01/03/2017 House of Lords

assertion that the government intend to use this issue as a negotiating

encounter the wider issues once the negotiations start. On the contrary

the Prime Minister at the end of last year made an attempt to resolve

this issue in advance of the negotiations on a reciprocal basis

and that was rejected out of hand by Chancellor Merkel and and other

presidents. On the ground but no discussion on this issue could take

place in to Article 50 was invoked. My noble and learned friend, is very

eloquent in her speech, and hair... On the Les inflation would be

necessary to deprive EU nationals of their rights, I agree with him but

that legislation is not before your lordship's house this afternoon. The

question that your Lordships have to decide this afternoon is what action

to take in the light of the truth, perhaps unpalatable to many of you,

an palatable to me because I've made it clear on numerous occasions that

I favour a unilateral guarantee that I think that is what the government

should give but, nevertheless what action should your Lordships house

take in the face of the unpalatable truth that the government will not

change its mind and that the other place, where this issue was raised

and considered and voted upon and resolved by a majority of 42 not

going to change their minds either, in the face of... Well, there are

murmurs from the benches opposite, there are no new facts in this

debate. This is a simple issue. The arguments have been gone through

there were gone through and never place, that a new new facts. The

Home Secretary was criticised for saying what she said in advance of

the arguments but we know what the arguments are and there were no new

arguments on this issue. Of course I do. I thought went through my mind

when he told is what happened, if that is so then what is the point of

the House of Lords? There are many occasions when this House can bring

forward new arguments, a fresh perspective and situation, can

genuinely make the other think again. My Lords, I do not believe

this is one of them. The question which we have to ask ourselves today

is this, "How can we best help the EU nationals who are resident in

this country?" And the best way in which we can help them is to bring

the uncertainty of their position to an end as quickly as possible and

the best way of bringing that uncertainty to an end as quickly as

possible is to pass this Bill as quickly as possible. And to activate

Article 50 as quickly as possible. Order, order! Before the noble lord

sits down I wonder if an issue of new facts he could agree that the

communications that has come from all the expatriate groups across the

European Union that they would wish this House to pass this amendment

because they believe that that is the best way to secure their

position, if that's not a new factor? I'm sure that many of those

groups made their views known when the matter was debated in the other

place. I think that, though their bees need to be taken into account,

I do not see that as tantamount to a new fact. Of course, I give with the

noble Baroness. During this debate that may be lengthy, it would be

helpful for those who are sitting and listening if speakers from the

Conservative group of peers did not refer to the opposition raising

objections when objections are being raised all around the House. It will

not do any good to the image of the House. My Lords, I do not think I

ever referred to the opposition is raising objections as though I think

the noble Baroness opted a very legitimate rebuke, but I do not

think it needed to have been directed at me on this occasion.

LAUGHTER Give way to my noble friend. And most grateful. I

entirely in indoors what he says. He told the House a few moments ago

that he was the unilateralist on this issue. The whole theme of the

Remain campaign was taking back control. Why can we not a unilateral

gesture before the negotiations sees what my noble friend will call the

moral high ground and make a declaration? My Lords, we could, but

the government has decided not to. I wish we would. I would like the

government should take that view. But, the government has decided not

to and I believe this House needs to face... I give way... One major

assertion has been with Peters, that there were no new facts, there are

new facts. --- has been repeated. The government has made it clear to

that science and technology... We are bleeding the best academics from

this country at the present time who are leaving one by one or thinking

about it because they do not see themselves as having a future in

this country. That is urgent needs to be dealt with now. My Lords, the

debate on the other place took place very recently and that fact, as long

as the others was well-known to the others in the other place. That is

not, with great respect, a new fact. I believe, clearly, there are many

who would disagree most profoundly, but I believe that these amendments

would actually work against the best interests of those they are designed

to help. I think the best way of helping them is to pass this

legislation as quickly as possible to activate Article 50 and then to

negotiate give these people the rights they deserved to stay in our

country. My Lords, 3 million foreign nationals in a population of about

65 million to represent a minority. This country has benefited greatly

from minorities the centuries. The example the dues who came to this

country... Sometimes it is minorities who fight for the rights

of their religion like Roman Catholics, or for their own rights

like votes for women or the wrote for others like the magnificent boat

which abolished the slave trade. Again and again minorities have

helped us put the best that we are. And so did the minorities here today

in the 3 million we are treating is shamefully from my own experience

and that of others, I can point to the dazzling contribution of

minorities across the arts, sciences and the widest spectrum of our

cultural and inflexible life. I speak strongly but minority because

I remember of one, a bullied minority whose views have been

dismissed and effectively... I like the Prime Minister was one of those

who voted to Remain. We have become a minority and I am rather surprised

that with her pride she did not stay on to lead the 48% fight. -- leave

the 48%. Sorry to interrupt you seem to be launching into another speech,

and wondering if he could consign his observations... I have a short

speech is quite a. ... I was wondering whether Prime Minister

didn't lead the Remain campaign after we had surprisingly became a

minority. And why did she not fight on as so many other minorities have

done. I believe that it is outside the democratic development of our

city best single issue verge be allowed to change the course of our

history the episode dramatically and potentially divested of sleep. One

major aspect is to turn our back on those who came here and gave their

talent and skills. Those who settled here transforming as in semi-ways

the better, they are now reduced pawns in a government strategy which

too many people seems clueless and without response to critical

questioning. The answer the question of foreign nationals were no natural

pride in who we are if the telco those that are here now, that we

want them to stay here and welcome them.

Bravo, Bravo! LAUGHTER My Lords, I do apologise...

Next we hear from the Archbishop. My Lords, Uganda... It is a collectable

thing that Idi Amin kicks out two types of Asians, British citizens

and Ugandan citizens and my opposition to him was about the

garden citizens who were the largest number. Kiss them out --- he kicked

them out and my result in coming here was a result of opposition to

such behaviour. I know how minorities can feel in a place, I

know how we need to assure our European friends that are resident

hero to remain here. I have one great difficulty. Suddenly we can

scrutinise legislation, but this simple Bill actually is simply to

compel the Prime Minister to satisfy Article 50 on the treaty. --

ratified. That there is an intention to withdraw. It is to give them the

power that I think Parliament should have given them, not royal

prerogative and those in the meeting before all of this came about I was

passionate about the rights of had to simply use prerogative power,

simply because of what had actually gone on way, way back in the Magna

Carta. If you remember section 39 says that no freeman, and we of

course mean woman as well, shall be seized or imprisoned or stripped of

his right or excelled were deprived of his standing in any other way nor

will we proceed with force against him or send others to do so except

by the lawful judgment of his equals or the law of the land. To no man

will we sell, deny, or delay rights or justice. I still think that is

enshrined in the rule of law in this country, so as far as I am concerned

European citizens living here at this point in time, Intel at Lee we

have done the negotiation to use down the line, they have every right

of being here as anyone else. People want to give assurance but I think

the assurance is when the big Bill comes and we begin the debates.

Remember, the European Union has got this free movement of people and

goods and services. All this little Bill is doing is like a race is

about to start. On your Mark, set, and you take off... And it will take

two years to run this race and during the warning of that race we

want to assure that actually concerned that were being raised in

this... If, as I do want to see this decision that the government takes

on behalf of all others that UK citizens be given a guarantee to

remain the best way to do it is to call the bluff of angler Merkel, by

saying we have now triggered Article 50 and we're going to talk about and

guarantee it will be much quicker than the three months of proposals.

I wanted quicker than three months and the other thing is, if the

government is about to start negotiation, we do not want... Those

rights can only be guaranteed not by the government but by Parliament, so

we will have to go through another big Bill in the middle of the matter

is going on. As far as I am concerned we need to scrutinise pass

legislation and I cannot, in this little enabling Bill, that gives

Parliament the power to tell that we intend to get out, this is going to

grow into a very big Christmas tree. Certainly the concerns of EU

citizens... I want to say to do it, and Prime Minister we will turn back

the EU we want a guarantee as of today. Without actually wake peeing

three-month formal proposals, more ideas, more questions. --- before we

wait three months. I voted Remain. One issue has not emerged in the

referendum debate, keeping promises, both sides seem to agree that the

world began yesterday and we are faced with a clean slate and many

position ourselves to great advantage, but the world, our

European neighbours and others ourselves all have a recent history

and we need keep promises. The things we ventured into to keep

those promises it failed. 52% decided to who wrote, in spite of

all the promises in spite of all the things we've entered into to leave.

I want to suggest this, my Lords, leave the Bill as it is. Pass it as

quickly as possible. All these speeches that are talking about

really guaranteeing the UK sits and their rights to remain let's do it

as quickly as possible. Who do not attach to this particular Bill,

because to me as far as I'm concerned I cannot see them revising

the Bill or actually scrutinising the Bill. You are simply adding to

materials... Finally, I was about to finish but I

will sit. Thank you very much. Does the noble

Lord not understand... Thank you. The moral obligation that it is on

this government? These people are not bargaining chips. If we say

quite freely that they are free to stay, that does give the moral high

ground to our government in its negotiations and I would argue that

all noble Lords, including noble lord Howard should vote with their

consciences and not with the party. I never want to see any human person

used as a bargaining chip. They are people and they must be treated

according to the rule of law in this country. The Prime Minister tried to

give a guarantee. Thank God I am not in captivity. May

I suggest, please, that as soon as this becomes law, the better the

challenge we will give the Prime Minister about what was attempted to

do and what was prevented because Article 50 was going to be

triggered. As soon as that happens, we can campaign for her to what she

suggested. People like me are just shocked.

Before, I used to pay large sums of money to travel around Europe. I was

a naturalised as a British citizen and then I could visit all of Europe

without a reason. Great stuff. Please, this is a very limited bill

and we want to pass it as it is and maybe there is one more suggestion

for the Prime Minister. She should probably set up a truth and

listening commission in our four nations so that the divisions we are

seeing at the moment can be discussed. The these reasons, I will

be voting against any of the amendments because I don't think

revising it makes any changes, it is just adding on and adding on. My

Lords, I rise to support Amendment nine B, which is standing on the

order paper in my name as well as the other three in the less. It's

about the rights of citizens in this member state, not those in other

member states. I support this amendment without hesitation because

I believe we do have a commitment to honour here. To recognise that just

the rights of the citizens, although that is important enough, but also

the contribution they have made, are still making and will I hope

continue to make to our economy and our society. This amendment does not

seek to dictate to the government the details of how these rights

should be secured. That will be for the government to sort out in the

proposals that are called for in the amendment. Nor is it an attempt to

delay the triggering of Article 50 beyond the government's deadline at

the end of this month. As far as I can see, there is one faintly

respectable argument against this amendment and that is that it is not

the right way for the UK to be helping the position of its own

citizens who are living in other European countries to speak now

newly laterally about how we will treat European citizens here. But

that argument simply doesn't hold water. Why on earth would these

British citizen 's right across the European Union have today issued a

statement making it quite clear that they supported our taking this

decision in this amendment and that they believe it is the best way to

secure the rights. I don't think I could be accused of supporting with

a half-hearted way our fellow citizens across Europe. I did move

an amendment in this house which would have given them the right to

vote in the referendum which quite shockingly they were deprived of by

a majority who voted against that. My own view is that for us to move

unilaterally to protect the rights of EU citizens here is in fact the

best possible step to ensure, to safeguard the rights of our own

citizens elsewhere in the EU. I say that as someone who has a little bit

of experience of EU negotiations. I negotiated our session to the EU. I

negotiated the opt out on the euro. I can't be sure that I am right, but

I do think there is a reasonable chance that I am right and I do not

believe myself that the transactional approach which is the

way the government wishes to go, that that transactional approach is

the right way to proceed, or is likely to produce good results, or

will produce them quickly. I hope that your law chip's house will

approve this amendment when we come to vote on it. I rise to support

amendment 9B. That overlaps with another amendment, including 37

standing in my name. There is a moral case, human rights case that

has been very well made and I went repeated. There are four different

categories of employment in which this issue is acute. From my own

experience in Wales it is relevant in the EU. Firstly, those who work

in the hotel sector. In Wales we benefit from having workers from the

Baltic states. It can be argued that most of these jobs could be done by

residents of Wales and they could, but the reality is that the work in

this sector is not popular, because it's highly seasonal and the wage

levels are sometimes low. In Wales we now have a low unemployment rate

that is below the UK average. It's not an exaggeration to say that if

these employees were to depart overnight the sector in Wales will

be in crisis. Employers need to know that the current staff can remain

and they need some indication under what circumstances after Brexit or

during any prolonged Brexit negotiations will they be entitled

to employ staff from other EU countries. Secondly there is the

food processing industry. Many of the same arguments apply and in some

cases to a greater extent because firms often overdependent on EU

workers. Thirdly there is in a different category our university

sector in Wales. We have 1355 EU nationals employed, often in key

jobs for which they cannot be easily replaced. Fourthly, the NHS in Wales

where as in England there is a high level of dependency on staff who

have come here from other EU countries. I believe that over 1100

such employees whether the NHS in Wales at present. Without them the

service would be in danger of collapse. Over 6% of our doctors

from EU countries. We already have a critical shortage of GPs. In this

fourth group I have been told of instances in some key job holders

they are fearful of what will happen to them or what may happen after

Brexit. They are already actively seeking jobs in their home countries

in case at some later stage there is a stampede of their fellow EU

nationals seeking to return home and consequently the chances of getting

jobs back home will become more challenging. The government have

been taking the line that they will be giving priority to this issue on

the position of EU workers in the UK were negotiations start, but it's

not at that point in time that the necessary assurances can be given to

these workers. The outcome won't be known until the negotiations are

well near complete and that would be totally unacceptable, not only to

thousands of such workers living in Britain, but also I believe to this

house and the other place. That is why this amendment should be written

into the Bill and why MPs must be asked to think again on this

critical matter. If they don't, I believe we should have the courage

of our convictions to insist that this provision is enacted. Thousands

of people are looking today to this house to give the lead and I

earnestly hope that we don't let them down. There might be time. I

shall be very brief. My Lords, but faces us today is an extremely

serious issue so far as I'm concerned. I just want to put before

your Lordships the way that I happened to look at it. The

throughout the European Union a large number of people who were born

in one European country, and I say European, I'm thinking of membership

of the European Union. Born in one European country and are now

residing in another. Under the protection of the laws that are

prevalent in these countries in consequence of the treaty that puts

the EU together. Many people in our country and in other countries in

this situation -- art in this situation. My Lords, I believe the

moral high ground is to treat all these people equally. They are equal

people. They are absolutely equal people and they are people. Now I

completely repudiate the idea that I should treat any fellow human being

as a bargaining counter or anything of the kind. I thoroughly reject

that and have no truck with that whatsoever, but I do believe that it

is essential that all these people are treated properly and equally,

and the problem is that the rights of residents in the countries in

which they are are now threatened by the vote that we have taken in this

country against the views of a number here, including my own, to

leave the European Union. The European Union, in its wisdom,

has formulated a way in which these matters should be settled. These

matters are until that mechanism, set up under

the treaty, is triggered. This Bill is in order to enable our country

too, and our government, to trigger that mechanism. The reason that this

Bill is necessary is because it is appreciated and was so in the

courts, that both levels whether cases were hired that to do so was

affecting the rights of people secured by acts of parliament in

this country and to the same extent in the other countries of the

European Union, because the law of the union is by virtue of the

treaty, has to be accepted as the law in that country, also. So, their

rights are all rights that are in terms according to the treaty of

union of the European Union. The European Union has stipulated away

in which, if any country wishes to leave then they should do so, and

Article 50 years the wafer that. As far as I am concerned. -- is the way

for that. All these people have to be treated fairly, they are all in

the same boat in that sense and they are all people whose security in the

country in which they are residing is threatened until that matter is

settled under the European Union negotiation structure. I believe

that it is right that that should be done in a way that is fair to them

all. I am the first to acknowledge that we owe a tremendous amount to

the people from other all green European Union countries. A huge

amount, National Health Service, I've seen myself often extremely

good work done by people who have come from, for example Poland, to

work here and the kind of work they do and the benefits they give to was

a very great. But, but, I have to do say that that is not a consideration

to give them a preference over the other people who are affected in

exactly the same way. What I say is that the right thing to do as has

been said is that Article 50 be triggered and that each at Lee, as

the Prime Minister has said she asked the to be settled and be

settled in a way that would cover the whole of the European Union and

I believe the only excuse that has been offered so far in Europe for

not agreeing to this has been that the score 50, the way out of the

European Union, negotiations have been triggered. Bash the Article 50.

I would confidently expect then have the greatest possible expect Derry

respect... The argument against a junior tool jester on the part of

this government which could generate goodwill which could terminate the

rest of the negotiations. There is no need any negotiations. My view is

that a unilateral declaration of that kind is not treating fairly all

the people that are affected by this problem. I regard the higher ground,

the moral high ground as the grant of furnace, the only ground that I

think we can take in a negotiation of this kind. --- the ground of

furnace. And I think that the settlement of this matter is more

likely to happen if the negotiations are triggered and the Prime

Minister, as she has said, makes this are very first requirement. I

believe that nobody in the European Union has so far given any reason

for not agreeing with it, for all European nationals who are in other

countries of residence... I would respectively pointed out that at the

Conservative Party conference Liam Fox actually said that the uncertain

status of EU nationals living in the UK is one of the main cards in the

Brexit negotiations, for that reason I do not trust in government in

these negotiations. I do not regard myself to be bound by remarks made

by Liam Fox. I regard myself as having been given the responsibility

is so far of being a member of this House and that I should explain to

your Lordships as fully and briefly as I can what I believe is the more

high ground, namely to treat all these people from the European Union

that are in countries other than their countries of origin and their

rights secured by the European Union Treaty, when that treaties to be a

departed from in accordance to the rule set out by the treaty, Article

50, then that is the time for a fair negotiation of the whole matter and

I believe it would come very quickly because as I said, and I'm repeating

myself I won't do it again, I have has no argument from Europe that has

said anything about this apart from that the negotiations have not been

triggered. My Lords. I rise to speak to Amendment 16 a, and amendment 38

and they also support amendment nine B all-star whether or not one

favours a unilateral guarantee to EU citizens in this country as I do,

there are key questions about the government's approach which can and

need to be answered now. Amendment 16 A is a probing amendment which

seeks to draw out the answer to these questions and they hope that

the label Lord will respond to them fully. --- do noble lord. First,

what rights do the government intend to apply for EU citizens in the UK.

The government should tell us now. If they did so they would provide

much-needed clarity the EU citizens here and British citizens in the EU.

Though citizens need to know that they and their families will not

just have a right to residents and to work, but also have access to

public services, in particular health, without which the many built

rights to residency is meaningless. Thirdly, what procedure does the

government envisaged by which EU citizens in the UK will gain rights

of residency under British law. As a report from the EU justice

committee, the indefinite leave to remain procedure would not be

suitable. It would not be to cope the applications and it requires

documentation which in many cases EU citizens will not have because

they've have never needed it or had any expectation of needing it.

Fourth, what does the government intend to be the qualifying date for

the rights it does when EU citizens? With green the date of withdrawal as

it was in the case for Greenland's exit, or does the government intend

some of the date? People need to know the government's intentions.

They need to plan their lives. There is the case of sickness in Shawlands

cover --- insurance cover. There is a dispute as to whether the NHS

qualifies as... Whatever the merits of the dispute between the

commission and the UK Government on this matter, three fax clear, one,

many EU citizens had no idea that this acquirement existed, to most

that did thought that they were covered by their right to use the

NHS, a reasonable assumption given that that was also the assumption of

the EU governor, three, the final and stop that is this, if the

government adheres to this position, thousands of people many who have

been resident in this country the decades will find themselves without

the main in the country that they have made their home. That cannot be

right. This issue is causing huge anxiety to millions of people and it

is in the power of the government to resolve it by stating their evidence

that CSA C will not be a requirement that you citizens to gain permanent

residents. They should do so, now. I now turn to amendment 38, which

makes explicit the unilateral guarantee to EU citizens resident in

the UK and provides no agreement under Article 50 can be entered into

which does not protect the rights of UK citizens and their families in

other countries. My Lords, it is not my intention to put either amendment

to vote this afternoon, but I hope that the Minister will address the

questions raised by both amendments. I will support a cross-party

amendment because it offers the best opportunity to send a clear signal

to the elected house. But, I will want to come back to the issue of

British citizens in the EU which is addressed in amendment 38, because

their rights are also of crucial concern to my noble friend and

myself and many noble Lords across the parties in the House. Many

British citizens living in the EU have contacted me and other noble

Lords to say how abandoned they felt by the elected house and how

heartened they were that this House was actually addressing their

concerns. My Lords, we must not abandon them, again. Through no

fault of their own as a result of a referendum for which the majority of

them were excluded, millions of British and other EU citizens have

suddenly found their futures at the mercy of the whims of politicians.

They fear they may be excluded from the country that they have made

their homes, in some cases they fear being split up from their husbands,

wives or partners. These are not spurious beers, they're not as a

result of scaremongering they are from others old of the government's

failure to provide moral leadership or administrative clarity. --- of

these are not spurious fears. Even though you are a liberal Democrat

cannot have it both ways. You can either give priority to people who

are living here that we want to give priority to all you are not. This

amendment does that, it gives priority to EU citizens here as

against British citizens sitting elsewhere. You cannot have that bit

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

argument he would understand the answer to his question. Take, for

example an elderly couple resident in Germany who wrote to me recently,

one of them are pretty sits on the other German. They wrote to say that

they are terrified that if the final agreement does not provide the

continuing access of health care they could not continue to live in

the same country. The same fears had been expressed by others. These are

not abstract issues, this is about the lives of millions of peoples,

the anxiety and fear that has been inflicted on them since exit and it

is about the uncertainty that means their lives and put on hold. Since

Brexit. This Home Secretary... Would he agreed that what we have

heard this afternoon, the inflaming of the fears of these people has

come from one side? I would not agree for one moment. These are

fears expressed to me and noble Lords across this House. The

government needs to address them. The Home Secretary claims in her

letter to ask that a unilateral guaranteed to EU residents in the UK

would cause uncertainty to British citizens in the EU. As a noble lord

has pointed out it's not the view of many groups representing British

citizens in the EU who have written to us and published a statement

today. Not only do they accept any for unilateral guaranteed, they have

strongly urged on me and other noble Lords that far from causing

uncertainty, they believe it will provide them with reassurance. My

Lords, we have had a lot of discussion during the debate on this

bill about who said what in the referendum campaign. What no one

claimed that the rights of EU and claimed that the rights of EU and

British citizens resident in other countries would not be affected.

That is what they said and to say anything else would be

scaremongering. Since the vote to leave, politicians from the

political spectrum have been cleared we should unilaterally state that we

will protect the rights of EU citizens here. Lord Howard Hughes

spoke earlier, he made it clear that as far as residents and right to

work and study that we should not wait. The noble Lords Cormack advise

the government that it should lead by example and he has taken a clear

and principled stance on this issue throughout, as have many noble Lords

in this House, including Lord Hannay, and others. This is not a

partisan issue, it is a question of principle. Doubtless the Minister

will tell us that this bill is not the place to concern ourselves with

such principles, but it is the only place. It is our one opportunity to

send a clear signal go back to the elected House that we regard the

principle of protecting the rights of EU citizens resident here and

British citizens resident in the EU as a matter of honour for our

country and in doing so to show that we have heard the distress and

anxiety of millions of British and other EU citizens and that we have

been prepared not just to offer warm words, but to act as well. Hear,

hear! My Lords... My Lords, we do need to try and organise this debate

so that we hear all sides of the argument and I hope noble Lords will

understand if I then suggest a time limit. I think I should first of all

in a manner that is not being followed by anybody else in this

House today, declare my interest in this matter. I have first of all a

nephew who has lived and worked in Germany for 20 years and I have a

Danish son-in-law, who has lived in this country for over 30 years.

Secondly, I would like to say from an extraordinary -- I would like to

say it has been an extraordinary experience today. We have been

denied the presence of Lord Heseltine who has not been admitted

to speak to us. Perhaps he will do us the kind that is of addressing us

because it is an almost unique experience. The other reason it is a

remarkable day for me is that at a time when so often these days we

hear slave traders criticised, and Lord Haber Shoreham has made the

most splendid defence of them. That is he said that a man's decision

should be made in accordance with the laws as they were when he took

the decision. I hope we will hear a little bit less about students

tiering down that Mac tearing down pictures of slave traders. It seems

to me that the first duty of this Parliament of the United Kingdom is

to care for the interests of the citizens of this kingdom. So if we

are to be concerned about anybody's rights after

Brexit to live anywhere, it should be the concerns of British people to

live peacefully in other parts of Europe. Today we seem to be thinking

of nothing but the rights of foreigners... My Lords. People of

nationalities of other countries within the union of foreigners. I

thank the noble Lord and I would like to asking him to protect the

argument further about protecting the rights of UK citizens. What

would he say to a UK citizen married to perhaps a German or Dutch

national and now worried about the rights to remain and to work and to

live in this country? That is exactly what the Prime Minister has

said. That we would look for an equitable solution.

They are not British subjects, but citizens of the EU. But so should

the rights of British citizens living within the EU. That's not a

difficult matter. Why is everybody here today so excited about an

amendment which looks after the foreigners and not the British? I

would like to point out that the reason the amendment is structured

as it is is because we are conscious of the powers of the British

government and the British government is able to determine the

lives of the EU citizens resident in this country but were not able to

determine the lives of our own citizens abroad, but that does not

mean to say we think any less of them and we are fighting for them.

Of course we don't have the power to look after our citizens overseas.

Not in these days where we would don't have many gunboats, but we

have an obligation to look after the rights of those people and to look

after those rights first and I think that the best way in which we can in

fact preserve the rights of all those concerned, EU citizens here,

our citizens on the continent, is to allow the process of section 50 to

be proceeded with as expeditiously as possible to get the worries over

and for a decent and proper arrangement to be made. And I only

wish that European statesman such as Mrs Merkel would come forward, maybe

arm in arm with Mr Juncker to say what they are going to do. The web

make life -- it would make life more difficult. It is the Labour Party's

term. I suggest we hear from the noble Baroness Lady Kennedy. My

Lords, I support this amendment and I also have my name on 16 eight with

Lord Oates and 38. I just want to reiterate his points as the what the

position was at the time of the referendum. During that campaign

reassurance was given to EU nationals living here and to our

citizens living abroad in the United, in the European Union, that

the rights would be protected. We were told it will be done under

international law of acquired rights. And so I chairing the

European Union Justice subcommittee was able to hear from, with my

colleagues on that committee, evidence as to what the law of

international acquired rights was. What became clear, and it is the

basis of the report, you will see it makes it clear that international

law does not provide the kind of protections that were being given as

a reassurance to those many, many people. What our committee embarked

on was an evidence taken session which showed to ask really that the

position with regard to European union nationals living here and our

citizens living around Europe was that they were really going to be in

in extraneous if we did not take steps to quickly secure the rights.

3 million people live in this country and who are European Union

nationals, but it is not just them experience anguish. It's also the

family members, the employers, their neighbours. Indeed it affects a lot

of people, well beyond the people themselves and I suspect that our

committee is at the receiving end of the greatest number of

communications from those people about their distress, the anxiety,

the fears of the children and the fear is that they have as to the

future. I don't want us to be living here thinking that it is only about

3.5 million people and we are preoccupied as Lord Tebbit seems to

think that would just be rights of people living here. We receive a

huge mailbag from people living around Europe who are fearful about

the pension positions, fearful because they retire to places like

Spain and now wonder about what the prospects. Worried for their help

the situation and so on. One we say that our position should be that we

leave it to the great negotiation and it should be number one on the

list, I do want to remind the noble primate that our Prime Minister did

not go to Europe saying, we will give a unilateral declaration. She

went saying she wanted a negotiation before the triggering of Article 50

and that was not on the table because as we know negotiation only

begins after that. What she should have been doing and what we would

urge her to be doing is to say that we will take the principal position

of honouring our responsibilities to those who are living and working

with us because of the impact on their lives, the lives of their

families and the lives of all the people around them. I want to just

explain that what we discovered in taking evidence was that the

position mentioned by Lord Owen, the law around permanent residence is

incredibly complex and buy some time. In fact, Lord Justice Jackson

described it as being such that its complexity would even have made by

zan time emperors envious. All I can say to you -- Byzantine. All I can

say is that we have had an impact on people making applications. We now

know that in the last period since the referendum there has been the

rejection of 20% of applications made for permanent residence and the

refusals have been on the grounds that they have incomplete evidence,

documentation, all, and this is one of the most painful things to hear

about, is that women who took time off to have children, women who had

time out of employment and who did not pursue this sickness benefit

that they were required to, this private insurance that our

government is saying required which is part of the documentation that

they are supposed to supposed to provide to show that they have that

sickness insurance, if they are not able to provide it, they are told

they are not entitled to permanent residents. Many of them have

received refusals on those grounds. These are the mothers of children

married to men in Britain. They've been here some of them further 20

years. We should understand the scandal that this is. I do want to

say to people who have been involved in any kind of business negotiation

or legal negotiation, when you take a principled position at the

beginning a negotiation it wins you only so much goodwill. That is why

in our communications only today and yesterday from those people in the

European Union who are in contact with me as the chair of the

subcommittee. What they are saying to us is, please pass this

unilateral declaration amendment in the House of Lords because it's not

just giving reassurance to those nationals there, but all of us in

Europe who are careful about the future and who feel it will give

strength to our arguments in relation to governments like the

Spanish, Portuguese governments. This is a matter of principle. It is

about the honour of this House. This is about speaking to what people

need to put the fears and anguish at bay and we really have a

responsibility to those people and intake of responsibility for the

ones who we can make decisions about, we therefore take

responsibility for our citizens living in other parts of the

European Union. The Home Secretary... Thank you. My

Lords act is not participate in the second reason is because they could

not be present at the closing speeches but I have either sat

through, watched over for the proceedings. Had I been present I

would have spoken in support of the government taking the action which

is urged in this amendment, to which I have added my name. Despite this

afternoon, to which I have no regret so doing. Our attitude to this

amendment will help define the kind of country that we want be. I have

read very carefully the letter to your Lordships on my right

honourable friend the Home Secretary, urging object meant the

beat amendment and I do not likely disregard it, but I do not find the

argument that we should only be prepared to confirm the rights of EU

nationals living here as part of the negotiation of our own citizens

acceptable. I think it is a misjudged position to except. I find

it's neither justifiable or credible to prolong the uncertainty of EU

nationals in this country. I wish we could remove the uncertainty of our

nationals and other EU countries but that is not in our gift. Our stance

on this matter implies that without a satisfactory outcome the rights of

EU citizens here might not be safeguarded. If we may use the

rights of EU citizens here as a bargaining tool in connection with

UK citizens write why not some people think for other important

issues. Cash Currie I do not believe to be credible, does anyone believe

that we in the United Kingdom would actually deprived EU citizens of

their rights. For that matter, do we believe that our current partners in

the European Union would want to make our nationals can to do

resident in our countries impossible, impactful... If we do

believe that it says much about our attitude toward our partners and I

suggest that we need to demonstrate greater trust, before we start

British Asians we should write cheques are right the idea of some

diplomatic but Pat. --- before we start negotiations. M but we are not

dealing with aliens in war but people that came to our country with

our consent. In 2003 the United Kingdom, together with other

countries agreed not to impose transitional arrangements limiting

free movement. That was a brave decision at the time which

recognised the countries of Eastern Europe had waited a long time the

freedom of membership. That act was passed in the other place with no

votes against it. There were some discussions about as issue

arrangements and likewise in this House some discussions but no votes.

Although any transitional arrangements would by now have long

expired, there is no doubt that in the United Kingdom that the United

Kingdom and with this parliament offered an unconditional welcome

which was an attraction to many. We felt, what is being described this

afternoon that we have the moral high ground and I suggest again to

my noble friend on the front bench that now is the time to take that

high ground again and give certainty where there is no uncertainty and

clearly state that we end United Kingdom do not bother with people.

We have chosen to lead the European Union, that is our right. --- we do

not bargain with people. We should also recognise that as a nation we

have made it possible people from other countries to come here and

build a new life. Let others give an assurance and show that we are the

generous, upward looking, internationalist country that we are

stated to be headed for these Brexit negotiations. Let others also not

play a blame game with other leaders in Europe. I with great respect of

those who spoke earlier do not read the Prime Minister's Lancaster house

speech as an unconditional offer to settle the issue of EU nationals in

this country. Within the words of that speech there was a deal, I

think that was the word used, was in linked to a deal for EU nationals in

Europe dashed UK nationals in Europe. I was made aware... If we

except that we would not deprived EU citizens of their rights, what

possible motive could we have the being so reluctant about the issue?

I hope it is not because we think it would be seen as a sign of weakness

on migration issues. It remains my preference to hear the Minister say

that the government will make a statement that would meet the

concerns of those who have put forward this amendment and other

amendments in this group. If it cannot now or later then the matter

has to be settled by division. For the Minister to take such a step

would be preferable. There are many issues that have been raised with me

and others that need clarification. Our amendment refers to EU citizens

legally resident and I believe that that should cover people who are

resident here under their treaty rights. It was referred in some

length to Ali. I would ask the Minister to confirm that the

government recognises the rights of those EU sits and he may just be

family members living with EU citizens who has a permanent

residence certificate. To vote for this amendment is not delay the

Bill, to thwart the outcome of the referendum, to deny the will of the

other place, it is a simple request to look at the very serious issue

and indeed, where we to do so, we would be in line with the

recommendations of the your lordship's European Union committee

on this solution. Plenty of time for it to go back to the opposing come

back here. I have my noble friend on the front bench will understand Fifa

one do not want to be associated with a position which appears mean

and does no credit. --- that I for one. The future of UK nationals may

well be top of the list, but we could commence those negotiations

saying that we have already done the proper thing by your nationals. It

could even assist in creating a good client met in which to start our

talks. --- a good climate. We want a relationship with Europe and there

are many things we want for our partnerships in the future. To open

the talks with a generous gesture freely given would not be a bad

start. Motion is understandably one high on this issue both here and on

the continent. --- emotions. As a long-time resident on the continent

and after a lot of soul-searching over the weekend, including

consultation with multiple UK residents organisations who are

consistent with their messaging that they project. I see, however the

only cause of action is to allow the government a clear run on these

negotiations. There are a lot of issues at play this afternoon. Some

of which belong elsewhere. Matters such as, concerns to meet with dire

needs of our health service should be parked as being another subject

for another day. Other regrettable circumstances including families

with children facing the stock reality of enforced separation or

worse having split up, should also be set aside, because of works of

not meeting... Let those needs be indeed recognisable tag the

resolution to the immigration not any other appropriate act. There is

no guarantee that should EU citizens be offered the right to remain in UK

that the UK citizens rights to remain on the continent be secure.

It could be argued by Brussels, that the needs of the UK to propose this

are more pressing than those of the 27 remaining. This is where I

believe there is a... The Minister will be aware of this and addresses

the point that the noble and learned Lord wished for, any fact of

perception, eight member states have thus far failed to notify the

commission of complete transformation into their national

legislation of the citizens rights directive enabling working by

citizens in another member state. Failure to react to this formal

notice and their recent reason opinion will be referred to the ECJ

within two months. This does not help the cause behind these

amendments. Beware of the small print. After the trigger, however,

what government could agree with Brussels is an across the EU process

of removing a first stage of uncertainty by announcing, for those

that are compliant with national residency rules, good to remain. A

limited grace period for compliance by others could then be agreed by

mutual consent. I see as the only practical way forward is to

establish red lines on the criteria of rights to remain. Two sets of

issues with entertainment from the line in the sand could be drawn.

First, one of two dates are relevant, the date of the referendum

on the date of leaving the EU. Secondly, there are two sets of

persons those that are compliant with the regulations... To beat

complied with bilateral packs treaty concerns, taking into account

primarily residents status is, to be paying national security, National

social security and national taxes is required, conversion of drivers

license and so on. In other words, visible evidence of intent. Comply

with these then you should be afforded the rights of equal

treatment of as nationals in the country that you are living in at

including help green health care. --- including health care. I will

therefore not be supporting the series of amendments which I

considered would complicate the process of exiting the EU with a

probable failure to be delivered on a reasonable time period leading to

a hard Brexit. Statement of the UK... Sorry. My Lords, amendment 25

is one which I have taken on behalf of the joint committee on human

rights which I am a member, and it is also supported by other Lords and

Baroness is, in evidence early I will speak a little to of amendment

in this group but I do assure Nobel Lords that I have crossed out quite

a lot of the speech that I arrived with early this afternoon. Of course

I am aware of the statements made by ministers, recently by the Home

Secretary's letter noble Lords, but none these amount is to an

acknowledgement of rights and I stress, right. This was where we

almost dotted with the second speech this afternoon. --- where we almost

started. There has been a report, largely on the basis of the European

Convention on human rights, in the spirit of the committee's very

moderate amendment, and unlike others in this room can I assure

that our amendment does not amount to an attempt to delay or to

frustrate leaving the yield. I am puzzled about the logic of the

government being committed to assurances while at the same time

saying that nothing can be settled now. It seems to me that the latter

must call the former into question. Noble Lords have talked about how

offensive it is to treat people as commodities, but even if this were

appropriate how useful would this be as a bargaining chip. --- chip?

Ministers are saying that we have their assurances that this is a

priority. A bargaining chip without any negotiating advantage, because

we have acknowledged its priority. Have we downgraded other issues? I

leave these as questions hanging. It is said, of course, a unilateral

arrangement makes no sense, could I put a different view to your

Lordships? Even at the cold, an emotional level of negotiation, I

believe it doors. A goodwill gesture, and mole gesture, can be a

very effective negotiating tool in itself. Bash in mould gesture. I

don't have an impression level of... I have found it can be effective.

--- a moral gesture. Putting the responsibility on other states by

saying that they... There was no technical reason why there cannot be

a unilateral position and of course UK citizens in other European states

have the same, all if you like mirror image rights, so the scope of

negotiation actually maybe a little bit limited. I cannot help thinking

as well but given the age of the many UK citizens abroad,

particularly in Spain, if they were ten at the same time as we lose or

perhaps send away so many people working in our health service, we

will be shooting ourselves in both beat.

It is not the best reason that there are practical reasons as well. If

some such provisions are not embedded, the burden on the Home

Office or dealing with large numbers of applicants seeking to establish

the position, and on the courts called on to apply article eight of

the convention, these would be enormous I don't want to start on

considering what will be the logical step of deportation. We prefer to

morality as well as rights. The guarantee is simply the right thing

to do. Although I am disciplining myself from repeating what other

noble Lords have said about the representations made to us, I want

to take this opportunity of thanking the enormous numbers of people who

have e-mailed us, very personally, very individually in a very

heartfelt way. The noble Lord said there are no new facts. I don't

think he could argue that there is not an increasing weight of

evidence. There is one cohort that I would like to mention and those are

people who are vulnerable to exploitation. Perhaps not hugely

competent, often in the agriculture, construction and care industries.

There is evidence now that unscrupulous employers are taking

advantage of their readiness to believe it when they are told, you

are illegal. There is no such thing. We have heard many times, don't tell

the other side your bottom line, don't put your cards on the table. I

think this card is on the table, so that argument falls away. This House

should demonstrate it is with those that want the nation to be a nation

that understands common humanity and dare I say it, human rights.

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of amendment 25 to which I have

added my name and in general support of the amendments in this group. In

doing so, and like the noble Lord Lord Tebbit, I declare my interest

as chair of Kings College Hospital, chair of Peabody and chair of the

local Government Association. This may be the only points of similarity

in our speeches. My views of course are my own and not those of the

organisations. My Lords, I should start by saying that this is a

difficult judgment for us to make and it will be one of many that we

face over the coming years. I have, like other noble Lords, read very

carefully the Home Secretary boss Pat letter, much of which I

absolutely sympathise with, and reflected on the issues overnight.

Having reflected, Isil, firmly down on the side of supporting an

amendment to protect the rights of EU citizens in this country. The

arguments for this are both principles and deeply practical. The

principled arguments have already been well made today, so I will not

repeat them. Over 3 million EU citizens have come to this country

in good faith. Many have made it their home and in doing so

contributed enormously to the good of this country. I doubt if there

are very many peers in this House or many people in the country who would

actively want them to leave. In fact the only argument we have heard put

forward by the Home Secretary in her letter for not confirming the

position now is that it would weaken our hand in the negotiation over EU

citizens in Europe. Whichever way you dress up that argument,

whichever way you think about that argument, it is using the rights of

my view it is not even a very good my view it is not even a very good

bargaining chip because it is perfectly clear to negotiators that

we need them to stay as much, if not more than they wish to do so. The

negotiation amounts to saying, do as we wish, or we will shoot our own

fault off. I think the EU negotiators will see through that.

My practical reason for supporting this amendment is that for our own

sakes we need to end the uncertainty for EU citizens now. The government

have said that we can debate this issue at a later stage. They have

said that they will seek to reach an early agreement with the EU and I

have no doubt whatsoever about the sincerity on this point, but the

hard truth is that only resolution is not in the gift. In the meantime

the uncertainty creates risks for a desperately needed skilled staff

with the devastating consequences. Let me just give you three. For the

building of new homes, which I am absolutely passionate about, we know

that something like a quarter of construction workers in London, from

the EU. For the effective operation of our hospitals, I know that Kings

would not simply be able to function without European doctors and nurses

that work for us. For the delivery of social care, EU workers form a

vital part of the residential and home care provider workforce.

Without these skilled workers, it will simply be impossible to run

these functions properly and they are not possible to be replaced in

the short-term. Map it may be, my Lords, that they will continue to

stay here, but the survey that we saw in the Guardian today on

European doctors I think immediately puts that in doubt. It may be that

only resolution with the EU is possible. I have to say from my own

conversations with those closer to the process that I am doubtful of

this, but in the end, my Lords, the key question for me is this. Given

the potentially devastating consequences for all the things I

hold dear, new homes, functioning NHS, delivery of good quality care,

do I think that this is a risk worth taking? My Lords, I do not.

Sometimes in life, in fact very often in life, the right thing to do

is to do the right thing. I hope today that we do the right thing. I

shall be very brief. I shall be very brief. My Lords, I think it will be

appropriate to hear from Lord Lawson and then from the Labour benches.

Thank you. I will be very brief indeed. I will stop by declaring an

interest, and even more personal interest than that declared by Lord

Tebbit. My home is in France. Despite that I have gone on record

in this House on a number of occasions, and elsewhere, and said

that I would like to see the government give an unconditional

assurance that EU citizens in this country legally here with the right

to remain. That there should be no question about the rights being

taken away. I believe the idea of somehow linking it with the position

of the joo citizens resident in the European Union was well intentioned

in order to reassure those, but mistaken. Nevertheless I cannot

agree with this amendment. Partly a fundamentally for the reasons so

well set up by the Right Reverend pride that the Archbishop of York.

This amendment has no place in this building whatsoever. Secondly, the

Home Secretary's letter has been referred to. One of the things that

the Home Secretary said, perhaps the most important was that nothing will

change for any EU citizens, whether already resident in the UK or moving

from the EU without Parliament's approval. It is quite clear to

everyone in this House that there is no chance that Parliament would

approve the expulsion of EU citizens legally resident in this country. No

way. This is understood by the government. There is no way the

government proposes this, so there is no danger what ever to EU

citizens resident in the UK. So apart from a certain amount, too

much I would say my personal opinion, of... What is the purpose

of the amendment? The only consequence of this amendment will

be to stir up fear and concern among the EU residents in this country,

that they may not be able to stay when there is no question they will

be able to and that is something I find wholly deplorable. My Lords...

My Lords. My Lords, my lords. I wanted to address myself to the

remarks from the right Reverend primates. I do so declaring my

interest as a member of the Church of England on a regular churchgoer.

My Lords, the noble Lord seemed to base his argument on two points. The

first was that the EU would agree to prioritise this issue above all

things and not to make it dependent on other parts of the negotiation.

That is the Prime Minister's view, but I don't know that that

prioritisation will be recognised by the EU, and as for not making it

dependent on other issues, I have negotiated and I know that nothing

is negotiated until it is all negotiated. The other point is that

somehow there would be a recognition that reciprocity would be guaranteed

on this issue. My Lords, again, reciprocity is not necessarily going

to be guaranteed at all. It brings us really to the point that the

noble loads made that said there should be equality of treatment on

all sides. Well, just supposing there isn't? Just supposing the EU

negotiators say something different? All our debate has been based on the

premise that somehow we will get what want in the end because there

will be reciprocity, but supposing there isn't? Will we really at that

point turnaround to EU nationals in this country and said, on your way?

Will we say, take your children out of the schools? Will we say to the

elderly, please go away from our care homes? My Lords, this idea of

it as a negotiating point which I agree it is being used as is totally

unrealistic and totally unacceptable. The Home Secretary

said in her letter to your Lordships, this is less a matter of

principle than one of timing. I rather like and respect the Home

Secretary, but I have to say on this I disagree with her heartedly. This

is a matter of principle. It is a simple matter of principle of being

prepared to do the right thing because it is the right thing and

being prepared to say so and that is what I hope these benches and

members on all sides of the House, not all members, but members on all

sides of the House, including the bishop's bench, will be prepared to

do when it My Lords, I have the misfortune to

disagree with the conclusions we just buy the noble and learned Lord

Elia. Perhaps, agreeing with him about the disregard we should have

got anything said by Doctor Liam Fox. Dashed the noble and learned

Lord if you spoke earlier. I take some consolation from the fact that

I wholly agree with the compelling speech made at the outside of this

debate. Dashed the outset. They do not need to trouble the House but

very long. At the second reading I addressed this issue to a very long

spent. Nothing outside today persuade me that it is anything

other than persuasive that the consequences for the economy and so

many of the services in the United Kingdom as a result of those

non-British EU nationals who work in these industries and services no

longer being available, would be catastrophic. They also look we all

from the notion that we should say to husbands, wives, mothers or

fathers. --- I also book ordeal. The UK citizens that you should leave

the United Kingdom. I even mortal coil at the notion that where we to

be in the situation of expelling people that would be knocking on

doors at midnight or midday saying that they must leave the United

Kingdom. Let's look at this from the point of view of families, what sort

of stress and strain with that put on a family and indeed what sort of

apprehension as that already caused in many families? It is said that

there are no new facts, well if the mounting volume of anecdotal

evidence of anxiety on the part of those who might be struck at is a

result of them not being an amendment of the kind we seek to

pass today being in forced is exemplified day after day. In The

Guardian it mentioned a little while ago a compelling article there about

a family which is already deciding to go, because the lack of a

satisfactory understanding has become too much. There is a further

new fact and that is the Beatitudes of Mr David Davies who said earlier

that it would be years and years before the UK citizens would be able

to take over those jobs which are being fulfilled by non-British EU

citizens. Dashed Beatitudes of Mr David Davies. What will happen in

the interim? And if you are in the capacity of a non-British EU citizen

working in a hostel but you know that the long-term dependence upon

whether or not and British citizens can be found to take over the job

you are doing, then what kind of compulsion does that create in

wanting to stay? Because, ultimately the services you provide will be

disregarded. I just want to go back to the question of the assurance of

the Home Secretary, I've tried to put myself in the position of those

about whom we have been concerned in the cause of this debate, I do not

doubt that the assurance of the Home Secretary has been given in good

faith, but I rather believe in belt and braces, I would rather have that

on the statute then depending on the decision of the Home Secretary, but

who in five years' time may no longer be in office. Yes... I am

most grateful, but the point you just made you would rather have this

menu on the statute, I do not is green know if it has occurred to you

but the other house will decide that they already voted against it. Can I

just ask you as a very distinguished lawyer at this amendment refers to

people who are legally resident, I cannot find any definition of what

legally resident means, Suta which groups is he referring to? Justice

Brexit means Brexit legally resident means legally resident.

LAUGHTER Well done, well done! We might have to take the expect

opinion, but I fancied the courts can reach a conclusion for him. What

I was saying was that I have endeavoured to put myself in the

same position as those who found themselves think she's an

apprehensive, and where I in that position I would be more concerned

to have a statutory right than a political assurance. May I finish...

No doubt the noble Lord will try and intervene at another stage in this

characteristically generous attitude towards the Liberal Democrats.

LAUGHTER The noble Lord Viscount Hill Shimbun fared at the outset to

the legal implications of what we were discussing, and he is perfectly

right because there may well be Convention rights and it is also the

case that Parliament and indeed even more so the courts has often been

very reluctant to pass legislation with retrospective effect, indeed to

my wreck aggression the only times that it has been done recently. --

recollection. Has been in relation to former Nat C war criminals. -- in

relation to former Nat C war criminals. This is surely an

indication of just how complicated any explosive green expulsion might

be and how ineffective the portion might be. I in deed I would

venture to guess that people would get a successful outcome of any

effort at judicial review. That is then said already that this is the

right thing to do, my lords I doubted anyone's mind has been

changed to any extent by today's debate, my mind at least still

thinks it is the right thing to do and I shall vote for it. The Home

Secretary in her letter sat... My Lords! My Lords, I have suggested

that we hear from Lord Greene, we will have a chance to hear from Lord

per, in future. --- Lord car. My Lords... I rise to speak to my

amendment number 40 and to comment on the amendment nine B which is the

main focus of the discussion, today. My end amendment had a clear and

simple purpose mainly to place British citizens in the AEE Sarri

you are on an equal footing. And I am puzzled to suggest that

abandoning a million of our citizens in the EU is the moral high ground.

I was much encouraged to hear from the noble and learned Lord who dealt

proper effectively with that argument. My Lords, I put it to you

that the nature of the problem that we face has been widely

misunderstood. What in effect we are considering here is permanent

residents and we are considering it for three different categories, for

those who have already been here for five years exercising their treaty

rights, they will have required an automatic right to residents under

EU law, it is simply not in doubt, they are sorted, the question is how

to identify them and they will have to have their cases considered and

this can be done no other way and they will then be granted

indefinitely to remain, that got another problem. Second, there are

those who will be arriving in the next two years before we leave, but

to grant them automatic right to permanent residents would be to risk

a large inflow of people from Eastern Europe before the date came

by. Third, probably the more tricky category, those who have arrived to

live here the last three years, so they will not have required the five

years that they need, so they will have to do was sit there will have

to be a decision. At but, I note that if that decision goes in their

favour, and judging by the mood in this House today it is likely to,

some 85% of EU citizens currently in the UK will qualify for permanent

residence. I think when we are talking about this we should offer

that reassurance, if you like, to the usage since you are here. Dashed

to the AEE citizens. -- to the EU citizens that are here. It has been

suggested that we cannot build the houses we need with out workers from

the EU. That may well be true but there will be nothing to stop them

coming here to work on a work permit, but without the automatic

grant of permanent residents, that is too confused to issues. Certainly

we need their work, and the help and they are welcome, but permanent

residents will become a different matter. Any suggestion that we

should use the fate of EU citizens in the UK as some kind of bargaining

chip is absolutely wrong in principle and in practice. I think

that everyone here is agreed that it's only effect would be to sour a

very important negotiation. No, should be on the other hand simply

put aside the vital interests of the money of our own suggestions, and it

has been recognised a think by the noble Baroness in the front bench

there that it will be a long time before the status of British

citizens in the European Union is sorted by the 27 countries in which

they reside. So, I would suggest, therefore, that what we need is to

have a careful review together with our former partners and find a way

forward to each of the many aspects of this problem, is taken very

obvious and very important issue, health, the solution may very well

be to extend the current system, the health care system, for another five

or ten years, but as of today, before the negotiations start we

have no idea whether that will run or not, so we have to be there

around the table with them to see what will be a sensible way forward.

Sadly, amendment nine be completely disregards the position of British

its sins in the EU. -- British citizens in the EU. I suggest, in

the real world if negotiating partners are assured in advance that

the requirements of that incidences will be satisfied, it is inevitable

that the issues relating to British citizens in that countries will slip

down the agenda which is already long and complicated. It has been

claimed that such the unilateral guaranty will set the right tone the

negotiations, the government have audio off the bat and did not work,

did it? Was turned down flat. Dashed the government have already offered

that. It seemed to me that that is not the way forward. There is a fine

judgment there, and I think we have to be aware that the judgment is a

fine one and that the interests of a million British its sins are in the

balance. Dashed citizens. --1 million British citizens. I leave it

there and I think that the two matters should be considered

together. My Lords, I want to first indicate

that I... My Lords, it is that the Conservative turn. I want to declare

that I was not able to be present at the second reading, but I have

actually, like other Lords in the House, read the entire Hansard

script of all the speeches made on that occasion, but like many Lords,

and as a remain are all what we want to call me traditionally, I will

probably have referred never to be in this situation, but as we are, I

former UK Immigration Minister, former UK Immigration Minister,

working under Lord Howard. I also agree with my fellow Yorkshire

resident, the most Reverend primates who has spoken before. I believe, as

does the government, that we need to have sensible arrangements in place

to secure the position of citizens both from the EU and the UK and

those who have left the UK for EU destinations. In acknowledging the

role of the noble Lord Kerr, who was our Secretary General on the

convention of the future of Europe in 2002 - 2003, I was a member of

the convention and took a particular interest in the article actually

attempting to amend it to add some political aims relating to future

trade arrangements of any country that decided to leave the EU later.

The amendment, like others, failed because the convention did not

favour such a amendments, as we were reminded them and I think of

rightfully being reminded now. The article was designed to be a

process, not a manifesto. The process to enable a state to legally

and honourably leave the EU. Before the Treaty of Lisbon, it was against

international law to leave. Article 50 was never designed to be anything

more than a technical process in a limited form, so pursuing aims,

these wider ends that are now being pursued in these amendments and to

my mind that is inappropriate. We all agree EU citizens in this

country should be treated fairly and respectfully and I know we are, all

of us, O most of them -- owed them a debt of gratitude. As the government

has said, preliminary discussions have taken place. It is not really

the will of the government that they were not able to go further and

indeed the government is determined to achieve its ends in relation to

fairness as far as the EU citizens are concerned. Ultimately I do

believe that these issues might well be reflected later in an immigration

bill that might follow the great repeal bill which itself might not

be the right vehicle to deal with these matters. But in the meantime,

my Lords, no one's rights are affected. No one's rights are going

to be deteriorated. No threats have been made by anybody and some noble

Lords saying that these threats are being made, OK, some newspapers

might do so, but in truth there is nothing as far as this government is

concerned that is in any way concerned that is in any way

threatening the present status. As a former Immigration Minister I've

always believed the key to any arrangements relating to those who

wish to live and work in the UK and our citizens who wish to do the same

elsewhere must depend on reciprocity. The word was referred

to earlier by a noble lady. There is nothing negative about reciprocity.

All the agreements we enter into four good for this country and its

citizens depend on reciprocity. Our European neighbours are well aware

of that, are positively inclined to that approach. So, my Lords, as far

as I can see, though there is a lot of sensitivity and a lot of passion,

these amendments in this context and for this bill are inappropriate and

in my submission, illogical. I rise to speak in support of amendment 9B

and in doing so speak to my own amendment 42, which is a very

limited amendments, but one that I moved quite deliberately because I

thought it exemplified much more of the wider debate and I think there

have been some very fine speeches in the course of this debate and I will

be very brief and I will not repeat the ground that has been so clearly

covered. But I believe, and what I argue is that at least, or the least

we can do is to offer the 60,000 individuals who work in our national

health service the right to remain in this country. I do so for a

number of reasons. The first is that I believe that our national Health

Service is unique in Europe and indeed is something that we need to

fight for and which is under threat at the moment. It's under threat

because of the shortage of Labour. It's under threat, the OECD said, we

need an extra 20,000 doctors, an extra 47,000 nurses just to bring us

up to the European standards. And yet we depend currently on 10% of

our doctors from the European Union and 5% of our nurses. As the noble

Lord said, we actually are not in a very good negotiating position when

we are negotiating for our interests. Many of these people are

more use in their own countries the European Union might say them they

are in propping up our national Health Service. I have one question

I would like to ask the Minister before I make my two main points.

Lord Greene said 85% of the European Union citizens would have the rights

of permanent residency. Well, one we had a series of questions on this

issue within the last month in this House, it was pointed out that

European citizens in this country who'd worked for five years had a

right for permanent residency. But the Minister, Lady Williams, was not

able to give us an assurance that permanent meant permanent and that's

when we leave the European Union, it was indicated to us that in fact

that permanency would no longer be permanent. Can the Minister perhaps

confirmed to us... I will give way in minutes. Can the Minister confirm

us that permanency means permanency? I give way. May I clarify what I

said. 85% of EU migrants in the UK will have completed five years by

the time we leave the European Union and therefore in principle would be

entitled to permanent residents, but each case would have to be looked

at. That is the point. I have two points. I think the advantage of

this amendment is that it is a win-win situation because it is

practically right for us to do so and it is morally right for us to do

so. One thing that did strike me is that when the right Reverend was

making his argument, and I understood it, but does he not

understand the pain, the suffering, the uncertainty that is caused to

those individuals who are working in our health service who feel hurt

that they put so much effort in and give their time in tried to help the

people of Britain and then they think they and their families... I

will give way in a minute. But they and their families feel very hurt

and I do think we owe them something in that respect. Yes, I will give

way. It will be quite insidious to suggest that those of us sticking to

the rules in relation to the bills, the bill speaks of formal process of

notifying the intention to withdraw. It does not relate to the substance

of what withdrawal might look like. For you to say I don't understand

suffering... I said at the beginning, I feel the pain, I filled

the anxiety, but as a legislator, my role is to look at what the bill is

about, not what the bill ought to be about. We should Ben Mee from the

practical to be moral. There are some of us that take the belief that

we have the high moral ground here and that is the ground we should

occupy and I said because we are in a win-win situation and as the noble

lady Baroness Kennedy said we are going to have a much stronger

negotiating position if we spelt out and show to our European neighbours

that we can be generous and that we want, even if we are not in the

European Union, we want to remain part of the continent of Europe,

working together with our neighbours and that's what I believe we are in

a win situation. -- win- win situation. My Lords... My Lords, I

believe the Lib Dems want to make a contribution. The noble Baroness

Ladysmith. I shall be brief, it has been a long debate, but this issue

is one that has exercised your lordship's houses a week after the

referendum when it appeared that it was virtual unanimity across your

lordship's House about how we should deal with the rights of EU citizens

resident in the United Kingdom at the time of the referendum. I'm

going very briefly to make two quotations. The first came from the

debate in July. The noble Lord speaking, and I will name him in a

moment, I am appalled by the unwillingness of the government to

give a clear understanding that EU nationals resident here before the

23rd of June will be able to remain come what may. Another noble Lord

speaking, asking a question to the Leader of the House said could my

noble friend say on behalf of the government for whom she speaks in

this House that any European citizen living in Britain has a right to

remain here and that right will not be in any way affected by Brexit and

that the position is not negotiable? She must be aware that many people

are concerned about the position and the future and surely it is the

responsibility of the leadership of this to make sure there are no

questions over it? On the governing conservative benches there has been

a mass outbreak of believing that somehow the letter from the Home

Secretary who was with us momentarily and has now disappeared

deals with this matter. That somehow the statements that have come from

the front bench give the guarantees that EU nationals currently resident

in the United Kingdom deserve and desire. But, my Lords, we have all

been receiving e-mails from people saying, we are concerned about our

future. If the noble Lord Lord Lawson in the first statement and

the noble Lord Lord Forsyth in the second... If the noble Lords Lawson

and Forsyth in June and July believe that there were concerns about EU

nationals, there is nothing so far that the government has given to

reassure those EU nationals and if the government is not going to

concede on amendment 9B which would deal with this matter, could we

ask... I normally have the greatest respect for the noble Lady's

diligence, but when she says nothing has changed, what has changed is

that the Prime Minister has said it is her first priority, that the fate

of those people living in this country will be determined by

primary legislation and no change would be made other than with the

agreement of this place and the other House. That's good enough for

me. We have heard much about the idea

that the issue of EU nationals is a priority, but as the Lady pointed

out, negotiations are such that whatever the ambition of the Prime

Minister is and however great heard negotiations still is likely to be,

the nature of EU negotiations is that nothing is agreed until

everything is agreed. A priority in itself isn't going to give EU

nationals the security that they need and if the government doesn't

feel able to accept the amendment and I suspect that it is not going

to, could the new noble lord the Minister please give further

clarification not about some distant bell, not some immigration act after

the great repeal Bill but in line and in the spirit of amendment nine

B, something that occurs in the immediate aftermath of triggering

Article 50? It is the case as Baroness Symons has said that this

will be nothing is agreed until everything is a great negotiation.

If we do not do the decent thing now, if we do not listen to what was

said at the start, if we do not do it now, when we will do it? This

negotiation could last all of two years. It could end without an

agreement. It certainly will not end with bosses agreed in this calendar

year. So if we all believe that the decent thing will have to be done

sometime, why not do it now? The Tory party really needs to remember

that it's Guru is but, politics is not mature wisdom.

I shall be very brief. I am afraid they have a response to it before...

My Lords, it is the concept the's parties turn. I will be brief. When

I was supporting vote Leave, I like many others took the view that we

should make a grand unilateral gesture to state that we were grand

residence rights and other rights to all EU citizens living in the UK. I

thought that the two reasons, it was a nice indecent thing to do but also

directed we would get an immediate response from our EU partners who

would reciprocate and confirmed that all Brits living in the EU would get

similar rights. I thought we would get this simple issue offer the

table before the tough and contentious topics would begin. My

Lords, I was utterly wrong, not for the first time of course. The best

outcome I believe to get security and certainty for EU citizens and

British citizens would have been a reciprocal agreement after the

referendum. That is exactly what my right honourable friend the Prime

Minister try to do. And I was surprise, my Lords, and indeed

shocked that the EU rejected her approaches and apparently have

refused to talk about receptacle residency rights until we trigger

Article 50. Would he not recognise that we are the ones walking out of

the EU? We are the ones who have an obligation to those who are all good

faith came to this country, invested their future in this country and

should we not have done with sophistry and make a moral gesture?

We also owe an obligation to almost 1 million British citizens living in

the EU who could be left in limbo for up to two years unless the EU

addresses this issue urgently. It is the case, my Lords, that the Prime

Minister raise this with them EU leaders and was 20 states, I

understand, why happy to agree, Angela Merkel and Donald Tusk refuse

to do so until we trigger Article 50. Lauded by many in this House as

a basket of decency, they were the ones that were giving us harsh

treatment. They are the ones who are not on the model high ground. My

Lords, the other one is this, when we see the EU are stating that

nothing will be discussed until we have agreed a divorce settlement of

?50 billion, then we are likely to spend all of this year, or at least

until the German elections are over, arguing about that money. And

everything else and European citizens will be left in the lurch.

Indeed, if we have given away citizenship team Europeans in the

UK, why on earth should you bother dealing with our citizens in Europe

as a priority? This would be a bad position to be in. We would have

betrayed our own citizens and buried under the equivalent of a European

bus. I include with this. This is not using people as a bargaining

chip. I think that is a silly description. Using people add

bargaining chips would be saying something like, if you give us

access to the single market, then we will ensure people stay. Or if you

put tariffs on our car, we were gradual people citizenship. That

would be grubby, that would be an ethical but it is 1 million miles

away from thing can we agree as a priority receptacle arrangements, it

is our duty to look after our people in Europe, if not more so than

European citizens here. My Lords. My Lords! I do here the

desire of some members of the House to have brunch brand speakers.

However, I think it would be good to hear from the noble lord unknown

from my noble friend. My Lords, I'm going to be extremely

brief. There is just one aspect that I would like to draw. Draw attention

to. Having heard such an extensive debate. And that is we are dealing

here with residents in this jurisdiction where at the present

time have a right to go to the European Court of Human Rights, we

also dealing with residents in the rest of the European Community who

also have the right and so far as the present situation this country

is concerned with, I think it is a matter to be dealt with by

Parliament and not by the courts. And I have strongly urged not to

force people to seek to go to the courts as they could in this

situation. It is a matter which I say should be decided by both Houses

of Parliament and as far as I am concerned, I am going to vote for

the amendment for the very clearly reasons given to buy the noble Lord

Viscount. This is a matter of moral principle as well as one that could

be a legal principle. And so as far as the moral situation is concerned,

I think there is only one answer. My Lords, much has been said this

afternoon surrounding the whole issue of uncertainty. But the reason

why I cannot support these amendments is the fundamental flaw

that lies at the heart of these amendments is that they will create

more uncertainty, in particular on the million British citizens living

abroad. Noble lord opposite have made two defences of that. First,

they have received some letters from expat groups, my Lords, dare we

believe that they may be wrong in asserting that by giving unilateral

rights now to EU citizens living in the United Kingdom that that will

convince overseas governments to give them the same rights? And

secondly, my Lords, they have said trust these governments, my Lords, I

just couldn't finish my point and then I will give way. Secondly,

trust other EU governments, but, my Lords, we do not know which

governments they will be dealing with in the EU. There are elections

in a few weeks in France, in Holland, in a few months' time in

Germany. My Lords, I will just finish... I will give way. As one of

those who lives in France and therefore I must declare an

interest, perhaps the noble lord did not hear the Lord when he made the

point that all of the expat UK groups living in the EU have come

together to make the case that they support this amendment. I heard the

noble lord loud and clear. What I suggested is can we believe that

maybe these groups may be wrong and therefore this House, this House is

putting at risk the future of a million British citizens living in

the EU? My Lords, that is why we should not support these amendments

now. Noble lord have said that they do not know... I am not going to

give way. My Lords, noble lord have said they do not know what the

policy of the British government is. They just have to read the white

paper. It is here clearly. We want to secure the status of EU citizens

who are ready living in the UK. My Lords, we all agree with that. This

is the bit that noble lord opposite do not agree with. That of UK

nationals in other member states. I thank the noble lord forgiving way.

The noble lord said we should trust the British government. The Home

Secretary has written a letter to all of us in which she said I

reassure my colleagues of parliament will have a clear say. This is the

same Home Secretary who wanted companies to list every foreign

worker. This is the same home about to as a minister who wanted EU

workers the company is to be thousand pounds for EU workers. How

can we trust the Home Secretary? The law can only be changed with the