I said a few moments ago that I was reading the amendment tabled by Lord Kingsland, so the hon. Gentleman and I violently agree that that is the source of my recommendation.
Although I see the force of the hon. Gentleman’s argument about the amendment, I have, on reflection, accepted the Government’s point that this retrospective latitude is probably, in limited circumstances, desirable and that it could be compromised were the Lord Kingsland amendment included in the Bill. However, I believe that its wording, as a statement of clarification, would be both helpful and consistent with the intent of the amendment. It would not in any way detract from the applicability of the retrospective facility in those areas where it could legitimately be used.
I ask the Minister those three questions—including the two from Lord Thomas’s inquiry in another place, which I have recited—and ask whether he is willing to reiterate the words in Lord Kingsland’s amendment by way of clarification and reassurance on this reasonable and very specific point, to protect the interests of those who might otherwise be concerned that they would be harmed unfairly by the application of this retrospective facility.
Government of Wales Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lembit Opik
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 18 July 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Government of Wales Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
449 c224 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:56:24 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_338884
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_338884
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_338884