01/03/2017

:00:00. > :00:00.assertion that the government intend to use this issue as a negotiating

:00:00. > :00:09.encounter the wider issues once the negotiations start. On the contrary

:00:10. > :00:17.the Prime Minister at the end of last year made an attempt to resolve

:00:18. > :00:22.this issue in advance of the negotiations on a reciprocal basis

:00:23. > :00:31.and that was rejected out of hand by Chancellor Merkel and and other

:00:32. > :00:36.presidents. On the ground but no discussion on this issue could take

:00:37. > :00:48.place in to Article 50 was invoked. My noble and learned friend, is very

:00:49. > :00:52.eloquent in her speech, and hair... On the Les inflation would be

:00:53. > :00:57.necessary to deprive EU nationals of their rights, I agree with him but

:00:58. > :01:02.that legislation is not before your lordship's house this afternoon. The

:01:03. > :01:12.question that your Lordships have to decide this afternoon is what action

:01:13. > :01:19.to take in the light of the truth, perhaps unpalatable to many of you,

:01:20. > :01:24.an palatable to me because I've made it clear on numerous occasions that

:01:25. > :01:29.I favour a unilateral guarantee that I think that is what the government

:01:30. > :01:36.should give but, nevertheless what action should your Lordships house

:01:37. > :01:41.take in the face of the unpalatable truth that the government will not

:01:42. > :01:48.change its mind and that the other place, where this issue was raised

:01:49. > :01:56.and considered and voted upon and resolved by a majority of 42 not

:01:57. > :02:01.going to change their minds either, in the face of... Well, there are

:02:02. > :02:08.murmurs from the benches opposite, there are no new facts in this

:02:09. > :02:11.debate. This is a simple issue. The arguments have been gone through

:02:12. > :02:18.there were gone through and never place, that a new new facts. The

:02:19. > :02:22.Home Secretary was criticised for saying what she said in advance of

:02:23. > :02:29.the arguments but we know what the arguments are and there were no new

:02:30. > :02:37.arguments on this issue. Of course I do. I thought went through my mind

:02:38. > :02:41.when he told is what happened, if that is so then what is the point of

:02:42. > :02:49.the House of Lords? There are many occasions when this House can bring

:02:50. > :02:52.forward new arguments, a fresh perspective and situation, can

:02:53. > :02:58.genuinely make the other think again. My Lords, I do not believe

:02:59. > :03:05.this is one of them. The question which we have to ask ourselves today

:03:06. > :03:11.is this, "How can we best help the EU nationals who are resident in

:03:12. > :03:16.this country?" And the best way in which we can help them is to bring

:03:17. > :03:21.the uncertainty of their position to an end as quickly as possible and

:03:22. > :03:28.the best way of bringing that uncertainty to an end as quickly as

:03:29. > :03:35.possible is to pass this Bill as quickly as possible. And to activate

:03:36. > :03:43.Article 50 as quickly as possible. Order, order! Before the noble lord

:03:44. > :03:47.sits down I wonder if an issue of new facts he could agree that the

:03:48. > :03:51.communications that has come from all the expatriate groups across the

:03:52. > :03:55.European Union that they would wish this House to pass this amendment

:03:56. > :03:58.because they believe that that is the best way to secure their

:03:59. > :04:04.position, if that's not a new factor? I'm sure that many of those

:04:05. > :04:09.groups made their views known when the matter was debated in the other

:04:10. > :04:13.place. I think that, though their bees need to be taken into account,

:04:14. > :04:19.I do not see that as tantamount to a new fact. Of course, I give with the

:04:20. > :04:24.noble Baroness. During this debate that may be lengthy, it would be

:04:25. > :04:31.helpful for those who are sitting and listening if speakers from the

:04:32. > :04:36.Conservative group of peers did not refer to the opposition raising

:04:37. > :04:41.objections when objections are being raised all around the House. It will

:04:42. > :04:47.not do any good to the image of the House. My Lords, I do not think I

:04:48. > :04:53.ever referred to the opposition is raising objections as though I think

:04:54. > :04:56.the noble Baroness opted a very legitimate rebuke, but I do not

:04:57. > :05:00.think it needed to have been directed at me on this occasion.

:05:01. > :05:07.LAUGHTER Give way to my noble friend. And most grateful. I

:05:08. > :05:13.entirely in indoors what he says. He told the House a few moments ago

:05:14. > :05:22.that he was the unilateralist on this issue. The whole theme of the

:05:23. > :05:27.Remain campaign was taking back control. Why can we not a unilateral

:05:28. > :05:30.gesture before the negotiations sees what my noble friend will call the

:05:31. > :05:37.moral high ground and make a declaration? My Lords, we could, but

:05:38. > :05:42.the government has decided not to. I wish we would. I would like the

:05:43. > :05:49.government should take that view. But, the government has decided not

:05:50. > :05:57.to and I believe this House needs to face... I give way... One major

:05:58. > :06:05.assertion has been with Peters, that there were no new facts, there are

:06:06. > :06:11.new facts. --- has been repeated. The government has made it clear to

:06:12. > :06:15.that science and technology... We are bleeding the best academics from

:06:16. > :06:19.this country at the present time who are leaving one by one or thinking

:06:20. > :06:23.about it because they do not see themselves as having a future in

:06:24. > :06:29.this country. That is urgent needs to be dealt with now. My Lords, the

:06:30. > :06:34.debate on the other place took place very recently and that fact, as long

:06:35. > :06:41.as the others was well-known to the others in the other place. That is

:06:42. > :06:46.not, with great respect, a new fact. I believe, clearly, there are many

:06:47. > :06:53.who would disagree most profoundly, but I believe that these amendments

:06:54. > :06:57.would actually work against the best interests of those they are designed

:06:58. > :07:03.to help. I think the best way of helping them is to pass this

:07:04. > :07:07.legislation as quickly as possible to activate Article 50 and then to

:07:08. > :07:14.negotiate give these people the rights they deserved to stay in our

:07:15. > :07:18.country. My Lords, 3 million foreign nationals in a population of about

:07:19. > :07:26.65 million to represent a minority. This country has benefited greatly

:07:27. > :07:32.from minorities the centuries. The example the dues who came to this

:07:33. > :07:36.country... Sometimes it is minorities who fight for the rights

:07:37. > :07:41.of their religion like Roman Catholics, or for their own rights

:07:42. > :07:46.like votes for women or the wrote for others like the magnificent boat

:07:47. > :07:50.which abolished the slave trade. Again and again minorities have

:07:51. > :07:54.helped us put the best that we are. And so did the minorities here today

:07:55. > :07:58.in the 3 million we are treating is shamefully from my own experience

:07:59. > :08:02.and that of others, I can point to the dazzling contribution of

:08:03. > :08:07.minorities across the arts, sciences and the widest spectrum of our

:08:08. > :08:12.cultural and inflexible life. I speak strongly but minority because

:08:13. > :08:17.I remember of one, a bullied minority whose views have been

:08:18. > :08:22.dismissed and effectively... I like the Prime Minister was one of those

:08:23. > :08:26.who voted to Remain. We have become a minority and I am rather surprised

:08:27. > :08:37.that with her pride she did not stay on to lead the 48% fight. -- leave

:08:38. > :08:42.the 48%. Sorry to interrupt you seem to be launching into another speech,

:08:43. > :08:54.and wondering if he could consign his observations... I have a short

:08:55. > :08:59.speech is quite a. ... I was wondering whether Prime Minister

:09:00. > :09:03.didn't lead the Remain campaign after we had surprisingly became a

:09:04. > :09:11.minority. And why did she not fight on as so many other minorities have

:09:12. > :09:15.done. I believe that it is outside the democratic development of our

:09:16. > :09:20.city best single issue verge be allowed to change the course of our

:09:21. > :09:25.history the episode dramatically and potentially divested of sleep. One

:09:26. > :09:30.major aspect is to turn our back on those who came here and gave their

:09:31. > :09:33.talent and skills. Those who settled here transforming as in semi-ways

:09:34. > :09:39.the better, they are now reduced pawns in a government strategy which

:09:40. > :09:44.too many people seems clueless and without response to critical

:09:45. > :09:46.questioning. The answer the question of foreign nationals were no natural

:09:47. > :09:50.pride in who we are if the telco those that are here now, that we

:09:51. > :10:08.want them to stay here and welcome them.

:10:09. > :10:25.Bravo, Bravo! LAUGHTER My Lords, I do apologise...

:10:26. > :10:36.Next we hear from the Archbishop. My Lords, Uganda... It is a collectable

:10:37. > :10:43.thing that Idi Amin kicks out two types of Asians, British citizens

:10:44. > :10:48.and Ugandan citizens and my opposition to him was about the

:10:49. > :10:55.garden citizens who were the largest number. Kiss them out --- he kicked

:10:56. > :11:00.them out and my result in coming here was a result of opposition to

:11:01. > :11:06.such behaviour. I know how minorities can feel in a place, I

:11:07. > :11:11.know how we need to assure our European friends that are resident

:11:12. > :11:17.hero to remain here. I have one great difficulty. Suddenly we can

:11:18. > :11:30.scrutinise legislation, but this simple Bill actually is simply to

:11:31. > :11:38.compel the Prime Minister to satisfy Article 50 on the treaty. --

:11:39. > :11:43.ratified. That there is an intention to withdraw. It is to give them the

:11:44. > :11:46.power that I think Parliament should have given them, not royal

:11:47. > :11:51.prerogative and those in the meeting before all of this came about I was

:11:52. > :11:55.passionate about the rights of had to simply use prerogative power,

:11:56. > :12:06.simply because of what had actually gone on way, way back in the Magna

:12:07. > :12:14.Carta. If you remember section 39 says that no freeman, and we of

:12:15. > :12:19.course mean woman as well, shall be seized or imprisoned or stripped of

:12:20. > :12:24.his right or excelled were deprived of his standing in any other way nor

:12:25. > :12:29.will we proceed with force against him or send others to do so except

:12:30. > :12:38.by the lawful judgment of his equals or the law of the land. To no man

:12:39. > :12:43.will we sell, deny, or delay rights or justice. I still think that is

:12:44. > :12:47.enshrined in the rule of law in this country, so as far as I am concerned

:12:48. > :12:51.European citizens living here at this point in time, Intel at Lee we

:12:52. > :12:56.have done the negotiation to use down the line, they have every right

:12:57. > :13:01.of being here as anyone else. People want to give assurance but I think

:13:02. > :13:06.the assurance is when the big Bill comes and we begin the debates.

:13:07. > :13:12.Remember, the European Union has got this free movement of people and

:13:13. > :13:20.goods and services. All this little Bill is doing is like a race is

:13:21. > :13:26.about to start. On your Mark, set, and you take off... And it will take

:13:27. > :13:29.two years to run this race and during the warning of that race we

:13:30. > :13:37.want to assure that actually concerned that were being raised in

:13:38. > :13:41.this... If, as I do want to see this decision that the government takes

:13:42. > :13:44.on behalf of all others that UK citizens be given a guarantee to

:13:45. > :13:52.remain the best way to do it is to call the bluff of angler Merkel, by

:13:53. > :13:56.saying we have now triggered Article 50 and we're going to talk about and

:13:57. > :14:02.guarantee it will be much quicker than the three months of proposals.

:14:03. > :14:06.I wanted quicker than three months and the other thing is, if the

:14:07. > :14:14.government is about to start negotiation, we do not want... Those

:14:15. > :14:17.rights can only be guaranteed not by the government but by Parliament, so

:14:18. > :14:23.we will have to go through another big Bill in the middle of the matter

:14:24. > :14:30.is going on. As far as I am concerned we need to scrutinise pass

:14:31. > :14:33.legislation and I cannot, in this little enabling Bill, that gives

:14:34. > :14:42.Parliament the power to tell that we intend to get out, this is going to

:14:43. > :14:50.grow into a very big Christmas tree. Certainly the concerns of EU

:14:51. > :14:56.citizens... I want to say to do it, and Prime Minister we will turn back

:14:57. > :15:00.the EU we want a guarantee as of today. Without actually wake peeing

:15:01. > :15:11.three-month formal proposals, more ideas, more questions. --- before we

:15:12. > :15:17.wait three months. I voted Remain. One issue has not emerged in the

:15:18. > :15:21.referendum debate, keeping promises, both sides seem to agree that the

:15:22. > :15:26.world began yesterday and we are faced with a clean slate and many

:15:27. > :15:31.position ourselves to great advantage, but the world, our

:15:32. > :15:35.European neighbours and others ourselves all have a recent history

:15:36. > :15:40.and we need keep promises. The things we ventured into to keep

:15:41. > :15:46.those promises it failed. 52% decided to who wrote, in spite of

:15:47. > :15:54.all the promises in spite of all the things we've entered into to leave.

:15:55. > :16:00.I want to suggest this, my Lords, leave the Bill as it is. Pass it as

:16:01. > :16:05.quickly as possible. All these speeches that are talking about

:16:06. > :16:11.really guaranteeing the UK sits and their rights to remain let's do it

:16:12. > :16:15.as quickly as possible. Who do not attach to this particular Bill,

:16:16. > :16:20.because to me as far as I'm concerned I cannot see them revising

:16:21. > :16:23.the Bill or actually scrutinising the Bill. You are simply adding to

:16:24. > :16:34.materials... Finally, I was about to finish but I

:16:35. > :16:52.will sit. Thank you very much. Does the noble

:16:53. > :16:56.Lord not understand... Thank you. The moral obligation that it is on

:16:57. > :17:01.this government? These people are not bargaining chips. If we say

:17:02. > :17:07.quite freely that they are free to stay, that does give the moral high

:17:08. > :17:13.ground to our government in its negotiations and I would argue that

:17:14. > :17:19.all noble Lords, including noble lord Howard should vote with their

:17:20. > :17:29.consciences and not with the party. I never want to see any human person

:17:30. > :17:36.used as a bargaining chip. They are people and they must be treated

:17:37. > :17:37.according to the rule of law in this country. The Prime Minister tried to

:17:38. > :18:15.give a guarantee. Thank God I am not in captivity. May

:18:16. > :18:20.I suggest, please, that as soon as this becomes law, the better the

:18:21. > :18:24.challenge we will give the Prime Minister about what was attempted to

:18:25. > :18:32.do and what was prevented because Article 50 was going to be

:18:33. > :18:41.triggered. As soon as that happens, we can campaign for her to what she

:18:42. > :18:54.suggested. People like me are just shocked.

:18:55. > :19:02.Before, I used to pay large sums of money to travel around Europe. I was

:19:03. > :19:07.a naturalised as a British citizen and then I could visit all of Europe

:19:08. > :19:13.without a reason. Great stuff. Please, this is a very limited bill

:19:14. > :19:19.and we want to pass it as it is and maybe there is one more suggestion

:19:20. > :19:25.for the Prime Minister. She should probably set up a truth and

:19:26. > :19:31.listening commission in our four nations so that the divisions we are

:19:32. > :19:44.seeing at the moment can be discussed. The these reasons, I will

:19:45. > :19:49.be voting against any of the amendments because I don't think

:19:50. > :20:00.revising it makes any changes, it is just adding on and adding on. My

:20:01. > :20:03.Lords, I rise to support Amendment nine B, which is standing on the

:20:04. > :20:11.order paper in my name as well as the other three in the less. It's

:20:12. > :20:16.about the rights of citizens in this member state, not those in other

:20:17. > :20:23.member states. I support this amendment without hesitation because

:20:24. > :20:27.I believe we do have a commitment to honour here. To recognise that just

:20:28. > :20:32.the rights of the citizens, although that is important enough, but also

:20:33. > :20:35.the contribution they have made, are still making and will I hope

:20:36. > :20:43.continue to make to our economy and our society. This amendment does not

:20:44. > :20:46.seek to dictate to the government the details of how these rights

:20:47. > :20:51.should be secured. That will be for the government to sort out in the

:20:52. > :21:05.proposals that are called for in the amendment. Nor is it an attempt to

:21:06. > :21:09.delay the triggering of Article 50 beyond the government's deadline at

:21:10. > :21:14.the end of this month. As far as I can see, there is one faintly

:21:15. > :21:20.respectable argument against this amendment and that is that it is not

:21:21. > :21:24.the right way for the UK to be helping the position of its own

:21:25. > :21:29.citizens who are living in other European countries to speak now

:21:30. > :21:34.newly laterally about how we will treat European citizens here. But

:21:35. > :21:41.that argument simply doesn't hold water. Why on earth would these

:21:42. > :21:45.British citizen 's right across the European Union have today issued a

:21:46. > :21:50.statement making it quite clear that they supported our taking this

:21:51. > :21:58.decision in this amendment and that they believe it is the best way to

:21:59. > :22:05.secure the rights. I don't think I could be accused of supporting with

:22:06. > :22:08.a half-hearted way our fellow citizens across Europe. I did move

:22:09. > :22:12.an amendment in this house which would have given them the right to

:22:13. > :22:18.vote in the referendum which quite shockingly they were deprived of by

:22:19. > :22:22.a majority who voted against that. My own view is that for us to move

:22:23. > :22:29.unilaterally to protect the rights of EU citizens here is in fact the

:22:30. > :22:34.best possible step to ensure, to safeguard the rights of our own

:22:35. > :22:39.citizens elsewhere in the EU. I say that as someone who has a little bit

:22:40. > :22:53.of experience of EU negotiations. I negotiated our session to the EU. I

:22:54. > :23:01.negotiated the opt out on the euro. I can't be sure that I am right, but

:23:02. > :23:08.I do think there is a reasonable chance that I am right and I do not

:23:09. > :23:14.believe myself that the transactional approach which is the

:23:15. > :23:19.way the government wishes to go, that that transactional approach is

:23:20. > :23:23.the right way to proceed, or is likely to produce good results, or

:23:24. > :23:26.will produce them quickly. I hope that your law chip's house will

:23:27. > :23:37.approve this amendment when we come to vote on it. I rise to support

:23:38. > :23:41.amendment 9B. That overlaps with another amendment, including 37

:23:42. > :23:46.standing in my name. There is a moral case, human rights case that

:23:47. > :23:51.has been very well made and I went repeated. There are four different

:23:52. > :23:58.categories of employment in which this issue is acute. From my own

:23:59. > :24:09.experience in Wales it is relevant in the EU. Firstly, those who work

:24:10. > :24:12.in the hotel sector. In Wales we benefit from having workers from the

:24:13. > :24:18.Baltic states. It can be argued that most of these jobs could be done by

:24:19. > :24:24.residents of Wales and they could, but the reality is that the work in

:24:25. > :24:28.this sector is not popular, because it's highly seasonal and the wage

:24:29. > :24:36.levels are sometimes low. In Wales we now have a low unemployment rate

:24:37. > :24:40.that is below the UK average. It's not an exaggeration to say that if

:24:41. > :24:47.these employees were to depart overnight the sector in Wales will

:24:48. > :24:51.be in crisis. Employers need to know that the current staff can remain

:24:52. > :24:56.and they need some indication under what circumstances after Brexit or

:24:57. > :25:01.during any prolonged Brexit negotiations will they be entitled

:25:02. > :25:06.to employ staff from other EU countries. Secondly there is the

:25:07. > :25:11.food processing industry. Many of the same arguments apply and in some

:25:12. > :25:16.cases to a greater extent because firms often overdependent on EU

:25:17. > :25:26.workers. Thirdly there is in a different category our university

:25:27. > :25:30.sector in Wales. We have 1355 EU nationals employed, often in key

:25:31. > :25:37.jobs for which they cannot be easily replaced. Fourthly, the NHS in Wales

:25:38. > :25:42.where as in England there is a high level of dependency on staff who

:25:43. > :25:49.have come here from other EU countries. I believe that over 1100

:25:50. > :25:53.such employees whether the NHS in Wales at present. Without them the

:25:54. > :25:58.service would be in danger of collapse. Over 6% of our doctors

:25:59. > :26:05.from EU countries. We already have a critical shortage of GPs. In this

:26:06. > :26:08.fourth group I have been told of instances in some key job holders

:26:09. > :26:13.they are fearful of what will happen to them or what may happen after

:26:14. > :26:19.Brexit. They are already actively seeking jobs in their home countries

:26:20. > :26:23.in case at some later stage there is a stampede of their fellow EU

:26:24. > :26:27.nationals seeking to return home and consequently the chances of getting

:26:28. > :26:30.jobs back home will become more challenging. The government have

:26:31. > :26:38.been taking the line that they will be giving priority to this issue on

:26:39. > :26:43.the position of EU workers in the UK were negotiations start, but it's

:26:44. > :26:55.not at that point in time that the necessary assurances can be given to

:26:56. > :26:58.these workers. The outcome won't be known until the negotiations are

:26:59. > :27:02.well near complete and that would be totally unacceptable, not only to

:27:03. > :27:06.thousands of such workers living in Britain, but also I believe to this

:27:07. > :27:10.house and the other place. That is why this amendment should be written

:27:11. > :27:14.into the Bill and why MPs must be asked to think again on this

:27:15. > :27:19.critical matter. If they don't, I believe we should have the courage

:27:20. > :27:26.of our convictions to insist that this provision is enacted. Thousands

:27:27. > :27:28.of people are looking today to this house to give the lead and I

:27:29. > :27:44.earnestly hope that we don't let them down. There might be time. I

:27:45. > :27:47.shall be very brief. My Lords, but faces us today is an extremely

:27:48. > :27:54.serious issue so far as I'm concerned. I just want to put before

:27:55. > :28:00.your Lordships the way that I happened to look at it. The

:28:01. > :28:09.throughout the European Union a large number of people who were born

:28:10. > :28:14.in one European country, and I say European, I'm thinking of membership

:28:15. > :28:20.of the European Union. Born in one European country and are now

:28:21. > :28:24.residing in another. Under the protection of the laws that are

:28:25. > :28:34.prevalent in these countries in consequence of the treaty that puts

:28:35. > :28:40.the EU together. Many people in our country and in other countries in

:28:41. > :28:46.this situation -- art in this situation. My Lords, I believe the

:28:47. > :28:51.moral high ground is to treat all these people equally. They are equal

:28:52. > :28:58.people. They are absolutely equal people and they are people. Now I

:28:59. > :29:04.completely repudiate the idea that I should treat any fellow human being

:29:05. > :29:11.as a bargaining counter or anything of the kind. I thoroughly reject

:29:12. > :29:17.that and have no truck with that whatsoever, but I do believe that it

:29:18. > :29:25.is essential that all these people are treated properly and equally,

:29:26. > :29:31.and the problem is that the rights of residents in the countries in

:29:32. > :29:37.which they are are now threatened by the vote that we have taken in this

:29:38. > :29:39.country against the views of a number here, including my own, to

:29:40. > :29:49.leave the European Union. The European Union, in its wisdom,

:29:50. > :29:51.has formulated a way in which these matters should be settled. These

:29:52. > :30:16.matters are until that mechanism, set up under

:30:17. > :30:23.the treaty, is triggered. This Bill is in order to enable our country

:30:24. > :30:32.too, and our government, to trigger that mechanism. The reason that this

:30:33. > :30:37.Bill is necessary is because it is appreciated and was so in the

:30:38. > :30:47.courts, that both levels whether cases were hired that to do so was

:30:48. > :30:52.affecting the rights of people secured by acts of parliament in

:30:53. > :30:56.this country and to the same extent in the other countries of the

:30:57. > :31:03.European Union, because the law of the union is by virtue of the

:31:04. > :31:11.treaty, has to be accepted as the law in that country, also. So, their

:31:12. > :31:16.rights are all rights that are in terms according to the treaty of

:31:17. > :31:21.union of the European Union. The European Union has stipulated away

:31:22. > :31:27.in which, if any country wishes to leave then they should do so, and

:31:28. > :31:35.Article 50 years the wafer that. As far as I am concerned. -- is the way

:31:36. > :31:40.for that. All these people have to be treated fairly, they are all in

:31:41. > :31:46.the same boat in that sense and they are all people whose security in the

:31:47. > :31:53.country in which they are residing is threatened until that matter is

:31:54. > :31:57.settled under the European Union negotiation structure. I believe

:31:58. > :32:03.that it is right that that should be done in a way that is fair to them

:32:04. > :32:11.all. I am the first to acknowledge that we owe a tremendous amount to

:32:12. > :32:18.the people from other all green European Union countries. A huge

:32:19. > :32:23.amount, National Health Service, I've seen myself often extremely

:32:24. > :32:28.good work done by people who have come from, for example Poland, to

:32:29. > :32:35.work here and the kind of work they do and the benefits they give to was

:32:36. > :32:42.a very great. But, but, I have to do say that that is not a consideration

:32:43. > :32:47.to give them a preference over the other people who are affected in

:32:48. > :32:54.exactly the same way. What I say is that the right thing to do as has

:32:55. > :33:01.been said is that Article 50 be triggered and that each at Lee, as

:33:02. > :33:07.the Prime Minister has said she asked the to be settled and be

:33:08. > :33:11.settled in a way that would cover the whole of the European Union and

:33:12. > :33:16.I believe the only excuse that has been offered so far in Europe for

:33:17. > :33:20.not agreeing to this has been that the score 50, the way out of the

:33:21. > :33:26.European Union, negotiations have been triggered. Bash the Article 50.

:33:27. > :33:35.I would confidently expect then have the greatest possible expect Derry

:33:36. > :33:42.respect... The argument against a junior tool jester on the part of

:33:43. > :33:46.this government which could generate goodwill which could terminate the

:33:47. > :33:54.rest of the negotiations. There is no need any negotiations. My view is

:33:55. > :33:59.that a unilateral declaration of that kind is not treating fairly all

:34:00. > :34:06.the people that are affected by this problem. I regard the higher ground,

:34:07. > :34:09.the moral high ground as the grant of furnace, the only ground that I

:34:10. > :34:18.think we can take in a negotiation of this kind. --- the ground of

:34:19. > :34:22.furnace. And I think that the settlement of this matter is more

:34:23. > :34:28.likely to happen if the negotiations are triggered and the Prime

:34:29. > :34:33.Minister, as she has said, makes this are very first requirement. I

:34:34. > :34:38.believe that nobody in the European Union has so far given any reason

:34:39. > :34:44.for not agreeing with it, for all European nationals who are in other

:34:45. > :34:52.countries of residence... I would respectively pointed out that at the

:34:53. > :35:02.Conservative Party conference Liam Fox actually said that the uncertain

:35:03. > :35:11.status of EU nationals living in the UK is one of the main cards in the

:35:12. > :35:16.Brexit negotiations, for that reason I do not trust in government in

:35:17. > :35:26.these negotiations. I do not regard myself to be bound by remarks made

:35:27. > :35:30.by Liam Fox. I regard myself as having been given the responsibility

:35:31. > :35:37.is so far of being a member of this House and that I should explain to

:35:38. > :35:43.your Lordships as fully and briefly as I can what I believe is the more

:35:44. > :35:46.high ground, namely to treat all these people from the European Union

:35:47. > :35:54.that are in countries other than their countries of origin and their

:35:55. > :36:01.rights secured by the European Union Treaty, when that treaties to be a

:36:02. > :36:06.departed from in accordance to the rule set out by the treaty, Article

:36:07. > :36:09.50, then that is the time for a fair negotiation of the whole matter and

:36:10. > :36:19.I believe it would come very quickly because as I said, and I'm repeating

:36:20. > :36:23.myself I won't do it again, I have has no argument from Europe that has

:36:24. > :36:38.said anything about this apart from that the negotiations have not been

:36:39. > :36:46.triggered. My Lords. I rise to speak to Amendment 16 a, and amendment 38

:36:47. > :36:52.and they also support amendment nine B all-star whether or not one

:36:53. > :36:57.favours a unilateral guarantee to EU citizens in this country as I do,

:36:58. > :37:03.there are key questions about the government's approach which can and

:37:04. > :37:06.need to be answered now. Amendment 16 A is a probing amendment which

:37:07. > :37:13.seeks to draw out the answer to these questions and they hope that

:37:14. > :37:18.the label Lord will respond to them fully. --- do noble lord. First,

:37:19. > :37:27.what rights do the government intend to apply for EU citizens in the UK.

:37:28. > :37:33.The government should tell us now. If they did so they would provide

:37:34. > :37:38.much-needed clarity the EU citizens here and British citizens in the EU.

:37:39. > :37:41.Though citizens need to know that they and their families will not

:37:42. > :37:46.just have a right to residents and to work, but also have access to

:37:47. > :37:52.public services, in particular health, without which the many built

:37:53. > :37:56.rights to residency is meaningless. Thirdly, what procedure does the

:37:57. > :38:00.government envisaged by which EU citizens in the UK will gain rights

:38:01. > :38:07.of residency under British law. As a report from the EU justice

:38:08. > :38:13.committee, the indefinite leave to remain procedure would not be

:38:14. > :38:17.suitable. It would not be to cope the applications and it requires

:38:18. > :38:22.documentation which in many cases EU citizens will not have because

:38:23. > :38:26.they've have never needed it or had any expectation of needing it.

:38:27. > :38:33.Fourth, what does the government intend to be the qualifying date for

:38:34. > :38:38.the rights it does when EU citizens? With green the date of withdrawal as

:38:39. > :38:46.it was in the case for Greenland's exit, or does the government intend

:38:47. > :38:50.some of the date? People need to know the government's intentions.

:38:51. > :39:03.They need to plan their lives. There is the case of sickness in Shawlands

:39:04. > :39:12.cover --- insurance cover. There is a dispute as to whether the NHS

:39:13. > :39:15.qualifies as... Whatever the merits of the dispute between the

:39:16. > :39:20.commission and the UK Government on this matter, three fax clear, one,

:39:21. > :39:26.many EU citizens had no idea that this acquirement existed, to most

:39:27. > :39:29.that did thought that they were covered by their right to use the

:39:30. > :39:34.NHS, a reasonable assumption given that that was also the assumption of

:39:35. > :39:42.the EU governor, three, the final and stop that is this, if the

:39:43. > :39:46.government adheres to this position, thousands of people many who have

:39:47. > :39:50.been resident in this country the decades will find themselves without

:39:51. > :39:55.the main in the country that they have made their home. That cannot be

:39:56. > :40:00.right. This issue is causing huge anxiety to millions of people and it

:40:01. > :40:03.is in the power of the government to resolve it by stating their evidence

:40:04. > :40:10.that CSA C will not be a requirement that you citizens to gain permanent

:40:11. > :40:15.residents. They should do so, now. I now turn to amendment 38, which

:40:16. > :40:19.makes explicit the unilateral guarantee to EU citizens resident in

:40:20. > :40:24.the UK and provides no agreement under Article 50 can be entered into

:40:25. > :40:28.which does not protect the rights of UK citizens and their families in

:40:29. > :40:33.other countries. My Lords, it is not my intention to put either amendment

:40:34. > :40:38.to vote this afternoon, but I hope that the Minister will address the

:40:39. > :40:42.questions raised by both amendments. I will support a cross-party

:40:43. > :40:46.amendment because it offers the best opportunity to send a clear signal

:40:47. > :40:51.to the elected house. But, I will want to come back to the issue of

:40:52. > :40:54.British citizens in the EU which is addressed in amendment 38, because

:40:55. > :40:59.their rights are also of crucial concern to my noble friend and

:41:00. > :41:05.myself and many noble Lords across the parties in the House. Many

:41:06. > :41:09.British citizens living in the EU have contacted me and other noble

:41:10. > :41:15.Lords to say how abandoned they felt by the elected house and how

:41:16. > :41:20.heartened they were that this House was actually addressing their

:41:21. > :41:25.concerns. My Lords, we must not abandon them, again. Through no

:41:26. > :41:28.fault of their own as a result of a referendum for which the majority of

:41:29. > :41:32.them were excluded, millions of British and other EU citizens have

:41:33. > :41:37.suddenly found their futures at the mercy of the whims of politicians.

:41:38. > :41:40.They fear they may be excluded from the country that they have made

:41:41. > :41:51.their homes, in some cases they fear being split up from their husbands,

:41:52. > :41:53.wives or partners. These are not spurious beers, they're not as a

:41:54. > :41:55.result of scaremongering they are from others old of the government's

:41:56. > :42:11.failure to provide moral leadership or administrative clarity. --- of

:42:12. > :42:21.these are not spurious fears. Even though you are a liberal Democrat

:42:22. > :42:24.cannot have it both ways. You can either give priority to people who

:42:25. > :42:29.are living here that we want to give priority to all you are not. This

:42:30. > :42:34.amendment does that, it gives priority to EU citizens here as

:42:35. > :42:39.against British citizens sitting elsewhere. You cannot have that bit

:42:40. > :42:42.ways. If the noble Lord will forgive me, if you would listen to my

:42:43. > :42:50.argument he would understand the answer to his question. Take, for

:42:51. > :42:55.example an elderly couple resident in Germany who wrote to me recently,

:42:56. > :43:00.one of them are pretty sits on the other German. They wrote to say that

:43:01. > :43:04.they are terrified that if the final agreement does not provide the

:43:05. > :43:09.continuing access of health care they could not continue to live in

:43:10. > :43:13.the same country. The same fears had been expressed by others. These are

:43:14. > :43:17.not abstract issues, this is about the lives of millions of peoples,

:43:18. > :43:23.the anxiety and fear that has been inflicted on them since exit and it

:43:24. > :43:27.is about the uncertainty that means their lives and put on hold. Since

:43:28. > :43:38.Brexit. This Home Secretary... Would he agreed that what we have

:43:39. > :43:47.heard this afternoon, the inflaming of the fears of these people has

:43:48. > :43:52.come from one side? I would not agree for one moment. These are

:43:53. > :43:59.fears expressed to me and noble Lords across this House. The

:44:00. > :44:04.government needs to address them. The Home Secretary claims in her

:44:05. > :44:09.letter to ask that a unilateral guaranteed to EU residents in the UK

:44:10. > :44:16.would cause uncertainty to British citizens in the EU. As a noble lord

:44:17. > :44:20.has pointed out it's not the view of many groups representing British

:44:21. > :44:25.citizens in the EU who have written to us and published a statement

:44:26. > :44:30.today. Not only do they accept any for unilateral guaranteed, they have

:44:31. > :44:34.strongly urged on me and other noble Lords that far from causing

:44:35. > :44:38.uncertainty, they believe it will provide them with reassurance. My

:44:39. > :44:44.Lords, we have had a lot of discussion during the debate on this

:44:45. > :44:48.bill about who said what in the referendum campaign. What no one

:44:49. > :44:52.claimed that the rights of EU and claimed that the rights of EU and

:44:53. > :44:59.British citizens resident in other countries would not be affected.

:45:00. > :45:03.That is what they said and to say anything else would be

:45:04. > :45:06.scaremongering. Since the vote to leave, politicians from the

:45:07. > :45:09.political spectrum have been cleared we should unilaterally state that we

:45:10. > :45:20.will protect the rights of EU citizens here. Lord Howard Hughes

:45:21. > :45:30.spoke earlier, he made it clear that as far as residents and right to

:45:31. > :45:39.work and study that we should not wait. The noble Lords Cormack advise

:45:40. > :45:45.the government that it should lead by example and he has taken a clear

:45:46. > :45:50.and principled stance on this issue throughout, as have many noble Lords

:45:51. > :46:05.in this House, including Lord Hannay, and others. This is not a

:46:06. > :46:08.partisan issue, it is a question of principle. Doubtless the Minister

:46:09. > :46:14.will tell us that this bill is not the place to concern ourselves with

:46:15. > :46:18.such principles, but it is the only place. It is our one opportunity to

:46:19. > :46:23.send a clear signal go back to the elected House that we regard the

:46:24. > :46:27.principle of protecting the rights of EU citizens resident here and

:46:28. > :46:31.British citizens resident in the EU as a matter of honour for our

:46:32. > :46:35.country and in doing so to show that we have heard the distress and

:46:36. > :46:39.anxiety of millions of British and other EU citizens and that we have

:46:40. > :47:03.been prepared not just to offer warm words, but to act as well. Hear,

:47:04. > :47:08.hear! My Lords... My Lords, we do need to try and organise this debate

:47:09. > :47:15.so that we hear all sides of the argument and I hope noble Lords will

:47:16. > :47:22.understand if I then suggest a time limit. I think I should first of all

:47:23. > :47:26.in a manner that is not being followed by anybody else in this

:47:27. > :47:35.House today, declare my interest in this matter. I have first of all a

:47:36. > :47:42.nephew who has lived and worked in Germany for 20 years and I have a

:47:43. > :47:49.Danish son-in-law, who has lived in this country for over 30 years.

:47:50. > :48:00.Secondly, I would like to say from an extraordinary -- I would like to

:48:01. > :48:05.say it has been an extraordinary experience today. We have been

:48:06. > :48:13.denied the presence of Lord Heseltine who has not been admitted

:48:14. > :48:18.to speak to us. Perhaps he will do us the kind that is of addressing us

:48:19. > :48:28.because it is an almost unique experience. The other reason it is a

:48:29. > :48:33.remarkable day for me is that at a time when so often these days we

:48:34. > :48:39.hear slave traders criticised, and Lord Haber Shoreham has made the

:48:40. > :48:51.most splendid defence of them. That is he said that a man's decision

:48:52. > :48:58.should be made in accordance with the laws as they were when he took

:48:59. > :49:07.the decision. I hope we will hear a little bit less about students

:49:08. > :49:16.tiering down that Mac tearing down pictures of slave traders. It seems

:49:17. > :49:20.to me that the first duty of this Parliament of the United Kingdom is

:49:21. > :49:27.to care for the interests of the citizens of this kingdom. So if we

:49:28. > :49:38.are to be concerned about anybody's rights after

:49:39. > :49:46.Brexit to live anywhere, it should be the concerns of British people to

:49:47. > :49:54.live peacefully in other parts of Europe. Today we seem to be thinking

:49:55. > :50:05.of nothing but the rights of foreigners... My Lords. People of

:50:06. > :50:12.nationalities of other countries within the union of foreigners. I

:50:13. > :50:16.thank the noble Lord and I would like to asking him to protect the

:50:17. > :50:21.argument further about protecting the rights of UK citizens. What

:50:22. > :50:25.would he say to a UK citizen married to perhaps a German or Dutch

:50:26. > :50:34.national and now worried about the rights to remain and to work and to

:50:35. > :50:37.live in this country? That is exactly what the Prime Minister has

:50:38. > :50:48.said. That we would look for an equitable solution.

:50:49. > :50:57.They are not British subjects, but citizens of the EU. But so should

:50:58. > :51:05.the rights of British citizens living within the EU. That's not a

:51:06. > :51:08.difficult matter. Why is everybody here today so excited about an

:51:09. > :51:18.amendment which looks after the foreigners and not the British? I

:51:19. > :51:23.would like to point out that the reason the amendment is structured

:51:24. > :51:27.as it is is because we are conscious of the powers of the British

:51:28. > :51:30.government and the British government is able to determine the

:51:31. > :51:34.lives of the EU citizens resident in this country but were not able to

:51:35. > :51:38.determine the lives of our own citizens abroad, but that does not

:51:39. > :51:44.mean to say we think any less of them and we are fighting for them.

:51:45. > :51:50.Of course we don't have the power to look after our citizens overseas.

:51:51. > :52:01.Not in these days where we would don't have many gunboats, but we

:52:02. > :52:05.have an obligation to look after the rights of those people and to look

:52:06. > :52:12.after those rights first and I think that the best way in which we can in

:52:13. > :52:18.fact preserve the rights of all those concerned, EU citizens here,

:52:19. > :52:22.our citizens on the continent, is to allow the process of section 50 to

:52:23. > :52:28.be proceeded with as expeditiously as possible to get the worries over

:52:29. > :52:35.and for a decent and proper arrangement to be made. And I only

:52:36. > :52:45.wish that European statesman such as Mrs Merkel would come forward, maybe

:52:46. > :52:54.arm in arm with Mr Juncker to say what they are going to do. The web

:52:55. > :53:05.make life -- it would make life more difficult. It is the Labour Party's

:53:06. > :53:10.term. I suggest we hear from the noble Baroness Lady Kennedy. My

:53:11. > :53:17.Lords, I support this amendment and I also have my name on 16 eight with

:53:18. > :53:22.Lord Oates and 38. I just want to reiterate his points as the what the

:53:23. > :53:27.position was at the time of the referendum. During that campaign

:53:28. > :53:33.reassurance was given to EU nationals living here and to our

:53:34. > :53:37.citizens living abroad in the United, in the European Union, that

:53:38. > :53:40.the rights would be protected. We were told it will be done under

:53:41. > :53:49.international law of acquired rights. And so I chairing the

:53:50. > :53:52.European Union Justice subcommittee was able to hear from, with my

:53:53. > :54:00.colleagues on that committee, evidence as to what the law of

:54:01. > :54:05.international acquired rights was. What became clear, and it is the

:54:06. > :54:10.basis of the report, you will see it makes it clear that international

:54:11. > :54:15.law does not provide the kind of protections that were being given as

:54:16. > :54:21.a reassurance to those many, many people. What our committee embarked

:54:22. > :54:26.on was an evidence taken session which showed to ask really that the

:54:27. > :54:31.position with regard to European union nationals living here and our

:54:32. > :54:41.citizens living around Europe was that they were really going to be in

:54:42. > :54:47.in extraneous if we did not take steps to quickly secure the rights.

:54:48. > :54:51.3 million people live in this country and who are European Union

:54:52. > :54:56.nationals, but it is not just them experience anguish. It's also the

:54:57. > :55:03.family members, the employers, their neighbours. Indeed it affects a lot

:55:04. > :55:09.of people, well beyond the people themselves and I suspect that our

:55:10. > :55:13.committee is at the receiving end of the greatest number of

:55:14. > :55:17.communications from those people about their distress, the anxiety,

:55:18. > :55:22.the fears of the children and the fear is that they have as to the

:55:23. > :55:27.future. I don't want us to be living here thinking that it is only about

:55:28. > :55:31.3.5 million people and we are preoccupied as Lord Tebbit seems to

:55:32. > :55:35.think that would just be rights of people living here. We receive a

:55:36. > :55:39.huge mailbag from people living around Europe who are fearful about

:55:40. > :55:44.the pension positions, fearful because they retire to places like

:55:45. > :55:48.Spain and now wonder about what the prospects. Worried for their help

:55:49. > :55:52.the situation and so on. One we say that our position should be that we

:55:53. > :55:59.leave it to the great negotiation and it should be number one on the

:56:00. > :56:05.list, I do want to remind the noble primate that our Prime Minister did

:56:06. > :56:10.not go to Europe saying, we will give a unilateral declaration. She

:56:11. > :56:14.went saying she wanted a negotiation before the triggering of Article 50

:56:15. > :56:18.and that was not on the table because as we know negotiation only

:56:19. > :56:21.begins after that. What she should have been doing and what we would

:56:22. > :56:26.urge her to be doing is to say that we will take the principal position

:56:27. > :56:31.of honouring our responsibilities to those who are living and working

:56:32. > :56:34.with us because of the impact on their lives, the lives of their

:56:35. > :56:39.families and the lives of all the people around them. I want to just

:56:40. > :56:46.explain that what we discovered in taking evidence was that the

:56:47. > :56:51.position mentioned by Lord Owen, the law around permanent residence is

:56:52. > :56:57.incredibly complex and buy some time. In fact, Lord Justice Jackson

:56:58. > :57:02.described it as being such that its complexity would even have made by

:57:03. > :57:13.zan time emperors envious. All I can say to you -- Byzantine. All I can

:57:14. > :57:17.say is that we have had an impact on people making applications. We now

:57:18. > :57:22.know that in the last period since the referendum there has been the

:57:23. > :57:29.rejection of 20% of applications made for permanent residence and the

:57:30. > :57:34.refusals have been on the grounds that they have incomplete evidence,

:57:35. > :57:38.documentation, all, and this is one of the most painful things to hear

:57:39. > :57:43.about, is that women who took time off to have children, women who had

:57:44. > :57:49.time out of employment and who did not pursue this sickness benefit

:57:50. > :57:53.that they were required to, this private insurance that our

:57:54. > :57:55.government is saying required which is part of the documentation that

:57:56. > :58:01.they are supposed to supposed to provide to show that they have that

:58:02. > :58:06.sickness insurance, if they are not able to provide it, they are told

:58:07. > :58:13.they are not entitled to permanent residents. Many of them have

:58:14. > :58:18.received refusals on those grounds. These are the mothers of children

:58:19. > :58:22.married to men in Britain. They've been here some of them further 20

:58:23. > :58:27.years. We should understand the scandal that this is. I do want to

:58:28. > :58:31.say to people who have been involved in any kind of business negotiation

:58:32. > :58:36.or legal negotiation, when you take a principled position at the

:58:37. > :58:41.beginning a negotiation it wins you only so much goodwill. That is why

:58:42. > :58:44.in our communications only today and yesterday from those people in the

:58:45. > :58:48.European Union who are in contact with me as the chair of the

:58:49. > :58:52.subcommittee. What they are saying to us is, please pass this

:58:53. > :58:56.unilateral declaration amendment in the House of Lords because it's not

:58:57. > :58:59.just giving reassurance to those nationals there, but all of us in

:59:00. > :59:03.Europe who are careful about the future and who feel it will give

:59:04. > :59:12.strength to our arguments in relation to governments like the

:59:13. > :59:16.Spanish, Portuguese governments. This is a matter of principle. It is

:59:17. > :59:22.about the honour of this House. This is about speaking to what people

:59:23. > :59:26.need to put the fears and anguish at bay and we really have a

:59:27. > :59:30.responsibility to those people and intake of responsibility for the

:59:31. > :59:32.ones who we can make decisions about, we therefore take

:59:33. > :59:34.responsibility for our citizens living in other parts of the

:59:35. > :59:48.European Union. The Home Secretary... Thank you. My

:59:49. > :59:52.Lords act is not participate in the second reason is because they could

:59:53. > :59:56.not be present at the closing speeches but I have either sat

:59:57. > :00:01.through, watched over for the proceedings. Had I been present I

:00:02. > :00:05.would have spoken in support of the government taking the action which

:00:06. > :00:12.is urged in this amendment, to which I have added my name. Despite this

:00:13. > :00:15.afternoon, to which I have no regret so doing. Our attitude to this

:00:16. > :00:20.amendment will help define the kind of country that we want be. I have

:00:21. > :00:23.read very carefully the letter to your Lordships on my right

:00:24. > :00:28.honourable friend the Home Secretary, urging object meant the

:00:29. > :00:33.beat amendment and I do not likely disregard it, but I do not find the

:00:34. > :00:39.argument that we should only be prepared to confirm the rights of EU

:00:40. > :00:44.nationals living here as part of the negotiation of our own citizens

:00:45. > :00:53.acceptable. I think it is a misjudged position to except. I find

:00:54. > :00:59.it's neither justifiable or credible to prolong the uncertainty of EU

:01:00. > :01:04.nationals in this country. I wish we could remove the uncertainty of our

:01:05. > :01:10.nationals and other EU countries but that is not in our gift. Our stance

:01:11. > :01:19.on this matter implies that without a satisfactory outcome the rights of

:01:20. > :01:23.EU citizens here might not be safeguarded. If we may use the

:01:24. > :01:29.rights of EU citizens here as a bargaining tool in connection with

:01:30. > :01:37.UK citizens write why not some people think for other important

:01:38. > :01:40.issues. Cash Currie I do not believe to be credible, does anyone believe

:01:41. > :01:45.that we in the United Kingdom would actually deprived EU citizens of

:01:46. > :01:49.their rights. For that matter, do we believe that our current partners in

:01:50. > :01:53.the European Union would want to make our nationals can to do

:01:54. > :01:58.resident in our countries impossible, impactful... If we do

:01:59. > :02:05.believe that it says much about our attitude toward our partners and I

:02:06. > :02:07.suggest that we need to demonstrate greater trust, before we start

:02:08. > :02:15.British Asians we should write cheques are right the idea of some

:02:16. > :02:22.diplomatic but Pat. --- before we start negotiations. M but we are not

:02:23. > :02:27.dealing with aliens in war but people that came to our country with

:02:28. > :02:33.our consent. In 2003 the United Kingdom, together with other

:02:34. > :02:38.countries agreed not to impose transitional arrangements limiting

:02:39. > :02:41.free movement. That was a brave decision at the time which

:02:42. > :02:45.recognised the countries of Eastern Europe had waited a long time the

:02:46. > :02:49.freedom of membership. That act was passed in the other place with no

:02:50. > :02:56.votes against it. There were some discussions about as issue

:02:57. > :03:00.arrangements and likewise in this House some discussions but no votes.

:03:01. > :03:04.Although any transitional arrangements would by now have long

:03:05. > :03:11.expired, there is no doubt that in the United Kingdom that the United

:03:12. > :03:15.Kingdom and with this parliament offered an unconditional welcome

:03:16. > :03:18.which was an attraction to many. We felt, what is being described this

:03:19. > :03:23.afternoon that we have the moral high ground and I suggest again to

:03:24. > :03:26.my noble friend on the front bench that now is the time to take that

:03:27. > :03:32.high ground again and give certainty where there is no uncertainty and

:03:33. > :03:36.clearly state that we end United Kingdom do not bother with people.

:03:37. > :03:43.We have chosen to lead the European Union, that is our right. --- we do

:03:44. > :03:47.not bargain with people. We should also recognise that as a nation we

:03:48. > :03:51.have made it possible people from other countries to come here and

:03:52. > :03:57.build a new life. Let others give an assurance and show that we are the

:03:58. > :04:01.generous, upward looking, internationalist country that we are

:04:02. > :04:07.stated to be headed for these Brexit negotiations. Let others also not

:04:08. > :04:16.play a blame game with other leaders in Europe. I with great respect of

:04:17. > :04:21.those who spoke earlier do not read the Prime Minister's Lancaster house

:04:22. > :04:25.speech as an unconditional offer to settle the issue of EU nationals in

:04:26. > :04:37.this country. Within the words of that speech there was a deal, I

:04:38. > :04:42.think that was the word used, was in linked to a deal for EU nationals in

:04:43. > :04:52.Europe dashed UK nationals in Europe. I was made aware... If we

:04:53. > :04:56.except that we would not deprived EU citizens of their rights, what

:04:57. > :05:00.possible motive could we have the being so reluctant about the issue?

:05:01. > :05:05.I hope it is not because we think it would be seen as a sign of weakness

:05:06. > :05:11.on migration issues. It remains my preference to hear the Minister say

:05:12. > :05:16.that the government will make a statement that would meet the

:05:17. > :05:18.concerns of those who have put forward this amendment and other

:05:19. > :05:25.amendments in this group. If it cannot now or later then the matter

:05:26. > :05:32.has to be settled by division. For the Minister to take such a step

:05:33. > :05:37.would be preferable. There are many issues that have been raised with me

:05:38. > :05:41.and others that need clarification. Our amendment refers to EU citizens

:05:42. > :05:45.legally resident and I believe that that should cover people who are

:05:46. > :05:51.resident here under their treaty rights. It was referred in some

:05:52. > :05:55.length to Ali. I would ask the Minister to confirm that the

:05:56. > :06:00.government recognises the rights of those EU sits and he may just be

:06:01. > :06:03.family members living with EU citizens who has a permanent

:06:04. > :06:08.residence certificate. To vote for this amendment is not delay the

:06:09. > :06:12.Bill, to thwart the outcome of the referendum, to deny the will of the

:06:13. > :06:17.other place, it is a simple request to look at the very serious issue

:06:18. > :06:22.and indeed, where we to do so, we would be in line with the

:06:23. > :06:27.recommendations of the your lordship's European Union committee

:06:28. > :06:32.on this solution. Plenty of time for it to go back to the opposing come

:06:33. > :06:35.back here. I have my noble friend on the front bench will understand Fifa

:06:36. > :06:45.one do not want to be associated with a position which appears mean

:06:46. > :06:56.and does no credit. --- that I for one. The future of UK nationals may

:06:57. > :06:59.well be top of the list, but we could commence those negotiations

:07:00. > :07:05.saying that we have already done the proper thing by your nationals. It

:07:06. > :07:12.could even assist in creating a good client met in which to start our

:07:13. > :07:16.talks. --- a good climate. We want a relationship with Europe and there

:07:17. > :07:20.are many things we want for our partnerships in the future. To open

:07:21. > :07:27.the talks with a generous gesture freely given would not be a bad

:07:28. > :07:32.start. Motion is understandably one high on this issue both here and on

:07:33. > :07:38.the continent. --- emotions. As a long-time resident on the continent

:07:39. > :07:44.and after a lot of soul-searching over the weekend, including

:07:45. > :07:48.consultation with multiple UK residents organisations who are

:07:49. > :07:55.consistent with their messaging that they project. I see, however the

:07:56. > :08:06.only cause of action is to allow the government a clear run on these

:08:07. > :08:12.negotiations. There are a lot of issues at play this afternoon. Some

:08:13. > :08:19.of which belong elsewhere. Matters such as, concerns to meet with dire

:08:20. > :08:29.needs of our health service should be parked as being another subject

:08:30. > :08:33.for another day. Other regrettable circumstances including families

:08:34. > :08:37.with children facing the stock reality of enforced separation or

:08:38. > :08:48.worse having split up, should also be set aside, because of works of

:08:49. > :08:55.not meeting... Let those needs be indeed recognisable tag the

:08:56. > :08:58.resolution to the immigration not any other appropriate act. There is

:08:59. > :09:04.no guarantee that should EU citizens be offered the right to remain in UK

:09:05. > :09:10.that the UK citizens rights to remain on the continent be secure.

:09:11. > :09:16.It could be argued by Brussels, that the needs of the UK to propose this

:09:17. > :09:23.are more pressing than those of the 27 remaining. This is where I

:09:24. > :09:31.believe there is a... The Minister will be aware of this and addresses

:09:32. > :09:36.the point that the noble and learned Lord wished for, any fact of

:09:37. > :09:40.perception, eight member states have thus far failed to notify the

:09:41. > :09:44.commission of complete transformation into their national

:09:45. > :09:50.legislation of the citizens rights directive enabling working by

:09:51. > :09:58.citizens in another member state. Failure to react to this formal

:09:59. > :10:04.notice and their recent reason opinion will be referred to the ECJ

:10:05. > :10:07.within two months. This does not help the cause behind these

:10:08. > :10:18.amendments. Beware of the small print. After the trigger, however,

:10:19. > :10:24.what government could agree with Brussels is an across the EU process

:10:25. > :10:27.of removing a first stage of uncertainty by announcing, for those

:10:28. > :10:34.that are compliant with national residency rules, good to remain. A

:10:35. > :10:40.limited grace period for compliance by others could then be agreed by

:10:41. > :10:44.mutual consent. I see as the only practical way forward is to

:10:45. > :10:50.establish red lines on the criteria of rights to remain. Two sets of

:10:51. > :11:01.issues with entertainment from the line in the sand could be drawn.

:11:02. > :11:06.First, one of two dates are relevant, the date of the referendum

:11:07. > :11:11.on the date of leaving the EU. Secondly, there are two sets of

:11:12. > :11:21.persons those that are compliant with the regulations... To beat

:11:22. > :11:26.complied with bilateral packs treaty concerns, taking into account

:11:27. > :11:37.primarily residents status is, to be paying national security, National

:11:38. > :11:43.social security and national taxes is required, conversion of drivers

:11:44. > :11:47.license and so on. In other words, visible evidence of intent. Comply

:11:48. > :11:51.with these then you should be afforded the rights of equal

:11:52. > :11:59.treatment of as nationals in the country that you are living in at

:12:00. > :12:14.including help green health care. --- including health care. I will

:12:15. > :12:17.therefore not be supporting the series of amendments which I

:12:18. > :12:23.considered would complicate the process of exiting the EU with a

:12:24. > :12:30.probable failure to be delivered on a reasonable time period leading to

:12:31. > :12:40.a hard Brexit. Statement of the UK... Sorry. My Lords, amendment 25

:12:41. > :12:45.is one which I have taken on behalf of the joint committee on human

:12:46. > :12:54.rights which I am a member, and it is also supported by other Lords and

:12:55. > :13:01.Baroness is, in evidence early I will speak a little to of amendment

:13:02. > :13:06.in this group but I do assure Nobel Lords that I have crossed out quite

:13:07. > :13:11.a lot of the speech that I arrived with early this afternoon. Of course

:13:12. > :13:16.I am aware of the statements made by ministers, recently by the Home

:13:17. > :13:21.Secretary's letter noble Lords, but none these amount is to an

:13:22. > :13:27.acknowledgement of rights and I stress, right. This was where we

:13:28. > :13:37.almost dotted with the second speech this afternoon. --- where we almost

:13:38. > :13:43.started. There has been a report, largely on the basis of the European

:13:44. > :13:48.Convention on human rights, in the spirit of the committee's very

:13:49. > :13:54.moderate amendment, and unlike others in this room can I assure

:13:55. > :14:01.that our amendment does not amount to an attempt to delay or to

:14:02. > :14:05.frustrate leaving the yield. I am puzzled about the logic of the

:14:06. > :14:10.government being committed to assurances while at the same time

:14:11. > :14:17.saying that nothing can be settled now. It seems to me that the latter

:14:18. > :14:22.must call the former into question. Noble Lords have talked about how

:14:23. > :14:26.offensive it is to treat people as commodities, but even if this were

:14:27. > :14:38.appropriate how useful would this be as a bargaining chip. --- chip?

:14:39. > :14:42.Ministers are saying that we have their assurances that this is a

:14:43. > :14:48.priority. A bargaining chip without any negotiating advantage, because

:14:49. > :14:55.we have acknowledged its priority. Have we downgraded other issues? I

:14:56. > :15:00.leave these as questions hanging. It is said, of course, a unilateral

:15:01. > :15:05.arrangement makes no sense, could I put a different view to your

:15:06. > :15:11.Lordships? Even at the cold, an emotional level of negotiation, I

:15:12. > :15:20.believe it doors. A goodwill gesture, and mole gesture, can be a

:15:21. > :15:31.very effective negotiating tool in itself. Bash in mould gesture. I

:15:32. > :15:38.don't have an impression level of... I have found it can be effective.

:15:39. > :15:43.--- a moral gesture. Putting the responsibility on other states by

:15:44. > :15:49.saying that they... There was no technical reason why there cannot be

:15:50. > :15:53.a unilateral position and of course UK citizens in other European states

:15:54. > :16:00.have the same, all if you like mirror image rights, so the scope of

:16:01. > :16:04.negotiation actually maybe a little bit limited. I cannot help thinking

:16:05. > :16:09.as well but given the age of the many UK citizens abroad,

:16:10. > :16:13.particularly in Spain, if they were ten at the same time as we lose or

:16:14. > :16:17.perhaps send away so many people working in our health service, we

:16:18. > :16:21.will be shooting ourselves in both beat.

:16:22. > :16:29.It is not the best reason that there are practical reasons as well. If

:16:30. > :16:34.some such provisions are not embedded, the burden on the Home

:16:35. > :16:38.Office or dealing with large numbers of applicants seeking to establish

:16:39. > :16:46.the position, and on the courts called on to apply article eight of

:16:47. > :16:49.the convention, these would be enormous I don't want to start on

:16:50. > :16:56.considering what will be the logical step of deportation. We prefer to

:16:57. > :17:04.morality as well as rights. The guarantee is simply the right thing

:17:05. > :17:07.to do. Although I am disciplining myself from repeating what other

:17:08. > :17:11.noble Lords have said about the representations made to us, I want

:17:12. > :17:16.to take this opportunity of thanking the enormous numbers of people who

:17:17. > :17:26.have e-mailed us, very personally, very individually in a very

:17:27. > :17:29.heartfelt way. The noble Lord said there are no new facts. I don't

:17:30. > :17:38.think he could argue that there is not an increasing weight of

:17:39. > :17:43.evidence. There is one cohort that I would like to mention and those are

:17:44. > :17:50.people who are vulnerable to exploitation. Perhaps not hugely

:17:51. > :17:56.competent, often in the agriculture, construction and care industries.

:17:57. > :17:59.There is evidence now that unscrupulous employers are taking

:18:00. > :18:07.advantage of their readiness to believe it when they are told, you

:18:08. > :18:11.are illegal. There is no such thing. We have heard many times, don't tell

:18:12. > :18:16.the other side your bottom line, don't put your cards on the table. I

:18:17. > :18:23.think this card is on the table, so that argument falls away. This House

:18:24. > :18:28.should demonstrate it is with those that want the nation to be a nation

:18:29. > :18:39.that understands common humanity and dare I say it, human rights.

:18:40. > :18:45.My Lords, I rise to speak in support of amendment 25 to which I have

:18:46. > :18:51.added my name and in general support of the amendments in this group. In

:18:52. > :18:58.doing so, and like the noble Lord Lord Tebbit, I declare my interest

:18:59. > :19:03.as chair of Kings College Hospital, chair of Peabody and chair of the

:19:04. > :19:08.local Government Association. This may be the only points of similarity

:19:09. > :19:13.in our speeches. My views of course are my own and not those of the

:19:14. > :19:16.organisations. My Lords, I should start by saying that this is a

:19:17. > :19:23.difficult judgment for us to make and it will be one of many that we

:19:24. > :19:28.face over the coming years. I have, like other noble Lords, read very

:19:29. > :19:33.carefully the Home Secretary boss Pat letter, much of which I

:19:34. > :19:37.absolutely sympathise with, and reflected on the issues overnight.

:19:38. > :19:41.Having reflected, Isil, firmly down on the side of supporting an

:19:42. > :19:48.amendment to protect the rights of EU citizens in this country. The

:19:49. > :19:52.arguments for this are both principles and deeply practical. The

:19:53. > :19:57.principled arguments have already been well made today, so I will not

:19:58. > :20:02.repeat them. Over 3 million EU citizens have come to this country

:20:03. > :20:06.in good faith. Many have made it their home and in doing so

:20:07. > :20:14.contributed enormously to the good of this country. I doubt if there

:20:15. > :20:18.are very many peers in this House or many people in the country who would

:20:19. > :20:24.actively want them to leave. In fact the only argument we have heard put

:20:25. > :20:28.forward by the Home Secretary in her letter for not confirming the

:20:29. > :20:34.position now is that it would weaken our hand in the negotiation over EU

:20:35. > :20:39.citizens in Europe. Whichever way you dress up that argument,

:20:40. > :20:47.whichever way you think about that argument, it is using the rights of

:20:48. > :20:52.my view it is not even a very good my view it is not even a very good

:20:53. > :21:01.bargaining chip because it is perfectly clear to negotiators that

:21:02. > :21:09.we need them to stay as much, if not more than they wish to do so. The

:21:10. > :21:13.negotiation amounts to saying, do as we wish, or we will shoot our own

:21:14. > :21:18.fault off. I think the EU negotiators will see through that.

:21:19. > :21:23.My practical reason for supporting this amendment is that for our own

:21:24. > :21:29.sakes we need to end the uncertainty for EU citizens now. The government

:21:30. > :21:34.have said that we can debate this issue at a later stage. They have

:21:35. > :21:41.said that they will seek to reach an early agreement with the EU and I

:21:42. > :21:45.have no doubt whatsoever about the sincerity on this point, but the

:21:46. > :21:56.hard truth is that only resolution is not in the gift. In the meantime

:21:57. > :22:00.the uncertainty creates risks for a desperately needed skilled staff

:22:01. > :22:05.with the devastating consequences. Let me just give you three. For the

:22:06. > :22:10.building of new homes, which I am absolutely passionate about, we know

:22:11. > :22:17.that something like a quarter of construction workers in London, from

:22:18. > :22:23.the EU. For the effective operation of our hospitals, I know that Kings

:22:24. > :22:26.would not simply be able to function without European doctors and nurses

:22:27. > :22:32.that work for us. For the delivery of social care, EU workers form a

:22:33. > :22:38.vital part of the residential and home care provider workforce.

:22:39. > :22:43.Without these skilled workers, it will simply be impossible to run

:22:44. > :22:48.these functions properly and they are not possible to be replaced in

:22:49. > :22:53.the short-term. Map it may be, my Lords, that they will continue to

:22:54. > :22:57.stay here, but the survey that we saw in the Guardian today on

:22:58. > :23:03.European doctors I think immediately puts that in doubt. It may be that

:23:04. > :23:07.only resolution with the EU is possible. I have to say from my own

:23:08. > :23:12.conversations with those closer to the process that I am doubtful of

:23:13. > :23:17.this, but in the end, my Lords, the key question for me is this. Given

:23:18. > :23:22.the potentially devastating consequences for all the things I

:23:23. > :23:28.hold dear, new homes, functioning NHS, delivery of good quality care,

:23:29. > :23:36.do I think that this is a risk worth taking? My Lords, I do not.

:23:37. > :23:42.Sometimes in life, in fact very often in life, the right thing to do

:23:43. > :23:57.is to do the right thing. I hope today that we do the right thing. I

:23:58. > :24:05.shall be very brief. I shall be very brief. My Lords, I think it will be

:24:06. > :24:10.appropriate to hear from Lord Lawson and then from the Labour benches.

:24:11. > :24:18.Thank you. I will be very brief indeed. I will stop by declaring an

:24:19. > :24:24.interest, and even more personal interest than that declared by Lord

:24:25. > :24:30.Tebbit. My home is in France. Despite that I have gone on record

:24:31. > :24:32.in this House on a number of occasions, and elsewhere, and said

:24:33. > :24:40.that I would like to see the government give an unconditional

:24:41. > :24:47.assurance that EU citizens in this country legally here with the right

:24:48. > :24:53.to remain. That there should be no question about the rights being

:24:54. > :24:58.taken away. I believe the idea of somehow linking it with the position

:24:59. > :25:05.of the joo citizens resident in the European Union was well intentioned

:25:06. > :25:12.in order to reassure those, but mistaken. Nevertheless I cannot

:25:13. > :25:17.agree with this amendment. Partly a fundamentally for the reasons so

:25:18. > :25:24.well set up by the Right Reverend pride that the Archbishop of York.

:25:25. > :25:30.This amendment has no place in this building whatsoever. Secondly, the

:25:31. > :25:33.Home Secretary's letter has been referred to. One of the things that

:25:34. > :25:40.the Home Secretary said, perhaps the most important was that nothing will

:25:41. > :25:44.change for any EU citizens, whether already resident in the UK or moving

:25:45. > :25:51.from the EU without Parliament's approval. It is quite clear to

:25:52. > :25:55.everyone in this House that there is no chance that Parliament would

:25:56. > :26:01.approve the expulsion of EU citizens legally resident in this country. No

:26:02. > :26:04.way. This is understood by the government. There is no way the

:26:05. > :26:10.government proposes this, so there is no danger what ever to EU

:26:11. > :26:14.citizens resident in the UK. So apart from a certain amount, too

:26:15. > :26:24.much I would say my personal opinion, of... What is the purpose

:26:25. > :26:32.of the amendment? The only consequence of this amendment will

:26:33. > :26:37.be to stir up fear and concern among the EU residents in this country,

:26:38. > :26:41.that they may not be able to stay when there is no question they will

:26:42. > :27:07.be able to and that is something I find wholly deplorable. My Lords...

:27:08. > :27:22.My Lords. My Lords, my lords. I wanted to address myself to the

:27:23. > :27:26.remarks from the right Reverend primates. I do so declaring my

:27:27. > :27:31.interest as a member of the Church of England on a regular churchgoer.

:27:32. > :27:40.My Lords, the noble Lord seemed to base his argument on two points. The

:27:41. > :27:46.first was that the EU would agree to prioritise this issue above all

:27:47. > :27:53.things and not to make it dependent on other parts of the negotiation.

:27:54. > :27:57.That is the Prime Minister's view, but I don't know that that

:27:58. > :28:11.prioritisation will be recognised by the EU, and as for not making it

:28:12. > :28:17.dependent on other issues, I have negotiated and I know that nothing

:28:18. > :28:33.is negotiated until it is all negotiated. The other point is that

:28:34. > :28:38.somehow there would be a recognition that reciprocity would be guaranteed

:28:39. > :28:45.on this issue. My Lords, again, reciprocity is not necessarily going

:28:46. > :28:50.to be guaranteed at all. It brings us really to the point that the

:28:51. > :28:55.noble loads made that said there should be equality of treatment on

:28:56. > :29:02.all sides. Well, just supposing there isn't? Just supposing the EU

:29:03. > :29:08.negotiators say something different? All our debate has been based on the

:29:09. > :29:13.premise that somehow we will get what want in the end because there

:29:14. > :29:17.will be reciprocity, but supposing there isn't? Will we really at that

:29:18. > :29:22.point turnaround to EU nationals in this country and said, on your way?

:29:23. > :29:27.Will we say, take your children out of the schools? Will we say to the

:29:28. > :29:33.elderly, please go away from our care homes? My Lords, this idea of

:29:34. > :29:37.it as a negotiating point which I agree it is being used as is totally

:29:38. > :29:44.unrealistic and totally unacceptable. The Home Secretary

:29:45. > :29:52.said in her letter to your Lordships, this is less a matter of

:29:53. > :29:55.principle than one of timing. I rather like and respect the Home

:29:56. > :30:01.Secretary, but I have to say on this I disagree with her heartedly. This

:30:02. > :30:05.is a matter of principle. It is a simple matter of principle of being

:30:06. > :30:10.prepared to do the right thing because it is the right thing and

:30:11. > :30:14.being prepared to say so and that is what I hope these benches and

:30:15. > :30:19.members on all sides of the House, not all members, but members on all

:30:20. > :30:20.sides of the House, including the bishop's bench, will be prepared to

:30:21. > :30:30.do when it My Lords, I have the misfortune to

:30:31. > :30:38.disagree with the conclusions we just buy the noble and learned Lord

:30:39. > :30:42.Elia. Perhaps, agreeing with him about the disregard we should have

:30:43. > :30:47.got anything said by Doctor Liam Fox. Dashed the noble and learned

:30:48. > :30:51.Lord if you spoke earlier. I take some consolation from the fact that

:30:52. > :30:57.I wholly agree with the compelling speech made at the outside of this

:30:58. > :31:02.debate. Dashed the outset. They do not need to trouble the House but

:31:03. > :31:06.very long. At the second reading I addressed this issue to a very long

:31:07. > :31:12.spent. Nothing outside today persuade me that it is anything

:31:13. > :31:15.other than persuasive that the consequences for the economy and so

:31:16. > :31:24.many of the services in the United Kingdom as a result of those

:31:25. > :31:28.non-British EU nationals who work in these industries and services no

:31:29. > :31:36.longer being available, would be catastrophic. They also look we all

:31:37. > :31:43.from the notion that we should say to husbands, wives, mothers or

:31:44. > :31:48.fathers. --- I also book ordeal. The UK citizens that you should leave

:31:49. > :31:56.the United Kingdom. I even mortal coil at the notion that where we to

:31:57. > :32:00.be in the situation of expelling people that would be knocking on

:32:01. > :32:05.doors at midnight or midday saying that they must leave the United

:32:06. > :32:08.Kingdom. Let's look at this from the point of view of families, what sort

:32:09. > :32:13.of stress and strain with that put on a family and indeed what sort of

:32:14. > :32:21.apprehension as that already caused in many families? It is said that

:32:22. > :32:24.there are no new facts, well if the mounting volume of anecdotal

:32:25. > :32:28.evidence of anxiety on the part of those who might be struck at is a

:32:29. > :32:32.result of them not being an amendment of the kind we seek to

:32:33. > :32:39.pass today being in forced is exemplified day after day. In The

:32:40. > :32:43.Guardian it mentioned a little while ago a compelling article there about

:32:44. > :32:49.a family which is already deciding to go, because the lack of a

:32:50. > :32:59.satisfactory understanding has become too much. There is a further

:33:00. > :33:04.new fact and that is the Beatitudes of Mr David Davies who said earlier

:33:05. > :33:11.that it would be years and years before the UK citizens would be able

:33:12. > :33:16.to take over those jobs which are being fulfilled by non-British EU

:33:17. > :33:22.citizens. Dashed Beatitudes of Mr David Davies. What will happen in

:33:23. > :33:25.the interim? And if you are in the capacity of a non-British EU citizen

:33:26. > :33:31.working in a hostel but you know that the long-term dependence upon

:33:32. > :33:36.whether or not and British citizens can be found to take over the job

:33:37. > :33:44.you are doing, then what kind of compulsion does that create in

:33:45. > :33:49.wanting to stay? Because, ultimately the services you provide will be

:33:50. > :33:54.disregarded. I just want to go back to the question of the assurance of

:33:55. > :33:58.the Home Secretary, I've tried to put myself in the position of those

:33:59. > :34:04.about whom we have been concerned in the cause of this debate, I do not

:34:05. > :34:09.doubt that the assurance of the Home Secretary has been given in good

:34:10. > :34:15.faith, but I rather believe in belt and braces, I would rather have that

:34:16. > :34:20.on the statute then depending on the decision of the Home Secretary, but

:34:21. > :34:31.who in five years' time may no longer be in office. Yes... I am

:34:32. > :34:36.most grateful, but the point you just made you would rather have this

:34:37. > :34:41.menu on the statute, I do not is green know if it has occurred to you

:34:42. > :34:46.but the other house will decide that they already voted against it. Can I

:34:47. > :34:50.just ask you as a very distinguished lawyer at this amendment refers to

:34:51. > :34:55.people who are legally resident, I cannot find any definition of what

:34:56. > :35:02.legally resident means, Suta which groups is he referring to? Justice

:35:03. > :35:09.Brexit means Brexit legally resident means legally resident.

:35:10. > :35:17.LAUGHTER Well done, well done! We might have to take the expect

:35:18. > :35:21.opinion, but I fancied the courts can reach a conclusion for him. What

:35:22. > :35:28.I was saying was that I have endeavoured to put myself in the

:35:29. > :35:31.same position as those who found themselves think she's an

:35:32. > :35:34.apprehensive, and where I in that position I would be more concerned

:35:35. > :35:43.to have a statutory right than a political assurance. May I finish...

:35:44. > :35:47.No doubt the noble Lord will try and intervene at another stage in this

:35:48. > :35:56.characteristically generous attitude towards the Liberal Democrats.

:35:57. > :36:00.LAUGHTER The noble Lord Viscount Hill Shimbun fared at the outset to

:36:01. > :36:06.the legal implications of what we were discussing, and he is perfectly

:36:07. > :36:11.right because there may well be Convention rights and it is also the

:36:12. > :36:16.case that Parliament and indeed even more so the courts has often been

:36:17. > :36:21.very reluctant to pass legislation with retrospective effect, indeed to

:36:22. > :36:30.my wreck aggression the only times that it has been done recently. --

:36:31. > :36:39.recollection. Has been in relation to former Nat C war criminals. -- in

:36:40. > :36:49.relation to former Nat C war criminals. This is surely an

:36:50. > :36:51.indication of just how complicated any explosive green expulsion might

:36:52. > :37:04.be and how ineffective the portion might be. I in deed I would

:37:05. > :37:08.venture to guess that people would get a successful outcome of any

:37:09. > :37:15.effort at judicial review. That is then said already that this is the

:37:16. > :37:19.right thing to do, my lords I doubted anyone's mind has been

:37:20. > :37:25.changed to any extent by today's debate, my mind at least still

:37:26. > :37:33.thinks it is the right thing to do and I shall vote for it. The Home

:37:34. > :37:45.Secretary in her letter sat... My Lords! My Lords, I have suggested

:37:46. > :37:54.that we hear from Lord Greene, we will have a chance to hear from Lord

:37:55. > :38:01.per, in future. --- Lord car. My Lords... I rise to speak to my

:38:02. > :38:06.amendment number 40 and to comment on the amendment nine B which is the

:38:07. > :38:11.main focus of the discussion, today. My end amendment had a clear and

:38:12. > :38:23.simple purpose mainly to place British citizens in the AEE Sarri

:38:24. > :38:27.you are on an equal footing. And I am puzzled to suggest that

:38:28. > :38:32.abandoning a million of our citizens in the EU is the moral high ground.

:38:33. > :38:39.I was much encouraged to hear from the noble and learned Lord who dealt

:38:40. > :38:44.proper effectively with that argument. My Lords, I put it to you

:38:45. > :38:51.that the nature of the problem that we face has been widely

:38:52. > :38:54.misunderstood. What in effect we are considering here is permanent

:38:55. > :39:02.residents and we are considering it for three different categories, for

:39:03. > :39:05.those who have already been here for five years exercising their treaty

:39:06. > :39:10.rights, they will have required an automatic right to residents under

:39:11. > :39:15.EU law, it is simply not in doubt, they are sorted, the question is how

:39:16. > :39:19.to identify them and they will have to have their cases considered and

:39:20. > :39:23.this can be done no other way and they will then be granted

:39:24. > :39:28.indefinitely to remain, that got another problem. Second, there are

:39:29. > :39:35.those who will be arriving in the next two years before we leave, but

:39:36. > :39:39.to grant them automatic right to permanent residents would be to risk

:39:40. > :39:49.a large inflow of people from Eastern Europe before the date came

:39:50. > :39:53.by. Third, probably the more tricky category, those who have arrived to

:39:54. > :39:56.live here the last three years, so they will not have required the five

:39:57. > :40:04.years that they need, so they will have to do was sit there will have

:40:05. > :40:08.to be a decision. At but, I note that if that decision goes in their

:40:09. > :40:14.favour, and judging by the mood in this House today it is likely to,

:40:15. > :40:19.some 85% of EU citizens currently in the UK will qualify for permanent

:40:20. > :40:25.residence. I think when we are talking about this we should offer

:40:26. > :40:36.that reassurance, if you like, to the usage since you are here. Dashed

:40:37. > :40:39.to the AEE citizens. -- to the EU citizens that are here. It has been

:40:40. > :40:44.suggested that we cannot build the houses we need with out workers from

:40:45. > :40:49.the EU. That may well be true but there will be nothing to stop them

:40:50. > :40:53.coming here to work on a work permit, but without the automatic

:40:54. > :40:58.grant of permanent residents, that is too confused to issues. Certainly

:40:59. > :41:01.we need their work, and the help and they are welcome, but permanent

:41:02. > :41:05.residents will become a different matter. Any suggestion that we

:41:06. > :41:11.should use the fate of EU citizens in the UK as some kind of bargaining

:41:12. > :41:18.chip is absolutely wrong in principle and in practice. I think

:41:19. > :41:22.that everyone here is agreed that it's only effect would be to sour a

:41:23. > :41:28.very important negotiation. No, should be on the other hand simply

:41:29. > :41:31.put aside the vital interests of the money of our own suggestions, and it

:41:32. > :41:35.has been recognised a think by the noble Baroness in the front bench

:41:36. > :41:39.there that it will be a long time before the status of British

:41:40. > :41:45.citizens in the European Union is sorted by the 27 countries in which

:41:46. > :41:52.they reside. So, I would suggest, therefore, that what we need is to

:41:53. > :41:57.have a careful review together with our former partners and find a way

:41:58. > :42:01.forward to each of the many aspects of this problem, is taken very

:42:02. > :42:08.obvious and very important issue, health, the solution may very well

:42:09. > :42:13.be to extend the current system, the health care system, for another five

:42:14. > :42:16.or ten years, but as of today, before the negotiations start we

:42:17. > :42:20.have no idea whether that will run or not, so we have to be there

:42:21. > :42:26.around the table with them to see what will be a sensible way forward.

:42:27. > :42:35.Sadly, amendment nine be completely disregards the position of British

:42:36. > :42:41.its sins in the EU. -- British citizens in the EU. I suggest, in

:42:42. > :42:45.the real world if negotiating partners are assured in advance that

:42:46. > :42:48.the requirements of that incidences will be satisfied, it is inevitable

:42:49. > :42:53.that the issues relating to British citizens in that countries will slip

:42:54. > :42:59.down the agenda which is already long and complicated. It has been

:43:00. > :43:04.claimed that such the unilateral guaranty will set the right tone the

:43:05. > :43:12.negotiations, the government have audio off the bat and did not work,

:43:13. > :43:16.did it? Was turned down flat. Dashed the government have already offered

:43:17. > :43:21.that. It seemed to me that that is not the way forward. There is a fine

:43:22. > :43:25.judgment there, and I think we have to be aware that the judgment is a

:43:26. > :43:35.fine one and that the interests of a million British its sins are in the

:43:36. > :43:38.balance. Dashed citizens. --1 million British citizens. I leave it

:43:39. > :43:38.there and I think that the two matters should be considered

:43:39. > :44:12.together. My Lords, I want to first indicate

:44:13. > :44:16.that I... My Lords, it is that the Conservative turn. I want to declare

:44:17. > :44:21.that I was not able to be present at the second reading, but I have

:44:22. > :44:25.actually, like other Lords in the House, read the entire Hansard

:44:26. > :44:31.script of all the speeches made on that occasion, but like many Lords,

:44:32. > :44:37.and as a remain are all what we want to call me traditionally, I will

:44:38. > :44:47.probably have referred never to be in this situation, but as we are, I

:44:48. > :44:56.former UK Immigration Minister, former UK Immigration Minister,

:44:57. > :45:01.working under Lord Howard. I also agree with my fellow Yorkshire

:45:02. > :45:11.resident, the most Reverend primates who has spoken before. I believe, as

:45:12. > :45:14.does the government, that we need to have sensible arrangements in place

:45:15. > :45:21.to secure the position of citizens both from the EU and the UK and

:45:22. > :45:25.those who have left the UK for EU destinations. In acknowledging the

:45:26. > :45:31.role of the noble Lord Kerr, who was our Secretary General on the

:45:32. > :45:40.convention of the future of Europe in 2002 - 2003, I was a member of

:45:41. > :45:44.the convention and took a particular interest in the article actually

:45:45. > :45:48.attempting to amend it to add some political aims relating to future

:45:49. > :45:56.trade arrangements of any country that decided to leave the EU later.

:45:57. > :46:00.The amendment, like others, failed because the convention did not

:46:01. > :46:04.favour such a amendments, as we were reminded them and I think of

:46:05. > :46:10.rightfully being reminded now. The article was designed to be a

:46:11. > :46:13.process, not a manifesto. The process to enable a state to legally

:46:14. > :46:23.and honourably leave the EU. Before the Treaty of Lisbon, it was against

:46:24. > :46:28.international law to leave. Article 50 was never designed to be anything

:46:29. > :46:33.more than a technical process in a limited form, so pursuing aims,

:46:34. > :46:37.these wider ends that are now being pursued in these amendments and to

:46:38. > :46:41.my mind that is inappropriate. We all agree EU citizens in this

:46:42. > :46:52.country should be treated fairly and respectfully and I know we are, all

:46:53. > :47:01.of us, O most of them -- owed them a debt of gratitude. As the government

:47:02. > :47:04.has said, preliminary discussions have taken place. It is not really

:47:05. > :47:09.the will of the government that they were not able to go further and

:47:10. > :47:14.indeed the government is determined to achieve its ends in relation to

:47:15. > :47:18.fairness as far as the EU citizens are concerned. Ultimately I do

:47:19. > :47:22.believe that these issues might well be reflected later in an immigration

:47:23. > :47:26.bill that might follow the great repeal bill which itself might not

:47:27. > :47:33.be the right vehicle to deal with these matters. But in the meantime,

:47:34. > :47:37.my Lords, no one's rights are affected. No one's rights are going

:47:38. > :47:45.to be deteriorated. No threats have been made by anybody and some noble

:47:46. > :47:49.Lords saying that these threats are being made, OK, some newspapers

:47:50. > :47:53.might do so, but in truth there is nothing as far as this government is

:47:54. > :47:57.concerned that is in any way concerned that is in any way

:47:58. > :47:59.threatening the present status. As a former Immigration Minister I've

:48:00. > :48:03.always believed the key to any arrangements relating to those who

:48:04. > :48:12.wish to live and work in the UK and our citizens who wish to do the same

:48:13. > :48:18.elsewhere must depend on reciprocity. The word was referred

:48:19. > :48:21.to earlier by a noble lady. There is nothing negative about reciprocity.

:48:22. > :48:28.All the agreements we enter into four good for this country and its

:48:29. > :48:33.citizens depend on reciprocity. Our European neighbours are well aware

:48:34. > :48:38.of that, are positively inclined to that approach. So, my Lords, as far

:48:39. > :48:42.as I can see, though there is a lot of sensitivity and a lot of passion,

:48:43. > :48:51.these amendments in this context and for this bill are inappropriate and

:48:52. > :48:59.in my submission, illogical. I rise to speak in support of amendment 9B

:49:00. > :49:04.and in doing so speak to my own amendment 42, which is a very

:49:05. > :49:10.limited amendments, but one that I moved quite deliberately because I

:49:11. > :49:14.thought it exemplified much more of the wider debate and I think there

:49:15. > :49:19.have been some very fine speeches in the course of this debate and I will

:49:20. > :49:25.be very brief and I will not repeat the ground that has been so clearly

:49:26. > :49:34.covered. But I believe, and what I argue is that at least, or the least

:49:35. > :49:39.we can do is to offer the 60,000 individuals who work in our national

:49:40. > :49:44.health service the right to remain in this country. I do so for a

:49:45. > :49:52.number of reasons. The first is that I believe that our national Health

:49:53. > :49:58.Service is unique in Europe and indeed is something that we need to

:49:59. > :50:05.fight for and which is under threat at the moment. It's under threat

:50:06. > :50:12.because of the shortage of Labour. It's under threat, the OECD said, we

:50:13. > :50:17.need an extra 20,000 doctors, an extra 47,000 nurses just to bring us

:50:18. > :50:25.up to the European standards. And yet we depend currently on 10% of

:50:26. > :50:33.our doctors from the European Union and 5% of our nurses. As the noble

:50:34. > :50:39.Lord said, we actually are not in a very good negotiating position when

:50:40. > :50:45.we are negotiating for our interests. Many of these people are

:50:46. > :50:52.more use in their own countries the European Union might say them they

:50:53. > :50:56.are in propping up our national Health Service. I have one question

:50:57. > :51:04.I would like to ask the Minister before I make my two main points.

:51:05. > :51:10.Lord Greene said 85% of the European Union citizens would have the rights

:51:11. > :51:17.of permanent residency. Well, one we had a series of questions on this

:51:18. > :51:22.issue within the last month in this House, it was pointed out that

:51:23. > :51:32.European citizens in this country who'd worked for five years had a

:51:33. > :51:37.right for permanent residency. But the Minister, Lady Williams, was not

:51:38. > :51:43.able to give us an assurance that permanent meant permanent and that's

:51:44. > :51:48.when we leave the European Union, it was indicated to us that in fact

:51:49. > :51:54.that permanency would no longer be permanent. Can the Minister perhaps

:51:55. > :52:02.confirmed to us... I will give way in minutes. Can the Minister confirm

:52:03. > :52:09.us that permanency means permanency? I give way. May I clarify what I

:52:10. > :52:14.said. 85% of EU migrants in the UK will have completed five years by

:52:15. > :52:18.the time we leave the European Union and therefore in principle would be

:52:19. > :52:27.entitled to permanent residents, but each case would have to be looked

:52:28. > :52:33.at. That is the point. I have two points. I think the advantage of

:52:34. > :52:36.this amendment is that it is a win-win situation because it is

:52:37. > :52:44.practically right for us to do so and it is morally right for us to do

:52:45. > :52:49.so. One thing that did strike me is that when the right Reverend was

:52:50. > :52:54.making his argument, and I understood it, but does he not

:52:55. > :53:00.understand the pain, the suffering, the uncertainty that is caused to

:53:01. > :53:05.those individuals who are working in our health service who feel hurt

:53:06. > :53:09.that they put so much effort in and give their time in tried to help the

:53:10. > :53:19.people of Britain and then they think they and their families... I

:53:20. > :53:25.will give way in a minute. But they and their families feel very hurt

:53:26. > :53:36.and I do think we owe them something in that respect. Yes, I will give

:53:37. > :53:45.way. It will be quite insidious to suggest that those of us sticking to

:53:46. > :53:51.the rules in relation to the bills, the bill speaks of formal process of

:53:52. > :54:05.notifying the intention to withdraw. It does not relate to the substance

:54:06. > :54:10.of what withdrawal might look like. For you to say I don't understand

:54:11. > :54:15.suffering... I said at the beginning, I feel the pain, I filled

:54:16. > :54:20.the anxiety, but as a legislator, my role is to look at what the bill is

:54:21. > :54:29.about, not what the bill ought to be about. We should Ben Mee from the

:54:30. > :54:32.practical to be moral. There are some of us that take the belief that

:54:33. > :54:37.we have the high moral ground here and that is the ground we should

:54:38. > :54:43.occupy and I said because we are in a win-win situation and as the noble

:54:44. > :54:49.lady Baroness Kennedy said we are going to have a much stronger

:54:50. > :54:54.negotiating position if we spelt out and show to our European neighbours

:54:55. > :54:58.that we can be generous and that we want, even if we are not in the

:54:59. > :55:02.European Union, we want to remain part of the continent of Europe,

:55:03. > :55:13.working together with our neighbours and that's what I believe we are in

:55:14. > :55:28.a win situation. -- win- win situation. My Lords... My Lords, I

:55:29. > :55:34.believe the Lib Dems want to make a contribution. The noble Baroness

:55:35. > :55:39.Ladysmith. I shall be brief, it has been a long debate, but this issue

:55:40. > :55:45.is one that has exercised your lordship's houses a week after the

:55:46. > :55:48.referendum when it appeared that it was virtual unanimity across your

:55:49. > :55:53.lordship's House about how we should deal with the rights of EU citizens

:55:54. > :56:00.resident in the United Kingdom at the time of the referendum. I'm

:56:01. > :56:07.going very briefly to make two quotations. The first came from the

:56:08. > :56:12.debate in July. The noble Lord speaking, and I will name him in a

:56:13. > :56:15.moment, I am appalled by the unwillingness of the government to

:56:16. > :56:19.give a clear understanding that EU nationals resident here before the

:56:20. > :56:29.23rd of June will be able to remain come what may. Another noble Lord

:56:30. > :56:32.speaking, asking a question to the Leader of the House said could my

:56:33. > :56:36.noble friend say on behalf of the government for whom she speaks in

:56:37. > :56:40.this House that any European citizen living in Britain has a right to

:56:41. > :56:46.remain here and that right will not be in any way affected by Brexit and

:56:47. > :56:50.that the position is not negotiable? She must be aware that many people

:56:51. > :57:00.are concerned about the position and the future and surely it is the

:57:01. > :57:05.responsibility of the leadership of this to make sure there are no

:57:06. > :57:09.questions over it? On the governing conservative benches there has been

:57:10. > :57:13.a mass outbreak of believing that somehow the letter from the Home

:57:14. > :57:19.Secretary who was with us momentarily and has now disappeared

:57:20. > :57:23.deals with this matter. That somehow the statements that have come from

:57:24. > :57:28.the front bench give the guarantees that EU nationals currently resident

:57:29. > :57:32.in the United Kingdom deserve and desire. But, my Lords, we have all

:57:33. > :57:38.been receiving e-mails from people saying, we are concerned about our

:57:39. > :57:45.future. If the noble Lord Lord Lawson in the first statement and

:57:46. > :57:54.the noble Lord Lord Forsyth in the second... If the noble Lords Lawson

:57:55. > :57:58.and Forsyth in June and July believe that there were concerns about EU

:57:59. > :58:03.nationals, there is nothing so far that the government has given to

:58:04. > :58:08.reassure those EU nationals and if the government is not going to

:58:09. > :58:17.concede on amendment 9B which would deal with this matter, could we

:58:18. > :58:21.ask... I normally have the greatest respect for the noble Lady's

:58:22. > :58:26.diligence, but when she says nothing has changed, what has changed is

:58:27. > :58:29.that the Prime Minister has said it is her first priority, that the fate

:58:30. > :58:33.of those people living in this country will be determined by

:58:34. > :58:38.primary legislation and no change would be made other than with the

:58:39. > :58:39.agreement of this place and the other House. That's good enough for

:58:40. > :58:50.me. We have heard much about the idea

:58:51. > :58:57.that the issue of EU nationals is a priority, but as the Lady pointed

:58:58. > :59:02.out, negotiations are such that whatever the ambition of the Prime

:59:03. > :59:07.Minister is and however great heard negotiations still is likely to be,

:59:08. > :59:11.the nature of EU negotiations is that nothing is agreed until

:59:12. > :59:16.everything is agreed. A priority in itself isn't going to give EU

:59:17. > :59:19.nationals the security that they need and if the government doesn't

:59:20. > :59:24.feel able to accept the amendment and I suspect that it is not going

:59:25. > :59:31.to, could the new noble lord the Minister please give further

:59:32. > :59:35.clarification not about some distant bell, not some immigration act after

:59:36. > :59:39.the great repeal Bill but in line and in the spirit of amendment nine

:59:40. > :59:55.B, something that occurs in the immediate aftermath of triggering

:59:56. > :00:00.Article 50? It is the case as Baroness Symons has said that this

:00:01. > :00:05.will be nothing is agreed until everything is a great negotiation.

:00:06. > :00:11.If we do not do the decent thing now, if we do not listen to what was

:00:12. > :00:16.said at the start, if we do not do it now, when we will do it? This

:00:17. > :00:23.negotiation could last all of two years. It could end without an

:00:24. > :00:29.agreement. It certainly will not end with bosses agreed in this calendar

:00:30. > :00:36.year. So if we all believe that the decent thing will have to be done

:00:37. > :00:44.sometime, why not do it now? The Tory party really needs to remember

:00:45. > :00:57.that it's Guru is but, politics is not mature wisdom.

:00:58. > :01:03.I shall be very brief. I am afraid they have a response to it before...

:01:04. > :01:10.My Lords, it is the concept the's parties turn. I will be brief. When

:01:11. > :01:13.I was supporting vote Leave, I like many others took the view that we

:01:14. > :01:17.should make a grand unilateral gesture to state that we were grand

:01:18. > :01:22.residence rights and other rights to all EU citizens living in the UK. I

:01:23. > :01:26.thought that the two reasons, it was a nice indecent thing to do but also

:01:27. > :01:30.directed we would get an immediate response from our EU partners who

:01:31. > :01:36.would reciprocate and confirmed that all Brits living in the EU would get

:01:37. > :01:40.similar rights. I thought we would get this simple issue offer the

:01:41. > :01:44.table before the tough and contentious topics would begin. My

:01:45. > :01:48.Lords, I was utterly wrong, not for the first time of course. The best

:01:49. > :01:54.outcome I believe to get security and certainty for EU citizens and

:01:55. > :02:00.British citizens would have been a reciprocal agreement after the

:02:01. > :02:05.referendum. That is exactly what my right honourable friend the Prime

:02:06. > :02:09.Minister try to do. And I was surprise, my Lords, and indeed

:02:10. > :02:12.shocked that the EU rejected her approaches and apparently have

:02:13. > :02:19.refused to talk about receptacle residency rights until we trigger

:02:20. > :02:27.Article 50. Would he not recognise that we are the ones walking out of

:02:28. > :02:32.the EU? We are the ones who have an obligation to those who are all good

:02:33. > :02:36.faith came to this country, invested their future in this country and

:02:37. > :02:44.should we not have done with sophistry and make a moral gesture?

:02:45. > :02:48.We also owe an obligation to almost 1 million British citizens living in

:02:49. > :02:53.the EU who could be left in limbo for up to two years unless the EU

:02:54. > :02:57.addresses this issue urgently. It is the case, my Lords, that the Prime

:02:58. > :03:03.Minister raise this with them EU leaders and was 20 states, I

:03:04. > :03:07.understand, why happy to agree, Angela Merkel and Donald Tusk refuse

:03:08. > :03:16.to do so until we trigger Article 50. Lauded by many in this House as

:03:17. > :03:21.a basket of decency, they were the ones that were giving us harsh

:03:22. > :03:25.treatment. They are the ones who are not on the model high ground. My

:03:26. > :03:31.Lords, the other one is this, when we see the EU are stating that

:03:32. > :03:36.nothing will be discussed until we have agreed a divorce settlement of

:03:37. > :03:40.?50 billion, then we are likely to spend all of this year, or at least

:03:41. > :03:44.until the German elections are over, arguing about that money. And

:03:45. > :03:49.everything else and European citizens will be left in the lurch.

:03:50. > :03:53.Indeed, if we have given away citizenship team Europeans in the

:03:54. > :03:59.UK, why on earth should you bother dealing with our citizens in Europe

:04:00. > :04:02.as a priority? This would be a bad position to be in. We would have

:04:03. > :04:06.betrayed our own citizens and buried under the equivalent of a European

:04:07. > :04:11.bus. I include with this. This is not using people as a bargaining

:04:12. > :04:15.chip. I think that is a silly description. Using people add

:04:16. > :04:18.bargaining chips would be saying something like, if you give us

:04:19. > :04:24.access to the single market, then we will ensure people stay. Or if you

:04:25. > :04:27.put tariffs on our car, we were gradual people citizenship. That

:04:28. > :04:30.would be grubby, that would be an ethical but it is 1 million miles

:04:31. > :04:36.away from thing can we agree as a priority receptacle arrangements, it

:04:37. > :04:40.is our duty to look after our people in Europe, if not more so than

:04:41. > :04:52.European citizens here. My Lords. My Lords! I do here the

:04:53. > :04:56.desire of some members of the House to have brunch brand speakers.

:04:57. > :05:09.However, I think it would be good to hear from the noble lord unknown

:05:10. > :05:13.from my noble friend. My Lords, I'm going to be extremely

:05:14. > :05:19.brief. There is just one aspect that I would like to draw. Draw attention

:05:20. > :05:29.to. Having heard such an extensive debate. And that is we are dealing

:05:30. > :05:34.here with residents in this jurisdiction where at the present

:05:35. > :05:39.time have a right to go to the European Court of Human Rights, we

:05:40. > :05:46.also dealing with residents in the rest of the European Community who

:05:47. > :05:52.also have the right and so far as the present situation this country

:05:53. > :05:57.is concerned with, I think it is a matter to be dealt with by

:05:58. > :06:04.Parliament and not by the courts. And I have strongly urged not to

:06:05. > :06:09.force people to seek to go to the courts as they could in this

:06:10. > :06:16.situation. It is a matter which I say should be decided by both Houses

:06:17. > :06:21.of Parliament and as far as I am concerned, I am going to vote for

:06:22. > :06:32.the amendment for the very clearly reasons given to buy the noble Lord

:06:33. > :06:38.Viscount. This is a matter of moral principle as well as one that could

:06:39. > :06:46.be a legal principle. And so as far as the moral situation is concerned,

:06:47. > :06:51.I think there is only one answer. My Lords, much has been said this

:06:52. > :06:56.afternoon surrounding the whole issue of uncertainty. But the reason

:06:57. > :06:59.why I cannot support these amendments is the fundamental flaw

:07:00. > :07:08.that lies at the heart of these amendments is that they will create

:07:09. > :07:13.more uncertainty, in particular on the million British citizens living

:07:14. > :07:18.abroad. Noble lord opposite have made two defences of that. First,

:07:19. > :07:23.they have received some letters from expat groups, my Lords, dare we

:07:24. > :07:27.believe that they may be wrong in asserting that by giving unilateral

:07:28. > :07:31.rights now to EU citizens living in the United Kingdom that that will

:07:32. > :07:35.convince overseas governments to give them the same rights? And

:07:36. > :07:40.secondly, my Lords, they have said trust these governments, my Lords, I

:07:41. > :07:49.just couldn't finish my point and then I will give way. Secondly,

:07:50. > :07:53.trust other EU governments, but, my Lords, we do not know which

:07:54. > :07:58.governments they will be dealing with in the EU. There are elections

:07:59. > :08:03.in a few weeks in France, in Holland, in a few months' time in

:08:04. > :08:09.Germany. My Lords, I will just finish... I will give way. As one of

:08:10. > :08:12.those who lives in France and therefore I must declare an

:08:13. > :08:18.interest, perhaps the noble lord did not hear the Lord when he made the

:08:19. > :08:23.point that all of the expat UK groups living in the EU have come

:08:24. > :08:31.together to make the case that they support this amendment. I heard the

:08:32. > :08:37.noble lord loud and clear. What I suggested is can we believe that

:08:38. > :08:43.maybe these groups may be wrong and therefore this House, this House is

:08:44. > :08:49.putting at risk the future of a million British citizens living in

:08:50. > :08:53.the EU? My Lords, that is why we should not support these amendments

:08:54. > :09:00.now. Noble lord have said that they do not know... I am not going to

:09:01. > :09:03.give way. My Lords, noble lord have said they do not know what the

:09:04. > :09:08.policy of the British government is. They just have to read the white

:09:09. > :09:13.paper. It is here clearly. We want to secure the status of EU citizens

:09:14. > :09:17.who are ready living in the UK. My Lords, we all agree with that. This

:09:18. > :09:24.is the bit that noble lord opposite do not agree with. That of UK

:09:25. > :09:30.nationals in other member states. I thank the noble lord forgiving way.

:09:31. > :09:33.The noble lord said we should trust the British government. The Home

:09:34. > :09:36.Secretary has written a letter to all of us in which she said I

:09:37. > :09:39.reassure my colleagues of parliament will have a clear say. This is the

:09:40. > :09:43.same Home Secretary who wanted companies to list every foreign

:09:44. > :09:47.worker. This is the same home about to as a minister who wanted EU

:09:48. > :09:52.workers the company is to be thousand pounds for EU workers. How

:09:53. > :09:57.can we trust the Home Secretary? The law can only be changed with the

:09:58. > :10:03.agreement of Parliament. That is why these amendments are at the wrong

:10:04. > :10:07.time in the wrong bill on the wrong subject and we should support the

:10:08. > :10:16.rights of British citizens living in Europe.

:10:17. > :10:43.Order. My Lords... They give me. I think we have had a good debate

:10:44. > :10:55.here tonight. A very good debate. My Lords. My Lords. My Lords, this has

:10:56. > :10:59.been a very good debate. Order. I think the mood of the House is to

:11:00. > :11:28.carry on and hear from the front lines. -- front bench. Order. There

:11:29. > :11:35.is... I'm sorry. Order. Order. There is no constitutional crisis, there

:11:36. > :11:41.is good order in this House and I hope the noble lord will understand

:11:42. > :11:52.that we all want to hear from the government front bench. My Lords,

:11:53. > :11:57.the status of EU nationals living here and UK nationals living in the

:11:58. > :12:04.EU is as this debate has clearly shown, one of the most emotive

:12:05. > :12:07.issues, if not the most emotive issues created by our country's

:12:08. > :12:16.decision to leave the EU. Where as so many other matters we debate

:12:17. > :12:21.Baker's on dry economic this matter touches on the most basic and very

:12:22. > :12:27.immediate of issues. The lives of over 4 million people who have

:12:28. > :12:36.chosen to make a foreign country their home. Europeans who are our

:12:37. > :12:39.neighbours, our friends, many working in our public services and

:12:40. > :12:45.British citizens who may live hundreds of miles away but whose

:12:46. > :12:51.interests this government and this Parliament have a duty to represent

:12:52. > :12:58.and to protect. Now, my Lords, we all agree, we all agree that we have

:12:59. > :13:07.a duty and responsibility to British citizens in Europe. We also all

:13:08. > :13:11.agree that European nationals make a very valuable contribution to our

:13:12. > :13:16.nation, especially in organisations like the NHS.

:13:17. > :13:24.We all know the uncertainty that Brexit has brought to the people's

:13:25. > :13:32.lives. And we all want to do what we think is ethically and morally

:13:33. > :13:36.right. So, my lords, we all wish to sort this issue out as quickly as

:13:37. > :13:41.possible. And to bring certainty to the lives of these millions of

:13:42. > :13:48.people. And so the very simple question before us today is, how?

:13:49. > :13:53.Now, I know this question has created a dilemma for a number of

:13:54. > :13:58.lordships on all sides of the House. And the amendments before us make

:13:59. > :14:02.various different points. As we've debated, they coalesced around one

:14:03. > :14:13.point. They wish the Government to make a unilateral declaration to

:14:14. > :14:16.guarantee EU nationals' rights. I couldn't labour the point that such

:14:17. > :14:20.amendments have no point in this bill. And that's true. Doesn't have

:14:21. > :14:26.said that this is a very simple bill. But I'm not going to dwell on

:14:27. > :14:30.this. -- dozens have said. When one is discussing the issues of over 4

:14:31. > :14:37.million people, such issues may seem overly legalistic. Instead, I'd like

:14:38. > :14:41.to make just two call points. First, let me set out the positions of EU

:14:42. > :14:47.nationals living here in the UK, and the protection afforded to them.

:14:48. > :14:52.Between now and the date of Brexit, nothing will change for EU nationals

:14:53. > :14:58.living here in the UK. We are still bound by the EU treaties and the

:14:59. > :15:03.free movement directive. Under the free movement directive, any EU

:15:04. > :15:06.citizen who is exercising treaty rights, or who has acquired a

:15:07. > :15:10.permanent right of residence, continues to have a right to reside

:15:11. > :15:16.in the UK while we remain a member of the EU. There is no need to apply

:15:17. > :15:21.for a document to prove this, although I obviously understand that

:15:22. > :15:25.some prefer to do so. We are trying to do all we can to make this

:15:26. > :15:29.process as simple and pain-free as possible. For example, by

:15:30. > :15:33.introducing a European passport checking service to try and reduce

:15:34. > :15:38.the burden of providing original documents and moving the application

:15:39. > :15:42.online. It's worth mentioning that no applicant is required to complete

:15:43. > :15:47.every page of the application. To those who have raised the issue of

:15:48. > :15:52.the need to show private medical insurance, let me stress that this

:15:53. > :15:57.is an EU requirement, not a British Government one. But again let me

:15:58. > :16:01.emphasise, and EU national has been continuously and lawfully residing

:16:02. > :16:05.in the UK for five years does not, under current rules, need to apply

:16:06. > :16:11.for a document to prove their right to be here permanently. As to the

:16:12. > :16:16.future, the Government remains bound by the European convention on human

:16:17. > :16:21.rights. And, in particular, the obligation to protect the right to

:16:22. > :16:30.private and family life. My lords, we will continue to remain bound by

:16:31. > :16:33.the ECHR after we leave the EU. I can assure noble Lords that all

:16:34. > :16:40.decisions the Government takes, or policies it formulates and all

:16:41. > :16:44.positions in adopts will comply under article eight of the ECHR -

:16:45. > :16:50.the right to respect for private and family life. The questions raised

:16:51. > :16:53.are all perfectly valid, but I would argue and the Government believes

:16:54. > :16:57.that they are the subject of further legislation that we in this house

:16:58. > :17:02.will debate. And now, let me turn to this. The bill to repeal the

:17:03. > :17:07.European communities apt, the great repeal bill, will not be used to

:17:08. > :17:12.change our immigration system. This'll be done through a separate

:17:13. > :17:16.immigration Bill. Subsequent secondary legislation and

:17:17. > :17:18.immigration rules. So to address, again, the very valid point made by

:17:19. > :17:24.the noble Lord Campbell, nothing will change for any EU citizen,

:17:25. > :17:31.including their residency rights, without this Parliament's approval.

:17:32. > :17:36.To summarise, any EU citizen who has been lawfully and continuously

:17:37. > :17:40.residing in the UK for five years or more automatically requires

:17:41. > :17:46.permanent residence under EU law. After we have let the EU, the EU

:17:47. > :17:49.will continue to be bound by and observe the ECHR, which in

:17:50. > :17:54.accordance with Article eight and appropriate case law will protect EU

:17:55. > :17:58.nationals' rights to respect for their private and family life, as it

:17:59. > :18:04.does for others. And perhaps most crucial of all, nothing will change

:18:05. > :18:09.for any EU citizen without Parliament's approval. This is the

:18:10. > :18:14.protection afforded to EU nationals here at the moment. But as the noble

:18:15. > :18:19.and learned Lord Woolf remembered, we do not want EU nationals to have

:18:20. > :18:24.to rely on the ECHR for the right to remain once the UK leads the EU. So

:18:25. > :18:27.my second point is about the future. It can be summarised in one word, a

:18:28. > :18:32.word we've heard so often this afternoon. And that word is

:18:33. > :18:37.fairness. From the outset, we have said that we want to secure the

:18:38. > :18:42.status of EU nationals living here. But in doing so, we also need to

:18:43. > :18:47.secure the status of UK nationals living elsewhere in the EU. My

:18:48. > :18:51.lords, the Government believes that this approach is fair. And it

:18:52. > :18:57.respects our duty of care to UK nationals in the EU. And as has been

:18:58. > :19:01.said, we were keen to come to an agreement before the negotiations

:19:02. > :19:06.begin. The promise to raise this issue last autumn and made it clear

:19:07. > :19:10.subsequently to a number of her counterparts across Europe that she

:19:11. > :19:13.was prepared to start discussions on the issue before we are a 57 we

:19:14. > :19:18.could try to reach an agreement quickly on what we have always

:19:19. > :19:24.recognised as one of the most important issues of the negotiation.

:19:25. > :19:36.As all know, a small number of our European counterparts insisted that

:19:37. > :19:41.the phrase no negotiation with the -- consequently, as has also been

:19:42. > :19:45.said, the Government has also said that this issue will be an early

:19:46. > :19:53.priority for the negotiations stop and the encouraging messages from

:19:54. > :19:59.European Union -- the encouraging messages from European states makes

:20:00. > :20:02.us think that will be able to reach a quick and timely agreement with

:20:03. > :20:06.the European Union. All of this means that for anyone in this house

:20:07. > :20:11.who wishes for there to be certainty for both EU nationals in the UK and

:20:12. > :20:14.UK nationals across Europe, it is imperative we pass this bill as

:20:15. > :20:23.quickly as possible in those negotiations can begin. Now, turning

:20:24. > :20:28.to the specifics of Amendment 9b. This appears to only be triggered

:20:29. > :20:33.once article 50 has been triggered and once negotiations have begun. On

:20:34. > :20:37.that, given what I have said, the Government agrees. Furthermore, as I

:20:38. > :20:42.have said, the Government sees this issue as an early priority for the

:20:43. > :20:46.negotiations, as do other EU states. Which, again, the amendment

:20:47. > :20:52.reflects. On that, we also agree. The point of difference is therefore

:20:53. > :20:56.very, very simple. But it is totally fundamental. It is this word,

:20:57. > :21:00.fairness. If we had failed to come to an agreement on this issue after

:21:01. > :21:07.three months of negotiation and we were forced into this course of

:21:08. > :21:09.action, where would that leave these 900,000 UK citizens in Europe? With

:21:10. > :21:14.the spring certainty to those to whom we have a duty of care? With

:21:15. > :21:19.the University -- with the European Union and other member states see it

:21:20. > :21:25.as a priority to give them clarity as to their status? And when would

:21:26. > :21:28.they get back clarity? Now, my Laws, these are questions that each of us

:21:29. > :21:33.should bear in mind as we decide how to vote on these amendments. An

:21:34. > :21:38.amendment that touches the lives of over 3 million Europeans here, but

:21:39. > :21:45.also 900,000 of our own citizens right across Europe. The sooner we

:21:46. > :21:51.pass this bill, this simple bill, the quicker we can seek an agreement

:21:52. > :21:55.thereto EU nationals and UK citizens. While I would never

:21:56. > :21:59.question the motives of those who have tabled these amendments, I

:22:00. > :22:02.would ask everyone of your Lordships to think of the consequences if this

:22:03. > :22:10.course of action were to be followed. I ask the noble Lords to

:22:11. > :22:14.withdraw the amendments. My lords, this has been one of those

:22:15. > :22:18.highlights of one's life in the House, to hear this. And I always

:22:19. > :22:25.like debates were the words moral and principal are at the top of our

:22:26. > :22:29.agenda. And I would be very brief, because I want to say only three

:22:30. > :22:34.things. One is the idea that because we are asking for action on EU

:22:35. > :22:39.citizens here, doesn't mean we have equal concern for the others. That

:22:40. > :22:45.is completely wrong. Apart from anything else, my great-niece and

:22:46. > :22:50.great-nephew live in Belgium and France, respectively. I am reminded

:22:51. > :22:55.of this frequently. But the marvels of this and the principles, the

:22:56. > :23:01.decency, have been stressed. And I think it is that issue. Because the

:23:02. > :23:04.insecurity is now. There is uncertainty. We've already heard

:23:05. > :23:11.that some people are leaving. And it is going to take time. We're all

:23:12. > :23:18.getting lots of messages, even as we're here, and they're coming to me

:23:19. > :23:23.hot every moment. One from France fail, you are quite right when you

:23:24. > :23:28.say we are not bargaining chips. The best way to protect us is to take a

:23:29. > :23:33.firm will position and protect those EU nationals living in the UK. That

:23:34. > :23:36.is only one, there are another million, and I appreciate that. But

:23:37. > :23:41.do not think we have done this without thinking and talking to

:23:42. > :23:56.people who live abroad. The problem I have about...

:23:57. > :24:01.HECKLING The problem I have about this being in the negotiation is

:24:02. > :24:08.firstly that I think that is wrong. But secondly there are countries

:24:09. > :24:12.with only 500 UK nationals in them. Slovenia has got 500 UK nationals,

:24:13. > :24:19.so has Estonia and Croatia. Unlike my noble friend, I have not

:24:20. > :24:23.negotiated. But I do know from the story that I've heard that sometimes

:24:24. > :24:28.one country holds up on something actually irrelevant to them. Because

:24:29. > :24:32.they're going to get something else. I understand that's why the European

:24:33. > :24:35.Parliament still meets in Strasbourg. When John Major was at

:24:36. > :24:42.Edinburgh, France wanted something else. Maybe it was just about the

:24:43. > :24:47.time, I don't know. That's what happens with negotiations. -- maybe

:24:48. > :24:52.it was just that. We did have one country, for some other reason, with

:24:53. > :24:56.a very small number of EU citizens there are holding up the agreement.

:24:57. > :24:59.We will finally have agreement, that the uncertainty is too long and we

:25:00. > :25:08.should not make people wait for that. My lords, it's been said that

:25:09. > :25:16.an assurance is enough. You understand, I don't think my noble

:25:17. > :25:28.friend is here. He is? But I think he would probably give testament

:25:29. > :25:31.that assurances are not enough. This doesn't Ilona negotiations. It asked

:25:32. > :25:35.the Government within three months to come up with proposals of what

:25:36. > :25:40.they're going to do. I think I would like to hear what the House has to

:25:41. > :25:45.say about that. The question is that the motion be agreed to. As many of

:25:46. > :25:49.that opinion to say contend. Content to stop by to the contrary, not

:25:50. > :29:03.content. Not content. Clear the bar. The question is... The question is

:29:04. > :29:11.that amendment nine BB agreed to as many of that opinion the content.

:29:12. > :29:21.Content. The condensed will go to the right by the throne, the knock

:29:22. > :34:45.on debts to the left by the bar. -- the contents. -- the not contents.

:34:46. > :44:28.The question is that amendment nine B B agreed to.

:44:29. > :44:58.There have voted. Content, 358. Not contents, 256. The contents have it.

:44:59. > :45:10.Lord Tennyson. My Lords, I will reduce the temperature of the House

:45:11. > :45:18.a little during this debate, and perhaps I will just wait and atomic

:45:19. > :46:03.second or minute until one or two members have disappeared.

:46:04. > :46:12.My Lords, as I said, we are moving on to what I hope will be a rather

:46:13. > :46:16.less contentious area for this house of debate during this committee

:46:17. > :46:20.stage. I would like to thank the Government, particularly Lord prior,

:46:21. > :46:28.having had some extended discussions with me around this particular

:46:29. > :46:34.amendment. I suppose my first question here... Well, let me say

:46:35. > :46:43.first of all, I don't and here as a Remain or a Brexiter. This is an

:46:44. > :46:47.issue that is important for our country and does not challenge the

:46:48. > :46:53.result of the referendum in any way. But if the amendment was accepted,

:46:54. > :46:58.would actually make the job of government more easy over the next

:46:59. > :47:02.two years. I want to put forward the proposition of this amendment on

:47:03. > :47:06.that basis. First of all, one question I would like the Minister

:47:07. > :47:16.to answer is that it seems to me that this amendment may not be

:47:17. > :47:28.necessary at all. I note in... If I could quote the notes to the bill,

:47:29. > :47:34.it says that in terms of Euratom, the power that is provided by the

:47:35. > :47:40.clause applies to withdraw from the EU. This includes the European

:47:41. > :47:45.atomic energy committee, Euratom, as the European Amendment act 2008 sets

:47:46. > :47:52.out the term EU includes, as the context permits are required,

:47:53. > :48:00.Euratom, action three point two. And yet on the bill itself, in the

:48:01. > :48:09.second part of this 137 word bill, it says that this section has, and

:48:10. > :48:15.this is sectionth subsection two, has despite any provision made by or

:48:16. > :48:22.under the European communities act 1972, or any other impact and, which

:48:23. > :48:29.seems to me to automatically do supply the European Union Amendment

:48:30. > :48:33.act 2008. So it seems to me that the notes are contradictory to the bill

:48:34. > :48:37.and of course the notes are not the opinion of the parliament and cannot

:48:38. > :48:47.be taken as part of the authority of any act that comes into force. But

:48:48. > :48:53.my main point is that legally, and this is a certainly, Euratom is not

:48:54. > :49:00.part of the European Union. It is a legally separate entity. And because

:49:01. > :49:05.of that, the referendum which, as I'm sure all noble members will

:49:06. > :49:09.remember, which said should the UK remain a member of the European

:49:10. > :49:13.Union, or leave the European Union, did not in any way mention Euratom

:49:14. > :49:19.and nor was Euratom part of the Parliamentary debate that took place

:49:20. > :49:26.during the referendum bill. They are separate legal entities. And,

:49:27. > :49:32.indeed, when I spoke at discussions with some government ministers, one

:49:33. > :49:39.of the concerns that they've had has been perhaps by not giving notice on

:49:40. > :49:47.Euratom, then they will some way leave the article 15 notification --

:49:48. > :49:54.article 15 notification could be challenged. In fact, having talked

:49:55. > :50:01.to legal advice myself in this area, what they are very clear about is

:50:02. > :50:07.that government has no mandate to give notice under the Euratom

:50:08. > :50:10.Treaty. In fact, the Government has not even entered into any

:50:11. > :50:16.consultation. And so by giving notice on Euratom, opens itself very

:50:17. > :50:20.strongly to judicial review, given that there has been no consultation

:50:21. > :50:28.on leaving the Treaty, despite the fact a number of rights would

:50:29. > :50:36.inevitably be lost by coming out of the Treaty. So varies, I think, and

:50:37. > :50:42.interest once again for the Government not to trigger leaving

:50:43. > :50:47.Euratom, which it is able to do. There is a process of doing that at

:50:48. > :50:56.this time. In fact, those processes are very different. And Euratom,

:50:57. > :51:01.Article 106 A, which refers to the treaty on the European Union,

:51:02. > :51:05.admittedly, but it is a Euratom treaty clause and method. If you

:51:06. > :51:12.look at Article 50 itself, it mentions only the Treaty on the

:51:13. > :51:17.European Union. Nothing else. So indeed there has to be two

:51:18. > :51:21.notification processes, only one of which is there a clear legal mandate

:51:22. > :51:26.to do. And that is Article 50, and to give notice on the European

:51:27. > :51:32.Union. Why is this important? Well, not because of all those legal

:51:33. > :51:37.issues. But for two reasons. One is what Euratom actually does and the

:51:38. > :51:41.benefit it is to this country. Secondly, and in some ways this is

:51:42. > :51:46.more important and my more political argument, is that over the next two

:51:47. > :51:52.years, the Government has a huge amount to you to actually achieve

:51:53. > :51:57.exiting successfully from the European Union. And that successful

:51:58. > :52:01.exit clearly has to be in the national interest for it to be

:52:02. > :52:10.successful, rather than the clip page that we might have. So why go

:52:11. > :52:13.down a route that is more risky of actually giving notice on Euratom at

:52:14. > :52:18.the same time, which actually gives us on the whole area of negotiation

:52:19. > :52:30.that we have to undertake, and which this country could be held to ransom

:52:31. > :52:38.for? The reason Euratom is important is because of its functions. It

:52:39. > :52:50.effectively operates under the International Energy Authority as

:52:51. > :52:53.the body that is regulated under the IAE for nuclear safety, but even

:52:54. > :52:56.more importantly nuclear safeguarding, which includes all of

:52:57. > :53:02.the areas of nonproliferation treaties and, indeed, would include

:53:03. > :53:07.areas like Sellafield, in particular. It is also around

:53:08. > :53:10.nuclear fuel supply security, and clearly we have a very important

:53:11. > :53:17.nuclear fleet that keeps our lights on. And we also have nuclear

:53:18. > :53:23.research, which is out of Euratom, which is ?1.6 billion for a

:53:24. > :53:27.five-year budget. The UK is involved in many of those projects. And of

:53:28. > :53:34.course the most well-known is the Jet project in Oxfordshire, and also

:53:35. > :53:37.the project coming oil. I am very aware that the Government's

:53:38. > :53:43.industrial strategy is one of the few industries that it mentions very

:53:44. > :53:50.strongly, the nuclear industry, and nuclear research. The problem is if

:53:51. > :53:57.we exit from Euratom that trade in parts, trading nuclear fuel,

:53:58. > :54:07.movement of key people all rely on us being a signatory to the Euratom

:54:08. > :54:14.Treaty. And we, the UK itself, does not have that same authority at the

:54:15. > :54:19.moment, a safeguarding authority, as they're known in these agreements.

:54:20. > :54:25.Internationally at the moment, Euratom has some 11 core agreements.

:54:26. > :54:30.50 altogether, which includes the United States, Canada and Australia.

:54:31. > :54:37.And without being able to trade on those, because we are not and do not

:54:38. > :54:43.have a safeguarding authority ourselves that has been approved by

:54:44. > :54:52.the International Atomic Energy Committee. Then That Will stop. We

:54:53. > :54:59.are reliant on nuclear fuel from Australia. We have domestic nuclear

:55:00. > :55:06.issues with the United States. Obviously with France in terms of

:55:07. > :55:11.Hinkley C and various generating stations. And we do not have those

:55:12. > :55:14.fuels sufficiently in this country. It's not just nuclear fuel, it also

:55:15. > :55:20.isotopes for radiology in hospitals as well. And it's not just a case of

:55:21. > :55:25.saying, my Lords, that we will get around it somehow. I would remind

:55:26. > :55:34.members but under United States domestic law, section 123 of the US

:55:35. > :55:36.Energy Act of 1959, it actually makes any movement of such material

:55:37. > :55:44.is illegal under their domestic law if we are not a approved

:55:45. > :55:48.safeguarding authority. Now, I'm aware that we could probably put all

:55:49. > :55:55.of this in place at some point. It might be more difficult with

:55:56. > :55:58.remaining members of the European Union if those negotiations don't go

:55:59. > :56:05.well, and with very dependent on French nuclear technology in the

:56:06. > :56:10.country at the moment. And, indeed, will we be able to have an agreement

:56:11. > :56:14.with Euratom? Hopefully we can, but let's not forget that countries like

:56:15. > :56:18.Austria in particular try to block most things that go Euratom because

:56:19. > :56:23.they are very antinuclear. We do not know what will happen in the German

:56:24. > :56:27.elections this year. And indeed Germany has got rid of its nuclear

:56:28. > :56:32.fleet operationally, and is also very antinuclear as well. And so,

:56:33. > :56:37.perhaps with a change of government, it will be very difficult indeed to

:56:38. > :56:41.negotiate with Euratom to continue those relationships. So, my Lord,

:56:42. > :56:51.let me sum up here. I am not trying in any way to constrain Article 50

:56:52. > :56:57.or the referendum result. But there is no need to leave Euratom at this

:56:58. > :57:03.stage. We can then ensure that the lights don't go out sometime around

:57:04. > :57:07.September 2019. We avoid the political risk of Austria and

:57:08. > :57:15.Germany vetoing future relationships with Euratom. And we can take our

:57:16. > :57:18.time to make sure that we, as the UK, have fully fledged and effective

:57:19. > :57:24.safeguarding authority that will be recognised by other realms,

:57:25. > :57:28.including in particular Australia, Canada and the United States. But

:57:29. > :57:36.most of all, I say this game, why go down the route of giving notice on

:57:37. > :57:41.Euratom now when as a country, as they government, as a Parliament, we

:57:42. > :57:46.have a huge amount to negotiate over the next two years? Let's give us a

:57:47. > :57:54.break, think about it longer, and do this properly, not threaten our

:57:55. > :57:57.energy industry and our radiology, and all the other research that we

:57:58. > :58:05.undertake at the moment. I beg to move. Amendment proposed. Page one.

:58:06. > :58:11.Line five. At the end, insert the words as printed on the Marshall

:58:12. > :58:17.list. As a supporter of this amendment, I support Lord Tennyson

:58:18. > :58:25.who is an expert on your roll-off. -- on Euro law.

:58:26. > :58:36.The UK research, it will benefit by continuing membership with Euratom.

:58:37. > :58:41.One of the profound scientific issues that will last long after

:58:42. > :58:46.perhaps even the EU which is to say what to do with nuclear waste. This

:58:47. > :58:53.is not mention by Lord Tennyson, and that there was an important beaky

:58:54. > :58:57.about ten years ago by Lord Sainsbury on the question of

:58:58. > :59:01.trans-substantiation. It sounds a bit religious really but this was

:59:02. > :59:06.the question. Transmutation is the correct word, sorry. Which was the

:59:07. > :59:11.question as they are dealing with a power wielded to make the waste that

:59:12. > :59:16.will last 10,000 years or maybe even 100,000 years if the bid on the

:59:17. > :59:21.ground, that is one possibility, but Euratom is considering the question

:59:22. > :59:26.of transforming the waste material so it will have a much shorter half

:59:27. > :59:30.life of only about a hundred years. So this is the kind of thing that we

:59:31. > :59:34.can do with all the other countries in Europe and Euratom and they think

:59:35. > :59:40.it may be easier and more effective for us to remain. The other feature

:59:41. > :59:45.that again Lord Tebbit and has mention is the big question of the

:59:46. > :59:49.fusion programme which is very considerable investment involving

:59:50. > :59:54.many other countries and Euratom has played a very important role in

:59:55. > :00:00.that. The UK is a part of this, I personally think that the programme

:00:01. > :00:06.on the tour of all, it is more likely to evolve if we are part of

:00:07. > :00:13.it. I would like to support this amendment and hope it goes through.

:00:14. > :00:18.My Lords, I am a supporter of nuclear power and I would like to

:00:19. > :00:25.facilitate nuclear energy in any way I can. But I am not sure whether the

:00:26. > :00:31.legal forest through which the law tried to take this is quite a

:00:32. > :00:36.simplistic as he would suggest. -- the Lord. We did sign up to a

:00:37. > :00:44.separate treaty when we joined the Common market in 1973 but by 2008,

:00:45. > :00:50.circumstances has changed and Euratom by that time was integrated

:00:51. > :00:57.into the EU in a wave which I do not think renders it the separate entity

:00:58. > :01:03.which the Lord has been suggesting. I think this is a worrying because

:01:04. > :01:08.it is quite clear the Government had not really given any serious

:01:09. > :01:12.attention or thought to this. Now, I think in the course of the last two

:01:13. > :01:17.or three weeks, there has been quite a major change in the climate

:01:18. > :01:21.insofar as a lot of people, myself included, have raised this at

:01:22. > :01:27.different times. But I think that we have to recognise that when we talk

:01:28. > :01:31.about the nuclear industry, we are not just talking about power

:01:32. > :01:36.generation. Although it has to be said that the present moment, the

:01:37. > :01:41.EDF, the agent of the French Government, which I imagine will

:01:42. > :01:47.remain in Euratom, will be running our 20 power stations for some years

:01:48. > :01:52.to come. Therefore it may be, in that respect anyway, somewhat

:01:53. > :01:57.premature to get too worried about it. But the fact is it is not just

:01:58. > :02:03.generation. There is the fuel cycle. There is decommissioned Singh

:02:04. > :02:09.procedures. There is this regulated arrangements for safety. The general

:02:10. > :02:15.UK regulatory competence. Now, in all of these areas, we enjoy the

:02:16. > :02:21.position of world leadership. The industry gets castigated because we

:02:22. > :02:24.do not, we do not build our own reactors any more. We do for a

:02:25. > :02:28.nuclear submarines but we do not build them this civil generation.

:02:29. > :02:32.But the fact is there is an incredible amount of science, an

:02:33. > :02:40.incredible amount of manufacturing expertise at stake here and frankly

:02:41. > :02:44.I am not too concerned at this stage whether we are in Euratom or going

:02:45. > :02:50.to leave or has to leave. But what I am concerned about is that industry

:02:51. > :02:54.demands the proper attention and requires and has already been

:02:55. > :02:58.suggested that in the Government's industrial strategies such as it is,

:02:59. > :03:04.nuclear is going to play an important part. But if that is the

:03:05. > :03:07.case, then I think we need to give proper recognition to the

:03:08. > :03:11.international character of the industry, the fact that a

:03:12. > :03:18.considerable number of British businesses and British academic and

:03:19. > :03:22.as Daschle expertise and is still invested in this industry. --

:03:23. > :03:30.industrial. In many aspects, we will be pretty much the only country that

:03:31. > :03:35.has a programme of nuclear new-build in the developed world. We will see

:03:36. > :03:42.some tinned China, India, there is one in America but the fact is we

:03:43. > :03:46.don't see the kind of development of nuclear power in the way that we

:03:47. > :03:49.might have wished. But if Britain is to carry on and to take advantage of

:03:50. > :03:54.it, then this Government will have to give a lot more attention to this

:03:55. > :03:58.and I would like to think that we would get beyond the platitudinous

:03:59. > :04:05.responses that have characterised the Government's answering in debate

:04:06. > :04:09.so far. I think it would be helpful this evening if the Minister could

:04:10. > :04:15.perhaps give us a little detail as to what is going to be done and how

:04:16. > :04:20.we are going to address this very worrying conundrum of whether or not

:04:21. > :04:26.we will have a new industry capable of operating on an international

:04:27. > :04:34.basis, taking advantage of the very strong cards that we still have to

:04:35. > :04:38.play. I would like to refer to a report of the science and technology

:04:39. > :04:44.select committee when I was the chair as the years ago on new killer

:04:45. > :04:53.R and D in this country. -- new killer. In the report, we asked the

:04:54. > :04:59.question, given that the UK is committed to a nuclear programme,

:05:00. > :05:04.refreshing of the nuclear generation capability, do we have the skills in

:05:05. > :05:09.this country to deliver? Not just in overseeing be built by foreign

:05:10. > :05:12.companies but in the regulation. And what we realised when we heard

:05:13. > :05:17.evidence from the witnesses that came before us was that capability

:05:18. > :05:23.in the United Kingdom was being seriously eroded. Just give you some

:05:24. > :05:29.numbers, the workforce in nuclear energy and nuclear science degrees

:05:30. > :05:35.from 8000 in the 1980s to under 2000 by the early part of this entry. Our

:05:36. > :05:40.investment in our NDE, nuclear R is half of that of the Netherlands

:05:41. > :05:43.and Norway, 100s of that of France and less than that of Australia that

:05:44. > :05:46.doesn't have a nuclear energy programme at all. We are not

:05:47. > :05:55.investing and we have traditionally not been investing enough in nuclear

:05:56. > :05:59.our Andy, Gale capability. The research capability through Euratom

:06:00. > :06:06.I believe is crucial for ours nuclear programme. What we said in

:06:07. > :06:10.our report was the nuclear industry and the regulatory rely on the

:06:11. > :06:14.research base to train the next generation of experts. Once lost,

:06:15. > :06:18.these capabilities will not easily be replaced. I do think it is very

:06:19. > :06:23.important that the Government reassures us that if we were to read

:06:24. > :06:27.draw from Euratom, which I do not think we should, we have in place a

:06:28. > :06:32.mechanism to make sure the nuclear capabilities are being developed.

:06:33. > :06:35.One of the recommendations the select committee debates 14

:06:36. > :06:38.recommendations, the Government accepted the vast majority of them,

:06:39. > :06:42.one of them was that the Government should set up a new killer research

:06:43. > :06:46.and development strategy board and I would like to ask the noble lord

:06:47. > :06:54.whether the nuclear R strategy board has been consulted about this and

:06:55. > :07:00.what their view is on it. I was lucky enough to serve on the select

:07:01. > :07:03.committee. I now share the science and technology committee and we are

:07:04. > :07:11.revisiting this issue at present. Looking at the developments. Since

:07:12. > :07:14.about 2011 report. One of the recommendations which was not fully

:07:15. > :07:19.implemented by the Government which there was a little bit of progress,

:07:20. > :07:25.when the committee recommended that the strategy board be set up to

:07:26. > :07:30.advise Government in the long term and nothing could be more long-term

:07:31. > :07:38.than a nuclear energy strategy, an organisation was set up called

:07:39. > :07:42.nuclear research and the board. It was set up on a limited term of

:07:43. > :07:53.three years and dishes produced its final report. Last week in

:07:54. > :08:00.celebrity. -- February. They concerned civil research in this

:08:01. > :08:04.country. I echo the noble lord request what will follow Nira

:08:05. > :08:11.because while in principle it is quite a good idea, and advisory

:08:12. > :08:17.boards should have a built-in termination otherwise they go on

:08:18. > :08:20.forever. We do need continuity of thought and that is clearly been

:08:21. > :08:24.lacking, indeed there has been no sport is part of the problem.

:08:25. > :08:33.Successive governments kick this one into touch, nuclear energy or

:08:34. > :08:36.research was an issue which until recently it simply wasn't addressed

:08:37. > :08:41.adequately. Now in this report which came out in February, ten Mike

:08:42. > :08:46.pointed out something which is totally obvious but nevertheless

:08:47. > :08:51.needs saying. -- Nira. International calibration is the main route the

:08:52. > :08:57.developing nuclear technologies. -- collaboration. There are number ways

:08:58. > :09:06.to take theirs. We are a small player and however much we managed

:09:07. > :09:11.to build up the dismally low new killer -- nuclear compared to the

:09:12. > :09:15.1960s we have been overtaken by a number of countries. If the

:09:16. > :09:19.industrial strategy which has nuclear as one of the ten pillars is

:09:20. > :09:25.to be implement it, we have clearly got an awful lot of catch up to do.

:09:26. > :09:35.I think probably I agree with the noble lord Lord O'Neill, slightly

:09:36. > :09:40.failed to note that while we joined Euratom before the European Union

:09:41. > :09:46.involved from the EU see, there appears to be something which

:09:47. > :09:50.escaped my notice in 2008, a European Union and then an act of

:09:51. > :09:57.2008 which joined Euratom and the European Union at the hip in some

:09:58. > :10:04.way. A lawyer can explain to me the implication of that but in the

:10:05. > :10:15.commentary of the bill, it explains paragraph 18, that you have to

:10:16. > :10:22.withdraw from the EU because the Euratom is now part of the EU in

:10:23. > :10:26.legal terms. Being that as it may, what is absolutely clear that we

:10:27. > :10:29.have to have a relationship with Euratom and indeed with other

:10:30. > :10:37.organisations around the world. Who are collaborating. One of such

:10:38. > :10:44.collaborations, think again to long term, is the generation for four.

:10:45. > :10:47.This is looking far along, leapfrogging through to new

:10:48. > :10:52.technologies which are still to be developed. We are thinking the year

:10:53. > :10:57.2030 beyond. Well, at the moment, the report describes it as only

:10:58. > :11:02.participating as an inactive member and that was the case in 2011,

:11:03. > :11:07.through the subscription to Euratom and when the Government responded to

:11:08. > :11:13.the select committee report, the Government said, look, we do not

:11:14. > :11:19.have to worry about joining generation for forum if we want to

:11:20. > :11:24.remain connected to the emerging technologies because we are members

:11:25. > :11:29.of Euratom. So clearly that answer does not work any more if Brexit is

:11:30. > :11:33.going to happen and we are going to leave Euratom. So we clearly need

:11:34. > :11:37.quite quick answers and I agree entirely, this is not controversial,

:11:38. > :11:42.the Government of the first to say that we simply do have to develop a

:11:43. > :11:46.nuclear to strategies. And asked capability. We do have to

:11:47. > :11:52.collaborate and if the legal reasons, I do believe there are

:11:53. > :11:55.legal reasons, we have to withdraw from formal membership, surely when

:11:56. > :12:03.the minister responds, he can tell us without reducing any negotiate

:12:04. > :12:08.position in this case, exactly what are ideal situation is that we would

:12:09. > :12:13.like to achieve. I wonder if I could just say a few very brief words in

:12:14. > :12:17.support of the amendment that the Lord has taken this evening. Before

:12:18. > :12:20.I say anything further I should bring the tension to the House of

:12:21. > :12:26.the interest I declared in the register. I'm the chairman of the

:12:27. > :12:30.nuclear Association here in the United Kingdom. I do not think there

:12:31. > :12:38.is any doubt that the membership of Euratom has brought benefits to the

:12:39. > :12:41.nuclear industry. Unlike membership of the European Union itself which

:12:42. > :12:46.remains a polarising and deeply divisive issue in our country, I

:12:47. > :12:50.have not heard anyone mount any argument at all, ever at any point

:12:51. > :12:55.in this process in favour of viewing BOOING

:12:56. > :13:01.Leaving the Euratom treaty. -- of leaving the Euratom treaty.

:13:02. > :13:08.Having looked at these way these two treaties have become intertwined in

:13:09. > :13:11.recent decades, giving advice to the covenant has favoured the separation

:13:12. > :13:15.entirely so as we leave the European Union, we face this rather grim and

:13:16. > :13:18.desperate situation where we might find ourselves without any

:13:19. > :13:23.internationally recognised nuclear safeguards operating in the UK. As

:13:24. > :13:28.the Lord has rightly said, if we were to find ourselves in that

:13:29. > :13:33.position, it would not be comparable to example other aspects of the UK

:13:34. > :13:40.economy so if we leave on WTO trade, the trade will continue.

:13:41. > :13:45.If we were to leave without having these alternative arrangements in

:13:46. > :13:51.place, it would not be possible for companies in the United States,

:13:52. > :13:54.Canada, Japan, India, South Korea, many of our nuclear allies and not

:13:55. > :13:57.least our European friends and partners, to continue to trade was

:13:58. > :14:04.asked with nuclear goods and services. We tend to exaggerate for

:14:05. > :14:08.living in this house, or we can't help ourselves, many of us former

:14:09. > :14:10.politicians. But this would be a catastrophe for the industry and I

:14:11. > :14:13.don't think we should be under illusions about that. My

:14:14. > :14:18.understanding is that the Government has come to the view that we need to

:14:19. > :14:22.disentangle ourselves from Euratom, as well as the institutions of the

:14:23. > :14:26.European Union. For the very simple reason that over time, they have

:14:27. > :14:31.become inextricably linked together. Given the Government's two

:14:32. > :14:33.objectives to leave the European Union appeared to end the

:14:34. > :14:36.jurisdiction of the European Court and end the free movement of labour,

:14:37. > :14:43.I understand the Government's position. But looking at the

:14:44. > :14:48.context, we need to be clear about two things. This would only give a

:14:49. > :14:52.limited jurisdiction if we were to stay in Euratom for an indeterminate

:14:53. > :14:55.period until we can negotiate alternative arrangements. The ECJ

:14:56. > :14:59.would have a limited jurisdiction, specifically to deal with nuclear

:15:00. > :15:05.issues. If we think that we should do, that the nuclear industry is an

:15:06. > :15:09.international tree by its very nature and definition, and is pieced

:15:10. > :15:12.together and hung together by international agreements, it is no

:15:13. > :15:17.great breach of principle or faith to accept that the ECJ should, for a

:15:18. > :15:20.period of time, have a continuing jurisdiction in these matters. I

:15:21. > :15:28.don't think that would bring the House down. Members of this house

:15:29. > :15:32.worried about the free movement of labour, the free movement of labour

:15:33. > :15:37.applies only to nuclear specialists working in nuclear installations. So

:15:38. > :15:40.we do not need to fear, in my view, some back door invasion of mass

:15:41. > :15:49.migration because we remained for a longer period of time. I think today

:15:50. > :15:52.would be very good to know, so I'm clearly arguing that we should take

:15:53. > :15:55.our time before we actually lead the Euratom treaty. I do not believe

:15:56. > :16:00.there is any legal case and certainly no economic or political

:16:01. > :16:03.case for linking the process of leaving the European Union with the

:16:04. > :16:08.process of leaving the Euratom Treaty. I simply don't accept that.

:16:09. > :16:13.And I would like to know today if it is possible. Some clarification from

:16:14. > :16:18.the minister, for example about what conversations Her Majesty's

:16:19. > :16:22.government have already had with the European Atomic Energy Commission to

:16:23. > :16:25.explore the possibility of what a transitional arrangement might look

:16:26. > :16:29.like. I think a lot depends on getting it right. Is that the

:16:30. > :16:33.Government's case that they intend to serve notice to leave Euratom

:16:34. > :16:40.Treaty, at the same time as leaving the European Union? The Lord made

:16:41. > :16:46.this point himself. There is only compelling legal case or reason why

:16:47. > :16:49.these two processes have to be conducted Mauritania sleeve. I

:16:50. > :16:52.believe he was absolutely right to say to this house that we are going

:16:53. > :17:01.to make the job of leaving ten times more difficult if we press the

:17:02. > :17:09.enormous complexity of dealing with the European Union process. But we

:17:10. > :17:11.have two negotiate simultaneously maybe 20 international nuclear

:17:12. > :17:17.corporations, replicate and devised in the UK a new system of nuclear

:17:18. > :17:23.installation, inspection and safeguarding, and secure the nuclear

:17:24. > :17:26.fuels that our current and future fleets will need to rely on in the

:17:27. > :17:31.future. Because those are all covered by the Euratom Treaty, and

:17:32. > :17:34.perfectly sensibly. My Lords, I really do not believe the Government

:17:35. > :17:38.are doing this because they want to leave Euratom Treaty. I feel they're

:17:39. > :17:41.doing it because they have no other choice. I think there is a choice

:17:42. > :17:46.that they have, which is to take their time on this, make sure that

:17:47. > :17:52.there is no clear page when we leave. Because the consequences of

:17:53. > :17:55.leaving without these in place would be so serious for the nuclear

:17:56. > :18:03.industry that it would raise a genuine question about its future. I

:18:04. > :18:08.rise to add a few words on what has already been said about the Euratom

:18:09. > :18:12.Treaty and its relationship to the UK nuclear industry. I shall declare

:18:13. > :18:18.an interest as a Cumbrian and a chair man of Gen2, which is the main

:18:19. > :18:21.supplier of apprentices for Sellafield and the West Cumbria

:18:22. > :18:24.nuclear businesses. There is considerable concern because people

:18:25. > :18:32.just don't know what the Government has aligned. I've been interested in

:18:33. > :18:35.this topic over the last few months. I must say, when I read the

:18:36. > :18:42.Lancaster house beach, I didn't see any reference worthy of the name to

:18:43. > :18:47.the nuclear industry and Euratom aspect. -- when I read the Lancaster

:18:48. > :18:51.House speech. It is really a matter of what the Government has in mind

:18:52. > :18:56.and how it thinks it's going to bring about them in a manner which

:18:57. > :19:00.will enable the nuclear industry to continue in a way that contributes

:19:01. > :19:09.to the well-being of the country as a whole. I, too, have had the

:19:10. > :19:13.pleasure of serving on the Science And Technology Select Committee,

:19:14. > :19:20.though I'm sure he will mark my card next week at the next meeting. But

:19:21. > :19:23.this seems so far has been one of questions to the noble minister. And

:19:24. > :19:29.I'm afraid I'm going to add more questions. It seems the overriding

:19:30. > :19:33.concern of the House seems to be that we need to get some idea of

:19:34. > :19:36.where this is going. This is a very important part of our industry, a

:19:37. > :19:43.very important part of both islands and industry. And I will restrict

:19:44. > :19:46.myself very briefly to just two areas - research and around

:19:47. > :19:52.safeguarding nuclear materials. The Minister knows that Euratom provide

:19:53. > :19:59.the UK with access to considerable R funding, as the noble Lord

:20:00. > :20:03.pointed out. I believe at least around 25 UK organisations are

:20:04. > :20:07.involved in that research. I think it would be useful for the Minister

:20:08. > :20:11.to be able to tell this house what arrangements are planned to ensure

:20:12. > :20:16.international collaboration can continue in the event, that we are

:20:17. > :20:21.no longer in Euratom. And has been said by some of those relationships

:20:22. > :20:26.would have to be separately negotiated, so what is the

:20:27. > :20:28.Minister's view? Do we have to unilaterally renegotiate each

:20:29. > :20:39.relationship, whether it's business or research? And, of course, very

:20:40. > :20:42.importantly, the position of Jet, the Joy Into European Tourist

:20:43. > :20:52.Project which was raised by my noble friend. -- Joy and European Tourist

:20:53. > :20:57.Project. There is a lot of anxiety over what will happen over the

:20:58. > :21:03.product and where it sits. Any reassurance that can be given to the

:21:04. > :21:07.scientists two future, but also how they are given going forward. On the

:21:08. > :21:11.subject of safeguarding nuclear materials, I bow to the superior

:21:12. > :21:15.knowledge of a number of other peers who have spoken here, not least Lord

:21:16. > :21:18.O'Neal and Lord Hutton. But there are concerns among laboratories and

:21:19. > :21:23.other organisations that have to dispose of materials. I was akin to

:21:24. > :21:26.someone who runs an academic laboratory yesterday who had

:21:27. > :21:33.occasion over the summer to dispose of some foreign. Of course, who did

:21:34. > :21:36.he call? How did he go? What were the protocols quiz what it was all

:21:37. > :21:42.through Euratom. How does get replaced? Could the noble minister

:21:43. > :21:47.explain what work is now underway, what scoping has gone underway to

:21:48. > :21:52.what will replace all of those processes that currently exist

:21:53. > :21:56.around that? And can you confirm that there is some sort of timeline

:21:57. > :22:05.that says it will be ready to operate, sit to go, as soon as we

:22:06. > :22:08.exit the European Union. -- fit to go as soon as we exit the European

:22:09. > :22:12.Union. If we're not ready, we effectively dropped off a cliff in

:22:13. > :22:15.terms of the governments that we require. The noble Lord mentions

:22:16. > :22:22.that it's a busy period for government to say the least. We see

:22:23. > :22:26.that other departments are already being galvanised around things like

:22:27. > :22:30.immigration, traffic control, customs, systems and all sorts of

:22:31. > :22:35.processes going on. It seems if you were able, if the Government were

:22:36. > :22:39.able in some way perhaps to delay this particular complication, its

:22:40. > :22:46.objective around a frictionless exit might be easier to obtain. Two final

:22:47. > :22:52.questions - can the Minister tell us what the experts said and are

:22:53. > :22:57.saying? Can he publish what the expert view has been on this? And,

:22:58. > :23:00.finally, can he tell us how many civil servants are currently being

:23:01. > :23:10.deployed on the process of managing and planning this exit?

:23:11. > :23:19.I'd like to support this amendment. As a former member, I'd like to

:23:20. > :23:24.particularly endorse the remarks of the noble Lords Cr pes so one about

:23:25. > :23:33.the current state and the weak state of much of nuclear activity in this

:23:34. > :23:36.country. -- Lord Crebbs. It's clear that the Euratom issue has been, as

:23:37. > :23:44.it were, caught in the slipstream of the EU legislation. It is something

:23:45. > :23:48.that is an extra complication that needs to be sorted out in the most

:23:49. > :23:51.frictionless way. But it is crucially important. And if we

:23:52. > :23:55.didn't have our membership, we would have to reconstitute something very

:23:56. > :24:00.similar with relationships with EU countries and also, as it's been

:24:01. > :24:09.said, with the United States, Japan and Australia. That is in order to

:24:10. > :24:16.continue collaborations. Of course, let's not forget also that we need

:24:17. > :24:19.these collaborations, not just for involvement in building nuclear

:24:20. > :24:25.power stations, but a medical use of radioactive materials and waste

:24:26. > :24:29.disposal, and other safety issues. Euratom has been very effective

:24:30. > :24:35.there. I think it's also important to bear in mind that even though it

:24:36. > :24:39.has been said we are rather weak, depressingly so, in many areas of

:24:40. > :24:49.nuclear technology, we are not so weak infusion. And the Jet project,

:24:50. > :24:52.based in the UK, is one of the major projects in the fusion arena. We

:24:53. > :25:01.have other private projects in this country and we have a major

:25:02. > :25:06.involvement in ITER. I think it is important to ensure that there is

:25:07. > :25:09.going to be no hiatus in the ability to forge ahead with these

:25:10. > :25:16.collaborations. If we were to have to leave Euratom. And I'd also like,

:25:17. > :25:20.as a final comment, to make the point that although the Euratom

:25:21. > :25:24.issue has come up because of the special link legally with the EU,

:25:25. > :25:30.where going to have similar problems in connection with other

:25:31. > :25:34.international projects. As -- let's mention two. One of Galileo,

:25:35. > :25:48.counterpart of the GPS satellite system which involves us and the EU.

:25:49. > :25:51.On the other is Copernicus, which is environmental monitoring by a

:25:52. > :25:55.spacecraft. These are things were our continued major participation

:25:56. > :25:59.will depend on some legal adjustments when we're no longer in

:26:00. > :26:05.the EU. I have the Minister is aware that it's not just in the context of

:26:06. > :26:07.nuclear energy, but in other contexts of international high-tech

:26:08. > :26:14.projects that we need to worry about, but we need to change if we

:26:15. > :26:21.leave the EU. I, too, rise to support these amendments. And

:26:22. > :26:25.associate myself with the comments of Lord twit-macro and Lord

:26:26. > :26:32.Selbourne. I was on the enquiry of the Science And Technology Committee

:26:33. > :26:36.that Lord Crebbs so ably chaired. I want to put a question to the

:26:37. > :26:40.minister about the implications of a messy withdrawal from Euratom for

:26:41. > :26:46.the NHS. The NHS radiological services in particular is heavily

:26:47. > :26:51.dependent on the safeguarding arrangements for the transportation

:26:52. > :26:55.of radioactive material of one kind or another. And also some of the

:26:56. > :27:00.waste disposal issues that are involved. I would like to know what

:27:01. > :27:03.kind of effort the Government has had to discuss with the NHS and

:27:04. > :27:11.Department of Health, and the technology in that sector, about

:27:12. > :27:16.ensuring and guaranteeing the safe supplies of materials that the NHS

:27:17. > :27:25.depends on on a day to day basis. I would like to add three points. I am

:27:26. > :27:32.patron of trade unions for safe nuclear energy. The first point is

:27:33. > :27:36.that the referendum question, people have stretched it so far and its

:27:37. > :27:42.meaning. It means all sorts of things. I don't think anyone would

:27:43. > :27:47.claim that people voted to leave Euratom. I'm not trying to make a

:27:48. > :27:52.debating point, I'm trying to answer a point made from the Government

:27:53. > :27:55.benches that you can't, as it were, drill down into the referendum

:27:56. > :28:01.question. We have two but that the other way round. The second point,

:28:02. > :28:08.it occurs, following the confirmation of Lord Hutton. In the

:28:09. > :28:13.last three weeks we have had quite a lot of party politics about Copeland

:28:14. > :28:18.and how the Labour Party isn't really lined up in favour of nuclear

:28:19. > :28:23.energy. Historically, that is nonsense. But the second point is

:28:24. > :28:28.that a lot of things said on the part...

:28:29. > :43:51.Subtitles will resume on 'Wednesday in Parliament' at 23:00.

:43:52. > :43:59.Subtitles will resume in "Wednesday In Parliament."