Select committee: International Agreements Committee
Recommendation 9
7th Report - Working practices: one year on
Published 17 Sep 2021
Paragraph 47
International Agreements Committee Working Practices: one year on All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Recommendation (the committee's words)
We are also concerned that, while the Government has offered a series of additional commitments in letters, consultations and on the floor of the House, including ‘the Grimstone Rule’, these have been subject to frequent and iterative change and have not been consolidated or formalised. As matters stand, any scrutiny that occurs is essentially in the gift of the Government of the day. The Government should also clarify whether, and to what extent, the commitments made in respect of new agreements also extend to (a) new agreements with existing trade partners, and (b) agreements that, short of being full free trade agreements, seek to deepen economic relationships or contain trade rules.
From: International Agreements Committee, 7th Report - Working practices: one year on, paragraph 47, 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.