I beg to move amendment No. 168, in page 51, line 21, leave out subsection (4).
With any legislation, it is important that any suggestion that measures can be carried out retrospectively should at least be put to the test, and that we be given an explanation of why such measures are needed. Retrospective legislation is always to be avoided. The example given in the explanatory notes to show why the provision is needed is:"““where there has been a legal challenge to the validity of an Assembly Measure based on doubt as to whether its provisions relate to a relevant matter, an Order in Council may restore legal certainty about the Measure by amending a matter to remove any ambiguity.””"
That form of explanation leads us to the view that such uncertainties and ambiguities might arise. It is much better to have rigour within the legislation and to make it clear that such mistakes would not be tolerated by the process. I would therefore like to hear an explanation from the Minister of why the provision is necessary, and in what circumstances he envisages its being used.
Government of Wales Bill
Proceeding contribution from
David Mundell
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 23 January 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Government of Wales Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
441 c1266 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-01-26 16:57:43 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_293448
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_293448
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_293448