Thread by @DavidHenigUK

Wholly inadequate, which is why business and civil society stakeholders have been pushing for more open processes around UK trade deals for over two years.

Starting at the beginning there is no opportunity to have a debate on a trade agreement before or during negotiation.

https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1315577079543607297

"Independently verified" - but not by a body that has any trade expertise.

"Full scrutiny" by Parliamentary committees - 10 days to read and digest ~1000 pages before the scrutiny process starts

"CRAG process" - 21 days to delay at most.

Not even close to best in class. Those affected get 21 days tops between receiving the detailed trade agreement and it being agreed. And as we've seen recently sometimes it takes even governments 9 months to understand a 50-page agreement.

Simply put, a government trying to get away with as little consultation as possible. Even though trade agreements are far reaching and need broad consensus to be effective. Sadly in keeping with a generally secretive approach which as we see elsewhere does not work.

Here is what civil society and business have been calling for in terms of transparency. tuc.org.uk/sites/default/…

Back on scrutiny, in what way does this report allow Parliament or anyone else understand what was discussed in trade talks?

There is nothing here that couldn't have been written before the negotiating round. questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statem…

If the government only reports in a vague way on trade agreement negotiations before conclusion then the contents of any final agreement will be a complete surprise which Parliament will have 6 weeks to decode. That isn't meaningful consultation in any sense. Wholly inadequate.

Sorry to say the proposals made by the Department for International Trade for scrutiny of trade agreements show disdain for Parliament, devolved authorities and everyone on whose behalf they are negotiating.

Maybe the assumption bad treaties are overridden by domestic law?