EEA NATIONALS (Hansard, 16 June 1999)

§ Mr. Mike O'Brien
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Madam Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 31, 68, 71, 72 and 93.

§ Mr. O'Brien
EU law regulates the admission and stay of European Economic Area nationals and their family 407 members. I point out, for those who are not immediately familiar with the concept of the EEA, that it consists essentially of EU member states, as well as Norway, Iceland, Andorra and Liechtenstein.
In certain circumstances, an appeal right is required against a decision to refuse admission to EEA nationals or to withdraw a residence permit. Those rights are set out in the Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994, where they cross-refer to appeals under the Immigration Act 1971. We are repealing that Act's appeal provisions, and therefore need to amend the EEA provisions.
In the consultation paper on appeals that we published last July, we pointed out that the relationship between the 1971 Act appeals and the EEA appeals was confusing and needed to be addressed. The responses supported our proposal to separate EEA appeals. We therefore intend to provide clear, stand-alone appeal rights in line with EU law. Procedurally, however, the exercise of those rights will be integrated with any non-EEA rights of appeal to which the person may be entitled, and the one-stop system will be applied to ensure a quick and decisive outcome.
The new clause enables us to make regulations providing for EEA appeals in the circumstances required by EU law; defines necessary terms of reference, and enables the regulations to apply the one-stop procedure and restrict access to non-EEA appeals where appropriate. I invite the House to accept the new clause.

§ Mr. Clappison
This is another new clause that is being introduced at a late stage and concerns a new matter that was not subject to the Special Standing Committee procedure. The Minister echoed the earlier remarks of the Home Secretary on a similar new clause and said that new clause 5 was foreshadowed by a consultation paper last year, so those who are interested in these subjects were put on notice. I say to the Home Secretary and the Minister that those who gave evidence about the Bill—expert groups, immigration lawyers and so on—were expected to deal only with matters that were included in the Bill. It would have been difficult for them to foresee all the matters that the Bill could possibly have included, so it is a bit much to expect them to have commented on matters that were not included.
The Minister has explained his new clause to the House. He is a fair man, and if he had been on the receiving end of that explanation, he would agree that it was not, on first hearing, clear to all concerned. It involves a certain amount of legal technicality. I think that the gist of the Minister's comments was that this is some tidying-up exercise caused by other changes to the rights of appeal, in order to bring those for EEA citizens into line.
We still wonder why all these matters could not have been foreseen and included in the Bill earlier, so that we could have considered the changes to the rights of appeal alongside the others, and so that those who are interested in these matters, including immigration lawyers, who are far more versed in them than we are, had an opportunity to comment.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but if I were, I would have been awake for several nights having read the new clause. The Minister told us that the proposal to bring our legislative position on EEA nationals' rights into line with that of the rest of the European Union was included in the 408 Lord Chancellor's consultation paper in July, yet we did not hear any more about it—a conspiracy theorist might deem that a remarkable coincidence—until the new clause was tabled on Thursday. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I could have a field day on speculation arising from that, but I am not, so I shall simply put a question to the Minister. Are the rights of appeal of EEA nationals being dealt with in this way to meet the requirements of European Community law?

§ Mr. O'Brien
The hon. Member for Hertsmere insists that he is not a conspiracy theorist, yet the great Tory conspiracy theory about Europe and all things European seems to have raised its ugly head in his speech on a fairly innocuous new clause.

§ Mr. Clappison
I am a subscriber to the cock-up theory, which will come in very useful in later debates.

§ Mr. O'Brien
Having served in the previous Government, the hon. Gentleman would know a lot about that.
There has not been a conspiracy. All that has happened is that we have issued a consultation paper on the way in which we should deal with the need to bring provisions for EEA nationals into line with European Union requirements. There is no enormous extension of provisions to cause any controversy. The new clause merely tidies up and clarifies matters, providing a stand-alone set of rules to replace the hotch-potch. I do not say that as any criticism of the previous Government; it is just the way in which things have developed. As a result, we shall have a clear set of rules on the procedures, and those who need to access them will be able to do so. The House should support the new clause and the amendments.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere referred to the fact that the terms of the Special Standing Committee did not extend to either the consultation paper or the White Paper. In retrospect, that is regrettable; we live and learn. The process surrounding the Special Standing Committee was new. If I remember rightly, we all considered its terms of reference and decided that they were right. It was always clear during our preparation for the Bill that all it would do was implement the legal part of the policy outlined in the White Paper, so everyone was aware of the Bill's source. There was in no sense an attempt to evade the process.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we could consider such issues and, when setting the terms of reference for any Special Standing Committee, take into account the broader context in which policy is developed.