Select committee: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Conclusion 2

Second Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of International Agreements in the 21st century Published 29 Jan 2024 Paragraph 16

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)

While we believe that the prerogative should continue to be the source of the power for the Government to negotiate and enter into international agreements, it is clear that the manner and way in which that prerogative power is exercised needs to be more clearly and widely understood. The current arrangements grant the Government considerable power as well as flexibility in how they are used. We favour maintaining this flexibility but are alive to concerns about the potential for abuse of this power. As such, it must be understood that there are clear constitutional limits on the use of this power by ministers. The authority for a Minister, and the Government in general, to exercise the prerogative power is derived from the Government having the confidence of the democractially elected House of Commons. Each and every exercise of prerogative power by a Minister should have the confidence of, and conform to the will of, the House of Commons. It is the responsibility of all Ministers, in their exercise of these powers, to assure themselves that they are acting in accordance with the will and confidence of the House of Commons.

From: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Second Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of International Agreements in the 21st century (HC 204), paragraph 16, 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