Treaty Scrutiny in Westminster (International Agreements Committee Report)

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Government in response to this debate. I am well aware of the poacher-turned-gamekeeper nature of the response that I am about to give. I remember saying something very similar to what the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, shared with us earlier. I probably said it to the noble Lord opposite, regarding some implementing legislation around Brexit, and I definitely said it in the other place when we were debating various approaches to the Brexit negotiations between 2016 and 2019. It is important that we all approach this in the spirit of openness and candour. I very much enjoyed what my good noble friend Lord Anderson had to say; it was almost as though he was reading from my script.

Having said all that, I have in my mind what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said; I always enjoy his speeches. He said that he did not anticipate a surprising reaction from the Government today, but that he was looking for empathy for the arguments made. He will get that. It is one thing to complain about a process while in opposition, or even to read the excellent report conducted by the committee; it is very different to hear the arguments made in the way that we have this afternoon. I admit that when I first saw this debate in my diary I thought, “Well, that’s an afternoon”, but it has been a really interesting and engaging opportunity. All noble Lords here are people I have found myself debating on various sides of both Chambers over quite a few years now. There is a band of—mostly—brothers who are interested in this topic. I will take forward with empathy the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

The Government’s position today is what it is, but that does not mean that it can never change and things cannot evolve over time; they often do. Some of that is in the hands of those who want to see change and depends on how effective they are at corralling the argument and drawing others to their cause. Let us see how noble Lords here get on in the next few years.

I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith for tabling this debate and to all members of the committee who have taken part. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for his work as chair until January this year. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, to his role. It was good to meet him and discuss some of these issues in anticipation of this debate, and I very much look forward to working with him as we go forward.

As many noble Lords have said, treaties are a cornerstone of the international system. By turning aspirations and commitments into legally binding obligations, they provide the certainty that states, institutions and individuals need for stability, security and prosperity. Scrutiny is, as noble Lords have said, a vital part of the process. The Government—this is where I get into the speech made by my noble friend Lord Anderson—respect and value the committee’s role. The committee’s report raised a number of key issues. The Government’s response—I completely hear how disappointed some members of the committee have been in it—was clear, if somewhat disappointing to some. We want to address the issues where possible. We think some progress can be made without legislation.

I was asked about the number of treaties that are signed but not ratified right now. I do not know the answer to that. I would like to know the answer to that. One thing that we could do to assist the committee in the future is to be clearer about the pipeline of agreements that are coming so that it can anticipate better. I think that would be a helpful thing that the Government could and should do, so we are taking some steps in response. We are committed to ensuring that the committee has better sight of forthcoming treaties. The FCDO’s treaty unit is working with committee secretariat staff on a more robust system to ensure that the secretariat has a clearer picture of the pipeline of treaties to be laid in Parliament. We hope that this will help the committee in planning its work.

We have also committed to updating the template used for Explanatory Memorandums, which we are now doing in consultation with the committee secretariat. That should help on the devolved Administrations issue as well. This Government have a very clear desire to improve the way that we work with our devolved Administrations and Parliaments. That template might assist, in a small way, in making sure that that happens more effectively. It should help departments focus on the information most useful for scrutiny, such as a clear articulation of the UK’s national interest in becoming a party to a treaty. The updated guidance will also encourage departments to explain any implications of a treaty for devolved functions and the consultation carried out. It will also encourage departments to provide advanced information about treaties that the committee is likely to be interested in. This includes sharing the text of such treaties with the secretariat after signature, unless policy considerations prevent it. Actions such as these should help the committee to make better use of the 21-sitting-day scrutiny period. These actions reflect the evolution of treaty working practices. They add to earlier arrangements relating to trade agreements—the Grimstone commitments—instigated under my noble friend Lady Hayter’s time as chair, but clearly my noble friend Lord Stevenson also had an important role to play in that.

The noble Lord, Lord German, asked about cross-Whitehall and how the FCDO works with other departments on their treaties. My most recent experience is the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction treaty. That policy area was led by my friends in Defra. They hold the policy expertise but, because it is a treaty, we took the parliamentary lead. There are cross-Whitehall processes, there are write-rounds; lots of people will have an opinion about whether we should do something like that. In that case, it was relatively straightforward because it had a long lead-in time, there was good awareness of the issues around it and widespread support. I do not have a huge amount of experience of how that would work when it would be more contentious, but I would anticipate that, if there were a serious objection to the UK entering into some sort of negotiation around a treaty, that process would be used to make sure that those issues were resolved before the United Kingdom took any steps towards becoming a signatory.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, said that implementing legislation is not a substitute for scrutiny. This is an important point, and I think he is right. It is not. When there is implementing legislation, noble Lords often do not feel that they have had adequate opportunity to take part in a debate prior to that; or perhaps they did, but some time has elapsed. Often, during implementing legislation, you find yourself debating whether you should do the treaty in the first place and having to say that actually we have already voted on that. It can make it slightly confusing for those trying to participate and to shape what happens.

This is a really interesting point. I do not think that implementing legislation is a substitute, as it can help to tease out some of the misgivings around a particular treaty. This is not an irrelevant point to make, but I do not think that legislation would ever be seen entirely as a substitute for scrutiny. We understand the appetite for changing scrutiny procedures. The procedures specified under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—this goes to another point made by my noble friend Lord Anderson—strike a balance between the critical role in Parliament in scrutinising treaties and the Executive’s right to negotiate for the United Kingdom internationally.

However, there is clearly a strong sense among many parliamentarians that this balance is not right. I can commit to thinking about this matter some more; I cannot commit to changing it, but I hear where noble Lords are coming from. Even though this is not a priority for the Government to change immediately, Governments should not ignore these strong feelings when they come from their fellow parliamentarians. It is good to commit to considering this further, although I must be straightforward with noble Lords this afternoon that the Government are not in a position of wanting to revisit this issue or make any legislative change.

As it is, the CRaG Act gives Parliament the power to vote against ratifying treaties, and Parliament can of course use other mechanisms, such as Questions, to hold the Government to account. The statutory framework allows the Government to speak clearly, with a single voice, on behalf of the United Kingdom—this is important; former Ministers have pointed to it relatively recently as something that they have found to be of value, and I would tend to agree with that—and retains flexibility to enable the UK to act nimbly. In a world that is becoming more complex and fast-moving, we should not underestimate the importance of this. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said about grim official gatekeepers or gamekeepers; that was a bit harsh, if I may say so, but I heard the noble Lord’s argument and his desire for change.

Noble Lords had a lot to say about debates and votes. The Government accommodate committees’ requests for debate during the scrutiny period where they can. In the case of the 100-year partnership treaty with Ukraine, for example, the Government extended the scrutiny period to enable a debate to be held. In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, I do not know why the other place declined to offer the debate that was sought on the British Indian Ocean Territory treaty. However, requiring an affirmative vote on treaties would risk limiting the Government’s flexibility to negotiate treaties effectively. I note what noble Lords have said on this matter and expect that it will continue, as it should, to be a subject of interest and consternation to noble Lords. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who called the process miserly and inadequate; it sounds like it would have been him, as it was a very eloquent way of putting things. On the other side of it, is it appropriate and flexible? That is really the nub of what we are trying to resolve.

On the 21-day scrutiny period, which several noble Lords spoke about, the Government will of course properly consider requests for an extension to the scrutiny period on a case-by-case basis. This is slightly different from the requests made by the committee. I am happy to take this away. Sometimes deadlines need to be agreed by either side in a treaty and we need to move at pace to fulfil international obligations, but it is a fair challenge. We set out in our written response how we will approach these requests. We will consider carefully other factors raised by the committee and the length of extension it requests. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord German, about whether 21 days is enough for devolved Administrations to consider these things.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was particularly concerned about international comparisons. The UK approach is broadly in line with countries with similar parliamentary systems. The UK Parliament has the same length of time to scrutinise a treaty as the Parliament of Canada, and more than those of Australia and New Zealand. The EU’s scrutiny arrangements will be different because it is a multinational organisation with 27 countries, so one would expect them to take a very different form.

I differ in substance on non-legally binding instruments. The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, asked a fascinating question about how many of these things there are. I do not even know how many I have signed, and I have been a Foreign Office Minister for almost two years. They are an incredibly useful diplomatic tool. They are not legally binding because they do not contain anything particularly contentious in terms of policy. They are about shared history and values, respecting the rights of women, agreeing to work together on supporting indigenous people to save the rainforest, the sorts of things that Parliament would not want us to be constantly presenting to it. Nevertheless, how many there are is a fascinating question. We may have to decline to give the noble Lord an answer on the grounds that it would take too long to find out, but a department-by-department inquiry might be made. I will think about it and work out how we could give a more helpful answer.

Non-legally binding instruments can contain important policy content and should be treated in the same way as other expressions and statements of existing government policy. They are not about new policy. Where they raise questions of public importance, the Government may need to bring them to the attention of Parliament. There is a question about the process for that and whose judgment it is. There have been elaborate sifting committee mechanisms to do this. I am not sure that that is what Parliament really wants to do, but if it is, it should say so. It could be done in a variety of ways. We often use Written Ministerial Statements for these kinds of instruments. As I say, they are not binding and they have a very different status and standing with states and organisations.

To conclude, this debate has demonstrated a shared belief in the critical role of Parliament in scrutinising international treaties. It has highlighted a range of views on how that scrutiny should work in practice, although I would not want to say that that was an evenly balanced—

--- 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.