Question to the HM Treasury:

To ask His Majesty's Government, following the implementation of the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism on 1 January, what steps they are taking to mitigate the £200 million annual cost to Northern Ireland and risk to 1,100 jobs estimated in Energy UK’s report Borderline confusion - Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms in Northern Ireland, published in January 2025.

Answered by Lord Livermore - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)

The Energy UK report referred to assumes that the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) would apply in Northern Ireland. The EU CBAM does not apply in Northern Ireland. From 1 January 2027, the UK CBAM will apply across the whole of the UK, including Northern Ireland.

To reduce barriers to trade, the UK and EU are also negotiating a deal to link respective emissions trading schemes, which will create the conditions for mutual CBAM exemptions. Those talks have begun and the Government is working to negotiate a good deal in line with UK interests as quickly as is feasible.

The Government also welcomes the European Commission’s proposed amendments, published December 2025, which would mean electricity exports from the UK will not face an EU CBAM charge.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they will take to publish national guidance on the proportion of families accessing specialist dementia support within a defined period following diagnosis.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Government wants a society where every person with dementia receives high-quality, compassionate care from diagnosis through to the end of life.

We will deliver the first ever Frailty and Dementia Modern Service Framework to deliver rapid and significant improvements in quality of care and productivity. This will be informed by phase one of the independent commission into adult social care, which is expected this year.

The Frailty and Dementia Modern Service Framework will seek to reduce unwarranted variation and narrow inequality for those living with dementia and will set national standards for dementia care and redirect National Health Service priorities to provide the best possible care and support.

In developing the Frailty and Dementia Modern Service Framework, we are engaging with a wide group of partners to understand what should be included, to ensure the best outcomes for people living with dementia and their families and carers. As part of this exercise, we are considering all options to help reduce variation, including reviewing metrics and targets.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Dementia and Frailty Modern Service Framework will establish a single national dementia care pathway, including end of life care and clear minimum service standards.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

We will deliver the first ever Frailty and Dementia Modern Service Framework to deliver rapid and significant improvements in the quality of care and productivity. This will be informed by phase one of the independent commission into adult social care, which is expected this year.

The Frailty and Dementia Modern Service Framework will seek to reduce unwarranted variation and narrow inequality for those living with dementia and will set national standards for dementia care and redirect National Health Service priorities to provide the best possible care and support.

In developing the Modern Service Framework for Frailty and Dementia, we will be considering existing guidance, including the D100 Pathway Assessment tool, which continues the work of the Dementia Care Pathway and covers all elements of the Well Pathway from prevention through to dying well.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they plan to take to ensure that dementia is explicitly designed into the neighbourhood health model at a national level and to prevent local discretion and variable commissioning decisions in relation to such services.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

This Government is empowering local leaders with the autonomy they need to provide the best services to their local community, including those with dementia. This is why we have published the D100: Assessment Tool Pathway programme, which brings together multiple resources into a single, consolidated tool. This will help simplify best practice for system leaders and help create communities and services where the best possible care and support is available to those with dementia.

We will deliver the first ever Modern Service Framework for Frailty and Dementia to deliver rapid and significant improvements in quality of care and productivity, informed by phase one of the independent commission into adult social care, which is expected this year. The framework will seek to reduce unwarranted variation and narrow inequality for those living with dementia.

Neighbourhood Health provides the unifying framework that brings together what is already underway across primary care, community services, urgent care, prevention, digital, estates and population health into a single, coherent model focused on improved access, experience and outcomes.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they plan to take to ensure that every neighbourhood health service in England includes dementia specialism within multidisciplinary teams, with dementia specialist nursing as a core component.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

Neighbourhood Health Services will bring together integrated neighbourhood teams of professionals and partners closer to people’s home, including nurses, doctors, social care workers, pharmacists, health visitors, employment support, children’s services, and more, to work together to support people and places to improve their health and wellbeing.

Neighbourhood Health provides the unifying framework that brings together what is already underway across primary care, community services, urgent care, prevention, digital, estates and population health into a single, coherent model focused on improved access, experience and outcomes.

The provision of dementia health care services is the responsibility of local integrated care boards (ICBs) and may include specialist nurses. We expect ICBs to commission services based on local population needs, taking account of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to publish national dementia outcomes for neighbourhood health services requiring integrated care boards to demonstrate timely access to specialist, community-based dementia support.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

In developing the Modern Service Framework for Frailty and Dementia, we are engaging with a wide group of partners to understand what should be included to ensure the best outcomes for people living with dementia. As part of this exercise, we are considering all options to help reduce variation, including reviewing metrics and targets.

The Neighbourhood Health Service will be the driving force behind our new Genomics Population Health Service; and data will increasingly allow Neighbourhood Health Services to deliver genuinely predictive and pre-emptive care, transforming our care model entirely.

NHS England already collect and publish data about people with dementia at each general practice in England, to enable National Health Service general practitioners and commissioners to make informed choices about how to plan their dementia services around patients’ needs.

The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities Dementia Intelligence Network has also developed a tool for local systems, which includes an assessment of population characteristics such as rurality and socio-economic deprivation. This enables systems to investigate local variation in diagnosis and take informed action to enhance their diagnosis rates. The tool is available via the NHS Futures Collaboration platform.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Merron on 5 January (HL12579), whether they will review the evaluation framework used to inform advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to ensure that it systematically captures the wider economic and societal benefits of vaccination, including impacts on productivity, education, and health inequalities.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

When advising the Government on matters relating to vaccination and immunisation, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) considers information on cost-effectiveness alongside evidence of the burden of disease, of vaccine safety and efficacy, and of the impact of immunisation strategies. Broader socio-economic impacts of vaccination may be highlighted by the JCVI or by officials who provide advice to ministers. However, these wider impacts are not formally included with the cost-effectiveness methodology.

A key reason for this is that these wider benefits cannot be quantified consistently across all vaccination programmes, due to the lack of high-quality data on socio-economic benefits currently available. Robust data may be available for very few programmes, but basing decisions on these wider benefits, rather than health benefits, would create disparities whereby vaccination programmes with high-quality data on wider benefits are considered more valuable.

Additionally, by maintaining a formal approach focused on health benefits, we are able to assess vaccines consistently with other health interventions in receipt of health spending, which are similarly focused on health benefits under the guidance of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

By ensuring vaccine policymaking is informed by comparable and measurable health benefits and rigorous cost-effectiveness analysis, we ensure that public funds are spent responsibly and directed to programmes that deliver health benefits and savings to the health and social care system.

Question to the Department for Business and Trade:

To ask His Majesty's Government when they plan to introduce legislation to replace the Financial Reporting Council with the Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority and to place that body on a statutory footing.

Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)

The government recognises the importance of having an effective and proportionate regulator of the audit sector and the significance of having a regulator that has the right legislative set-up to do the job. At present, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) will not transition to become the Audit Reporting and Governance Authority (ARGA). The name of the regulator is less important than its effectiveness. The FRC has already undergone a substantial transformation since 2018, and we intend to put it on a proper statutory footing as soon as there is availability within the parliamentary schedule.

Question to the Department for Business and Trade:

To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they plan to take to mitigate the risk of further avoidable corporate failures pending the introduction of strengthened audit and governance regulations.

Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)

The quality of audit regulation and audit itself has seen considerable improvement in the last eight years following the collapse of Carillion; however, we will continue to work closely with the Financial Reporting Council to keep improving the audit market. The government is committed to good governance, and the UK is a world leader in corporate governance. We will take a further step in this direction by launching a consultation to modernise, simplify and streamline the UK’s corporate reporting framework, with the ambition to make the UK’s reporting regime the most proportionate in the world.

Question to the Department for Business and Trade:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact on jobs, growth and investment of major corporate collapses linked to audit and governance deficiencies over the past decade.

Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)

The Government has not made such an assessment. At one level, almost all corporate collapses can be linked to governance deficiencies, since company directors have a duty to promote the success of the company. Audit deficiencies tend to exacerbate problems rather than being the cause of a company’s collapse. As an example of the impact of a major corporate collapse over the past decade, the failure of Carillion left approximately £4.5bn of debt, affecting around 7,000 first-tier suppliers and contractors, and displacing 19,000 UK jobs.

Question to the Department for Business and Trade:

To ask His Majesty's Government when they intend to publish their proposals for a modernised corporate reporting framework.

Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)

On 21 October 2025, the government announced its intention to launch a consultation to modernise, simplify and streamline the UK’s corporate reporting framework, delivering the most proportionate framework in the world. The consultation will be issued shortly.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will provide a timeline for their engagement with technology companies on preventing nude image sharing among children, as referenced in Freedom from Violence and Abuse: a cross-government strategy to build a safer society for women and girls, published on 18 December 2025.

Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)

We committed in the Violence Against Women and Girls strategy ‘to make it impossible for children in the UK to take, share or view a nude image’, and that ‘we are working constructively with companies to make this a reality’. This engagement will be targeted and carried out with the urgency that the issue deserves.

We want device operating systems to be doing more to protect their child users. Applying nudity detection technology more comprehensively across the operating system can prevent nude imagery from being taken, shared or viewed on the phone at all. This intervention is about preventing the harm from happening by blocking the imagery entirely. Preventing the creation and sharing of self-generated indecent imagery (SGII) would undermine grooming and sextortion models, where imagery is extorted out of the child by offenders.

This intervention will also prevent children from being exposed to harmful content, building on similar protections already enacted through the Online Safety Act. Exposure to harmful content – especially pornography – at such an impressionable age can feed misogynistic views and give distorted views of healthy relationships.

We will provide an update on this work as soon as possible. If voluntary action from industry is not sufficient, we will not hesitate to consider other means.

Question to the Department for Education:

To ask His Majesty's Government what guidance they issue to schools in England on preventing, recognising, and responding to anaphylaxis.

Answered by Baroness Smith of Malvern - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)

Schools are required under Section 100 of the Children and Families Act 2014 to make arrangements to support pupils with medical conditions, including allergies. They must have regard to the 'Supporting pupils with medical conditions at school' statutory guidance which sets expectations for training and emergency procedures. The guidance can be read in full here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/supporting-pupils-at-school-with-medical-conditions--3.

Governing bodies should ensure that staff receive suitable training to identify and respond to severe allergic reactions, such as anaphylaxis, and that policies and systems are effectively implemented. Ofsted assesses the effectiveness of these arrangements as part of school inspections.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation’s (JCVI’s) advice in November 2024 to expand eligibility for the shingles vaccination programme to include people aged 80 and over, what assessment they have made of the impact of delays in implementation on those with comorbidities who are at highest risk of severe shingles disease; what steps they are taking to prioritise protection for these high-risk individuals; and whether they will commit to implementing the JCVI advice before this winter.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

Currently, adults become eligible for their shingles vaccination when they turn 65 or 70 years of age, and they remain eligible until their 79th birthday. Adults who are severely immunosuppressed, and therefore most at risk of serious illness and complications from shingles, are eligible from 18 years old and do not have an upper age limit.

The shingles vaccination programme has been in place since 2013, and therefore there will be a significant portion of adults currently aged 80 years old and over who were offered, and received, Zostavax, the previous shingles vaccine. All those who were born after 1 September 1933 would have been offered a vaccine in the programme.

In November 2024, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation provided advice to the Government on eligibility for the shingles vaccination programme. This included advice that the Government should consider expanding the shingles vaccination offer to include older adult cohorts aged 80 years old and over. The Government is carefully considering this advice as it sets the policy on who should be offered shingles vaccinations in the future.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the economic and societal costs of maintaining a health technology assessment framework for vaccines that does not explicitly account for wider impacts beyond the health system, including potential losses to productivity.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Government recognises the value in improving our understanding of the impact that vaccines have on wider society. Demonstrating the impact that childhood vaccines can have on the number of days of education that children may miss, for example, could encourage greater uptake of childhood vaccination. We have recently been able to say that childhood chickenpox costs the United Kingdom’s economy £24 million every year in lost income and productivity, and the chickenpox vaccination programme launched last month is expected to reduce that loss.

Vaccine appraisals play a particular role within the process of understanding that value, using the best robust evidence available across all vaccination programmes to focus investment of the health budget on programmes that deliver the greatest health benefit to the greatest number of people. Focusing our appraisal process on health benefits and costs, which have better evidence than socio-economic impacts, follows the process used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

If this process were to change, and wider socio-economic benefits were to be formally included, this could have unintended consequences. For example, it could have the effect of prioritising investment in vaccines for working populations over those who are not or will not be economically active. Additionally, the available data on socio-economic benefits is robust for only a small number of vaccines. Factoring this data into appraisals for only a small number of vaccines would create a bias for these programmes with better quality data. Conversely, if this data on wider benefits were to be factored into appraisals for all vaccination programmes, the use of lower quality data risks increasing uncertainty in appraisals and reduces our ability to ensure responsible and effective spending of public funds.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what evidence, analysis or expert advice Ministers relied on in concluding that broadening the scope of health technology assessments for vaccines to include wider economic and societal impacts is unnecessary; and whether this conclusion was informed by any assessment of the capability and remit of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation in areas beyond pure health system cost-effectiveness, such as macro-economics, public finance, and social and welfare analysis.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

We are proud to have one of the most comprehensive vaccination programmes in the world. Our approach to evaluating vaccination programmes, underpinned by recommendations and advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), is grounded in rigorous and evidence-led cost-effectiveness analysis, and ensures that decisions are objective, consistent, and based on high-quality data on health benefits and costs.

Basing our approach on these factors avoids the uncertainty of less direct benefits, where the evidence and therefore the decision is likely to be less defensible. This approach is also informed by previous work on this topic.

For example, earlier work by the independent Cost-Effectiveness Methodology for Immunisation Programmes and Procurement (CEMIPP) considered, amongst other things, whether wider socio-economic impacts should be included in the framework used to assess the cost-effectiveness of vaccines. CEMIPP conducted a consultation as part of their wider work and drew upon a broad body of expert opinion. The group concluded that wider socio-economic impacts should not be included in vaccine cost-effectiveness assessments unless doing so becomes standard practice across all health technology assessments.

Additionally, in 2022, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) undertook a detailed appraisal of whether it should broaden the perspective it uses in its economic evaluations, including consideration of wider societal impacts. Following this review, and after examining both international comparisons, and the significant methodological and ethical challenges involved, NICE’s Board concluded that it should retain its current approach of using a health-sector perspective routinely, but with the flexibility to include wider societal benefits when they are especially relevant.

Whilst the expertise of the JCVI rightly centres on disease burden, vaccine efficacy, health outcomes and health-related costs, as outlined this is not a key reason for why the cost-effectiveness methodology for vaccines does not formally take into consideration wider socio-economic benefits.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to strengthen the evidence base for assessing the wider economic and societal impacts of vaccination; and what assessment they have made of the potential benefits for evidence generation of explicitly incorporating such impacts into health technology assessment frameworks.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Government recognises the value in improving our understanding of the impact that vaccines have on wider society. Demonstrating the impact that childhood vaccines can have on the number of days of education that children may miss, for example, could encourage greater uptake of childhood vaccination. We have recently been able to say that childhood chickenpox costs the United Kingdom’s economy £24 million every year in lost income and productivity, and the chickenpox vaccination programme launched last month is expected to reduce that loss.

Vaccine appraisals play a particular role within the process of understanding that value, using the best robust evidence available across all vaccination programmes to focus investment of the health budget on programmes that deliver the greatest health benefit to the greatest number of people. Focusing our appraisal process on health benefits and costs, which have better evidence than socio-economic impacts, follows the process used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

If this process were to change, and wider socio-economic benefits were to be formally included, this could have unintended consequences. For example, it could have the effect of prioritising investment in vaccines for working populations over those who are not or will not be economically active. Additionally, the available data on socio-economic benefits is robust for only a small number of vaccines. Factoring this data into appraisals for only a small number of vaccines would create a bias for these programmes with better quality data. Conversely, if this data on wider benefits were to be factored into appraisals for all vaccination programmes, the use of lower quality data risks increasing uncertainty in appraisals and reduces our ability to ensure responsible and effective spending of public funds.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the quantified economic and societal benefits omitted from vaccine appraisals under the existing health technology assessment framework, including impacts on economic inactivity, workforce participation, productivity and long-term growth.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Government recognises the value in improving our understanding of the impact that vaccines have on wider society. Demonstrating the impact that childhood vaccines can have on the number of days of education that children may miss, for example, could encourage greater uptake of childhood vaccination. We have recently been able to say that childhood chickenpox costs the United Kingdom’s economy £24 million every year in lost income and productivity, and the chickenpox vaccination programme launched last month is expected to reduce that loss.

Vaccine appraisals play a particular role within the process of understanding that value, using the best robust evidence available across all vaccination programmes to focus investment of the health budget on programmes that deliver the greatest health benefit to the greatest number of people. Focusing our appraisal process on health benefits and costs, which have better evidence than socio-economic impacts, follows the process used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

If this process were to change, and wider socio-economic benefits were to be formally included, this could have unintended consequences. For example, it could have the effect of prioritising investment in vaccines for working populations over those who are not or will not be economically active. Additionally, the available data on socio-economic benefits is robust for only a small number of vaccines. Factoring this data into appraisals for only a small number of vaccines would create a bias for these programmes with better quality data. Conversely, if this data on wider benefits were to be factored into appraisals for all vaccination programmes, the use of lower quality data risks increasing uncertainty in appraisals and reduces our ability to ensure responsible and effective spending of public funds.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the potential benefits of incorporating wider societal impacts into health technology assessments on the assessment of value for money and long term return on investment for vaccination programmes.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Government recognises the value in improving our understanding of the impact that vaccines have on wider society. Demonstrating the impact that childhood vaccines can have on the number of days of education that children may miss, for example, could encourage greater uptake of childhood vaccination. We have recently been able to say that childhood chickenpox costs the United Kingdom’s economy £24 million every year in lost income and productivity, and the chickenpox vaccination programme launched last month is expected to reduce that loss.

Vaccine appraisals play a particular role within the process of understanding that value, using the best robust evidence available across all vaccination programmes to focus investment of the health budget on programmes that deliver the greatest health benefit to the greatest number of people. Focusing our appraisal process on health benefits and costs, which have better evidence than socio-economic impacts, follows the process used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

If this process were to change, and wider socio-economic benefits were to be formally included, this could have unintended consequences. For example, it could have the effect of prioritising investment in vaccines for working populations over those who are not or will not be economically active. Additionally, the available data on socio-economic benefits is robust for only a small number of vaccines. Factoring this data into appraisals for only a small number of vaccines would create a bias for these programmes with better quality data. Conversely, if this data on wider benefits were to be factored into appraisals for all vaccination programmes, the use of lower quality data risks increasing uncertainty in appraisals and reduces our ability to ensure responsible and effective spending of public funds.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Merron on 29 January (HL13801), whether they plan to collect data on respiratory syncytial virus related hospital admissions of infants under one year old in weekly surveillance reports; if not, for what reason this data is being omitted.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

Numbers of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) admissions in infants are reported by a sentinel network of approximately 15 to 20 National Health Service trusts in England to the Severe Acute Respiratory Infections-Watch Surveillance at the UK Health Security Agency. Participation in this surveillance is completely voluntary for NHS trusts. Therefore, the number of participating trusts can vary from week to week, and comparisons based on simple counts may be misleading.

To provide appropriate context for reported weekly data, weekly admission rates are calculated to monitor trends over time. This uses trust catchment populations published by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, which are estimated for under five-year-olds, but which have not been estimated specifically for the under one year old age group, or infants.

Therefore, published rates are based on the available denominator data for the under five-year-olds, and these are publicly available in the national surveillance weekly reports and corresponding datafile at the GOV.UK website.

Further surveillance data and a programme impact assessment will be included in the annual surveillance report on RSV, due to be published in summer 2026. Please refer to the 2024/25 annual surveillance report for a summary of the previous winter season, which is available at the GOV.UK website.

Surveillance reports use hospital admission data and the Office for National Statistics’ mid-year estimates to model catchment populations for hospital trusts. Modelled catchment populations use hospital data, aggregated over three years and resident populations in five-year age bands.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the recent decisions by countries such as Germany, Sweden, and Norway to incorporate wider societal impacts within their health technology assessment methodologies; and whether Ministers have considered adopting similar approaches in England.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

In 2022, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) undertook a detailed appraisal of whether it should broaden the perspective it uses in its economic evaluations, including consideration of wider societal impacts. NICE found that robust methods for quantifying wider societal effects are not yet sufficiently developed, and that evidence on the wider societal benefits of interventions, and of the services that might be displaced, is limited. NICE has also noted that expanding assessments to capture socio‑economic impacts could introduce ethical challenges, such as advantaging interventions for populations with higher workforce participation over those for children, older adults, or people unable to work.

Following this review, and after examining both international comparisons, and the significant methodological and ethical challenges involved, NICE’s Board concluded that it should retain its current approach of using a health-sector perspective routinely but with the flexibility to include wider societal benefits when they are especially relevant.

Found: mother’s birth in Dublin) Baroness O’Loan • No relevant interests to declare Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

The Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee is undertaking a short follow-up inquiry to examine some of the recent announcements made in the Government’s response to the Committee’s Report Northern Ireland after Brexit: Strengthening Northern Ireland’s voice in the context of the Windsor Framework, published in October 2025, and in Lord Murphy’s Independent Review of the Windsor Framework. The Committee will hear evidence from business stakeholders on the One Stop Shop, the new Northern Ireland Business Stakeholder Group, as well as general issues in relation to business experience and engagement with the Windsor Framework.

No description available