Alastair Ross
East Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Over the weekend, she supported an independent investigation into everything that is going on in the RHI scheme. She has been working with the Economy Minister to try to make sure that we have something in place in early January to stop the costs of the scheme and reduce the cost.”
“There is no doubt that it has been an incredibly difficult time over the past two weeks for anyone involved in politics. It is quite clear that the public are, quite rightly, angry about a scheme that, with hindsight, was poorly designed and badly administered.”
“I know that, for some individuals, the old habit of asking questions rather than trying to answer them, dies hard, but what we had was not an opposition-driven policy or an attempt to hold the Executive to account; it was a media-driven thing, and some of the opposition parties tried to jump on the bandwagon.”
“Again, I hear the leader of the Alliance Party chirping away in the background. I listened to her contribution, and she must have had 10 or 11 questions she wanted answered.”
“That is why some of the hyperbole that has been around today is hard to stomach. <BR /> <BR />What we heard from my colleague Joanne Bunting was a thoughtful and considered first contribution to the Assembly, and I think that it was one that shows that she will be a valuable asset to the Chamber.”
“They abandoned their seats, and they failed to discharge their duties or ask the questions that their voters might, quite rightly, want them to ask. The public care very little about procedures, points of order or Standing Orders.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,064 lines we hold for Alastair Ross, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 22.
“The Minister will know that a considerable amount of money has been put into Ballymena courthouse in recent years to upgrade its facilities. Rather than leaving the building not fulfilling a function, would he look favourably on creating a community justice centre at Ballymena courthouse or, indeed, given the other facilities around the town, on piloting a drugs court there in future?”
“I appreciate the Member giving way. My point is that there is an independent mechanism for the ministerial code, which is a legal requirement, and that is, appropriately, in the courts. The House deserves a little more information in that we are beyond debating the principles of the Bill, which is Second Stage, and are now looking for detail. If you are asking somebody to support an amendment, it is appropriate that we ask for the detail of how you think it will work in practical terms. The Member's amendments are lacking in that regard. The House is due the courtesy of a little more information about how the mechanism would work in practice.”
“I will take you up on the other point. You heard the points that I made earlier, and I am sure that you will want to respond on the definitions of and distinctions between the two codes. I know that, in the past, the Member has been quite critical about how the investigation of the MLAs' code of conduct works and said that he is not entirely satisfied with that process. I wonder what process he suggests. In amendment No 22, it is not entirely clear who would do the investigation and whether it would be any different from the investigation of MLAs' conduct. How would it be an improvement on the current system for investigating MLAs, of which he has been quite critical in the past?”
“I really hate to labour the point but, of course, we do have an independent arbiter of the ministerial code. Two Ministers have been sanctioned in the courts around breaching the ministerial code. It is misleading to say that there is no mechanism there. That mechanism may be far from perfect and members of the public may be frustrated with it, but we have to acknowledge that there is an independent mechanism there to ensure that the ministerial code is enforced.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Of course, the MLA code of conduct is not a legal requirement, whereas the ministerial code is. That is where the distinction has to be made. I made the point to Mr McCallister earlier that, whilst the ministerial code of conduct may have some sort of mechanism for investigation within the Assembly or by an independent commissioner, surely the ministerial code, as a legal requirement, has to be settled ultimately in the courts.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he not think that there may be some confusion around that amendment, given that there is a distinction between the ministerial code and the ministerial code of conduct? The ministerial code is directly from the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that the courts would be the ultimate decision-maker regarding whether the code has been broken. The code of conduct for Ministers is something quite separate and contained within the ministerial code. That may be able to be decided in the Assembly or some other structure, but does he not see that there is a shortcoming in the way that the amendment has been drafted in that there is no distinction made between the two?”
“The Department's response was that it could see merit in the suggestion and proposed an amendment that was supported by the Committee. I have no further comment to make on group 5. Hopefully, we will get through it relatively quickly.”
“I will endeavour to be incredibly brief on this group. All the amendments tabled by the Minister, which the Committee had sight of before it did its clause-by-clause scrutiny, were supported by the Committee. However, revised amendments were sent to the Committee at a later date, and we simply agreed to note them. They were amendment Nos 303, 304, 307, 308 and 309. Amendment No 347, which is a ministerial amendment, came about as a result of an issue that was originally raised by the Committee. The Southern Health and Social Care Trust and the Northern Ireland approved social worker training programme suggested an amendment to clause 278 to permit an approved social worker to accompany the medical practitioner and constable when entering premises by means of a warrant when there was concern about a person's well-being.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee's view was that, whilst clause 154 might facilitate the collection of statistics, it did not require it. We noted the Department’s intention for data to be collected on the age of people detained under police powers of safety. However, that is very different from it being a statutory requirement, and intentions can change over time, depending on, for example, available resources and competing priorities. The Committee therefore tabled amendment Nos 173 and 174, which would require that statistics are collected on under-18s detained under these powers and their ultimate disposal. I ask the House to consider the amendments tabled by the Committee.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee asked the Department if it would make an amendment to clause 154. Its response was that the clause as drafted was wide enough to facilitate the collection of specific information on age and disposal outcomes, as well as other characteristics such as gender. The Department was unwilling to specify that particular statistics be collected, stating that areas of interest may change over time. That might well be the case, but, at this time, the key concern is about the use of police powers of safety in relation to young people and not, for example, gender or ethnicity. The other point is that specifying that statistics must be collected on young people does not preclude the collection of statistics on, for example, gender.”
“Clause 154 as drafted requires that the PSNI keep and publish annual records of the number of persons detained in hospitals and police stations. The Children's Law Centre and the Commissioner for Children and Young People suggested that the Bill place an obligation on the police specifically to record statistics on the use of place of safety powers in relation to young people and on the ultimate disposal of those young people. The Committee was of the view that, if separate statistics were not collected on young people, there would be a risk that such statistics would not be easily extrapolated from the data available and thus it would be difficult for the Department and others to monitor whether the police powers of safety were being used appropriately in relation to young people.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee was sympathetic to the concerns but did not think that the Bill should ban a police station from ever being used as a place of safety for a young person, particularly if they were at risk of harming themselves or others and the emergency department at that time was particularly busy. Our view was that there needed to be flexibility for officers on the ground in determining the most suitable place of safety for an individual at a particular time. However, we entirely agreed with stakeholders that using a police station as a place of safety for young people should be the exception rather than the norm. We believe that an amendment to clause 154 is the best way to monitor that situation.”
“Under Part 9, the police can remove a person of any age to a hospital or police station in situations in which that person is in need of immediate care or control and where failure to remove them would create a risk of serious harm to themselves or others. Stakeholders, including the Children's Law Centre and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, expressed concern at the use of a police station as a place of safety for a young person. They argued that bringing a young person who is vulnerable and frightened to a police station was not appropriate because it sent out the message that a criminal justice response was necessary when no crime had been committed.”
“On 30 November, the Department provided oral evidence to the Committee on its proposals for the renamed supervision and assessment orders, explaining that it had not been possible to provide those clauses in the Bill as introduced because of the timescales involved. Whilst the Committee took the view that that was not an ideal approach to legislation, it was content in principle that clause 205(8) be removed from the Bill and that supervision and assessment orders be dealt with in the Bill. However, the Committee agreed simply to note the detail of proposed new schedule 7A, given that it had not had the opportunity to seek written or oral evidence from stakeholders. <BR /> <BR />I turn to Committee amendments Nos 173 and 174. Clause 154 is in Part 9, which deals with the power of the police to remove people to a place of safety.”
“In November 2015, the Department advised that it had decided to rename supervision and treatment orders "supervision and assessment orders" and, therefore, any references in the Bill would be amended to reflect that change. That change in terminology is reflected in a range of amendments before us today, such as amendment No 243. The Committee also supports those amendments. <BR /> <BR />The Department further advised that it had drafted new schedule 7A, which sets out the detail of the proposed scheme for supervision and assessment orders. That is before us today as amendment No 470.”
“In June 2015, the Department advised the Committee that it intended to amend clause 205, which provides powers to deal with persons who are found to be unfit to be tried or not guilty by reason of insanity. In such cases, the court must make one of a number of disposals as provided by clause 205(2). One of the disposals is a supervision and treatment order. Clause 205(8) provides that the Department of Justice may make regulations about supervision and treatment orders. However, the Department advised that its intention was to remove that provision at Consideration Stage and instead make provision for such orders in the Bill, and it proposes do that through amendment No 242.”
“That is a similar provision to the one in England and Wales highlighted by a recent decision of the Court of Appeal, which held that a finding of unfitness was neither a conviction nor an acquittal, so no power was available to make a restraining order under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The Department, therefore, proposed amendment No 249 to insert new clause 207A, which would amend articles 7 and 7A of the 1997 Order to allow the courts to sentence an individual to a restraining order where that individual has been found unfit to plead. The Committee supports the proposed amendment. <BR /> <BR />Ministerial amendment Nos 242 and 470 relate to supervision and assessment orders.”
“The Committee supports those amendments. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 249 is on a slightly different but related issue from the raft of amendments that I have just referred to. The Committee, as part of our consideration of the criminal justice provisions, asked whether restraining orders were available for individuals found to be unfit to plead. The Department initially advised us that it was not sure of the law in that area and agreed to examine the matter further. The Department subsequently advised the Committee that a restraining order was not currently available under article 7 of the Protection from Harassment Order 1997 when an individual has been found unfit to plead.”
“<BR /> <BR />Furthermore, the Department proposed a range of additional amendments to Part 10 to clarify what is meant by "harm" in various clauses and whether it means physical or psychological harm or both. That resulted in the Department tabling amendments to clauses 163, 173, 196, 209, 213, 216, 219, 220 and 234. The Committee supports those amendments as well. On the same theme, the Department proposed a range of amendments to Part 9, which deals with the power of police to remove a person to a place of safety. Those amendments clarify that the potential of the individual to create a risk of serious "physical or psychological harm" to themselves must be considered.”
“<BR /> <BR />On a related issue, the Department proposed amendments to clauses 282 and 293 in Part 15. It proposed to amend clause 282, which deals with the provision of special accommodation for persons that require care or treatment in conditions of special security for the protection of other persons to allow for the detention of individuals who may pose a risk of serious physical or psychological harm. The Department also proposed amendments to clause 293 that provide a definition of "harm" for the purposes of the Bill so that the potential of the individual to create a risk of serious psychological harm is included in the scope of the definition. The Committee supports the proposed amendments.”
“Those amendments are amendment Nos 187 and 188 and are supported by the Ad Hoc Committee. <BR /> <BR />Amendments were also proposed by the Department to clauses 167, 170, 178, 183 and 190. They deal with various aspects of public protection orders so that the potential of the individual to create a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to other persons must be considered. Those amendments are in this group and, again, are all supported by the Ad Hoc Committee. Similarly, an amendment was proposed by the Department to clause 230 to provide an explanation of the "prevention of serious harm condition" for the purposes of clauses 228 and 229 so that the potential of the individual to create a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to other persons must be considered.”
“<BR /> <BR />When the Committee initially raised that with the Department of Justice, its view was that psychological harm is outwith compliance with article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Department agreed to go back and look at the issue more closely and to take further legal advice. After further consideration, the Department came back to the Committee to advise us that it was prepared to make amendments to clause 166 that deal with the detention conditions for a public protection order so that reference to "psychological harm" is inserted, provided it is of a serious nature. In effect, that means that the detention conditions for a public protection order include the potential of the individual to create a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to other persons.”
“if the offender was not detained. <BR /> <BR />The Royal College of Psychiatrists advised the Committee that the criteria for making a public protection order might not be met in cases where the person had been found to have committed a rape when the rape had not resulted in "serious physical harm" to the victim. The implication of that is that the person may be given an absolute discharge. The Royal College of Psychiatrists was of the view that the exclusion of consideration of serious psychological harm within the Bill is indefensible in the 21st century. In its view, the key question is whether the risk of harm was serious and there was a risk of serious physical or serious psychological harm.”
“Specifically, clause 166(2)(c) requires that there would be a risk of:”
“Again, we as a Committee support the amendments in this group tabled by the Minister. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 141 is the first of many amendments to clauses in Parts 9 and 10 that are the result of Committee scrutiny into a very specific but significant issue. On the criminal justice provisions, public protection orders are being introduced for people who are judged to have been not culpable enough at the time of committing the offence to be deserving of a prison sentence, people who are unfit to plead and people who are guilty by reason of insanity. The idea behind public protection orders is that, if those people pose a danger to the public, they cannot be released, even though they are not culpable for their actions. However, public protection orders can be used only if the detention conditions set out in clause 166 are met.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Perhaps I did not mention another issue around that potential confusion. It is the case that the vast majority of people who will be getting either an EPA or an LPA will go to a solicitor in order to do that. It is a solicitor's job to explain to those individuals the options that they have. Therefore, again, I am not sure that I have bought the argument that it will cause confusion, given that members of the public will have explained to them the differences between the two and the options that they have. I just do not get where this confusion will come from.”
“I agree with the Minister that, if somebody is of sound mind and has capacity to make a decision, it is up to that person whether to appoint somebody who has such a conviction. It may be a husband or relative who may have a conviction, but that person still feels it appropriate to have him or her as attorney. On that basis, I do not support the amendment. We have to give individuals the option to make choices when they have capacity to do so, whether or not, as the Minister said, they are choices that we think sensible. <BR /> <BR />I hope that the House will support the Committee position on clause 110.”
“Fundamentally, our position is to give people choice and flexibility, taking into account how much they are willing to pay for the future. <BR /> <BR />I will make some personal comments about the two Sinn Féin amendments. The Minister outlined his views on amendment No 119. Given the Committee opposition to clause 110, I do not think that amendment No 119 is required. Effectively, it is trying to do the same thing but in a different way, so, hopefully, Sinn Féin will not move it. <BR /> <BR />Whether somebody convicted of an offence, particularly fraud, should be allowed to be an attorney provoked discussion at the Ad Hoc Joint Committee, and amendment No 118 references the issue. I understand why it was an issue.”
“Therefore, if, in five years' time, the Departments were able to prove that there is a significant issue with running LPAs and EPAs in tandem, legislation could perhaps be brought forward at that point by the Department, given that we will at least have an evidence base to work on. The Committee position is that we will maintain our opposition to clause 110, and we believe that we should be able to offer people the option of either an LPA or an EPA. <BR /> <BR />Concerns were raised about the potential complexity of the forms required to make an LPA, and the Minister of Justice provided a written assurance that they would be kept as straightforward as possible. Whilst the Committee appreciates that assurance, it did not alter our position on maintaining EPAs.”
“My view and, I think, that of the Committee is that we should assess how things operate over the next number of years and, if it is proven to be creating a significant difficulty, we could return to it at that point. I am not sure that we would be satisfied with passing the Bill and putting some sort of commencement order around getting rid of the EPA system. I will have no difficulty if new primary legislation is required in five years to deal with the issue. It comes back to the point on the Henry VIII clause and ensuring that we have maximum scrutiny for the Assembly.”
“Some will have been made by people who are now in their 70s or 80s, but others will have been made by those who are in their 40s, 50s and 60s and who will be able to legally rely on those EPAs for the next number of decades, up to maybe 40 or 50 years. Therefore, it simply does not add up as an argument to state that no further EPAs should be made because it is too difficult to run two systems. <BR /> <BR />The Committee bought into the argument that we should give people choice and that, for those who could not afford, or are not willing to pay, the amount for an LPA, we should at least offer them some protection in the form of an EPA. I listened to the Minister's attempt at a compromise.”
“As Members have heard from the Minister, the Department was not in favour of that proposal. We listened to its arguments carefully, but I must say that we were not convinced by the logic of some of them. For example, the Department stated that, in practical terms, managing two systems would be unworkable. However, under the Bill, existing EPAs will not become invalid; it is simply that no more can be made. Therefore, as soon as the Bill becomes operational, the Department will be managing two separate systems automatically, irrespective of the Committee's opposition to clause 110. The Department has not given us the facts and figures, but one can only assume that there are thousands of EPAs already in existence in Northern Ireland.”
“Its key concern was that, if the only option available to people was to make a lasting power of attorney, with all the associated complexity and expense, many of them would simply do nothing. When that happens and someone loses capacity to make certain decisions, it can create serious bureaucratic obstacles for the person's family or carers, particularly in being able to manage their finances for them. However, if an EPA is in place, the management of a person's property and financial affairs is a lot more straightforward and you avoid getting into situations where, for example, someone's household bills cannot be paid. <BR /> <BR />The Committee put it to the Department that it seemed logical and sensible to maintain the EPA system alongside the new LPA system.”
“<BR /> <BR />In contrast, the cost of making an enduring power of attorney is relatively modest at around £100 for legal services and a registration fee of £115 that is payable only when there is a need to bring the power of attorney into effect. The Law Society believes that the modest costs and relatively straightforward nature of making an EPA — for example, at the same time as somebody is making a will — means that there are fewer barriers to people making an EPA. <BR /> <BR />The Law Society put it to the Committee that the current EPA system could run alongside the new LPA system that is created by the Bill. It suggested that this would provide people with more flexibility and accessibility in planning for their future needs.”
“A range of stakeholders, including the Law Society, are fundamentally opposed to that suggestion. In their view, there are serious drawbacks in having a system that only permits the making of lasting powers of attorney (LPA), which is what the Bill proposes to do. <BR /> <BR />Experience from England and Wales has shown that the forms required for making an LPA are lengthy and complex and that, when legal services are employed, it typically costs the client around £500 plus VAT in addition to a £110 registration fee that is payable immediately. The Law Society believes that those high costs have discouraged people from making lasting powers of attorney.”
“As the Minister has outlined, Part 5 of the Bill creates a new system for lasting powers of attorney. I will say up front that the Committee supported the introduction of LPAs and we can see the rationale behind them in that they give people an opportunity to put powers of attorney in place in relation to future decisions that have to be made about their health, welfare and finance. However, we diverged from the Department on the future role of EPAs under the Bill. <BR /> <BR />To set the context; at present, only EPAs are available to people in Northern Ireland, and they can be made by a person in relation to decisions about their property and affairs. Under the Bill as drafted, through clause 110, no further EPAs could be made once the legislation comes into operation.”
“The Committee has given notice that we are opposed to clause 110 and the related schedule 5 standing part of the Bill.”
“It is fair to say that the Committee was not entirely convinced by that logic, given that the assumption would be that anyone who sat on the panel should surely be there because they had the necessary knowledge and expertise in the first instance. However, we ultimately accepted that there are a number of unknowns still at play and that it would therefore be more sensible to allow the matter to be consulted on further in the process of the Department's putting together the necessary regulations in the future. Therefore, the Committee was content that the Department restricted its amendments to clause 283 to the issue of quorum. <BR /> <BR />I will now turn to the key issue for the Committee within this group of amendments.”
“The Department responded positively to that suggestion and proposed the amendment that is before us today that clarifies that all three panel members must be in attendance during proceedings of the panel, which includes when a decision is to be made. <BR /> <BR />We also asked the Department for its views on the suggestion that, in cases where the panel cannot reach a unanimous decision, the decision be taken on a majority vote. The Department identified a number of drawbacks. For example, it could be the case that the panel member in the minority may indeed be the person with the most relevant experience and expertise in that particular subject area.”
“Clause 283 deals with the panels that will consider applications to authorise detentions and extensions of public protection orders made without restrictions. Given the seriousness of the decisions that these panels will take in terms of the impact on an individual's liberty, the Committee was concerned that clause 283 does not specify quorum requirements, but simply states that the panel has three members. The Committee also queried the fact that the clause states that provision for cases where the panel cannot reach a unanimous decision will be provided for in regulations. <BR /> <BR />Firstly, we wrote to the Department and advised that we favoured a quorum of three being specified in the Bill.”
“The Department advised the Committee that it could foresee situations where it would be useful to consult the EPA and agreed therefore to make the amendment. <BR /> <BR />The Department, on reviewing the Bill, made note of other clauses where there should have been reference to an enduring power of attorney and rectified the situation; for example, through amendment Nos 77, 123, 125, 139, 313, 324, 330, and 340. The Committee welcomes those amendments and the fact that they recognise the important role that an attorney acting under an EPA has in making decisions on behalf of a person who comes under the Bill's remit. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 361, 362 and 363, which have been tabled by the Minister, were in response to an issue that was raised, again, by the Committee.”
“Again, as with the previous groups, all the amendments that have been tabled by the Minister are accepted and supported by the Committee. Therefore, I will not go over the detail of every amendment that has been tabled, but rather focus again on particular areas of concern or significance to the Committee deliberations. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 5 is tabled by the Minister. Again, it came about as a result of an issue that was raised by the Committee. Clause 7 deals with the process for determining the best interests of a person who falls under the Bill's remit. The Law Society pointed out that an attorney acting under an enduring power of attorney, known as an EPA, was not included in the list of relevant people in clause 7 who would be consulted on what was in someone's best interests. That appeared to be an omission.”
“Obviously, it is something that has caused a great deal of concern across the world, and we have seen the images of the horrific outcomes of the virus. What specific advice is the Department offering those who find themselves travelling to South America on the steps they can take to make sure that they are protected?”
“I would not dream of it, nor would I criticise the Member. If he reviews what I said, he will see that I said that all Ministers in all parties in all Departments are falling into the bad habit of introducing what is known as the Henry VIII clause. I am sure that the Member, who takes his scrutiny role very seriously in the House and in the Committees he is on, would be concerned if we were giving powers to Departments to make regulations through secondary legislation. We, as legislators, do not have the same ability to scrutinise that. That is the point I was making, and I am sure that the Member would want to agree with me about that.”
“However, under the Bill as drafted, the amendments to the 1986 Order will mean that the children recorded in the register by the trusts will only be those under the age of 16. As a result, the RQIA will not receive information in relation to 16- and 17-year-olds being treated in adult wards. The RQIA suggested that the Bill be amended to require the trusts to notify the RQIA of any 16- or 17-year-old accommodated in an adult psychiatric facility. The Committee believed that this was a sensible approach and asked the Department if it would be prepared to make such an amendment. The Department provided a proposed amendment, namely amendment No 473. <BR /> <BR />That concludes my comments on the group 2 amendments.”
“It is something that is increasingly creeping into all Bills being brought forward by all Ministers in the Executive, and it is something that we need to be alert to. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 473, tabled by the Minister, came about, again, through Committee scrutiny. The RQIA advised the Committee that, under the Mental Health Order 1986, the health trusts are required to maintain a register of all persons under 18 who are receiving medical treatment for a mental disorder as inpatients in hospital in an adult ward. A Department of Health circular requires the trusts to send that register to the RQIA so that it can do unannounced inspections to review the effectiveness of the safeguarding provisions put in place by the trusts for under-18s on adult wards.”
“Given that there may be significant time lags in bringing the key provisions of the Bill into effect, there may actually be time for the Department to bring an amending Bill, if required. <BR /> <BR />I am grateful that the Minister gave a more rational response to this position at the Committee than the Justice Minister did when we took a similar view on the Justice (No. 1) Bill and the Justice (No. 2) Bill. It is an important function of Committees to make sure that we do not give Departments free rein to introduce significant policy issues through secondary legislation. I think that it is important that, at times, Committees flex their muscles in that regard, and the Committee was in agreement with that.”
“It will be used to, for example, amend and substitute references to the "Mental Health Order (NI) 1986" in other primary legislation with the "Mental Capacity Act", where appropriate. The Committee accepts that the need for this sort of tidying-up power is inevitable with a Bill of this size and complexity. <BR /> <BR />Whilst the Department will argue that the removal of clause 288 and its replacement with more limited powers will increase the chance of a further Bill being required in the future to supplement or amend the Act, the Committee is of a view that there has to be a cut-off point in giving Departments free rein to amend primary legislation by way of regulations. We think that the amendments before the House today bring an appropriate balance of flexibility and accountability.”
“In response, the Department submitted a range of linked amendments to clauses 289, 290 and 294 and a new clause 58A to address the Committee's concerns. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 69, 379-388, and 404 and 405 are based on the premise that clause 288 will be removed from the Bill. In effect, the powers to make consequential amendments to the Act are now restricted to Part 11, and the powers to modify the Act in relation to children transitioning from being under 16 to over 16 and in relation to correcting errors in documents are now clearly limited to Part 2 of the Bill. Residual powers to amend other primary legislation in consequence of the Bill once enacted is provided for in the amendment to clause 290.”
“We are fully aware that secondary legislation comes before Committees for consideration, but the crucial difference is that a Committee or a Member cannot put down an amendment to a regulation — our only option is to pray against it. Furthermore, regulations are often brought in quite a number of years after the primary legislation has been passed. The collective knowledge of the Committee that scrutinised the original Bill may not be there, and therefore the House is not as fully attuned to the context and background of the secondary legislation being considered. <BR /> <BR />The Committee requested that the Department prepare a more limited version of clause 288 for its consideration.”