This is a good opportunity for me to be absolutely clear about the reference to the word “purported” in this clause. This has been included to take account of previous judicial decisions—in particular the cases of Anisminic Ltd v. the Foreign Compensation Commission 1969, and Privacy International v. the Investigatory Powers Tribunal 2019. In the latter, the expectation was expressed that the drafting legislation would have regard to the case law and ensure that the drafting made it clear if “purported” decisions—that is decisions that would be considered by a court to be invalid—were intended to be outside the jurisdiction of the courts. What clause 3 does is present an opportunity to Parliament to be absolutely clear on whether it thinks that such things should be outside the jurisdiction of the courts. It is the Government’s position and presentation that they ought to be, and I hope that hon. Members will join me in that.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Chloe Smith
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 13 September 2021.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
700 c723 
Session
2021-22
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2021-09-14 14:42:10 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2021-09-13/21091354000566
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2021-09-13/21091354000566
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2021-09-13/21091354000566