Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [Lords]

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Labour welcomes the principle of the Bill to maintain and enhance our legal co-operation across jurisdictions and to provide certainty and fairness for those involved in cross-border litigation. In a post-Brexit world, this is essential in attempting to maintain a prosperous economy, protecting our legal system, and providing for families and individual claimants engaged in cross-border disputes. International agreements provide clear and reciprocal mechanisms for dealing with international disputes. In doing so, they are crucial in protecting our country’s proud reputation as the world centre for resolving complex disputes, while offering us a competitive advantage in finance, business and trade.

However, this Bill, and the Chancellor talked about this, will also affect human stories. A wide range of family law issues can lead to cross-border disputes, including when one partner takes a child abroad and there is a disagreement about parenting arrangements—I have had such cases in my own surgeries—as well as when making arrangements for divorce in similar circumstances and, of course, issues relating to abduction and adoption. To keep our citizens safe, we must ensure we have robust international agreements so that justice can be done. Clause 1, which gives effect to international treaties in domestic law through primary legislation, is therefore both necessary and welcome. It is hoped that the provisions affecting the rules on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments overseas will play a crucial role in building a strong economy and provide some certainty for families in often desperately difficult circumstances.

Although we welcome the principle of the Bill as it currently stands, it must be noted that this is largely due to the successful efforts in the other place of my noble and learned Friend Lord Falconer and others to remove clause 2 of the Bill—[Laughter.] I am glad the Lord Chancellor finds that amusing. I will touch on that in due course, but, first, let us come to the specific points of the Bill on which we agree.

Clause 1 gives effect to key international conventions in our domestic law, which is welcomed on the Opposition Benches. The Lord Chancellor spoke of these issues. The 1996 Hague convention on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, enforcement and co-operation in respect of parental responsibility and measures for the protection of children is critical to improve the protection of children in cross-border disputes. The 2005 Hague convention on choice of court agreements aims to ensure the efficacy of exclusive choice of court agreements between parties to international commercial transactions. We support this incorporation into domestic law, as such clauses are commonly provided for in high-value commercial disputes.

The 2007 Hague convention on the international recovery of child support and other forms of family maintenance provides for the international recovery of child support and spousal maintenance. It is abundantly clear that this is a positive move, which will help to ensure that parents pay their fair share when providing for their children. We welcome these provisions and hope most certainly that we can offer that certainty in other areas of cross-jurisdictional disputes—I have just managed to tie my tongue in knots.

Labour will not, however, support any attempt by the Government to reintroduce clause 2, which would allow for the future agreements to be implemented via secondary legislation only. As we heard in the other place, this provision would be of profound constitutional significance. Labour is concerned that the reintroduction of clause 2 would represent an extension of the power of the Executive into uncharted territory, amending the convention that international legal agreements that change our domestic law can only be given force by an Act of Parliament.

[Robert Buckland]

I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Would he care to comment on the involvement of the noble Lord Falconer as a Minister in the passage of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which did precisely what the hon. Gentleman complains of with regard to the incorporation of important international agreements on mental capacity? I would be very interested in his view.

[Alex Cunningham]

The Lord Chancellor has an advantage over me; he has expertise in this particular area. I accept that we may have dealt with things quite differently in the past, but it is important that we recognise that this is a matter of international law.

I was rather surprised to hear the Lord Chancellor effectively rubbish the concerns of those in the other place, particularly given their comprehensive arguments. The House of Lords Constitution Committee said that this change would represent a

“significant new power that would change the way this type of international agreement is implemented in UK law and how Parliament scrutinises them.”

The House of Lords Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee both considered whether the secondary legislating power should be granted, and both were very clear that it should not. The Constitution Committee stated:

“If the balance between the executive and Parliament is to be altered in respect of international agreements, it should be in favour of greater parliamentary scrutiny and not more executive power.”

As his lordship, Lord Mance—the chair of the Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Private International Law and perhaps the pre-eminent expert in this area of law—told the other place:

“Opinion is almost universally against Clause 2. The two committees that have reported have categorically condemned it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 June 2020; Vol. 803, c. 2228.]

Lord Pannick, another pre-eminent constitutional lawyer, argued in the debate that there is

“no justification for allowing the law of this country to be changed by statutory instrument in this context without full parliamentary debate. That is because important policy decisions might arise in this context both on whether to implement an international agreement in domestic law and on the manner in which such an agreement is to be implemented.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 June 2020; Vol. 803, c. 2224.]

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee also offered a stern warning about the unprecedented nature of the constitutional change, saying:

“For the first time there will exist a general power to implement international agreements on private international law by statutory instrument, thereby obviating the need for an Act of Parliament. This will be so regardless of the nature or importance of the agreement.”

In its briefing, the Bar Council was also highly critical of this new constitutional grab, stating:

“The Bar Council is…somewhat concerned that the power in section 2”—

that is, clause 2—

“to proceed by delegated legislation is very broad. For instance, it enables the appropriate national authority…to make regulations ‘for the purpose of, or in connection with, implementing any international agreement’”.

The power could extend to matters in our criminal law, such as increasing or, indeed, reducing the penalties for criminal offences.

To give effect to international treaties in domestic law is not a rubber-stamping exercise. The effect, implementation and enforcement of such provisions requires robust parliamentary debate; we must protect the parliamentary scrutiny of such important legal provisions at all costs. The Government have attempted to make arguments as to why the new constitutional measure would be necessary, but all have failed to convince. Their first argument was that the new provision would allow the Government to implement each new international agreement without unnecessary delay, yet there is no evidence to suggest that fast-track legislation is required. In the past, the implementation of international agreements has often taken years, and there is nothing to suggest that implementing them by primary legislation would cause any difficulties beyond the Government’s having to put legislation through normal parliamentary scrutiny.

The Government raised the 2007 Lugano convention, which deals with the jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments between members of the European Union. The Government’s argument appears to be that there may be only a short period during which to legislate to give effect to the Lugano provision at the end of the transition period. Of course, that is not an argument for developing the new executive power more generally. The Government have not considered providing for clause 2 only in relation to Lugano, which might be more amenable—why not? That question has already been posed this afternoon. The Lord Chancellor said that is the main reason that the Government want to have the delegated powers; if that is so, why does he not just put that on the face of the Bill and recognise the issues that have been raised in the other place?

The Government claimed that the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 allows for sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. Once more, that argument does not carry much weight. As a result of clause 2, the Government would be able to give force to model law without being subject to the scrutiny mechanism under the 2010 Act. That Act does not allow for the amendment of treaties or the consideration of measures to implement treaties. It is a red herring and the argument has unravelled when subjected to expert scrutiny.

This is an issue of constitutional propriety for a Government with a reputation for constitutional vandalism. The Conservative peer Lord Garnier stated:

“Unquestionably, the provisions in Clause 2, which gave the Executive the extensive future law-making powers originally in the Bill, have been shown to be constitutionally awkward and unwelcome, by the Constitution Committee, the Delegated Powers Committee and contributors to these debates. When the Bill goes to the other place, I trust that the Government will not use their large majority there to restore the Bill to its original form.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 June 2020; Vol. 804, c. 483.]

Unfortunately, we on the Labour Benches fear that that is the very intention of the Government, who on so many occasions have shown themselves to be keen to avoid parliamentary scrutiny.

As Members of Parliament, we have a duty to tread with real care when reforming our constitution, especially when the Executive is empowered and the power of Parliament is undermined. There is no evidence before us as to why the reintroduction of clause 2 would be necessary or right; with that in mind, Labour will support the Bill as it currently stands but wholeheartedly oppose any attempts to reintroduce clause 2 as the Bill progresses through its remaining stages.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I welcome the approach to the Bill that the Lord Chancellor has adopted and I support the Bill. I support it without hesitation, because it is necessary, but also with a measure of sadness, because I wish it were not necessary. It is a consequence of a decision that was taken that some of us continue to regret and is perhaps an example of the price that is paid in respect of an issue that some thought was technical and dry but that in fact affected people’s everyday lives and the prosperity of the business community of this country but was perhaps not given enough attention in the course of the debates that preceded our decision to leave the EU. Perhaps that caused us not to value enough the system of connections and regulation that we were party to.

The reality is that we are doing our level best—the Lord Chancellor and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) are doing precisely that—to put in place the best possible scheme that we can have and that is available to us when, at the end of the year, we leave the most comprehensive set of private international law agreements that exist. We just have to accept that that is the reality, but let us not kid ourselves that we will get any improvement: we will end up with something that is less good than we had and that we are leaving behind—ironically, when the Brussels IIa recast, particularly in its relation to the strengthening of the provisions in relation to jurisdiction-of-choice clauses, is something that Britain has succeeded in having changed and improved specifically to advance and protect the interests of the British-jurisdiction and English-law clauses that greatly advantage the City of London and our broader national financial services sector. I put that on the record as a matter of context and to get it off my chest, but it needs to be said, because it ought to influence the way and the speed with which we now move on this.

I welcome the fact that the Government have picked up, on this and the preceding measures, a number of the Justice Committee’s recommendations on how we might best deal with the situation that we find ourselves in. For example, bringing the Rome regulations on family and other matters, which did not require reciprocity, into domestic law, and implementing the Hague convention, as set out on the face of the Bill, are desirable. The ambition to join Lugano is, for reasons that we have already debated, very important. The Hague conventions are worthwhile but are not as good as what we had before, so moving to Lugano, which would be an improvement, would be a step forward.

I hope, too, that we swiftly deal with the other two conventions referred to in the helpful letter that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, sent to all Members of Parliament: the 2019 Singapore convention and the future Hague convention agreements. There has been some debate in the other place, particularly from Lord Mance, about which order they shall come in. On balance, I am persuaded by the evidence that we have heard over the years and the arguments made by the Law Society of England and Wales—I think the Law Society of Scotland finds itself in the same place—that the more important thing is not to have any gap in the recognition and enforcement of judgments and recognition of international public clauses. That is why the Law Society favours pressing ahead with entry to Lugano as soon as we can, rather than waiting for what may develop with the Hague arrangements. The Government are right not to delay in that regard; we must press ahead.

That is, of course, the means by which we should deal with the Italian torpedo. I mention it not because this is like when we were doing trials in long, boring fraud cases, and there was sometimes a bit of a side bet to make an unlikely comment in one’s closing speech to the jury. The truth is, as we all know, that the Italian torpedo—the delaying tactic of seeking to thwart an exclusive jurisdiction clause, very often operating in favour of the UK, by commencing unmeritorious and almost abusive proceedings in another jurisdiction, which would then hold up the process—has caused a problem in commercial matters and real hardship in many family law cases. Getting the family law issues right is particularly important. The Government’s objective of ensuring that, for example, the partner of a finished relationship is able to enforce her maintenance payments from the other partner, who may be in one of the EU or other contracting states, is critical for ordinary individuals—not just businesses. Having in place a means of protecting the English and Scots law jurisdiction clauses, which are very important for financial services contracts, is critical too.

It is perhaps not the time to go into this in detail, but when we get to Committee, may I ask Ministers to reflect on the matter of asymmetrical jurisdiction, which was raised by Lord Mance, who has massive experience in this field? I tend to agree with him on that, whereas I am not persuaded about the sequencing of Lugano and Hague. He referred to it in some detail in his speech in the Lords. I will not repeat what he said, as he is much more experienced than me, the Lord Chancellor and the Under-Secretary of State, who did not have the fortune—literally or otherwise—to practise in that field. Lord Mance’s wise words are important, because this issue relates to derivative swaps and other financial instruments, which, for reasons that he set out well, are of particular importance to the UK financial services sector. As things stand at the moment, the provisions in the Bill do not sufficiently address that.

That is a technical but important matter for our business interests that we ought perhaps to reflect on as the Bill makes progress in Committee.

The other thing I want to say at this stage is that while I know the Lord Chancellor wishes to be ambitious in scope, I am not saying that this is necessarily a Henry VIII power or that all wide-ranging powers to amend by delegation are always wrong. Lord Garnier, who has been referred to as a mutual friend of all those on this side of the House and elsewhere, put it rather well when he said—I paraphrase him—that essentially all parties when in opposition oppose clauses of this type, but all parties when in government make use of them. He said that he had done so himself, and I did so myself when I was a Minister. Those on the Treasury Bench have done so at various times, so it is not a question of haloes in that regard—

[Alex Cunningham]

But on this occasion, Lord Garnier was actually in support of the Opposition’s position.

[Sir Robert Neill]

He was indeed, and if the hon. Gentleman allows me to develop it, I will suggest a nuanced way around this. It is not to say that we should not have delegated powers, but that we should perhaps look again at the way in which they are cast. I do not think it would necessarily be needed to bring back clause 2, as it was before it was removed by the other House—and I understand Lord Chancellor’s point about not bringing in pre-emptive legislation—but there was some merit and a genuine concern to assist in the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) about putting the power on the face of the Bill with a provision to exercise it at such time as the application was approved. That might remove the sting from it.

I know that the Under-Secretary has examples of instances when delegated legislation is used to create criminal offences. Those of us who have much more experience in that field, as the Lord Chancellor and others have, know it happens. It is not an objection in principle, but it might be possible to redraw the provisions more tightly to make sure that that is not unduly widened. Perhaps there are things that can be done to speed up the process without bringing ourselves into what might be quite a significant conflict given the size of the majority by which clause 2 was rejected in the other place; I think it was 320 to 233, so it was not a marginal matter. I hope, therefore, if we are to ensure the swift passage of the Bill, which is the one thing that we absolutely must have for the sake of avoiding a lacuna on 31 December this year, perhaps some imagination can be given to how that potential difficulty with the other place might be overcome.

I hope that we will be able to proceed with the Bill swiftly. We do not perhaps always give sufficient value and attention to these matters. The status of our civil law and the status of private international law are not talked about enough—

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

With the leave of the House, I will sum up on behalf of the Opposition.

When I was preparing my closing remarks, I thought I was following the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) and I was going to remind him that he has the privilege to represent what was my home town for a large part of my life. He also has the privilege of following in the footsteps of great MPs such as Ted Fletcher, who was himself an internationalist and would have been interested in today’s proceedings. He was a person who believed very much in action rather than words, and he put his life in the line of fire when he fought in the trenches in Spain against the fascists in the civil war. I am pleased to have this opportunity to pay tribute to Ted, the first MP I was honoured to knock doors for. He inspired me and I would never have been here if it had not been for him.

As I said in my opening speech, Labour recognises the importance of private international law, particularly in a post-Brexit setting. Without the framework that private international law provides, UK businesses, families and individuals would face greater difficulty in seeking to resolve conflicts arising from cross-border disputes. As we get closer to the new year and the great and growing uncertainty posed by Brexit, the need for a clear and fair framework to settle cross-border disputes becomes ever more urgent. Without this framework, businesses and individuals would face great uncertainty. That is why Labour fully supports clause 1, which gives effect in domestic law to three important international agreements to improve the protection of children involved in cross-border disputes, regulate court arrangements relating to high-value international transactions, and allow for the recovery of child support and spousal maintenance.

Not only will each of those three agreements make a significant and positive change to domestic law; they will be incorporated in domestic law in the proper way, by primary legislation debated before the House. That is why we support them. This is the exact opposite of what the original clause 2 sought to do, and it is regrettable that the Government seek to bring it back in Committee. The Lord Chancellor would be wise to take the counsel of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). They have outlined specific issues, and if the Government were to concentrate on those areas, they might find themselves with a little more support for their proposals. Also, the Government should do that because it would recognise the concerns of those in the other place. I hope that when the Minister winds up in a few minutes he addresses that good advice given by Members on his own side, because we know that clause 2 represents a very concerning extension of Executive power in any other circumstances, allowing the Government to bypass parliamentary scrutiny and implement private international law agreements by the back door by utilising statutory instruments. That would represent a dangerous break with past parliamentary practice, which so far requires all public international law treaties to be implemented by Act of Parliament. Instead, it would represent a permanent shift of power from Parliament to the Executive, with little reasoning provided for why such a shift is needed. Sadly, it appears that this shift is very much the approach of this Government and it must be challenged. That is why the Bill was amended in the other place. As we have heard, distinguished lawyers and constitutional experts across the political divide voted against the inclusion of this clause because it so offends the constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty that requires proper scrutiny of international agreements before they have effect in domestic law.

When the Government were asked to explain the need for the powers contained in clause 2 they provided three basic arguments. I spoke of them in my opening speech, so suffice it to say now that not one of those arguments held under expert scrutiny in the other place.

It is not only those of us on the Labour Benches who have been far from convinced by the case put forward by the Government for the need for clause 2. As we have heard, when the Constitution Committee considered whether this legislative power should be granted, it made it clear it should not. The Committee went on to say:

“It is inappropriate for a whole category of international agreements to be made purely by delegated legislation”.

It went on to say that that is not only because it reduces parliamentary scrutiny but because

“Such an approach risks undermining legal certainty.”

Why would the Government seek to reintroduce clause 2 at a later stage in the Bill’s passage if each of the arguments for its inclusion have been shown to be false? The Government currently have a perfectly reasonable and necessary Bill, which I imagine would receive wide cross-party support; we have seen examples of that this afternoon.

In conclusion, as we leave what is arguably the world’s most comprehensive network of private international law agreements in the new year, it is vital that we have a framework in place that fills that void. Labour recognises that, and it is our collective responsibility to defend parliamentary scrutiny, irrespective of procedural ease or expediency. For that reason, we will support this Bill in its current form but will reject any attempts to reintroduce clause 2 or any other clause that allows for the implementation of international agreements in domestic law by secondary legislation.