Select committee: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Conclusion 7

Second Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of International Agreements in the 21st century Published 29 Jan 2024 Paragraph 32

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)

Currently, there is no requirement for Parliament to approve treaties. We find this situation untenable. Parliament’s approval must be sought when the Government seeks to bind or change in any material way the UK’s obligations under international law. We therefore recommend that, as a matter of constitutional principle, all treaties should require the explicit approval of the democratically elected House of Commons before they enter into force. To be clear, this would not change the fact that treaties are negotiated and entered into under prerogative power; instead it would make the exercise of that prerogative to enter into an agreement that places, alters or removes a legal obligation on the UK, or to withdraw from such an agreement, conditional on the explicit, active approval 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 32, 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