| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, everyone agrees that these people have been quite disgracefully exploited. Can my noble friend tell the House what arrangements are being made to inspect employment sites of this kind to ensure that people are paid at least the minimum wage?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are taking steps, some of which I have just outlined, to enforce the system rigorously. Many gangmasters behave appropriately and obey the regulations, but others do not. A holistic approach needs to be taken to this issue which is what we, together with the many other agencies involved, are doing.
Lord Chan: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the number of people working in the illegal economy is very large? Given that, what are the Government doing to police, weed out and punish those benefiting from it not only by making high profits but also by penalising local citizens who would expect to be paid a minimum normal working wage?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lord, we are taking a number of steps, not the least of which is the introduction of a new offence of trafficking and exploitation to be included in the asylum Bill. Work is
under way with the Reflex taskforce against organised crime and we have announced the creation of a serious organised crime agency. Those actions underline our determination to tackle organised crime in co-operation with our international partners. This is something which we have to pursue with increasing vigour. I can assure the House that this Government are wholly committed to bringing this dreadful practice to an end.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, the tragedy in Morecambe Bay is surely to be added to the tragedy in Worcestershire when a train collided with a minibus full of workers in slightly different but relatively similar circumstances. Does the Minister agree that there seems to be a discernible shift in the public response to these matters because events of this kind display to people the enormous human cost involved in people trafficking and the offering of opportunities for illegal work? Before the last election the Prime Minister offered to Church leaders that he would invest more in the business of educating the public about the nature and sources of asylum seekers and their increased numbers. Does the Minister agree that that would be a way of capitalising on the shift in public mood and facilitate the Government in making proper humane and compassionate provision for asylum seekers in this country?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate that this shows the other side of the equation. The one light on the horizon is that the natural humanity of this country towards those in need is shining out more clearly now than it has hitherto. Education is important and we shall continue to do all we can in that regard. Noble Lords will know that we are revising the secondary legislation supporting Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 to ensure that we are all focused on eradicating the illegality at present in the system.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, do the Government accept the recommendation made recently by the All-Party Select Committee on Home Affairs that the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002—which can be used to seize the assets of people traffickers—should also be used to seize the assets of those who employ illegal workers and subject them to the kind of conditions suffered by those involved in the tragedy at Morecambe Bay?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I said, we shall shortly be revising the secondary legislation supporting Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. As your Lordships know, that legislation deals with employers and the prevention of illegal working. It will strengthen the kinds of documentation that employers are required to check to comply with Section 8. This will make it easier for the Immigration Service to identify and prosecute non-compliant
employers. In the longer term, the introduction of ID cards will be a major boost in the fight against illegal working.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in her response to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, she overlooked to report how many prosecutions have been initiated? I should be grateful if she would reply to that point.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not have to hand the precise number of prosecutions and I shall write to the noble Lord. I outlined how many operations have been undertaken and the fact that the numbers of prosecutions that have flowed from them have increased. I do not have the information required by the noble Lord, but I shall certainly write to him setting out the figures once I am aware of them.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, it is well known that Morecambe Bay has a ferocious incoming tide. Was there an error in the tidal predictions in the tide tables for that particular night?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not know whether there was an error in the tidal predictions. However, I do know that there were people in Morecambe Bay at that time who were not legally permitted to be there. I cannot comment on the ongoing detailed investigations. Noble Lords will know that five people have been arrested. I am obviously not privy to the evidence that will make up any future prosecution.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned—
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I believe it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned that asylum decisions are now being made somewhat more quickly and that is, of course, welcome. But is it not the case that there is still a very large backlog and that appeals take a long time? In those circumstances, does she not agree that it would enhance individual human dignity, as well as saving welfare support, if bona fide applicants were allowed to take up legal work?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the sentiment behind the noble Lord's question but what he suggests would pre-determine whether a claim is well founded. The noble Lord referred to "bona fide" applicants. The whole process that we have put in place seeks to determine that very fact. We have tried to go more quickly for precisely the reason indicated by the noble Lord; namely, that those who have bona fide claims must be allowed to get on
with their lives as quickly as possible. This will enable them to take advantage of work and to receive the benefits to which they are entitled. We have reduced the timescale significantly and the majority of claims are dealt with within six months. That timescale is going down and many claims are now dealt with within two months. I hope noble Lords will agree that that is a very short period which allows people to get on with their lives very quickly indeed.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, speaking as one who for many years represented parts of Morecambe Bay, I associate myself with the Minister's expression of sympathy. But, speaking also as a former fisheries Minister, will the noble Baroness ask her ministerial colleagues to look again at the current exploitation of the fishery resource within Morecambe Bay? It is an extremely valuable resource which, at the moment, is in danger of being over-exploited and fished out. Will the Government consider the possibility of imposing much tighter controls and licensing so that that valuable fishery resource is not totally played out?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. Notwithstanding that his comments go slightly wide of the Question, I absolutely understand why he makes them. I shall ensure that my colleagues are made aware of his comments. The noble Lord will be aware that, even now, there are issues regarding the licensing of fishery matters in this kind of situation.
University of Manchester Bill [HL]
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
University of Wales, Cardiff Bill [HL]
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Parliament and the EU
3.17 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on greater parliamentary involvement in European Union work made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
-
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the Government's plans for enhancing the role of Parliament in EU matters and in respect of other developments in the European Union.
"This is set to be an important year for the European Union. Ten new members join on 1 May. The elections for a new European Parliament take place in June. We also have the initial proposals on the financing of the European Union after 2006; the continuing efforts to reform the European economy so that it better delivers jobs and prosperity; and the outstanding matter of the intergovernmental conference.
"By the end of this year we hope to conclude accession negotiations with Romania and Bulgaria and take a decision on whether to launch such negotiations with Turkey. Meanwhile discussions began yesterday in New York on the scope for a re-united Cyprus joining the EU in May.
"These and other EU developments are of profound importance to Britain and to British interests. It is therefore vital that this House and Parliament as a whole have an integral role in debating, influencing and agreeing the policies of the British Government.
"Together with my right honourable friend the Leader of the House and other colleagues, I was concerned to ensure that there was regular and rigorous parliamentary discussion of the intergovernmental conference following the publication of the draft constitutional treaty last summer. We therefore laid a White Paper on the draft treaty before the House last September. Ministers and officials attended a total of 13 sessions with committees in this House and the Lords on the convention and the IGC and responded to 16 Select Committee reports. From last May onwards, when the successive parts of the convention text of the treaty were published, we had more than a dozen debates on EU issues on the Floor of both Houses and three sessions of the new IGC Standing Committee.
"This parliamentary engagement in the IGC process helped develop a better understanding of the issues at stake and strengthened our negotiating position at the EU table. On energy, for example, the strength of opinion in Parliament here helped us to secure an acceptable amendment from the Italian EU presidency.
"This level of scrutiny and debate on the IGC should, in my view, become the norm for providing Parliament with the opportunity to oversee the work of the European Union and the British Government's role within it. Indeed, given the range of issues which the EU now covers, from trade to the environment, from cross-border crime to consumer protection, it is vital that we enhance national democratic scrutiny in this way.
"I greatly applaud the diligent and valuable work of the scrutiny committees in both Houses. But I am sure that they would agree that we also need a broader and earlier focus across Parliament as a whole on the forthcoming plans of the Commission and the Council, and sufficiently in advance so that
- all Members of the House and the other place have an opportunity to raise concerns and influence policy before it is set in stone.
"So first, starting in April of this year, and then each January thereafter, the Government will lay before Parliament a White Paper looking at the year ahead for the EU's legislative and other activities. The paper will set out the Government's priorities in the light of the European Commission's legislative and work programme for the year ahead, as well as the operational programme for the forthcoming EU presidencies agreed each December by the European Council.
"At the same time, and subject to your agreement, Mr Speaker, I would make an oral statement to the House summarising the White Paper's main themes. In addition, we will publish, as a Command Paper, an interim report each July to take stock of progress and look ahead to the second six-month presidency of the year. These papers will subsume our existing, retrospective reviews of developments in the EU.
"Secondly, to build on the Standing Committee which was set up to look at the convention and then the IGC, the Government favour creating a successor committee, whose remit would be extended to cover the whole of the EU's work. To this end, my right honourable friend the Leader of the House hopes shortly to present proposals to the modernisation committee for its consideration. Our aim is that the new committee would be open to Members of both Houses and that Ministers involved in EU work, from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and from other departments would give statements, respond to questions and participate in debates. I hope also that the House might consider whether ways might be found to allow European commissioners to make statements and answer questions before the new body, and perhaps for United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament also to attend.
"I look forward to the modernisation committee findings and hope the committee might include in its inquiry the operation of the existing European Standing Committees A, B and C, which, to express a purely personal view, seem never to have worked fully as intended.
"Decisions on any new committee are, of course, a matter for the House, along with the other place. My right honourable friend the Leader of the House and I have discussed this idea informally with the chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, and, indeed, it reflects much of the thinking contained in the committee's report on European Scrutiny in the Commons of 22 May 2002. I have also raised the idea with the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and discussed it informally with the chairman of the European Union Committee in the House of Lords.
"Let me turn to a number of other proposals. The first is a more strategic approach to EU business in the form of the three-year strategic programme adopted by the European Council last December,
- which we have made available to the chairmen of the scrutiny committees of both Houses. This is designed to overcome the inherent difficulties posed by the existing system of six-month EU presidencies by setting out agreed objectives and priorities for the EU and time frames for their implementation.
"Planning for the British EU presidency in the second half of 2005 is already well under way. This will give us a valuable chance to keep the EU agenda focused on delivering economic reform, jobs and growth. As he announced to the House on 10 December last year, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is already working with his Irish, Dutch and Luxembourg colleagues, as the next presidencies, to achieve better regulation in the EU. For Europe to remain competitive, we must make faster progress on deregulation and on more flexible labour, capital and product markets. An improved EU regulatory framework, according to the International Monetary Fund, could deliver as much as a 7 per cent increase in the EU's GDP and a 3 per cent increase in productivity in the longer term.
"Another issue which needs attention is the transposition of EU legislation into national law. The risk of "gold-plating" the original texts and thereby imposing on British businesses more stringent conditions than those faced by their competitors in other member states is real.
"It was with this in mind that about 18 months ago I commissioned the distinguished European lawyer Robin Bellis to prepare a report on our implementation of EU legislation, which I published on 24 November last year. I held a seminar in December to discuss its recommendations with representatives from across government, this House, the EU institutions and the CBI. I have asked the relevant departments to report back to me in six months on the steps they have taken to implement them; and I would welcome the views of the House.
"Britain's national interests are best served by an active engagement with our partners in the European Union. But just as issues such as trade, the environment or organised crime require effective cross-border action through the EU, so it is imperative that national democratic bodies are fully engaged on these issues as well. I hope that the proposals I have set out today will go some way to ensuring that we in this House, and in Parliament as a whole, can be more effective in doing just that".
3.27 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to the Minister for repeating this Statement from the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. To me, it sounds constructive, in parts, especially the White Paper telling us in advance what is coming from the European Union instead of merely reporting what has happened in the past. That will be a great improvement. I favour the continuation, or
development, of the Standing Committee which includes Members of the other place and your Lordships. I think the present committee has worked quite well and this would work better still, especially if it is able to persuade commissioners from Brussels to attend and answer questions. I know from experience that efforts to do so have been made in the past by parliamentary committees, frankly with not much success.However, while we support all attempts to increase accountability and parliamentary surveillance of European Union law-making, it will be all in vain if new powers accumulate at the level of the EU institutions faster than we can call them to account or even keep track of them. It becomes a "finger in the dyke" exercise against increasingly unfavourable trends. Yet that is exactly what the Government were ready to sign up to in the new draft constitution, prevented only by Poland and Spain, who were blamed for their intransigence. In that constitution, no fewer than 40 new policy domains are brought into majority voting and the central powers of the EU institutions are hugely extended by shared competences and other devices.
I have some questions for the Minister against that background and in the context of those potential dangers. Do the proposed procedures actually return powers to national Parliaments? Everyone is in favour of broader and earlier focus on plans from the European Commission and the Council, but will there be powers to change or halt proposals, either by working alone or in combination with other Parliaments in other member states?
I recall that the draft constitution proposes a Commission review if parliamentary committees challenge the competence of the European Union in the new areas and with new proposals—if enough Parliaments in enough member states make that challenge. That is what is called the yellow card procedure. Many of us took the view—including representatives on the former convention and some Ministers—that the yellow card was not really enough and that a red card was needed to enable the committees of the Parliaments to halt or prevent extension of new competencies and new powers being exercised by European Union institutions. Do the new procedures do anything on that front?
Secondly, although there is talk about scrutiny in the Statement, there is no mention of the process of scrutiny reserve to which Members of this House attach much importance and on which your Lordships reported in detail back in December 2002 in an excellent report from the European Union Select Committee. The report suggested that there should be much tougher hurdles before scrutiny reserve is simply overturned by the Government for this or that reason. In fact, last year, 1,327 EU instruments were placed before the scrutiny committees of both Houses. I do not know how many reserves were placed on those but I do not think that there were very many. However, I know that no fewer than 71 of those reserves were simply overruled by Ministers. That is why your Lordships rightly argued in the Select Committee that
the process needed toughening up. That suggestion is not included in the Statement, which is a great pity, especially as the numbers of instruments will obviously be greater still in an enlarged Community.My next question concerns the comotology process, the process by which the Commission and committees of the European Parliament—as your Lordships know—in effect decide the shape of new legislation and new instruments. When some of them reach us it is of course a fait accompli—we have only the chance to say yes or no and usually have to say yes. In some cases, legislation does not reach us at all and simply passes unseen and unscrutinised into our law. That is totally unsatisfactory. It is essential that ways are found of involving national parliaments in the law-making process before it is all sewn up elsewhere. I would like the Government to employ their minds to that important area.
I was extremely glad that gold plating was referred to in the Statement. Again, the Lords Select Committee to which I referred had some very strong views and was kind enough to quote my own on this matter. I query why we need a report, by however distinguished a lawyer, about the proposition that our implementation tends to be gold plating in some areas and need not be. Members of the European Parliament—whom it is suggested should be involved in the Standing Committee—could tell us pretty quickly and clearly whether we were overegging this pudding. They are very well informed about the way in which laws are implemented and observed or not observed in different countries. We should not adopt another vast review, but the Select Committee's recommendation. When the Government want to bring in another EU-inspired law, they should explain in the initial explanatory memorandum to Parliament exactly how they intend to implement it. We should be able to debate that. That is all we need. We do not need a vast inquiry.
Many other issues are raised by this significant set of proposals. Does the Minister agree that there are three key points that should be kept in mind in meeting the ever growing democratic deficit—the gap between the people of Europe and the activities and proposals of the EU institutions? First, the European Parliament, however hard it works, is not able to achieve that on its own. Secondly, national parliaments must have the real power to change or halt bad and intrusive EU laws and must be involved as early as possible in the process that leads to those laws. Thirdly, the draft constitution now threatening to return to us again will make the whole problem very much worse.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, may I join in emphasising the constructive nature of these proposals announced by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon and repeated here? They bear testimony to the truth that it is possible to move quite far down the road of accepting the practicalities of many of the proposals made by the convention and reflected in the draft constitution at the hand of the Government and
Parliament. I also welcome the Government's recognition that time is needed to set up proceedings to make the proposals effective. Many of them reflect and are entirely conformable with the draft protocol on the national Parliaments in the European Union which was appended to the draft treaty.The particular emphasis of the Statement on advance notice of pending legislation is extremely welcome. The measures for the scrutiny of proposals in advance are broadly welcome, although I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that it is the Government's preference to seek to establish a joint committee of the two Houses, because that is not entirely clear in the Foreign Secretary's Statement. What precise proposals have the Government in mind for responding to the invitation of the draft protocol that the national Parliaments should send a reasoned opinion on whether legislation conforms with the principles of subsidiarity? There is no specific reference to that in the Statement. A timescale is proposed that is quite short. It will therefore need to be reflected in the procedures of the two Houses if it is to be effectively advanced.
Gold-plating is a subject of some importance. Like the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, I welcome what the Statement says. This House has a continuing interest in the matter, but has not to my knowledge been formally involved, save through the informal discussions of the chairman of the scrutiny committee on how this House might be effective. In particular, in addition to the views of the distinguished lawyer, Mr Bellis, what are the views of the parliamentary draftsmen who have such an important role to play in this regard?
Finally, what steps do the Government propose to enhance the transparency of proceedings in the Council in accordance with the provisions in Title IV, Article 49 of the proposed draft treaty requiring Ministers to meet in public when examining and adopting legislative proposals? Without that provision full effective scrutiny of the actions of European legislatures will not be possible.
3.40 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Maclennan of Rogart, for their constructive interventions.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, asked about the White Paper being issued in advance of any particular year's proceedings of the two presidencies. He said that this was the opportunity to comment. I am sure that he will have noted from my right honourable friend's Statement that there will be not only a White Paper, but we shall also seek an opportunity to deliver an oral Statement that will give immediacy to comment from both Houses on the proposal. He is right that this is a continuation of the style that was developed as regards the convention and the IGC, much in the way with which the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, agreed. However, it is important that both Houses have the opportunity to comment on
what are essentially government suggestions. The noble Lords said that there was a little ambiguity in some of the phraseology of the Statement. In so far as there has been any ambiguity, it is because it is essential for these proposals to go before the Modernisation Committee in another place and before your Lordships' own Procedure Committee.The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said that all of this would be in vain if new powers accrued to the European Union and we were essentially using a parliamentary device, trying to claw back those powers. I very much disagreed with his subsequent comments on the draft treaty. The issue, which the noble Lord and I have debated on a number of occasions, is that the text reinforces the role of national Parliaments. I am surprised that he is not keen on the draft treaty in that respect. I think that it more clearly defines the fact that powers derive from the member states. For the first time, it states that any powers not conferred on the Union by member states remain with those member states. That is an enormously important area. If we are able at the IGC to bring forward the draft treaty in due course, as we hope may be possible under this Irish presidency, I hope that we shall see that desire become a reality.
The exact nature of the powers of any committee would, as I indicated, be a matter for the modernisation committee of the other place, your Lordships' Procedure Committee and the committee itself. Its relationship with the national Parliament—that is to say the committee's relationship with the Floor of the House—would be a matter for discussion. The real point is that, in the absence of the draft treaty, the Government are doing what we can to involve Parliament as fully as possible. I do not know how many times I have stood at the Dispatch Box while noble Lords from all parts of the House have told me that it is vital to have the opportunity to comment before matters are set in stone. I cannot think how many times that point has been made forcefully, notably from the Benches opposite. This is the opportunity. Here it is. We are a listening Government and we are trying to meet precisely that desire.
The problem of scrutiny in another place is alluded to, somewhat decorously, in the Statement in my right honourable friend's comments on committees in another place. He said that it is time to review that issue. By contrast, I think that our Procedure Committee has an outstanding record. I would venture to suggest that the European Union Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, has an outstanding record throughout the European Union in the way in which it has been able to comment on developments in the convention and the IGC as they have progressed. That has been of enormous help and importance to us.
Both noble Lords commented on the issue of gold-plating. I suggest that that is evidence that the Government have listened very particularly to what your Lordships' committee has said on this issue and, by extension, to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. The noble Lord asked whether we need to have a lawyer dealing with this.
These are legal matters within the European issue so that is important. Members of the European Parliament are welcome to give their views on this subject, but there is a legal context for gold-plating. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, said that he hoped that parliamentary draftsmen and your Lordships' House would be involved in this process. The Statement makes it clear that departments need to give a view on what is happening. It will not be a vast inquiry, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said. The inquiry will report back in six months and it must do its job properly.The noble Lord went on to raise various issues that he felt were important in relation to our Parliament being involved as soon as possible. I have covered that point. I have also covered the point that the draft constitution, that is to say the draft treaty, will be enabling on the very points about which the noble Lord is worried, rather than the reverse.
I hope that I have covered a number of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan. He also raised the issue of whether it would be a Joint Committee of both Houses. Let us be clear that that is the Government's preference. That is what we, as Ministers, have discussed and it is our clear preference. The reason it is not absolutely crystal clear in the Statement is that the final decision on that rests in this House and in another place. It is for your Lordships and for another place to decide how committees should be put together. The Government's belief is that it would be best done as a Joint Committee.
The noble Lord asked about the legislation on the principles of subsidiarity and said that we would have to look at the timetable carefully, because of the brevity of the time gaps involved. I undertake to ask my honourable friend the Minister for Europe to look at that issue. It is important. Indeed, we have been talking about trying to garner views and it would be a shame if sufficient time were not allowed.
I hope that I have answered the main points in the replies of both noble Lords to the Statement.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I very much welcome the emphasis that is placed on national democratic scrutiny of the work of the European Union and the British Government's role within it. I welcome with equal enthusiasm the fact that they will produce White Papers twice a year and lay them before the House. I also thank her for her kind remarks about the work of the European Union Select Committee. It is true that we are already working upstream, reviewing the Commission's annual work programme and its Green and White Papers. We are reviewing at a very early stage the budget and also priorities of the incoming presidencies.
Regarding a possible successor to the Joint Standing Committee, I shall, of course, consult my Select Committee. However, will the Minister give us an assurance that it will be a genuine Joint Committee, allowing this House to play a full and equal role with
the other place? Secondly, given the fact that there are existing European scrutiny mechanisms in both Houses, I must ask what value a new committee will add. Would there not be value in having the new committee discuss the White Papers, without precluding proper debate in the existing committees? Finally, will the Minister assure the House that any proposals that go to the Modernisation Committee in another place will simultaneously be presented to this House so that the appropriate forums in this House can consider them in parallel, and not after the other place has come to conclusions?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |