In the context of the Parliamentary scrutiny of the procurement chapters of the UK’s Free Trade Agreements with Australia and New Zealand, I submitted several pieces of written evidence, which I then gathered together and reformulated in A Sanchez-Graells, ‘The Growing Thicket of Multi-Layered Procurement Liberalisation between WTO GPA Parties, as Evidenced in Post-Brexit UK’ (2022) 49(3) Legal Issues of Economic Integration 247–268. I was also invited to submit oral evidence to the Public Bills Comittee for the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill.
In my research, I raised some legal issues on the way the UK-AUS and UK-NZ procurement chapters would interact with the World Trade Agreement Government Procurement Agreement (GPA)—to which UK, AUS and NZ are members—and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)—to which the UK seeks accession and both AUS and NZ are members. I also raised issues with the rules on remedies in particular, both in relation to UK-AUS and the CPTPP.
I have now become aware of a letter from the Minister for International Trade, where the UK Government simply dismisses my legal analysis in an unconvicing manner. In this post, I try to rebut their position—although their lack of arguments makes this rather difficult—and stress some of the misunderstandings that the letter evidences. The letter seems to me to reflect a worrying strategy of ‘wishful legal analysis’ that does not bode well for post-Brexit UK trade realignment.
Interaction between the GPA, FTAs and the CPTPP
In my analysis and submissions, I stressed how deviations in the UK’s FTAs from the substantive obligations set in the GPA generate legal uncertainty and potential problems in ‘dual regulation’ situations, where one of the contracting parties (eg the UK) would be under the impossibility of complying at the same time with the obligations resulting from the GPA with tenderers from GPA countries and those arising from the FTAs with AUS or NZ with their tenderers—without either breaching GPA obligations or, what is more likely, ignoring the deviation in the FTAs to ensure GPA compliance. It would also generate issues where compliance with the more demanding standards in the FTAs would be automatically propagated to the benefit of economic operators from other jurisdictions. I also raised how the deviations can generate legal uncertainty and make it more difficult for UK tenderers to ascertain their legal position in AUS and NZ. And I also raised how this situation can get further complicated if the UK accesses CPTPP.
My concerns were discussed in Committee and the Minister had the following to say:
The [GPA] and the [CPTPP] are plurilateral agreements between twenty-one and eleven parties respectively, including in each case Australia and New Zealand. As recognised in Committee, the [GPA] in particular establishes a global baseline for international procurement. Nonetheless, neither prevents its members from entering into bilateral free trade agreements to sit alongside the [GPA] and [CPTPP] while at the same time going further in terms of the procurement commitments between members.
These Agreements with Australia and New Zealand do just that, going beyond both the [GPA] and the [CPTPP] baselines. … Although the texts of the Agreements with Australia and New Zealand are sometimes laid out differently to the way they are in the Agreement on Government Procurement, they in no way dilute or reduce the global baseline established by the [GPA]. (emphases added).
There are two points to note, here. The first one is that the fact that the GPA and the CPTPP allow for bilateral agreements between their parties does not clarify how the overlapping treaties would operate, which is exactly what I analysed. Of note, under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Art 30), when States conclude successive treaties relating to the same subject matter, the most recent treary prevails, and the provisions of the earlier treaty/ies only apply to the extent that they are not incompatible with those of the later treaty.
This is crucial here, especially as the Minister indicates that the UK-AUS and UK-NZ go beyond not only the GPA, but also the CPTPP. This would mean that entering into CPTPP after UK-AUS and UK-NZ—as the UK is currently in train of doing—could negate some of the aspects that go beyond CPTPP in both those FTAs. Moreover, the simple assertion that the FTAs do not dilute the GPA baseline is unconvincing, as detailed analysis shows that there are significant problems with eg the interpretation of the national treatment under the different treaties.
Secondly, the explanation provided does not resolve the practical problems arising from ‘dual regulation’ that I have identified and leaves the question open as to how the obligations under the FTAs will be interpreted and complied with in triangular situations involving tenderers not from AUS or NZ. Either the UK will apply the more demanding obligations—which will then benefit all GPA parties, not only AUS and NZ—or will stick to the GPA baseline in breach of the FTAs. There is no recognition of this issue in the letter.
The Minister also indicated that:
There was also suggestion in Committee that it would be difficult for suppliers in the United Kingdom to navigate the Agreements with Australia and New Zealand, as well as the [CPTPP] in the future. I would like to reassure the Committee that when bidding for United Kingdom procurements, the only system that British suppliers need to concern themselves with is United Kingdom’s procurement regulations. (emphasis added).
The Minister has either not understood the situation, or is seeking to obscure the analysis here. The concerns about legal uncertainty do not relate to UK businesses tendering for contracts in the UK, but to UK businesses tendering for contracts in AUS or NZ—which are the ones that would be seeking to benefit from the trade liberalisation pursued by those FTAs. Nothing in the Minister’s letter addresses this issue.
Domestic review rights under the Australian procurement chapter
One of the specific deviations from the GPA baseline that I identified in my research concerns the exclusion of access to remedies on grounds of public interest. While the GPA only allows excluding interim measures on such grounds, the AUS-UK FTA and CPTPP seem to allow for public interest to also bar access to remedies such as compensation—and, if this does not limit access to remedies as I submit, at least it does cause legal uncertainty in that respect.
My submission is met with the following response by the Minister [the mentioned annex is reproduced at the end of this post]:
The Committee also considered the evidence raised by Professor Sánchez-Graells regarding domestic review procedures … The Government respectfully disagrees with the analysis presented at that session that a provision in the government procurement chapter of the [UK-AUS FTA] ‘allows for the exclusion of legal remedies completely on the basis of public interest’.
The public interest exclusion only applies to temporary measures put in place to ensure aggrieved suppliers may continue to participate in a procurement.
…
The Government also respectfully disagrees with the suggestion in the witness evidence that this public interest exclusion is not similarly reflected in the [GPA] or the [UK-NZ FTA]. The Government acknowledges that the specific position of the exclusion differs between these agreements and is closer to the approach adopted in the [CPTPP]. Nonetheless, the Government do not consider this alters the legal effect or gives rise to legal uncertainty. For the benefit of the Committee, the relevant provisions from each of the [FTAs], the [GPA] and the [CPTPP] are set out in an annex to this letter.
The Minister’s explanations are not supported by any arguments. There is no reasoning to explain why the order of the clauses and subclauses in the relevant provisions does not alter their legal interpretation or effects. There is also no justification whatsoever for the opinion that textual differences do not give rise to legal uncertainty. The Government seems to think that it can simply wish the legal issues away.
The table included in the annex to the letter (below) is revealing of the precise issue that raises legal uncertainty and, potentially, a restriction on access to remedies other than interim measures beyond the GPA (and thus, in breach thereof). Why would treaties that seem to replicate the same rules draft them differently? How can any legal interpreter be of the opinion that the positioning of the exception clause does not have an effect on the interpretation of its scope of application? Is the fact that these agreements post-date the GPA and still deviate from it not of legal relevance?
Of course, there are arguments that could be made to counter my analysis. They could eg focus on the use of different (undefined) terms in different sub-clauses (such as ‘measures’ and ‘corrective action’). They could also focus on any preparatory works to the treaties (especially the CPTPP and UK-AUS FTA, which I have not yet been able to locate). They could even be more creative and attempt functional or customary interpretation arguments. But the letter contains no arguments at all.
Conclusion
It is a sad state of affairs where detailed legal analysis—whether correct or not—is dismissed without offering any arguments to the contrary and simply seeking to leverage the ‘authority’ of a Minister or Department. If this is the generalised approach to assessing the legal implications of the trade agreements negotiated (at speed) by the UK post-Brexit, it does not bode well for the legal certainty required to promote international investments and commercial activities.
The reassurances in the letter are void of any weight, in my view. I can only hope that the Committee is not persuaded by the empty explanations contained in the letter either.
