Select committee: International Agreements Committee
Conclusion 4
7th Report - Working practices: one year on
Published 17 Sep 2021
Paragraph 21
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)
We also intend to change the way that international agreements are reported to the House and debates are requested. When drawing an agreement to the special attention of the House we will either (a) explicitly recommend the agreement for debate, or (b) set out specific concerns and ask the Government to respond to these prior to the agreement being ratified. We hope that this change will be of assistance to both Members and the business managers in the House.
From: International Agreements Committee, 7th Report - Working practices: one year on, paragraph 21, 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.