Source · Select Committees · Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Second Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of International Agreements in the 21st century

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee HC 204 Published 29 January 2024

Report Status

Government responded

Conclusions & Recommendations

32 items (11 recs)

Source

View on Parliament website ↗

Government Response

AI assessment · 32 of 32 classified

Accepted 5

Deferred 3

Rejected 24

Recommendations

2 results

28 Deferred

Para 133

Strengthen international agreement scrutiny in Commons committees and establish a new bespoke committee.

Recommendation

The current arrangements in Parliament for the scrutiny of international agreements are not commensurate with their constitutional importance. The House of Lords has taken steps to address this constitutional lacuna with the establishment of the International Agreements Committee. By contrast, … Read more The current arrangements in Parliament for the scrutiny of international agreements are not commensurate with their constitutional importance. The House of Lords has taken steps to address this constitutional lacuna with the establishment of the International Agreements Committee. By contrast, the scrutiny arrangements in the House of Commons are currently insufficient to carry out what is a core function of Parliament, namely the scrutiny of international agreements. This core function should be understood to include involvement in the mandate setting and negotiation phases, the ultimate approval of treaties, and holding the Government to account for their exercise of powers to negotiate and reach these agreements. The important work done by the International Trade Committee during its existence has demonstrated the vital nature of a strategic approach to the parliamentary scrutiny of treaties. Furthermore, we are of the view that the statutory changes we have recommended earlier in this report, requiring all treaties to be subject to parliamentary process and, in appropriate cases, expressly approved by the House of Commons, should result in a greater focus from committees on international agreements. It is clear that the House of Commons is well placed to use its existing subject specialism in the departmental committee structure to provide detailed policy-focused scrutiny of international agreements. However, we note that this may not be sufficient by itself. We recommend that the Liaison Committee adds the scrutiny of international agreements to the core tasks of all relevant committees. To further support this aim, we call on the Government to bring forward a motion to amend the Standing Orders to add “scrutiny of relevant international agreements” to the remit of all relevant committees. Moreover, to ensure that scrutiny of international agreements is given the necessary attention in the House of Commons, we further recommend that a bespoke committee is estab Show less

Government Response Summary

The government partially agrees on the principle of parliamentary accountability for treaties but rejects recommendations for parliamentary approval of treaties and largely deflects the specific recommendations for new scrutiny mechanisms to Parliament itself.

View Details →

29 Deferred

Para 134

Review additional resources required for effective scrutiny of international agreements in Commons.

Recommendation

Effective scrutiny of international agreements requires both policy expertise and expertise in international agreements and law. We recommend that a review is carried out to consider whether and what additional resource is required to support effective scrutiny of international agreements … Read more

Government Response Summary

The government partially agrees but deflects the recommendation for a review of parliamentary resources, stating that how Parliament chooses to scrutinise treaties and whether to introduce new functions is a matter for Parliament itself.

View Details →

Conclusions (1)

Observations and findings

17 Conclusion Deferred

Para 70

We believe that adequate time should be available for both Houses to conduct meaningful scrutiny of treaties. However, it is a matter for the House of Lords how it chooses to arrange its business, both in its committees and chamber. We would, however, hope that a practice might develop whereby …

Government Response Summary

The government deflects responsibility, stating it is for the House of Commons to consider establishing a sifting committee for treaties, and draws attention to comparable setups in Australia and New Zealand.

View Details →