It was a great pleasure to listen to the powerful advocacy of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). Unfortunately, on this occasion, I am unable to agree with him, but out of courtesy to him I will explain why.
It is a real pleasure to address the Committee of the Whole House on a Bill which, while technical, is of great importance. Private international law is not just an arcane and abstract legal construct. As my hon. Friends the Members for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) and for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), among others, have indicated, it is a very real framework for the dispute resolution of cross-border civil and family justice matters that affect families and businesses in our country. Indeed, the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) made the point that every time we enter into one of these agreements we strengthen the international rules-based order. That is a point we should not lose sight of either.
I am very grateful for the quality of the debate that we have witnessed today, as well as on Second Reading. It has been, if I may say in all sincerity, a debate of conspicuous clarity and ability. I really do appreciate the interest that has been shown in these important matters. I thank colleagues from across the Committee for the time they have taken to prepare the amendments and for the explanations that they have provided. Even where the Government take a different view—which, as I say, I will come on to explain—I recognise that these are serious amendments that have been tabled in good faith in an endeavour to improve the legislation.
Let me begin, if I may, by turning to amendments 5 and 6, new clause 5, new schedule 4 and amendment 7. Taken together, these amendments, in effect, restore the implementing power that was deleted in the other place and reverse the consequential amendments that flow from their deletion. The ability to be able to implement PIL
agreements in a timely and effective manner is important. One of the things that really shone out from the excellent contributions that we heard was the word “agility”, which was used by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales in referring to the context of family agreements, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and, indeed, by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) in talking about the Singapore mediation agreement. That agility is important. It is what allows the UK to be a credible negotiating counterparty, so that if British Ministers agree a PIL agreement—which, incidentally, strengthens the international rules-based order—it can be brought into effect in an agile way.
If indeed, as we all appear to accept, such agreements are good for citizens and businesses, we want to make sure that there is no undue delay in rolling out those benefits. There is a public interest in ensuring that implementation and scrutiny mechanisms are proportionate—again, a word that shone out from the contributions we have heard—in striking the important balance between timely implementation and appropriate scrutiny. If I may make one point about the contribution by the right hon. Member for Tottenham, I think it is fair to say that he did not dwell particularly on the scrutiny procedures that are in place. I will develop that a little bit, and I hope that will put his mind at rest. I do not suppose that I will be able to get him to join us on the Government Benches, but I live in hope.
The provisions are necessary and proportionate because the agreements are recognised across the House as manifestly in the public interest. If I may say respectfully to my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), one of the principal points he made actually, I suggest, undermined his argument. He said, “These are very rarely party political.” The right hon. Member for Tottenham said, “I don’t recall it being vaguely contentious.” He is absolutely right. These agreements are not contentious.
Indeed, if we look at the previous Lugano convention in 2007, or at the previous Hague conventions, which we are introducing under clause 1, nobody ever prayed against them. Equally, on the old Lugano convention—the 1988 one, which preceded the 2007 one—I think only three of their lordships spoke in the other place, there were no amendments and nothing was said here. We must ask ourselves: if my hon. Friends accept that this is non-contentious, why go for what might be perceived to be the disproportionate step?
4 pm