Treaty Scrutiny in Westminster (International Agreements Committee Report)

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, like others, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for so ably introducing this debate and setting out the findings of his committee. It is indeed a thought-provoking and timely report, and the committee is right that Parliament should be given a full opportunity to scrutinise the terms of the Government’s treaties with other nations. I also particularly enjoyed the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. If I was not so afraid of the results, I would be tempted to look back through Hansard at the number of times that I as a Minister might have used some of those phrases in reports before the House. I suspect the results would not be good, so I probably will not.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, outlined, the current position is that His Majesty’s Government make treaties under the royal prerogative, and foreign policy more generally is the responsibility of the King’s Ministers. Of course, Members of Parliament may seek to bind the Secretary of State to recognise a state, as with the Palestinian Statehood (Recognition) Bill, and parliamentary committees may seek to recognise states, as the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee did in 2023 when it declared that Taiwan is already an independent country under the name “Republic of China” and it possesses all the qualifications for statehood. I probably agree with the second statement rather than the first.

Even though I profoundly disagree with the current incumbents, it is, in my view, Ministers who ought to decide these matters. We have to protect the role of the Government to ensure that Ministers are able to respond to the challenges and give leadership on the world stage. Again, although I believe that the current crop does not do that, they should have the right to do so once elected. Changing that fundamental principle by shifting power from the Government acting under the prerogative to Parliament would, in my view, be unworkable. We agree with the Government that there is not a strong case for more fundamental reform of parliamentary scrutiny.

Parliament may of course scrutinise, challenge and deny the Government the necessary implementing legislation—as indeed we are seeking to do at the moment on a treaty of which I will not remind the Minister lest she roll her eyes again—but it may not overrule His Majesty’s Government in their exercise of the prerogative in signing a treaty. By that, I do not mean to say that Parliament’s sovereignty is limited—the Crown is of course sovereign in Parliament—but there is, in practice, no mechanism available to Parliament to veto a treaty. I hope that the Committee will bear with me for a second as I develop that point.

The introduction to the committee’s report gives a useful background to the Ponsonby rule of 1924, which was referred to earlier, but its description of the rule is incomplete. The committee is correct to say that the Ponsonby rule requires the Government

“to lay treaties before the House after signature for a period of 21 days”,

but has neglected to recognise that, as reported in Hansard on 1 April 1924, Arthur Ponsonby went on to say:

“as the Government cannot take upon itself to decide what may be considered important or unimportant, if there is a formal demand for discussion forwarded through the usual channels from the Opposition or any other party, time will be found for the discussion of the Treaty in question”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/4/1924; cols. 2004-05.]

The laying of treaties before the House is just one part of the Ponsonby rule, and it is unfortunate that the committee failed to reflect that in its report. I know that I have previously explained this point; I looked at it in detail for our debates on the Diego Garcia Bill.

While I am on that point, I also note that the committee dubiously claims that:

“until recent times Parliament on the whole paid little attention to treaties laid before it by the Government”.

Given the amount of parliamentary time devoted to debates on the treaty of Rome, the Maastricht treaty and the Lisbon treaty in the past, I find that claim slightly vague.

When the aforementioned Diego Garcia base treaty was laid before the House of Commons, a request for a substantive debate was made through the usual channels by the Opposition, but on that occasion the request was denied. That decision by this Government was in clear breach of the commitment by Arthur Ponsonby on behalf of the Labour Government at the time, albeit over a century ago.

Where the Government refuse to grant time for a debate on a substantive Motion in the House of Commons, as they have done in this case, the provisions in Section 20(3) to (6) of the CRaG Act, which set out the process by which the House of Commons may prevent the ratification of a treaty, become, in essence, worthless.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I was developing a point about the Government’s refusal, under the Ponsonby rule, to grant a debate in the House of Commons on the Diego Garcia Bill. Their refusal to do that prevented the ratification of the treaty, making the CRaG Act, in essence, worthless in that respect.

Of course, this principle was not just outlined by Sir Arthur Ponsonby so long ago; it was also repeated in the House of Commons by the then Europe Minister, Chris Bryant MP, a member of the current Government. At the time, he said:

“If Members—whether Front Benchers or Back Benchers—sought to debate a motion, the Government would ensure that there was a debate within the time”.


He went on:

“I hope that I have reassured the House that the Commons would always have the right of veto, should it choose to implement it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/1/10; cols. 216-18.]


Following the passage of the CRaG Act, we have learned that these assurances were empty words, in a sense, and that the Government have ditched a Labour principle that lasted almost a century.

I have tabled a Written Question on this point; perhaps the Minister might be kind enough to answer it today. Do the Government still consider themselves bound by the Ponsonby rule in full? If they have decided to abandon it, that may be defensible, but what is not defensible is the lack of transparency around this apparent, fairly major change in government policy—if, indeed, that is what has happened. I hope that the Minister will clarify that in her remarks at the end.

Turning to some of the wider points made by the committee, there may well be a case for extending the period in Part 2; I agree with Members who spoke on that matter. Greater transparency around decisions to extend that period would be extremely useful. The example of the Australian and New Zealand practice of publishing a national interest analysis alongside a treaty is also convincing, and I hope that Ministers will look at that proposal closely.

The New Zealand approach to sequencing, which the committee highlighted in its report, is also a very sensible proposal. We agree with the committee that sequencing is important, but I gently ask whether a rule is needed on this. Does Parliament not already have the necessary procedural tools at its disposal to ensure proper sequencing in respect of treaty ratification if the House of Commons, in particular, chooses to use those powers?

Finally, I again thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the rest of the committee for this extremely useful report on this important topic, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sorry that I did not manage to conclude what was left of my speech before the Division Bells rang, slightly earlier than we expected. There is an important debate on media to follow, so I will not take too much longer.

The Government believe that the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 continues to provide a suitable and proportionate framework. However, the FCDO’s treaty unit will continue to work with the committee and its secretariat to ensure that our ways of working best deliver the balance between efficient executive function and accountability. I will consider further the issue of multilateral and plurilateral agreements. We very much welcome the committee’s continued engagement and I once again thank my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith for tabling this debate.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, do the Government still consider themselves bound by the Ponsonby rule?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I answered that in saying that I did not know why the debate in the other place, which the noble Lord thought the answer to that question hinged on, did not take place. I thank noble Lords for their contributions.