Dear Mr Hendry:

Specifically, we write today out of tremendous concern about the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (LRRB), which seems to have passed through a second parliamentary reading with very little public awareness of the bill's existence, let alone the crippling effect which this legislation would have on democracy were the bill to become law.

Although several excellent articles have been written -- across the political spectrum -- in British newspapers, magazines and journals, the general public seems not to have noticed that a bill which would fundamentally rewrite the rules by which legislation can be amended, replaced or repealed, and which would undermine the checks and balances inherent in the parliamentary system, is dangerously close to becoming law. Even citizens and legislators of other countries whose respective parliamentary systems are based on the British model watch with grave concern for their own democracies as this bill proceeds along the legislative process with apparently scarce opposition, in or out of Parliament.

The Save Parliament website provides a general overview of the bill, and includes a number of recent articles which demonstrate that those relative few in the UK who are aware of the bill are shocked and fearful of the sweeping legislative powers which such a law would hand to the ministers of Government.

Democracy would, in effect, be dead.

Below is an excerpt from the Save Parliament website:

[...] More worryingly, the minister involved can amend any existing legislation; nothing is protected. So, as was pointed out in The Times by 6 law professors from Cambridge, a minister could abolish trial by jury, suspend habeas corpus (your right not to be arbitrarily arrested), or change any of the legislation governing the legal system.

That's 700 years of democracy and the rule of law, thrown away in a heartbeat. What's left of the Magna Carta, the foundation of just about all modern democracies, would be finally gone, and our Parliament, which has influenced democratic systems all over the world, would just be a footnote in history.

Mr Johnson, Ms Hurst and I intend to work in coalition with others to raise awareness of this issue amongst the general population.

We, therefore, are writing to request a meeting with you to discuss this matter, and to ask for your advice as to how we may be able to build upon existing efforts, like that promoted by Save Parliament, to help educate the public of the dangers of this bill.

Thank you, Mr Hendry, for your consideration.

Yours sincerely,

Sean M. Madden
Rebecca L. Hurst
Simon Johnson