Lord Callanan (Con)

My Lords, I was developing a point about the Government’s refusal, under the Ponsonby rule, to grant a debate in the House of Commons on the Diego Garcia Bill. Their refusal to do that prevented the ratification of the treaty, making the CRaG Act, in essence, worthless in that respect. Of course, this principle was not just outlined by Sir Arthur Ponsonby so long ago; it was also repeated in the House of Commons by the then Europe Minister, Chris Bryant MP, a member of the current Government. At the time, he said: “If Members—whether Front Benchers or Back Benchers—sought to debate a motion, the Government would ensure that there was a debate within the time”. He went on: “I hope that I have reassured the House that the Commons would always have the right of veto, should it choose to implement it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/1/10; cols. 216-18.] Following the passage of the CRaG Act, we have learned that these assurances were empty words, in a sense, and that the Government have ditched a Labour principle that lasted almost a century. I have tabled a Written Question on this point; perhaps the Minister might be kind enough to answer it today. Do the Government still consider themselves bound by the Ponsonby rule in full? If they have decided to abandon it, that may be defensible, but what is not defensible is the lack of transparency around this apparent, fairly major change in government policy—if, indeed, that is what has happened. I hope that the Minister will clarify that in her remarks at the end. Turning to some of the wider points made by the committee, there may well be a case for extending the period in Part 2; I agree with Members who spoke on that matter. Greater transparency around decisions to extend that period would be extremely useful. The example of the Australian and New Zealand practice of publishing a national interest analysis alongside a treaty is also convincing, and I hope that Ministers will look at that proposal closely. The New Zealand approach to sequencing, which the committee highlighted in its report, is also a very sensible proposal. We agree with the committee that sequencing is important, but I gently ask whether a rule is needed on this. Does Parliament not already have the necessary procedural tools at its disposal to ensure proper sequencing in respect of treaty ratification if the House of Commons, in particular, chooses to use those powers? Finally, I again thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the rest of the committee for this extremely useful report on this important topic, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.