House of Lords Official Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Vol. 789 Wednesday No. 106 7 March 2018 PARLIAMENTARYDEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT ORDEROFBUSINESS European Union (Withdrawal) Bill Committee (5th Day) ...................................................................................................1055 Questions Housing: Holiday Lets..................................................................................................1104 Schools: Music..............................................................................................................1107 Nurses: Training ...........................................................................................................1110 Emergency Hospital Admissions ..................................................................................1112 European Union (Withdrawal) Bill Committee (5th Day) (Continued)...............................................................................1115 Saudi Arabia Statement......................................................................................................................1170 Leveson Part 2: Sunday Times Statement......................................................................................................................1174 European Union (Withdrawal) Bill Committee (5th Day) (Continued) ..............................................................................1178 Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports should give notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office. No proofs of Daily Reports are provided. Corrections for the bound volume which Lords wish to suggest to the report of their speeches should be clearly indicated in a copy of the Daily Report, which, with the column numbers concerned shown on the front cover, should be sent to the Editor of Debates, House of Lords, within 14 days of the date of the Daily Report. This issue of the Official Report is also available on the Internet at https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2018-03-07 The first time a Member speaks to a new piece of parliamentary business, the following abbreviations are used to show their party affiliation: Abbreviation Party/Group CB Cross Bench Con Conservative DUP Democratic Unionist Party GP Green Party Ind Lab Independent Labour Ind LD Independent Liberal Democrat Ind SD Independent Social Democrat Ind UU Independent Ulster Unionist Lab Labour LD Liberal Democrat LD Ind Liberal Democrat Independent Non-afl Non-affiliated PC Plaid Cymru UKIP UK Independence Party UUP Ulster Unionist Party No party affiliation is given for Members serving the House in a formal capacity, the Lords spiritual, Members on leave of absence or Members who are otherwise disqualified from sitting in the House. © Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords 2018, this publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 1055 European Union (Withdrawal) Bill[7 MARCH 2018] European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 1056 House of Lords put their name to should be incorporated into the Bill, and I have helpfully provided an amendment to enable Wednesday 7 March 2018 them to do that. I also draw the Minister’s attention to the draft 11 am withdrawal agreement presented on 28 February by Michel Barnier to the Brexit Steering Group. I refer specifically to Article 83, which states: Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester. “Where in a case before a court or tribunal in the United Kingdom a question is raised concerning the interpretation of the Treaties or the validity or interpretation of acts of the institutions, European Union (Withdrawal) Bill bodies, offices or agencies of the Union relating to facts that occurred before the end of the transition period and where that Committee (5th Day) court or tribunal considers that a decision on that question is necessary to enable it to give judgment in that case, it may request 11.06 am the Court of Justice of the European Union to give a preliminary ruling on that question in accordance with the procedural requirements Relevant documents: 12th Report from the Delegated laid down in Article 267 TFEU. The Court of Justice of the Powers Committee, 9th Report from the Constitution European Union shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings Committee on such requests”. Do Her Majesty’s Government agree to that proposal by Monsieur Barnier in the draft withdrawal agreement Clause 6: Interpretation of retained EU law and do they plan to amend the Bill accordingly? Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con): How would the Amendment 49 noble Lord’s proposed new provision work in the Moved by Lord Foulkes of Cumnock event of there being no agreement and is he not anticipating the terms of an agreement? 49: Clause 6, page 3, line 33, after “cannot” insert “, subject to paragraph (c),” Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: As I understand it, all that we include depends on there being an agreement. Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab): My Lords, in moving It is not just my amendment; it is the whole legislation. Amendment 49 I shall speak also to Amendment 52. I beg to move. I read the other day that the two most disbelieved statements are, “The cheque is in the post” and, “I am Lord Liddle (Lab): My Lords, I fully support my from the Government and I am here to help you”. noble friend’s decision to raise these questions, which Here is another one: this amendment is designed to be are very important. I suspect the Minister will say that helpful to the Government, and I hope they will the Government have given a commitment that, when genuinely believe that. It seeks to formalise the agreement the withdrawal agreement is concluded, it will become reached in December 2017 in the UK/EU joint report before this House an Act of Parliament and we will in relation to EU citizens and their ability to refer therefore have the opportunity to debate it then. However, cases to the CJEU. there are two powerful reasons why citizens’ rights Clause 6(1)(b) states that, “A court or tribunal”, should be incorporated in this Bill now. “cannot refer any matter to the European Court on or after exit The first is the high level of anxiety that EU citizens day”. have about their position. I am sure there is relief that, However, paragraph 38 of the joint report agreed by in principle, an agreement was reached in December, the UK Government last December states: but there could still be many a slip between cup and lip “This Part of the Agreement establishes rights for citizens in its ratification. Those citizens’ rights should be following on from those established in Union law during the UK’s guaranteed now to provide reassurance. membership of the European Union; the CJEU is the ultimate Secondly, I listened hard to an earlier contribution arbiter of the interpretation of Union law. In the context of the from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of application or interpretation of those rights, UK courts shall therefore have due regard to relevant decisions of the CJEU after Eaton-under-Heywood, in which he said that the main the specified date. The Agreement should also establish a mechanism utility of this Bill is to make sure there is legal certainty enabling UK courts or tribunals to decide, having had due regard if we crash out of the EU—because, assuming that to whether relevant case-law exists, to ask the CJEU questions of negotiations work, there will be a transition period interpretation of those rights where they consider that a CJEU during which EU citizens’ rights will not be affected. ruling on the question is necessary for the UK court or tribunal to The problem we are dealing with particularly in this be able to give judgment in a case before it. This mechanism should be available for UK courts or tribunals for litigation Bill is the risk of a crash-out. Of course, the Government brought within 8 years from the date of application of the will say to us, “Well, we’re very determined there won’t citizens’ rights Part”. be a crash-out”, but they will not exclude that possibility. We are not taking away any powers from the courts or It was clear from the intervention at the end of my tribunals. They decide whether to seek advice, and noble friend Lord Foulkes’ speech that the noble Lord, when they get it they then decide whether to take Lord Forsyth, actually relishes the possibility of a account of it. It does not in any way undermine the crash-out because he thinks, wrongly, that this is some principles the Government have adduced for withdrawal. bargaining leverage we have over the EU. I hope, therefore, that this is helpful. All I am suggesting is that the joint agreement the UK Government have Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords— 1057 European Union (Withdrawal) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 1058 Lord Liddle: I will give way in a moment. taking up so much parliamentary time that should be The question is whether we want the rights of EU devoted to other things. I bitterly resent it and wanted citizens to be used by the likes of the noble Lord, Lord to get that on the record. Forsyth, as a bargaining chip in these negotiations. If we do not, then we should support amendments along Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD): My Lords, as the lines of that in the name of my noble friends Lord someone who is a co-signatory of the amendment that Foulkes and Lord Adonis, to give people the security was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, to which they are entitled. I support what he said and also endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said. This should be a 11.15