Treaty Scrutiny in Westminster (International Agreements Committee Report)

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, page 8 of our report states baldly that

“governments since 2019 have not listened to Parliament”

in respect of treaty scrutiny at Westminster. So the question before us is, “Does there exist, as is stated in the report, an accountability gap?” Further, do the Government recognise that such a gap exists? If so, are they prepared to respond positively to meet that gap? In short, will they deal with it, with the aim of strengthening parliamentary oversight? Alas, the answer is, “Only marginally, if at all”. The Committee will be disappointed by the Government’s somewhat Panglossian reply to the report.

I recall being a young diplomat in about 1961 and hearing a joke doing the rounds among colleagues. It was a spoof draft for Ministers replying to the recommendations of a parliamentary committee: a model, all-purpose response. I still remember some parts of the suggested reply. “We are most grateful to the committee. We welcome and pay tribute to its hard work, which has made a valuable contribution to our consideration of the subject. We commend its expertise and wisdom and have examined with great care its conclusions. But Rome wasn’t built in a day and we aim to continue to work closely with the committee in a positive dialogue”.

As I read the preamble to the Government’s response, I detected echoes of that spoof from more than 60 years ago. It is of course true that the Government have made some limited advances, but, overall, when I read their response, I saw the echoes of that earlier spoof. The response states:

“The Government respects and values the work of the Committee … The Government has carefully considered the report … the Government is keen to work with the Committee … progress can be made in many areas by the Government and Committee engaging in more dialogue and by working together to improve working practices … The Government does not believe, however, that there is a strong case for more fundamental reform”.


It is very disappointing, but not wholly surprising.

I have made selective quotes, but, essentially, the Government have rejected the committee’s recommendations on the basis that the provisions of CRaG continue to strike “the right balance” between the Government and Parliament, albeit with very limited concessions, and that Parliament has all the tools necessary to do the job of scrutiny. Essentially, we leave by the door through which we entered, and the Government seem wedded to the status quo. I think it is unnecessary to examine each part of the recommendations. That has been done in a very legal and good way by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and other contributors. The only jarring bit has been an element of the rehashing of the EU debate with the magnificent obsession with the EU of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley.

I will make two final observations. The first is that I was somewhat heartened by the different spirit, the more positive spirit, of Secretary Kyle when he appeared before the committee. I only wish that we could nail that spirit to clear undertakings for the future. He recalled that he had been extremely frustrated as a Back-Bencher in respect of the Government and implied that he was sympathetic to the work of this committee. My final observation is that, if a firmer base is not established, this will be seen as another missed opportunity to fill what we see as the accountability gap, because Parliament and our committee are unlikely to have another chance to raise this issue in this Parliament. Hence, this may be the one and only opportunity in this Parliament to make the democratic advance in scrutiny advocated by the committee.