Source · Select Committees · Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Recommendation 4
4
Accepted
Paragraph: 23
Clarify in Cabinet Manual that implementing legislation agreement does not signify treaty approval.
Conclusion
We found the arguments that implementing legislation provides an appropriate opportunity for scrutinising and considering treaties in their entirety to be wholly unconvincing. As such, the current arrangements do not deliver a constitutionally sufficient level of scrutiny; nor do they provide an opportunity for Parliament to approve important policies which can have a significant impact on domestic affairs. Parliament’s opportunity to debate and approve or reject implementing legislation is not a substitute for proper parliamentary consideration of a treaty. Agreement to 60 Parliamentary Scrutiny of International Agreements in the 21st century implementing legislation should not be taken to represent approval of a treaty as a whole. This should be clearly set out in the Cabinet Manual and reflected in other guidance to ministers and civil servants.
Government Response Summary
The Government disagrees that the Cabinet Manual needs updating, stating it already provides appropriate guidance on the distinction between scrutinizing treaties and implementing legislation. It maintains the existing framework for treaty scrutiny is appropriate and highlights existing parliamentary options for debates, including a specific commitment from DBT to facilitate FTA debates when requested by certain committees.
Paragraph Reference:
23
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government
Accepted
Partially agree. The Government agrees that Parliament has two separate and distinct functions in relation to treaties: first, an opportunity to scrutinise and resolve against ratification of treaties; and second, the scrutiny of any legislation necessary to implement treaties. As a result, any treaty that affects domestic law and requires legislation in order to be implemented, will not enter into force until Parliament has had an opportunity to have its say on its implementation. The Government believes the Cabinet Manual provides appropriate guidance on this. Government Response 3 The Government considers the existing framework for treaty scrutiny appropriate, providing sufficient flexibility to enable Parliament to undertake effective scrutiny prior to ratification of a treaty, while reflecting the position accepted by the Committee that treaty making should remain a prerogative power. The Government notes that Parliament may request a debate on a treaty in addition to any debate on legislation. Requests must be balanced against other demands on parliamentary time. The Government seeks to accommodate where possible a debate during the 21 sitting day period for parliamentary scrutiny under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRaG). For example, the Department for Business and Trade has made a specific commitment regarding free trade agreements that should the International Agreements Committee (IAC) or Business and Trade Committee (BTC) produce a report on a new free trade agreement (FTA) after its signature and as part of this request a debate, the Government will seek to facilitate this subject to available parliamentary time. However, debates do not necessarily need to be in Government time. There are options available to both the official opposition and backbenchers in both Houses to secure time for debates.