I have two points for my hon. Friend. He says that there is a risk of too much detail being given, but the phrasing of the amendment does not give rise to that risk. It simply requires the background to the treaty, the reasons why we should ratify it and, most importantly, the reasons for any reservations or interpretative declarations, if there are any, to be published. That is particularly important, as we saw when we considered the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. My hon. Friend asked why a requirement for an explanatory memorandum should be laid down in statute in this case but not in others. The short answer is: the time limit. There is a clear time limit of 21 days under the Ponsonby rule, which does not apply in the other circumstances in which explanatory memorandums are published, such as those for Bills.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Andrew Dismore
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 19 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
504 c195 Session
2009-10Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-11 09:56:39 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617384
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617384
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617384