The hon. Gentleman has pre-empted a point I was going to come to. In the scenario he gives, there is no need for the timetable necessarily to be compressed. If it were squeezed, what would that say about the role that Parliament will have on the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill? In his scenario, there would also be no need for the secondary legislation in this Bill, which could be included in a similar form in the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, when we would have a better idea about what it will be needed for and can more adequately circumscribe its scope. As for this idea that we have a withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill making its way through this House at the same time as secondary legislation implementing elements of that agreement hang over this place, such an approach would create serious confusion.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Matthew Pennycook
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 13 December 2017.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
633 c435 Session
2017-19Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2018-09-20 12:51:57 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-12-13/17121336000008
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-12-13/17121336000008
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-12-13/17121336000008