This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/01/lords-defeat-government-over-rights-of-eu-citizens-in-uk-brexit-bill

The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Lords defeat government over rights of EU citizens in UK Lords defeat government over rights of EU citizens in UK
(35 minutes later)
Theresa May has suffered a heavy defeat in the House of Lords after peers voted by 358 votes to 256 in favour of an amendment calling on the government to secure the rights of EU citizens in the UK. Theresa May’s government has vowed to overturn a demand by the House of Lords to guarantee the rights of EU citizens living in the UK within three months of article 50 being triggered.
A number of Conservatives including the former cabinet minister Douglas Hogg lined up with Labour, Liberal Democrats and crossbench peers to demand formal reassurance to more than 3 million Europeans already resident in Britain. Ministers were said to “disappointed” by a heavy defeat in which peers voted 358 to 256 in favour of amending the Brexit bill, but made clear that their position would not change on the issue.
The Lords did not go as far as calling for immediate, unilateral action but said ministers should be made to set out proposals about how they would protect citizens and their families within three months of article 50 being triggered. Seven Conservatives including the former cabinet minister Douglas Hogg lined up with the Labour party, Liberal Democrats and crossbenchers to demand formal reassurances for more than 3 million Europeans already resident in Britain.
The decision forces the government’s Brexit bill into a process of ping-pong between the Houses of Commons and Lords, delaying its passage into law by at least one week until 14 March. There will now be intense pressure on Conservative backbench MPs to follow suit when the bill returns to the Commons for another vote in just under a fortnight.
Conservative MPs will now face intense lobbying over the issue as campaigners try to persuade them to inflict an unlikely further defeat in the House of Commons. A government source told the Guardian that they took the issue of securing the rights of EU citizens very seriously, but said they were determined to pass a “straightforward, simple bill”.
Labour’s Brexit spokeswoman in the Lords, Lady Hayter, opened up the debate, claiming the government had the power to act now over the issue, saying: “In 1985, my noble friend Lord Kinnock had to say to his own party: ‘You can’t play politics with people’s jobs.’ “The intention is to seek to overturn this in the House of Commons.”
The Lords did not go as far as calling for immediate, unilateral action but said ministers should be made to set out proposals about how they would protect citizens and their families within three months of article 50 being triggered later this month.
Their decision forces the government’s Brexit bill into a process of ping-pong between the Houses of Commons and Lords, delaying its passage into law by at least one week until 14 March.
Lobbying of Conservative MPs is already under way, with cross-party talks likely as Labour and the Lib Dems urge Conservative colleagues to force a second defeat on the issue.
Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, said there was a growing consensus over the issue. “The Prime Minister is now increasingly isolated. Labour will continue to support this simple but effective amendment when it returns to the Commons, and urge MPs on all sides of the House to do so.”But Conservative backbenchers who might be minded to rebel told the Guardian that they did not believe the amendment would remain in place.
Anna Soubry said that she was convinced by the government’s argument that this issue would be dealt with as a priority once article 50 had been triggered.
The government’s Brexit minister, Lord Bridges, used the debate to tell peers that the government had been encouraged by meetings with other EU leaders who suggested that “we will indeed be able to reach a quick and timely agreement”.
But the government’s suggestion that a one-sided guarantee could be damaging for the rights British people living in Europe was given short-shrift by a number of peers.
Labour’s Brexit spokeswoman in the Lords, Lady Hayter, opened up the debate, claiming the government had the power to act now over the issue: “In 1985, my noble friend Lord Kinnock had to say to his own party: ‘You can’t play politics with people’s jobs.’
“I now want to say to the government: you can’t do negotiations with people’s futures.”“I now want to say to the government: you can’t do negotiations with people’s futures.”
She was backed by a number of high-profile peers including the previous Lib Dem leader, Lord Campbell, the former head of the civil service, Lord Kerslake and the former lord chief justice, Lord Woolf. She was backed by a number of high-profile peers including the previous Lib Dem leader, Lord Campbell and the former lord chief justice, Lord Woolf.
The former head of the civil service, Lord Kerslake said the government’s argument that an offer to EU citizens would weaken its hand in European negotiations was questionable. “However you think about that argument it is using them as bargaining chips.”
Lord Hailsham (Douglas Hogg) was the most high profile Conservative to back the amendment, laid down by the Labour frontbench but formally backed by Tories, Lib Dems and cross-benchers.Lord Hailsham (Douglas Hogg) was the most high profile Conservative to back the amendment, laid down by the Labour frontbench but formally backed by Tories, Lib Dems and cross-benchers.
He said denying European citizens the right to remain in Britain could face legal challenge, but also said it was a matter of principle.He said denying European citizens the right to remain in Britain could face legal challenge, but also said it was a matter of principle.
“On Monday I was lunching in the dining room in the House of Commons, where I was meeting staff whom I have known for very many years. And one of the waitresses came up to me and she said: ‘What is going to happen to me when Brexit takes place?’ She was born in France but has worked in the United Kingdom, has been in the House of Commons, for very many years. He described how a French waitress in parliament had asked him what would happen to her when Brexit took place. “I gave her my personal opinion, which was that there would be no problem for her, but I was not able to give her the guarantee that I think she was entitled to deserve.”
“I gave her my personal opinion, which was that there would be no problem for her, but I was not able to give her the guarantee that I think she was entitled to deserve.” The peer reminded the House of Lords about the shock in Britain when Idi Amin expelled the Asians from Uganda.
But while there was some unexpected backing for the amendment, there was also some unlikely backing for the government on the issue. But while there was some unexpected backing for the amendment, there was also some unlikely support for the government on the issue.
The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, said that he was one of the people who had left Uganda under Amin because of his opposition to policy, “so I know how minorities can feel”.The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, said that he was one of the people who had left Uganda under Amin because of his opposition to policy, “so I know how minorities can feel”.
But he insisted this was a “simple bill” only about triggering article 50 and that it was unnecessary to amend it in this way. But he insisted this was a “simple bill” only concerned with enabling May to trigger article 50, and compared it to the start of a race.
He said the legislation was “a race about to start – on your marks, get set, bang”. “On your marks, get set, bang,” he said. “Then they take off and it will take two years to run this race and during the running of the race we want to make sure concerns come back.”
“Then they take off and it will take two years to run this race and during the running of the race we want to make sure concerns come back,” he said.
Other supporters of the government included the former Tory leader Lord Howard, who argued that the best option to end the uncertainty was to “pass this bill as quickly as possible and to activate article 50 as quickly as possible”.Other supporters of the government included the former Tory leader Lord Howard, who argued that the best option to end the uncertainty was to “pass this bill as quickly as possible and to activate article 50 as quickly as possible”.
Lord Strathclyde added that the amendment could put at risk the needs of British people living abroad. And the former Chancellor, Lord Lawson, said the amendment itself could “stir up fear and concern among residents in this country that they may be able to stay when there is no question that there will be”
But the prime minister, who does not have a majority in the Lords, was easily beaten despite a last-minute effort by Amber Rudd to reassure peers about the government’s intentions on the issue.But the prime minister, who does not have a majority in the Lords, was easily beaten despite a last-minute effort by Amber Rudd to reassure peers about the government’s intentions on the issue.
She had insisted there was no question of treating European citizens with “anything other than the utmost respect”, and said their status would be top priority in EU negotiations.She had insisted there was no question of treating European citizens with “anything other than the utmost respect”, and said their status would be top priority in EU negotiations.
In the Lords, many disagreed on the issue. Kerslake said the government’s argument that an offer to EU citizens would weaken its hand in European negotiations was questionable. “However you think about that argument it is using them as bargaining chips.” The decision of peers to force a vote at committee stage was unusual, but took place when it became clear the government would not make concessions on this issue.
The shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, will argue that May is becoming increasingly isolated on the issue, as he prepares to back the amendment in the Commons. Nicolas Hatton, the chairman of the3million campaign group which has been lobbying for the rights of EU citizens said that while he had some concerns about the amendment it was “a relief” that for the first time since the referendum, a majority was secured in parliament to support the rights of the 3million EU citizens “who came in good faith to live and work the UK”.
But Tory backbenchers who supported remain told the Guardian that they did not believe May would be defeated. The prime minister knows that public opinion is mixed on the issue. A coalition of 13 groups representing British Nationals abroad and EU citizens in the UK agreed that it was a “positive step in the right direction”. It said it was concerned that “the amendment makes no mention of UK citizens in the EEA” despite the efforts of the grass roots groups across Europe to get their message across. They represent more than 25,000 UK citizens in the EU including British nationals in Spain, France and Germany. “They are also facing huge uncertainty about their futures, livelihoods and the security of their families – the same concerns facing EU and EEA citizens in the UK, whose campaign for a unilateral guarantee we fully support,” said Jeremy Morgan, QC for the coalition of residents.
A recent Guardian/ICM poll found that 41% believed the government should guarantee the rights of EU nationals now because it is the right thing to do, but 42% supported the government position to wait for protections for British people lving abroad.
The move in the Lords was unusual as peers rarely force a vote when bills are in their committee stage. However, Rudd’s letter made clear that the government was not ready to concede on the issue.
Monique Hawkins, a Dutch woman who highlighted the plight of EU citizens when she revealed last December she had been asked to “prepare to leave” the country after 24 years said she was “heartened” to hear so many moving and inspiring speeches.Monique Hawkins, a Dutch woman who highlighted the plight of EU citizens when she revealed last December she had been asked to “prepare to leave” the country after 24 years said she was “heartened” to hear so many moving and inspiring speeches.
However, she added that she feared the successful amendment still did not cover stay-at-home parents, carers, disabled people and students whose residence status was uncertain because they decided to continue their lives in Britain but did not take out health insurance when they arrived in the country.However, she added that she feared the successful amendment still did not cover stay-at-home parents, carers, disabled people and students whose residence status was uncertain because they decided to continue their lives in Britain but did not take out health insurance when they arrived in the country.
A coalition of 13 groups representing British nationals abroad and EU citizens in the UK said it was “delighted” describing the vote as a “positive step in the right direction”. But they added they were concerned “the amendment makes no mention of UK citizens in the EEA ”despite the efforts of the grass roots groups representing Britons across Europe to get their message across. MPs who support Brexit will join ministers in arguing strongly that the government’s position should not cause concern among EU citizens in Britain. In fact, they point the finger instead at European countries, including Germany, which have refused to discuss any Brexit-related issues ahead of article 50 being triggered.
Steve Baker, a key figure on the Conservative backbenches who chairs the party’s European Research Group, said: “While our prime minister has been quite clear that we wish to resolve the issue of UK citizens in the EU and EU citizens in the UK as soon as possible, it is regrettable that Germany and France are using UK citizens in their countries as bargaining chips for the Brexit negotiations.”