Jim Murphy, in what he no doubt hopes will be his last act as a Cabinet Office Minister, has tabled amendments, before the Bill’s report stage on May 15. These extend parliamentary scrutiny and strengthen safeguards limiting the scope of the Bill strictly to deregulation, and reducing financial costs, administrative burdens and obstacles to efficiency, productivity and profitability. These changes were welcomed yesterday by Oliver Heald, for the Tories, as a “very significant climbdown”. While the amendments will not end the arguments, they should ensure that the Bill passes.

The whole row has been bizarre in many ways. The Bill’s objective is to remedy the defects of a 2001 Act and make it easier to reduce unnecessary regulations, as sought by the leading business and industry groups. The problem has been over the means, not the ends. Indeed, the Bill’s fiercest critics have been those most in favour of cutting regulations.

As originally drafted, the Bill gave ministers unprecedented discretion to amend laws by issuing orders that would then have had very limited scrutiny by MPs. The 2001 Act required ministers to justify such orders in terms of a tight series of definitions. These and other restrictions were removed in the Bill. Part 1 of the measure gives ministers the power, in theory, to curtail or abolish jury trial, to allow the Home Secretary to put citizens under house arrest, to permit the dismissal of judges and to rewrite the law on nationality.

These provisions worried lawyers and were strongly criticised by four Commons committees. The Public Administration Committee said last month that the Bill would give the Government powers “which are entirely disproportionate to its stated aims”. Some critics have gone further and regarded the Bill as part of a growing authoritarianism by the Blair Government, hence the tag “abolition of Parliament” Bill. There have even been fevered comparisons with the enabling powers obtained by the Nazis.

The real story is less sinister, but no less revealing about a Government that fails to understand the need for proper constitutional checks. The Bill is not part of some sinister Blairite attempt to subvert Parliament. It is more about trying to meet business concerns about over-regulation without thinking enough about the consequences.

Ministers failed to appreciate that they are no longer trusted when they claim that the powers would not be used to pass “highly controversial” measures limiting civil liberties. First, this does not meet criticisms about inadequate scrutiny and, secondly, there is nothing to a stop a future government from using these powers.

But even if the tone of the criticisms was over the top, the thrust was correct in demanding that the letter, and specific provisions, of the Bill should be consistent with the stated aims. Ministers have responded, but only after fuelling suspicions and wholly avoidable misunderstandings.

Times Recommends

• Science contest to reveal loss of knowledge
• ‘Superfood’ celery combats brain diseases
• To infinity and beyond