nature would usually be introduced by a more senior minister, such as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or the Cabinet Office Minister, but a replacement for John Hutton had not been announced in over two months since he was promoted to replace David Blunkett as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on 2 November 2005.

[30] The amendments made substantial changes to the bill, replacing the first two clauses entirely with new clauses under which an order can only be made for the purposes of "removing or reducing any burden" from legislation, or of securing that regulatory activities are "carried out in a way which is transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent" and are "targeted only at cases in which action is needed", or of implementing the recommendations of a Law Commission.

[40] The Bill had its report stage in the House of Lords on 26 October,[41] after Parliament returned from its summer recess, and its third reading was held on 3 November.