FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS (Hansard, 11 November 2003)

§ The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Bill was thoroughly debated on Second Reading, in Committee and in the Lords. The Government have been willing to accept amendments, and this afternoon we shall consider the Lords amendment, which is designed to subject the regulations to affirmative resolution, so that issues about controlling the movement of people from the enlarged European Union with the 10 new accession countries can be brought to the House rapidly for debate and decision. I do not want to rehearse arguments that have already been made at the Dispatch Box, in Committee and in another place, and invite the House to support the Lords amendment.

§ Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk)
We welcome the Lords amendment as a proper response to concerns expressed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and others. In Committee, we, too, expressed concern about the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of regulations that could be made under clause 2, and I am satisfied that the amendment will resolve that problem. However, I hope that the Minister can help me with one remaining concern.
New subsection (5B) will allow an exemption from new subsection (5A) for reasons of urgency. Can the Minister explain exactly what is meant by that? New subsection (5B) will give the Government some discretionary power to act without parliamentary approval, so they must be explicit about what they 196 intend to do with it. What kind of situation could be described as urgent, and what time scale of events constitutes a reason of urgency?
The accession of the 10 countries is an important and historic process, and was unanimously agreed in the House of Commons. It is not only an economic and political imperative but a moral one. I very much look forward to a union of 25 countries coming together in what I hope will be a more flexible and diverse European Union. The amendment is an important addition to an important Bill.

§ Mr. Michael Moore (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)
I echo what the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) said. We are debating two significant Bills this afternoon, although the Minister may characterise them as simple, straightforward and technical measures. For the record, will he explain what special circumstances may give rise to an order being in place for 40 days before ceasing to have effect? That seems to be a short period, but it applies only to parliamentary sitting days. If the House is in recess, the period in which those temporary measures apply will be quite considerable. It would help the House if he clarified how the provision will be used, as well as the nature of the temporary measures.
Apart from that, I join the hon. Member for West Suffolk in endorsing the Bill and the amendment.

§ Angus Robertson (Moray)
It must be a unique development in the House of Commons for the Labour and Conservative spokesmen, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru to be in absolute agreement on a measure twice within half an hour. I, too, would like to put on record our wholehearted support for the Bill and its progress. The reuniting of our continent is a truly historic event. Enlargement will result in the European Union being made up overwhelmingly of small and medium-sized countries, and in future a draft European constitution will not preclude internal enlargement. We hope that in time both Scotland and Wales will take their rightful place at the top table in the European Union. One step at a time, however—that is not for discussion today. Like other spokespeople, I should like to underline our support for the Bill and its progress.

§ Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West)
This is probably the first time for nearly 60 years when it has been possible to debate Europe when there has not been a period of major conflict, at least in western Europe. One reason for that is, I half jokingly believe, the neocolonialist nature of the European Union. Countries in the east and south of Europe are doing their best to match the standards that the EU and the Council of Europe require of their members. That potential spread of peace, harmony and prosperity is important.
Associated with that is the fact that one has to be about 65 to have experienced national service. It is to be hoped that our experience of living in a country with a volunteer army, which does not need to be used in northwestern Europe, can soon be repeated throughout the rest of Europe. One of the greatest scars on Europe was created by the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia. Similar problems are occurring on the fringes of Russia, and sometimes within that country as well. Political 197 arguments about the details of EU treaties or methods of enlargement should not disguise the fact that, if a political system meets the objective of avoiding unnecessary international war and unnecessary persistent and widespread civil war, we are doing our duty in the service of politics.

§ Mr. MacShane
I welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), who made some important points. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of meeting the Defence Minister of Serbia and Montenegro, which wants to modernise its army and place it under civilian and democratic control. Britain is seeking to help it, so we can finally close the chapter of the Milosevic era. The Defence Minister made the important point that the European Union is more than simply a trade zone, as it has ideals and values. It has had an extraordinary impact on the democratisation of the enlargement states, as well as increasing the rate of reform and modernisation there. We hope that it will do the same in the accession states.
Chancellor Kohl was mocked a decade or more ago when he said that the European Union was about war and peace, but I believe that he was right. As all party representatives have made the point that we are as one on enlargement, I hope that we will move swiftly to a successful constitutional treaty, which is necessary to make enlargement work well, and bring it to the House for similar cross-party ratification in the new spirit of European unity that has emerged since the recent reshuffle. I think that I had better stop while I am ahead.
I was asked important questions about the amendment's reference to urgency in bringing regulations before the House. The answer is that the Government's attitude to the issue is precautionary. Research suggests that it is unlikely that there will be a large-scale influx of workers into the UK after 198 enlargement. However, the Government will monitor carefully the policy's impact on the UK labour market. The Department for Work and Pensions will handle that monitoring using existing sources of data and information, and it will use informal mechanisms to consult stakeholders inside and outside the Government. If, contrary to expectations, serious disturbances arose in the labour market, we would expect the monitoring to show them up. In such circumstances, action might need to be taken swiftly. I shall not cite specific examples, as I do not want any hypothetical examples to be taken to constitute a definitive list. The Government would prefer to maintain the necessary element of flexibility to meet whatever exigencies might arise.
That is why we have put the urgency procedure mechanisms and language into the Bill. We think that public and parliamentary interest is likely to be most acute when the first regulations are made, as they will fully liberalise access to our labour markets by citizens of the eight states affected by the treaty's transitional measures. For that reason, the Government have sought to put beyond doubt their intention to gain parliamentary approval for the first set of regulations before they come into force. That is why the amendment generally requires regulations to be laid in draft before parliamentary approval and subsequent commencement. Of course, it also allows the Secretary of State to bring regulations into force prior to resolutions of both Houses "by reason of urgency". In cases where that urgency procedure is used, the Secretary of State will need to secure resolutions within 40 days. Without such resolutions, the regulations would lapse at that point. I believe that that gives a parliamentary lock on the matter.
We are grateful for the Lords amendment. I hope that, with the approval of the House, the Bill can now pass into law.