Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

- View Speech - Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

That the Bill be read a second time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their interest in the Law Commission’s review of the Arbitration Act 1996 and this Bill, which enacts the commission’s recommendations. Many of your Lordships will be aware of the Bill’s history, but let me provide a summary of it for the record.

In 2021, the Ministry of Justice asked the Law Commission of England and Wales to carry out a review of the Arbitration Act 1996, which provides the arbitral framework for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The purpose of the review was to ensure that our world-renowned arbitration laws remain just that—world leading and fit for purpose in a changing business landscape.

The commission conducted two public consultations before laying its report and draft Arbitration Bill before Parliament on 5 September 2023. This report was widely praised for recommending measured rather than wholesale reforms of the 1996 Act to bring the law up to date and modernise the arbitral framework.

That Arbitration Bill was introduced into this House in November 2023, in the final Session of the last Parliament, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. It progressed through a Special Public Bill Committee, of which I was a member, under the Law Commission Bill procedure. That committee held an evidence-taking process chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, which marshalled expert views from practitioners, academia and the judiciary. The Bill was amended in response to the evidence gathered, and I will return to those changes shortly.

I am pleased to bring these reforms before Parliament again, as it is clear to me, from my position on the committee, that the Law Commission’s recommendations for reform commanded strong support from the sector and were the result of extensive consultation. By supporting our arbitration sector, this Bill will help to deliver one of this Government’s guiding missions: to secure economic growth.

The benefits that arbitration brings to this country are plain to see. The Law Commission estimates that the sector is worth at least £2.5 billion to the British economy each year, while according to industry estimates, international arbitration grew by some 26% between 2016 and 2020. Of course, London remains the world’s most popular seat for arbitration by some stretch.

However, we face healthy competition from Singapore, Hong Kong, Sweden and Dubai. They have all updated their arbitration frameworks in recent years and our legal system too must continue to adapt and evolve if we are to remain ahead of the curve. The changes this Government bring forward now will undoubtedly be a foundation for future success, although we are also clear that they represent evolution not revolution. I am therefore delighted that this Government have been able to prioritise time so early in this Session to legislate for these reforms to the 1996 Act and to support this crucial sector.

The Bill takes forward the full set of reforms recommended by the Law Commission. It also incorporates the minor and technical improvements that were made as amendments to the former Bill. There has also been one further change made to Clause 1 to address a point raised on investor-state arbitrations. For brevity, I will summarise only the key provisions of the Bill now and point out the revisions as I do so.

First, Clause 1 clarifies the law applicable to arbitration agreements by providing that the law governing the arbitration agreement will be the law expressly chosen by the parties; otherwise, it will be the law of the seat. An express choice of law to govern the main contract does not count as an express choice of law to govern the agreement to arbitrate. Clause 1 will provide greater certainty as to the law underpinning arbitration agreements, and ensure that arbitrations conducted in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are supported by our arbitration law, where appropriate. Here, we retain the change to Clause 1 made by the Law Commission draft Bill, which removed the words “of itself” from inserted Section 6A(2), as they were thought to be unnecessary and to cause confusion.

We have also made an additional change to Clause 1. Clause 1 now provides that the new default rule on governing law does not apply to arbitration agreements derived from standing offers to arbitrate contained in treaties or non-UK legislation. The reasons why are as follows. There were concerns raised during the previous Bill’s passage that Clause 1 should not apply to some investor-state arbitration agreements; that is, those arising under offers of arbitration contained in treaties and foreign domestic legislation. Sector feedback was that such arbitration agreements are, and should continue to be, governed by international law and/or foreign domestic law.

The Government agree that it would be inappropriate for a treaty—an instrument of international law—to be interpreted in accordance with English law principles. Likewise, we should not subject foreign domestic legislation to English law rules of interpretation, rather than its foreign law. To apply Clause 1 to these arbitration agreements may have discouraged states from choosing London as a neutral venue for their investor-state arbitrations. Just as investor-state arbitrations with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes have their own separate regime, so too should non-ICSID investor-state arbitrations be treated separately in the matter of governing law. This change will ensure that will be the case.

Lastly on Clause 1, noble Lords have also brought to my attention a further matter requiring clarification. It is possible that issues may arise which are not expressly provided for by the inserted Section 6A; in particular, where there is no choice of seat in the arbitration agreement and no seat has yet been designated by the tribunal or the court. This rare issue was considered by the Law Commission in its final report, and the Government are confident that the courts will be able to resolve such matters through common law. We will also update the Explanatory Notes in due course to make this point clear.

I move on to the other key measures in the Bill. Clause 2 codifies a duty of disclosure for arbitrators that will protect the principle of impartiality and promote trust in arbitration. This duty will apply prior to the arbitrators’ appointment when they are approached with a view to being appointed. It is a continuing duty that also applies after their appointment ends.

Clauses 3 and 4 strengthen arbitrator immunity against liability for resignations and applications for removal. This will support arbitrators in making robust and impartial decisions.

Clause 7 empowers arbitrators to make awards on a summary basis on issues that have no real prospect of success. This will improve efficiency and aligns with summary judgments available in court proceedings.

Clause 8 will boost the effectiveness of emergency arbitration by empowering emergency arbitrators to issue peremptory orders and make relevant applications for court orders.

Clause 11 revises the framework for challenges to an arbitral tribunals jurisdiction under Section 67 of the 1996 Act. This will allow new rules of court to provide that such applications should contain no new evidence or new arguments. That will avoid jurisdiction challenges becoming a full rehearing, thereby preventing further delay and costs. Clause 11 also retains the improvements made to the previous Bill, including: the inclusion of subsection (3D), which makes it clear that the general power of the Procedure Rules Committee to make rules of court is not limited as a result of the provision; the change in subsection (3C), which ensures that the court rules within must provide that the restriction is subject to the court ruling otherwise in the interests of justice; and the change in the drafting of subsection (3C)(b), which clarifies that the evidence mentioned includes oral as well as written evidence.

These measures extend to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. They will apply to arbitration agreements whenever made but not to proceedings commenced before these measures come into force. There are other more minor yet quite worthy reforms in the Bill that I have not covered here but which I would be pleased to discuss during this Bill’s passage.

The Bill will enable efficient dispute resolution, attract international legal business and promote the UK’s economic growth. I welcome noble Lords’ participation in this debate.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)

- View Speech - Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the Bill. Although it is a very short list of speakers, it is fair to say there are a number of other noble Lords who said that they are sorry not to be here, and have also said to me personally that they would have supported the Bill.

I will start with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Beith. I agree with his overall point, which is that there has been a lot of process on the Bill and that we really need to conclude the Bill as soon as possible—we have written to all the arbitration institutions, and all the people who gave evidence in the process for the previous Bill, and that is a common theme in the responses we have had. I have been lobbied separately by numerous groups to say that they want the Bill to be concluded.

I turn to my noble friend Lord Hacking, who raised the issue of corruption. This of course is a serious matter, and I do not know the answer to the question raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, about the responses to the letters he wrote to the institutions. I will see whether those letters have come back and will write to the noble and learned Lord and my noble friend, and copy it to other noble Lords. I am happy to have a private meeting with my noble friend, but my point is that we do not want anything that will hold up the current Bill. It has had a lot of process, and it is to the benefit of the arbitration process that it is concluded as quickly as possible. However, I will meet my noble friend when he wishes.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

We are always open-minded about addressing problems. We need to scope out the true extent of the problem, which is why I have offered to write to noble Lords about the responses that we may have received—I do not know the answer to that—to the letter written by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, when he was the Minister concerned.

I turn to other points. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, was very gracious to me in his opening, and I thank him for that. I certainly intend to behave as a Minister as he behaved when he was a Minister, and to consult with colleagues across the House to try to make sure that we focus on the real issues of difference between us, rather than any other matters that may distract us. I will take a leaf out of his book about how I conduct myself in trying to achieve that.

The noble and learned Lord asked about the possibility of carryover for uncontentious Bills between Parliaments. I will bring that comment to my noble friend’s attention. I do not know what the reaction will be, but it seems a sensible idea to me.

The second point the noble and learned Lord made concerned the choice of seat. I had a discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, about this very issue, and my opening speech referred to it. I agree that we should have confidence in our judges, and perhaps some extra words can be added to the explanatory notes to reflect the position. We have undertaken to look at that.

The noble and learned Lord also raised an issue concerning Clause 13. I will have to write to him about that as well, as I am not sighted of that issue.

In conclusion, this Bill achieves a balance. It neither seeks to fix what is not broken, nor does it sell short the potential of our jurisdiction. Growth is a fundamental mission of this Government, and this Bill plays its part. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate, and I look forward to interacting with them as the Bill progresses.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)

- View Speech - Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for welcoming me to my current position; I am very glad that he has 20/20 eyesight and is looking at these matters so closely. I am also thankful to my noble friend Lord Hacking for initiating this debate. He said very clearly when he introduced his amendment that he supports the Bill, and I am grateful for that. He is again raising the issue of protecting the arbitral process against corruption, and of course that is extremely important. Having considered this very carefully, the Government’s position is that our framework already provides a robust regime and that no law reform is necessary. A tribunal, like a court, must always guard against fraud and corruption, and I will explain what mitigations our existing regime already provides.

Under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1996, the tribunal is already under a duty to “act fairly and impartially”, and to

“adopt procedures suitable to the circumstances of the … case”.

An arbitrator who is corrupt would fail in their duties under Section 33. Furthermore, the arbitrator’s appointment can be revoked by the parties under Section 23, or an arbitrator can be removed by the court under Section 24. An arbitrator who acts in bad faith loses their immunity under Section 29 and can be sued.

When arbitral proceedings are tainted by fraud or corruption in the arbitral process, any arbitral award can be challenged in court under Section 68 for serious irregularity, as indeed was successfully done in the recent case of Nigeria v P&ID, which we heard about earlier. Indeed, the reason why arbitral corruption is currently a talking point is that the court identified corruption and prevented abuse in that case. Arbitral awards can also take account of corrupt conduct and deprive a corrupt party of any arbitral award which is sought to permit fraud or corruption. It would be unenforceable as contrary to public policy under Section 81. It is possible for an arbitrator to publish their award and denounce the fraud publicly. In ruling an award to be unenforceable, the court can also publish its judgment publicly. The scheme under the 1996 Act is sufficient and has not revealed any deficiency in practice.

The Government oppose legislative reform here precisely because it is unclear what additional benefit it would provide over the current regime, which provides both parties and arbitrators with routes to challenge and address corrupt conduct, as well as duties on the arbitrator to ensure fair and proper proceedings. A new, untested measure may simply introduce uncertainty for both parties and arbitrators.

The 1996 Act and the modernising impact of this Bill are designed to ensure robust and efficient arbitral proceedings. Our framework provides this balance and well equips the tribunal and courts to deal with corruption. The Government will continue to support the sector’s efforts on arbitral corruption. We will keep track of initiatives that are under way, such as that of the ICC anti-corruption task force, to which a number of noble Lords referred, and engage with the sector to push for the swift adoption of best practices as they are developed. I hope that this explanation reassures my noble friend and that he will withdraw his amendment.

To go a little further, as noble Lords are aware the previous Government wrote to leading arbitral institutions seeking views on the mitigations that are currently in place and whether more are needed. I understand that responses were received from the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the International Chamber of Commerce, the London Court of International Arbitration, the London Maritime Arbitrators Association and the Grain and Feed Trade Association, in addition to the Law Society and the Bar Council.

All those institutions mentioned mitigations they had in place against corrupt conduct. None expressed support for amending the Arbitration Bill to strengthen anti-corruption. In addition, concerns were raised that a one-size-fits-all approach would be ineffective and risk unintended consequences. Nigeria v P&ID was raised as a highly unusual case where the court effectively performed its proper role in setting aside the award. Where a role was suggested for the Government, it was in ensuring that the courts continue to be equipped to provide checks in cases put before them, as they did in the Nigeria case, and to engage in discussions with the sector and promote its work combating corruption.

The noble and learned Lords, Lord Bellamy and Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, raised the issue of the letters and whether they could be published. I am unable to share those letters. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, can see the letters that were responded to when he was a Minister, but they were written specifically to him in that role. I would not necessarily be able to see those letters, which would create a difficult situation. I understand that a couple of letters came in when the new Government were formed. But I can say with complete confidence that the substance of those letters was explained and explored within the letter that I wrote to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, which is in the public domain. I am confident that if I was wrong somehow in asserting that the substance was inaccurate, those various bodies would be able to draw that to my attention. I am confident that the substance of the letter I wrote on 15 August is completely accurate. I hope that noble Lords will accept that.

A number of noble Lords spoke of their reasons for opposing my noble friend’s amendment. They said that it might well be duplicative, unnecessary and problematic in various ways, which they explored. I have to say that I agree with the noble Lords who made those points.

In closing on one point, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, asked about relevant arbitral bodies being given a nudge regarding corruption. They are of course perfectly able to do that. It would be beneficial, and maybe they should remind themselves that they have that responsibility to give a nudge if they suspect corruption in particular cases. So, having said all that, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)

- View Speech - Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, perhaps I might read out from Rule 44.2 of the CPR. It says that

“the general rule is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party; but … the court may make a different order”.

There is then considerable further guidance on the assessment of costs in the remainder of Rule 44. I can say, as a non-lawyer, that I think that is pretty clear. I note the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, made about having some sympathy with the language used, but the language which I just quoted is quite straightforward.

My noble friend Lord Hacking said that he was imploring me and he called the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffman, his nemesis. I might be my noble friend’s nemesis as well, because I will be arguing to reject his amendment. Of course, I thank him for tabling it. It is right that it is common practice that arbitrators already have great discretion on this matter under Section 61 of the 1996 Act. The Law Commission has made no recommendations for reform of Section 61, so we believe there is no reason for having a reform that may introduce some level of uncertainty, which we do not believe is necessary.

The previous arbitration Acts of 1889 and 1950 simply provided that costs were at the discretion of the arbitrators but the 1996 Act then provided the current default rule, which mirrored the position in the rules of the Supreme Court, which were the court rules then in force. Although the language has changed with the CPR now in force, the underlying principle is still the same. The CPR, and the RSC before them, take the view that costs should follow the event as a fair default rule. Section 61 allows arbitrators to depart from that rule as appropriate. In substance, therefore, Section 61 already allows the arbitration tribunal to award whatever costs it thinks fair.

The Law Commission received no representations from stakeholders that Section 61 was causing any difficulties in practice, and it is unusual to change the language of an Act if there is no change in principle. Indeed, it is possible that the amendment could be interpreted as a new, untested principle. In the light of this, I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the current arrangements and would suggest that no amendment is needed. I therefore invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, in this group I will speak to Amendments 3 and 4, tabled in my name.

It has come to light that Clause 13 does not adequately codify the case law on appeals under Part 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996. I have tabled Amendment 3 to replace Clause 13 and correct the root cause of this issue: a drafting error in the 1996 Act that provided for an incorrect approach to appeals under Part 1 of the Act. Allow me to explain both the underlying issue and the approach I am taking to resolve it.

Clause 13 of this Bill as introduced seeks to codify case law regarding leave to appeal decisions on staying legal proceedings under Section 9 of the 1996 Act, namely the House of Lords decision from 2000 in Inco and First Choice Distribution. As such, the current Clause 13 inserts into Section 9 provision that

“the leave of the court is required for any appeal from a decision of the court under this section”.

During the passage of this Bill, certain noble and learned Lords raised the point that Clause 13 as drafted would permit leave for appeal to be sought only from the High Court—the High Court being what is meant by “the court” in the provision. However, the current situation established by case law provides that leave to appeal can be sought directly also from the Court of Appeal. It seems that Clause 13 as drafted would have the effect of inadvertently narrowing the existing position, which was never the intention.

The root cause of this issue is that the 1996 Act made an incorrect consequential amendment to Section 18(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and Section 35(2) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. In Inco and First Choice Distribution, the late Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead identified that this provision in the Senior Courts Act was originally meant to give effect to restrictions on the right to appeal contained in Sections 1 and 2 of the Arbitration Act 1979. The Senior Courts Act then needed updating to reflect additional appeal restrictions in the 1996 Act. But, as Lord Nicholls put it,

“for once, the draftsmen slipped up”.

The provision in the Senior Courts Act, when read literally, suggests that no appeals against decisions under Part 1 of the 1996 Act are allowed, except where expressly provided for in the 1996 Act. However, the intended and correct position is that appeals are indeed permitted unless expressly restricted by the 1996 Act. Due to this misunderstanding, Clause 13, in inserting its express language on appeals into Section 9 of the 1996 Act, establishes restrictions on those appeals. Accordingly, the provision that

“the leave of the court is required for any appeal from a decision of the court under this section”,

as used in other sections of the 1996 Act, is intended as a restriction providing that leave under those sections can be sought only from the High Court. As it was not the intention of the Law Commission or the Government to add such a restriction on Section 9 appeals, we must correct it.

Simply amending Clause 13 to permit direct appeals to the Court of Appeal under Section 9 could raise questions about other sections of the 1996 Act and whether similar provision should also be made elsewhere. Deleting Clause 13 would maintain the current appeal process but miss the opportunity to fix the issue properly. This seems remiss, given that the clear objective of this Bill is to refine and clarify our arbitral framework.

Amendment 3 therefore rectifies the underlying issue. It replaces the current Clause 13 with amendments to the Senior Courts Act 1981 and the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. These clarify that appeals against High Court decisions under Part 1 of the 1996 Act, including under Section 9, may, subject to provision in that part, be made to the Court of Appeal. This will establish beyond doubt the current position on appeals.

Amendment 3 also necessitates a change to the Bill’s Long Title, which is currently:

“A Bill to amend the Arbitration Act 1996”.


However, under Amendment 3, it will now also amend the Senior Courts Act 1981 and the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. This will not practically widen the scope of the Bill, given that it modifies that other legislation only to the extent that it relates to the 1996 Act. Nevertheless, Amendment 4 is required and updates the Long Title, adding “and for connected purposes”. I beg to move.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)

- View Speech - Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their support for this amendment. I agree with noble Lord, Lord Beith, that drafting matters, and I agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. I note the support given to him by those individuals, including Toby Landau, who was an expert witness in the previous consideration of these matters.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

That the Bill be now read a third time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, given the focus of the Arbitration Bill on modifying the arbitral framework, which is devolved to Northern Ireland, we are seeking the legislative consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. We will continue to work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that a legislative consent Motion is put to the Assembly in good time. I beg to move that the Bill is read a third time.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

That the Bill do now pass.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, the Bill has now benefited from the scrutiny of two parliamentary Sessions, following its introduction in the last Parliament and examination by a Special Public Bill Committee. It has undergone further scrutiny since its reintroduction by this Government.

I take this opportunity to thank some of the noble Lords who have engaged with and supported the Bill over the past year. I begin by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, in chairing the former Special Public Bill Committee. He marshalled and managed truly expert feedback on these reforms from across the arbitration sector and the judiciary. The committee process resulted in several technical improvements to the Bill, introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. I also extend my thanks to the noble and learned Lord for his commitment to driving forward these reforms, while always recognising the importance of getting the details right.

The Bill has been improved during this Session’s Committee stage too, thanks in no small part to the considered and well-informed input from the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson and Lord Verdirame, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, who advised that the previous Clause 13 did not adequately reflect the case law on arbitral appeals that it sought to codify. We remedied this issue through my amendments in Committee, fixing a long-standing error in what is otherwise considered a supremely well-drafted framework. Based on sector feedback, the Government also made an improvement to Clause 1 ahead of introducing the Bill a second time, ensuring that its default rule on governing law did not apply inappropriately to certain investor-state arbitrations.

I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Hacking for his contributions, both as a member of the former Special Public Bill Committee and as an active participant throughout the Bill’s passage. I appreciate his continued interest in full and proper arbitration law reform, after witnessing at first hand so much of its development over many years.

The legislative scrutiny provided by this House has served only to give optimal effect to the Law Commission’s recommendations, made after two extensive consultations. I record my thanks to Professor Sarah Green and her colleagues at the commission, Nathan Tamblyn and Laura Burgoyne, for their brilliant work. I also thank the Bill managers, Iona Bonaventura and Harry McNeill Adams, along with the government lawyer, Wan Fan, the parliamentary counsel, Helen Hall and Neil Shah, and my policy lead, Lee Pedder. I also thank my private secretary, Paul Young.

The measures within the Bill have been much sought after by our arbitral community. I am hugely grateful for its support and engagement with these reforms since the Law Commission’s first consultation.

I conclude by reminding noble Lords of the Bill’s benefits. By reforming and modernising our arbitral framework, it will make dispute resolution more efficient, attract international legal business and promote UK economic growth. We pass the Bill to the Commons in excellent condition, and I hope its passage can be completed swiftly. I beg to move.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I continue to be glad that this Bill has the support of so many noble, and noble and learned, Lords. As I said in my opening remarks, the Bill has now enjoyed robust review and precise revision and I hope it will have swift passage through the House of Commons.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for noting that we are the only two noble Lords without direct experience who took part in both this Bill and the previous Bill; he was right in saying that. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and I was remiss in not thanking Joey Topping for clerking the previous Committee stage. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, for his best wishes for the Bill.

I will address the substance of what my noble friend Lord Hacking said on arbitral corruption. Of course, we take this very seriously. We believe that it would not be appropriate to use the Bill to address these matters. However, the arbitral sector is reviewing how corruption can be better identified and dealt with. The Government will continue to support this work and push for the adoption of best practices as they are developed. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.