Treaty Scrutiny in Westminster (International Agreements Committee Report)

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, it is very welcome that we have, in the space of a fortnight, two chances to debate committee reports from one of our most senior committees—I say that as a recent member of it. I find it is often the case that the House does not see the work going on in committees; we should see more of it, and it is good to do so today. I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith for his excellent introduction and, of course, for his chairmanship in the time that he was on this committee.

The problem at the heart of this debate is how we should balance the current right of the Government to negotiate treaties and to ratify them using the royal prerogative against the rights that Parliament has, or should have, in all other policy matters. In the past, treaties were largely concerned with war, peace and international policy more generally but, today, trade policy is growing in importance, not just because of its return to the UK, having previously been dealt with by the EU Commission and EU Parliament but, most importantly, because it is evident that modern trade deals increasingly bring with them changes to a wide range of domestic policies. As we know from recent experiences in what is agreed outside parliamentary sight in bilateral trade discussions and, as referred to already, as we have seen in treaties such as Rwanda and the Chagos Islands, it is often necessary to look at collateral changes that follow in primary legislation. This impacts directly on existing terms and processes.

In short, treaties, whatever form they take, are drivers of policy and are as important to the people of this country as changes foreshadowed in manifestos. As these treaties and trade deals shape who we are as a nation, it surely follows that Parliament should examine them to the same standards as primary legislation. Our report lays out why the current arrangements are not as comprehensive, and certainly not as complete, as they should be. Parliament should have a major role to play in this process, one that can and will aid the Executive as they set up the trade agreements and make the treaties that are so urgently needed if we are to secure growth and prosperity in the future. It is very disappointing that this Government—my Government—are following the lines set by the previous Administration and seem unwilling to improve trade treaty scrutiny. Previous speakers have stressed how bad the current arrangements are. I wonder why we cannot have a workaround—I will propose one later in my speech—which would give us time while new legislation is being proposed.

My suggestion goes back to the discussions that led to the Grimstone rule during what is now the Trade Act. I led the Opposition Front Bench in the debates on that Bill, which lasted over three years, and I proposed the rule when it became clear that we were having difficulty in finding a way to engage Parliament. There was then, as now, no appetite to amend the procedures under CRaG. I now suggest that some variation of the Grimstone rule might be needed here. That rule sets up a process under which, when treaties are being contemplated, the IAC gets information about the negotiating rounds, documents that describe the Government’s strategic approach and periodic reports, as well as sight of the draft before it is finally ratified. This works well and could easily be implemented for all treaties, because it gets around the problem we explained in the report: when it comes to the formal approval process under CRaG, the strict timetable and limited powers of the two Houses do not give Parliament the time and authority that it needs.

As we say in our report:

“the scrutiny process under the CRAG Act is a weak and insufficient mechanism for securing meaningful parliamentary accountability… Scrutiny of implementing legislation is no substitute for treaty scrutiny”.

A balance clearly has to be struck between the flexibility that the Government need to negotiate in the national interest and the transparency and scrutiny that the public interest requires. The CRaG Act does not get the balance right, because the Government have too much discretion to act in ways that lead to the evasion of detailed scrutiny, including by refusing to grant adequate time for Parliament to examine and debate treaties. There is therefore a strong case for legislating in this area, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. In the interim, perhaps we could introduce the Chapman rule.