Clause 11 - Supplementary
Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
5:15 pm
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
The heading of clause 11, ''Supplementary'', is not very inspiring, but we have learned that it is often necessary to look at the little capsule clauses at the end of a part for provisions that might be contentious. Amendment No. 10 seeks to leave out subsection (2), which astonishingly states:
''It is immaterial whether the power is exercised before or after the passing of this Act.''
That refers to the power of a Minister of the Crown, as referred to in subsection (1), to
''make provision under section 129 of the 2000 Act . . . in connection with a referendum held in pursuance of an order under section 1''.
That tells us, if I have understood it correctly, that a Minister can make provision under section 129 of the 2000 Act in connection with a referendum held pursuant to section 1 of the Bill before it has been passed by Parliament, and certainly before it has received the Royal Assent. That seems wholly improper and inappropriate.
Why are the Government always in such a hurry, for goodness' sake? Why can they not just get the legislation through, and then deal with the processes in a proper and measured way? Why on earth do they want to use powers under the legislation before it has even been passed? That might incur public expenditure on matters that never see the light of day. Who knows? We are realists, and we recognise the electoral arithmetic in this House, but I hope that the Minister is also a realist and recognises that some of the issues in the Bill will be hotly debated in the other place, where the outcome is not always such a foregone conclusion on the basis of arithmetic.
It is quite extraordinary to say that it is immaterial whether a power is exercised before or after the passing of a Bill. I wonder whether such retrospective legitimisation of ministerial action is to be a feature of all future Government legislation. Subsection (1) appears to be a retrospective justification of something carried out now without any proper legal basis or empowerment. That is my concern in principle. Clearly, Ministers have something in mind when they draft such a subsection. Will the Minister explain what Ministers have done, or are intending to do, before the Bill is passed that the subsection would retrospectively authorise?