WIREDGOV

The House of Lords International Agreements Committee has today published its report, “Treaty scrutiny in Westminster: addressing the accountability gap”.

• Report:  Treaty scrutiny in Westminster: addressing the accountability gap   (HTML)
• Report:  Treaty scrutiny in Westminster: addressing the accountability gap  (PDF)
• Inquiry: Review of treaty scrutiny
• International Agreements Committee

Main findings

The report concludes that the current statutory process for parliamentary scrutiny of treaties under Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 is a weak and insufficient mechanism for securing meaningful accountability. The process has not changed significantly since the 1920s when treaties had far less impact on domestic affairs and it gives Government too much discretion to act in ways which enable it to evade detailed scrutiny.

The report acknowledges that there is a balance to be struck between the flexibility the Government needs to negotiate and conclude treaties in the national interest and the transparency and scrutiny which the public interest requires.  However, while the treaty scrutiny procedure codified in the 2010 Act places some limits on the autonomy which the Government enjoys in international relations, the legislation tilts the balance too far in the Government's favour. The report finds that the UK scrutiny process is weak in comparison with most other countries.

The report concludes that there is a powerful case for legislative reform and calls on the Government to engage seriously in a dialogue with Parliament to about this.  Recognizing that legislative reform will take time, however, the report also recommends steps to make scrutiny under the current framework more effective provided the Government shows sufficient political will.

Chair's comments

 Commenting on the report, Lord Goldsmith KC,   who chairs the Committee said: 

“Treaties have the potential to raise matters of very great public importance such as trade agreements, the Rwanda Treaty and the recent agreement on the sovereignty of the Chagos islands.  Government has the power to negotiate and conclude treaties but it is important that Parliament can hold it to account effectively for its actions.”

Although other parliamentary committees have looked at the scrutiny process in recent years the International Agreements Committee is the only body in Parliament dedicated to treaty scrutiny and we have drawn on our unique perspective in conducting this inquiry.”

We have concluded that the treaty scrutiny process is in need of reform and that the Government’s defence of the status quo does not stack up. The Government should engage with Parliament in a serious discussion about how the process can be improved which strikes a better balance between the flexibility the Government needs to strike deals in the national interest and Parliament’s legitimate function in holding it to account.” 

The report

Key conclusions and recommendations of the report include:

• Length of time for scrutiny. In most cases, unless the Government grants an extension of the scrutiny period which it has done rarely, the statutory time limit simply does not allow Parliament to conduct an in-depth evidence-based review of a significant treaty. The Government should therefore agree to a reasoned request by the IAC for a single extension to the CRAG Act 2010 scrutiny period unless it gives reasons why such an extension is not operationally sustainable.
• The Government should set out the factors it takes into account when considering requests for extensions to the scrutiny period. This would give confidence that it is balancing the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of treaties appropriately against countervailing operational or policy concerns rather than being driven by reasons of political expediency.
• Scrutiny of implementing legislation is no substitute: The Government’s argument that Parliament does not need more time because it can scrutinise implementing legislation does not hold water. Parliament should have the opportunity to consider a treaty as a whole so it can consider the policy reasons for the UK becoming a party. Treaty scrutiny should precede the presentation to Parliament of implementing legislation.
• Improving the information flow to Parliament: The Government should provide Parliament with information about significant treaties at an earlier stage in order to facilitate more effective scrutiny. It should also improve cross-Whitehall coordination to enable the FCDO to provide the IAC with more accurate information about treaties coming for scrutiny.
• Explanatory Memoranda: Treaty EMs should be improved, in particular to make clear the reasons why the Government considers a treaty should be ratified.
• Embedding Government commitments: The Government should agree to codify its commitments on the operation of the treaty scrutiny process within the next 12 months to improve compliance by Government departments.
• Non-binding instruments: Given the trend towards increased use of non-binding instruments for politically significant matters, greater transparency is needed. The Government should establish a central registry of significant non-binding instruments and the texts of such instruments should also be transmitted to Parliament.
• Legislative reform: In the longer term there is a powerful case for legislative reforms, in particular to provide a requirement for Parliamentary to give its consent to significant treaties, including trade agreements. There is also a strong case for legislating to address the time allotted for parliamentary scrutiny of important treaties, the scope of scrutiny and the specific approach to trade agreements.