Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

I beg to move amendment 114, page 12, line 38, leave out"'a copy of the treaty'" and insert— '(i) a copy of the treaty and, at the same time, (ii) an explanatory memorandum explaining the background to the treaty, the Minister's reasons for proposing to ratify it, and the reasons for any reservations or interpretative declarations that the Minister intends to enter on ratification,'. May I draw Members' attention to the report on the Bill by my Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights? It was published yesterday as part of our scrutiny. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), mentioned all the other Committees that have considered the Bill when he spoke on the programme motion, but omitted ours from the list. The purpose of the amendment is to give effect to part of our report on scrutiny, and in particular to try to make the scrutiny of treaties rather more effective. The new statutory procedure for the ratification of treaties is based on the Ponsonby rule. The treaty has to be laid before Parliament for a period of 21 sitting days. As a human rights Committee, our Committee has a particular interest in scrutinising international treaties prior to ratification. The problem of a lack of effective parliamentary scrutiny is particularly pressing for human rights treaties, as it is well established that UK courts will have regard to such treaties in a wide range of circumstances, regardless of whether they have been incorporated into UK law. If a statute is capable of bearing two interpretations, the courts will presume that Parliament intended to legislate in conformity with the convention, and not in conflict with it. If the common law is uncertain, unclear or incomplete, the courts will rule, wherever possible, in a manner that conforms with the treaty. When the courts are called on to construe a domestic statute 19 Jan 2010 : Column 188 enacted to fulfil an obligation under a treaty, the courts will ordinarily assume that the treaty was intended to be effective to that end. Where the courts have a discretion to exercise-where they can act in one way or another-they seek to act in a way that does not violate treaties that we have signed. When, as sometimes happened, the courts are called on to decide what, in a given situation, public policy demands, it is held to be legitimate that we should have regard to our international obligations.