It is similar to the GPA. We start out with a position of wanting to create continuity. In each case in which we negotiate with partners to roll over agreements, we will look for just that—as few changes as possible, to provide certainty.
Over time, it might be that we have room and capacity, and there is desire on both sides, to enter into substantially different arrangements. However, I suggest that all our focus should be on trying to create continuity such that nothing in the appearance, feel and look of an agreement changes substantively. That means that there is an impetus on and stimulus for the UK Government to design the rollovers so that there is very little change. Therefore, in the vast majority of cases, I do not expect that we will find any substantive difference.
One of the changes that was made in the bill was that, when there is a substantive difference, an explanatory document will be placed before the House of Commons before ratification that tells members exactly how and where an agreement has changed. It will not necessarily go into all the language, but it will give the purposes of all the changes.
Further, on the new clause 6 and the issue of scrutiny, we agreed with Jonathan Djanogly that the best way of laying statutory instruments would be to have an affirmative procedure, such that Parliament has a genuine amount of time to deal with and vote on a matter, and that the explanatory memorandum for each of the instruments would point back to the report on the changes in the agreement and say which of the changes the instrument affected. That would give Parliament an ability to scrutinise in the full understanding of what it was being asked to agree to.
Finally, at the end of all that, the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 has been amended such that the Parliament is capable—if it can hold itself together in one cohesive block—to delay the ratification of an agreement indefinitely.
There are all sorts of checks and balances at every stage. That gives Parliament certainty, understanding and the right to scrutinise at considerable depth, which should allow everyone to understand what changes are being made and whether they agree with them.