---

European Union (Accessions) Bill

Once again, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out his reasoning so clearly. He said that an implication of accepting these amendments would be a sign that we were nervous about this whole development. The fact is the Government are nervous, which is why they have taken all these powers, regulations and restrictions that they did not bother to take at the time of the last accession. They have learnt that things are not quite so easy, and this time, therefore, have moved with much more circumspection and caution, because they are nervous. I do not know whether they should be nervous or whether they are anxious that this time they feel more in control of the situation than they were the last time. I respectfully say to the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, that I do not think too much bureaucracy is the right excuse for keeping things from Parliament. Governments always say that such measures are expensive, bureaucratic and so on, but Parliament is entitled to be very well informed about big movements that have social impacts. Although we have been lucky regarding the effects of the first 18 months or so of the implementation of the provisions of the previous accession Act, it is curious that there has been an enormous social development but very little information from the Government about it. The amendments that I moved at the time of that Bill were put aside and rejected. We were told not to worry as we would be given a full picture of what happened. We have not had a full picture at all. It is hardly known what has happened to the 293,000 arrivals, many of whom have been of vast benefit to this country and have made a highly positive impact on it. However, there have been some dark developments. To this day there are some dark developments in relation to casual labour, crime and so on, about which we have had absolutely no information at all—no picture has been presented. Dr Kim Howells says that this time there should be regulations and says, ““We will tell you what we are going to do later because it all needs planning””. It may seem odd that I on this side of the Committee am in favour of planning but some kind of organised and orderly approach to the social developments which go alongside these big migrant movements is surely no more than common sense and common prudence. I do not have very much confidence that things will go right this time, or rather I do not have any confidence that the Government will be on top of the situation, but at least they are moving in the right direction. At least, as the Minister said, there is the affirmative resolution procedure which will give us an opportunity to ask questions about what is actually happening. I say out of courtesy to the Committee that because we have discussed a number of issues concerning the next amendment, it seems to me that it would be wasting the Committee’s time to discuss it and therefore, I shall not move it. In the light of what I have said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 2 not moved.] Clause 2 agreed to. Clause 3 agreed to. [Amendment No. 3 not moved.] House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.