Select committee: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Conclusion 19

Second Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of International Agreements in the 21st century Published 29 Jan 2024 Paragraph 76

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)

There is clearly potential for significant changes to be made following the conclusion of a treaty, and for those changes - for various reasons - not to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the current arrangements. All treaties, including any subsequent amendments or decisions of bodies made under those treaties that either modify the treaty itself or modify the UK’s obligations under the treaty - regardless of whether those amendments or decisions have an impact on the domestic level - must be subject to parliamentary approval. Under the new arrangement for approval of treaties we have recommended in paragraphs 65–68 above, many amendments to treaties would be subject to a parliamentary vote. It is our view however that, moving forward, it would be impractical for Parliament to be required to debate and vote on every treaty amendment. It is our view however that, moving forward, it would be impractical for Parliament to be required to debate and vote on every treaty amendment. When the Constitutional Reform and Government Act 2010 is amended in line with our recommendations in paragraphs 65–68 above, it should include a mechanism to ensure that all amendments to treaties, or decisions made under them, are considered by the sifting committee. That committee can recommend, within 21-sitting days following notification by the Government, that the amendment is either: i of such a nature as to not require a debate and vote; or ii is, in its view, of such a nature that it should be subject to the process set out in paragraphs 65–67 above. In a situation where the sifting committee has does not make a recommendation within the 21-day sitting period, it will be considered as if that committee had recommended that the measure is of such a nature as to not require a debate and vote.

From: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Second Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of International Agreements in the 21st century (HC 204), paragraph 76, 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