Source · Select Committees · Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Recommendation 21
21
Rejected
Paragraph: 94
Establish a central public repository for all NLBIs and notify Parliament of updates.
Conclusion
There was considerable concern expressed to us that adequate records of NLBIs were not being kept and that there is insufficient public access to those NLBIs which have been reached. We received calls for a central repository of all NLBIs to be established. We were encouraged by the Government’s assurance that individual departments do 64 Parliamentary Scrutiny of International Agreements in the 21st century indeed keep records of the NLBIs that are reached. However, we were not convinced by the argument that establishing and maintaining a single repository for non- legally binding instruments would be overly burdensome. We therefore recommend the establishment of a central repository for all non-legally binding instruments, to be coordinated by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and made public on GOV.UK, and call for Parliament be notified of all new or updated documents added to that repository by way of a Written Ministerial Statement.
Government Response Summary
The Government rejects the recommendation to establish a central, public repository for all non-legally binding instruments, citing impracticality, lack of value, resource implications, and the need for flexibility and confidentiality. It states that individual departments are responsible for managing and publishing such instruments as appropriate, but will update its published guidance to encourage consistency and transparency.
Paragraph Reference:
94
Government Response
Rejected
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