Trade agreements and human rights

#32 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: The EU’s systemic approach to including human rights clauses in its free trade agreements provides an example of how the UK’s approach to trade could be used to project British values abroad. (Conclusion, Paragraph 194)

Response attribution not verified

#30 —

International Relations and Defence Committee

Recommendation: The UK Government should promote a sustainable approach to UK investment in the Arctic, including by directing potential investors to the Arctic Investment Protocol and the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (the Ruggie Principles).

Gov response: Agree 30. The Government has a clear vision for a prosperous Arctic where economic and commercial development is achieved in a way that is safe, responsible and sustainable. We welcome UK business looking to invest …

Position Not Stated

#9 —

European Affairs Committee

Recommendation: We are concerned about growing evidence that Russia has been able to circumvent sanctions through third states and uninsured shadow tanker fleets. We welcome the Government’s efforts to address this, in cooperation with our partners and allies, and in the …

Response attribution not verified

#8 —

European Affairs Committee

Recommendation: The UK’s expertise in developing and implementing sanctions regimes is an asset which should be used more actively to support the capabilities of other countries, both EU and non-EU. The aim of sharing the UK’s experience should be to ensure …

Response attribution not verified

#7 —

European Affairs Committee

Recommendation: Nevertheless, we received persuasive evidence that sanctions are most effective when imposed and enforced by as wide a coalition of countries as possible. Divergence between sanctions regimes results in gaps and loopholes, which weakens their overall effectiveness. This, in turn, …

Response attribution not verified

#6 —

European Affairs Committee

Recommendation: We have received evidence indicating that some minor differences between UK and EU sanctions regimes have been justified in the context of the sanctions introduced since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We note that, as a country outside the EU, …

Response attribution not verified

#5 —

European Affairs Committee

Recommendation: We note that the current sanctions mechanism in the UK does not include a sanctions review mechanism akin to the EU’s sanctions review system. We ask the Government to explain in its response to this report why that is the …

Response attribution not verified

#13 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: We consider that our concerns about the compatibility of this Bill with human rights and international law relate to the Bill as a whole. We have not provided amendments designed to render the Bill compatible because any such amendment would …

Response attribution not verified

#12 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: The UK has a reputation for respect for human rights and the rule of law, of which we should be proud. Legislation that seeks to disapply or fails to respect international law risks damaging that reputation and encouraging other states …

Response attribution not verified

#11 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: The Government should provide a full explanation of why it considers the Bill to be consistent with the Windsor Framework and Good Friday Agreement before the Bill reaches Report stage in the House of Lords. (Paragraph 116) Safety of Rwanda …

Response attribution not verified

#10 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: We have heard serious concerns raised about the compatibility of the Bill with the Windsor Framework and the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, which guarantee human rights in Northern Ireland. The Government has not adequately explained why it considers those concerns …

Response attribution not verified

#9 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: Clause 5 of the Bill contemplates a Minister choosing not to comply with an interim measure and thus violating the UK’s international human rights obligations. It also prevents the domestic courts taking into account what may be a relevant factor …

Response attribution not verified

#8 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: We recognise that there are differences of opinion over whether or not interim measures ought to be binding on the United Kingdom. However, as a matter of international law, they are binding. Failing to comply with interim measures directed at …

Response attribution not verified

#7 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: The Human Rights Act 1998 is the cornerstone of human rights protection in domestic law. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has previously been critical of disapplication of parts of the HRA because it weakens human rights protections for particular …

Response attribution not verified

#6 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: Clause 4 of the Bill would mitigate the Bill’s impact by allowing for claims based on individual circumstances. It would not, however, make the Bill compliant with the Refugee Convention or with Article 13 ECHR because it would continue to …

Response attribution not verified

#5 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: Given that a declaration of incompatibility cannot affect an individual’s removal to Rwanda, we do not consider that it can meet the requirement of Article 13 ECHR that asylum seekers have access to an effective remedy with automatic suspensive effect. …

Response attribution not verified

#4 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: The overwhelming majority of the evidence we received supported the view that by denying access to a court to challenge the safety of Rwanda the Bill is not compatible with the UK’s international obligations, most obviously Article 13 ECHR – …

Response attribution not verified

#3 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: We have considered the Government’s evidence that Rwanda is now safe, but have also heard from witnesses and bodies including the UNHCR that Rwanda remains unsafe, or at least that there is not enough evidence available at this point to …

Response attribution not verified

#2 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: We have heard different views on whether the new treaty with Rwanda meets the Supreme Court’s conclusions as to the country’s safety. We recognise that, if complied with, the Treaty’s strict prohibition on the removal of any relocated individual to …

Response attribution not verified

#1 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: The principle that individuals cannot be removed from a country to face a real risk of persecution, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or death is a core principle of international law, to which the UK has committed itself on numerous …

Response attribution not verified

#37 —

International Agreements Committee

Recommendation: We call on the Government to monitor the impact of the Windsor Framework on Northern Ireland’s ability to benefit from CPTPP membership and on its ability to benefit from UK FTA tariff preferences more generally. (Paragraph 132) < Back Next …

Response attribution not verified

#36 —

International Agreements Committee

Recommendation: We believe Northern Ireland’s direct trade with CPTPP countries is likely to face restrictions that will not affect the rest of the United Kingdom and request further information from the Government on what it expects the impact of this restriction …

Response attribution not verified

#21 —

International Agreements Committee

Recommendation: The Government should work with other members on the accession of eligible countries which have demonstrated the appropriate commitments.

Response attribution not verified

#20 —

International Agreements Committee

Recommendation: The UK should support membership of countries which meet the accession principles: the ability to meet, implement and adhere to CPTPP standards and a track record of adhering to trade commitments.

Response attribution not verified

#17 —

International Agreements Committee

Recommendation: We regret the absence of a consumer chapter in CPTPP. Inclusion of such a chapter would be a valuable means of identifying and protecting consumers as key stakeholders to this agreement.

Response attribution not verified

#10 —

International Agreements Committee

Recommendation: We urge the Government to monitor closely the employment practices of our CPTPP partners and be prepared to act should it identify issues .

Response attribution not verified

#8 —

International Agreements Committee

Recommendation: We call on the Government to set out how it intends to address the potential risk of equivalence provisions leading to “regulatory chill”.

Response attribution not verified

#7 —

International Agreements Committee

Recommendation: We welcome the report from the Trade and Agriculture Commission stating that UK food and drink rules do not have to change as a result of CPTPP accession. We note however the potential risk of challenge to these rules in …

Response attribution not verified

#6 —

International Agreements Committee

Recommendation: In general, we welcome the good balance achieved between new market access for food exporters and access to the UK market, particularly as this issue was previously raised in relation to the trade agreement with Australia.

Response attribution not verified

#5 —

International Agreements Committee

Recommendation: We welcome the provisions in the side letter signed with Malaysia to support the growth of the UK automotive sector, but note the reservations of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. We call on the Government to set out …

Response attribution not verified

#62 —

International Agreements Committee

Recommendation: Like all treaties, the Agreement reflects a compromise between the views of the two Parties. It is not perfect. The cost to the UK taxpayer is high. The Agreement does not guarantee that Chagossians can return to the islands. There …

Response attribution not verified

#10 —

Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee

Recommendation: The Government should build on the existing achievements in the EPD and pursue four priorities: • cut the baseline tariff, using our recommended forced-labour legislation as grounds to argue the UK’s rate down; • secure, as a minimum, an operational …

Response status not verified

#4 —

Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee

Recommendation: The urgency of the Government’s responsible business conduct review has been underlined by the new US tariffs connected with forced labour. We reiterate our previous recommendation that the Government introduce mandatory human rights due diligence legislation and an import ban …

Response status not verified

#23 —

Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee

Recommendation: We recommend that the Government urgently seek to reach an agreement with the EU on steel tariffs before 1 July 2026 or as soon as possible thereafter, to minimise harm to domestic industries. We urge the Government to ensure UK …

Response status not verified

#22 —

Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee

Recommendation: The UK and the EU face shared challenges and risks to domestic steel production from global steel overcapacity. The Reset presents a clear opportunity for both sides to work together on addressing this issue, building upon the limited progress of …

Response status not verified

#55 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: The Government should implement the recommendation of the JCHR’s 2017 report. A civil cause of action of failure to prevent forced labour should be created, with the burden placed on the relevant corporation to prove that 82 they had adequate …

Response attribution not verified

#53 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: The Government should urgently address the omissions in the Solar Roadmap in relation to global supply chains and develop a viable strategy to address the risks of forced labour in the UK’s solar supply chain. In developing this strategy, government …

Response attribution not verified

#50 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: The risks of forced labour presented by the solar industry, which is a key element of the Government’s intended energy procurement programme, are not being effectively addressed. (Conclusion, Paragraph 255)

Response attribution not verified

#49 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: The Critical Minerals Strategy should outline specific steps that the Government will take to address the UK’s reliance on critical minerals which are sourced from regions with high risks of forced labour and child labour. (Recommendation, Paragraph 243)

Response attribution not verified

#48 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: The UK’s demand for imported critical minerals is highly likely to increase in the future as the green energy transition progresses. Based on the evidence we heard, the Committee is concerned that there is not a clear strategy for managing …

Response attribution not verified

#40 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: Public procurement carries a higher risk of exposure to forced labour. (Conclusion, Paragraph 211)

Response attribution not verified

#38 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: The Government should establish a regular, formal process to assess whether the obligations to uphold labour rights and human rights in trade agreements are being met. If breaches are found, the UK should have a policy of using dispute resolution …

Response attribution not verified

#37 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: The UK should not enter trade agreements or negotiations with states that actively and knowingly participate in gross violations of human rights, such as state-imposed forced labour. (Recommendation, Paragraph 205)

Response attribution not verified

#36 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: The UK should carry out effective impact assessments before entering trade negotiations with other nations. These assessments should include analysis of how enhanced trading arrangements with the UK will impact the use of forced labour in the contracting state, and …

Response attribution not verified

#35 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: The Government should make it an explicit policy to include provisions concerning forced labour in future trade deals. (Recommendation, Paragraph 201)

Response attribution not verified

#34 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: Ensuring clauses on human rights are included in trade agreements can demonstrate the UK’s values and principles in terms of forced labour. (Conclusion, Paragraph 200)

Response attribution not verified

#33 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: The UK has not yet developed a uniform approach to embedding obligations to uphold human rights in its trade agreements, and it is unclear how the impacts of such clauses are assessed and evaluated when used. (Conclusion, Paragraph 199)

Response attribution not verified

#31 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: The NCA and Border Force should use the existing powers under POCA to prevent goods linked to forced labour being sold in the UK and to seize assets linked to forced labour. (Recommendation, Paragraph 179) Free Trade Agreements

Response attribution not verified

#30 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: The powers already available under POCA are being underused by law enforcement agencies in relation to goods linked to forced labour which occurs outside of the UK. (Conclusion, Paragraph 178)

Response attribution not verified

#29 —

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation: The UK’s import ban should establish or designate a responsible body to oversee the implementation of the import ban by facilitating data sharing and co-ordinating activity between different law enforcement agencies. Such a body must be provided with adequate powers …

Response attribution not verified