Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Nick Ainger (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 18 July 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Government of Wales Bill.


Government of Wales Bill

Yes, I can give an example. Let us imagine that both Houses of Parliament agreed a measure that related to a position following a public inquiry into the construction of a bypass. If, after compulsory purchase orders and payments had been made, a defect was found in the legislative competence, it would be in the public interest retrospectively to set the record straight in legal terms to allow the payments that had already been made to be retained, and no claims to be made against the individuals who had received the money from the compulsory purchase. That would enable the bypass to go ahead in the public interest, and not to the detriment of the individual who had received funds from the Government in exchange for the land. That is an example of the public good benefiting from retrospective legislation such as that for which clauses 94 and 150 provide. It is impossible to identify with certainty all persons who could be in any way detrimentally affected as a consequence of such an order before it was made. It would therefore never be clear whether an order could lawfully be made, even if there were an overwhelming public interest to do so. I therefore invite hon. Members to reject the amendments.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
449 c219 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Devolved matters Candidates Devolution Elections Legislative competence Legislation National Assembly for Wales Referendums Politics and government Proportional representation Wales Welsh Government
Legislation
Government of Wales Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk