Select committee: International Agreements Committee
Conclusion 3
7th Report - Working practices: one year on
Published 17 Sep 2021
Paragraph 20
International Agreements Committee Working Practices: one year on All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Conclusion (the committee's words)
Our scrutiny criteria need to be updated now that the Government’s post-Brexit trade continuity programme has been completed. In particular, criterion (b) (which relates to rolled-over trade agreements) is no longer relevant and will be deleted. The remaining criteria for scrutiny have worked well and will be retained, save for a wording change to criterion (e), which now reads “that further consultation is necessary, including with the devolved administrations”.
From: International Agreements Committee, 7th Report - Working practices: one year on, paragraph 20, 17 September 2021
Government response
The government responded to the whole report on 8 February 2022.
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.The Government welcomes the Committee's continuing scrutiny of treaties but, on the main structural questions, maintains that the existing scrutiny arrangements are appropriate.
- On trade agreements, it "does not agree" that more needs to be done, believes current scrutiny is "appropriate in light of the UK's constitutional settlement", and will "continue to review this position" as the first new FTAs are scrutinised.
- It does not believe "now is the right time" to consolidate its commitments into a formal concordat, saying formalising them would prevent flexible adaptation to lessons learned.
- On the Australia FTA, it "intends to publish" the final treaty as an unnumbered Command Paper with a draft Explanatory Memorandum and impact assessment "at the earliest opportunity following signature", and anticipates at least three months before laying under CRaG.
- It "disagrees" with the Committee's conclusion that CRaG is insufficient, considers Part 2 of CRaG "an appropriate legislative framework", and does not agree with the Committee's three specific reform proposals.