As far as I know, this is not intended to be prejudicial, but it presupposes a case where there is a tenable argument and it is put to the court that a retained EU law has that effect. Then the court will decide whether it does and what would be the proper development going forward. Taking that intervention on the hoof as it were, I am not sure at first sight that one is convinced that it would be better to change the wording. Let me reflect further.
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bellamy
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 6 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 c604
Session
2022-23
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-03-13 17:16:46 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-03-06/23030621000009
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-03-06/23030621000009
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-03-06/23030621000009