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

Kenny MacAskill Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham]

My hon. Friend is correct. That could lead to considerable confusion in the system. What happens if a family member is moved from country to country? They will be subject to different jurisdictions and different laws, and it would be all the more complicated and difficult for resolutions to be made.

There appeared to be intense opposition to what the Government were trying to do, and it was not just from the other place; it was coming from all over the place. The Bar Council, in its helpful briefing, was highly critical of this new constitutional grab. It was somewhat concerned that the power in clause 2 to proceed by delegated legislation was very broad, and that, for instance, it enabled the appropriate national authority to make regulations for the purpose of or in connection with implementing any international agreement. To give effect to international treaties in domestic law is not a rubber-stamping exercise. The effect, implementation and enforcement of such provisions require robust debate, and we must protect the parliamentary scrutiny of such important legal provisions at all costs.

The Government attempted to raise arguments as to why that new constitutional measure would be necessary, but all of them have failed to convince. The first argument was that the new provision would allow the Government to implement each new international agreement without unnecessary delay, but there is no evidence to suggest that fast-track legislation is required. The implementation of international agreements in the past has often taken years, and there is nothing to suggest that implementing them through primary legislation would cause any difficulties without having to subject legislation to 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 arguments appear to be that there may be only a short period in which to legislate to give effect to the Lugano provision at the end of the transition period. That is not an argument for developing that new Executive power more generally. The Government have not provided for clause 2 in relation to Lugano but, as the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), said, there appears to be some movement on that, and I look forward to clarification from the Minister.

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

Even some of the Government’s own Members were rightly worried. It is worth putting on the record again a statement by the Conservative peer, Lord Garnier:

“Unquestionably, the provisions in Clause 2, which give the Executive the extensive future law-making powers originally in the Bill, have been shown to be constitutionally awkward and unwelcome”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 June 2020; Vol. 804, c. 483.]

I think that the Minister has begun to address those issues.

Sadly, the Lords asked the Government to drop clause 2. The Government used their majority. A Conservative peer asked that them not to do so, but that is what they chose to do, so clause 2 was reinstated. As I have said, their lordships were not about to roll over, and they were determined that the Government should not get away with a smash-and-grab raid on our constitution and the way in which we do business in this country. It is no good at all our trumpeting a return of control of our own affairs—control for our Parliament to make decisions on the issues that affect our country and citizens—only for Parliament to surrender that control to an overbearing Executive who appear to be seeking shortcuts to creating legislation and regulations. That is not what the British people handed the Government a majority to do. I do not think they would tolerate the sidelining of MPs they elected to serve them. More importantly, we want to ensure that laws in this land are not just fit for purpose, but have been subjected to the widest possible scrutiny. Opposition Members have always been opposed to the power in clause 2 to implement future international agreements by secondary legislation, but we recognise that change to that clause can be made.

As I mentioned, both the House of Lords Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee considered whether the power in clause 2 was appropriate, and both made it clear that it was not. None the less, Labour welcomes amendments 1A and 1B, tabled in the other place, which act as a safeguard to clause 2, as reintroduced here. It was good to hear the Minister speak with some affection for those in the other place, and their expertise and skills. Although Labour Members remain disappointed that clause 2 has been reintroduced, the Government have heeded some of the Opposition’s concern by agreeing to the five-year sunset clause to clause 2.

Let me turn to amendments 4A and 4B. Labour also welcomes the amendment to remove the power from the Bill to create criminal offences that are punishable by imprisonment. For obvious reasons, this is a sensitive issue and it is only right that the Government act with caution in this area. Finally, Labour supports the amendment to place an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult before using the implementing power contained in clause 2 or before extending it for a further five-year period. Ideally, we would like to have seen further detail on who the Government are obliged to consult, but this is none the less better than nothing. That said, the Minister might like to address that issue in his summing up.

Before I conclude, I wish to pose a few questions to the Minister, where he could go some way to alleviating the remaining concerns many of us, in and out of this place, have about the amended clause 2. Will he give assurances to the House that any consultations on the implementation of a PIL agreement will be held in public rather than in private? Will he confirm that any consultations on the implementations of a PIL agreement will be announced in good time to allow experts to offer their views? Will he give assurances that the Government will produce a report on the outcome of such consultations and ensure that it is widely available to Members of this House? To sum up, although the Opposition would ideally have liked to see clause 2 taken out completely, or for greater restrictions to have been placed on its power, it is clear that the Government have listened to the concerns of the House and have taken some action to address them. We will therefore support these amendments this afternoon.

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)]

Obviously, I rise to support the general principles of the Bill. The Scottish National party, in giving support to this legislation, takes the view that it is not where we wish to be, but in the circumstances of where we find ourselves, it is the best that can be done. It has to be put in the context, both legal and political, of where we find ourselves. In the legal context, many others have mentioned, correctly, that private international law is not even noted a great deal within the wider sphere of law and is rather a specialist niche. I say that as someone who was a lawyer and practised for 20 years, who was a Justice Secretary for seven and a half years and who was the Convenor of the Subordinate Legislation Committee when the Scottish Parliament was first established. Private international law does occasionally result in people’s eyes glazing over, but it is fundamentally important. Significantly, subordinate legislation is equally of great importance and far too frequently missed. Both require to be addressed, because as the Minister and the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) have mentioned, they are fundamental. This is fundamental to business contracts, as we seek to promote business in a globalised world. It is fundamental to ensuring that litigation can take place if accidents occur abroad, and in the world in which we travel more that is understandable. In family matters, it is fundamental because children are taken, and deeply distressing custody battles are waged over abducted children not only across the border between Scotland and England but around the world. It is also important for the enforcement of aspects such as aliment, as we call it in Scotland, or alimony, as it is referred to down here. All those things depend on the ability to settle on a jurisdiction—a jurisdiction of choice, or sometimes one that is required—in which rights can be enforced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson]

The hon. Gentleman is touching on a point that I have expressed concern about. If these legal agreements are done on a bilateral basis with different countries, we might find that we have agreements with some countries and not others, and therefore constituents of ours with a case in one country will get better access to justice than those with cases in countries where such agreements have not been concluded.

[Kenny MacAskill]

Absolutely. It is well known—and I have experienced it myself—that where children have been taken to, for example, some north African nations, it can be extremely problematic, if not impossible, for parents seeking their return. Although they had the right to that child, their ability to enforce it was often not recognised. If that is to be the situation we find ourselves in with countries with which we have had greater movement in recent years and greater involvement in terms of trade, the complexities will be extremely difficult indeed.

In the political context, this is the reality. It is not the delusion that we have been given about the sunny uplands of Brexit, or in the defence review about aircraft carriers steaming towards warmer climes, dispensing all sorts of social dividend. I always thought that the people who should be doing the soft diplomacy should be the British Council, as opposed to military forces. I recognise and welcome any work that they can do in that sphere, but it is not what they are trained to do, nor is it their trained function.

This is not the sunny uplands of Brexit. It is the harsh reality of what we face on rights that we have had for more than a generation, on the security of an understanding that lawyers have had about what they could do and where they could go, and the arrangements that have built up. I myself in legal practice had relationships with lawyers in London and Northern Ireland, or wherever else—it was passed around. If all that breaks down, the difficulty for individuals is damaging.

All the emphasis in the public eye has been, perhaps, on the dangers and difficulties we face with access to Europol—there are huge difficulties there—and the difficulties that we may face in terms of sharing information about criminals. We all know that more individuals in this country appear before a tribunal than before a court. We all know, in this Chamber, that more people will be affected by the civil aspects in private international law than will be affected by the far too many, but still far fewer, aspects of criminal offending by those who come here and would require those provisions.

This is the harsh reality of Brexit. We are signing up for something that is acceptable but not as good as what we had. It carries numerous risks. It leaves the danger of deficiencies—sometimes through error, perhaps, but sometimes through a failure to negotiate—that will leave each and every citizen of this country in a worse place. This is not what we were promised. We vote for these measures, but we do so with a heavy heart. It is the harsh reality of Brexit coming home. I hope that many families do not suffer as a consequence.

[Mr Djanogly]

The ongoing disputes over the Bill have not related to the content of private international law treaties, but rather to parliamentary scrutiny of orders made pursuant to PIL treaties and scrutiny of the PIL treaties themselves. As far as the order-making powers are concerned, we have ended up today with a welcome compromise, eked out in the other place following a significant defeat and general kickback from basically everyone for the initial proposals for a Henry VIII clause.

To that end, there were counterproposals to limit the scope for orders to specific treaties, for reports to be laid before auditors and to a stated timetable and for a super-affirmative procedure. Although none of those proposals has been accepted, others have been. I welcome the concessions offered today by the Minister, who I have to say has now listened, in terms of the exclusion of some level of criminal offences punishable by prison, the introduction of a five-year sunset clause, albeit a renewable one, and a prior duty to consult on orders, although only with such persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate. That is, frankly, as far as we are going to get on this and I shall support what is offered. However, I wish to make two related wider points.

First, while Government suggest that the PIL treaties are non-contentious, the sweeping scope and initially non-restricted life of order powers clearly represent a significant increase in the power of the Executive. It is also an attack on the constitutional principle that international agreements should only change domestic law if they are instituted by Act of Parliament. Here we need context, because if one looks at the range of current Government Bills, one sees time and again power being removed from this place to the Executive. That was recently described by one journalist as this Government’s Maoist tendency.

It may be that recent staff changes at Number 10 are going to reverse that tendency. The Government should keep in mind that the Executive will not always be a Conservative one, and messing with our finely tuned unwritten constitution may not be to the Conservatives’ advantage in the long run.

My final point concerns what has been persistently avoided in the Bill, which is the urgent need to reform the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 provisions for scrutinising proposed international treaties. Frankly, I have not been able to understand Ministers’ feet dragging on this issue. As things stand, it looks like CRaG reforms are more likely to come in piecemeal via the Trade Bill and the Agriculture Bill. In my view, that sectoral hotch-potch should be managed by the Justice team, to cover all international treaties. I suggest that Ministers apply their many talents to that task.