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.