---

European Union (Accessions) Bill

moved Amendment No. 1:"Page 1, line 16, at end insert—" ““(   )   The Secretary of State shall, no later than four months before the date of accession, lay before Parliament a report on the Government’s assessment of the effect of the free movement of workers from the acceding States.”” The noble Lord said: We now come to two amendments to the longer and major Clause 2. I should like to use this opportunity, too, to press a number of points. This clause, to which these two amendments are related, marks quite a big change of approach by the Government from that demonstrated at the time of the previous accessions Bill and accessions Act which brought in the eight central European countries, as well, of course, as Malta and Cyprus. At that time the doctrine was that although there were opportunities to regulate and restrict free movement of people from the new member states, the British Government would not take these opportunities. Other countries were all going to do so, but the British were going to relax about the whole matter and there was going to be no question of restrictions. This time around regulations and restrictions are very much matters for which powers will be taken, and we can understand why. The reason is that the Government’s projections of what would happen after the last accession grouping were spectacularly wrong. In 2003 the Home Office predicted that new arrivals would be in the region of between 5,000 and 13,000 a year up to 2010. Instead, in the period between May 2004 and June 2005, just over a year, some 232,000 applications were made, of which 220,000 were successful. To date there have been 292,000 entrants to the United Kingdom. For the most part, they have been extremely well absorbed. The British people have welcomed these thousands of people, many of them skilled and dedicated, thus probably adding still further to the dynamism of the British economy. But I have to say that the positive effect of this migration is more good luck rather than good policy and gives no confidence that the Government have an overall grip on the situation, or had it at the time because they clearly did not. This time powers are being taken regulate the flows, so the question of how will it be done arises. The indication in the other place was that the Government have not made up their mind on how to use these various powers. There might be a tighter transition period in operation. There might be worker registration which eventually, after the last fiasco, the Government found they had to move to and now have in place for workers coming from the other accession states. Alternatively, there might be a continuation or tightening of the present worker permit system. We are entitled to know the Government’s thinking on this matter. The Minister in the other place said when debating this issue that the worker registration system introduced by the Government for the last group of accession states is now working fine and that,"““we fully intend to continue the arrangements””.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/11/05; col. 1715.]" That causes one to ask whether the system to be applied under the regulations in this Bill for Bulgaria and Rumania has already been decided on. It would be useful to know, before accession takes place, how and when the Government envisage using these powers. I emphasise that we favour the kind of migration that has taken place when it is orderly and part of a coherent social policy. It makes sense and in the past has greatly benefited this country. But if the information is wildly out of line with what is happening, it does not inspire confidence that the exercise will be orderly or part of a coherent public policy. We want to know in this case a little more clearly how the Government will use these regulations and, indeed, their policy. Given that we are considering the two amendments together, we know that both Bulgaria and Rumania have been vigorously and with increasing success fighting corruption and organised crime, conditions they have inherited from the past. Indeed, sometimes I feel that we should not be quite so ready to lecture these brave countries struggling with their condition when corruption and organised crime are not exactly unknown in the existing European Union and Western Europe. But there are particular worries. We hear of human trafficking, prostitution and how Bulgaria acts as a conduit for substantial drugs movement. Indeed, only the other day the Home Secretary said that he still regarded human trafficking as a serious problem. Parliament is entitled to share the Government’s assessment of the ongoing situation. This explains the second amendment, which would create a continuing duty—after accession and through the whole seven-year permitted transition period—for the Government to keep Parliament well informed of what is happening and developing on this front, if only to say, ““Here is good material. These are able and useful people who can come to our country””. It is only right that there should be a clear understanding of the size of the flow, where and how it is going to develop and how we should adjust our own social policies to match the flow of newcomers. I repeat, we are not in any way against what has occurred, but we want it to be well managed. I am afraid that many affairs in the European Union these days are not well managed. This is why we propose in the two amendments that there should be monitoring, a report four months before accession and regular reports every six months thereafter. I beg to move.