I am grateful to all those who have contributed to this debate. It was indeed a probing amendment and an attempt to elicit a series of responses from the Minister. We have those on record and I am grateful to him. Having said that, we have raised one or two issues that need consideration in the non-continuity mode, if we ever get to that point, about exactly why we are doing what we are doing, how it might be modified in future, and what the appropriate regulation would be. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is absolutely right. We have to avoid getting ourselves into the wrong side of the argument that relates to engaging those who have trade responsibilities. There will be significant and important trade responsibilities when they eventually end up with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and they should not be excluded from proper consideration and debate. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Trade Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 23 January 2019.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Trade Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
795 c716 Session
2017-19Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2019-02-01 12:32:45 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2019-01-23/19012333000120
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2019-01-23/19012333000120
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2019-01-23/19012333000120