Recommendation 1

HM Government Rejected

The Government will always seek to accommodate a debate where a request for one is made in a timely manner and subject to Parliamentary time. The Government has kept the public and Parliamentarians informed of the progress of the UK’s accession. For example, the Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Act has been debated extensively in both houses. In the House of Lords, it saw its Second Reading on 21 November 2023, Committee Stage on 7 and 14 December, Report Stage on 16 January, and Third Reading on 23 January. In the House of Commons, the legislation had its Second Reading on 29 January, Committee Stage on 20 February and had its Report Stage and Third Reading on 19 March. The legislation received Royal Assent on 20 March. Outside of the Trade (CPTPP) Act, there have been five debates on CPTPP including two Oral Ministerial Statements, and officials and Ministers have appeared before Select Committees five times. The Government is clear that a general debate is the appropriate mechanism for Parliament to debate new trade agreements. The Government agrees that it is important that Parliamentarians are able to fully consider new trade agreements and that the Government is able to hear their views. The Government considers that the existing treaty scrutiny framework allows for this, and for robust and flexible scrutiny of relevant treaties. It does not include an automatic substantive debate but does ensure Parliament has time to scrutinise an agreement and section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 provides for the ability to resolve against ratification where it is the will of the House. A Government commitment to guaranteed substantive debates under CRaG would fundamentally alter the nature of the scrutiny framework, undermine the Royal Prerogative, and remove flexibility.