Draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Hamish Falconer

Wednesday 14th October 2026 General Committees

[Mr Falconer]

I do not have the full Murphy review to hand, but I am happy to respond in detail. I have tried to set out to the Committee why we think that this change does not in any way take away from the force of the arrangements in place, and why it is a reasonable change to better enable scrutiny of measures as they come through.

Let me explain in more detail how the instrument meets its purpose. First, it is in response to recommendations made by the independent review. I hear the anxiety of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim to see exactly where in the review those recommendations are made. I hope he will excuse me for not having the papers to hand, but I am happy to write to him in further detail, with quotes, if he 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 engagement with affected stakeholders inform the work of the Government, just as they inform the work of many Members of the Assembly. The changes to schedule 6B of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are aimed at providing the Assembly with greater latitude in conducting its work within the two-month window following the publication of a relevant EU Act, if it wishes to use it.

A timeframe for the scrutiny of EU Acts under the Windsor framework is provided for in law so that everyone—Members of the Legislative Assembly, businesses and civil society—is clear about how the process works and the impacts of those enactments. 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, a report must be produced no later than 15 working days before the end of the two-month scrutiny period, which begins on the day the EU publishes the Act in its Official Journal.

The instrument gives the committee greater flexibility by expanding the inquiry decision window to 10 working days, and it moves the publication deadline for inquiry reports to no later than 12 working days before the end of the scrutiny period. Those changes will allow the committee greater latitude to choose how to run any inquiries it conducts 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 that are also fit for the future. As the Prime Minister set out on Monday, that future includes the vital deals on the table for the upcoming summit in Brussels on 20 November, spanning agrifood trade, linking emissions trading systems and energy co-operation.

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 15C of the European Union (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 happen because of domestic law. The Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee typically meets only twice a year, so this change will enable the UK to take necessary and time-sensitive decisions as needed, which it currently cannot.

The change will also allow the Government to ensure that, where relevant EU legislation is applicable in Great Britain under future agreements, Northern Ireland can keep pace. That will be an important factor both for the implementation of relevant rules and for allowing businesses the maximum amount of time to adapt. It is a relevant consideration as the Government take forward future agreements with the EU on agrifood, 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.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Can the Minister just explain how it would cut electricity bills in Northern Ireland by 20%? The Government keep asserting that but have not explained how it would happen.

[Mr Falconer]

I am looking forward to the conversation about the electricity provisions and a future arrangement with the EU, but I am not sure that that is relevant to the changes before us.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

You brought it up.

[Mr Falconer]

We hope that, in a future arrangement with the EU, on which we have not yet concluded negotiations, the changes that I am proposing will enable us to operate the existing arrangements more smoothly, so that we might be able to adopt new ones with speed. Conscious of the Committee’s time, I do not think it is wise at the moment to go through all three of those agreements in great detail.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Falconer]

I will not; I am going to make a bit more progress.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

On a point of order, Mr Efford. The Minister appears to be making assertions that he cannot substantiate. Is that in order?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

He started it.

[Mr Falconer]

I hosted some of my constituents earlier and they asked me what parliamentary debates were like. I did not tell them that “He started it” was a regular feature, but now I will.

Let me emphasise that, as with the modifications to the Democratic Scrutiny Committee’s procedures that I have already set out, the use of written procedure will be optional and not used for every decision at the Joint Committee. I emphasise that the instrument does not amend the process for scrutinising the decisions that the Government propose to take at the Joint Committee, where the Government maintain obligations to Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The scrutiny process remains as it is today, including where it is provided for in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and 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 co-operation 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 will remain the default forum for UK-EU decision making in relation to the withdrawal agreement and will 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. The 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 grounds 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 independent review on how Northern Ireland Departments should be empowered to provide evidence and support to the committee.

I also note for completeness that the instrument makes some technical amendments to existing legislation. Specifically, it amends outdated references within the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 so that they now refer to the Windsor framework. This minor change achieves greater clarity on the statute book.

This instrument clearly shows that the Government are committed to implementing the recommendations of the independent review of the Windsor framework. We are making every effort to ensure that Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements work for its people and businesses to deliver growth in every postcode, and to facilitate a future relationship for the UK with the EU that takes the country forward.

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, and 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 about ensuring that the arrangements 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 Committee.

EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Hamish Falconer

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Falconer]

I am glad that someone is grateful for my coming back, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s courteous tone. Of course, the Windsor framework is important. As he and many people across this House know, it is an incredibly complex arrangement that seeks to preserve the delicate balance in Northern Ireland. I have heard comments from all sides of the debate. I look forward to visiting Northern Ireland soon. It is vital that the people of Northern Ireland get the benefits of both. I understand the criticisms that he made during his remarks, but at the moment it is the one part of the UK that benefits from both, and I want to see that benefit maximised to the absolute fullest.

I was saying a little about European challenges. As the Prime Minister was clear yesterday, there are challenges for our economy, as there are for other European economies—I discussed that during my time in Austria, and the Foreign Secretary will discuss it with his counterparts. There are of course real conversations to be had with our European friends on the whole range of issues that have been discussed.

I want to confirm a few things. First, to colleagues who spoke up for their farmers, I understand the pressures on British farmers. I understand the support that I have heard this morning for concluding an SPS deal. I intend to do so with British farmers’ interests at its very heart. I heard some of the specifics, including the barriers and costs that have accrued when seeking to export. I do not like to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), but there was a suggestion that sausages were not the most important thing. As a Lincolnshire MP, I would like to say that they are, and their easy export is a priority for me and would benefit not just Lincolnshire and Europe, but the whole of the UK.

I also heard the other important points that were made. I will again try to strike a brief moment of unity with the Opposition: we have great strengths in services. Many European firms look to the UK for those strengths. It is a shame that those arrangements and services remain as immature as they are. That was a frustration before 2016 and it remains a frustration afterwards. It is in the whole of Europe’s interest to free up the services trade within Europe. I discussed that with my counterparts just this week.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

The question of scrutiny was raised by the Minister’s colleagues. In the absence of a European Scrutiny Committee, how is this stuff going to be scrutinised if he brings in direct applicability and direct effect of European laws?

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot provide much comment on the structures of parliamentary scrutiny, which are obviously not a question for me, but I can confirm that if we are able to conclude the ambitious deal that I hope we will be able to in the months ahead, I will of course return to Parliament and there would be a full scrutiny process. He refers to changes in the law. That happens in this place, and I would expect proper scrutiny processes of any legislation that was required to enact the Bills in question.

I was talking about services, and I pay tribute to the musical talents in this place. It is not just the Prime Minister who knows how to play a guitar. It is a great shame for Europe and Britain that touring is not easier for British bands in Europe. I discussed those issues this week. It is a source of frustration to me that it has not been possible to make faster progress. I heard the Liberal Democrat advice to change our manifesto commitments, but I would question the political wisdom of doing so. It is a manifesto commitment for us to make progress on this issue, and we will continue to do so. There are a range of complex issues being raised by the European Union about securing the changes that we want to see. I am sure it is a sentiment shared right across the House that music should flow freely, and that the UK and Europe benefit from the closeness of those relationships.

Some questions were raised about the timing of the summit and the negotiations. Obviously, we will need to agree timing with our friends in Europe and announce it in the usual way, but I want to be clear to the House that I am ambitious to move quickly and I would like to see progress within the coming months.

There was much else upon which I could touch. I will leave the debate about the statistical doppelganger proxy method for checking whether the British economy could have grown more or less quickly than other European economies to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire. All I will say is that our relationship with Europe is absolutely vital for our economy. In our constituencies, we will all have experienced businesses that are finding exports and recruitment harder; a whole range of issues have been made more difficult by the poor deal that we were left with. I would like to reassure the House that it is my intention during my time in this role to make it easier for the whole of the UK.

Iran Conflict: Ceasefire

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Hamish Falconer

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I am sorry I have not replied to the correspondence yet; I will do so as quickly as I can. In relation to the question about military support, I want to be clear: the UK stands with our Gulf allies in a defensive capacity. As the shadow Foreign Secretary alluded to, we do provide capability to our friends and partners in the Gulf to protect themselves against these attacks. We do also continue to provide permissions to the United States to use our airbases, where they are taking defensive action on behalf of our partners and allies. Those arrangements have been discussed by the relevant Ministers from the Ministry of Defence on a number of occasions, and they remain in place.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I ask this question in all sincerity. Throughout this conflict, the Government have pleaded for de-escalation, but if Iran is gratuitously escalating, should we not give unambiguous support to the Americans for retaliating? Who else is going to retaliate against gratuitous escalation by Iran if it is not the Americans? Rather than hedging our bets, can we not give more unambiguous support—if not military support, then political support—for the United States’ efforts to resolve this conflict? It has already given so much ground in the negotiations. We cannot complain that it has not tried to be as reasonable as it possibly can.

[Mr Falconer]

I have sought in all my remarks to remain grounded in the relevant principles of international law. It is absolutely clear that the strikes Iran has conducted this week in Omani waters or on the territory of our friends and partners are a breach of international law. That then provides, under the relevant framework, options for response. We are not party to that response, but we are party to seeking to shoot down these attacks when they threaten our friends and partners. I do not want to enter into an emotional discussion of these questions. We are absolutely clear that what is happening in the strait of Hormuz and the wider region is a threat to international law, which this Chamber and this country hold dear, and it must be upheld.

Chagossians: Trust Fund and Resettlement

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Hamish Falconer

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

It is striking that the Government, despite deriding 14 years of Conservative Government, want to follow the example of the previous Government on just this matter. May I just point out that the former Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord Cameron, decided that the negotiations were not in the national interest and not in the interests of the Chagossian people, and that they should be suspended? May I recommend that the Minister follows our example on that?

[Mr Falconer]

I am confused whether I am or am not to follow the example of those on the Opposition Benches. My understanding was that Boris Johnson offered large quantities of money to Mauritius, absent negotiations, to try to make this all go away. That did not work. Negotiations were then opened with sovereignty at their heart. I am not sure which elements the hon. Gentleman would say I should or should not demur from. We are taking the action required to ensure the safety of the base and the security of the British people, and we are doing so closely with our partners, including the United States and Mauritius.

Ukraine: Forcible Removal of Children

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Hamish Falconer

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

There is resolve in Ukraine and among its allies, and there is significant unity. There have been a range of steps taken in recent weeks, including the sanctions that the shadow Foreign Secretary referred to, the steps announced over the weekend on Ukrainian children, and the strategic dialogue with Ukraine that the Foreign Secretary conducted in London last week. We will continue to press. There is an illusion, I fear, taking root in Moscow that one more push and yet further military operations will lead to a weakening of resolve in Ukraine, the UK and across the west. That is an illusion. We will remain steadfast in support of our Ukrainian friends.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I remind the Minister that I look forward to tabling a motion for a Backbench Business debate on Ukraine, which will refer to the 20,000 abducted children. I join him in congratulating the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on the work she is doing on this subject. That motion will also draw attention to the other atrocities. Just this week, we welcomed two former Ukrainian prisoners of war, who had been held and tortured by the Russians, completely without regard to the Geneva conventions for prisoners of war, because the Russians fabricate this narrative that they are not at war in Ukraine and are conducting some special military operation. They do not have the regard for the norms of warfare that we would expect any civilised country to have. Can the Minister underline the point that the Trump proposals are unacceptable, and will he join all the NATO allies in making it clear to the United States that these proposals are unacceptable?

[Mr Falconer]

I will ensure that the Minister for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), is aware of the hon. Gentleman’s proposals for further discussions in this House on these important questions. He is right to draw attention to the clearly preposterous Russian position that it is engaged in an operation, rather than a war. I am less well versed in military matters than the Minister for the Armed Forces, but this is clearly not an operation. We are some years in, and there have been thousands upon thousands of casualties—men, women and children —and a significant loss to Russian forces, even over the past month. The hon. Gentleman asks about our position on some of the media speculation. He will understand why I am reluctant to be drawn on that in great detail. I can point him to the clear statement from the G7 last week, and to the latest comments from the US Secretary of State this morning.

Israel-Gaza Conflict: Arrest Warrants

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Hamish Falconer

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hamish Falconer]

I will not rehearse too much the answers provided on 2 September and on numerous occasions in the Chamber since then. We have suspended, with one exemption—to which I am happy to return—all the arms that we are selling to Israel that could be used in Gaza. That suspension, in our assessment, also covers the west bank and Lebanon. We are taking action in accordance with our commitments under international humanitarian law, and we will continue to do so.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Can we be absolutely clear about what the Government are saying? It seems that the Government are not saying that there would be an automatic arrest should Benjamin Netanyahu arrive in this country, but they are saying that there would due process. Can the Minister confirm that

“customary international law…does not permit the arrest or delivery of the serving Prime Minister of a non-State party to the ICC”?

So the Minister is committing himself to due process but not to arrest. Am I correct in my understanding?