Select committee: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Conclusion 25

Second Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of International Agreements in the 21st century Published 29 Jan 2024 Paragraph 100
Conclusion (the committee's words)
We stress the importance of the UK Government consistently informing devolved governments when it reaches an NLBI that has implications for devolved competence, and for this to be indicated in the central repository recommended in paragraph 94 above. Furthermore, we would expect devolved governments to keep a record of all NLBIs that they reach with international partners and for these agreements to be notified to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for recording in the central repository held by the UK Government. It is a matter for those administrations to make arrangements with their legislatures regarding the monitoring and scrutiny of such agreements.

From: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Second Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of International Agreements in the 21st century (HC 204), paragraph 100, 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