I think I must have failed to get across, when I addressed the Committee earlier, that we are not here dealing with legal technicalities but with massive uncertainties at the very heart of the Bill, uncertainties that relate not to legislation but belong to legal principle. I tried to help by saying how I thought Clauses 3 to 5 related to Clause 7. If I was right about that, the task of applying any European authority under Clause 7 becomes astonishingly difficult, because a court has to read every one and see whether it contains general principles, direct effects or supremacy before it can even decide whether it is going to apply it or not. I hope I did not leave the Minister with the impression that these are legal technicalities, and I hope that, if he writes to the Committee about this, we will have a full explanation of how Clauses 3 to 5 and Clause 7 are intended to relate to each other.
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 2 March 2023.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
828 c492 
Session
2022-23
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-03-09 13:17:39 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-03-02/23030260000003
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-03-02/23030260000003
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-03-02/23030260000003