SECOND SPECIAL REPORT
The Procedure Committee has agreed to the following
Special Report:—
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE SECOND REPORT
OF THE COMMITTEE: PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY OF TREATIES
On 27 July 2000 the Procedure Committee published
their Second Report of Session 1999-2000, Parliamentary Scrutiny
of Treaties, HC 210. We have now received a response from the
Government which is reproduced below:
Government Response
The Government welcomes the Procedure Committee's
inquiry as a valuable contribution to the debate on the Parliamentary
scrutiny of treaties. The points raised and the recommendations
put forward by the Committee in its report are addressed below.
The Way Forward
Paragraph 29: We are
not convinced that there is a strong case for a Commons sifting
committee set up specifically to deal with treaties on either
technical or political grounds.
This is principally a matter for the House of
Commons. The Government does not disagree with the conclusion
reached by the Procedure Committee after its extensive inquiry
and consultation of Select Committee Chairmen. The Government
remains open to considering ways of contributing to efficient
and effective Parliamentary scrutiny of treaties and welcomes
the Procedure Committee's commendation of action taken by the
FCO to do so.
Paragraph 30: While
we reject the idea of a Commons sifting committee, we believe
that Lord Wakeham's proposal of such a committee in the reformed
House of Lords may have merit.
This is primarily a matter for the House of Lords,
but that House will doubtless wish to consider the arrangements
for the scrutiny of treaties in the House of Commons when making
any decision.
Paragraph 31: We believe
that the appropriate role for the Commons in relation to the scrutiny
of treaties is to draw upon the established expertise of the departmental
select committees.
The Government agrees that the departmental select
committees have demonstrated their expertise in examining treaties
falling within their remit and that it makes sense to draw upon
this.
Paragraph 32: We believe
that other select committees should be encouraged to develop expertise
in this field. We accordingly recommend that the FCO should send
every treaty subject to ratification, along with its explanatory
memorandum, to what it adjudges to be the relevant select committee.
It would then be for that committee to decide whether to take
further action on particular treaties, whether by holding informal
discussions with the lead Department, consulting with other select
committees, or taking formal evidence and reporting to the House.
The Government accepts this recommendation. The
FCO will ensure that a copy of each Command Paper and accompanying
Explanatory Memorandum (EM) for treaties laid before Parliament
under the Ponsonby Rule is sent to what the FCO judges to be the
relevant departmental select committee. It would then be for the
lead committee to decide whether the Command Paper and EM might
be more relevant to another committee or relevant to more than
one committee and to pass it on accordingly.
In accordance with the Ponsonby Rule time for
consideration of a treaty by a select committee should normally
be within 21 sitting days, but in cases where a committee wished
to conduct an inquiry that was likely to take more than 21 days,
it is open to a committee to ask for an extension. The Government
would aim to respond positively to such requests provided circumstances
permit and cases are justified.
Paragraph 33: The
process of scrutiny of treaties should not terminate with the
production of a select committee report. Adequate opportunity
for debate on the floor of the House is an essential part of the
process. We therefore recommend that the Government should give
the following undertaking: that if a select committee requests
that a debate should be held on the floor of the House before
ratification of a treaty involving major political, military or
diplomatic issues, either on a substantive or a non-substantive
motion, and if that request is supported by the Liaison Committee,
then that request would normally be acceded to. We believe that
such an undertaking would be within the spirit of the original
Ponsonby Rule, and would represent a sensible modernisation of
the Rule to adapt it to the increased role of select committees
in the scrutiny process.
The Government is happy to undertake normally
to provide the opportunity for the debate of any treaty involving
major political, military and diplomatic issues, if the relevant
select committee and the Liaison Committee so request. It agrees
that this would be a useful development of the Ponsonby Rule.
The form of the debate will remain a matter for the Government,
although it will of course take the views of the Committee concerned
and of the Liaison Committee into account. As the Committee notes,
there are some circumstances in which treaties are already subject
to proceedings in Parliament. The Government sees no need to provide
extra opportunities for debate on such treaties, although the
Government would welcome any Report from a Committee which could
help to inform that debate.
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
31 October 2000
| 
