Treaties: Parliamentary Scrutiny (Hansard, 13 February 1997)

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, it is for both Houses to consider whether to set up a parliamentary Select Committee. However, we do not consider that it is necessary to introduce additional measures to scrutinise treaty-making.

§ Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware that there is widespread welcome of the fact that the Government have recently changed their practice to provide more information to both Houses before they ratify international treaties? Is she aware also that that pleasure is marred by disappointment that the Government are unwilling to set up specialised scrutiny machinery of the kind established so successfully in, for example, Australia through a joint parliamentary committee and of the kind which exists so successfully in this House to scrutinise European legislation and treaty-making under the third pillar? Is the Government's position obdurate or will they remain open-minded on the subject to improve parliamentary accountability?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, the Government are in no way obdurate on this matter. 325 As the noble Lord knows, we have opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny. The noble Lord brought forward a Bill which we debated. It was eventually withdrawn because we decided on a policy of bringing forward explanatory memoranda about treaties before those treaties came into effect. The noble Lord will know that in the House of Lords, it is for the Procedure Committee to decide whether additional scrutiny mechanisms are appropriate. I refer the noble Lord to the House of Lords Select Committee report on the committee work of the House of February 1992 which, at paragraph 123.1 decided, on balance, at the time, not to recommend the appointment of a committee which could have done that sort of work although the steering committee might review the proposal from time to time. We do not believe that it is necessary to move in the way that Australia has; indeed, our own procedures are closely mirrored by the Australian reforms introduced last year. I believe that we have a good system which is now coming into effect. The first of the explanatory memoranda under the system is due in a few weeks' time. Let us at least see how that innovation works before suggesting that we move to the next change.

§ Lord Bridges
My Lords, is not the noble Lord, Lord Lester, right to suggest that we need a more methodical way of examining foreign treaties which the Government submit to the House for approval? While the new method which the noble Baroness has introduced with the explanatory memoranda is extremely welcome, will she recognise, on reflection, that our present method of examining such documents is really rather perfunctory in that they appear listed in the daily Minutes of Proceedings of the House but are not subjected to any form of corrective examination? Will the Minister be so kind as to reconsider the matter with a view to discussions taking place in the Procedure Liaison Committee in due course? I should make it clear that I am not suggesting that we need a full-blown Select Committee on foreign relations. I concur entirely with the recent judgment of the Select Committee on the matter.

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I know of the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, in the matter. Of course the whole question was examined during the procedures of the Committee on the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, proposed. I believe that it would be sensible to see how the new explanatory memoranda system works. It is a supplement to the Ponsonby Rule; it came into operation only on 1st January this year. It will provide an efficient and a workable method of bringing to the attention of Parliament the main features of treaties without the need for additional machinery.
However, if the Procedure Committee in this or another place decides that there should be greater scrutiny, that can be done. It is a matter for both Houses to decide. At present we are just embarking on a new process. Let us at least see first whether that works before moving on to 326 some other procedure which may not be necessary and which may waste the valuable time of your Lordships and Members of another place.

§ Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, in view of the extremely vigorous defence of our belief in free speech and in parliamentary accountability given by the Minister in answer to the previous Question today, perhaps I may add my voice to the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. As the Minister will be aware, the Government's own position in either welcoming or discouraging such a move is very important as regards the proceedings of the Procedure Committee and possibly the Liaison Committee. Given the fact that several European parliaments have the right to discuss treaties on the basis of committee findings, and in view of the fact that the European Parliament itself has such a right, can the Minister say, on reflection, whether she will consider that this ancient House of Parliament should at least have the same right as other parliaments in the European Union?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, each parliament has to do what is right for that parliament. The explanatory memoranda system is in line with openness. That is one thing I believe we should try. However, as the noble Baroness will undoubtedly know, parliamentary legislative action may be required before a treaty is ratified for certain specific classes of treaty—for example, those which require modification of existing law or taxation; those that require new and additional powers for the Crown; and those that increase the powers of the European Parliament.
Let us live with what we have at present. If that does not work satisfactorily, I am quite certain that the Procedure Committees of both Houses will be willing to re-examine the matter. We are taking one step forward. Let us at least give it a try and not dismiss it as unworkable before we have even started.

§ Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, as I believe the Minister is aware, we on this side of the House welcome the Government's response to the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I confirm that we accept that there is a case for trying out the new system. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to say that it is a matter for both Houses of Parliament as to whether or not we set up a Select Committee. However, does she not agree that if we want to see greater transparency and accountability, there is a case for coming back and considering whether we need a Select Committee once the new system has been tried?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her acceptance of my response. I simply say, yes; I agree with her. Let us see how it works. The Procedure Committees in both Houses can return to the matter if it is not seen to be working in the way in which I certainly intend it to work; namely, with a policy of openness, assisted by the explanatory memoranda, on all treaties before they are ratified.