A new style of Committee for a post-Brexit UK: The Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee

Blog

A new style of Committee for a post-Brexit UK: The Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee

7 Oct 2022

In Autumn 2022 the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee will again be a feature of the House of Lords Select Committee line-up, after the Committee’s lifespan was extended for a third time to reflect delays in the Common Frameworks programme. The Committee is a Brexit innovation, which differs in its ways of working from previous House of Lords Select Committees in several respects.

,
Chair, House of Lords Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee

Get our latest research, insights and events delivered to your inbox

Share this and support our work

The innovative nature of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee means that chairing it is both incredibly interesting and challenging.

In short, the Committee is charged with scrutinising a new type of document that will be instrumental in inter-governmental relations in the UK, now that the country has left the EU.

Common Frameworks are relatively obscure and need explanation. They are a new type of arrangement, in the form of agreed documents that articulate and facilitate intra-UK co-operation in the wake of Brexit. They outline how the four administrations in the UK will work together on devolved policy areas that were previously harmonised under the EU – including areas such as food standards, health and safety, pesticides, transport and building standards. Their key role is to ensure agreement across the UK as appropriate, and at the same time enable divergence as agreed in the devolution settlement. For example, the processes set out in the Motor Insurance Framework ensure that UK drivers can continue to use their insurance to drive in any part of the UK.

The Committee’s role is to scrutinise provisional versions of Frameworks to ensure that the final result is as effective and as close to the original principles set out in 2017 as possible.

A new style of Committee for a new style of document

One of the challenges the Committee has faced in scrutinising Frameworks is that it is dealing with something completely new in terms of policy and politics.

Common Frameworks are not like traditional international agreements or laws. As such, the Lords Committee is not concerned strictly with policy-making itself, but is rather scrutinising the content and format of Frameworks and the processes proposed. It is doing so – increasingly – in the context of a growing canon of Frameworks. The Committee questions the logical flow of the document, whether key requirements have been met, whether key relationships have been observed, and if there is consistency across Frameworks. If there is not, the Committee has to analyse why this is the case.

Frameworks do vary greatly in quality as well as purpose, and the Committee has had to work hard to identify and encourage what and how standards can be improved.

Because Common Frameworks are driven by their own timetable and requirements, the Committee is also difficult to fit into the wider structure of Committees in the House of Lords. The Committee’s staff derive from the Committees Scrutiny Unit, a fairly new unit within the House of Lords Committee Office that focuses on resourcing committees that are short term and ad hoc, or that do not fit neatly into another team in the Office.

The Committee has also conducted scrutiny in an unusual way by having an even mix of public and private meetings:

In private meetings, the Committee scrutinises individual Frameworks in granular detail and sends recommendations on changes to the relevant Departments and Ministers (often the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy or the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs).
In public meetings, the Committee takes evidence about the implications of Frameworks more generally from stakeholders.

The Committee has used this evidence to drive its latest (July 2022) report, which provided more sweeping recommendations on the Common Frameworks programme as a whole.

Co-operation with the devolved legislatures

Frameworks are also different because they must be scrutinised, additionally, by Committees from the devolved legislatures.

This has led to the Lords Committee working closely with its counterparts in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Committee staff have met regularly with staff in the devolved legislatures; the Lords Committee has also been involved in written correspondence with devolved legislatures’ Committees; and it hosted a visit from the Senedd’s Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee.

Co-operation has really worked well for all parties to Frameworks. For example, Committees from the devolved legislatures share with the Lords Committee the letters or reports they have produced on Common Frameworks, which either supported conclusions the Lords Committee had made or raised new issues it had not considered. Likewise, the Lords Committee has shared with Committees from the devolved legislatures the correspondence it has had with departmental officials and Ministers. The feedback the Lords Committee has received shows that its correspondence has helped to inform and assist devolved Committees’ scrutiny.

Because the Lords Committee is the only Committee across the UK tasked with scrutinising every Framework, and is able to draw out the whole picture, it is in a unique position both to develop expert knowledge on the whole breadth of the Common Frameworks programme, and to share that and the wider implications with scrutiny Committees in the devolved legislatures.

Additionally, the Lords Committee has used the findings of the devolved legislatures to support the conclusions of its overarching July 2022 report. This gave its recommendations additional weight because they are supported not just at Westminster but also by parliamentary Committees in the whole of the UK.

Working with the devolved legislatures has also posed challenges. While the Lords Committee has made every effort to engage with Northern Ireland and has had some success with some Frameworks, the lack of an Executive in Northern Ireland has made it difficult for this part of the UK to engage fully in the scrutiny process, and inevitably added to delays.

Additionally, the devolveds have on occasion taken a different path, for example in relation to the UK Internal Market Act exclusions process. The Act sets out ‘market access principles’ which mean that goods which comply with regulations permitting their sale in one part of the UK can also be sold in other parts of the UK. The Lords Committee feels very strongly that the exclusions process – under which market access principles can be suspended in some cases – should be outlined in individual Common Frameworks. The Welsh and Scottish governments do not, to date, share this view.

What the Committee has made clear in both the reports it has published so far is its belief that Common Frameworks are a real opportunity to strengthen devolution through closer and respectful working at all levels.

The future of Common Frameworks scrutiny

Having been established in September 2020, the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee was initially intended to finish its work at the end of the 2020-21 Session, after publishing its first report (which it did in March 2021).

However, consistent delays to the publishing of Frameworks have meant that the scrutiny of all Frameworks is not complete. The Committee was therefore delighted that in July 2022 the House of Lords Liaison Committee extended its lifetime so that it can complete scrutiny of all Frameworks, including those expected to be published by the end of 2022. After March and then October 2021, this was the third time that the Committee’s planned lifespan has been extended.

The Committee expects to continue scrutinising individual Frameworks in the same way it has previously, by analysing them line-by-line and sending detailed responses with recommendations to the Government.

It is clear, however, that this is just the first step in terms of scrutiny.

Once Frameworks are fully in place, there will need to be continuing scrutiny of how they are working in practice - this will be the absolute test.

There may also be a necessity for new Frameworks in order to fill gaps or cross emerging policy boundaries - so this is very much work-in-progress. The Committee will continue to argue for parliamentary scrutiny as we go forward.

Latest / Highlights

News / Parliament Matters Bulletin: What’s coming up in Parliament this week? 16-20 March 2026

The Defence Secretary, John Healey, will face questions from MPs. The Grenfell Tower (Memorial Expenditure) Bill and the Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill will be fast-tracked through all their Commons stages in a single day. MPs will debate online safety, an e-petition calling for automatic by-elections when MPs defect to another party, and the Conservative Party will choose the Opposition Day debate. The Justice Committee will hear from the Victims’ Commissioner on the Courts and Tribunals Bill, the Public Accounts Committee will question officials about the Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster, and experts will give evidence on the Representation of the People Bill. In the Lords, Peers will continue scrutiny of the Crime and Policing, Pensions Schemes, and Finance (No. 2) Bills. Lord Arbuthnot will ask about Fujitsu contributing to compensation in the Post Office Horizon case, and Peers will debate terrorism, abortion, AI, and assisted dying.

News / Jury trials under threat? The Courts and Tribunals Bill explained - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 136

Plans to restrict the right to a jury trial have cleared their Second Reading in the Commons, but the proposals in the Courts and Tribunals Bill face growing resistance, including from Labour rebels. We discuss the legal and constitutional implications with barrister Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, examining what the reforms could mean for defendants’ rights and the criminal courts system. We also assess the passage of legislation removing hereditary Peers from Parliament, and the late compromise that eased opposition in the House of Lords. Meanwhile Sir Lindsay Hoyle clashes with the Chief Whip over delays in the division lobby, and newly released papers on Peter Mandelson’s Washington appointment raise fresh political questions. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

Briefings / Last-minute powers and limited scrutiny: Parliament and the risks of consigning online safety law to delegated legislation

Two late-stage government amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill and the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill would grant Ministers significant powers to reshape key parts of the Online Safety Act through delegated legislation. While the policy goals may attract support, the method raises serious constitutional concerns about parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. Using these amendments as a case study, this briefing explores the risks of relying on regulations to make policy and explains how the Hansard Society’s proposed reforms to the delegated legislation scrutiny system could better balance governmental flexibility with democratic oversight.

News / Is the assisted dying bill being filibustered? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 135

Debate over the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has been so slow in the House of Lords that opponents of the Bill are accused of deliberately running down the clock. Conservative Peer Lord Harper rejects claims of filibustering, arguing that Peers are undertaking necessary scrutiny of a flawed and complex bill. He contends the legislation lacks adequate safeguards and was unsuited to the Private Member’s Bill process and discusses whether MPs might attempt to revive it in a future parliamentary Session. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

Blog / The Backbench Business Committee 15 years on: Has it given backbench MPs a stronger voice in the House of Commons?

Fifteen years after its creation, the Backbench Business Committee has become an important mechanism through which MPs can secure debates and raise issues in the House of Commons. Drawing on new research analysing debate transcripts and interviews with MPs, Ministers and officials, this blogpost analyses the Committee’s impact on parliamentary agenda-setting and cross-party campaigning. It highlights how the Committee has transformed opportunities for backbenchers while identifying ongoing challenges around participation, transparency and the Committee’s potential role in representing backbench interests more broadly.