Select committee: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Conclusion 17

Second Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of International Agreements in the 21st century Published 29 Jan 2024 Paragraph 70

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)

We believe that adequate time should be available for both Houses to conduct meaningful scrutiny of treaties. However, it is a matter for the House of Lords how it chooses to arrange its business, both in its committees and chamber. We would, however, hope that a practice might develop whereby the House of Lords carries out scrutiny and holds a debate and vote on a treaty prior to that which will take place in the House of Commons under the amended legislation, so that the views of that House can be taken into account when the elected chamber votes on whether to approve a treaty.

From: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Second Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of International Agreements in the 21st century (HC 204), paragraph 70, 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