Jon Bright (London, OK): This was brought to my attention by SpyBlog this morning (plenty of others are also up in arms about it) - the Constitutional Renewal Bill, which was released on Tuesday this week, contains this piece of legalese which will be worrying for anyone who followed the progress of the 2006 Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill:
Part 6
FINAL PROVISION 43 Power to make consequential provision(1) A Minister of the Crown, or two or more Ministers of the Crown acting jointly, may by order make such provision as the Minister or Ministers consider appropriate in consequence of this Act.
(2) An order under subsection (1) may --
(a) amend, repeal or revoke any provision made by or an Act;(b) include transitional or saving provision.
(3) An order under subsection (1) is to be made by statutory instrument.
(4) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1) which amends or repeals a provision of an Act may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1) which does not amend or repeal a provision of an Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
I've just got off the phone with Andrew Blick - OurKingdom's new Westminster and Whitehall Editor - who is better able to decipher this type of language. He gave me his impression of the passage, which is simply this: it's unclear. The powers it suggests are potentially very wide ranging - allowing government ministers to amend, repeal or revoke provisions made not just by this act (which would still be undesirable) but by any act of parliament (or simply the acts themselves), with very little in the way of checks and balances. There's nothing about it in the White Paper, and the explanatory notes fail to live up to their promise by explaining little.
But the bill still has to go through pre-legislative scrutiny - when, at the very least, the government will be called upon to clarify this passage if everyone does their job properly. They may respond to the effect that this wasn't intended, and change the wording, or their lawyers may claim the passage doesn't do what we think it does. Some argue that the introduction of pre-legislative scrutiny has allowed those drafting bills to do so in a hurry, knowing errors will be caught later. However, this may be an attempt to revive some of the provisions of the 2006 act by trying to slip a clause in unnoticed - and if it isn't caught in scrutiny, it could transfer serious powers to ministers at the expense of parliament. Worth keeping an eye on.
