Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee
Wednesday 14th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:30
14:30
14:30
14:30
14:30
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Mr. chair, it is a pleasure to appear under your chairmanship. The draft regulations were laid before both houses on 14th of July this year. This instrument concerns the governance arrangements for the Windsor Framework and Northern Ireland's trading arrangements, as well as the UK EU Withdrawal Agreement. It reflects the government's commitment to the Windsor framework, to the UK internal market and to building a stronger relationship with our partners in the EU.
I am sure honourable and right honourable members will have listened carefully to the statement from the Prime Minister on Monday, where he confirmed the good news that the next UK EU summit will take place on the 20th of November. That summit was. The Prime Minister puts. It presents an opportunity to make progress on the crucial issues of our economic growth and on immigration. Its outcomes stand very much to benefit Northern Ireland. Alongside the arrangements set down in the Windsor framework that includes an agri food agreement to smooth flows of goods and reduce the unique processes and paperwork required to do so, it will save businesses time and money and increase consumer choice.
Real benefits felt in the real world and in the lives and livelihoods of people in Northern Ireland. I was pleased that this was acknowledged by a number of honourable and right honourable members in this place and in the Westminster Hall debate on Monday. The instrument, before the House takes forward and supports certain commitments that the government has already made in relation to the Windsor framework. Specifically, these commitments came in response to the recommendations of the independent review of the Windsor Framework that was conducted by Lord Mark Murphy and published last year.
It does so by providing greater flexibility in the process for the Northern Ireland Assembly's Democratic Scrutiny Committee to scrutinise regulations that are applicable under the Windsor framework. The instrument also clarifies the statutory obligations of Northern Ireland departments to support the Northern Ireland Assembly Committee by providing it with responses to reasonable requests for information on relevant EU legislation. This is similarly in the aim of supporting the Assembly scrutiny. The instrument helps facilitate the governance of the UK EU Withdrawal Agreement.
As we look to the future of our relationship with the EU, it does so by enabling the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee to use written procedure to adopt decisions or recommendations, such as those in relation to the Windsor framework, which is, of course, a crucial element of the Withdrawal Agreement. Will the Minister give way on that point? I will.
I am sure honourable and right honourable members will have listened carefully to the statement from the Prime Minister on Monday, where he confirmed the good news that the next UK EU summit will take place on the 20th of November. That summit was. The Prime Minister puts. It presents an opportunity to make progress on the crucial issues of our economic growth and on immigration. Its outcomes stand very much to benefit Northern Ireland. Alongside the arrangements set down in the Windsor framework that includes an agri food agreement to smooth flows of goods and reduce the unique processes and paperwork required to do so, it will save businesses time and money and increase consumer choice.
Real benefits felt in the real world and in the lives and livelihoods of people in Northern Ireland. I was pleased that this was acknowledged by a number of honourable and right honourable members in this place and in the Westminster Hall debate on Monday. The instrument, before the House takes forward and supports certain commitments that the government has already made in relation to the Windsor framework. Specifically, these commitments came in response to the recommendations of the independent review of the Windsor Framework that was conducted by Lord Mark Murphy and published last year.
It does so by providing greater flexibility in the process for the Northern Ireland Assembly's Democratic Scrutiny Committee to scrutinise regulations that are applicable under the Windsor framework. The instrument also clarifies the statutory obligations of Northern Ireland departments to support the Northern Ireland Assembly Committee by providing it with responses to reasonable requests for information on relevant EU legislation. This is similarly in the aim of supporting the Assembly scrutiny. The instrument helps facilitate the governance of the UK EU Withdrawal Agreement.
As we look to the future of our relationship with the EU, it does so by enabling the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee to use written procedure to adopt decisions or recommendations, such as those in relation to the Windsor framework, which is, of course, a crucial element of the Withdrawal Agreement. Will the Minister give way on that point? I will.
14:32
14:33
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
It followed the decision to change, followed the independent review that I referred to conducted by Lord Murphy. It is intended to keep the governance arrangements working effectively. I'll just answer this point, particularly where we need to keep rules that apply in Great Britain and Northern Ireland in step under the new and beneficial arrangements we are seeking with the EU. I'll just make a little bit more progress around that.
14:33
14:33
14:33
14:34
14:34
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I'm very happy to. I don't have the full Murphy review to hand. I'm happy to respond in detail. I've tried to set out the committee why we think that this change does not in any way take away from the force of the arrangements that are in place, and why we think this is a reasonable change to make in order to better enable scrutiny of measures as they come through. So let me explain in more detail how the instrument meets its purpose.
Firstly, it's in response to recommendations made by the Independent review, and I hear from the honourable member the anxiety to see exactly in the review where those recommendations are made and how people permit me that I don't have the papers to hand, but I'm happy to write with him in further detail with quotes, if you would like. We are committed as a government to providing greater flexibility to the Northern Ireland Assembly's Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee in conducting its examination and consideration of EU legislation relevant to Northern Ireland.
We judge that the Committee plays a very valuable role in scrutinising regulations of relevance to Northern Ireland and its reports, and its engagement with affected stakeholders informs the work of the government, just as it will also inform the work of many members of the Assembly. These changes to schedule six B of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are aimed at providing the Assembly greater latitude in conducting its work within a two month window following the publication of a relevant EU act, if it wishes to use it.
A time frame for the scrutiny of EU acts under the Windsor framework is provided for in law so that everyone is clear. MLAs, businesses and civil society about how the process works and what the impacts of those enactments are. Currently, the committee has five working days to vote on whether to hold an inquiry into a replacement EU act. If an inquiry is held, then a report must be produced no later than 15 working days before the end of the two month scrutiny period, which begins the day the EU publishes the act in its official journal.
This instrument gives the committee greater flexibility by expanding the inquiry decision window to ten working days, and alters the publication deadline for inquiry reports to no later than 12 working days before the end of the screening period. These changes will allow the committee greater latitude to choose how to run any inquiries they choose to conduct into relevant EU legislation, take evidence and report on them. Secondly, the instrument takes account of the need to ensure continuing effective governance arrangements for the UK EU Withdrawal Agreement, but which are also fit for the future.
As the Prime Minister set out on Monday, this future includes the vital deals on the table for the upcoming summit in Brussels on the 20th of November, spanning agrifood trade linking emissions trading systems and energy cooperation. This change to support the governance of the Withdrawal Agreement and the future agreements we are seeking with the EU is made by omitting section 15 C of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018. It reflects our strengthening relationship with the European Union and will allow the UK to agree to decisions at the Joint Committee between meetings.
This process will enable decisions to be made by written procedure, which cannot currently be made on account of domestic law. The Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee typically only meets twice a year, so this change will enable the UK to take necessary and time sensitive decisions as needed, which it currently cannot. It will also allow the government to ensure that where, under future agreements, relevant EU legislation is applicable in Great Britain that Northern Ireland can keep pace.
This will be an important factor for both implementation of relevant rules and allowing businesses the maximum amount of time to adapt. It is a relevant consideration as the government takes forward future agreements with the EU on agri food emissions, trading and electricity, for instance, on electricity. The proposed arrangement could cut wholesale energy prices in Northern Ireland by 20%, including lower bills for households and businesses alike, while protecting the smooth operation of Northern Ireland's dual market access and its place within the UK market.
Firstly, it's in response to recommendations made by the Independent review, and I hear from the honourable member the anxiety to see exactly in the review where those recommendations are made and how people permit me that I don't have the papers to hand, but I'm happy to write with him in further detail with quotes, if you would like. We are committed as a government to providing greater flexibility to the Northern Ireland Assembly's Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee in conducting its examination and consideration of EU legislation relevant to Northern Ireland.
We judge that the Committee plays a very valuable role in scrutinising regulations of relevance to Northern Ireland and its reports, and its engagement with affected stakeholders informs the work of the government, just as it will also inform the work of many members of the Assembly. These changes to schedule six B of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are aimed at providing the Assembly greater latitude in conducting its work within a two month window following the publication of a relevant EU act, if it wishes to use it.
A time frame for the scrutiny of EU acts under the Windsor framework is provided for in law so that everyone is clear. MLAs, businesses and civil society about how the process works and what the impacts of those enactments are. Currently, the committee has five working days to vote on whether to hold an inquiry into a replacement EU act. If an inquiry is held, then a report must be produced no later than 15 working days before the end of the two month scrutiny period, which begins the day the EU publishes the act in its official journal.
This instrument gives the committee greater flexibility by expanding the inquiry decision window to ten working days, and alters the publication deadline for inquiry reports to no later than 12 working days before the end of the screening period. These changes will allow the committee greater latitude to choose how to run any inquiries they choose to conduct into relevant EU legislation, take evidence and report on them. Secondly, the instrument takes account of the need to ensure continuing effective governance arrangements for the UK EU Withdrawal Agreement, but which are also fit for the future.
As the Prime Minister set out on Monday, this future includes the vital deals on the table for the upcoming summit in Brussels on the 20th of November, spanning agrifood trade linking emissions trading systems and energy cooperation. This change to support the governance of the Withdrawal Agreement and the future agreements we are seeking with the EU is made by omitting section 15 C of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018. It reflects our strengthening relationship with the European Union and will allow the UK to agree to decisions at the Joint Committee between meetings.
This process will enable decisions to be made by written procedure, which cannot currently be made on account of domestic law. The Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee typically only meets twice a year, so this change will enable the UK to take necessary and time sensitive decisions as needed, which it currently cannot. It will also allow the government to ensure that where, under future agreements, relevant EU legislation is applicable in Great Britain that Northern Ireland can keep pace.
This will be an important factor for both implementation of relevant rules and allowing businesses the maximum amount of time to adapt. It is a relevant consideration as the government takes forward future agreements with the EU on agri food emissions, trading and electricity, for instance, on electricity. The proposed arrangement could cut wholesale energy prices in Northern Ireland by 20%, including lower bills for households and businesses alike, while protecting the smooth operation of Northern Ireland's dual market access and its place within the UK market.
14:38
14:38
14:38
14:38
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Mr. chair, I'm looking forward to the conversation about the electricity provisions, about a future arrangement with the EU, but I'm not sure that's relevant to the changes that are here. We hope that in a future arrangement with the EU, which we have not yet concluded, the negotiations on, the changes that I'm proposing are to enable us to more smoothly operate the existing arrangements, so that in the future we might be able to adopt them with speed.
I don't think it's wise at the moment to go through all three of those agreements in great detail, conscious of the committee's time. Yeah,
I don't think it's wise at the moment to go through all three of those agreements in great detail, conscious of the committee's time. Yeah,
14:39
14:39
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. Minister appears to be making assertions which he cannot substantiate. Is that in order? Heaven forfend someone should do such a thing in Parliament. But I don't think that that's that's a matter for the chair at the moment. But what is a matter for the chair is that we don't go down this rabbit hole, which is not within the scope. So, Minister.
14:39
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I hosted some of my constituents earlier, and they asked me what what parliamentary debates were like. I didn't tell them that he started. It was a regular feature. But now. Let me let me emphasize. That as with modifications to the Democratic Scrutiny Committee's procedures that I've already set out, the use of the written procedure will be optional and not used for every decision at the Joint Committee. I would emphasise that they do not amend the process for scrutinising the decisions that the government proposes to take at the Joint Committee, where the government maintains obligations to Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly scrutiny process remains as it is today, including where it is provided for in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and in the government's EU scrutiny arrangements with Parliament.
By removing this restriction, the governance of the Withdrawal Agreement will be aligned with that of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which has no similar restriction on the use of written procedure. As with the UK EU Partnership Council established under the TCA. The Joint Committee would still remain the default forum for UK EU decision making in relation to the Withdrawal Agreement and continue to meet, just as the Partnership Council does. Finally, the instrument provides for and clarifies the responsibilities that Northern Ireland departments and ministers are already under to the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee.
This is aimed at supporting the work of the Committee and the governance arrangements of which it forms part. This instrument clarifies the duty on those authorities to comply with a reasonable request for information from the committee, and that it should not be regarded as unreasonable solely on the ground that a Northern Ireland Department or minister lacks primary responsibility for the EU act in question. This change is made in response to recommendations in the.
In the independent review on how Northern Ireland departments should be empowered to provide evidence and support to the Committee. I would also note, for completeness, that the instrument does make some technical amendments to existing legislation. Specifically, the instrument amends outdated references within the Northern Ireland Act 1988 and the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018, so that these now refer to the Windsor framework. This minor change achieves greater clarity on the statute book.
In conclusion, this chair clearly shows that the government is committed to implementing the recommendations of the independent Review of the Windsor Framework in making every effort to ensure that Northern Ireland's trading arrangements works for its people and its businesses to deliver growth in every postcode and to facilitate a future relationship for the UK with the EU, which takes the country forward. Mr. speaker, as the Prime Minister set out on Monday, building that future relationship with the EU is vital if we are serious about promoting growth, controlling immigration, upholding our values and our security.
How we build that future is a conversation that we must have, and one that the government will approach with care and transparency. Part of that is ensuring the arrangements that we have in place for Northern Ireland work effectively, just as it is about preparing for the new agreements that are on the table at the UK EU summit. For those reasons, I commend these regulations to the House and I beg.
By removing this restriction, the governance of the Withdrawal Agreement will be aligned with that of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which has no similar restriction on the use of written procedure. As with the UK EU Partnership Council established under the TCA. The Joint Committee would still remain the default forum for UK EU decision making in relation to the Withdrawal Agreement and continue to meet, just as the Partnership Council does. Finally, the instrument provides for and clarifies the responsibilities that Northern Ireland departments and ministers are already under to the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee.
This is aimed at supporting the work of the Committee and the governance arrangements of which it forms part. This instrument clarifies the duty on those authorities to comply with a reasonable request for information from the committee, and that it should not be regarded as unreasonable solely on the ground that a Northern Ireland Department or minister lacks primary responsibility for the EU act in question. This change is made in response to recommendations in the.
In the independent review on how Northern Ireland departments should be empowered to provide evidence and support to the Committee. I would also note, for completeness, that the instrument does make some technical amendments to existing legislation. Specifically, the instrument amends outdated references within the Northern Ireland Act 1988 and the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018, so that these now refer to the Windsor framework. This minor change achieves greater clarity on the statute book.
In conclusion, this chair clearly shows that the government is committed to implementing the recommendations of the independent Review of the Windsor Framework in making every effort to ensure that Northern Ireland's trading arrangements works for its people and its businesses to deliver growth in every postcode and to facilitate a future relationship for the UK with the EU, which takes the country forward. Mr. speaker, as the Prime Minister set out on Monday, building that future relationship with the EU is vital if we are serious about promoting growth, controlling immigration, upholding our values and our security.
How we build that future is a conversation that we must have, and one that the government will approach with care and transparency. Part of that is ensuring the arrangements that we have in place for Northern Ireland work effectively, just as it is about preparing for the new agreements that are on the table at the UK EU summit. For those reasons, I commend these regulations to the House and I beg.
14:43
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The question is that the Committee has considered the Draft Withdrawal Agreement, Windsor Framework and Governance Amendment Regulations 2026. I would. Minister. Thank you. Thank you, Minister, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I want to make clear from the outset that whilst His Majesty's opposition does not object to every provision within these draft regulations, we cannot support the statutory instrument today. We have no quarrel with the purely technical updates to statutory terminology, nor do we oppose implementing the practical recommendations of Lord Murphy's review to strengthen the hand of the Northern Ireland Assembly's Democratic Scrutiny Committee.
Giving the committee ten working days, rather than five, to decide whether to hold an inquiry, and clarifying that Northern Ireland departments must comply with reasonable requests for information are sensible steps. However, statutory instruments are unamendable and the government has chosen to package these modest Stormont reforms alongside regulation 26, a measure that points in the exact opposite constitutional direction by deleting section 15 C of the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018. And we oppose that approach for three fundamental reasons.
Firstly, we resist the use of Henry VII's powers to weaken the governance and strip away primary legislation safeguards in this area. Section 15 C was not a drafting oversight when Parliament inserted it via clause 35 of the 2020 Withdrawal Agreement Act, paragraph three, two six of the explanatory notes stated explicitly that its purpose was to preclude a Minister of the Crown from using the written procedure to adopt joint committee decisions or recommendations.
That law was enacted by primary legislation to ensure that decisions are taken by a minister in person, and to ensure that there is full ministerial accountability, including to Parliament, for all decisions made in the Joint Committee using delegated powers in secondary legislation to reach back into an Act of Parliament and delete a deliberate accountability safeguard. Placed upon the executive is a misuse of Henry VII's powers, and it is particularly concerning precedent coming ahead of the government's EU reset bill.
Secondly, we strongly oppose removing the prohibition on the Joint Committee making decisions between meetings. We have great sympathy with the submission made by the honourable and learned gentleman, the member for North Antrim, to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as he rightly exposed paragraph 57 of the government's explanatory memorandum, merely states that the mechanical effect of deleting section 15 C without offering a single word of explanation as to why a safeguard that was once deemed essential is no longer required.
Worse still, there has been no meaningful consultation on removing that safeguard section. Section seven of the explanatory memorandum relies on the Murphy Review as its consultation basis. Yet Lord Murphy never recommended repealing section 56. In fact, Lord Murphy noted that the joint Committee meets at ministerial level alongside the First and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, and specifically recommended broadening the inclusion of stakeholders into these meetings to bring greater transparency and openness, not less.
Under section 15 C, formal Joint Committee meeting dates are announced well in advance, giving Parliament and the public a clear focal point to track decisions by repealing section 15 C decisions and recommendations can be signed off on paper between meetings and slip through at any time without notice. Only when pressed by the scrutiny committee in July did the Cabinet Office finally admit that the real driver behind this change is facilitating decision making between meetings for the point when future UK EU agreements are in force? Of course.
Giving the committee ten working days, rather than five, to decide whether to hold an inquiry, and clarifying that Northern Ireland departments must comply with reasonable requests for information are sensible steps. However, statutory instruments are unamendable and the government has chosen to package these modest Stormont reforms alongside regulation 26, a measure that points in the exact opposite constitutional direction by deleting section 15 C of the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018. And we oppose that approach for three fundamental reasons.
Firstly, we resist the use of Henry VII's powers to weaken the governance and strip away primary legislation safeguards in this area. Section 15 C was not a drafting oversight when Parliament inserted it via clause 35 of the 2020 Withdrawal Agreement Act, paragraph three, two six of the explanatory notes stated explicitly that its purpose was to preclude a Minister of the Crown from using the written procedure to adopt joint committee decisions or recommendations.
That law was enacted by primary legislation to ensure that decisions are taken by a minister in person, and to ensure that there is full ministerial accountability, including to Parliament, for all decisions made in the Joint Committee using delegated powers in secondary legislation to reach back into an Act of Parliament and delete a deliberate accountability safeguard. Placed upon the executive is a misuse of Henry VII's powers, and it is particularly concerning precedent coming ahead of the government's EU reset bill.
Secondly, we strongly oppose removing the prohibition on the Joint Committee making decisions between meetings. We have great sympathy with the submission made by the honourable and learned gentleman, the member for North Antrim, to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as he rightly exposed paragraph 57 of the government's explanatory memorandum, merely states that the mechanical effect of deleting section 15 C without offering a single word of explanation as to why a safeguard that was once deemed essential is no longer required.
Worse still, there has been no meaningful consultation on removing that safeguard section. Section seven of the explanatory memorandum relies on the Murphy Review as its consultation basis. Yet Lord Murphy never recommended repealing section 56. In fact, Lord Murphy noted that the joint Committee meets at ministerial level alongside the First and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, and specifically recommended broadening the inclusion of stakeholders into these meetings to bring greater transparency and openness, not less.
Under section 15 C, formal Joint Committee meeting dates are announced well in advance, giving Parliament and the public a clear focal point to track decisions by repealing section 15 C decisions and recommendations can be signed off on paper between meetings and slip through at any time without notice. Only when pressed by the scrutiny committee in July did the Cabinet Office finally admit that the real driver behind this change is facilitating decision making between meetings for the point when future UK EU agreements are in force? Of course.
14:47
14:48
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So my friends obviously got a long and strong record of promoting accountability within government, not always to the pleasure of the government whips office when we're in government. But it is particularly important that he continues that function when measures like this are being brought through through secondary legislation. If the government wants new governance mechanisms for future EU reset deals, it should make that case openly in primary legislation, not strip away statutory locks by stealth today.
And thirdly, we need better oversight of the Windsor framework regulation making process, not weaker scrutiny. As the House of Lords Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee highlighted. We are currently in the extraordinary position of not even having a complete public list of all the EU laws to which Northern Ireland is subject under dynamic alignment. That committee rightly called on the Cabinet Office to establish a dedicated regulatory divergence unit to maintain an up to date public database on the National Archives website, alongside more detailed statements after joint meetings.
Yet in this July responses to the scrutiny committee, the Cabinet Office admitted the section 15 C provides no statutory notification mechanism and that Westminster scrutiny relies on explanatory explanatory memoranda triggered by EU Council decisions establishing the EU's position, not the UK's position, which are then followed by publication on gov.uk website after the fact. Relying on Brussels paperwork to alert the UK Parliament to decisions our own ministers are taking by written correspondence and publishing those decisions on gov.uk.
Only after they've been signed is no substitute for proper parliamentary oversight. So until the government brings forward proper transparency and scrutiny over the Windsor framework regulation making process and stops using inappropriate Henry VII's powers to dismantle primary legislation, safeguards on joint committee decision making between meetings. His Majesty. His Majesty's Opposition cannot support these regulations.
And thirdly, we need better oversight of the Windsor framework regulation making process, not weaker scrutiny. As the House of Lords Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee highlighted. We are currently in the extraordinary position of not even having a complete public list of all the EU laws to which Northern Ireland is subject under dynamic alignment. That committee rightly called on the Cabinet Office to establish a dedicated regulatory divergence unit to maintain an up to date public database on the National Archives website, alongside more detailed statements after joint meetings.
Yet in this July responses to the scrutiny committee, the Cabinet Office admitted the section 15 C provides no statutory notification mechanism and that Westminster scrutiny relies on explanatory explanatory memoranda triggered by EU Council decisions establishing the EU's position, not the UK's position, which are then followed by publication on gov.uk website after the fact. Relying on Brussels paperwork to alert the UK Parliament to decisions our own ministers are taking by written correspondence and publishing those decisions on gov.uk.
Only after they've been signed is no substitute for proper parliamentary oversight. So until the government brings forward proper transparency and scrutiny over the Windsor framework regulation making process and stops using inappropriate Henry VII's powers to dismantle primary legislation, safeguards on joint committee decision making between meetings. His Majesty. His Majesty's Opposition cannot support these regulations.
14:50
14:50
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you for the opportunity. Tucked within this regulation, something which does not have its genesis in the Murphy Review. And the committee will have noted that the Minister was unable to verify that it had. Is regulation 26, which is to omit section 15 C of the 2018 act. And what did 15 C say? It said this . The United Kingdom co-chair of the Joint Committee may not consent to the Joint Committee using the written procedure.
Why might it have said that? Well, we get the answer to that. When we look at the reasoning of the then government for inserting that clause, and it was inserted by the 2020 act into the act by clause 35. And what did the explanatory memorandum say as to the reason why 15 C was being inserted? It says that it says this. New use of written procedure in the Joint Committee.
The provision precludes a Minister of the Crown as the UK's co-chair, using the written procedure to adopt recommendations or decisions of the Joint Committee. This ensures that decisions made by the Joint Committee are made by a minister in person. The purpose of this provision is to ensure there is full ministerial accountability, including to Parliament, for all decisions made in the Joint Committee. So that was the fundamental reason to ensure the Minister made the decision in person and to ensure that that gives some semblance of accountability.
And why does it matter? What does the Joint Committee do? The Joint committee has some very fundamental functions. One of the functions of the Joint Committee is to evaluate all new EU laws, which might be relevant, and to decide if they are within the scope of the Windsor framework. In other words, to decide if they should apply without further ado, to a part of this United Kingdom. That's what the Joint Committee does.
Amongst other things. But that is probably its most critical function. When the EU makes a new law, the Joint Committee decides should. Does that fall within the Windsor framework and therefore does it automatically, without further debate, without scrutiny, without the right to amend it, without the right to even debate it, should it apply directly to a part of this United Kingdom? That is such a fundamental issue that that is why it was properly written in the 15th C as a safeguard.
That the matter would be considered seriously. It would be considered by a minister. It would be done in person, and there'll be some semblance of accountability. What the government wants to do today is to remove that second, and to do it on the false premise that that falls out of the merger review. There's not a word in the Mercury review about this. Not one word.
So why is it in a regulation supposedly implementing the Murphy review? And let me say this about the Murphy review. The government promised there would be a debate on the floor of the House of Commons on the Murphy Review. There has never been such a debate, but they come to this committee and try to slip in this fundamental change. And it's no accident that this regulation is that this a, a s I specified is dealing with constitutional law.
And so does constitutional law that attacks fundamentally, because remember what my constituents are subject to in over 300 areas of law. They are subject to EU law. They don't make they don't elect anyone there. They can't change those. And they get their entry point onto the EU under the Northern Ireland Statute book through the Joint Committee. That's it. Once they give the go ahead it's on the statutory.
That's of course constitutionally is utterly absurd in itself. But then in those circumstances, to withdraw the one, safeguard there is, namely, that you at least be assured that a minister has considered it and has not just ticked a box in some written exercise to then withdraw that. It adds great insult to the injury already done by the process which exists. So I say to this committee, with any one of you, with any one of the members of this committee, contemplate for one moment lawmaking that sought for their constituents.
I respectfully suggest none of you would be so dismissive of the rights and of the interests of your constituents to say, it's okay to apply law by a written procedure where no one ever debates it. No one can ever amend it. We didn't make it ourselves, but we'll just colonially implement it from the EU. No one in this committee would accept that for their own constituents. So why should this committee ask me to accept that for my constituents and the very least, the very least of safeguards is one that nigh is to be removed.
And so many decisions were swept through on notice, because at least when the joint committee meets, there's a publication, even though it meets in private, there's a publication, what it does and what it approves. So at least you can somehow be a very tortured route, try and follow what it's doing, but take that away from the public meetings from from the meetings of the joint committee, and you'll be left with virtually nothing but unbridled colonial rule from the E U.
And this, of course, goes against the entire trend of the need for more transparency. Murphy himself talked about it, but the first report of the House of Lords Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee demonstrated that rather than requiring less transparency and scrutiny, the Windsor framework is crying out for more. This is what it said. We recommend that the government engages with the EU in order to bring greater transparency to the workings of the UK, EU bodies of the Windsor framework.
This should include producing more detailed statements after joint meetings. Now we're going to remove the substance of the joint meetings. The ministerial involvement in them allow things to be done in a paper exercise, whereas the House of Lords committee is quite rightly be saying it's the opposite direction of travel. You should be pursuing. So I do say to the committee, this is not just some technical change. Yes, there's lots of technical changes here about changing words to insert the words Windsor framework, etc.
but that's not the substance of this. The substance of this is the surreptitious removal of the single protection that existed under section 15 C. Why does the government want to do that? We've had no explanation. Explanatory memorandum doesn't give an explanation. The minister tried to tell us, of course, the Mercury review and I stand on the ground that it isn't. There is nothing in the Murphy review to that effect.
So why are we doing this other than the convenience of not having to be bothered to consider legislation that might apply to my constituents in any sensible way, and just rubber stamp and pass it all through? Because who cares whether it's good law or bad? Well, that is not an attitude for any legislator to take. And therefore, I do say to this committee, you need to pause, you need to think and put it in the context.
Would you do this to your constituents? And if you wouldn't, then don't do it to my.
Why might it have said that? Well, we get the answer to that. When we look at the reasoning of the then government for inserting that clause, and it was inserted by the 2020 act into the act by clause 35. And what did the explanatory memorandum say as to the reason why 15 C was being inserted? It says that it says this. New use of written procedure in the Joint Committee.
The provision precludes a Minister of the Crown as the UK's co-chair, using the written procedure to adopt recommendations or decisions of the Joint Committee. This ensures that decisions made by the Joint Committee are made by a minister in person. The purpose of this provision is to ensure there is full ministerial accountability, including to Parliament, for all decisions made in the Joint Committee. So that was the fundamental reason to ensure the Minister made the decision in person and to ensure that that gives some semblance of accountability.
And why does it matter? What does the Joint Committee do? The Joint committee has some very fundamental functions. One of the functions of the Joint Committee is to evaluate all new EU laws, which might be relevant, and to decide if they are within the scope of the Windsor framework. In other words, to decide if they should apply without further ado, to a part of this United Kingdom. That's what the Joint Committee does.
Amongst other things. But that is probably its most critical function. When the EU makes a new law, the Joint Committee decides should. Does that fall within the Windsor framework and therefore does it automatically, without further debate, without scrutiny, without the right to amend it, without the right to even debate it, should it apply directly to a part of this United Kingdom? That is such a fundamental issue that that is why it was properly written in the 15th C as a safeguard.
That the matter would be considered seriously. It would be considered by a minister. It would be done in person, and there'll be some semblance of accountability. What the government wants to do today is to remove that second, and to do it on the false premise that that falls out of the merger review. There's not a word in the Mercury review about this. Not one word.
So why is it in a regulation supposedly implementing the Murphy review? And let me say this about the Murphy review. The government promised there would be a debate on the floor of the House of Commons on the Murphy Review. There has never been such a debate, but they come to this committee and try to slip in this fundamental change. And it's no accident that this regulation is that this a, a s I specified is dealing with constitutional law.
And so does constitutional law that attacks fundamentally, because remember what my constituents are subject to in over 300 areas of law. They are subject to EU law. They don't make they don't elect anyone there. They can't change those. And they get their entry point onto the EU under the Northern Ireland Statute book through the Joint Committee. That's it. Once they give the go ahead it's on the statutory.
That's of course constitutionally is utterly absurd in itself. But then in those circumstances, to withdraw the one, safeguard there is, namely, that you at least be assured that a minister has considered it and has not just ticked a box in some written exercise to then withdraw that. It adds great insult to the injury already done by the process which exists. So I say to this committee, with any one of you, with any one of the members of this committee, contemplate for one moment lawmaking that sought for their constituents.
I respectfully suggest none of you would be so dismissive of the rights and of the interests of your constituents to say, it's okay to apply law by a written procedure where no one ever debates it. No one can ever amend it. We didn't make it ourselves, but we'll just colonially implement it from the EU. No one in this committee would accept that for their own constituents. So why should this committee ask me to accept that for my constituents and the very least, the very least of safeguards is one that nigh is to be removed.
And so many decisions were swept through on notice, because at least when the joint committee meets, there's a publication, even though it meets in private, there's a publication, what it does and what it approves. So at least you can somehow be a very tortured route, try and follow what it's doing, but take that away from the public meetings from from the meetings of the joint committee, and you'll be left with virtually nothing but unbridled colonial rule from the E U.
And this, of course, goes against the entire trend of the need for more transparency. Murphy himself talked about it, but the first report of the House of Lords Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee demonstrated that rather than requiring less transparency and scrutiny, the Windsor framework is crying out for more. This is what it said. We recommend that the government engages with the EU in order to bring greater transparency to the workings of the UK, EU bodies of the Windsor framework.
This should include producing more detailed statements after joint meetings. Now we're going to remove the substance of the joint meetings. The ministerial involvement in them allow things to be done in a paper exercise, whereas the House of Lords committee is quite rightly be saying it's the opposite direction of travel. You should be pursuing. So I do say to the committee, this is not just some technical change. Yes, there's lots of technical changes here about changing words to insert the words Windsor framework, etc.
but that's not the substance of this. The substance of this is the surreptitious removal of the single protection that existed under section 15 C. Why does the government want to do that? We've had no explanation. Explanatory memorandum doesn't give an explanation. The minister tried to tell us, of course, the Mercury review and I stand on the ground that it isn't. There is nothing in the Murphy review to that effect.
So why are we doing this other than the convenience of not having to be bothered to consider legislation that might apply to my constituents in any sensible way, and just rubber stamp and pass it all through? Because who cares whether it's good law or bad? Well, that is not an attitude for any legislator to take. And therefore, I do say to this committee, you need to pause, you need to think and put it in the context.
Would you do this to your constituents? And if you wouldn't, then don't do it to my.
14:59
14:59
14:59
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Mr.. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And I just want to say a few words about, as the Minister did, about the context of this, because it has always been the history of our relationship with the European Union , that whenever a minister brought a proposal to the House to increase the powers of the European Union in order to enlarge the activities of the European Union in our own jurisdiction, it was always. There's nothing to see here.
This has already been done. This is just recognizing what is already happening. There's no change. And by increment we've got further and further away. We've got further and further away from democratic accountability. That led to the British public deciding that they wanted to leave the European Union. Now this is another another chip being taken out of our democratic process. I mean, the Northern Ireland Protocol is and the Windsor framework is about as undemocratic as you can possibly imagine.
That is that there is no direct possibility of intervention by the people of Northern Ireland in the lawmaking process that finishes up making the law of their own province. And incidentally, if we have dynamic alignment in the UK as a whole that will apply in the UK, no member of Parliament, no majority of the House of Commons, no majority of both houses will have the power to block or stop a new regulation being applied by the European Union.
If we have cemented ourselves into a process of democratic alignment. And I just point out that the government, as the Minister, I think, mentioned that the SPS agreement is meant to generate an extra £10 billion of economic activity in the UK over the period to 2040. I think I've got that correct. Well, that adds up to barely more than £700 million a year. I mean, this is a peanut in the overall scheme of things.
What's holding back the economic activity in this country is excessive regulation and excessive taxation. And I notice I notice what you're saying. But the but the point is the trade offs for agreeing to the SPS agreement are not matched. As the Secretary of State for trade said recently, were we to join the customs union, it would have a very adverse effect on our trading arrangements that we've agreed with the rest of the world.
Now, this particular instrument seems to be embedding Northern Ireland further into an undemocratic regulatory process with the EU by removing the safeguard of, of, of of section 15 B of the 2018 act. And the Minister has not actually provided an explanation as to why that's going to happen. And I would reinforce the point made by the honourable gentleman who spoke just before me. It's not in the review to which the Minister referred.
If it is in the review, please can he quote from the review? If it's not in the review, what is the justification for doing this? He has not given an explanation and it's time he did. Sir.
This has already been done. This is just recognizing what is already happening. There's no change. And by increment we've got further and further away. We've got further and further away from democratic accountability. That led to the British public deciding that they wanted to leave the European Union. Now this is another another chip being taken out of our democratic process. I mean, the Northern Ireland Protocol is and the Windsor framework is about as undemocratic as you can possibly imagine.
That is that there is no direct possibility of intervention by the people of Northern Ireland in the lawmaking process that finishes up making the law of their own province. And incidentally, if we have dynamic alignment in the UK as a whole that will apply in the UK, no member of Parliament, no majority of the House of Commons, no majority of both houses will have the power to block or stop a new regulation being applied by the European Union.
If we have cemented ourselves into a process of democratic alignment. And I just point out that the government, as the Minister, I think, mentioned that the SPS agreement is meant to generate an extra £10 billion of economic activity in the UK over the period to 2040. I think I've got that correct. Well, that adds up to barely more than £700 million a year. I mean, this is a peanut in the overall scheme of things.
What's holding back the economic activity in this country is excessive regulation and excessive taxation. And I notice I notice what you're saying. But the but the point is the trade offs for agreeing to the SPS agreement are not matched. As the Secretary of State for trade said recently, were we to join the customs union, it would have a very adverse effect on our trading arrangements that we've agreed with the rest of the world.
Now, this particular instrument seems to be embedding Northern Ireland further into an undemocratic regulatory process with the EU by removing the safeguard of, of, of of section 15 B of the 2018 act. And the Minister has not actually provided an explanation as to why that's going to happen. And I would reinforce the point made by the honourable gentleman who spoke just before me. It's not in the review to which the Minister referred.
If it is in the review, please can he quote from the review? If it's not in the review, what is the justification for doing this? He has not given an explanation and it's time he did. Sir.
15:03
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am surprised by the degree of emphasis on this particular point about letters or meetings, and I'll come back to them. But I just want to emphasize to this committee, obviously to the House, that I'm a minister in writing. I'm a minister in person. I'm a minister when I'm sitting, I'm a minister. When I'm standing in all those guises, I'm fully accountable to Parliament for the decisions that I make.
I thought a little of the tone of some of those interventions was that letters in my name, for I am the British co-chair on the joint Committee, would be done by other people. I would just like to reiterate to the committee, I take my responsibilities both as co-chair and as a minister in this House very seriously. So I would just want to reject any suggestion that whether it is in writing or in person, wouldn't take my responsibilities with the seriousness that the committee would expect.
Let me turn to back to the instruments and this question about what was the purpose of the review, and therefore, what is the purpose of the instrument? The purpose of the review was to provide for the streamlining of these arrangements. The purpose of the instrument is to see that affected. For the reasons I set out in my introductory remarks, I do not think that my accountability is reduced by writing letters. I have justified it with reference to that rather larger streamlining of governance, and I had, Mr.
Chairman, two different flavors of objections. One flavor of objections from the second set of benches about insult to an injury introduced by the first set of benches in the Windsor framework and the Northern Ireland Protocol, obviously introduced under the previous governments. The government of which I am a part, has inherited these arrangements and we are seeking to improve them in the way I have set out in my opening remarks. I'd like to emphasize to honourable and right honourable members that this instrument is, however, not the only action that the government is taking at home in order to build a strong future relationship with the European Union.
We have announced £16.6 million to strengthen the UK internal markets and help Northern Ireland boost trade with Great Britain. This includes a comprehensive one stop shop regulatory support service beyond what is available on gov.uk, currently will be helping businesses trade across the UK and EU markets and benefit from Northern Ireland's unique dual market access. We've improved the duty reimbursement scheme so that businesses whose goods are determined to be at risk of entering the UK can easily secure a reimbursement of duty.
We have continued to ensure the smooth supply of veterinary medicines, and we've been working concertedly to ensure that the impacts of changes to the rules that apply in Northern Ireland account for its specific circumstances. But there is more to do. Mr. Chair and Honourable and Right Honourable members have already touched on the approach to the future relationship with the EU and the important role of scrutiny in that. This government is very clear. We see the interests of Northern Ireland at the heart of the UK EU relationship.
Looking ahead, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, there are overwhelmingly tangible benefits in our pragmatic approach for Northern Ireland, particularly in easing burdens for our traders and agri food sector, getting the right outcomes for Northern Ireland and the rest of the country rests on a relationship of trust and cooperation. I've been pleased, pleased to hear that recognised, including in some of the responses to the Prime Minister's words on Monday afternoon. I would emphasise here that we can only build that trust and cooperation with our trading partners if we work on the basis of agreed arrangements, which are the best way of delivering certainty and stability for businesses and people.
For the government's part, we will only accept arrangements that protect Northern Ireland's place in the union and its internal market, prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland and deliver certainty to businesses on the basis of agreement with the European Union. I invite those in this chamber and beyond who may be instinctively more skeptical towards an SPS agreement to consider what that means for businesses. No practical solutions for the businesses moving their goods, no lifting of paperwork burdens, no reduction of costs.
That, to my mind, would seem to be the exact opposite of protecting the UK internal market. It simply holds our traders back. As the Prime Minister rightly asked, why would we not do everything that we can to deliver those savings for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland? For those reasons, we look forward to the UK EU summit in November, where we hope to build on that progress since last summer. Since last year's summit, secure deals that make a real difference to people's lives.
And just as we will set out around the summit, the different options for our long term relationship with our European partners, helping us find a path forward, we must continue to build upon these foundations and bring real benefits to all parts of the UK. And as we do so, I assure the committee that we will also remain focused on smoothing flows of goods to Northern Ireland, where we can, within the arrangements that apply now with the eye to a better future.
I thought a little of the tone of some of those interventions was that letters in my name, for I am the British co-chair on the joint Committee, would be done by other people. I would just like to reiterate to the committee, I take my responsibilities both as co-chair and as a minister in this House very seriously. So I would just want to reject any suggestion that whether it is in writing or in person, wouldn't take my responsibilities with the seriousness that the committee would expect.
Let me turn to back to the instruments and this question about what was the purpose of the review, and therefore, what is the purpose of the instrument? The purpose of the review was to provide for the streamlining of these arrangements. The purpose of the instrument is to see that affected. For the reasons I set out in my introductory remarks, I do not think that my accountability is reduced by writing letters. I have justified it with reference to that rather larger streamlining of governance, and I had, Mr.
Chairman, two different flavors of objections. One flavor of objections from the second set of benches about insult to an injury introduced by the first set of benches in the Windsor framework and the Northern Ireland Protocol, obviously introduced under the previous governments. The government of which I am a part, has inherited these arrangements and we are seeking to improve them in the way I have set out in my opening remarks. I'd like to emphasize to honourable and right honourable members that this instrument is, however, not the only action that the government is taking at home in order to build a strong future relationship with the European Union.
We have announced £16.6 million to strengthen the UK internal markets and help Northern Ireland boost trade with Great Britain. This includes a comprehensive one stop shop regulatory support service beyond what is available on gov.uk, currently will be helping businesses trade across the UK and EU markets and benefit from Northern Ireland's unique dual market access. We've improved the duty reimbursement scheme so that businesses whose goods are determined to be at risk of entering the UK can easily secure a reimbursement of duty.
We have continued to ensure the smooth supply of veterinary medicines, and we've been working concertedly to ensure that the impacts of changes to the rules that apply in Northern Ireland account for its specific circumstances. But there is more to do. Mr. Chair and Honourable and Right Honourable members have already touched on the approach to the future relationship with the EU and the important role of scrutiny in that. This government is very clear. We see the interests of Northern Ireland at the heart of the UK EU relationship.
Looking ahead, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, there are overwhelmingly tangible benefits in our pragmatic approach for Northern Ireland, particularly in easing burdens for our traders and agri food sector, getting the right outcomes for Northern Ireland and the rest of the country rests on a relationship of trust and cooperation. I've been pleased, pleased to hear that recognised, including in some of the responses to the Prime Minister's words on Monday afternoon. I would emphasise here that we can only build that trust and cooperation with our trading partners if we work on the basis of agreed arrangements, which are the best way of delivering certainty and stability for businesses and people.
For the government's part, we will only accept arrangements that protect Northern Ireland's place in the union and its internal market, prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland and deliver certainty to businesses on the basis of agreement with the European Union. I invite those in this chamber and beyond who may be instinctively more skeptical towards an SPS agreement to consider what that means for businesses. No practical solutions for the businesses moving their goods, no lifting of paperwork burdens, no reduction of costs.
That, to my mind, would seem to be the exact opposite of protecting the UK internal market. It simply holds our traders back. As the Prime Minister rightly asked, why would we not do everything that we can to deliver those savings for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland? For those reasons, we look forward to the UK EU summit in November, where we hope to build on that progress since last summer. Since last year's summit, secure deals that make a real difference to people's lives.
And just as we will set out around the summit, the different options for our long term relationship with our European partners, helping us find a path forward, we must continue to build upon these foundations and bring real benefits to all parts of the UK. And as we do so, I assure the committee that we will also remain focused on smoothing flows of goods to Northern Ireland, where we can, within the arrangements that apply now with the eye to a better future.
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09