Select committee: International Agreements Committee
Conclusion 13
7th Report - Working practices: one year on
Published 17 Sep 2021
Paragraph 59
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 have consistently noted that the information we are provided with regarding the Government’s consultation with its devolved counterparts and the devolved legislatures is unsatisfactory. While we accept that the negotiation of international agreements is a reserved competence, many agreements have a significant impact on devolved competencies and the system should be more transparent and consultation timely. We welcome the Government’s changes to its guidance on Explanatory Memoranda and hope that the new guidance will ensure that the concerns we have raised are addressed.
From: International Agreements Committee, 7th Report - Working practices: one year on, paragraph 59, 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.