LONDON — After years of refusals, U-turns and wrangling with lawmakers, the U.K. has reversed course to formally give parliament powers to scrutinize trade deals.
In an exchange of letters with members of the House of Lords, Trade Minister Gerry Grimstone set out a formal framework for parliamentary scrutiny of new post-Brexit trade agreements like those with Australia and New Zealand.
The move consolidates trade scrutiny commitments lawmakers first called for in 2021 and follows several shifts of position and what lawmakers saw as foot-dragging by Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government across the tenure of two trade chiefs.
In early February, outraged lawmakers accused Johnson’s government of reversing a key promise to allow lawmakers to debate trade deals.
“We now have an official record of what parliament can expect, as a minimum, from government in support of scrutiny of trade agreements,” Dianne Hayter, chair of the Lords' international agreements committee, told POLITICO.
Grimstone’s letter setting out the process, she added, “should not be amended without previous consent from my committee and the international trade committee in the Commons.”
The government’s commitments cover three stages of trade talks and include publishing negotiating objectives and a “scoping assessment” before the start of trade talks; formalization of the so-called “Grimstone rule” to hold a parliamentary debate on the negotiating objectives of a deal; and publishing regular updates on talks. The rules also give parliamentary committees a “reasonable amount of time” to scrutinize new trade agreements and produce reports on a deal before it is laid in parliament.
By law, MPs don’t get a vote on new trade deals. Once a deal is laid, the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 kicks in and lawmakers in both houses have 21 sitting days before it is ratified. They can, however, delay ratification repeatedly.
“The length, breadth of scope and complexity, as well as the impact, of [free trade agreements] warrants the specific regime of engagement and information provision that the government has developed,” Grimstone writes. He points out this new process “has developed over time” through feedback from committees in both the Lords and Commons.
“We have facilitated robust scrutiny of new [free trade agreements] throughout negotiations," said a trade department spokesperson, "from publishing objectives at the start to providing regular briefings and updates during negotiations, and publishing the Australia and New Zealand deals on signature to maximise the time parliament has to consider them."
The government’s move marks “a significant development which, for the first time, sets out an agreed framework between the government and parliament for the scrutiny of FTAs,” said Alexander Horne, a lawyer and special adviser to the Lords' international agreements committee. He said it had taken several years of battles with the government to get to this point.
Lawmakers first tried to include amendments to establish a trade deal scrutiny process during debates over the Trade Bill in 2020, and argued the U.K.-Japan deal had little by way of formal parliamentary oversight.
The government’s move takes parliament beyond previous ad hoc commitments which had been made on a case-by-case basis.
“It seems like a positive step, but no game-changer,” said a person close to the House of Commons trade scrutiny process as the trade department can still block access crucial access to officials and information. Others observed the process is still a way off from the sort of scrutiny conducted by the U.S. Congress or European Parliament.
Relations between the government and key lawmakers tasked with trade scrutiny have been strained in recent months. Earlier this month, House of Commons trade committee chair Angus MacNeil wrote to Trade Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan to say he was "greatly dissatisfied" with trade department officials who refused to make time to meet his committee to discuss Britain’s trade deal with Australia.
Hayter acknowledged that while the move is “a significant step in the right direction, this is not the end of our conversation on treaty scrutiny.”
Lawmakers, she said, are still “concerned” parliament doesn’t have to be told about all substantial amendments to international agreements. “We will continue to press government to close this scrutiny gap.”
This article is part of POLITICO Pro
The one-stop-shop solution for policy professionals fusing the depth of POLITICO journalism with the power of technology
Exclusive, breaking scoops and insights
Customized policy intelligence platform
A high-level public affairs network
