Select committee: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Conclusion 3

Second Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of International Agreements in the 21st century Published 29 Jan 2024 Paragraph 22

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)

The UK is a dualist state, meaning that, in order for obligations entered into through treaties to have effect in UK law, domestic implementation is required. This is an important feature of the UK’s constitutional system, ensuring that any changes to domestic law needed to implement treaties must be considered by Parliament. While treaties bind the UK as a matter of international law, they do not automatically have effect as a matter of domestic law. Often, provisions do not require new primary legislation to have effect in domestic law; delegated powers to make secondary legislation may be used, or only parts of agreements are presented to Parliament to consider as the remaining obligations can be met without legislating. Furthermore, the current process tends towards presenting Parliament with a treaty whose terms have already been finalised, leaving it with no meaningful scope to amend or even influence the terms of the treaty.

From: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Second Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of International Agreements in the 21st century (HC 204), paragraph 22, 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