Latest from our Blog

Briefing on motions tabled by Baroness Dianne Hayter & Baroness Angela Smith in response to Ministers' statements on the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK & the meaninful parliamentary vote

Following the passage of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill and the government’s rejection of two Labour-led amendments, the Labour Lords team tabled two motions relating to the Article 50 negotiations. These motions – for debate early evening on Tuesday 4th April – focus on the issues covered by our previous amendments and require Ministers to provide clarity on unresolved issues.

Report on the rights of European Economic Area (EEA) nationals:

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town to move to resolve that a Minister of the Crown do report to this House by the end of this Session on the progress made towards ensuring that qualifying non-UK EEA nationals and their family members are able to retain their fundamental EU-derived rights after the UK has left the EU.

Establishment of a Joint Committee on a meaningful vote at the end of the negotiations:

Baroness of Smith of Basildon to move that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on the terms and options for any votes in Parliament on the outcome of the negotiations on the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, including how any such vote be taken before any agreement is considered by the European Parliament; and that the committee do report by 31 October 2017.

Labour’s amendments to the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill?

  • Labour successfully led two House Lords amendments to the Bill after securing cross-party support, and with majorities of 102 and 98.
  • The first amendment would have required the government to bring forward proposals within three months of triggering Article 50 to guarantee the rights of EEA nationals already resident in the UK.
  • The second amendment would have put into law the commitments that the government has already made – under pressure from Labour at both ends of Parliament – about the final vote on the Article 50 deal, to ensure a meaningful vote takes place in both Houses of Parliament on ‘not only the withdrawal arrangements but also the future relationship with the European Union’; and takes place both before the agreement is concluded, and the draft deal is put before the European Parliament.
  • The second amendment would also have ensured that if the Prime Minister fails to agree a deal, only Parliament could decide to end negotiations and exit with no deal.
  • Labour had hoped both amendments would be carried but the Prime Minister and Conservative MPs killed off both amendments.
  • In these circumstances, Labour Lords took the constitutionally responsible decision not to send further amendments back for consideration. In taking this position, it was made clear by our Shadow Brexit Minister, Bns Dianne Hayter that we would use other methods to hold Ministers to account. 

What happens now? 

  • The weeks since the Bill received Royal Assent have seen the Prime Minister invoke Article 50 against a backdrop of continued debate on the two fundamental issues on which we pressed our amendments.
  • By moving these two motions in the Lords this week, Labour Peers continue to apply pressure on the government – both in terms of the general issues and the specific commitments made in Parliament by Ministers.
  • The debate will take place early evening on Tuesday 4th April and votes are anticipated – unless the government decides to accept the motions.
  • If the first motion is passed – on the rights of EEA nationals – House of Lords conventions would expect at the very least a written ministerial statement, which would provide an additional measure against which the government would be held to account.
  • If the second motion is passed – on establishing a Joint Committee of both Houses to discuss arrangements for a meaningful vote at the end of the Article 50 negotiations – the issue would become a matter for consideration in the House of Commons. 

- Ends -

Published 3rd April 2017

Article 50 negotiations - Labour Lords motions - UPDATED

Briefing on motions tabled by Baroness Dianne Hayter & Baroness Angela Smith in response to Ministers' statements on the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK & the meaninful...

DianneHayter.jpgBaroness Dianne Hayter speech to the House of Lords

I thank the Noble Lords the Minister for repeating the statement which introduces one part of three broad areas of scrutiny facing this House over the coming 18 months or so. The other elements are the array of primary legislation – anywhere between 7 and 15 Bills covering agriculture, customs, immigration etc, and associated SIs.

And, alongside this legislative work will be our scrutiny of the Government’s negotiations with the EU27, culminating in a vote in this House on the final deal.

Today’s foreshadowed Bill is, in one way, the easiest of the three, as it takes existing EU law and incorporate it into domestic law.

However, we’ve heard the Secretary of State for International Trade, arguing that ‘to restore Britain’s competitiveness we must begin by deregulating the labour market’. Whilst the Foreign Secretary wants to use the ‘opportunity’ to axe needless regulations that have ‘accreted since Britain joined the EU’.

How do these comments chime with the PM’s introduction to the White Paper – and, indeed, the Government’s longstanding promise – that “the same rules and laws will apply on the day after exit as on the day before”?

Will the NL the Minister confirm the Prime Minister is the boss, and that despite the words of others, there is no intention to follow their madcap ideas within the Repeal Bill?

Despite its aim of simply converting existing rules into UK law, the Bill will be – in the words of our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform committee – “a wholly exceptional piece of primary legislation” with implications for “the fundamental issue of the balance between the Executive and Parliament”.

We are pleased that the Secretary of State has confirmed that delegated powers introduced by the Bill will be subject to time limits, but a number of concerns remain. According to paragraph 3.21, the Government believes current statutory instrument procedures are sufficient for the task ahead. We have our doubts.

Will the NL the Minister give some serious consideration to the following recommendations:

  • An explanatory memo published alongside each SI
  • Early consultation with outside stakeholders
  • The provision of “a comprehensive delegated powers memorandum” for Parliament when the Bill appears
  • Provision of draft regulations, so that scrutiny can commence before the Bill is enacted, in view of the “sheer scale” and complexity of the SIs
  • And, given that delegated legislation is unamendable, consideration of “a strengthened scrutiny procedure” to help ensure “that parliament retains some control” over the significant SIs, including some “triage” of the proposals.

The Lords committees do excellent work, but it is clear that some form of extra capacity will be needed if we are to scrutinise the vast array of SIs that are to come.

My Lords, many EU regulations are monitored or enforced by the Commission, Court of Justice or another EU body. The question, therefore, is how the Government will ensure that these regulations, once domesticated into UK law, will still be monitored and enforced. There is little point entrenching EU rights and protections in UK law if the Government does not also ensure that they are enforceable.

As converting the EU acquis into domestic law will have significant implications for the devolution settlements, which were premised on continued membership of the EU, can the NL the Minister tell the House about their plans for dealing with repatriation in areas of devolved competence, including London. In particular, can he provide assurance that consultation will improve?

Just yesterday, the First Minister in Wales confirmed he had not seen the Article 50 letter in advance and had not been invited to contribute to its drafting. He described this as “unacceptable” and “the culmination of a deeply frustrating process in which the Devolved Administrations have been persistently treated with a lack of respect.”

And today he has had to say again: “we are disappointed we were not given opportunity to contribute to its production (despite assurances that we would be)”. Is this the level of cooperation the Government thinks satisfactory?

My Lords, although lacking in certain respects, today’s White Paper does provide some much-needed clarity. Labour has been clear that our withdrawal from the EU must not lead to the reduction of workplace rights, environmental or consumer protections. These must be protected with no qualifications, limitations or sunset clauses.

The White Paper appears to accept this entirely and even sets out some welcome examples. But given comments by the Foreign and International Trade Secretaries, and the former Chairman of the Conservative Party, there are dangers ahead.

My Lords, if we are to do our job properly, we will need the resources and structures to deal with avalanche of SIs, a way of ensuring delegated powers are limited, used only when vital, and not misused.

The NL the Minister knows the House stands ready to do what’s needed, but will need rather more detail and assurance before we can be sure this Bill is fit for purpose. The Government stresses the importance of sovereignty. For us, this means parliamentary sovereignty and not an unacceptable power grab. We will be watching you!


Baroness Dianne Hayter is Shadow Brexit Minister in the House of Lords. She tweets at @HayeratLords

Published 30th March 2017 

Speech in response to Great Repeal Bill white paper statement

Baroness Dianne Hayter speech to the House of Lords

Angela_outside_Oct2016.JPGBaroness Angela Smith speech to the House of Lords

So now, over nine months since the result of the referendum was announced, the Prime Minister has sent the letter that starts the process of our withdrawal from the European Union after a relationship of over 40 years.

And just like any other divorce, there will be some who rejoice and look forward to new opportunities. Others though will despair for the shared past and lost love. A few will fondly recall the marriage, divorces and remarriage of Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor with some hope. But throughout it all, the only people to get rich will be those trying to unravel those 40 plus years of relative harmony – the lawyers.

Throughout it all there will be one common emotion - uncertainty for the future. Because, as the Prime Minister herself has had to concede, no-one can yet know what the final deal or arrangements will look like. So we now have to focus on what comes next.  And what comes next is complex. Whilst some fear the worst, we will all work for the best. And I’ve said previously, the debates and negotiations cannot be left to those who have no doubt. We have to engage the talent, experience and wisdom of our whole nation, together in the national interest.

Today’s letter specifies our negotiating position to the EU. The Labour Party has set out the six tests by which the Government will be judged on the final deal. Those tests include migration, national security and crime, employment and social rights, the need to support all regions and nations in the UK as we develop our future relationship with the remaining 27 countries in the EU.

And the sixth test is the Government’s own as set out by David Davis to the House of Commons on 24th January. That in terms of trade the Government’s aim is to deliver “… a comprehensive free trade agreement and a comprehensive customs agreement that will deliver the exact same benefits as we [currently] have”.

That’s a pretty high bar – but a bar set by the Government and one they will be held accountable to.

My Lords, today I set one further test for the Government. It’s not controversial, and I hope that it will be willingly accepted by the Government and the NL the Leader of the House. The seventh test is one that will set the tone for the debate, the negotiations and mood of the nation in accepting and understanding the outcome. And this test is the test of complete honesty.

As the Prime Minister and her team enter into these negotiations there will be good days and difficult days.  There will be days when everything seems possible – and days when nothing goes right.

The Prime Minister has, on many occasions, been clear about her confidence that she can and will negotiate a good deal in the best interests of the UK. But My Lords, there are others who are confident that any deal or even no deal is better than what we have now. We totally reject that. This process must not be so ideologically driven that the Government can accept anything and claim it is a good deal.

And that’s where the honesty comes in. If the Prime Minister is disappointed, or dissatisfied with the negotiations, or the outcome of agreements, she must, in the national interest, be prepared to say so. Because, if there is to be a vote at the end of the process that is truly meaningful, it has to be undertaken with the certainty that Parliament has the information needed to make an informed decision in the best interests of the country.

My Lords, can I raise some of the specifics in relation to the statement and the letter?

On the devolved administrations, despite the Prime Minister’s warm words that she intends to strengthen the four nations of the UK, that is not how it feels at the moment. On the ‘significant increase’ in the decision making powers of the devolved administrations, I ask three questions: What discussions there has been so far? Can she give an assurance about ongoing consultation? And will any of these powers require primary legislation?

I am pleased in her letter to the President Tusk she specifically mentions Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland border. It’s right that she sets this as a priority and I believe that the issue, if not yet the solution, is also understood by the EU27. But when she refers in the letter to it being the only land border with the UK, whilst technically correct, can I remind her that we do have a land border between the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar and Spain. 

I appreciate that the trigger letter could never include all of our negotiating issues. But, I was extremely disappointed at the omission of any reference to the people of Gibraltar and their concerns, either in the statement or the letter. The Prime Minister says that she will take into account the specific interests of every nation and region. Can the NL the Leader, give the House an assurance that we will not abandon Gibraltar and that their interests will also be represented?

My Lords, the commitment to seeking an early agreement to guarantee the rights of EU nationals in the UK and our nationals in the remaining 27 countries is welcome.  The NL will be aware of the disappointment of YLH as our amendment to include a guarantee in the legislation was rejected by the Government and the Other Place.  

The Prime Minister confirms in her letter that making this part of the negotiations is complex, and I hope therefore, given the support of YLH that the Government will accept the motion in the name of My Noble Friend, Lady Hayter, to be debated next week, that the Government should report back to Parliament before the end of the session on progress.

I also welcome the assurance in the statement of the phased process for implementation of the new arrangements and agreements.  I know the Government doesn’t like talking about transition and refers to it as an implementation phase, which I’m equally happy with.  What’s important here is that change is practical, workable and pragmatic, and not ideologically driven toward the cliff edge scenario. I welcome and thank the Prime Minister for her assurances on that point.

On Euratom, in the letter the Government considers that we have to come out as part of our EU exit but given the importance of this issue, I would have liked to have seen a commitment to seek an early agreement on a new practical partnership.

However, I do want to register concerns about the misleading language where the Prime Minister appears to have drawn a connection between trade and national security in her letter to President Tusk. When I first read this I wondered if she’d left out a sentence or two. On page three she makes reference to: “our deep and special partnership that takes in both economic and security co-operation” - that I wholeheartedly endorse. She then rightly points out that: “If however, we leave the European Union without an agreement the default position is that we would have to trade in World Trade Organisation terms”.

So far, it’s clear. But the very next sentence states that: “In security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our co-operation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened”. Because it is unclear which agreement she’s referring to, the letter to President Tusk appears to state is that if we can’t reach an agreement on trade, this will have an impact on security agreements. 

I’m grateful for the clarity from Downing Street that this was not the intention. But given the complexity and sensitivities of the negotiations about to start, it is essential that there are no misunderstandings or lack of clarity. Can I suggest, for the avoidance of doubt, that in future issues such as trade and security are never linked. They are both essential in the own right and a responsible agreement on one is not dependent on the other.

Tomorrow my Lords, we wait with some anticipation the White Paper on the repealing the 1972 Legislation and enshrining EU legislation, in which we played our part, into UK law. However, NL will have seen the comments from some on the Government benches about this being an opportunity for deregulation or cutting so-called ‘red tape’ – in other words doing away with protections and rights for UK citizens.

I seek an assurance from the NL, that that is not the part of the so-called Great Repeal Bill and that the Government will resist any attempts to bring in such changes by the back door – this seeking to avoid proper parliamentary scrutiny.  In that she will have our support.

Finally my Lords, can I welcome both the tone of the Prime Ministers statement and the emphasis she has placed, throughout her statement, on partnership? Only the most ideologically driven have ever suggested that this process will be easy or problem free. It won’t, it will be difficult and complex. The tone of her remarks about our place in Europe may help ease that path but it will be important that the Government commits to being open and transparent with Parliament and the country.

As we move forward transparency, openness, engagement and honesty will be expected and will be essential.

Next week, the other motion we will debate, in my name, seeks to establish a Joint Committee of both Houses to work together to establish the best way to ensure that Parliament has the best information possible and the best processes to have a meaningful vote on the final agreement. My Lords, I urge the Government to support this, because as the Prime Minister makes clear, we must all work together in the national interest.


Baroness Angela Smith of Basildon is Shadow Leader of the House of Lords. She tweets at @LadyBasildon

Published 29th March 2017 

Speech in response to PM statement triggering Article 50

Baroness Angela Smith speech to the House of Lords

More Blogs >

The Labour Party will place cookies on your computer to help us make this website better.

Please read this to review the updates about which cookies we use and what information we collect on our site.

To find out more about these cookies, see our privacy notice. Use of this site confirms your acceptance of these cookies.