,
8 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Story by @Annaisaac (telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/…) that members of the DIT Strategic Trade Advisory Group must sign non-disclosure agreements reflects to me continued confusion of this Government about negotiation secrecy and stakeholder participation
This group's principal purpose according to DIT is to advise the government on trade policy, so for example perhaps considering different approaches to liberalising services trade. Nothing there that should require NDAs, in fact would be best if members could consult with others
There are obvious areas in trade policy where information is secret, such as specific negotiating priorities. Frankly I'd be surprised if these were shared with the group, and if they were many other organisations would rightly feel left out
Here's the page for the similar EU body, which features huge amounts of information made public. If the Commission can share this, one hopes the UK Government would do same. Publicly. The STAG then advises further, all fine, but not need for non-disclosure agreements.
The fear is that following on from the last three years all information surrounding negotiations is to be considered secret protected by NDAs. As we've seen, that's counter productive. And Government-stakeholder consultation never used to require signing such agreements. /ends
Sorry, missed attaching the link to the Commission's expert group on trade - here it is ec.europa.eu/transparency/r…
PS In case you're wondering if this isn't all just a case of terrible sour grapes on my part, no I didn't apply to be part of the DIT Strategic Trade Advisory Group and very happy to see a good range of expertise represented
Official response to the thread on transparency in trade, which is always nice. Nothing new really, we'll have to see where this one goes, but (and others may know more, IFG?) I do sense a huge rise in Government use of NDAs in the last year
