Calls for a Debate. Several members have called for a Parliamentary debate on the proposed amendments to the MDA. On 10 September 2014 Xxxxxx Xxxxxx argued in the House: The mutual defence agreement between Britain and the USA on the sharing of nuclear information, originally signed in 1958, comes up for renewal this year. There is no date set for Parliament to debate it, and apparently the Government do not seem terribly keen on that, yet Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx sent a message to Congress on 24 July saying that he approved of the renewal of the agreement and hoped that Congress would approve it. If it is good enough for Congress to debate the mutual defence agreement, surely it is good enough for us to debate it as well.22 He also tabled EDM 153 in June 2014 which states: 19 Under the Ponsonby Rule treaties requiring ratification were laid before the House for period of 21 sitting days. Under the rule successive governments undertook to submit “important treaties” to the House for discussion within the 21 sitting days, although only a few were debated in this way. Since 2000 successive governments have also provided the opportunity for the debate of a treaty involving major political , military or diplomatic issues if the relevant select committee and the Liaison Committee so requested. 20 See HL Xxx 22 June 2004, c1119. Prior to that in 1994 the then amendment to the MDA was discussed in the House but only within the context of the Consolidated Fund Xxxx (HC Xxx 15 December 1994, c1236 onwards) 21 Sitting days are those on which both Houses sit.
Calls for a Debate. Several members have called for a Parliamentary debate on the proposed amendments to the MDA. On 10 September 2014 Xxxxxx Xxxxxx argued in the House: The mutual defence agreement between Britain and the USA on the sharing of nuclear information, originally signed in 1958, comes up for renewal this year. There is no date set for Parliament to debate it, and apparently the Government do not seem terribly keen on that, yet Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx sent a message to Congress on 24 July saying that he approved of the renewal of the agreement and hoped that Congress would approve it. If it is good enough for Congress to debate the mutual defence agreement, surely it is good enough for us to debate it as well.22 He also tabled EDM 153 in June 2014 which states: That this House notes the expiration later in 2014 of the 10-year extension to the US- UK Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA); understands that the role of MDA is to improve UK atomic weapon design; believes that the extension of this bilateral treaty undermines US and UK commitments under Article I and Article VI of the 1968 Non- Proliferation Treaty, which states that each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty shall not transfer nuclear weapons or explosive devices and shall pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament; is concerned that the Government does not see a potential conflict of interest between the MDA and the NPT; and urges that a debate be held in Government time on any proposal to renew the MDA prior to ratification. In response to Mr Corbyn’s comments on 10 September the Home Secretary, Xxxxxxx Xxx, stated that “in accordance with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Xxx 0000, proposed amendments will be laid before Parliament for scrutiny later in the year”.23 However, as outlined above the Government is not obliged, under the new arrangements, to hold a debate or a vote prior to ratification. The onus will be on the Commons and the Lords to pass resolutions opposing ratification should they so wish.
