European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Viscount Hailsham Excerpts

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

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak but I need to, because so far no one has addressed the specific terms of the amendment that is before the Committee. There is no element of sarcasm in this when I say that that is uncharacteristic of the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I asked him a specific question about his amendment. Also uncharacteristically, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, has made a speech that is not based on the terms of the amendment. So let me remind the Committee briefly of what the amendment states. Three conditions are set out:

“No agreement with the European Union … may be ratified unless … it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament”.


I do not know what meaning that has other than that it has to be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, which the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said is not a problem because we always defer to the lower House. If that is the case, it needs to be in the amendment.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

Perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to look at Amendment 32 tabled in my name, which will be debated on Wednesday. He will see that this point is addressed in the proposed new clause by using the phrase “both Houses”. I take the point that the noble Lord is making with regard to “each House”, but does he agree that if the phrase “both Houses” is substituted, the point is made?

[Lord Grocott]

I am a long way from reaching Amendment 32, but I shall certainly look at it in good time. Before we get to any question of consulting the people on an agreement, which was the thrust of the comments of both the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, it has to clear the first hurdle of being passed, or I should say approved, by both Houses of Parliament. We need to know what happens if one House says yes and the other no, because it occurs to me that there is a considerable possibility that the House of Commons, with a Conservative majority, might well, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, agree to approve the Prime Minister’s recommendation. There is also a considerable possibility that this House, not being so bound by recommendations of Prime Ministers of whichever party, will decide that it does not agree with the recommendation made by the Prime Minister and the Government. That is the question: what happens if one says yes and the other no?

That is the first hurdle that would have to be cleared before there can be a referendum, but there is another. New paragraph (b) says,

“the Prime Minister has obtained authority to put it to a national referendum”.

That would require a Bill and an Act of Parliament. That is the second hurdle that would have to be cleared by the House of Commons and the House of Lords before we could reach the third stage, which is the referendum itself—new paragraph (c) provides that it should have been,

“approved by such a referendum”.

I say to those who have spoken so far that unless there are rather better answers to the question, particularly about the two Houses—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott]

After the best part of 40 years over which my noble friend and I have been in Parliament, we do not disagree on much. I am delighted to see that we clearly do not disagree on this amendment either. In the absence of any satisfactory answers to the questions I have put, I hope that the House will decide against the amendment, should it be put to a vote.

[Viscount Hailsham]

My Lords, I intervene briefly in opposition to the amendment. In fact, referring to an amendment coming down the track that I hope will be discussed on Wednesday, I have tabled a new clause that would enable Parliament to direct a referendum. The amendment that we are discussing would require Parliament to hold a referendum. That seems to be fundamentally different in kind. If two years down the track the public mood has changed after the negotiations, I for one believe that the public’s opinion should be tested in a referendum, which Parliament would then decide. Alternatively, if in two years’ time Parliament decides not to approve agreed terms, I fancy that Parliament would decide that its decision had to be underwritten by a referendum.

That is different in kind to this amendment, which would require Parliament to direct a referendum, whether there is a change in opinion or not. That seems fundamentally undesirable, because we know that referenda are profoundly divisive mechanisms. They are the policy of last resort. If there is not a perceptible change in public opinion, or if Parliament is not minded to vote down the agreed terms, I see no need to require the holding of a referendum. This is a mandatory amendment; I am against it for that rather narrow reason.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Empey]

I cannot attribute the motivation. The noble Lord has his view. I am simply saying that if we are going to send people to Brussels to do a good deal for us—and whether they can, I do not know—the one thing we cannot do is saw their legs off before they go; otherwise we will get absolutely nothing.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

But the noble Lord will recognise that that is already the case under Section 20 of the 2010 Act. Every treaty has to be ratified by Parliament. If that is true of every other treaty, why not of the present negotiations?

[Lord Empey]

I am not opposed to the concept, of course. We have already said that it is going to be ratified by Parliament. I make the point that if these amendments are inserted—and there are others on the Marshalled List to be dealt with at a later sitting—we are going to send a team of people to negotiate on our behalf. Clearly people in Brussels will say, “These people do not have the juice to do a deal so why would I take a political risk as a Brussels negotiator to stretch out towards them”—which is what is going to be needed on both sides—“because they know that they have no chance of getting a deal at the end of the day?”.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Viscount Hailsham Excerpts

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

I now want to say to the Government: you cannot do negotiations with people’s futures. They are too precious to be used as bargaining chips. I beg to move.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, in supporting this group of new clauses and amendments, I shall vote for any one of them that is most likely to commend itself to your Lordships’ House.

Perhaps I may begin by acknowledging that the Government have indeed shown sensitivity about this issue. Their position is essentially pragmatic. Their case is that unilateral action will not address the needs of UK citizens now resident in Europe. In essence, the Government’s position is that in order to increase the leverage that they have with the EU as regards UK citizens residing in Europe, they wish to keep on the table, as a bargaining chip, the right of EU citizens resident in the United Kingdom.

While I understand that argument, I remain extremely uncomfortable with it. I cannot accept the assumptions and implications inherent in that policy. We need to remind ourselves of the central facts, which are these: there are millions of EU citizens—maybe over 3 million—who have come to this country in the legitimate expectation that they will be able to live and work here for as long as they choose. For many of them, that has been a career-changing, maybe even a life-changing, decision, which may be irrevocable.

Their decision was entirely reasonable and proper, based on their assumptions. It accorded with the law that then existed. It accords with the law that exists today. For the United Kingdom now to disturb that expectation would involve an act of retrospective legislation and policy that would offend natural justice and, I suspect, the principles of human rights legislation. Indeed, it is probable that if we seek to deny European Union citizens now resident in the UK the right to continue to stay here, we would be challenged in the courts, and that challenge might well succeed.

Moreover, as a matter of general principle, legislation and policies that are retrospective in their operation should be avoided. Individuals are entitled to regulate their affairs in accordance with the law that exists at the time they make their decisions. To depart from that principle exposes all of us to risk to our freedoms and our ability to make safe choices.

I suggest that we test this this way. Many of us have relatives who were born outside the United Kingdom. My paternal grandmother was born in Tennessee. She came here to marry her first husband, who alas died, then she married my grandfather while she was living here. Both my maternal grandparents were brought up in County Galway. They came here after the First World War to settle permanently. Had my grandparents’ right to reside in those circumstances been challenged, and had I been aware of it as an individual, I would have said that that was a profoundly unconscionable prospect and I could not have supported it.

I cite a more recent consideration. On Monday I was lunching in the Members’ Dining Room of the House of Commons, where I was meeting staff whom I have known for many years. One of the waitresses there whom I have known for years came up to me and said, “What is going to happen to me when Brexit takes place?” She was born in France, but she has worked in the United Kingdom and been in the House of Commons for many years. I gave her my personal opinion, which was that there would be no problem, but I was not able to give her the guarantee she was entitled to deserve.

In the end, this is a matter of principle. This House can make a unilateral decision and give a unilateral guarantee. That is what we should do. Let us all remember how shocked we were when Idi Amin expelled the Asians from Uganda—so shocked that we offered them refuge in this country. Indeed, for those who are historians, keep in mind how shocked Europe was when Louis XIV revoked the edict of Nantes, causing thousands of Huguenots to flee France—often to this country—to its great impoverishment.

I do not say that we are going to do this. I do not think it likely that we will. But we have not put it outside our power for it to happen. That is wrong. I ask your Lordships to take the moral high ground and give reassurance to the millions who have made their home here in the expectation that they can continue to live and work here. To the pragmatic among my noble friends who sit on the Front Bench, such as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, I say this: the moral high ground is very often the best ground on which to fight a campaign.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, in supporting Amendment 9B I shall speak also to Amendments 25 and 41. It is a pleasure to follow the powerful speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I assure the House that the colour co-ordination between us is a complete coincidence.

The Government’s case is that these matters will be dealt with in negotiations. They claim that, but for the obduracy of our EU partners, they would have had a negotiation before the notification of Article 50. It was never realistic to expect ad hoc negotiations on one particular very important issue in advance of notification. There has to be an expectation of structured negotiations.

If the UK Government give a unilateral guarantee now to the millions of EU citizens who are contributing in this country, not only will they be doing the right thing morally and economically but they will be supplying a crucial catalyst for a quick reciprocal deal. It was reported in the newspapers on Monday that the Prime Minister expected to reach a quick deal on the issue, so that it could be removed from the rest of the Brexit negotiations as soon as possible—an expectation which I think would generally be supported—but the truth is that the Government are holding EU citizens here not as hostages and bargaining chips for British citizens in the EU but for other goals. It is disingenuous to inflame the fears of British people settled elsewhere in Europe that their case would be undermined by a unilateral move by the British Government. I think that those groups have appreciated that their case would not be so undermined.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, mentioned some of the figures about the contribution of EU nationals to our economy. It is worth remembering that 10% of doctors here are from other EU countries. Sadly, there are reports of many of them wishing to leave or of others being deterred from coming here because of the uncertain environment that they face. Nine per cent of the workforce in construction are continental Europeans —my noble friend Lord Stunell emphasised that—with all the infrastructure ambitions that we have in this country. Similar figures, of 10% and 14%, can be cited for other sectors.

There were rather conflicting press reports earlier in the week about the Government’s intentions regarding a cut-off date. On Monday, it was reported that it was intended to set a cut-off date of 15 March—one’s instant reaction was, “beware the ides of March”—because it was said that government lawyers had advised that using the date of the referendum would be illegal. There was considerable comment that using any date short of our departure from the EU could also be illegal, because while we are in the EU free movement rights continue. There was then a rowing-back from No.10.

The Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, has stated that after Britain leaves the EU,

“we will be ending free movement as we know it”.

Not only must that apply to arrangements for the future but it must have some significance for people already here. While we are in the EU surely EU law on free movement, as on other matters, applies. Indeed, the letter from the Home Secretary states that,

“nothing will change for any EU citizen, whether already resident in the UK or moving from the EU, without Parliament’s approval”.

If that can be said, I think the Government can be in a position to make the unilateral guarantee that I hope this Committee will back today.

I want briefly to mention the problems that EU citizens, and particularly their families, are having in applying for permanent residence at the moment. Last July, the then Immigration Minister, James Brokenshire, gave assurances that nobody needed any documentation to demonstrate that they had a right permanently to reside if they had acquired five years’ permanent residence. I bobbed up and down occasionally to say, “But surely they will need some of kind documentation”. That has proved to be true. It has proved to be an 85-page document. One witness to the Brexit Select Committee in the other place displayed 34 kilograms of documentation, and she was only halfway through the collection. She had been here for 30 years, but she had to show the Home Office evidence of every time that she had entered and left the UK. Has anyone kept documentation for 30 years?

The goalposts have been moved retrospectively. People are being asked to document every move in their lives and they are being required to prove that they have private medical insurance. Although they were previously entitled and allowed to use the NHS, they are now told—having never been warned throughout possibly decades of residence—that they are not entitled to use the NHS. This is a matter of legal dispute, and I believe that the European Commission is making a statement on that subject to the European Parliament this afternoon. We might be enlightened about possible future infringement proceedings.

The upshot is that people are living in a state of anxiety, uncertainty, real dismay and turbulence. This is surely not a state of affairs that a Government whose Prime Minister has talked about the need for a kind and fair society can tolerate. The Government ought to accept that the weight of opinion is in favour of that unilateral guarantee, which will then trigger similar rights for Britons abroad.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Spicer]

Of course I trust the noble Lord, but what he is doing is slowing down a process that we should get on with as quickly as possible in order to increase the sovereignty of Parliament. That is the whole purpose. It is the main purpose for those of us—

[Viscount Hailsham]

The purpose of the new clause that we are discussing is simply to ensure proper parliamentary control at the end of the negotiations. That does not slow down the negotiations; it merely ensures that at the end of those negotiations, Parliament has a proper say as to the outcome.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lisvane (CB)]

My Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount will be kind enough to allow me to interpose very briefly. I support the thrust of Amendment 17 and certainly the aim that it seeks to achieve, but I have a couple of questions about the mechanisms that it proposes to do that. It proposes proceeding by resolution of each House. There are two issues. First, what happens if a straightforward approval Motion is amended and the final result is a resolution that overall approves an outcome but contains some sort of rider or condition? Regulating parliamentary proceedings by statute, in my experience, generally ends in some sort of tears. A question of whether the outcome met the requirements of the legislation could be resolved only by the courts, and that might not be a welcome result.

Secondly, what happens if one House comes to the required resolution but the other does not? Perhaps the solution is one that would endorse the sage advice given earlier by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead which is to employ primary legislation, because that contains very well-understood mechanisms for securing agreement between the two Houses.

[Viscount Hailsham]

My Lords, I know the hour is late so I will be very short; I will confine myself to making three points. The first is to adopt the language of my noble friend Lord Deben. This House must recognise that, ultimately, the decision has to be made by Parliament. Historically, there has always been tension between the Executive and Parliament and I happen to be a Roundhead on this matter. Let us not forget, as my noble friend pointed out, that we would not be debating this Bill had the courts not intervened. The truth is that Governments always seek to advance ministerial power at the expense of Parliament and we must push back. The historians among us will remember John Dunning saying that,

“the influence of the crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished”,

and, with suitable alteration, that is where I stand.

My second point refers to what the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said a propos the risk of there being no agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, assessed that risk as being higher than 30% and I entirely share that view. We need to address that in statutory language. That is what I tried to achieve in the new clause that would be introduced by my Amendment 32.

My final point, turning to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—I know it is the view of the noble Baroness as well—is that assurances are well and good and I do not at all doubt the good faith of the Ministers who give them. But I prefer to see assurances in statutory language. 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 those changes in circumstances. Therefore, whenever we come to divide on this group of amendments, whichever is chosen, I shall support it because I stand in favour of parliamentary government.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)]

My Lords, it is very late. We are tired. I do not know about the rest of your Lordships but I certainly am. I have sat here for four hours, a speech burning in my head, but listening to the speeches that have been made, I would not make any point that has not been made already, particularly in regard to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, which were probably better than any I could ever have made. I am content to leave their words as mine on the record, in the hope that we may hear from the Minister fairly soon.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Viscount Hailsham Excerpts

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

[Lord Pannick]

The noble Lord will form his own judgment; I am putting to the House that this amendment implements the undertaking given by the Prime Minister. She has recognised—in my view rightly—that so important are these matters that it is necessary, and imperative, to obtain the approval of both Houses of Parliament. The constitutional realities, as I understand them, are that this House is exceptionally unlikely to stand its ground against the view of the elected House. However, noble Lords will form their own judgment.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, does the noble Lord also agree that there is nothing in this proposed new clause that precludes the approval of both Houses being expressed in an Act of Parliament? If that is correct, the Parliament Act stands behind it.

[Lord Pannick]

I am grateful to the noble Viscount. As I have already said, this amendment is different from the amendment that we had in Committee because it does not state by what the means the Government must seek the approval of both Houses. The noble Viscount is absolutely right: it is open to the Government to proceed by way of emergency legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

It is not the Prime Minister’s proposal. It is a ridiculous proposal to say that the Prime Minister may not conclude an agreement until this has been sorted.

[Viscount Hailsham]

Would my noble friend give way?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

No, I am not going to give way to my noble friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Turner of Ecchinswell]

The very argument as to why we should not commit to a future referendum, the uncertainty of the situation we will then face, is, however, the argument why it is appropriate for us to come back for a detailed debate in both Houses of Parliament at that time to deal with the uncertain circumstances that will then exist. Like others around this House I would in some ways prefer that this referendum more clearly identified the relative powers of the Commons and the Lords in that process. I would have preferred the earlier version of the amendment, which proposed that a legislative process should be brought forward at that time. The most important principle is that we should not treat 23 June as providing answers for ever or the answers to everything. It is therefore absolutely appropriate for us to assert that there should be a process of parliamentary sovereignty, where the details of what is proposed are brought back to both Houses of Parliament for detailed debate at that time.

[Viscount Hailsham]

My Lords—

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My noble friend Lord Hailsham is a signatory to this amendment and it is right that the House hear from him. Perhaps we can then hear from the Labour Benches, and then from one of my noble friends on the Conservative Benches.

[Viscount Hailsham]

My Lords, those who have put their names to the proposed new clause are not seeking to stand in the way of the Bill. Our sole purpose is to ensure that the outcome—agreed terms or no agreed terms—is subject to the unfettered discretion of Parliament. It is, in our view, Parliament and not the Executive which should be the final arbiter of our country’s future. Ironically, in this sense we stand with the campaigners for Brexit who wanted Parliament to recover control over policy and legislation. Incidentally, too, we stand in that long tradition of parliamentarians who have stood for the primacy of Parliament against ministerial fiat. In the old days, that was a contest fought on the battlefields; happily, more recently it has been fought in public debate. Of course, most recently of all it was fought in the law courts. This is a conflict that never ceases. Let us not forget that, had it not been for the judiciary, we would not be debating this Bill—oh no. It was the Government’s intention to trigger Article 50 under prerogative powers; that is, under the residual powers of the Crown.

It is absolutely central that we should determine the proper interpretation to be given to the referendum of last June. I acknowledge at once—albeit I was a remainer—that the referendum was much more than merely the advisory expression of public opinion. However, I do deny that it gave authority to this Government to leave the European Union whatever the cost, whatever the terms and whatever the prejudice. That cannot be the case because when the public voted last June, they did not—could not—know the outcome. In any event, the Government’s commitment to subject the ultimate decision to a vote of Parliament undercuts that very proposition.

I believe that the proper interpretation of the referendum is this: it is an instruction to the Government to negotiate withdrawal on the best terms they can get. But that raises an absolutely fundamental question to which this proposed new clause is directed. When the negotiations have crystallised and there are agreed terms—or, perhaps, no agreed terms—who determines the way forward: is it the Executive or is it Parliament? That is the old question we have to resolve. In my view, any believer in a democratic state has to say that the authority lies with Parliament.

In very brief reference to a second referendum, it may be that Parliament, two years down the track, will decide that it is necessary. It may be justified in doing so; the circumstances may well change. Say, in two years’ time, there is a clear change in public sentiment. Say, too, that Parliament recognises that fact. Is Parliament not then under a duty to test public opinion? I quote the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, who spoke earlier today. At Second Reading he said that only dictatorships,

“do not allow people to change their mind but in a democracy no decision is ever irreversible”.—[Official Report, 21/2/17; col. 243.]

I want to turn to the argument that has been advanced by my noble friend Lord Hill of Oareford, who is indeed a very old friend of mine. I say at once that I acknowledge his experience and authority, which are recent. His view, which I am sure will be adopted by the Government, is that if you give Parliament the kinds of powers contemplated by the proposed new clause, you will undercut the negotiating position of the British Government. I do not agree with that view. I share the view expressed by the noble Lords, Lord O’Donnell and Lord Kerr, both citing their own very considerable experience, that the existence of the argument that Parliament will never wear this reinforces rather than undermines the position of the negotiators.

[Lord Hill of Oareford (Con)]

One of my noble friend’s most endearing characteristics is that he cannot walk past a wasps’ nest without wanting to poke it with a stick. He has just succeeded. There are two points that I would ask him to reflect on, which we have already touched on in this debate.

The first—which my noble friend and, I think, all noble Lords, with a few exceptions, would agree with—is that this is going to be an extremely complex negotiation. Anything that adds to that complexity is strongly to be avoided, in my opinion. I do not agree with those who say that this is going to be very simple and we can sort it all out in a matter of time. This is going to be complicated, so we should keep things as least complex as we can make them. When I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, set out this amendment, it added to my sense that complexity and uncertainty is contained in it.

Secondly, regarding the effect this might have on the negotiation, does my noble friend agree that the argument some people use—that having a Parliament or a board behind you in a negotiation enables you to have a stronger position—normally applies when the board or the Parliament is adopting a harder line than the person negotiating? I have to tell your Lordships that our friends in Europe do read our debates and our media. They are highly intelligent, sophisticated negotiators. They know where people sit. When my noble friend says that it would not weaken our position, can he not see that there are indeed instances where it would weaken our position because it would make Parliament a player in the negotiation and add complexity to what is already going to be very complex?

[Viscount Hailsham]

My Lords, my noble friend has made a very serious point, which enables me to cut directly to the chase, to one of the points I was going to make. It is possible that my noble friend Lord Hill is right about this. There is sometimes a price to be paid for democracy. Indeed, that is the argument that underpins many of the assertions made by the Brexiteers. They argue that, yes, there may be a cost involved in withdrawal but it is more than compensated for by the recovery of democratic control. That argument also applies to the process of negotiation.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)]

In answer to that very question, I ask the noble Viscount to cast his mind back to 1991, when he and I were both in the other place. He was a member of the Government, as I recall. On that occasion the then Prime Minister, John Major, brought the Maastricht treaty to the House for its approval twice; first, in seeking a mandate for negotiation; and, secondly, afterwards in seeking the House’s approval for what had been negotiated. If that did not weaken his Government at the time, why should this weaken this one?

[Viscount Hailsham]

My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said. Of course, it is also consistent with the principles that underpin Section 20 of the 2010 Act, because that requires all treaties to be ratified by Parliament.

If I might make a little progress, the Government have in the course of the Bill made a very large number of concessions. It would be churlish not to welcome that fact. Indeed, I rather hope for more. But I agree with the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It is better by far that the assurances and concessions of Ministers be expressed in statutory language because, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, has reminded the House, political circumstances may change. Ministers may move on; Governments may fall. Statutory language is always to be preferred to the comforting words of Ministers.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Viscount Hailsham 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.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, there has been a great deal of weeping and gnashing of gums on these issues in recent weeks and months. I do not like the government policy on this either. It appears to be: if we cannot help everyone, we will not help anyone. Nevertheless, we have asked the other place to think again. They have thought again and have not taken our advice, and our role now, I believe, is not to insist.