Brexit

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 9th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister say what effort the Government made before triggering Article 50 to ensure that they would be able to discuss with our partners in the EU the new partnership straightaway? If they did not make any such efforts, was not that a little foolhardy?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, when we triggered Article 50 it was at a time when we had already heard extensive analysis of a range of issues that we knew would be the subject of discussion in reaching an agreement on our withdrawal from the European Union. That includes, as I have mentioned at the Dispatch Box in the past, an analysis of more than 50 sectors of the economy. An extraordinary amount of detailed work has been carried out, which is why we have been able to publish a raft of papers this summer.

UK and EU Relations

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, before we recommence our debate on withdrawal from the European Union, I again remind your Lordships about the advisory time limit. I know that it is purely advisory and I am totally in noble Lords’ hands, but it is to keep an eye on the clock and on the fortunes of our colleagues who will be speaking later. I would be very grateful for your Lordships doing everything you can to facilitate compliance with the advisory limit.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, reading the 12 papers—I am afraid I have managed only to get to 12 because the Minister added one that arrived at lunchtime today—has struck me as a pretty depressing experience, even if one does not throw in for good measure the leaked paper on immigration policy which we are told is not government policy, or at least not yet. It is depressing because there are so many words yet so little substance, so few clear indications of what sort of outcome the Government are hoping to achieve in the Brexit negotiations—and that when a quarter of the time for their completion has already been frittered away.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Government are still playing hide-and-seek with Parliament. That is bad enough when it is Parliament which is meant to be taking back control from Brussels over these matters, but what is worse is that the Government seem to be playing hide-and-seek with our negotiating partners, too. No doubt there is an element of the tactical in the complaints from Brussels of a lack of clarity in the Government’s negotiating position, but these papers demonstrate pretty graphically that those complaints are not simply tactical. That is serious indeed, because successful negotiation requires each side to have some clarity about what the other is seeking to achieve.

Many of the papers are just “cut and paste” jobs; for example, the paper on The Exchange and Protection of Personal Data. Often, it is simple common sense, as in this case it is, to conclude that it is essential to avoid the fragmentation of a currently frictionless entity, the exchange of data right across Europe, but the paper is remarkably coy about the fact that to achieve that objective on a lasting basis, we will need to mirror here any future changes in the EU’s data protection regime and any rulings on it by the European Court of Justice. That data protection iceberg conceals a mass of other EU regulatory functions, some 35 at the last count, on which the Government have not yet revealed their hand.

Other papers were obscure to the point of incomprehensibility. I instance the paper on Enforcement and Dispute Resolution. It is fairly clear that the Government have at last realised that the line that the Prime Minister drew at last October’s party conference on the outright rejection of any jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice is simply unnegotiable. So they are moving crab-wise away from it, inventing a new description, “direct” jurisdiction, and juxtaposing it with “indirect” jurisdiction. We are now told that direct jurisdiction remains taboo, but indirect, by admission, is not. How is that to be done? Just producing an academic list of the options, which is what the Government’s paper does, is not a negotiating strategy. If, as I would suspect, something along the lines of the EFTA court is required, why not simply say so?

Then there are the papers such as the one on Northern Ireland and that on customs arrangements, which suddenly surface completely unprepared and out of the blue new and untried solutions—what the Secretary of State for DExEU called blue-sky thinking—but without a trace of any detail or any evidence-based underpinning. Indeed, the new customs arrangements are described in the paper as “unprecedented” and “challenging to implement”—words that could have come from a script for “Yes Minister”.

The paper on co-operation on science and innovation is welcome if belated, but it conceals that this chapter of EU budget expenditure—one of the most rapidly growing chapters of that budget and set to continue to be so—is one from which we have derived huge net benefits. That is surely unlikely to survive any new arrangement when we are outside. The paper glosses over rather unconvincingly the fact that we will no longer have a full say on the EU scientific and research programmes, which will be decided by the 27 without our participation.

Is this all unduly critical of the Government’s approach? I do not think so. The Brexit negotiations are not going particularly well and there is little or nothing in these papers that we are debating today which will help them to do any better. Nor, I fear, is the Government’s relationship with this House over Brexit going particularly well. Last week, the Government’s response to your Lordships’ report on the Irish dimension arrived one hour before the debate began and seven months after it should have been available. Today, the Government produced a new paper in the series that we are debating which was available only an hour or two before the debate began. That, frankly, is no way to run a railroad, let alone a Parliament.

Brexit: Negotiations

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

The noble Lord is absolutely right about how crucial it is that, as negotiations progress and there is more of a convergence of agreement about what is, as he says, very detailed technical information about the status of regulations after Brexit, we are able to transmit that information. I assure him that that is what we have sought to do throughout the summer. One brief example is provided by the common position paper, published by both the EU Commission and the UK, on our negotiations on the status of citizens. Clearly a wide range of issues, including highly technical ones, are involved, and after the August round we updated the online convergence annexe immediately and made sure the information was in this House. That really shows how we are trying to transmit that detail. But I do not underestimate the complexity or the amount of detail that I know the House will wish to scrutinise.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the issue of periodicity of reporting, which the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, raised, is not the only one at stake? There is also, of course, the content of the reports, which up to now has left something to be desired—and also the ability of this House, when the report is made, to have more than the time that is made available when a ministerial Statement is made. Will the Minister consult the usual channels to see whether, in the case of Brexit, which is a matter of huge interest to all parts of this House, the time allowed for discussion following a ministerial Statement on the progress of the negotiations is a bit longer than is allowed on a normal one?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I think there are many views around the House about how noble Lords wish to participate in the scrutiny of these matters. A Statement is, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, just one method. There are indeed occasions when the usual channels can arrange debate, and I thank my noble friend the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms for being so generous as to put time on the Order Paper next Tuesday so that this House can examine the position papers at length. That is a measure of the generosity of the Government; I hope that it will be met in good spirit, and not undermined by others.

Update on the Progress of EU Exit Negotiations

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My noble friend, as ever, speaks from great experience in these matters. I am very interested in his proposal about a paper looking at further EU reform and the new pattern of co-operation. I recall in our years in opposition together listening to him examining, in a very intellectual way, how we could change the way that the EU worked for the better of all. I am very interested and will certainly take that idea back.

I agree with my noble friend that a customs partnership is better than a customs union because a customs union means that one is not in a position to carry out trade deals. The Department for International Trade is ready, willing and very able to carry out those deals. Earlier on, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, seemed to think that it lacked capacity. However, since its formation, DIT has increased to a global workforce of more than 3,200. The trade policy group has quadrupled in size, and in June 2017 the department appointed a new chief trade negotiations adviser with over 25 years of experience. I was a little bit cheeky there, because what I really wanted to do is add to the record my thanks to my noble friend Lord Price. It has been an absolute joy to be able to work with him over the last year and a quarter. I was very keen on his appointment because before that, for one month only, I am pleased to say, I was Trade Minister while also doing the work at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He was super.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the Statement. It seems to me to show that her right honourable friend in the other place has learned the good old American advertising adage that, when you have a fairly dodgy product, you must accentuate the positive.

I have two questions. First, on the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, the paper that the Government have put on the table, which the noble Baroness referred to, is interesting. It is a piece of rather academic research on the possibilities, but does not say a single word about which are the Government’s preferences among those options. It invents a rather peculiar concept, which is “indirect jurisdiction”, if I understand it rightly, because I assume that the opposite of direct jurisdiction is indirect jurisdiction, which is apparently not so rebarbative as direct jurisdiction. Perhaps she could say something about the Government’s preferences among those choices.

Secondly, can the noble Baroness also say a little bit more about the implications of the Government’s support for the idea of some transitional period after March 2019 for the budgetary issues which are causing so much trouble now? It strikes me, not being all that arithmetically advanced, that in fact if we stayed among many of the workings of the European Union—not in the European Union—for a transitional period, that might make quite a big difference to the way that the financial issues would be handled. Perhaps she could confirm that that would be so.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, with regard to the first question about the Court of Justice of the European Union, we set out options without saying which we were going to come down firmly in favour of because we were putting forward options for discussion on the basis that, as I said earlier, in discussions you scope out where there can be some early agreement and build upon that. The noble Lord is of course right to raise the question about indirect jurisdiction. I would just add that there are areas where the Court of Justice of the European Union will continue to have some indirect jurisdiction after we leave the European Union if there is an agreement, as is currently developing, with regard to pending cases at the court itself. There is already built into the current structure of the withdrawal Bill and the negotiations some room where there would be indirect jurisdiction—but indirect jurisdiction is not something that would change the law in the United Kingdom or direct us how to change the law. Therein lies the difference.

With regard to a transitional period and the matter of budgetary issues, the multiannual financial framework of 2013 applies between 2014 and 2020. Therefore, what we are doing in challenging the paper which was put out by the European Union is to see whether there is a basis for saying that there are duties upon the UK to continue paying beyond 2019—whenever the date of leaving may be—and when there are not. Although I cannot at this stage answer the noble Lord directly, he raises the important issue that we are trying to flesh out in the way that we are not only challenging the basis on which the European Union has said that it has a legal basis for claiming contributions from this country to the EU but also saying that we need to look, during those negotiations, at the liabilities of the EU to the UK.

Brexit

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I have to say I am thoroughly enjoying working with my colleague Steve Baker. He brings a different perspective on many matters, but all of them constructively, as a Minister. It is a real pleasure to work in a department where everyone is focused on one thing, and one thing only—getting the best agreement for the UK and the European Union, because that is the one that will work.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it is a little anomalous that so far the only detailed paper we have from our side is that published last week on status, whereas on the European side there are a plethora of papers putting forward their views? Does she not think that it would be desirable that on for example scientific co-operation, justice and home affairs, and foreign policy and security issues, some piece of paper could emerge into the light of day setting out the British Government’s extremely positive objectives in these fields, and does she not feel that that would help to create a positive atmosphere in the negotiations?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to point out that it is important to be able to set out issues such as that, but we must do so in a way that is in sync with our negotiations across Europe. Further papers were released by the European Commission just at the end of last week, which I have read, and we will be responding to those shortly. I hope we will then be able to share those more widely.

Brexit: Legislating for the United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

On the second point, there is absolutely no plan for the Government to withdraw from the ECHR—I can assure the noble Lord of that. On the first point, there is again absolutely no intention to use this process in any shape or form to erode the decision-making powers that currently exist for any of the devolved Administrations. As regards how powers come back, that is clearly a matter, as the Statement makes clear, that we need to consult on very carefully to make sure that it works in all our interests.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Government have got rid of the Orwellian title the “Great Repeal” Bill on the title page, although they seemed to revert like a ponticum rhododendron when they got inside. Would it not have been better to adopt the by-line of the Prince of Lampedusa’s famous remark in The Leopard when he gave the definition of revolution as:

“Everything was changed so that everything may stay the same”?


I think that is probably rather more the title, and the Daily Telegraph’s regulatory bonfire may be a bit short of dry kindling.

I have two questions. First, paragraphs 1.16 and 1.19 recognise that the provisions of this Bill will be operated in parallel with the Article 50 negotiations but there is no parliamentary process for approving the changes that may have been agreed in a deal with the European Union other than the binary choice when that deal is brought to Parliament. Are the Government really asking us to give them a blank cheque for all those changes they negotiate and to deny Parliament scrutiny of the details?

Secondly, paragraph 1.20 of the White Paper makes it even clearer than it was before that the Government are anticipating no process of parliamentary approval in the context of the UK exiting without a deal. Surely this lacuna has shown even more clearly than it was shown before that we have to have a provision for approving or disapproving a decision to exit without a deal?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, for fear of frustrating noble Lords, I will not repeat all the arguments regarding the noble Lord’s second point. I will simply say with regard to all these points that there will be ample opportunity, as I have said many times at this Dispatch Box, for your Lordships and the other place to scrutinise how the negotiations are proceeding. In addition, as we make it clear here and as we said before, there will be a vote in both Houses on the agreement at the end of the process, and were measures to come out of the withdrawal treaty that needed to be implemented, again, there would be a chance for Parliament to scrutinise those.

Brexit: Negotiation Programme

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I am very sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness, but I do not think it will come as a great surprise that I disagree entirely with the premise of her question. We are not seeking the kind of outcome that she has just outlined. As I just said, we are seeking success in these negotiations. We are seeking a partnership because we see it as in our and Europe’s interests to come to such an agreement. I am entirely of the view that we will come to such a partnership and that we will be able to strike an agreement, so long as both sides enter these negotiations in the spirit in which we will enter, which is one of good faith and good will.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, now that the Minister has told us the date, will he tell us whether the communication on Article 50 will be published and made available to Parliament at the time that it is communicated? Will he say whether the Government have yet appointed a negotiating team to conduct negotiations, which will be starting in slightly over a week, and whether we will be told who they are?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee in December, the negotiations will be conducted at a number of levels. She said that she would have a role to play relating to discussions with other European leaders and that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would have an important role to play. Other technical negotiations and discussions will take place at official level. Regarding the first part of the noble Lord’s question, we are indeed looking at the proposals to ensure that, as we have said many times before, Parliament gets the same information as the European Parliament. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister confirmed today that she will make a Statement to Parliament next Wednesday.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, I put my name to the amendment that has been rejected by the Commons and which we are now debating another amendment on. My position is identical to that of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. I have not resiled in any way from my belief that a unilateral statement by the British Government would be best for the United Kingdom and our citizens in the rest of Europe. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, I am not sure that this is the moment to return the ball.

However, I say to the Minister, if I may, that I had many dealings over the years with the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, mainly on budgetary issues which were quite stressful. On one occasion when I persuaded her to follow a tactic that I suggested would be best and she was doubtful about, she looked up and said, “Okay, but you better be right”. That is what I say to the Government. Their choice for a transactional approach could end in tears and then, we will be back here.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, may I very briefly intervene? As your Lordships know, I voted for the amendments in Committee. However, for the reasons advanced by my noble friends Lord Bowness and Lord Cormack, and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I shall not be supporting this Motion. I think that the time has come to accept the view of the House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will also answer the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I have not supported the EU for 45 years, but even I think that this amendment has validity. When people voted on taking back power, they did not expect it to be a Prime Minister with a very small mandate and a small coterie of people who would make these decisions. People imagined that they were voting for our Parliament to have some sort of supremacy. I have listened very carefully to the Government on this and have found that their arguments are not arguments at all. They are actually comments, and rather specious ones at that. This is not a time-sensitive issue: we are not triggering Article 50 until much later in the month. It is not true that a promise is as good as having something on the face of the Bill. Quite honestly, I think that it is time that we accepted that this is a mistake and we ought to support the amendment. I very much regret that it will not pass, but I will be voting for it.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I have a very simple question for the Minister before the Opposition Front Bench speech, because it may be relevant to what the noble Baroness says. His colleague in the other place has answered the question about what happens if there is a deal on the Article 50 withdrawal agreement: the matter will be brought to the two Houses for approval. I think he has also answered the question about what happens if there is a new partnership agreement: it will be brought to both Houses for their approval. So far, so good. What happens if the Prime Minister decides that no deal is better than a bad deal? Will the Minister please give an answer?

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 7th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, on the noble Lord’s latter point, it is perhaps worth recalling to the House what the Minister, Mr David Jones, said in the other place:

“The Government have repeatedly committed from the Dispatch Box to a vote in both Houses on the final deal before it comes into force. That, I repeat and confirm, will cover not only the withdrawal agreement but the future arrangement that we propose with the European Union. I confirm again that the Government will bring forward a motion on the final agreement … to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded, and we expect and intend that that will happen before the European Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/17; col. 269.]


In the course of the debate, the Minister repeated those sentences three times, and the shadow Secretary of State, Keir Starmer, to whom I paid tribute in the Second Reading debate, said:

“Minister, I am very grateful for that intervention. That is a huge and very important concession about the process that we are to embark on. The argument I have made about a vote over the last three months is that the vote must cover both the article 50 deal and any future relationship—I know that, for my colleagues, that is very important”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/17; cols 264-65.]


Both Houses will get a vote on the final draft deal, and we do not need any of these amendments. It is a complete distortion to suggest that the amendments before us today—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but having read out three times what the Minister said in the House of Commons he has revealed that the Minister failed to answer the question that he and the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and others put to my noble friend on what happens if there is a disagreement between the two Houses. Perhaps he could address that, and perhaps he could also put that question to the right person to put it to, which is not my noble friend but the Minister who is going to reply to the debate and who will have ample opportunity to reply to it.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I know that the noble Lord is very experienced. If he does not know the difference between a resolution in the House of Commons and putting in statute a power of veto for the House of Lords, I am very surprised to hear him making that point.

The point about the amendment that we are discussing, Amendment 3, is that it is a wrecking amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I appreciate that I am in a minority in this House, and not just because I am a Scottish Tory. I am in a minority because I support the views of the majority of people in this country. This House is absolutely full of people who still have not come to terms with the results of the referendum. This is a clever lawyer’s confection in order to reverse that result. That is what we are debating. That is what it is about.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Order.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I have already given way to the noble Lord. He can make his own speech.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am not giving way to the noble Lord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I am sorry that I am causing him such frustration this afternoon.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

The House, not him.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Normally in this House we do not speak from a sedentary position.

[Lord Naseby]

My sedentary comment was that the noble Lord is annoying the House, not just an individual Member.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for having arrogated to himself the decision as to what the hundreds of people around this place believe.

The point I was going to raise, and ask the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to address, is this. Of course the Prime Minister of this country has the ability to ensure that we leave the European Union without an agreement, because of the two-year time limit in Article 50, which the noble Lord has not addressed. That time limit is absolute. It will be triggered within the next few days and, sometime in 2019, it will reach its conclusion. It takes two to negotiate. Since the Prime Minister will be one of them—and the 27 and the institutions of the European Union will be the other—she has the ability to ensure that we leave without an agreement. That is the eventuality that is being dealt with in this amendment.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord makes my point for me. If, after two years, we have no agreement, then we will have left the European Union. I need to conclude my remarks.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 1st March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Lympne]

There are many occasions when this House can bring forward new arguments and a fresh perspective on a situation, and genuinely make the other place think again. I do not believe that this is one of them. The question we must ask ourselves today is: how can we best help the EU nationals resident in this country? The best way is to bring the uncertainty of their position to an end as quickly as possible and the best way to do that is to pass the Bill and activate Article 50 as quickly as possible.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, on the issue of new facts, does the noble Lord agree that one new fact is the communication from all the expatriate groups across the European Union that they wish the House to pass this amendment because they believe it is the best way to secure their position?

[Lord Howard of Lympne]

I am sure many of those groups made their views known when the matter was debated in the other place. Though of course their views need to be taken into account, I do not see that as tantamount to a new fact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bragg]

I thank the noble Countess. I have a short speech—about as third as long as the previous speech—and I have nearly finished it. I was wondering why the Prime Minister did not lead the remain campaign after we had become a minority. Why did she not fight on, as so many other minorities have successfully done, to achieve what they honourably and passionately think is best, as we all do, for this country? It is outside the democratic development of our history that a single-issue vote should be allowed to change the course of that history for ever so dramatically and, in my view, so potentially disastrously.

Finally, one major aspect of the disaster is to turn our backs on those who have come here and given their talents and skills to the United Kingdom, settling here and transforming us in so many ways for the better. They are now reduced to pawns in a government strategy which, to many observers here and abroad, seems largely clueless and without any response, save bluster, to any critical questions. The answer to the question of foreign nationals, for our own national pride in who we are, is to tell those who are here now that we want them to stay here and be welcome.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords—

[The Archbishop of York]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Archbishop of York]

I never want to see any human person used as a bargaining chip. They are made in God’s likeness and as far as I am concerned, they are people and must be treated according to the rule of law in this country. The Prime Minister tried to give a guarantee. Angela Merkel did not want it before Article 50 was triggered. My suggestion is to trigger it and go back to what you promised.

I may be a Primate, but thank God I am not in captivity. The other Primate is definitely in captivity, because he is unwell and his legs have just had an operation—but I am not. I suggest that the sooner this becomes law, the greater the challenge we can give the Prime Minister on what she attempted to do but was prevented from doing because Article 50 had not been triggered. As soon as it is triggered and the power is given, we shall shout as loudly as we can and campaign as much as we can for her to go back to what she originally suggested.

People such as me were shocked, after being here and having to travel round on a travel document and pay huge sums for visas to visit the rest of Europe, to suddenly discover that when naturalised—that is the word that is used—as a British citizen we could suddenly visit the whole of Europe without a visa. That was great stuff, and I applaud it—but, please, this is a very limited Bill and we should pass it as it is.

I have one more suggestion for our Minister: to set up a truth and listening commission in every one of our four nations, so that the divisions which we are seeing at the moment can be healed and to listen to the truth and to what the people of Britain and Northern Ireland are looking for, rather than simply locking it in the Government. For those reasons I will vote against any of the amendments, as I do not think they are revising or improving the legislation. They are simply adding on and adding on.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, I support Amendment 9B, which is in my name as well as those of the other three noble Lords. It is about the rights of EU citizens in this member state, of course, not those in other member states. I support the amendment without hesitation because I believe we have a commitment to honour here, to recognise not just the rights of these citizens—although that is important enough—but the contribution they have made, are still making and will, I hope, continue to make to our economy and our society. The amendment does not seek to dictate to the Government the details of how these rights should be secured. That will be for the Government to sort out in the proposals that are called for in the amendment, and for Parliament then to decide. I would say here to the most reverend Primate that nor does it entail any delay in the triggering of Article 50 beyond the Government’s deadline at the end of this month.

So far as I can see, there is in fact only one faintly respectable argument against the amendment, which is that to speak unilaterally now about how we will treat European citizens here is not the right way for the UK to help the position of its own citizens who are living in other European countries. But that argument simply does not hold water. Otherwise, why on earth would British citizens right across the European Union have today issued a statement making it quite clear that they support our taking the decision in the amendment and believe that it is the best way to secure their rights?

I do not think I could be accused of supporting the cause of those fellow citizens right across Europe in a half-hearted way. I moved an amendment in the House which would have given them the right to vote in the referendum—which, quite shockingly, they were deprived of by the majority who voted against that. My own view is that for us to move unilaterally to protect the rights of EU citizens here is in fact the best possible step towards safeguarding the rights of our own citizens elsewhere in the EU.

I say that as someone with a little experience of EU negotiation. I negotiated our accession to the treaty, in a very modest way, as well as the budget rebate, the establishment of the single market and the opt-out on the euro. Of course, I cannot be sure that I am right, but I do think that there is a reasonable chance that I am right—and I do not believe that the transactional approach, which is the way that the Government wish to go, is the right way to proceed or is likely to produce good results—or will produce them quickly. So I hope that your Lordships’ House will approve this amendment when we come to vote on it.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 9B, which overlaps with other amendments, including Amendment 37 in my name. There is a moral case—a human rights case—which has already been very well made and which I therefore will not repeat. I want to pinpoint four different categories of employment in which this issue is particularly acute. I do so from my own experience in Wales, but it is equally relevant throughout the United Kingdom.

The first group that I highlight are workers in the tourism sector, particularly those in the hotels and catering trades. In Wales, we benefit from having hundreds of workers from EU member states, such as the Baltic states, Slovakia and Hungary. It can be argued that most of these jobs could be done by residents in Wales—they could, of course, but the reality is that the work in this sector is not particularly popular, partly because some jobs are highly seasonal and partly because the wage levels are sometimes low. In Wales we now have a low unemployment rate of 4.4%, which is below the UK average. It is no exaggeration to say that if these employees were to depart overnight, the sector in Wales would be in crisis. Employers need to know now that their current staff will be able to remain and, indeed, to have some indication of the circumstances after Brexit or during any prolonged Brexit negotiations under which they will be entitled to employ staff from other EU countries.

Secondly, there is the food processing industry. Many of the same arguments apply—in some cases, to an even greater extent, because firms often overdepend on EU workers. Thirdly, in a different category, is our university sector in Wales and throughout the UK. In Wales, we have 1,355 EU nationals employed at present, often in key jobs where they cannot be easily replaced. Fourth is the NHS in Wales where, as in England, there is a high level of dependency on staff who have come here from other EU countries. I believe that more than 1,100 such EU employees work for the NHS in Wales at present. Without these, the service would be in real danger of collapse. More than 6% of our doctors are from EU countries, and we already have a critical shortage of GPs. Regarding this fourth group, I have been told of key jobholders, fearful of what may happen to them after Brexit, who are already actively seeking jobs in their home countries in case at some later stage there is a stampede of their fellow EU nationals seeking to return home, and getting a job there consequently becomes that much more challenging.

The Government have been taking the line that they will give priority to the position of EU workers in the UK when the negotiations start, but it is not at that point that the necessary assurances can be given to these workers. If the issue is subsumed as part of the overall negotiation package, the outcome will not be known until the negotiations are nearly complete. That would be totally unacceptable not only to thousands of such workers living in Britain but, I believe, to this House and the other place. That is why this amendment must be written into the Bill and why MPs must be asked to think again on this critical matter. If they do not, I believe that we should have the courage of our convictions next week, or whenever, to insist that this provision be enacted. Thousands of people are looking today to this House to give a lead, and I earnestly hope that we do not let them down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Spicer]

I personally agree totally with anything that increases the sovereignty of Parliament. I only make the point that this is totally unnecessary, because if we got on with this Bill, we would end up having a much more sovereign Parliament than we would have without it. That is the whole purpose of what I am saying. Indeed, it is necessary that we should have greater sovereignty because the powers of Parliament have been eroded ever since the Maastricht treaty, with which I was associated. That has been something that has been going on for some time—ever since there was a single currency. The powers of Parliaments have been reduced because the single currency is irrevocable, and we have a system in this country whereby no Parliament can bind another Parliament. There is no doubt in my mind, at least, that had we not started the process of leaving the European Union, the European court, which the noble Lord will know a lot about, would have moved in on us for not joining the single currency at some point. There is no question in my mind about that.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am not sure what is in the noble Lord’s mind. If he just tries reading the treaty, he will see that there is no basis for proceeding against the Government of the United Kingdom for not being a member of the euro. It is actually written in the treaty that we do not have to be, so perhaps he will clear his mind.

[Lord Spicer]

I am also sure that the European court would have found a way into this at some point. I have no doubt about that at all. If one really is concerned with the sovereignty of Parliament, we should get on with passing this Bill as quickly as possible and begin the task of unwinding the historic process of eroding the powers of Parliaments, including our own. We should not take too much notice of the amendments coming up: most of them are irrelevant to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howard of Lympne]

I think that I have already answered that question. I quite accept, as I said to the noble Lord, that it is proper for Parliament to ratify an agreement that has been reached—or, indeed, reject it. That is what Parliament’s role should be. That is in accordance with what the Prime Minister has said. What I am objecting to is subsection (4) of the proposed new clause, which could have the effect that I have identified and would lead to an extremely unsatisfactory and unconstitutional position.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Has the noble Lord given proper consideration to a circumstance in which the Prime Minister and the Government wish to throw in the towel in the negotiation? It cannot possibly be ruled out because, as I understand it, his right honourable friend the Minister responsible for Brexit has just told the Cabinet that it might well happen. So why on earth is it wrong to put in the Bill that Parliament should have the right to say yes or no to such a decision?

[Lord Howard of Lympne]

Well, for all the reasons that I have given. I do not want to repeat my speech to the noble Lord. The effect of the proposed new clause, the effect of giving Parliament the ability to say, “You cannot bring the negotiations to an end”—not just once, but twice or three times, or four times or any number of times; that is all in the proposed new clause—is to intrude Parliament into the negotiating process. It is wrong, it is improper and it should not be in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps I can make my position clear. I think that we have four different attempts to find a solution to a problem that we are all looking for. For me, it would be neater if I made my points on Amendment 17, before others introduce their solutions. I am very much in sympathy with most of what appears in Amendment 17, but I share quite a lot of the difficulties that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, expressed, although perhaps not exactly for the same reasons. I will explain myself a little more.

At Second Reading, I made the point that there was a respectable argument that only Parliament has the constitutional authority to authorise the act of concluding an agreement with the EU or the act of withdrawal, if that is what the Government seek to do. For that reason, I respectfully suggest that it is in the Government’s best interests, for their own protection, to look for a form of words that will provide them with the answer to any possible challenge that might be made along lines that would impede progress towards a final agreement. It was with that view that I was searching for some kind of solution to the problem. I said at Second Reading that I would not seek to put forward an amendment myself and that it was more for the Government to try to find a way of doing it, which it is perhaps still open to them to do.

I will explain my views on proposed new subsections (1) to (3). As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has explained, the Government have given an undertaking. David Jones said in the House of Commons:

“First of all, we intend that the vote will cover not only the withdrawal arrangements but also the future relationship with the European Union. Furthermore, I can confirm that the Government will bring forward a motion on the final agreement, to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/17; col. 264.]


There are three elements in that undertaking, all of which find their place in subsections (1) to (3) in the proposed new clause. However, I have to say that I have a quarrel with the wording. Clause 1 of the Bill, as I mentioned at Second Reading, is beautifully crafted in the simplest possible language. I am troubled by the fact that, if you cast the undertaking in the framework that you find in Clause 1, you can produce that undertaking in four lines instead of 16. Just from the point of view of the aesthetics of drafting, I would have thought that it would be proper to try to use the undertaking as a basis for an amendment. The amendment would be very simple: another four- line amendment, which would fit neatly into the character of the Bill. It would provide the Government with the protection that I suggest they need and would produce the answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, with which I entirely agree, about the sovereignty of Parliament. I believe that the sovereignty of Parliament is absolutely paramount in reaching an agreement.

I do not want to elaborate on this point because I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, apart from the wording, which I suggest might be more attractively put. As he might recognise, I am adopting a tactic that advocates adopt in court: if you are addressing a judge, trying to find a way of formulating your proposition, and the judge comes out with some form of words that is not exactly in accordance with it but is in accordance with what you are driving at, it is quite a good tactic to pick up his words, as it is more likely that he will accept your answer. I am just adopting that tactic, as we have this there on a plate before us. You draw together the two things: the language of the undertaking and the interest that the Government have in getting the thing in the Bill for their own purposes. The undertaking that the Minister gave in the House of Commons was not given lightly. We can all understand that it would have been carefully worded and approved by somebody a good deal higher up the line of government than the Minister who was giving it. It really is a gift to adopt those words and get it into the Bill in that language.

I respectfully suggest that it would be wiser to detach subsection (4) from subsections (1) to (3), because we can grapple with subsections (1) to (3) for the reasons that I have given, but subsection (4) raises problems. I do not want to go over all the ground but, through a simple reading of the wording, you can see immediately the difficulty that it runs into. First, it tries to combine two different situations, in that it talks about “the termination” or termination “unilaterally”. I presume that when it talks about termination the first time, this is where both sides are unable to reach an agreement and there is a complete breakdown between both sides. If that is the situation, I, for the moment, cannot understand what can be done. There is no point in coming to the Government and asking for it to be approved, because you cannot get back to the negotiation table. It is a Humpty-Dumpty situation: Humpty-Dumpty has fallen off the wall and you cannot put the bits together again. So I cannot understand that part of the amendment.

The second part talks about terminating unilaterally. Although I can understand what that situation might be, the problem is that subsection (4) requires the Government to come to both Houses for prior approval before they can do that. You can imagine a situation where the Houses say, “We are not satisfied, go back and have another go”, and then we have the neverendum situation that has been referred to—going round and round in a circle with no way out.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I was following with great interest his ratiocination until he got to the point about neverendums. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has made clear, there cannot be a neverendum, because the two-year guillotine comes down. The only way to get beyond the two-year guillotine—and this answers the point that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, made—is by the agreement of all 27 member states and the United Kingdom. If the United Kingdom refuses a prolongation of the two-year period, then it cannot be prolonged. So can we please drop the references to neverendums and just address whatever problems the noble learned Lord has with the wording of subsection (4)?

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

I entirely understand the point that the noble Lord is making, but the trouble with subsection (4) is that it does not mention the two-year period—we do not know what period we are talking about. That is one of the problems with it. It does not think through to the factual situation that would arise in the situation that is being addressed.

I do not at all underestimate the importance of finding a solution to the point that this subsection seeks to address; I am in sympathy with it. I just say that it is not suitably worded and it should be rethought. It is for that reason that I suggest that we should not try to struggle to put the two things together. We should separate out subsections (1) to (3) and adopt my solution, which I need not repeat, as to how they might be simplified and made more attractive and then think again about subsection (4). We can find a way to address exactly the particular situation that it seeks—of separating out the unilateral termination from the bilateral situation—and then try to find ways of meeting that. I do not need to elaborate, but these are the points that I wish to make in broad sympathy with what Amendment 17 is seeking to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. So it was the other way around—358 to 256—which strengthens my argument. There is—if those 358 care to unite again and again—an insurmountable wall in your Lordships’ House, an unelected House, against the will of the other place, Her Majesty’s Government. I will not use the phrase “the will of the people”—we are acting on the instructions of the people, but I know it offends some. There is an insurmountable wall. It is inconceivable that the Government could form enough people in this place to overcome it. So when I read these amendments, which, effectively, have said that nothing can proceed and nothing can be terminated without the consent of your Lordships’ House, I see them as effectively giving your Lordships’ House—an unelected House, with a force that the world out there sees today—a veto on the procedure to take this forward. I give way to the noble Lord—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I wonder whether he has had a word with the Prime Minister, who basically coined this approach. She put in the Lancaster House speech a statement that both Houses should have their say. She then replicated it in the White Paper. So, rather than addressing people like myself and the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Pannick, about this, could he perhaps have a word with his right honourable friend?

[Lord True]

It may be that the noble Lord has more access to my right honourable friend than I do. My right honourable friend is perfectly capable of forming a judgment and I have no doubt we will hear from my noble friend on the Front Bench. I do not resile for a moment from the advice that I am giving. I would give that advice to my right honourable friend as well. But it would be a strange place to put this country, at this time, on this Bill, at this stage of these proceedings, if we pass legislation that effectively gives a veto to a House that has voted with 358 Members against the request of the Front Bench to allow this Bill to proceed unamended as the House of Commons did. This is a major issue that needs to be addressed and it is one to which I hope the country and this Parliament will turn its mind.