Source · Select Committees · Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Recommendation 7
7
Rejected
Paragraph: 32
Require explicit House of Commons approval for all treaties before entering into force.
Conclusion
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.
Government Response Summary
The government rejected the recommendation for explicit House of Commons approval of all treaties, stating that Part 2 of the CRaG Act strikes the appropriate balance and that further powers would fundamentally undermine the Royal Prerogative of treaty making.
Paragraph Reference:
32
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government
Rejected
Disagree. The Government does not accept the Committee’s conclusion that Parliament requires further powers to scrutinise the Government’s exercise of Royal Prerogative powers in its treaty making. Part 2 of CRaG strikes the appropriate balance. When scrutinising a treaty subject to CRaG, either House may object to its ratification. Parliamentary approval of treaties is more commonly found in monist States, where treaties automatically become part of domestic law. UK practice is consistent with that of other dualist states such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand – in some respects the Government’s commitments to Parliament go beyond what is provided in other systems. The current practice therefore provides the flexibility, the necessity of which the Committee has recognised, to ensure that Government can continue the important business of doing deals in the national interest while providing a mechanism for Parliament to oppose if the strength of feeling is there. Significantly, the House of Commons has never resolved against ratification using the power it already has under CRaG. To give Parliament binding votes – or vetoes – over treaties would be to fundamentally undermine the Royal Prerogative of treaty making and limit the flexibility needed to negotiate and enter into the deals that will best serve UK interests. As the Committee has noted, the government is accountable to Parliament and holds office by virtue of its ability to command the confidence of the elected House of Commons. The consequence of these principles is not that further legislation is required. Rather, it is that Parliament has the mechanisms to properly scrutinise the Government’s treaty making powers already.