Select committee: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Recommendation 12

Second Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of International Agreements in the 21st century Published 29 Jan 2024 Paragraph 65

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 ↗

Recommendation (the committee's words)

To achieve this end, we recommend that the mechanisms contained in Sections 20 to 25 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 are amended to implement the following arrangements in line with this principle of active approval: The legislation should set out that a Minister of the Crown is required to send all treaties to a parliamentary sifting committee, the composition of which will be determined by the House. This sifting committee will have 21-sitting days to recommend either: i that the treaty can proceed to the floor of the House of Commons for debate and that a vote to approve the treaty or otherwise should take place no less than 21-sitting days after this recommendation is made (standard scrutiny period); or ii that the treaty is of such a nature that it requires enhanced scrutiny, and that an appropriate period should be set for that enhanced scrutiny (to be determined by the sifting committee) before which the treaty cannot be brought to the floor of the House of Commons for a debate and a vote (extended scrutiny period). In a situation where, following the expiry of the 21-sitting day sifting period, the sifting committee does not make a recommendation in accordance with either points (i) or (ii) above, the Government may bring a treaty forward to the floor of the House of Commons for a vote to approve the treaty or otherwise as soon as parliamentary time allows.

From: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Second Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of International Agreements in the 21st century (HC 204), paragraph 65, 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