Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)

My Lords, this debate on the ratification by the UK of the Council of Europe’s Macolin convention—so excellently introduced by the chair of the International Agreements Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Johnson—is of wider significance than the detailed subject matter covered by the convention, important though that is. This debate followed the confirmation by the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, that our procedures for handling legally binding bilateral international agreements equally apply to legally binding multilateral ones, of which there are quite a few coming down the track. That is as it should be, I would argue. I welcome the Government’s action, which has led to this report we are debating today and will I hope lead to the end of the parliamentary scrutiny of the Macolin convention prior to its early ratification by the UK. Perhaps the Minister, whose presence at the Dispatch Box I warmly welcome, will give us some idea of other multilateral agreements, such as those concluded committing the UK to the interim dispute settlement procedures system of the World Trade Organization and the pandemic convention, still under negotiation, and when these may be likely to reach us. All the evidence we took on the Macolin convention was in favour of the UK joining and ratifying the agreement. The problems arising from illicit gambling on sporting competitions are rising and increasingly international in their operation and impact. Hence the need for international co-operation in combating them. One might have expected some discordant views, perhaps, questioning the need for and possible effectiveness of such co-operation, but we did not hear any. Those in our own Government tasked with countering the rising international criminal activity in the sporting field were clear that it was in the UK’s interest to be part of Macolin. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why it has taken the Government so long to ratify and join Macolin. Can she give us an absolute assurance that if and when this debate today, as it should do, completes the process of parliamentary scrutiny, ratification by the UK will follow promptly and without any further delay? Of course, as several other noble Lords have said, ratification and joining Macolin is not the end of the story. Of equally great importance will be the effective operational co-operation over enforcement of its provisions. To what extent will we be hampered by the loss of such operational co-operation following Brexit and the inadequate provisions made for law enforcement co-operation in the post-Brexit trade and co-operation agreement? What steps are we taking to remedy those losses in the reset of our relations with the EU currently under negotiation? It would be useful to hear from the opposition spokesman, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, when he speaks at the end of this debate, how his party intends to reconcile the need for greater law enforcement co-operation with its commitment to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, which is all too likely to further damage such co-operation, perhaps irremediably. In conclusion, speaking as another member of the International Agreements Committee, I strongly support the findings that it is in the UK’s interest to ratify and join Macolin.