Select committee: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Conclusion 21

Second Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of International Agreements in the 21st century Published 29 Jan 2024 Paragraph 94
Conclusion (the committee's words)
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.

From: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Second Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of International Agreements in the 21st century (HC 204), paragraph 94, 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