As far as I am concerned, the train has left the station. Obviously, I come from a business background and there are ambiguities in legislation. I have had experience of Pepper v Hart being quite useful in cases where it has not been clear, in a technical regulation, what is needed. What my noble and learned friend has said suggests that it still sits there so that you can look at what was originally said by, for example, a Minister taking a Bill through, helping the courts to clarify what is being said. I hope that the huge constitutional change that we are presiding over today does not take that away completely because, if so, we are passing something for a wider area than the Trade Bill without having looked at all the ramifications.
Trade Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 20 March 2019.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Trade Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
796 c1452 
Session
2017-19
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2019-03-25 15:14:55 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2019-03-20/19032074000061
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2019-03-20/19032074000061
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2019-03-20/19032074000061