Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

I agree with the sentiments of the amendment, but I have a slight problem with the timing. Where the amendment states that there should be""a copy of the treaty and, at the same time… an explanatory memorandum"," I would raise the issue of ratification, to which I shall return later. Ratification means different things in different constitutions. If ratification takes place after the legislation has gone through and the expression "at the same time" has not enabled the explanatory memorandum to be provided before the discussion in Parliament of the treaty and, where necessary, the legislation arising from it—this is a technical issue, but an important one—the information in the explanatory memorandum would not necessarily be available at the right time to enable people to consider whether the treaty should be ratified or whether any subsequent legislation should be passed. This is not a difference of principle, but a matter of chronology and timing. I want the explanatory memorandum to have maximum value well before the ratification. I have tabled certain amendments, which I shall deal with indirectly, relating to whether both ratification and signature are necessary to ensuring a proper analysis of the consent required by Parliament to the proposals in a given treaty. Signature is important, but ratification could—and given the UK experience of dualism, it probably would—take place later. For reasons I have explained, more attention needs to be given to the words "at the same time". I believe that "when the proposal first comes forward" would better ensure that we get the chronology right.