International Agreements Committee

The committee scrutinised the Government’s case for the Convention establishing an International Claims Commission for Ukraine, including whether the process is worthwhile without enforceability, how the UK will influence governance, and how compensation might eventually be funded. Sophie Guelff set out the UK’s position that Russia must bear responsibility, that the mechanism should proceed in stages, and that the Register of Damage, Claims Commission and eventual compensation arrangement all form part of a broader accountability package. She also confirmed the UK hopes to ratify by end-2026, wants a role in the Council if possible, has no settled view on funding sources beyond insisting Russia should ultimately pay, and has budgeted real non-ODA FCDO spending for the mechanism. Members pressed her on extending claims back to 2014, the risk of an empty process without money, the role of Russian sovereign assets, safeguards on costs, and whether US-Russia negotiations could undermine the scheme.

The committee scrutinised the proposed Ukrainian claims commission, its relationship to the register of damage, the future compensation fund, and the legal route for using frozen Russian assets. Witnesses argued that Russia’s liability for reparations is established in international law, but the mechanism should work without Russian consent; they urged the UK to ratify quickly, join the council, and legislate for the future transfer of immobilised assets into a compensation fund. The session also covered scope gaps back to 2014, double-recovery risks with other courts and tribunals, funding and administration, and the importance of keeping the UK engaged as a leader in international accountability and recovery for Ukraine.

The International Agreements Committee scrutinised the UK’s approach to trade policy instruments, focusing on how FTAs, digital trade agreements and non-binding MoUs fit into a flexible, multitrack trade strategy. Industry witnesses argued for a blended approach that preserves the value of binding agreements (FTAs, digital trade deals) while recognising the signaling and diplomatic benefits of MoUs, and highlighted gaps in implementation and monitoring post-signature. The witnesses pressed for greater consultation in market selection, stronger emphasis on regulatory co-operation to reduce compliance costs, and the inclusion of supply-chain and procurement provisions in deals. The session also covered broader governance questions: how to evaluate instrument effectiveness, the role of international standards and regulatory co-operation, the WTO’s future (including plurilateral paths and dispute settlement), and the potential for targeted, state-level engagement with the US. A government positioning thread appeared in relation to a possible free-standing services agreement with China and a push for standards-driven, forward-looking regulation; witnesses called for clearer timelines and stronger evidence-based processes for pursuing new trade deals.

The session of 21 April 2026 examined the rise of non-binding trade instruments (MoUs/NBIs) alongside traditional FTAs, and their implications for UK trade policy, multilateral discipline, and regulatory autonomy. Witnesses discussed how non-binding instruments can carry binding-style effects in practice, the challenges of applying MFN rules to interim or sectoral arrangements, and the limited immediate benefits of many FTAs for services trade. They also assessed CPTPP’s value for the UK, the durability of US-UK arrangements (notably pharma), and the need for parliamentary scrutiny, transparency, and sunset clauses to manage evolving agreements. The witnesses and committee members highlighted the importance of a multilateral core (WTO/IT) while recognising the potential strategic utility of sectoral or unilateral tools, and called for clearer scrutiny mechanisms and safeguards to balance sovereignty with openness to trade.

The International Agreements Committee questioned the Government on how it scrutinises and progresses UK trade instruments beyond formal free-trade agreements, including sector-specific MoUs and other quick-start instruments. Witnesses outlined a pragmatic, fast-moving approach to negotiations, emphasised the importance of line-of-sight and timely parliamentary scrutiny, and defended a flexible toolkit (FTAs, MoUs, CPTPP membership) to seize opportunities in a disrupted global trade environment. Key government positions included continued support for multilateral frameworks (WTO/MFN) while expanding plurilateral and sectoral deals, speeding up trade-remedies processes, and pursuing near-term wins (e.g., India services and procurement access) alongside long-term goals (comprehensive FTAs). The committee highlighted concerns about the speed of scrutiny, potential regulatory friction with CPTPP and EU talks, and the need to safeguard high UK standards (SPS). The session also signalled government commitments to improve information flow to Parliament, use new powers from the Finance Bill to enhance investigations, and strengthen support for SMEs exporting through UKEF and accompanying guidance and training.

This session scrutinised the UK–France returns agreement under the IN scheme, ratified using Section 22 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRaG). The Home Office ministers justified the use of CRaG due to exceptional circumstances and outlined early operational results (193 returned to France; 195 admitted to the UK) and the pilot nature of the scheme. They defended the arrangement as a functional tool that demonstrates cross‑border cooperation, while acknowledging ongoing challenges such as data protection, equal partnership dynamics, and the need to address asylum decision‑making backlogs. The committee explored oversight (joint monitoring committee), potential extension to other EU states, data-sharing with the European Commission, and the possible implications of the EU Migration and Asylum Pact on the bilateral arrangement. Several witnesses signalled a willingness to extend the mechanism and align it with broader EU policy, while emphasising that any amendments or extensions would require appropriate legal scrutiny and parliamentary oversight.