Post-Brexit common frameworks

Common frameworks are innovative mechanisms for developing UK-wide policy by collaboration and consensus between the four administrations, taking account of the interests of each part of the UK. They strengthen the Union by acknowledging the interdependence of policy between administrations, while recognising the autonomy of each administration in its areas of competence through the possibility of divergence on the basis of consent.

Although progress on common frameworks has been delayed by other Brexit preparations and the response to COvID-19, they have still demonstrated the ability of the UK Government and devolved administrations to work together to achieve their shared interests. Common frameworks represent an example of best practice for positive cooperation across the UK and have an important role to play in an evolving devolution settlement and in strengthening the Union.

Common frameworks create new processes for day-to-day cooperation between the four administrations on a wide variety of policy areas. They can and should be used to build consensus with the devolved administrations and develop a coherent approach to policy across the UK. Frameworks to date have not established minimum standards, though they could be used to create these in the future, and in some cases create joint processes for regulating certain areas. While these are technical agreements that have not yet been tested, this work on a range of specific policy issues provides the essential building blocks needed to establish a functioning cooperative Union.

To date, the UK Government has provided limited justification for its decision to take ‘no further action’ in 121 policy areas and for its belief that a common framework is not needed. This is particularly concerning for those areas where a common framework was initially envisaged, and which therefore met the criteria established in the JMC Principles. We recommend that the UK Government should publish a short justification for each policy area where it has decided to take ‘no further action’, on the basis that no common framework is currently necessary, with reference to the agreed JMC Principles.

Common frameworks are weakened by the lack of inclusion of external stakeholders and should have been transparent from their inception. We were told that this process has been less transparent than the EU system it has replaced. Greater transparency could have been achieved through the publication of framework summaries during the initial development of each common framework and having an open stakeholder consultation process that reached out beyond the ‘usual suspects’.

We recommend that the UK Government should make up for the lack of involvement of stakeholders in the initial development of common frameworks by revising them based on stakeholders’ feedback. Future reviews of the frameworks should include an open and well-publicised stakeholder consultation process that reaches beyond the small number of stakeholders previously consulted, so as to ensure that all those directly affected have a meaningful opportunity to contribute.

We acknowledge that most common frameworks have not been agreed by the northern Ireland Executive, but that should not have prevented the UK Government from being substantially more open throughout the process. Detailed summaries of the frameworks or draft frameworks could have been published for committees and stakeholders to engage with, as was done with the Hazardous Substances (Planning) framework.

Despite almost all common frameworks being operational since the end of the transition period, only three were published before 1 January 2021. The fact that the vast majority of these frameworks have been active for three months without being published underscores the lack of transparency of the programme. We recommend that, in future, the UK Government should publish frameworks as they are agreed or amended, and that where new frameworks are developed, it should publish draft framework documents as early as possible in the process to allow for comments from stakeholders.

The fact that the northern Ireland Executive has yet to approve 21 frameworks, of which six deal exclusively with cooperation between the UK Government and the northern Ireland Executive, is extremely regrettable. It is undesirable for common frameworks to be active without the backing of all four elected administrations across the UK. It has also meant that parliamentary committees across the UK have been unable to scrutinise these important agreements, even though they are already operational.

Divergence between northern Ireland and Great Britain is likely to have negative consequences for businesses throughout the UK. In order to maintain the integrity of the UK internal market, the UK Government should seek to minimise this divergence. This principle applies to the common frameworks process regarding the other three parts of the UK and should equally apply to changes that are introduced through the Protocol on Ireland/northern Ireland.

The scope for regulatory flexibility in northern Ireland is constrained by the terms of the Protocol on Ireland/northern Ireland, in a way that the other parts of the UK are not. The UK Government should ensure that policy changes introduced through the Protocol, following decisions jointly agreed between the UK and EU at the Joint Consultative Working Committee, are subject to discussion between the relevant parties. We recommend that these changes are considered by ministers in the same manner as divergent policy changes suggested by other administrations of the UK are considered through common frameworks.

Under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, the Office for the Internal Market will report on the functioning of the UK internal market. However, there is no such provision for reporting on the effects of regulatory divergence between northern Ireland and the rest of the UK arising from the Protocol on Ireland/northern Ireland. As jointly owned documents, frameworks provide an appropriate forum for agreeing reporting on this divergence. We recommend that frameworks that include a major intersection with the Protocol should include processes for reporting on the divergence that occurs and its effects, and that the results of these should be forwarded to the EU for information.

The market access principles in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 could constrain the ability of the devolved administrations to regulate effectively in areas of devolved competence, as it is possible that their standards could be undercut from other parts of the UK. This would occur by the importation of goods and services from other parts of the UK that adhered to standards different from those of the administration concerned. The same also applies for the UK Government when legislating for England. This could be contrary, rather than complementary, to the approach taken in common frameworks, which can allow for intra-UK divergence as long as it is agreed by all parties to the framework.

Under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, the Secretary of State is granted powers to exempt divergence agreed under common frameworks from the market access principles. We recommend that the UK Government should work closely with the devolved administrations to develop a consistent and transparent process for using these powers. It should then update the relevant frameworks to state clearly how and when they will agree exemptions from the market access principles.

Evidence suggests that relations between the four administrations of the UK are in a particularly poor state, and that UK intergovernmental relations need to be reset. We recommend that this reset should be based on the consensual approach taken in common frameworks with the involvement of all three territorial offices, identifying areas of shared interest and demonstrating mutual respect.

Common frameworks all contain processes for avoiding and resolving disputes. However, if a dispute cannot be resolved within an individual framework, the issue can be escalated to the dispute settlement process outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding on Devolution. We heard concerns about the power imbalance that exists in this process, with the UK Government both representing the interests of England and acting as the ultimate arbiter in disputes.

We welcome the publication of the Dunlop report, as we consider the reform of UK intergovernmental processes to be an essential part of building a cooperative Union. We also welcome the fact that the progress update of 24 March 2021 on the review of intergovernmental relations acknowledges the need for there to be greater capacity for providing impartial support and evidence to inform discussions, as well as providing options for remedies, when seeking to resolve disputes.

The common frameworks programme was developed by the four administrations of the UK; a process for parliamentary scrutiny was included only as an afterthought. While the UK Government suggested that parliamentary committees should only have 21 sitting days to scrutinise individual frameworks, following the end of the transition period this has become an unnecessary and arbitrary deadline. Although we will endeavour to work with UK Government departments to conduct timely scrutiny, we reserve the right to extend our scrutiny beyond 21 sitting days if required.

Parliamentary scrutiny of common frameworks will need to continue even after they have been finalised to ensure that important policy decisions are made transparently. Parliamentary committees will need to have information on how the individual frameworks are operating in their respective policy COMMOn FRAMEWORKS: BUILDInG A COOPERATIvE UnIOn 51 areas, as well as on the common frameworks programme as a whole. We recommend that, to facilitate this, the four administrations should provide regular updates to their legislatures and publish reports as part of their planned reviews of the frameworks.

As joint agreements between the four administrations of the UK, common frameworks provide a clear opportunity for closer cooperation between the four legislatures of the UK. This could facilitate the sharing of information and ideas, and enable legislatures to hold their governments to account more effectively. As part of this, the House of Lords and its committees could play a valuable role in providing a neutral forum for receiving the views of devolved legislatures and facilitating closer interparliamentary cooperation.

We recommend that all relevant frameworks are updated to include text referencing the exclusions process. We also recommend that the UK Government ensures the process adheres to the guidance published in December 2021, operates efficiently, and in full cooperation with the devolved administrations. The Subsidy Control Act 2022

We recommend that the UK Government considers how legislation it brings forward might conflict with relevant common frameworks, impede their successful operation, and affect the health of the Union. Decisions made between the four administrations via a common framework should take priority in areas where the Subsidy Control Act is relevant. Resetting intergovernmental relations

We recommend that, as part of the regular reviews on the ongoing functioning of frameworks , exercises are carried out on all frameworks that interact with the Protocol in order to assess their ability to cope with divergence. The results of these exercises should be published in planned regular updates on the ongoing functioning of frameworks . Information sharing

We recommend that all common frameworks that intersect with the Protocol are updated to ensure frequent information sharing between parties to the framework on forthcoming EU legislation. We recommend that planned regular updates on the ongoing functioning of frameworks should include updates on this monitoring work. The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

We recommend that the Government carefully considers how the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill may impact the operability of common frameworks. Engagement with the Republic of Ireland

We recommend that the Cabinet Office should hold sole responsibility for the central coordination of common frameworks in order to maintain profile, credibility, and coherence across Government.

We recommend that the size of the central team in the Cabinet Office should be kept under review. Any future needs required for the successful delivery of the programme should be adequately resourced. Failure to meet the timetable

We recommend that the number of working groups needed in frameworks, and their relationships with one another, are reviewed to ensure the processes outlined operate efficiently. The number of working groups required should be minimised to what is necessary to ensure efficient but robust operation.

We recommend that all frameworks should include a clear flow diagram to show the relationship between all working groups mentioned in the framework.

We recommend that all frameworks should include clear terms of reference for all working groups. 171 Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, Common frameworks: building a cooperative Union (1st Report, Session 2019–21, HL Paper 259), para 33 172 Q 55 (Prof Michael Keating) 173 Q 69 (Sean Kelly) 174 Cabinet Office, An update on progress in Common Frameworks: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/814326/Frameworks_Products_Update_.pdf [accessed 28 April 2022] 175 Q 209 (Martin Jones and Clare Boam) 176 Q 209 (Martin Jones) 177 Q 210 (Clare Boam) 178 Q 209 (Clare Boam) 179 Letter to Baroness Andrews, Chair of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, from George Eustice MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, 15 March 2022: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/ 9443/documents/161314/default/ 180 Letter to George Eustice MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, from Baroness Andrews, Chair of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, 23 March 2022: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/9441/documents/161305 /default/ 181 Q 243 (Neil O’Brien MP) 182 Department of Health and Social Care, The Blood Safety and Quality Provisional Common Framework , CP 517, (December 2021): https://assets .publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data /file/1047799/The-Blood-Safety-and-Quality-Provisional-Common-Framework -web-accessible.pdf [accessed 27 April 2022] and Department of Health and Social Care, The Organs, Tissues and Cells (apart from embryos and gametes) Provisional Common Framework , CP 516, (December 2021): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system /uploads/attachment_data/file/1047802/The-Organs-Tissues-and-Cells -apart-from-embryos-and-gametes-Provisional-Common-Framework-web-accessible .pdf [accessed 27 April 2022] 183 Letter to Edward Argar MP, Minister for Health, from Baroness Andrews, Chair of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, 23 November 2021: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/7962/documents/82284/default/ 184 Dr Julie Cavanagh, Convener at the Faculty of Public Health in Scotland; Mark Dayan, Policy Analyst and Head of Public Affairs at Nuffield Trust; and Ian Rees, Manager in the Inspectorate Strategy and Innovation Unit at the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (see Appendix 2). 185 QQ 103–116 (Dr Julie Cavanagh, Mark Dayan, Ian Rees) 186 Letter from Baroness Andrews, Chair of Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee to Lord Callanan, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, 2 February 2022: https://committees.parliament.uk /publications/8719/documents/88451/default/ 187 Letter to George Eustice MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs from Baroness Andrews, Chair of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, 6 April 2022: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/9604/documents /162450/default/ 188 Article 16 consists of the process for taking safeguard measures if either the EU or UK concludes that the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland is leading to economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are likely to persist. Such measures could include suspending parts of the Protocol. 189 Letter to George Eustice MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, from Baroness Andrews, Chair of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, 23 March 2022: https://committees. parliament.uk/publications/9439/documents/161298/default/ 190 Letter to George Eustice MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs from Baroness Andrews, Chair of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, 4 March 2022: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications /9156/documents/159642/default/ 191 Letter Baroness Andrews, Chair of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, from George Eustice MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, 7 March 2022: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/9442/documents/161309/default/ 192 Ibid. 193 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Fisheries Management and Support Common Framework , CP 616, (February 2022): https://assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/1054476/fisheries-management-provisional-common-framework.pdf [accessed 6 June 2022] 194 Quote taken from letter to George Eustice MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, from Baroness Andrews, Chair of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, 6 April 2022: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/9605/documents/ 162454/default/ . See also letter to George Eustice MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, from Baroness Andrews, Chair of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, 23 March 2022: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/9439/documents/161298/default / 195 HM Government, Animal Health and Welfare Common Framework , CP 590, (February 2022): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1052057/animal-health- and-welfare-provisional-common-framework.pdf [accessed 6 June 2022] 196 Letter from George Eustice MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to Baroness Andrews, Chair of Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, 7 March 2022 https://committees.parliament. uk/publications/9442/documents/161309/default/ 197 Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs, Fertilisers common framework , CP 595, (February 2022), p 6: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government /uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1052048/fertilisers-provisional-common -framework.pdf [accessed 6 June 2022] 198 Letter to George Eustice MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs from Baroness Andrews, Chair of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, 23 March 2022: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/9591 /documents/162407/default/ 199 Letter to George Eustice MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs from Baroness Andrews, Chair of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, 6 April 2022: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/9604/documents/162450/default / 200 Q 294 (Tom Cartlidge) 201 Q 294 (Sue Gray) < Back Next > © Parliamentary copyright 2022 A-Z index Glossary Contact us Freedom of Information Jobs Using this website Copyright Privacy notice Cookie policy Cookie Manager House of Lords - Common frameworks: an unfulfilled opportunity? - Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee Accessibility Email alerts RSS feeds Contact us Home Parliamentary business MPs, Lords & offices About Parliament Get involved Visiting Education House of Commons House of Lords What's on Bills & legislation Committees Publications & records Parliament TV News Topics Common frameworks: an unfulfilled opportunity? Contents Chapter 7: Transparency and parliamentary scrutiny Transparency on ‘no Framework required’ areas

We recommend that the Frameworks Analysis Report is updated to reference the JMC Principles when providing justifications for why certain areas have been designated as ‘no Framework required’. Stakeholder consultation

We recommend that the four administrations should review the 2017 Communiqué after all provisional frameworks have been finalised. It should be updated to reflect more accurately the full nature of the common frameworks programme and their ambitions for future intergovernmental cooperation. Depending on how successfully common frameworks operate in their current form, this may include placing greater emphasis on agreeing joint policy direction.

We recommend that all provisional frameworks are reviewed before they are finalised to ensure that they align with the JMC Principles. The Cabinet Office must ensure that all departments make an active effort in their drafting of frameworks to place sufficient focus and importance on the JMC Principles.

We recommend that the Office for the Internal Market makes clear in its statutory reports exactly how in practice it takes into account devolved policy autonomy when advising on, and assessing, the impact of policy divergence agreed through common frameworks on the UK internal market.

We recommend that a solution be found to publish and finalise the outstanding frameworks while there is no properly functioning Northern Ireland Executive. All resources should be deployed within Government to ensure this happens as a matter of urgency.

We recommend that the current process for reviewing frameworks is strengthened with explicit responsibility given to the designated team in the Cabinet Office to ensure consistency, where appropriate, across the programme.

We recommend that all of the drafting errors we have highlighted in our scrutiny are corrected, and all provisional frameworks are reviewed to check for factual errors, textual omissions, and drafting problems. The current process for proofing and reviewing frameworks must be strengthened as a matter urgency.