Conclusion 10

It is clear from the evidence we received that the arrangements set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 are unsatisfactory in a modern democratic society. We identified three main areas of concern. First, the legislation provides a passive role for Parliament which need only be notified of a new treaty and has only a limited power (in practice) to delay ratification. These arrangements do not provide Parliament with the opportunity to approve a treaty or not, and do not create the space for the level of scrutiny necessary for genuine democratic oversight and authorisation. Second, while many treaties are captured by the current legislation, there are several categories of treaty that are not. We firmly believe that all treaties need express parliamentary approval. Third, while we understand the historic origin of the 21-sitting day period, and accept that for some treaties it may be sufficient time for scrutiny, we are of the view that it is an arbitrary and, in many cases, insufficient period of time for the scrutiny of treaties, given their increasing complexity, and should therefore not be the default scrutiny period. In light of these findings, it is clear to us that, in order for the arrangements for entering into treaties to respect the core constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty, and to bring them into line with international comparators, Parliament must give its express approval to all treaties before they can be ratified or enter into force.