HL Deb 10 September 2003 vol 652 cc395-401

9.26 p.m.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Clause I agreed to.

Clause 2 [Freedom of movement for workers]:

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

moved Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 16, leave out from "instrument" to the end of line 17 and insert— (5A) Regulations may not be made under this section unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. (5B) But, in the case of regulations other than the first set of regulations under this section, subsection (5A) does not apply if it appears to the Secretary of State that by reason of urgency they should be made without being approved in draft. (5C) Where by virtue of subsection (5B) regulations are made without being approved in draft, the regulations—

  1. (a) must be laid before Parliament, and
  2. (b) cease to have effect at the end of the period mentioned in subsection (5D) unless they are approved during that period by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5D) The period referred to in subsection (5C)(b) is the period of 40 days—
  1. (a) beginning with the day on which the regulations are made, and
  2. (b) ignoring any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both I-louses are adjourned for more than four days.
 (5E) The fact that regulations cease to have effect by virtue of subsection (5C)—
  1. (a) does not affect the lawfulness of anything done before the regulations cease to have effect, and
  2. (b) does not prevent the making of new regulations."
 The noble Baroness said: This is the Government's sole amendment to the Bill. It is the response to the reports by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. I am grateful to the Select Committee and, in particular, to its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, for the committee's work on the Bill. The Committee will see, in the Select Committee's 21st and 23rd reports, that we have had several courteous and reasonable exchanges about the appropriate level of parliamentary control of regulations made under Clause 2 on freedom of movement for workers.

The amendment is a compromise between the Government's position and the Select Committee's original recommendation. The amendment takes up directly a suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, in his letter to me dated 9th July. Because of that, I hope that the Government's amendment will be generally acceptable to the Committee. For the benefit of those who may not be familiar with the issues, I shall briefly explain the Government's position on the compromise suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and accepted by me in the form of the amendment.

It is the Government's intention, in line with our declared policy, to bring regulations under Clause 2 into force on 1st May next year. The regulations will grant the right to freedom of movement for work to nationals of all eight states affected by the treaty's transitional provisions. The regulations will take the form of an amendment to the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2000.

The Government took the view that the negative procedure was the appropriate level of parliamentary control for two reasons. First, the EEA regulations were adopted under the negative procedure, and, secondly, Parliament will have the opportunity during the passage of this Bill to debate the issues of principle underpinning the regulations. Nevertheless, the Government are willing to accept the Select Committee's judgment that the freedom of movement of workers will continue to be an issue of political interest. In turn, that justifies a greater degree of parliamentary control over the regulations than the Government originally envisaged. However, as I made clear in my published response to the Select Committee's recommendation, the Government are concerned that the procedure chosen should not impair our ability to react appropriately, if it becomes necessary—contrary, of course, to expectations—to apply safeguards. If we encounter disturbances in the labour market or find that the regulations are being abused, the Government may need to act swiftly. The affirmative procedure is not compatible with that swift action.

Public and parliamentary interest is likely to be most acute when the regulations are first made, since these will fully liberalise access to our labour markets for citizens of the eight states concerned. Subsequently, regulations are likely to be of a technical nature. Even if those subsequent regulations were used to apply some form of safeguard, that safeguard could only be temporary. I am sure that your Lordships will recall that the accession treaty limits the application of safeguards to a maximum period of seven years after the date of accession.

At its most extreme form, the safeguard would simply return us, for a temporary period, to the immigration regime operating today for workers of the eight states concerned. However, a safeguard might well take a more limited form than that. It is for that reason I suggested, in my response to the Select Committee, that the first regulations might be subject to affirmative procedure with subsequent regulations subject to the negative procedure. The most important incidental effect of this would be to allow the Government to apply those safeguards swiftly should the need arise.

Although the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, was not attracted to this compromise proposal, his letter to me conceded that some account could be taken of situations where that swift action might be necessary. The mechanism that he suggested—the so-called delayed affirmative procedure—is acceptable to the Government. It is embodied in my amendment, which proposes that regulations under Clause 2 would be subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses. However, where, by reason of urgency, the Government need to act swiftly, my amendment would allow the Secretary of State to bring regulations into force prior to the resolutions of both Houses. The Secretary of State would then need to secure resolutions within 40 days. Without them the regulations would lapse at that point.

In drafting the amendment, we have followed closely the recent precedents in the European Parliament(Representation) Act 2003, Sections 13 and 18. Subsection 5(B) of my amendment makes clear that the urgency procedure cannot be used for the first set of regulations. In proposing the amendment, I have sought to meet fully the concerns of the Select Committee while retaining in situations of urgency the ability of the Government to apply safeguards swiftly. That is a good compromise. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, for suggesting it. I beg to move.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Howell of Guildford

We are agreeable to this amendment with just one or two caveats which I should like to explain. The Minister has helpfully set out the background, which is that they want to allow nationals from accession states to come here and work freely. They expect that there will be no considerable impact from that decision. However, the Government are prudent. Just in case they are wrong—I refer to the explanatory memorandum and the Minister's letter—and the proposed regulations give rise to market difficulties, they want powers to make new regulations. The excellent Select Committee on delegated legislation examined the issue closely and said that at first flush these powers should be by affirmative resolution.

The Minister has explained that flexibility is needed "to act swiftly". Hence, this compromise, with the first regulations being subject to affirmative procedures and subsequent regulations being subject to the negative procedure. However, I notice that the chairman of the Select Committee, in his last letter to the Minister, suggested a late approval formula. I am unsure as to whether that coincides exactly with what the Government are now proposing, but it sounds near to it.

That is how we have reached this position and why the amendment has been proposed. I just need to ask about the word "swiftly". Will the Minister describe the circumstances of "urgency" and "swiftly"—she has used those words several times—in which suddenly it becomes necessary for the Secretary of State to say that there are market difficulties, and so forth? It is quite a difficult situation to envisage and I just wonder how it would shape up. We hope that the Government's relaxed attitude is the right one even though other countries are not following it. An influx of skilled workers is enormously welcome and greatly helps the growth and dynamism of this country.

The general view seems to be that numbers will not be large. However, some elaborate research by reputable think tanks is coming to different views. Lombard Research says that the UK could become the target destination for a wave of East European workers and that there would be surging immigration, which it welcomes. So do I, if they are skilled people. They are less welcome if they turn out to be the Mafia. The Government are taking a bold view and one that we support. However, I hope they turn out to be right and that they are also right to have these prudent backup arrangements. They are right to monitor closely the situation as it unfolds.

In agreeing to this amendment I would like reassurance that the monitoring will be real and constructive and that Parliament will have an opportunity to see how things unfold. My wish would be that regular reports from this monitoring should extend not only to job movements and job flows but also to trade flows and investment. I say that not to hinder or protect our own arrangements against the new accession states. I say it to encourage and reinforce their position so that we do not forget their interests and do not allow them to be too battered down by the European Commission's rather threatening intention to monitor them to see that they have complied with the 80,000 page acquis.

We should be their friends and their supporters. I have always wanted this country to be much more of a champion of the smaller states than it has been so far. We do need to be kept informed. There needs to be real monitoring to justify the powers given and taken under this Bill. In order to keep the Government up to the mark and to fulfil these aims we may need to put down an amendment at Report. In the mean time, we are content with this compromise. We believe it is a sensible one and should go forward.

Lord Roper

From these Benches we have already welcomed the Government's imaginative decision to ensure that the nationals of the states which accede next year will have freedom of movement into the UK. This is something of a gamble but we believe it is an intelligent one which will benefit this country. Quite clearly though, as the Minister has indicated and the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford has suggested, things could go wrong. Therefore we understand why the Government put forward a safeguard.

I am not sure how the monitoring to which the noble Lord referred would be undertaken given the flow of people across the boundaries of the European Union after accession. I am not sure what sort of statistical information the Government will get as to flows from the new member states. It may be that the Minister can tell us something about that today or will write to us to give us some indication to enable us to think about this before we return at Report.

I wish to commend the Minister and our own Delegated Powers Committee on the way in which the interaction between the committee and the Government in the last few months has led to this amendment. It is to the credit of the House, to its committee and to the Government that we have been able to find a solution which has ensured a safeguard but which has also ensured that a proper measure of parliamentary control shall remain. That is why I have great pleasure in supporting this important amendment.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

I thank both noble Lords for their welcome of the government amendment. The fact is that we want nationals to he able to move freely; we do not believe that there will be a considerable impact, but if something unexpected were to happen, we have to have the ability to act quickly.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked whether I had met the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. The answer is yes. When the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said that he wanted affirmative procedures, the Government felt that it was appropriate to have those procedures initially but that we might find it more appropriate to have negative procedures should we need to reimpose any restrictions. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, believed that that would represent a loss of parliamentary control, and it was he who suggested the so-called delayed affirmative procedure. The Government accepted the suggestion made by the noble Lord, as the chair of the committee.

I take the liberty of telling your Lordships that I have spoken to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, on the matter. Although he was unable to speak on behalf of his whole committee, on an individual basis he believed that the Government had met the points that he raised. Of course, he has not been able to consult his committee on the matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, wanted to know in what circumstances the problems we are discussing might occur, and raised a point about monitoring. Research suggests that it is very unlikely that there will be a large-scale influx following enlargement. The establishment of new formal mechanisms to monitor the labour market is probably disproportionate; instead, it is proposed to make use of existing sources of data and information, and to use largely informal mechanisms to consult stakeholders inside and outside government.

I understand that the Department for Work and Pensions will continuously monitor a range of existing statistics of labour market performance—of GDP, numbers claiming benefits and other such relevant material—which would indicate a possible disturbance to the UK labour market that might be sufficient to justify considering reintroducing restrictions. I hope that that answers the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. If there were a real disturbance in our labour market, we would monitor it through those mechanisms and we would hope to track it in that way. If necessary, we would then be able to use the suggestion of the delayed affirmative procedure.

I do not have any specific examples for the noble Lord. I hope that he will forgive me, but specific examples might be taken to represent a definitive list, whereas I hope that the indications that I have given are sufficiently broad and flexible to meet the exigencies that might arise. I hope that the House agrees that the Government have done their best to meet the points made by your Lordships' committee, and that the amendment will be acceptable to your Lordships.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 10.5 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 9.45 p.m. to 10.5 p.m.]