. There was a perception that Parliament is treated as a rubber stamp in treaty-making processes. . Late submissions of international agreements/treaties by departments for consideration by Parliament. . Parliament was not afforded enough time to duly scrutinise and consider treaties tabled. . Parliament itself has no framework or common approach for dealing with treaties. It has an uncoordinated system where each committee deals with relevant treaties the way it deemed fit. . Parliament could not make changes to a negotiated treaty; can only note concerns; it is limited to reservations whose effect is not even clear. . Each agreement relinquished policy space. . There was no definition of what constituted 'reasonable time' within which the Executive should be compelled to table agreements in that do not require Parliament's approval for noting (section 231(3)). . There was no analysis as to which laws would be affected or impacted upon by a treaty to be entered into. . The currently used Explanatory Memorandum did not give all the necessary information; it lacked a National Interest Analysis (NIA). . There was inadequate capacity to deal with treaties in Parliament. The institution was slowly building potential capacity in the form of Content Advisers and Researchers to assist committees in these matters.