Part of the debate – in the House of Lords at 5:30 pm on 6 June 2006.
Amendment No. 62 would remove Clause 94(4), which reads:
"An Order in Council under this section may make provision having retrospective effect".
My first question to the Minister is: what does this mean in an operational context? I am prompted to ask him because of what Mr David Mundell said in another place on
"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".
Do the Government really intend, in legal proceedings in the courts of this land, to clarify by exercise of this retrospective power a matter that is in issue? That is totally against our constitutional traditions, and it may affect the existing rights of one party or another. I make that observation particularly in the context of the observations I made earlier about Clause 93(7). I do not know whether the Minister was in his place when the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, responded to a point about the interpretive approach that the courts are supposed to take to legislative matters under Part 3. In my submission, there is real danger of a conflict between the exercise by the courts of their power under Clause 93(7) and the exercise of the Government's powers under Clause 94(4). Whatever your Lordships will make of those preliminary submissions, I am sure all your Lordships will agree that we ought not to encourage retrospective legislation under our constitutional arrangements. Therefore, any attempt to introduce a retrospective element in a Bill ought to be studied most carefully and most critically. I beg to move.