We must address the scrutiny gap in Brexit-related international agreements
3 min read
Committees of both Houses must have early sight of non-legally binding arrangements in treaties if we’re to safeguard future trade policy, writes Baroness Donaghy
At the beginning of 2019, the House of Lords European Union Committee was tasked with the responsibility of scrutinising Brexit-related international agreements, or treaties. The Government is ‘rolling-over’ EU treaties with the aim of ensuring continuity before and after Brexit, for instance, by enabling UK businesses to benefit from similar terms of trade with countries that have concluded trade agreements with the EU.
The EU Committee and its sub-committees have so far scrutinised more than 40 treaties and published 17 treaty-related reports. This work has covered everything from trade in wine to social security coordination. Treaties are negotiated, signed and ratified by the government, on behalf of the UK, under prerogative powers. Parliament has a role in scrutinising treaties under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (the CRAG Act).
The CRAG Act provides that, with some exceptions, the government may not ratify a treaty unless it has first laid a copy before Parliament and, within 21 sitting days of this happening, neither House has passed a resolution that the treaty should not be ratified.
A resolution passed by the Lords is advisory; the government may decide to proceed regardless, but is required to publish a statement explaining its intention, and giving its reasons.
A Commons resolution, on the other hand, would prevent the government from proceeding for another 21 sitting days. The Commons could then pass further resolutions, indefinitely postponing ratification.
The 21-sitting day window has, in the past, made it difficult for committees to consult adequately with stakeholders, or for those stakeholders to conduct their own consultation or analysis. The reduced number of sitting days in September was therefore a valuable opportunity to invite written evidence on one of the most recent Brexit-related treaties to be laid before Parliament – the UK’s free trade agreement with the Republic of Korea (“the Agreement”).
“Korea is the UK’s 22nd largest trading partner, accounting for 1.1% of total UK trade”
Korea is the UK’s 22nd largest trading partner, accounting for 1.1% of total UK trade. Trade between the UK and Korea has increased by an average of 12% per year since the EU-Korea agreement (which the UK is part of currently) was applied in 2011. Cars are one of the fastest growing UK exports to Korea.
We concluded that the Agreement would, in the main, preserve preferential trading arrangements in goods and services between the UK and Korea after Brexit.
Nonetheless, the written evidence was extremely useful in identifying areas where the Agreement differs from precursor arrangements, and other matters of interest.
There is a gap in Parliament’s ability to scrutinise changes to the Agreement or to scrutinise the use of temporary trading arrangements, if needed. Some provisions for preferential tariffs were not carried over in full, for example, in arrangements used by the UK agricultural sector.
The Agreement contains a review clause, which will provide the opportunity for both parties to seek greater access to each other’s markets. It is clear that negotiations will entail trade-offs between each parties’ interests and trade policy objectives.
Parliament needs to know what procedures for consultation and reporting will be put in place, particularly including the devolved administrations.
This Agreement, and others, therefore bring to the fore important questions about the direction and objectives of the UK’s future trade policy and what Parliamentary involvement may be further developed.
Baroness Donaghy is a Labour peer and chair of the EU Internal Market Sub-Committee
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
