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

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in Clause 2(7), “relevant territory” is defined as

“the Isle of Man … any of the Channel Islands … a British overseas territory.”

On what basis should there be a differentiation for the Isle of Man as opposed to the others—as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, rightly asked—particularly regarding the two Crown dependencies of Guernsey and Jersey? Would it not be sensible from a UK stance to have consistency, particularly between the Crown dependencies and on our approach to defining “relevant territory”, as covered by Clause 2(7)?

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, we have no objection to the Bill as passed extending to the Isle of Man at its request, but that is of course subject to the whole question of our objection to Clause 2 standing part of the Bill and to any other amendments to the Bill that may be passed to it. In those circumstances, it is right that the Minister is not pursuing this amendment today, and it would be right that we should reconsider our position on Report.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that he is not going to proceed with this amendment today and that he has moved it simply to open it for debate. We oppose the amendment because we oppose in principle Clause 2, which inappropriately gives the Government the power by secondary legislation to introduce important changes to domestic law to reflect private international law agreements. At the moment, if that is the principle that we stand on, in our view it is wrong to say that the Isle of Man, of all the parts of the Crown dependencies, should have a special right to do it by statutory instrument. That, as previous Lords have indicated, would differentiate it from everyone else. We are against it for that reason.

We are also against it because this change would allow for differential application of international agreements as between the various parts of the United Kingdom and, for the reasons we gave the previous time this Committee met, we are against that. So, we oppose the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, at this point in Committee deliberations, I often find that we have had tedious repetition, some of it very necessary in terms of underlying principles. On this occasion, some extremely valuable contributions have brought in extraneous issues that I certainly had not thought of, including those raised by my noble friend Lord Hain.

I speak in support of the points raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. He and I shared the pleasure of working together when the Home Office had what are now the powers of the justice ministry. We were, of course, faced from time to time with the desire to engage with a plethora of delegated legislation which would ease our burden and make the business of government easier. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, is correct in identifying that Governments wish to do this and Oppositions seek to check it. That is a perfectly reasonable combination because Governments have the dynamic of seeking to deal with issues that they will return to in an easier form and Oppositions, quite rightly, have to challenge, as is the case this afternoon, the reasons for that and whether they are acceptable.

I take, for instance, my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd’s third point about the framework of legislation now, in which we have become accustomed to dealing with underpinning issues. However, when principles relate to the extension of criminal offences and penalties, as my noble and learned friend pointed out at the beginning of this debate, we have to be extremely cautious.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in a very entertaining and important diversion, referred to our present situation not just in terms of the underpinning measures that allow people to travel great distances but not to stay overnight, which are perverse in terms of trying to get Parliament up and running, by the way. Measures have applied in history, sometimes by necessity, such as Regulation 18B in 1940, but with consequences that had to be dealt with at length, with the picking up of thousands of people, some of whom should never have been interned in the way they were. Caution is always valuable in these circumstances so that consequential and unforeseen actions are avoided wherever possible. An example is the laying of regulations under both Public Health Acts and the emergency powers that we passed through this House on 25 and 26 March this year, which will be laid in the Commons later this afternoon, in respect of unworkable laws attempting to quarantine people coming from countries with less infection than we have ourselves.

Caution is necessary to make good law, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said. It tries to look down the line at what the consequential outcomes might be. That is why I think this has been a very useful debate and I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, will reflect on this, given that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said, substantial majority Governments can push through whatever they like but other people have to live with the consequences.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, on these Benches we are firmly with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in opposing Clause 2 of the Bill, in line with the virtually unanimous view of those who spoke on 13 May and for all the reasons stated on day one in Committee. We will support the noble and learned Lord in opposing Clause 2 on Report. Therefore, it is with some regret that I find myself disagreeing with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in particular in respect of the creation of criminal offences. He seemed to be suggesting that such offences would derive from the provisions of the international treaties themselves, rather than the provisions of the delegated legislation and, for that reason, the power in the Bill should be accepted.

However, that is not inevitably so. Under the Bill as it stands, new criminal offences could be introduced by the regulations giving the force of domestic law to private international law conventions and the implementation of those conventions, not by the treaties themselves. I therefore agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, on that issue and the possibility that he raised of new offences being introduced under the regulations.

These two amendments are, of course, alternatives to the removal of Clause 2, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, pointed out. Both amendments would plainly be right if we came to the position, contrary to what we believe should happen, that we were stuck with Clause 2. Amendment 19 on criminal offences raises an important principle. I agree with and endorse everything said by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, as supported by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd and Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. In this country we have always had a strong and principled objection to making new criminal offences or otherwise changing the criminal law by secondary legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, expressed that principle forcefully and eloquently. It is an important principle, which I think we should be very firm about upholding.

Amendment 20 is on the super-affirmative procedure. Of course, it would be better than the affirmative procedure and clearly better than any negative procedure —which is not proposed. However, it is a poor alternative to requiring primary legislation to give international treaties the force of domestic law. Paragraph 31.14 of Erskine May says this about the super-affirmative procedure:

“The super-affirmative procedure provides both Houses with opportunities to comment on proposals for secondary legislation and to recommend amendments before orders for affirmative approval are brought forward in their final form. (It should be noted that the power to amend the proposed instrument remains with the Minister: the two Houses and their committees can only recommend changes, not make them.)”


That paragraph is accurate in respect of the super-affirmative procedure proposed by the noble and learned Lord’s Amendment 20. It follows that Parliament would have no right to amend, and that is why super-affirmative is still a poor alternative. It ultimately leaves legislative power with Ministers and not with Parliament.

It is also a fact that success in changing delegated legislation by the super-affirmative procedure comes very rarely—a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. We perhaps ought to return to that matter in the future. We should perhaps try to formulate a procedure that goes some way to meet the criticism he made—a procedure that permits Parliament to approve an instrument conditionally on its being amended in a way acceptable to both Houses. That might solve some of the problems that we have with delegated legislation. But I agree that that is for another day. Our position is that we support these amendments if we are stuck with having to use them in place of striking out Clause 2.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, taken together, the amendments relate broadly to either narrowing the scope of the Clause 2 power or increasing parliamentary scrutiny for use of that power, and I recognise the observations made by a number of noble Lords and noble and learned Lords that this is very much secondary to the opposition expressed to Clause 2 itself. I note the observation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, that this is essentially a series of probing amendments.

Before I look at the various amendments, I note that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and other noble Lords referred to the role of the Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Private International Law and the importance of consultation with it, with which I entirely concur. I am now co-chair of that committee, together with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance. Its recent meeting was extremely useful. We looked at some technical issues surrounding the application of the Hague conventions of 2005 and 2007 at the end of the transition period. We may hear a little more of that in due course.

Amendment 19 deals with the creation of a criminal offence in the implementation in domestic law of a relevant private international law agreement. The use of the Clause 2 power to create a criminal offence there is very constrained. It is true that private international law agreements do not generally require contracting parties to create criminal offences, and there are no such requirements in the private international agreements that the UK is currently considering joining and implementing under the powers in this Bill. However, it remains a very real possibility that we might negotiate or seek to join a new agreement where a power to create or extend existing criminal penalties will be needed to fully implement the international law obligation. Take an agreement on reciprocal recognition and enforcement of protection measures, for example. In England and Wales, protection measures such as non- molestation orders or injunctions may be made by the courts under the Family Law Act 1996 or the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Breaches of those orders are punishable by criminal penalties. Any future private international law agreement in this area on reciprocal recognition of such orders, if successfully negotiated, would particularly benefit those who are most vulnerable in our society and reliant on such protection measures, whether they remain within the United Kingdom or travel abroad, where they would wish to retain the protection of such orders.

If we entered into such an agreement, it would seem reasonable and appropriate to exercise the Clause 2 power so that, for example, we could extend criminal penalties for breach of a UK order to also apply to the breach of an order issued by a relevant foreign court. Breach of an order issued by a foreign court would in effect carry the same criminal penalty as that for breach of an equivalent UK order. But that criminal offence-making ability would of course be subject to the limitations within the Clause 2 power itself as currently drafted. Let me be clear: we could not create an offence under this power which would carry a term of imprisonment of more than two years, for example. That is an important safeguard on the exercise of the Clause 2 powers in this area.