Source · Select Committees · Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Recommendation 17
17
Deferred
Paragraph: 70
House of Lords should ideally scrutinise treaties before House of Commons approval vote.
Conclusion
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.
Government Response Summary
The government deflects responsibility, stating it is for the House of Commons to consider establishing a sifting committee for treaties, and draws attention to comparable setups in Australia and New Zealand.
Paragraph Reference:
70
Government Response
Deferred
HM Government
Deferred
It is for the House of Commons to consider the merits of establishing a committee to sift treaties before referring them to other committees for closer scrutiny. The Government would draw its attention to the setup adopted in comparable systems, particularly Australia and New Zealand. In Australia there is a Joint Standing Committee on Treaties of both Houses of the Australian Parliament. In New Zealand the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee acts as the sifting committee, which distributes treaties laid to the relevant subject matter select committee in the New Zealand Parliament for consideration. 8 Government Response