The debate has been interesting and gone some way towards creating a more common understanding of the important issues at stake, the balance between efficient process and appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, and why, as I have argued, we
need a more modern process of scrutiny for PIL treaties as much as for the ministerial orders that are derived from them.
4.15 pm
We have had many great contributions today. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) explained why these treaties, particularly Lugano, are so important to a wide variety of people, and are not just techie stuff for lawyers. He also explained very well why we need proper scrutiny provisions, and raised the important point that we need to use the best expertise that we have available when we are determining these orders.
A variety of points were made. In fact, the same points were made by my hon. Friends the Members for Henley (John Howell), for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) and for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison). I think they all used the same phrase—that we need agility, flexibility and speed in the way that we approach these orders.
I do not necessarily see the amendment that I tabled today affecting any of those in a negative way. Indeed, I made the point that our opposite treaty partners generally have more stringent scrutiny provisions than we do, and they are not complaining about the lack of time. I was sorry, in that regard, that it was the Government’s approach to want to bring back new clause 5 rather than amend it—I will come back to that—but I did take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and others, on the importance of London as an international legal centre and the importance of these treaties for commerce.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland noted the tangible impact for her constituents and their concerns about clogging up; I believe I have addressed those. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) said that there was a precedent for what the Government propose, and the Minister made the same point. I do not deny that, but I would say that what was used, and what was acceptable, in the 1930s—or in the 1970s, the other example given—is not necessarily best practice now, and indeed is definitely not the current practice of Japan, the US or the EU. They all have much more developed processes than we have. Even the other Commonwealth countries, which, as I said, have our constitutional position, in practice have much more developed scrutiny measures than we have.
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) explained very well that the approach being taken around the House has been pretty much the same in terms of what we want to see going back to the Lords. We have heard the Minister, and unfortunately it is a case of clause 2—or new clause 5—back with no amendments. I still do not understand the Government’s approach. It would have been good if this debate had happened at the final stages in the other place. Instead there was a polarised approach there. Throughout, the other place threw the order-making clause out altogether, leaving us to pick up the pieces. Sadly, we have failed to do so today, and now the Bill goes back to the other place in a situation where we should be agreeing this stuff, frankly. In this context, amendment 2 to include the Lugano treaty is good to have, but that is not the key issue at stake here, and as such I do not intend to request a Division on amendment 2 today. The Opposition are
now saying again that they want the Government’s amendment to be thrown out rather than amended; I cannot support that approach either.
I end with a plea to the Minister. I hope that, as we take the Bill back to the other place, we can move away from this polarised position and come to a deal that enables us all to move forward. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.