Select committee: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Conclusion 1

Second Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of International Agreements in the 21st century Published 29 Jan 2024 Paragraph 15

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee The Scrutiny of International Treaties and other international agreements in the 21st century All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗

Conclusion (the committee's words)

Under the UK’s constitutional arrangements, the power to negotiate and enter into international agreements is a prerogative power; as such, the power still sits notionally with the sovereign, but in practice is exercised exclusively by the executive (i.e Ministers of the Crown). Prerogative powers are legitimately exercised by Ministers owing to the fact that they are understood to have the confidence of the House of Commons and are ultimately accountable to Parliament for any such exercise.

From: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Second Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of International Agreements in the 21st century (HC 204), paragraph 15, 29 January 2024

Government response

The government responded to the whole report on 18 April 2024 (deadline 29 March 2024).

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The government partially agrees with some conclusions but does not accept that the existing framework for treaty scrutiny is insufficient, and disagrees with the recommendation that Parliament must approve all treaties.

On the recommended active approval process, the government says it "does not accept" that Parliament requires further powers and that Part 2 of CRaG "strikes the appropriate balance", so "no legislative changes are required".
It disagrees with a central repository for non-legally binding instruments, calling it "impractical", but says it "will update its published guidance to encourage consistency and transparency".
It accepts the recommendation to keep providing an explanatory memorandum alongside treaties laid under CRaG, and says it will keep the information provided "in review".
On negotiating mandates, it says a working practices agreement is "neither necessary nor appropriate", though it remains "committed to the principles of transparency and positive engagement" while retaining discretion over information shared.

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error