Recommendation 20

HM Government Rejected

Disagree. Non-legally binding instruments are appropriate for concluding a statement of political intent or political undertaking, and where there is no requirement for a legally binding framework. They are valued as useful tools for arrangements to be established quickly or operate flexibly or which are confidential, such as on defence or technology. The Government disagrees with the Committee’s recommendation to establish a central repository for non-legally binding instruments. Such an approach would be impractical and, in any case, provide little value compared to existing arrangements. It would not merit the additional resources required. No single department provides oversight of non- legally binding instruments. They are numerous and diverse in nature, from political commitments to administrative and technical. A central depository would also suggest that non-legally binding instruments have greater importance than other policy documents. It is established Government practice not to routinely publish non-legally binding instruments and arrangements. To make all non-legally binding instruments public would detract from the flexibility that such instruments provide. Individual departments are responsible for managing and retaining signed non-legally binding instruments. This is the practice in Australia and New Zealand. Each department should maintain its own records, draw important arrangements to Parliament’s attention, and publish those that are in the public interest. It is a matter for each department to determine when and how to make public such instruments. The Government considers the existing Government policies on record keeping remain appropriate for handling non-legally binding instruments in line with other records of similar status. However, the Government will update its published guidance to encourage consistency and transparency in its approach. Parliamentary scrutiny of non-legally binding instruments