01/03/2017 House of Lords


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 01/03/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


agreement of Parliament. That is why these amendments are at the wrong


time in the wrong bill on the wrong subject and we should support the


rights of British citizens living in Europe.


Order. My Lords... They give me. I think we have had a good debate


here tonight. A very good debate. My Lords. My Lords. My Lords, this has


been a very good debate. Order. I think the mood of the House is to


carry on and hear from the front lines. -- front bench. Order. There


is... I'm sorry. Order. Order. There is no constitutional crisis, there


is good order in this House and I hope the noble lord will understand


that we all want to hear from the government front bench. My Lords,


the status of EU nationals living here and UK nationals living in the


EU is as this debate has clearly shown, one of the most emotive


issues, if not the most emotive issues created by our country's


decision to leave the EU. Where as so many other matters we debate


Baker's on dry economic this matter touches on the most basic and very


immediate of issues. The lives of over 4 million people who have


chosen to make a foreign country their home. Europeans who are our


neighbours, our friends, many working in our public services and


British citizens who may live hundreds of miles away but whose


interests this government and this Parliament have a duty to represent


and to protect. Now, my Lords, we all agree, we all agree that we have


a duty and responsibility to British citizens in Europe. We also all


agree that European nationals make a very valuable contribution to our


nation, especially in organisations like the NHS.


We all know the uncertainty that Brexit has brought to the people's


lives. And we all want to do what we think is ethically and morally


right. So, my lords, we all wish to sort this issue out as quickly as


possible. And to bring certainty to the lives of these millions of


people. And so the very simple question before us today is, how?


Now, I know this question has created a dilemma for a number of


lordships on all sides of the House. And the amendments before us make


various different points. As we've debated, they coalesced around one


point. They wish the Government to make a unilateral declaration to


guarantee EU nationals' rights. I couldn't labour the point that such


amendments have no point in this bill. And that's true. Doesn't have


said that this is a very simple bill. But I'm not going to dwell on


this. -- dozens have said. When one is discussing the issues of over 4


million people, such issues may seem overly legalistic. Instead, I'd like


to make just two call points. First, let me set out the positions of EU


nationals living here in the UK, and the protection afforded to them.


Between now and the date of Brexit, nothing will change for EU nationals


living here in the UK. We are still bound by the EU treaties and the


free movement directive. Under the free movement directive, any EU


citizen who is exercising treaty rights, or who has acquired a


permanent right of residence, continues to have a right to reside


in the UK while we remain a member of the EU. There is no need to apply


for a document to prove this, although I obviously understand that


some prefer to do so. We are trying to do all we can to make this


process as simple and pain-free as possible. For example, by


introducing a European passport checking service to try and reduce


the burden of providing original documents and moving the application


online. It's worth mentioning that no applicant is required to complete


every page of the application. To those who have raised the issue of


the need to show private medical insurance, let me stress that this


is an EU requirement, not a British Government one. But again let me


emphasise, and EU national has been continuously and lawfully residing


in the UK for five years does not, under current rules, need to apply


for a document to prove their right to be here permanently. As to the


future, the Government remains bound by the European convention on human


rights. And, in particular, the obligation to protect the right to


private and family life. My lords, we will continue to remain bound by


the ECHR after we leave the EU. I can assure noble Lords that all


decisions the Government takes, or policies it formulates and all


positions in adopts will comply under article eight of the ECHR -


the right to respect for private and family life. The questions raised


are all perfectly valid, but I would argue and the Government believes


that they are the subject of further legislation that we in this house


will debate. And now, let me turn to this. The bill to repeal the


European communities apt, the great repeal bill, will not be used to


change our immigration system. This'll be done through a separate


immigration Bill. Subsequent secondary legislation and


immigration rules. So to address, again, the very valid point made by


the noble Lord Campbell, nothing will change for any EU citizen,


including their residency rights, without this Parliament's approval.


To summarise, any EU citizen who has been lawfully and continuously


residing in the UK for five years or more automatically requires


permanent residence under EU law. After we have let the EU, the EU


will continue to be bound by and observe the ECHR, which in


accordance with Article eight and appropriate case law will protect EU


nationals' rights to respect for their private and family life, as it


does for others. And perhaps most crucial of all, nothing will change


for any EU citizen without Parliament's approval. This is the


protection afforded to EU nationals here at the moment. But as the noble


and learned Lord Woolf remembered, we do not want EU nationals to have


to rely on the ECHR for the right to remain once the UK leads the EU. So


my second point is about the future. It can be summarised in one word, a


word we've heard so often this afternoon. And that word is


fairness. From the outset, we have said that we want to secure the


status of EU nationals living here. But in doing so, we also need to


secure the status of UK nationals living elsewhere in the EU. My


lords, the Government believes that this approach is fair. And it


respects our duty of care to UK nationals in the EU. And as has been


said, we were keen to come to an agreement before the negotiations


begin. The promise to raise this issue last autumn and made it clear


subsequently to a number of her counterparts across Europe that she


was prepared to start discussions on the issue before we are a 57 we


could try to reach an agreement quickly on what we have always


recognised as one of the most important issues of the negotiation.


As all know, a small number of our European counterparts insisted that


the phrase no negotiation with the -- consequently, as has also been


said, the Government has also said that this issue will be an early


priority for the negotiations stop and the encouraging messages from


European Union -- the encouraging messages from European states makes


us think that will be able to reach a quick and timely agreement with


the European Union. All of this means that for anyone in this house


who wishes for there to be certainty for both EU nationals in the UK and


UK nationals across Europe, it is imperative we pass this bill as


quickly as possible in those negotiations can begin. Now, turning


to the specifics of Amendment 9b. This appears to only be triggered


once article 50 has been triggered and once negotiations have begun. On


that, given what I have said, the Government agrees. Furthermore, as I


have said, the Government sees this issue as an early priority for the


negotiations, as do other EU states. Which, again, the amendment


reflects. On that, we also agree. The point of difference is therefore


very, very simple. But it is totally fundamental. It is this word,


fairness. If we had failed to come to an agreement on this issue after


three months of negotiation and we were forced into this course of


action, where would that leave these 900,000 UK citizens in Europe? With


the spring certainty to those to whom we have a duty of care? With


the University -- with the European Union and other member states see it


as a priority to give them clarity as to their status? And when would


they get back clarity? Now, my Laws, these are questions that each of us


should bear in mind as we decide how to vote on these amendments. An


amendment that touches the lives of over 3 million Europeans here, but


also 900,000 of our own citizens right across Europe. The sooner we


pass this bill, this simple bill, the quicker we can seek an agreement


thereto EU nationals and UK citizens. While I would never


question the motives of those who have tabled these amendments, I


would ask everyone of your Lordships to think of the consequences if this


course of action were to be followed. I ask the noble Lords to


withdraw the amendments. My lords, this has been one of those


highlights of one's life in the House, to hear this. And I always


like debates were the words moral and principal are at the top of our


agenda. And I would be very brief, because I want to say only three


things. One is the idea that because we are asking for action on EU


citizens here, doesn't mean we have equal concern for the others. That


is completely wrong. Apart from anything else, my great-niece and


great-nephew live in Belgium and France, respectively. I am reminded


of this frequently. But the marvels of this and the principles, the


decency, have been stressed. And I think it is that issue. Because the


insecurity is now. There is uncertainty. We've already heard


that some people are leaving. And it is going to take time. We're all


getting lots of messages, even as we're here, and they're coming to me


hot every moment. One from France fail, you are quite right when you


say we are not bargaining chips. The best way to protect us is to take a


firm will position and protect those EU nationals living in the UK. That


is only one, there are another million, and I appreciate that. But


do not think we have done this without thinking and talking to


people who live abroad. The problem I have about...


HECKLING The problem I have about this being in the negotiation is


firstly that I think that is wrong. But secondly there are countries


with only 500 UK nationals in them. Slovenia has got 500 UK nationals,


so has Estonia and Croatia. Unlike my noble friend, I have not


negotiated. But I do know from the story that I've heard that sometimes


one country holds up on something actually irrelevant to them. Because


they're going to get something else. I understand that's why the European


Parliament still meets in Strasbourg. When John Major was at


Edinburgh, France wanted something else. Maybe it was just about the


time, I don't know. That's what happens with negotiations. -- maybe


it was just that. We did have one country, for some other reason, with


a very small number of EU citizens there are holding up the agreement.


We will finally have agreement, that the uncertainty is too long and we


should not make people wait for that. My lords, it's been said that


an assurance is enough. You understand, I don't think my noble


friend is here. He is? But I think he would probably give testament


that assurances are not enough. This doesn't Ilona negotiations. It asked


the Government within three months to come up with proposals of what


they're going to do. I think I would like to hear what the House has to


say about that. The question is that the motion be agreed to. As many of


that opinion to say contend. Content to stop by to the contrary, not


content. Not content. Clear the bar. The question is... The question is


that amendment nine BB agreed to as many of that opinion the content.


Content. The condensed will go to the right by the throne, the knock


on debts to the left by the bar. -- the contents. -- the not contents.


The question is that amendment nine B B agreed to.


There have voted. Content, 358. Not contents, 256. The contents have it.


Lord Tennyson. My Lords, I will reduce the temperature of the House


a little during this debate, and perhaps I will just wait and atomic


second or minute until one or two members have disappeared.


My Lords, as I said, we are moving on to what I hope will be a rather


less contentious area for this house of debate during this committee


stage. I would like to thank the Government, particularly Lord prior,


having had some extended discussions with me around this particular


amendment. I suppose my first question here... Well, let me say


first of all, I don't and here as a Remain or a Brexiter. This is an


issue that is important for our country and does not challenge the


result of the referendum in any way. But if the amendment was accepted,


would actually make the job of government more easy over the next


two years. I want to put forward the proposition of this amendment on


that basis. First of all, one question I would like the Minister


to answer is that it seems to me that this amendment may not be


necessary at all. I note in... If I could quote the notes to the bill,


it says that in terms of Euratom, the power that is provided by the


clause applies to withdraw from the EU. This includes the European


atomic energy committee, Euratom, as the European Amendment act 2008 sets


out the term EU includes, as the context permits are required,


Euratom, action three point two. And yet on the bill itself, in the


second part of this 137 word bill, it says that this section has, and


this is sectionth subsection two, has despite any provision made by or


under the European communities act 1972, or any other impact and, which


seems to me to automatically do supply the European Union Amendment


act 2008. So it seems to me that the notes are contradictory to the bill


and of course the notes are not the opinion of the parliament and cannot


be taken as part of the authority of any act that comes into force. But


my main point is that legally, and this is a certainly, Euratom is not


part of the European Union. It is a legally separate entity. And because


of that, the referendum which, as I'm sure all noble members will


remember, which said should the UK remain a member of the European


Union, or leave the European Union, did not in any way mention Euratom


and nor was Euratom part of the Parliamentary debate that took place


during the referendum bill. They are separate legal entities. And,


indeed, when I spoke at discussions with some government ministers, one


of the concerns that they've had has been perhaps by not giving notice on


Euratom, then they will some way leave the article 15 notification --


article 15 notification could be challenged. In fact, having talked


to legal advice myself in this area, what they are very clear about is


that government has no mandate to give notice under the Euratom


Treaty. In fact, the Government has not even entered into any


consultation. And so by giving notice on Euratom, opens itself very


strongly to judicial review, given that there has been no consultation


on leaving the Treaty, despite the fact a number of rights would


inevitably be lost by coming out of the Treaty. So varies, I think, and


interest once again for the Government not to trigger leaving


Euratom, which it is able to do. There is a process of doing that at


this time. In fact, those processes are very different. And Euratom,


Article 106 A, which refers to the treaty on the European Union,


admittedly, but it is a Euratom treaty clause and method. If you


look at Article 50 itself, it mentions only the Treaty on the


European Union. Nothing else. So indeed there has to be two


notification processes, only one of which is there a clear legal mandate


to do. And that is Article 50, and to give notice on the European


Union. Why is this important? Well, not because of all those legal


issues. But for two reasons. One is what Euratom actually does and the


benefit it is to this country. Secondly, and in some ways this is


more important and my more political argument, is that over the next two


years, the Government has a huge amount to you to actually achieve


exiting successfully from the European Union. And that successful


exit clearly has to be in the national interest for it to be


successful, rather than the clip page that we might have. So why go


down a route that is more risky of actually giving notice on Euratom at


the same time, which actually gives us on the whole area of negotiation


that we have to undertake, and which this country could be held to ransom


for? The reason Euratom is important is because of its functions. It


effectively operates under the International Energy Authority as


the body that is regulated under the IAE for nuclear safety, but even


more importantly nuclear safeguarding, which includes all of


the areas of nonproliferation treaties and, indeed, would include


areas like Sellafield, in particular. It is also around


nuclear fuel supply security, and clearly we have a very important


nuclear fleet that keeps our lights on. And we also have nuclear


research, which is out of Euratom, which is ?1.6 billion for a


five-year budget. The UK is involved in many of those projects. And of


course the most well-known is the Jet project in Oxfordshire, and also


the project coming oil. I am very aware that the Government's


industrial strategy is one of the few industries that it mentions very


strongly, the nuclear industry, and nuclear research. The problem is if


we exit from Euratom that trade in parts, trading nuclear fuel,


movement of key people all rely on us being a signatory to the Euratom


Treaty. And we, the UK itself, does not have that same authority at the


moment, a safeguarding authority, as they're known in these agreements.


Internationally at the moment, Euratom has some 11 core agreements.


50 altogether, which includes the United States, Canada and Australia.


And without being able to trade on those, because we are not and do not


have a safeguarding authority ourselves that has been approved by


the International Atomic Energy Committee. Then That Will stop. We


are reliant on nuclear fuel from Australia. We have domestic nuclear


issues with the United States. Obviously with France in terms of


Hinkley C and various generating stations. And we do not have those


fuels sufficiently in this country. It's not just nuclear fuel, it also


isotopes for radiology in hospitals as well. And it's not just a case of


saying, my Lords, that we will get around it somehow. I would remind


members but under United States domestic law, section 123 of the US


Energy Act of 1959, it actually makes any movement of such material


is illegal under their domestic law if we are not a approved


safeguarding authority. Now, I'm aware that we could probably put all


of this in place at some point. It might be more difficult with


remaining members of the European Union if those negotiations don't go


well, and with very dependent on French nuclear technology in the


country at the moment. And, indeed, will we be able to have an agreement


with Euratom? Hopefully we can, but let's not forget that countries like


Austria in particular try to block most things that go Euratom because


they are very antinuclear. We do not know what will happen in the German


elections this year. And indeed Germany has got rid of its nuclear


fleet operationally, and is also very antinuclear as well. And so,


perhaps with a change of government, it will be very difficult indeed to


negotiate with Euratom to continue those relationships. So, my Lord,


let me sum up here. I am not trying in any way to constrain Article 50


or the referendum result. But there is no need to leave Euratom at this


stage. We can then ensure that the lights don't go out sometime around


September 2019. We avoid the political risk of Austria and


Germany vetoing future relationships with Euratom. And we can take our


time to make sure that we, as the UK, have fully fledged and effective


safeguarding authority that will be recognised by other realms,


including in particular Australia, Canada and the United States. But


most of all, I say this game, why go down the route of giving notice on


Euratom now when as a country, as they government, as a Parliament, we


have a huge amount to negotiate over the next two years? Let's give us a


break, think about it longer, and do this properly, not threaten our


energy industry and our radiology, and all the other research that we


undertake at the moment. I beg to move. Amendment proposed. Page one.


Line five. At the end, insert the words as printed on the Marshall


list. As a supporter of this amendment, I support Lord Tennyson


who is an expert on your roll-off. -- on Euro law.


The UK research, it will benefit by continuing membership with Euratom.


One of the profound scientific issues that will last long after


perhaps even the EU which is to say what to do with nuclear waste. This


is not mention by Lord Tennyson, and that there was an important beaky


about ten years ago by Lord Sainsbury on the question of


trans-substantiation. It sounds a bit religious really but this was


the question. Transmutation is the correct word, sorry. Which was the


question as they are dealing with a power wielded to make the waste that


will last 10,000 years or maybe even 100,000 years if the bid on the


ground, that is one possibility, but Euratom is considering the question


of transforming the waste material so it will have a much shorter half


life of only about a hundred years. So this is the kind of thing that we


can do with all the other countries in Europe and Euratom and they think


it may be easier and more effective for us to remain. The other feature


that again Lord Tebbit and has mention is the big question of the


fusion programme which is very considerable investment involving


many other countries and Euratom has played a very important role in


that. The UK is a part of this, I personally think that the programme


on the tour of all, it is more likely to evolve if we are part of


it. I would like to support this amendment and hope it goes through.


My Lords, I am a supporter of nuclear power and I would like to


facilitate nuclear energy in any way I can. But I am not sure whether the


legal forest through which the law tried to take this is quite a


simplistic as he would suggest. -- the Lord. We did sign up to a


separate treaty when we joined the Common market in 1973 but by 2008,


circumstances has changed and Euratom by that time was integrated


into the EU in a wave which I do not think renders it the separate entity


which the Lord has been suggesting. I think this is a worrying because


it is quite clear the Government had not really given any serious


attention or thought to this. Now, I think in the course of the last two


or three weeks, there has been quite a major change in the climate


insofar as a lot of people, myself included, have raised this at


different times. But I think that we have to recognise that when we talk


about the nuclear industry, we are not just talking about power


generation. Although it has to be said that the present moment, the


EDF, the agent of the French Government, which I imagine will


remain in Euratom, will be running our 20 power stations for some years


to come. Therefore it may be, in that respect anyway, somewhat


premature to get too worried about it. But the fact is it is not just


generation. There is the fuel cycle. There is decommissioned Singh


procedures. There is this regulated arrangements for safety. The general


UK regulatory competence. Now, in all of these areas, we enjoy the


position of world leadership. The industry gets castigated because we


do not, we do not build our own reactors any more. We do for a


nuclear submarines but we do not build them this civil generation.


But the fact is there is an incredible amount of science, an


incredible amount of manufacturing expertise at stake here and frankly


I am not too concerned at this stage whether we are in Euratom or going


to leave or has to leave. But what I am concerned about is that industry


demands the proper attention and requires and has already been


suggested that in the Government's industrial strategies such as it is,


nuclear is going to play an important part. But if that is the


case, then I think we need to give proper recognition to the


international character of the industry, the fact that a


considerable number of British businesses and British academic and


as Daschle expertise and is still invested in this industry. --


industrial. In many aspects, we will be pretty much the only country that


has a programme of nuclear new-build in the developed world. We will see


some tinned China, India, there is one in America but the fact is we


don't see the kind of development of nuclear power in the way that we


might have wished. But if Britain is to carry on and to take advantage of


it, then this Government will have to give a lot more attention to this


and I would like to think that we would get beyond the platitudinous


responses that have characterised the Government's answering in debate


so far. I think it would be helpful this evening if the Minister could


perhaps give us a little detail as to what is going to be done and how


we are going to address this very worrying conundrum of whether or not


we will have a new industry capable of operating on an international


basis, taking advantage of the very strong cards that we still have to


play. I would like to refer to a report of the science and technology


select committee when I was the chair as the years ago on new killer


R and D in this country. -- new killer. In the report, we asked the


question, given that the UK is committed to a nuclear programme,


refreshing of the nuclear generation capability, do we have the skills in


this country to deliver? Not just in overseeing be built by foreign


companies but in the regulation. And what we realised when we heard


evidence from the witnesses that came before us was that capability


in the United Kingdom was being seriously eroded. Just give you some


numbers, the workforce in nuclear energy and nuclear science degrees


from 8000 in the 1980s to under 2000 by the early part of this entry. Our


investment in our NDE, nuclear R is half of that of the Netherlands


and Norway, 100s of that of France and less than that of Australia that


doesn't have a nuclear energy programme at all. We are not


investing and we have traditionally not been investing enough in nuclear


our Andy, Gale capability. The research capability through Euratom


I believe is crucial for ours nuclear programme. What we said in


our report was the nuclear industry and the regulatory rely on the


research base to train the next generation of experts. Once lost,


these capabilities will not easily be replaced. I do think it is very


important that the Government reassures us that if we were to read


draw from Euratom, which I do not think we should, we have in place a


mechanism to make sure the nuclear capabilities are being developed.


One of the recommendations the select committee debates 14


recommendations, the Government accepted the vast majority of them,


one of them was that the Government should set up a new killer research


and development strategy board and I would like to ask the noble lord


whether the nuclear R strategy board has been consulted about this and


what their view is on it. I was lucky enough to serve on the select


committee. I now share the science and technology committee and we are


revisiting this issue at present. Looking at the developments. Since


about 2011 report. One of the recommendations which was not fully


implemented by the Government which there was a little bit of progress,


when the committee recommended that the strategy board be set up to


advise Government in the long term and nothing could be more long-term


than a nuclear energy strategy, an organisation was set up called


nuclear research and the board. It was set up on a limited term of


three years and dishes produced its final report. Last week in


celebrity. -- February. They concerned civil research in this


country. I echo the noble lord request what will follow Nira


because while in principle it is quite a good idea, and advisory


boards should have a built-in termination otherwise they go on


forever. We do need continuity of thought and that is clearly been


lacking, indeed there has been no sport is part of the problem.


Successive governments kick this one into touch, nuclear energy or


research was an issue which until recently it simply wasn't addressed


adequately. Now in this report which came out in February, ten Mike


pointed out something which is totally obvious but nevertheless


needs saying. -- Nira. International calibration is the main route the


developing nuclear technologies. -- collaboration. There are number ways


to take theirs. We are a small player and however much we managed


to build up the dismally low new killer -- nuclear compared to the


1960s we have been overtaken by a number of countries. If the


industrial strategy which has nuclear as one of the ten pillars is


to be implement it, we have clearly got an awful lot of catch up to do.


I think probably I agree with the noble lord Lord O'Neill, slightly


failed to note that while we joined Euratom before the European Union


involved from the EU see, there appears to be something which


escaped my notice in 2008, a European Union and then an act of


2008 which joined Euratom and the European Union at the hip in some


way. A lawyer can explain to me the implication of that but in the


commentary of the bill, it explains paragraph 18, that you have to


withdraw from the EU because the Euratom is now part of the EU in


legal terms. Being that as it may, what is absolutely clear that we


have to have a relationship with Euratom and indeed with other


organisations around the world. Who are collaborating. One of such


collaborations, think again to long term, is the generation for four.


This is looking far along, leapfrogging through to new


technologies which are still to be developed. We are thinking the year


2030 beyond. Well, at the moment, the report describes it as only


participating as an inactive member and that was the case in 2011,


through the subscription to Euratom and when the Government responded to


the select committee report, the Government said, look, we do not


have to worry about joining generation for forum if we want to


remain connected to the emerging technologies because we are members


of Euratom. So clearly that answer does not work any more if Brexit is


going to happen and we are going to leave Euratom. So we clearly need


quite quick answers and I agree entirely, this is not controversial,


the Government of the first to say that we simply do have to develop a


nuclear to strategies. And asked capability. We do have to


collaborate and if the legal reasons, I do believe there are


legal reasons, we have to withdraw from formal membership, surely when


the minister responds, he can tell us without reducing any negotiate


position in this case, exactly what are ideal situation is that we would


like to achieve. I wonder if I could just say a few very brief words in


support of the amendment that the Lord has taken this evening. Before


I say anything further I should bring the tension to the House of


the interest I declared in the register. I'm the chairman of the


nuclear Association here in the United Kingdom. I do not think there


is any doubt that the membership of Euratom has brought benefits to the


nuclear industry. Unlike membership of the European Union itself which


remains a polarising and deeply divisive issue in our country, I


have not heard anyone mount any argument at all, ever at any point


in this process in favour of viewing BOOING


Leaving the Euratom treaty. -- of leaving the Euratom treaty.


Having looked at these way these two treaties have become intertwined in


recent decades, giving advice to the covenant has favoured the separation


entirely so as we leave the European Union, we face this rather grim and


desperate situation where we might find ourselves without any


internationally recognised nuclear safeguards operating in the UK. As


the Lord has rightly said, if we were to find ourselves in that


position, it would not be comparable to example other aspects of the UK


economy so if we leave on WTO trade, the trade will continue.


If we were to leave without having these alternative arrangements in


place, it would not be possible for companies in the United States,


Canada, Japan, India, South Korea, many of our nuclear allies and not


least our European friends and partners, to continue to trade was


asked with nuclear goods and services. We tend to exaggerate for


living in this house, or we can't help ourselves, many of us former


politicians. But this would be a catastrophe for the industry and I


don't think we should be under illusions about that. My


understanding is that the Government has come to the view that we need to


disentangle ourselves from Euratom, as well as the institutions of the


European Union. For the very simple reason that over time, they have


become inextricably linked together. Given the Government's two


objectives to leave the European Union appeared to end the


jurisdiction of the European Court and end the free movement of labour,


I understand the Government's position. But looking at the


context, we need to be clear about two things. This would only give a


limited jurisdiction if we were to stay in Euratom for an indeterminate


period until we can negotiate alternative arrangements. The ECJ


would have a limited jurisdiction, specifically to deal with nuclear


issues. If we think that we should do, that the nuclear industry is an


international tree by its very nature and definition, and is pieced


together and hung together by international agreements, it is no


great breach of principle or faith to accept that the ECJ should, for a


period of time, have a continuing jurisdiction in these matters. I


don't think that would bring the House down. Members of this house


worried about the free movement of labour, the free movement of labour


applies only to nuclear specialists working in nuclear installations. So


we do not need to fear, in my view, some back door invasion of mass


migration because we remained for a longer period of time. I think today


would be very good to know, so I'm clearly arguing that we should take


our time before we actually lead the Euratom treaty. I do not believe


there is any legal case and certainly no economic or political


case for linking the process of leaving the European Union with the


process of leaving the Euratom Treaty. I simply don't accept that.


And I would like to know today if it is possible. Some clarification from


the minister, for example about what conversations Her Majesty's


government have already had with the European Atomic Energy Commission to


explore the possibility of what a transitional arrangement might look


like. I think a lot depends on getting it right. Is that the


Government's case that they intend to serve notice to leave Euratom


Treaty, at the same time as leaving the European Union? The Lord made


this point himself. There is only compelling legal case or reason why


these two processes have to be conducted Mauritania sleeve. I


believe he was absolutely right to say to this house that we are going


to make the job of leaving ten times more difficult if we press the


enormous complexity of dealing with the European Union process. But we


have two negotiate simultaneously maybe 20 international nuclear


corporations, replicate and devised in the UK a new system of nuclear


installation, inspection and safeguarding, and secure the nuclear


fuels that our current and future fleets will need to rely on in the


future. Because those are all covered by the Euratom Treaty, and


perfectly sensibly. My Lords, I really do not believe the Government


are doing this because they want to leave Euratom Treaty. I feel they're


doing it because they have no other choice. I think there is a choice


that they have, which is to take their time on this, make sure that


there is no clear page when we leave. Because the consequences of


leaving without these in place would be so serious for the nuclear


industry that it would raise a genuine question about its future. I


rise to add a few words on what has already been said about the Euratom


Treaty and its relationship to the UK nuclear industry. I shall declare


an interest as a Cumbrian and a chair man of Gen2, which is the main


supplier of apprentices for Sellafield and the West Cumbria


nuclear businesses. There is considerable concern because people


just don't know what the Government has aligned. I've been interested in


this topic over the last few months. I must say, when I read the


Lancaster house beach, I didn't see any reference worthy of the name to


the nuclear industry and Euratom aspect. -- when I read the Lancaster


House speech. It is really a matter of what the Government has in mind


and how it thinks it's going to bring about them in a manner which


will enable the nuclear industry to continue in a way that contributes


to the well-being of the country as a whole. I, too, have had the


pleasure of serving on the Science And Technology Select Committee,


though I'm sure he will mark my card next week at the next meeting. But


this seems so far has been one of questions to the noble minister. And


I'm afraid I'm going to add more questions. It seems the overriding


concern of the House seems to be that we need to get some idea of


where this is going. This is a very important part of our industry, a


very important part of both islands and industry. And I will restrict


myself very briefly to just two areas - research and around


safeguarding nuclear materials. The Minister knows that Euratom provide


the UK with access to considerable R funding, as the noble Lord


pointed out. I believe at least around 25 UK organisations are


involved in that research. I think it would be useful for the Minister


to be able to tell this house what arrangements are planned to ensure


international collaboration can continue in the event, that we are


no longer in Euratom. And has been said by some of those relationships


would have to be separately negotiated, so what is the


Minister's view? Do we have to unilaterally renegotiate each


relationship, whether it's business or research? And, of course, very


importantly, the position of Jet, the Joy Into European Tourist


Project which was raised by my noble friend. -- Joy and European Tourist


Project. There is a lot of anxiety over what will happen over the


product and where it sits. Any reassurance that can be given to the


scientists two future, but also how they are given going forward. On the


subject of safeguarding nuclear materials, I bow to the superior


knowledge of a number of other peers who have spoken here, not least Lord


O'Neal and Lord Hutton. But there are concerns among laboratories and


other organisations that have to dispose of materials. I was akin to


someone who runs an academic laboratory yesterday who had


occasion over the summer to dispose of some foreign. Of course, who did


he call? How did he go? What were the protocols quiz what it was all


through Euratom. How does get replaced? Could the noble minister


explain what work is now underway, what scoping has gone underway to


what will replace all of those processes that currently exist


around that? And can you confirm that there is some sort of timeline


that says it will be ready to operate, sit to go, as soon as we


exit the European Union. -- fit to go as soon as we exit the European


Union. If we're not ready, we effectively dropped off a cliff in


terms of the governments that we require. The noble Lord mentions


that it's a busy period for government to say the least. We see


that other departments are already being galvanised around things like


immigration, traffic control, customs, systems and all sorts of


processes going on. It seems if you were able, if the Government were


able in some way perhaps to delay this particular complication, its


objective around a frictionless exit might be easier to obtain. Two final


questions - can the Minister tell us what the experts said and are


saying? Can he publish what the expert view has been on this? And,


finally, can he tell us how many civil servants are currently being


deployed on the process of managing and planning this exit?


I'd like to support this amendment. As a former member, I'd like to


particularly endorse the remarks of the noble Lords Cr pes so one about


the current state and the weak state of much of nuclear activity in this


country. -- Lord Crebbs. It's clear that the Euratom issue has been, as


it were, caught in the slipstream of the EU legislation. It is something


that is an extra complication that needs to be sorted out in the most


frictionless way. But it is crucially important. And if we


didn't have our membership, we would have to reconstitute something very


similar with relationships with EU countries and also, as it's been


said, with the United States, Japan and Australia. That is in order to


continue collaborations. Of course, let's not forget also that we need


these collaborations, not just for involvement in building nuclear


power stations, but a medical use of radioactive materials and waste


disposal, and other safety issues. Euratom has been very effective


there. I think it's also important to bear in mind that even though it


has been said we are rather weak, depressingly so, in many areas of


nuclear technology, we are not so weak infusion. And the Jet project,


based in the UK, is one of the major projects in the fusion arena. We


have other private projects in this country and we have a major


involvement in ITER. I think it is important to ensure that there is


going to be no hiatus in the ability to forge ahead with these


collaborations. If we were to have to leave Euratom. And I'd also like,


as a final comment, to make the point that although the Euratom


issue has come up because of the special link legally with the EU,


where going to have similar problems in connection with other


international projects. As -- let's mention two. One of Galileo,


counterpart of the GPS satellite system which involves us and the EU.


On the other is Copernicus, which is environmental monitoring by a


spacecraft. These are things were our continued major participation


will depend on some legal adjustments when we're no longer in


the EU. I have the Minister is aware that it's not just in the context of


nuclear energy, but in other contexts of international high-tech


projects that we need to worry about, but we need to change if we


leave the EU. I, too, rise to support these amendments. And


associate myself with the comments of Lord twit-macro and Lord


Selbourne. I was on the enquiry of the Science And Technology Committee


that Lord Crebbs so ably chaired. I want to put a question to the


minister about the implications of a messy withdrawal from Euratom for


the NHS. The NHS radiological services in particular is heavily


dependent on the safeguarding arrangements for the transportation


of radioactive material of one kind or another. And also some of the


waste disposal issues that are involved. I would like to know what


kind of effort the Government has had to discuss with the NHS and


Department of Health, and the technology in that sector, about


ensuring and guaranteeing the safe supplies of materials that the NHS


depends on on a day to day basis. I would like to add three points. I am


patron of trade unions for safe nuclear energy. The first point is


that the referendum question, people have stretched it so far and its


meaning. It means all sorts of things. I don't think anyone would


claim that people voted to leave Euratom. I'm not trying to make a


debating point, I'm trying to answer a point made from the Government


benches that you can't, as it were, drill down into the referendum


question. We have two but that the other way round. The second point,


it occurs, following the confirmation of Lord Hutton. In the


last three weeks we have had quite a lot of party politics about Copeland


and how the Labour Party isn't really lined up in favour of nuclear


energy. Historically, that is nonsense. But the second point is


that a lot of things said on the part...


Subtitles will resume on 'Wednesday in Parliament' at 23:00.


Subtitles will resume in "Wednesday In Parliament."


Download Subtitles