Blog

How should Parliament scrutinise new treaties?

22 Jan 2024
Home Secretary James Cleverly MP negotiates an asylum partnership agreement with Rwanda, 6 December 2023. ©@JamesCleverly
Home Secretary James Cleverly MP negotiates an asylum partnership agreement with Rwanda, 6 December 2023. ©@JamesCleverly

Today, for the first time in its history, the House of Lords will discuss a motion that the Government should not ratify a treaty until the protections it provides have been fully implemented: the UK-Rwanda Agreement on an Asylum Partnership. How Parliament deals with treaties has long been the subject of debate. A new report on Parliament's role in scrutinising international agreements offers some practical proposals for reform.

Alexander Horne
Holger Hestermeyer

Alexander Horne

Alexander Horne

Alexander Horne is a barrister and visiting professor at Durham University. He was previously a senior parliamentary lawyer and was the first legal adviser to the International Agreements Committee.

Holger Hestermeyer

Holger Hestermeyer

Holger Hestermeyer is professor of international and EU law at the Vienna School of International Studies and a door tenant at Monckton Chambers. He worked on treaty scrutiny as a specialist adviser to the House of Lords EU Select Committee.

Get our latest research, insights and events delivered to your inbox

Subscribe to our newsletter

We will never share your data with any third-parties.

Share this and support our work

A new report on Parliament’s role in scrutinising international agreements has been published today by the Centre for Inclusive Trade Policy. In it, we set out a number of proposals for reform which we believe would significantly improve the practice of treaty scrutiny.

The report, which follows on from a year long research project in which we spoke to many of the main players in Parliament, sets out to describe the development and current state of affairs of UK treaty scrutiny and, from there, advance realistic proposals for improvement. These would allow for a greater involvement of Parliament in treaty-making, improving transparency and legitimacy.

Currently, Parliament’s role in treaty making is limited to scrutinising treaties under the provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG). This Act partially codifies, and to a limited extent progressively develops, the ‘Ponsonby Rule’ relating to the ratification of treaties (a convention which dates back to 1924). It is under section 20 of this Act that the House of Lords motion on the UK-Rwanda Agreement has been made.

CRAG requires new international agreements subject to ratification to be laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days and requires the Government to provide explanatory memoranda about new treaties. It also provides the House of Commons with a theoretical device to delay the ratification of new treaties. But it does not make any specific provision for scrutiny. Nor does it provide for any route to a debate, or vote, rendering this power of delay essentially illusory, given that the Government controls parliamentary time.

Since the introduction of the Ponsonby rule, almost a century ago, the scope, depth and mechanics of commitments under international agreements have changed considerably. Trade agreements are emblematic of this change: agreements once focused on tariffs on the trade in goods now encompass detailed regulatory obligations, ranging from intellectual property law to subsidies. They often set up treaty bodies with the power to develop the treaty in some limited manner.

In light of these changes, the former chair of the International Agreements Committee, Baroness Hayter, has concluded that the existing legislation on treaty scrutiny is “not fit for purpose”.

In the new report, we argue that the changed landscape of international agreements challenges the UK treaty scrutiny system in two ways.

First, it raises questions regarding legitimacy. Parliaments play an important role in the democratic legitimation of international agreements, including free trade agreements. Many jurisdictions require a parliamentary consent vote on some treaties, including trade agreements (often in the form of an up-or-down vote). The current UK system fails to provide that legitimacy. The report shows that Parliament’s involvement in scrutinising treaties and in passing implementing legislation no longer suffices in the light of the way modern treaties are drafted and implemented.

Second, the complexity of modern treaties imposes pragmatic challenges for treaty scrutiny. Over time, it has become evident that these expansive modern free trade agreements cannot be examined in a meaningful way under the current system.

The need to replace the EU’s trade agreements provoked some reform of internal parliamentary procedures in the UK. However, the framework for scrutiny is still inadequate, particularly in the House of Commons, which has no real dedicated scrutiny mechanism in place. Although the government has made a number of post-Brexit commitments concerning the scrutiny of new free trade agreements, it is doubtful whether these go far enough to provide adequate accountability and they do not apply to other significant treaties which do not relate to trade.

In 2020, Parliament established a formal treaty scrutiny mechanism in the House of Lords European Union Committee. In January 2021, this became a stand alone select committee: the International Agreements Committee (IAC). The IAC has now gained considerable experience in handling treaties and we believe that the time has now come to learn from this experience and reform the UK treaty scrutiny system to properly bring it into the 21st century.

In the report, we have proposed a number of reforms to improve the practice of treaty scrutiny.

These recommendations consist of five main elements:

  1. systematic scrutiny of treaties in both Houses of Parliament;

  2. the introduction of a parliamentary consent vote in the House of Commons for significant treaties, particularly new free trade agreements (FTAs);

  3. ensuring the early involvement of Parliament, starting with the negotiating mandate for FTAs;

  4. broadening the list of documents subject to scrutiny (to include certain Memoranda of Understanding and amendments); and

  5. to cope with the increased workload, introducing a sifting mechanism (that would be conducted in a new Sifting Committee in the House of Commons and continue to be conducted in the IAC in the House of Lords) to identify treaties requiring thorough parliamentary engagement.

Reform of this sort would not just strengthen the legitimacy of treaties the UK becomes a party to, it would also have the potential to improve outcomes and thereby benefit the UK as a whole.

A. Horne & H. Hestermeyer (22 January 2024), How should Parliament scrutinise new treaties? (Hansard Society blog)

Blog / Once again, there is still no alternative: the costed proposals for Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster

The Restoration and Renewal Client Board’s latest report once again confirms what Parliament has known for nearly a decade: the cheapest, quickest and safest way to restore the Palace of Westminster is for MPs and Peers to move out during the works. The “full decant” option was endorsed in 2018 and reaffirmed repeatedly since. Remaining in the building could more than double costs, extend works into the 2080s, and increase risks to safety, accessibility and security. With the Palace already deteriorating and millions spent each year on patchwork repairs, further delay would itself be an expensive course of action, one that defers decisions without offering a viable alternative.

07 Feb 2026
Read more

News / A Humble Address: How MPs confronted the Mandelson scandal - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 130

It has been a bruising week for the Prime Minister after the House of Commons backed a Conservative “Humble Address” demanding documents on Sir Keir Starmer’s vetting of Lord Mandelson for the Washington Ambassadorship. We explain how the procedure works, what role the Intelligence and Security Committee may play in decisions on disclosure, and how legislation to strip a peerage could be introduced. Plus, the latest on the Restoration and Renewal of Parliament as yet another report lands with a new set of costings. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

06 Feb 2026
Read more

News / Why MPs can’t just quit: The curious case of the Chiltern Hundreds - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 129

Why can’t MPs simply resign, and why does leaving the House of Commons still involve a medieval-sounding detour via the Chiltern Hundreds or its less glamorous cousin the Manor of Northstead? This week we unravel the history, constitutional logic and legal fudges behind this curious workaround, with some memorable resignations from the past along the way. We also assess the Government’s legislative programme as the Session heads toward its expected May close, including the striking lack of bills published for pre-legislative scrutiny. Finally, as Parliament begins the five-yearly process of renewing consent for the UK’s armed forces, we examine why an Armed Forces Bill is required and hear from Jayne Kirkham MP on how her Ten Minute Rule Bill helped extend the new Armed Forces Commissioner’s oversight to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

01 Feb 2026
Read more

News / Assisted dying bill: How could the Parliament Act be used? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 128

As the assisted dying bill grinds through the House of Lords under the weight of more than a thousand amendments, Lord Falconer has signalled that time is running out. With the Bill unlikely to complete its Lords stages this Session, he has openly raised the possibility of using the Parliament Act to override the upper House in the next Session. In this episode we explore what that would mean, how it could work in practice, and the political choices now facing ministers and Parliament. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

30 Jan 2026
Read more

News / Who really sets MPs’ pay – And why you might be wrong about it. A conversation with Richard Lloyd, chair of IPSA - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 126

What are MPs actually paid and what does the public fund to help them do their job? In this conversation with Richard Lloyd, chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) we explore the delicate balance between supporting MPs to do their jobs effectively and enforcing strict standards on the use of public money. We discuss how IPSA has shifted from a rule-heavy “traffic cop” to a principles-based regulator, why compliance is now very high, and the security risks and pressures facing MPs‘ offices as workloads rise and abuse becomes more common. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | ACAST | YouTube | Other apps | RSS

21 Jan 2026
Read more