Treaty Scrutiny in Westminster (International Agreements Committee Report)

Lord Johnson of Lainston Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, we have already sung the praises of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and I am delighted to do so again in relation to this excellent report and his chairmanship of this committee over the past few years. I also commend the team who put a huge amount of effort into creating the report, which I think people have found enormously useful. It is very powerfully written.

It is 100% clear that the current process of treaty scrutiny falls far below what is expected in a democracy and what is seen to operate in other countries, such as Australia. I am embarrassed to quote Bagehot. I have taken him from the other side, because he is clear in my view that the prerogative of treaty making lies with the Executive, which I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, was referring to. He is correct that the work of making an agreement with another country or multinational body is indeed the work of the Executive. However, these agreements are central to the policy-making and laws of this country, and it is also the prerogative of Parliament—I think he is quite clear about that—to scrutinise the work of the Executive post the treaty’s creation and before it can be properly ratified.

The issue we have is not with the Executive’s role, but with the absurdly short time—which is very clearly demonstrated in this report and has been mentioned by numerous similar committees over many years—given to us to properly assess the validity of any agreements that we as a nation enter into. In my mind, effective scrutiny ensures a better thought-through process. It can actually aid negotiations, and publicise and bring popular support and awareness to the treaties themselves—an issue which I think noble Lords and the Government will acknowledge as vital if they are to be used properly by businesses and people at large.

I am not naive enough to suggest that the Government will change the CRaG process any time soon. In my time as a Minister, the officials—around whom much is designed, I am afraid to say—were equally forceful in their position. But can the Minister assure us that the Government will make as much additional effort as possible to ensure that we have as much transparency and warning as possible for treaties that do not gain the extended CRaG timeline, as FTAs do?

I have been extremely grateful for the engagement the Minister has given me personally on this matter. I met today the FCDO chief legal officer, who was also extremely helpful in trying to ensure that there is an elasticity around the interpretation of concepts such as transparency and pipeline. However, it would be good to have some details on that and some firmer commitments in terms of where we can get extensions and how the other parts of the process can fit together.

My second request is for the Minister to write to me with answers to the following two questions, unless she has them to hand. I am interested in finding out how many treaties we have signed but not yet ratified. This is not unimportant, since it will help us to understand the flow of work for the IAC and to see how we are progressing on executing the broad international agreements plans. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, has already referred to the fact that we are aware of, and indeed in many instances encourage, other kinds of non-binding agreements entered into by Ministers with other countries and bodies. They can be very useful tools for engagement. How many of these types of agreements are there? What sectors do they cover? What has been the effect, positive or negative? I think this is a very serious issue and I am sure the Minister is curious about the answers to this question.

Treaties and agreements are central to our foreign policy—indeed, trade and defence is diplomacy—but we are unsure about the efficacy of our overall plan. Indeed, do we have one? Do we have a foreign or trade policy other than simply to try to do as much as possible? I recommend that the Government develop a plan as rapidly as possible. I do not believe we had such a plan under the previous Government. I mention this because the situation with the WTO and, indeed, our relationship with the USA over the situation in Iran only emphasise the problems we face without a proper idea of where we are heading and why. To this end, the IAC is planning on writing a report that focuses on the changing world order—sadly not for the better, in my view—and in particular on how our trade instruments, which we have just mentioned, both binding and non-binding, and the various treaties and agreements we use, make us as a nation stronger and richer. I hope the Government will support this report and take note of whatever we produce.

I worry that we are entering a phase of global affairs where international law is seen as some sort of woke, left-wing agenda to hinder a nation’s ability to self-govern, and that on principle we should ignore findings or rulings we dislike and withdraw from the international trade system where it suits us. In my mind, this is very dangerous. We are a trading nation and we need to fit within a global order in order to prosper. The nature of treaty scrutiny fits entirely within this. Parliament has to be in a position to endorse the actions taken on our behalf by the Government, and I ask the Minister to take our findings in the report we are presenting today very seriously. If the Government do not, it will lead to further erosion of the systems and structures that, in my view, have allowed us to dominate international trade and have kept us safe from conflict for 70 years. As Hobbes, the philosopher, wrote, a world without enforceable laws is a miserable and unpredictable one, where the arts and industry cannot flourish. That is why I commend this report to the Committee.