European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Oates Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 27th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra]

My Lords, the last thing I heard about Norway was in the news last week. I believe that a Norwegian Minister, or former Minister, said, “Whatever you do, don’t join the EEA like we did. It was a terrible mistake”. I am not here to answer for Norway’s decision. I am here to support the decision of the British people—all 17.2 million of them. I was part of the leave campaign, a little junior cog, and after we were successful, some detailed studies were done. Contrary to the public view that everybody voted leave to stop or control immigration, the vast majority of people—72%—voted leave because they said that they wanted to get back control and sovereignty of their country. Only about 23% put immigration at the top of the list. Of course, admittedly, if you are taking back sovereignty and control and putting Parliament in charge, that means Parliament is in charge of immigration and a lot of other things as well. But let us not pretend that people voted leave purely because of immigration or because they wanted to stay in the single market.

I conclude with a comment that I made in my Second Reading speech, when I quoted my right honourable friend Sir Oliver Letwin MP, one of the Government’s foremost remain campaigners, and one of the then Prime Minister’s gurus when thinking about these things. He said in the other place on 31 January:

“I made it … clear … that … an inevitable consequence of leaving the EU would be leaving the single market”,


and leaving the customs union. He continued,

“it seems to me … that the people who voted to leave were voting with their eyes wide open, knowing that the consequence might be our falling back on the WTO”.—[Official Report, Commons, 31/01/17; col. 871.]

The Government made it clear at the time that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market. There is no excuse now to try to build in this amendment to thwart the decision of the British people.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

I support Amendment 4. I do so because what the Government are doing is beyond me with their extreme form of Brexit in taking us out of the single market. Why are they doing it? Above all, why are those on the Conservative Benches who supported remain allowing them to do it? It is true that there was an instruction from the British people that we should leave the European Union but there was not an instruction for us to leave the single market, however much the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, might wish there was. That was for the very simple reason that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, pointed out, that matter was not on the ballot paper. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and other noble Lords on the leave side of this argument can speculate as much as they want about the reasons people voted the way they did, and I can speculate as well. However, the truth is that none of us actually knows. All we know is the instruction that was given on 23 June. The referendum campaign did not help much. The campaign on either side, frankly, in terms of getting to the facts, was not terribly helpful. The noble Lord quoted a number of Conservative politicians. That is part of the problem. The referendum campaign was effectively a factional fight between two wings of the Conservative Party, which did very little to illuminate the facts but, tragically, a very great deal to divide and damage the country.

What we do know—however much those opposite may protest—is what all the mainstream parties promised the electorate at the time of the last general election. It was that we would stay in the single market. That was at a time when the referendum was likely. Indeed, it was a pledge in the manifesto of the Conservative Party. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, also mentioned, the Conservative Party manifesto could not have been clearer. To avoid any ambiguity it emphasised its clarity. It said:

“We say: yes to the Single Market”.


There was no caveat in the way that people suggest, so it is unclear to me why the Prime Minister has decided—given that she has no other mandate on this matter than that manifesto—that she is saying no to the single market. I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and other noble Lords, including some Ministers, argue that the unambiguous pledge in the Conservative manifesto was somehow trumped by the fact that there would be a referendum and the Government would respect the result. You can respect the result of the referendum and withdraw from the European Union without withdrawing from the single market. Deciding to leave the EU does not mean leaving the single market, however much noble Lords opposite would like it to do so.

As has been mentioned, a number of countries are members of the European single market but not members of the European Union. Norway, in particular, was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. Norway sought to negotiate joining the EU at the same time as us in the 1970s. In the end, it had a referendum and voted against but it became a member of the single market. We should be very clear that when Norwegian Ministers were saying it was not ideal, they were not saying, “Don’t be members of the single market”; they were saying, “For goodness’ sake, stay in the European Union”. To suggest otherwise is just nonsense.

It is clear that it is possible to be both outside the EU and inside the single market. The question, therefore, is whether it is desirable. In my very strong view, it is. We know that the issue in world trade increasingly is not tariffs but non-tariff barriers. As the IFS noted in its report on the single market published in August last year, the service sector is particularly important to our economy and to our tax receipts and is particularly vulnerable. The financial services sector is likely to be disproportionately hit by loss of the single market.

For many of us, the decision to leave the EU is a tragedy that goes far beyond economics but it is compounded by the Government’s decision to pursue extreme Brexit no matter the cost to our economy. We have the opportunity tonight to ask them to think again. We should take it.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

I can be extremely brief. I just want to take up one point that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, raised earlier. He acknowledged the significance of immigration to the result of the referendum. He did not say that it was the main reason but he acknowledged its significance. So it seems to me that a key question is whether we can stay in the single market and control immigration. He mentioned that other countries such as Belgium have found a way to control immigration within the single market by removing people without a job.

The situation in the UK is entirely different from that of Belgium. We have more than 2 million European citizens working here—which is fine, but we cannot skate over the fact that the whole situation is different. The numbers are much larger. Noble Lords may not know that last year 625,000 EU citizens took out national insurance numbers. They will not all be working; some will be short term. But the scale of it is enormous. We know that net EU migration is 180,000, equal almost to that from the rest of the world. There is no prospect of any serious measures of control if we remain in the single market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, we come at this late hour to an important group of amendments, which provide for greater parliamentary oversight of the withdrawal negotiations. I support all these amendments but I will contain my remarks to Amendment 8 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Oates.

As I hope I have made clear already, I am not seeking to delay the start of the negotiations but I believe strongly that there must be statutory provision for much greater parliamentary oversight of the negotiations before we reach the end game than the Government have so far been willing to accept. Amendment 8, rather kindly, lets the Government get on with the negotiations after Article 50 is triggered for about half the two-year period provided for in Article 50. That is in part because I am not convinced from what I have seen from both the EU’s and the Government’s likely approaches that much will be settled that quickly.

However, as we approach—if I may put it this way—the half-time period in this game, I suspect there will be more goalmouth scrambles and possibly even a goal, but I am less than sure of the net. Some time after nine months and before 12 months from the triggering of Article 50, this amendment requires the Prime Minister to lay before both Houses of Parliament for their approval a progress report on the withdrawal negotiations. It specifies four key areas that must be covered in the report: future trading relationships for the major UK industries and sectors; future arrangements for the movement of EU and UK citizens between each other’s territories; the cost and make-up of the exit charge to be paid by the UK; and the likely implications for the devolved Administrations. The amendment enables the Prime Minister to add to the report any other aspects of the negotiations she wishes and to decide when within the three-month period she reports to Parliament. But return she must and secure Parliament’s approval of the progress that has been made—or not, as the case may be.

The reason for this amendment is the deep scepticism many of us have about the capacity of the Government to secure a satisfactory outcome from these negotiations that serves the best interests of the UK. As I said on Amendment 3, there are widespread concerns about the Government’s approach to the negotiations, even among those who voted to leave on 23 June. Some of those people are saying to me and to others that they would not have voted to leave if they had realised how the Government were going to go about the withdrawal negotiations, particularly the withdrawal from the single market and the customs union. Announcing that decision up front has only increased those anxieties and concerns and made people wonder what other mischief the Government will get up to in the negotiations.

I believe that there are big question marks over the quality and quantity of the UK’s negotiating capacity. If I may say so, there has been a great deal of swagger and bravado from Ministers and their parliamentary supporters about the strength of their hand and how much the EU needs the UK, together with the glittering array of trading opportunities that await us once we are out of the EU. I have not noticed that optimism being shared by many of the expert trade or EU negotiators. Most of the stories that have appeared have been about the lack of Whitehall’s preparedness for the leave negotiations and the shortage of skilled negotiators available to the Government. There is no crack negotiating team just waiting to be helicoptered over the English Channel in the best traditions of the SAS.

We should be extremely cautious about allowing the Government to effectively bypass Parliament on these negotiations until it is too late to do much about an unsatisfactory outcome other than reject the deal. That is why, when we come to it, Amendment 17 on parliamentary approval of the outcome of the negotiations will be so important, and I shall certainly support it.

However, I suggest that it is not sufficient to rely simply on Amendment 17, important though it is. Parliament needs to be more clearly and statutorily involved in the withdrawal negotiations at a much earlier stage and to be able to sound warning bells if things seem to be going seriously off piste. That is why I hope something like Amendments 8 or 18 will be agreed before the Bill leaves this House. I am not a proud author. If Amendment 18 is liked more, I shall be happy to support it.

I suggest that if I were in the Prime Minister’s shoes—although perhaps that is not a very good metaphor—I would be secretly pleased that a load of parliamentarians were overseeing these negotiations and some of the likely deals that might have to emerge at some stage before the end game. I suggest that that would give her a bit more political cover if things were going a little awry and were not where she wanted them to be. Therefore, I think that this is a helpful amendment for the Government and I hope the Minister will consider it carefully. I beg to move.

[Lord Oates]

My Lords, given the late hour, I shall speak briefly in support of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and the amendment he has just moved. Many of us have been deeply shocked by the approach that the Government have chosen to take post the referendum. Clearly, none of us in this part of the House was happy with the referendum result, but some of us thought that with a new Government we had a grown-up as a Prime Minister and that the approach taken would be sensible, measured and thoughtful. However, I am afraid that since 23 June the evidence has been absolutely in the opposite direction. Therefore, it is particularly important that Parliament has a proper role in this matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Warner, has set out some of the key points of the amendment relating to our trading relationships, the movement of citizens, the potential exit charge and the implications for the devolved Administrations. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has said a number of times, including recently, that the Bill is not the place to constrain the Government’s negotiating position, but I think many of us here want to ensure that Parliament has a role in constraining because we are so alarmed at what has taken place since 23 June. I am afraid that scepticism has been caused by the Government’s actions, and they have only themselves to blame for that. I think the Government, Parliament and the whole process would benefit from proper information being provided to Parliament so that we can assess this process as it goes on and do not just get to a cliff edge at the end, finding the catastrophic position that some people outlined in earlier debates. On that basis, I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Warner.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

I support Amendment 18. All these negotiations are going to be complex and long and for the Government to expect a respite from parliamentary scrutiny would be quite wrong. If we have a commentary it will also raise the likelihood of Parliament accepting the outcome, because there is nothing worse than something being sprung on you. My noble—I was going to say my noble enemy, but my noble opponent—the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said earlier that the leavers had actually come round to the thought that if we lost the referendum, we would accept the result, and I think that that is partly because we talked through those things, we actually thought about it. It will be true for the EU negotiations as well that if the Government give as much information as they possibly can then the whole nation is more likely to accept what has happened.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Oates Excerpts

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

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I do not regard myself as bound by remarks made by Dr Liam Fox anywhere. I have been given the responsibility, so far, of being a Member of this House and of attempting to explain to your Lordships, as fully and briefly as I can, what I believe to be the moral high ground: to treat all people from the European Union who are in countries other than their countries of origin according to the rights secured by the European Union treaty. The time for a fair negotiation of the whole matter is when that treaty is departed from, in accordance with the rules set out in Article 50. That would come very quickly because, as I have already said—I am repeating myself now but I will not do it again—I have heard no argument from Europe against this, except that the negotiations have not been triggered in accordance with the provisions of the treaty itself.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 16A and 38 and I also support Amendment 9B. Whether or not one favours a unilateral guarantee to EU citizens in this country, as I do, there are key questions about the Government’s approach which can and need to be answered now. Amendment 16A is a probing amendment which seeks to draw out the answers to these questions. I hope that the Minister will respond to them fully when he winds up. First, what rights do the Government intend to provide for EU citizens and their families in the UK and to seek for British citizens and their families in the EU? The Government should tell us now. If they did so, they would provide much-needed clarity for EU citizens here and British citizens in the EU. Those citizens need to know that they and their families will not just have a right to residence and to work, but also have access to public services—in particular, health—without which, for many, the right to residency is meaningless.

Thirdly, what procedure do the Government envisage by which EU citizens in the UK will gain rights of residency under British law? As the report of the EU Justice Sub-Committee on acquired rights makes clear, the current indefinite leave to remain procedure would not be suitable. It would not be able to cope with the applications which would have to be processed and it requires documentation which, in many cases, EU citizens simply will not have because they have never needed it, or had any expectation of needing it.

Fourthly, what do the Government intend to be the qualifying date for the rights that they grant to EU citizens? Will it be the date of withdrawal—as it was in the case of Greenland’s exit from the European Union, which is the only precedent we have—or do the Government intend some other date? Again, people need to know the Government’s intentions so that they can get on with planning their lives.

Next, there is the question of comprehensive sickness insurance cover, or CSIC. As my noble friend Lady Ludford said—many noble Lords will be aware of this—there is a dispute between the UK and the EU on whether the National Health Service qualifies as comprehensive sickness cover. The EU maintains it does, but the UK maintains it does not. Whatever the merits of the dispute between the EU Commission and the UK Government on this matter, three facts are clear. First, many EU citizens had no idea this requirement existed. Secondly, those who did thought they were covered by their right to use the NHS—a reasonable assumption, given that that is the position of the EU Commission. The third and final stark fact is this: if the Government adhere to their current position on CSIC, thousands of people, many of whom have been resident in this country for decades, will find themselves without the right to remain in the country that they have made their home—that cannot be right. This issue is causing huge anxiety to millions of people and it is in the power of the Government to resolve it by stating that evidence of CSIC will not be a requirement for EU citizens to gain permanent residence. They should do so now.

Amendment 38 simply makes explicit the unilateral guarantee to EU citizens resident in the UK and provides that no agreement under Article 50 can be entered into which does not protect the rights of UK citizens and their families in other EU countries.

It is not my intention to put either amendment to a vote this afternoon, but I hope that the Minister will address the questions raised by both of them. I will support the cross-party amendment because it offers the best opportunity to send a clear signal to the elected House. But I will want to come back to the issue of British citizens in the EU, addressed in Amendment 38, because their rights are also of crucial concern to my noble friends, myself and many noble Lords across all parties in the House.

Many British citizens living in the EU have contacted me and many other noble Lords to say how abandoned they felt by the elected House and how heartened they were that this House was addressing their concerns. We must not abandon them again. Through no fault of their own, as the result of a referendum from which the majority of them were excluded, millions of British and other EU citizens suddenly find their future at the mercy of the whims of politicians. They fear that they may be excluded from the countries that they have made their home. In some cases, they fear being split up from their husbands or wives or partners. These are not spurious fears; they are not the result of scaremongering; they are the result of the Government’s failure to provide either moral leadership or administrative clarity. Take the example of an elderly couple—

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

My Lords, even if you are a Liberal Democrat you cannot have it both ways. You either give priority to people living here—those you think should have priority—or you do not. This amendment, which the noble Lord has spoken in favour of, does precisely that—it gives priority to EU citizens living here, rather than British citizens living elsewhere. He cannot have it both ways.

[Lord Oates]

Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me but if he listens to my argument he will understand the answer to his question. Let us take, for example, an elderly couple, resident in Germany, who wrote to me recently—one a British citizen, the other a German citizen. They wrote to say that they are terrified that, if the final agreement does not provide for continuing access to healthcare, they will not be able to continue to live in the same country, and the same fears have been expressed by EU citizens in the UK. These are not abstract issues; this is about the lives of millions of people, it is about the anxiety and fear that has been inflicted on them since Brexit, and it is about the uncertainty that means that their lives have been put on hold. The Home Secretary claims in her letter to us that—

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

The noble Lord talks about fear and anxiety but does he agree that what we have heard this afternoon—the inflaming of the fears of these people—has come from only one side, including spurious mentions of the edict of Nantes and Idi Amin?

[Lord Oates]

My Lords, no, I do not agree with the noble Viscount for one moment. These are fears expressed to me and to noble Lords across the whole House. They are not manufactured; they are real and present, and the Government need to address them.

The Home Secretary claims in her letter to us that a unilateral guarantee to EU citizens resident in the UK would cause uncertainty for British citizens in the EU. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, that is not the view of the many groups representing British citizens in the EU that have written to me and have published a statement today. Not only do they accept the need for a unilateral guarantee but they have strongly urged it on me and, I am sure, on other noble Lords. Far from causing uncertainty, they believe that it would provide them with reassurance.

During the debate on this Bill, there has been a lot of discussion about who said what in the referendum campaign, but no one disputes that the leave campaign claimed that the rights of EU and British citizens resident in other countries would not be affected. That is what they said; they also said that to state anything else would be scaremongering.

Since the vote to leave, politicians from across the political spectrum have been clear that we should unilaterally state that we will protect the rights of EU citizens here. A prominent leave campaigner, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, spoke earlier. In evidence to the Justice Sub-Committee, he made it clear that that should be the case, at least as far as residence and rights to work and study were concerned. He said that he did not think we should,

“wait for any question of reciprocity”.

The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, rightly advised the Government—some months ago, I think—that they should lead by example. He has taken a clear, principled stance on this issue throughout, as have many noble Lords in this House, including the noble Lords, Lord Bowness and Lord Hannay, my noble friend Lady Ludford and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who moved the amendment—noble Lords of all parties and none, remainers and leavers alike, because this is not a partisan issue; it is a question of principle.

Doubtless the Minister will tell us that this Bill is not the place to concern ourselves with such principles, but it is the only place. It is our one opportunity to send a clear signal back to the elected House that we regard the principle of protecting the rights of EU citizens resident here and British citizens resident in the EU as a matter of honour for our country, and, in doing so, to show that we have heard the distress and anxiety of millions of British and other EU citizens, and that we have been prepared not just to offer warm words but to act.

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Oates]

My Lords, I support Amendment 17. Given the late hour and the clarity of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in moving the amendment, I will not detain your Lordships for too long, although I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, has shown very little faith in the sense of Parliament, which slightly surprises me, from the side of the argument that has stressed parliamentary sovereignty so much.

At Second Reading I expressed my concern that the Bill, unless amended, would provide a blank cheque to the Prime Minister to negotiate an exit deal on any terms whatever or, indeed, to return with no deal at all. The Government intend that at that point—when the PM returns with a deal or no deal at all—both Houses of Parliament will be given a vote. The Prime Minister made that pledge in her Lancaster House speech. Effectively, Parliament would be given a choice of the deal or not the deal. But I think that noble Lords do not have faith in the Government, given some of the undertakings that they have made in the past, not least, as was mentioned in an earlier debate, in relation to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.

We want something more secure in the Bill. The purpose of the amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has pointed out, is to ensure that both Houses of Parliament are able to have a meaningful say once the final draft of the proposed arrangements for withdrawal from the European Union is produced and that this must be before the proposed arrangements are agreed with the European Council. As we have heard, it would also prevent the Government from terminating negotiations for withdrawal from the European Union without the express consent of both Houses of Parliament. In short, the amendment will ensure that with regard to the most—

[Lord De Mauley]

If what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said earlier is correct, and I think it is, how does subsection (4) work?

[Lord Oates]

I am not quite clear to which point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, the noble Lord is referring.

[Lord De Mauley]

If at the end of the two-year period we are out anyway, what is the impact of the Minister’s decision on termination?

[Lord Oates]

The point of subsection (4) is that,

“No Minister … may agree to the termination”,


prior to that point. Clearly, that is the point of it.

[Lord Pannick]

The answer to the noble Lord’s question is that surely Parliament should decide, not the Government. Parliament should decide whether we leave the EU with no agreement or whether we leave the EU with whatever agreement is being offered to us by the EU that the Government think is unacceptable. That will be the choice and Parliament should make that choice.

[Lord Oates]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his clarity on that matter. In short, the amendment will ensure that Parliament will have a proper and meaningful oversight of the most important decision that the United Kingdom Government will have made in my lifetime.

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

The noble Lord will probably remember that at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, indicated that he thought that the Europeans negotiating would give us an extension of the two-year period and, furthermore, that they would probably allow us to withdraw the Article 50 notice altogether. If that is so, would he agree that subsection (4) together with the extension would result in our negotiators being locked for ever in a room labelled Article 50 until we give up?

[Lord Oates]

No, I would not agree with that. Fascinating as it is for me to comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said at Second Reading or otherwise, I will leave it to him to comment, but I do not agree that that would be the case.

Those who argued that the purpose of Brexit was to take back control and restore parliamentary sovereignty should have no problem with this at all. I would say with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, that the real irony is that people who talk so much about parliamentary sovereignty want to surrender it so easily to the Executive.

As the House will be aware, while the Liberal Democrats fully support this amendment and its objective of giving Parliament a real and meaningful say, we believe that, once Parliament has spoken, the people should have the final word in a national referendum. Noble Lords have different views on this subject but, whatever one’s view on the referendum, this amendment will ensure that we make real the promise to take back control and that our Parliament has real and meaningful oversight of the outcome of negotiations. I am very pleased to support the amendment.

[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.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Oates Excerpts

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

[Lord Heseltine (Con)]

My Lords, many of your Lordships have made the point that we are not here to refight the referendum campaign; there is a clear mandate to trigger Article 50. My own personal position has been clearly established since I first joined the Conservative Party in 1951. I believe, and always have, that Britain’s national self-interest is inextricably interwoven with those of our European partners. I deeply regret the outcome of the referendum.

That said, within three days of that outcome, I publicly made three points. First, I urged the Government to get on with the disengagement process, not only because they had a clear mandate to do so but because I thought that delay would only add uncertainty to the damage that the result itself had produced. Secondly, I urged the Government to appoint Brexiteers to the three Cabinet positions that would front the negotiations. It was clear to me then that failure to do so would open the door to the allegation that if only “the right people” had been put in positions to lead the charge, a much better deal would have been done. I also took the view, perhaps naively, that as campaigners for Brexit, it was not unreasonable to assume that they might have answers to the numerous questions that we faced. Your Lordships will be aware that both of these events have now taken place and I am very pleased to say how fully I support the Prime Minister in what she has done.

That leaves only my third point—the most controversial of the three. I said then that the fightback starts here. Like so many of your Lordships, I enjoyed the privilege of many years in another place—in my case, 35 years. I learned the limitations of government in a parliamentary democracy and I learned the role of opposition in such circumstances. Time and again I have been involved, along with many of your Lordships on these Benches, in opposing by every constitutional means in our power the mandate of the elected Government. Not only did we oppose their mandate from the very first day that Parliament met, we began the long process of repealing the Acts of which we disapproved.

In the end, it came down to a belief in the ultimate sovereignty of Parliament. I must make it clear that, in accepting the mandate to negotiate our withdrawal from the European Union, I do not accept that the mandate runs for all time and in all circumstances—48% of our people rejected that concept last year. They have the same right to be heard, as I hope so many of us recognised in those long years of opposition in another place.

We now face a protracted period of negotiation. No one has the first idea what will emerge. No one can even tell us what Governments in Europe will be there to conclude whatever deal emerges. No one can say with certainty how British public opinion will react to totally unpredictable events. To give just one example, I am told that it took 240 regulations to introduce the single market in the late 1980s. I remember the resentment that caused, particularly to small and medium-sized companies. I understand that it may take 1,600 regulations to unravel more than 40 years of closer union—and no one can say how the vital small and medium-sized sector of our economy will react to the circumstances that it will then face.

Everyone in this House knows that we now face the most momentous peacetime decision of our time. This amendment, as the noble Lord so clearly set out, secures in law the Government’s commitment, already made to another place, to ensure that Parliament is the ultimate custodian of our national sovereignty. It ensures that Parliament has the critical role in determining the future that we will bequeath to generations of young people. I urge your Lordships to support the amendment.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I will not take up too much of the House’s time, not least because I think the issue at stake is really rather simple. On 17 January this year, the Prime Minister confirmed in her Lancaster House speech the Government’s intention to,

“put the final deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament”.

As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, on 7 February the Minister of State for Exiting the European Union stated that,

“the vote will cover not only the withdrawal arrangements but also the future relationship with the European Union”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/17; col. 264.]

This amendment merely gives legislative effect to the Government’s pledge. In doing so it will assist the Prime Minister in upholding her intention, should she or any successor be tempted to resile from it. The amendment will also provide clarity that the Government will require the prior approval of Parliament should the Prime Minister decide to leave the European Union without any agreement at all.

In Committee, some noble Lords on the Benches opposite questioned the need for legal underpinning of the commitment given by the Government to a meaningful vote. The reason is simple. We do not trust the Government on this matter—not because we do not trust the integrity of individual members of the Government but because, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, pointed out in Committee, we are only discussing this at all because the Government were forced by the courts and the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to come to Parliament and hear its voice on the matter.

If we want to ensure that our sovereign Parliament, so often championed by the leave campaigners, has a clear and decisive role in scrutinising the final outcome of this process, it must assert its rights in legislation. If the Government are genuine in the commitment they have given on these matters, they should have no problem accepting the amendment. If they are not willing to do so, it will call into question the sincerity of their commitment and only strengthen the argument to pass this amendment into law.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, reminded us last week:

“Prime Ministers can go, Ministers can be sacked, Parliaments can change and Governments can cease to exist. One needs to enshrine assurances that stand against … changes in circumstances”.—[Official Report, 1/3/17; col. 921.]


I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Viscount. That is why I support the amendment. I hope that your Lordships’ House will do so, too.

[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—

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Oates Excerpts

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

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)]

My Lords, now we are past the 70th hour of parliamentary debate on these 170 words, I begin by saying this. The United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union is obviously one of the most momentous steps that our nation will take in our lifetimes. I believe that significant opportunities lie before us but, as someone who voted to remain, I am not deaf to people’s concerns and I do not dismiss them as somehow portraying a lack of patriotism. However, that decision to leave the European Union has been made, and this very simple Bill delivers on that decision.

The debate has been one of conviction and passion, and displayed some of the very best qualities of your Lordships’ House but, despite my best efforts to convince your Lordships otherwise, this little Bill was amended twice. We all agree that this House is perfectly entitled to ask the other place to think again. The other place has now done that and debated this again. Once again, it has decided to pass the Bill without amendment.

The issue at stake in the amendment is very simple. We all agree that we want to give certainty to those EU nationals who made the United Kingdom their home and to those UK nationals who live in the EU. The disagreement is over how we do that. The Government’s position has been clear from June. We have always said that we want to secure the status of EU citizens here in the UK, as long as we get a similar guarantee for UK citizens in the EU. We believe that this approach is fair, and reflects the duty of care that we have as a Government to the 900,000 UK citizens in the EU.

We need an agreement on this issue quickly, and we have tried to get one. However, a number of EU member states are not willing to discuss it until we have begun formal negotiations. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State confirmed over the weekend that we intend this issue to be one of the first that is dealt with. That is why we want to pass this Bill as soon as possible, so we can start negotiating and set about reaching that agreement.

Given that the other place has done as we asked and thought again, and decided to reject the amendment by a majority of 48, I argue with respect that this evening is not the time nor the place to return to the fray and insert terms and conditions to our negotiating position, still less to force the Government to make a unilateral move on the status of EU nationals in the UK.

The Bill has only one purpose: to implement the outcome of the referendum result in June and respect the judgment of the Supreme Court, nothing more, nothing less. I urge the House to pass the Bill unamended, and I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

[Lord Oates]

Moved by

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 1”.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I move this Motion for the following reasons. First, despite the large majority that voted for the amendment to the Bill in this House, the Government have failed to make any concessions and not even attempted to address the many issues raised by noble Lords in Committee. Secondly, the profound nature of the issue at stake should make us think very carefully before we concede. This debate is not over some arcane technicality or some petty, partisan disagreement; it is about people’s lives. It is about whether people will be allowed to live in the country that they have made their home with the people for whom they care, whether they can stay in a job or plan a career, and whether their children can remain in the school they know and study with the friends they have made. It is about their futures, their homes and their families, and it is about the fear and misery being caused by every further day of uncertainty.

Thirdly, we should weigh our decision very carefully, because this debate is also about the integrity of our country. It is about whether we will honour the unequivocal commitment made by the official Vote Leave campaign that, if the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, the rights of all EU citizens in the UK would be guaranteed. Unlike most other issues arising from the referendum, there is absolutely no dispute about what was promised to EU citizens. The Vote Leave campaign, which was supported by a number of noble Lords, made the following categorical statement:

“There will be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK. These EU citizens will automatically be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK and will be treated no less favourably than they are at present”.


There were no caveats; there was no issue of reciprocity or talk of negotiations—just a categorical commitment unilaterally given.

Finally, this debate is about the role of this House. Precedent indicates that, when the rights of individuals have been threatened, this House has always been robust in its defence of them. I hope that we will live up to that precedent today. The facts are clear: a firm and explicit commitment was made by the Vote Leave campaign that the rights of EU citizens in the UK would be protected. Parliamentary committees of both Houses agree that a unilateral guarantee should be provided now, and all the bodies representing British citizens in the EU who have contacted me and many other Members of this House have supported that position.

It is clear that, if we do not insist on our amendment, there is a real possibility that EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU may not have clarity as to their status for another two years. The House of Commons Exiting the EU Committee rightly described such a situation as unconscionable. I understand the nervousness of some noble Lords about challenging the elected House on this matter, but to those who argue that it is not the right time for us to insist on our amendment, that this Bill is the wrong place for us to insist or that precedent tells us that we should not insist, I respectfully argue the contrary. Your Lordships’ EU Justice Sub-Committee and the House of Commons Exiting the EU Committee unanimously agreed that the UK should act unilaterally and that the time to act was now. This Bill is the only place to act if we are to end the debilitating uncertainty that is causing so much distress.

The Minister says that we have the right to amend the Bill; we also have a right to insist on our amendments, and precedent tells us that we should—that when issues of important principle or individual rights are at stake, your Lordships’ House can and does insist on its position and, if necessary, repeatedly pushes the issue back to the Commons. It did so on the 2014 Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, and on the 2012 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. It did so no fewer than three times over the 2007 Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill, no fewer than four times over the 2006 Identity Cards Bill and no fewer than five time over the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Bill. It has regularly insisted on amendments to Bills when far less was at stake than today: on the powers of the Learning and Skills Council; or the means by which the chairman of the Legal Services Board is appointed; or even on the fitting of retro-reflective tape—whatever that is—on heavy goods vehicles.

How then, when the rights of millions of people are on the line, could this House give up at the first attempt? How, when clear and unequivocal commitments were made to EU citizens in our country, could this House fail to insist that they are upheld? How, when the integrity of our country is at stake, could this House fail to insist that it is upheld? Many people will be watching us tonight: we cannot please them all, but we can show them that no matter what the pressures from the media or the threats from the Government may be, we are prepared to do what we know to be the right thing. I have no doubt that the right thing is to insist on this amendment to protect the rights of EU citizens in the UK and, in doing so, to uphold the honour and integrity of this country. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, it is not in any way my intention to repeat the arguments I have used about Brexit in the various debates in this House over the last few weeks. But there is a question I must ask the Minister, the answer to which is very important to all of us. It goes to the heart of the earnest intention of the Government to be quite transparent with the House and the public as the Brexit negotiations, which will presumably start in a few days, continue—as they will for a long time.

I have not been very successful in getting answers to questions I have asked the Minister in previous debates. I console myself by thinking that that may be because I have touched on some rather delicate points that are potentially embarrassing for the Government. But it is not a great consolation: I would rather have full and frank answers and I hope that I will have one tonight—not at all in my interest but in the interest of the issues that I have just raised.

The Minister has just told the House, and the Prime Minister and Minister for Brexit have both said on many occasions, that it was their original hope and intention to negotiate a deal on the future residency rights of EU citizens here and of British citizens in the remaining part of the EU in advance even of giving notice under Article 50. That unfortunately proved impossible because some of the continentals were not willing to do it. The Government would now like to negotiate on that matter and resolve it in advance of negotiations on difficult economic and other subjects, so that those negotiations can start very quickly.

My question is: how can that possibly be? A negotiation on the future residency rights of British citizens in the EU or of EU citizens here is nothing whatever to do with the Commission. It is not a negotiation that can be pursued with Monsieur Barnier; it is not a matter for Mr Verhofstadt or Mr Juncker, either. Residency issues, requirements and regimes throughout the European Union concerning persons who are not citizens of a member state or another member state but citizens of a non-EU state are not a matter for the treaty: they are a matter for each individual member state. Every member state has its own different residency rules. What is more, the arguments and forces which will be brought to bear if there is any suggestion of changing those rules will be different in each country. So if you want to negotiate on that—as the Prime Minister says, and the Minister has said this evening—you will have to conduct separate, bilateral negotiations with 27 different countries.

Eventually, the result of that negotiation will have to be ratified by 27 different countries—28, actually, because it will have to be ratified here, I hope. That is not something that can be done in a few weeks, or even, I think, in a short number of months. If it had been attempted before notice was given under Article 50, it would have delayed by many months the issuing of a notice under Article 50, quite contrary to what the Prime Minister said her intention was. That is something which, if it is undertaken immediately we issue notice under Article 50, will itself delay the procedures for a very long time. How can the Government have thought that this was a way of accelerating progress on the Brexit negotiations? I think that is a question which nobody has asked. I tried to ask it the other day but I was not able to capture your Lordships’ attention. I ask it now because it is absolutely essential if the House is to achieve a complete picture of what is going on in this very important area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Oates]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for his principled advocacy on this issue, but I must confess I cannot follow the constitutional argument that he and other noble Lords have made that somehow we cannot insist to the elected House. I could understand it if this House never insisted, or if the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, never voted to insist against the will of the elected House, but he knows that is not the case. I wonder why on this issue of such vital importance to so many people we should not.

[Lord Cormack]

Perhaps I can answer the noble Lord. Yes, we agree on the fundamentals of the issue, but this is a constitutional matter. What is the point of prolonging a time-sensitive Bill, on which the fortunes of so many ultimately depend, merely to have the satisfaction of being soundly beaten in the Lobbies?

[Lord Oates]

Whether we are soundly beaten in the Lobbies is a matter for noble Lords. It is not, with respect, a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I seek to put my argument and I hope to convince people. None the less, I pay tribute to the advocacy he has given so far and to all noble Lords who have made this issue crucial.

I am sorry that the Government continue to refuse to do the right things. I am sorry that they failed to make any concessions, or answer any of the questions that were put to them in Committee. I am particularly sorry that, as a result, they intend to allow the fear and uncertainty of millions of EU and UK citizens to continue. But the Minister, to be fair to him, has been given an impossible job defending the indefensible and I respect the skill with which he does it. What I cannot respect are the seven current Cabinet Ministers who backed the Vote Leave campaign which made an unequivocal, unilateral commitment to EU citizens during the referendum campaign—a commitment that has been betrayed. I hope that all noble Lords who supported and were involved in Vote Leave will think about that commitment, which they made without caveats or conditions.

That is the Government’s position. What I do not understand is the position taken by the Labour Front Bench in the House today, but I recognise that it will be as bewildering to many Labour Members as it is to me. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that if you want to get the ball back across the net, it is very important not to drop the bat before you get there. The Labour Party has a key role in the way things are decided in this House. If it was prepared to stand behind this and insist, there would be a greater chance of success.

Last Tuesday, the Leader of the Labour Peers, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, made great play of attacking the Liberal Democrats, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has done. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked how we could oppose the Bill given how extraordinarily important the amendment on citizens’ rights was. I voted that the Bill should not pass because I firmly believe that we should not begin withdrawal negotiations until there is a mechanism for the people to have a final say on the outcome of those negotiations.

There were two things also on my mind when I went through the Division Lobby: first, the Government were making it crystal clear, even at that stage, that they would concede nothing in regard to the amendments; and secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, had already indicated that if the Bill was returned to this House, she would concede everything.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely wrong on that point. If he is going to quote me, he should do so correctly. I have always said that in this House we respect the primacy of the other place. We said that there should be no extended ping-pong but that we would listen to what the Commons had to say. If the noble Lord really believes that by voting for this Motion tonight he will change the mind of the other place, then he can go ahead but do not give false hope to people who rely on this House to make a point to get the other side to think again. It is no good noble Lords opposite cheering me—you got us into this mess.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Oates]

The noble Baroness’s argument makes no sense at all. She has voted in many Divisions insisting on amendments when she knew they had no chance of success. It turns out that many of the amendments she voted for in the past to insist to the Commons when it was not going to give in were more important than this amendment. I am sorry about that and bewildered by it.

I hope that noble Lords of all parties and none will on this occasion pay attention to their conscience rather than their party Whip and join us in the Division Lobby. In view of the importance of this issue to millions of EU and UK citizens, I would like to test the opinion of the House.