17
Deferred
House of Lords should ideally scrutinise treaties before House of Commons approval vote.
Conclusion
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 the House of Lords carries out scrutiny and holds a debate and vote on a treaty prior to that which will take place in the House of Commons under the amended legislation, so that the views of that House can be taken into account when the elected chamber votes on whether to approve a treaty.
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.
Paragraph Reference
70
Government Response
Deferred
Government Response
Deferred
HM Government
Deferred
It is for the House of Commons to consider the merits of establishing a committee to sift treaties before referring them to other committees for closer scrutiny. The Government would draw its attention to the setup adopted in comparable systems, particularly Australia and New Zealand. In Australia there is a Joint Standing Committee on Treaties of both Houses of the Australian Parliament. In New Zealand the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee acts as the sifting committee, which distributes treaties laid to the relevant subject matter select committee in the New Zealand Parliament for consideration. 8 Government Response
Source
Inquiry
The Scrutiny of International Treaties and other international agreements in the 21st century
Report
Second Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of International Agreements in the 21st century
29 Jan 2024
HC 204
Timeline
Recommendation age
2.3 yrs
Report published
29 Jan 2024