Northern Ireland Act 1998: Windsor Framework Decisions

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

On 10 November, I will be meeting with the European Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security, Maroš Šefčovič, for this Government’s third meeting of the withdrawal agreement joint committee. As part of this important meeting, the UK and the EU will take decisions to support our commitment to the Windsor framework.

This joint committee marks an important milestone in the lead up to the UK-EU summit on 20 November in Brussels, where we aim to strike important deals that will boost our growth in every postcode, cut red tape and provide more opportunities to young people. On the table are deals covering agrifood and drink products, emissions trading, a youth experience scheme and deeper co-operation on illegal immigration. The agreements we hope to strike at the summit will have further specific benefits for Northern Ireland—removing a wide-ranging set of sanitary and phytosanitary and agrifood requirements for goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. The decisions we make at the withdrawal agreement joint committee will be taken in line with the Government’s wider objectives.

At the joint committee, we will sign a joint declaration with the EU. The effect of this will be to ensure that “not at risk” parcels—that is, those sent to consumers in Northern Ireland moving under the Windsor framework facilitation schemes—will not be impacted by the recently introduced “handling fee” in the EU, ensuring they pay no fees or charges. These arrangements are the result of close UK-EU co-operation to protect Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market, while supporting its privileged dual-market access to the EU.

The Government will also agree specifically to decisions that will add two acts to the Windsor framework. This Government are committed to tackling barriers to trade for businesses across the UK. Northern Ireland has a special trading relationship with the EU under the Windsor framework, and it is therefore only right that the Government review all elements of Northern Ireland’s regulatory arrangements to ensure that it can make the most of its unique dual-market access.

In accordance with paragraph 18(3) of schedule 6B to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I am setting out in this statement why I am of the opinion that the conditions are met for these particular measures to be agreed, on the basis that neither of those acts would create a new regulatory border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so the condition in paragraph 18(2)(b) of that schedule is met.

Forced Labour Protections—Regulation (EU) 2024/3015

This regulation will apply in Northern Ireland in order to preserve Northern Ireland’s unique and vital dual-market access to the EU and the rest of the UK internal market.

The decision to add the EU forced labour regulation to the Windsor framework is made in tandem with the Government’s decision to further eliminate human rights abuses and forced labour from UK-wide supply chains. This has been outlined in the Government’s written ministerial statement regarding their approach to responsible business conduct. These measures will introduce a mandatory due diligence regime across the UK for services, and in Great Britain for goods, with the aim that this will take effect alongside the application of the EU rules in December 2027.

This will include a targeted power to withdraw goods from the market in Great Britain where they are made with forced labour and a business has failed to meet the required standard of due diligence. As these measures aim to achieve the same outcome in practice as the EU forced labour regulation in Northern Ireland, supply chain risks should be intercepted and resolved in Great Britain before goods move to Northern Ireland.

This regulation’s application will not create a new regulatory border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Available trade data indicates that annual Northern Ireland imports involving potential forced labour risks represent a minimal proportion of overall trade. Furthermore, the EU forced labour regulation relies on intelligence-led investigations, rather than routine border checks. Any practical effect is expected to be minimal. As such, this regulation will have no material effect on the flow of goods within the UK internal market, preserving Northern Ireland’s unique and vital dual-market access to the EU and the rest of the UK internal market.

Artificial Intelligence Act—Regulation (EU) 2024/1689

This regulation will apply in a limited and targeted way in Northern Ireland. That is necessary to maintain an open border on the island of Ireland. Full application of the AI Act in Northern Ireland would not have been in line with the Windsor framework, or acceptable to the Government, given Northern Ireland’s integral role in the UK’s AI strategy—demonstrated by the £7.5 million investment for the Centre for Secure Information Technologies cyber AI hub at Queen’s University, announced last week at the Budget.

Following lengthy and constructive discussions with the EU, the AI Act as applied in Northern Ireland will apply only to the placing on the market of physical products with closely integrated AI systems. This is in contrast to the application in the EU, which also includes regulation of wider AI systems and stand-alone software incorporating AI, such as web-accessed applications and general purpose models.

The AI Act regulates AI systems based on the level of risk. Some systems are prohibited, such as those intended for social scoring, emotional manipulation or non-consensual nudification. Other systems are “high risk”—for example, because malfunctioning of AI could cause risks to human safety—and must meet certain requirements, such as those relating to data governance, technical documentation and risk and quality management systems. “Limited risk” systems engaging directly with people or generating synthetic outputs face lighter-touch requirements. Some AI systems do not fall into any of these categories.

This regulation will not create a new regulatory border. Its limited application means that Northern Ireland businesses that adopt or develop AI software, applications and online tools, will generally not be within scope of the AI Act, except when those AI systems are closely integrated in physical products. The regulation will mainly apply to physical products in scope of the Windsor framework that already adhere to EU law. This provides Northern Ireland manufacturers with certainty about their unique dual-market access to the EU market and the rest of the UK market. Furthermore, our assessment is that products subject to prohibitions or high-risk requirements are currently relatively rare, and that in any case, in many affected sectors, businesses supplying Northern Ireland are typically EU-facing, meaning that they will comply with EU law requirements.

The Government remain fully committed to ensuring that the UK maintains its position as a world leader in AI, and to supporting innovation while ensuring that a proportionate regulatory regime ensures that AI-enabled devices are safe, with risks being addressed by existing expert regulators and at a sectoral level. The Government have been clear in our ambition to support innovation and growth across the whole of the United Kingdom.

Next steps

The Government will shortly submit explanatory memoranda to Parliament pertaining to each of the two decisions that we will make. These will set out in further detail the Government’s view on any impacts that the above-mentioned regulations would have on Northern Ireland, as well as additional evidence I considered when reaching my conclusion that none of them would lead to a new regulatory border.

We are steadfastly committed to protecting the UK internal market and Northern Ireland’s place within it, as well as promoting growth in Northern Ireland through its unique dual-market access. These objectives will be realised not just through the decisions made at the joint committee, but through the agreements that we aim to secure at the UK-EU summit later this month.

I can confirm that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is writing to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly personally to update him on these next steps. I will place a copy of the Secretary of State’s letter to the Assembly Speaker in the Library of the House for future reference.

[HCWS455]

Intergovernmental Relations Engagement Dashboard

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

The UK Government’s commitment to working in partnership with the devolved Governments continues to be reflected in the depth and consistency of engagement.

This reporting period, particularly April to June, directly covers the pre and post-election periods for the Senedd and Scottish Parliament. While opportunities for meetings between Governments were therefore lower than in 2025, the level of engagement remained high, demonstrating the steady and frequent nature of UK Government ministerial engagement with devolved Government counterparts.

Beyond formal forums such as the Interministerial Standing Committee, Ministers and their devolved Government counterparts met across a wide range of policy areas—from industrial strategy and trade agreements to welfare reform and getting people back into work—demonstrating that collaborative working is embedded across Governments. This pattern of engagement reflects a clear principle: that the most effective solutions for people across the United Kingdom are found when Governments work together.

The Prime Minister has been clear about his commitment to delivering good growth and real progress across all four nations of the United Kingdom and working with the devolved Governments to tackle shared challenges. The publication of this dashboard demonstrates this Government’s continued commitment to the devolution settlements and genuine partnership with the devolved Governments—working together to deliver for people in every part of the United Kingdom.

[HCWS442]

UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly: Appointments

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) has been appointed as a full representative of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran).

My hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) has been appointed as a full representative of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson).

My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) has been appointed as a substitute representative of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner).

[HCWS436]

Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to open today’s debate on this straightforward yet important piece of legislation, which I hope will command broad support across the House. The purpose of this Bill is to remove historical legal barriers that prevent a Prime Minister who professes either the Roman Catholic or Jewish faith from advising the sovereign on Church appointments or a Minister from making appointments in their own right.

For the benefit of the House, it may be helpful to briefly set out the constitutional and historical context. Since the formal establishment of the Church of England in the 16th century, archbishops and bishops have been appointed by the sovereign as Supreme Governor. Over time, they came to do so on the advice of Ministers, and now the Prime Minister, as the sovereign’s principal adviser, provides advice on these and other Church appointments that the sovereign makes. In practice, the Prime Minister does not choose between candidates, but rather provides formal advice on candidates following a selection process. Separately, certain Ministers—for instance, the Lord Chancellor—have, by virtue of their office, rights to act as a patron in parish-level Church appointments directly without the involvement of the sovereign. Again, this is following a selection process.

To understand why these restrictions remain on our statute book today, it is helpful to look briefly at the 19th century, when Parliament passed the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858. After the reformation, many people believed that religious unity under the Church of England and Church of Scotland was essential to maintain the peace. Gradual progress was then made to remove restrictions on worship outside of the established Churches and expand the role of non-Anglicans in political life.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. It was the great Daniel O’Connell—elected Member of Parliament for County Clare in Ireland in 1828 but unable to take up his seat because he would not swear the Oath of Supremacy—who famously achieved Catholic emancipation through that 1829 Catholic relief Act. O’Connell was known as “The Liberator”, and Gladstone called him

“the greatest popular leader whom the world has ever seen”,

and yet to this day, there is no statue or portrait to O’Connell in this House. Does the Minister agree that today, 197 years on, the legacy of Daniel O’Connell, the Liberator, will finally be complete with full equality in elected office for both Catholics and Jews?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful intervention. She is right that the effect of this Bill will be to remove the last remaining discriminations against Catholics and Jews on the statute book. It is a historic moment, and I am very glad of it.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Surely it will remain on the statute book that a member of the royal family cannot marry a Roman Catholic and inherit the Crown?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) was making a point about the active role of Roman Catholics in public life, including in this place. I suspect that the Father of the House and I are not going to agree totally on this Bill, but as constituency neighbours I want to say that he does, as a professing Catholic, play a very active role both in this House and elsewhere. This Bill would take all force away from the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and mean that none of its provisions have any force. That is slightly different from the question of the line of succession. For the purposes of this House and normal political activity in this country, the Bill will remove all restrictions.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Would the Minister agree that this Bill is about removing discrimination in elected office and not about inherited office?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend is pithier than I am. Yes, this is about elected office. I will make a little progress, if right hon. and hon. Members do not mind.

Let me take you back to the reformation, Madam Deputy Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall said, until the mid-19th century, there were considerably more restrictions on Catholics and Jews, including an effective prohibition on becoming a Member of Parliament. The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 removed many but not all of these legal barriers to Roman Catholic and Jewish participation in public life. This included permitting people of those faiths to become MPs and to serve in various civil and military offices, but the legislation retained certain exceptions, which this Bill seeks to address.

Under section 18 of the 1829 Act and section 4 of the 1858 Act, individuals professing the Catholic or Jewish faiths are restricted from giving advice to the sovereign in relation to Church appointments. The penalty for breaching these restrictions is being prevented from holding a civil or military office under the Crown, which includes serving as Prime Minister.

Until now there has never been a Prime Minister professing either the Roman Catholic or Jewish faith while in office. Following the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) as Prime Minister in July, these 19th-century legal restrictions are now having a practical effect for the first time. To ensure that Church appointments can continue smoothly, the Prime Minister has temporarily transferred his responsibilities for advising the sovereign on Church appointments to the Lord Chancellor. But it would not be right to continue these arrangements indefinitely. I am sure that the whole House will agree with me that, in the 21st century, one’s faith should not be a barrier to carrying out any of the duties of high office.

Removing these restrictions from the statute book is the right thing to do. Moreover, it is important to uphold one of our core constitutional principles that the Prime Minister is the sovereign’s principal adviser and should be able to advise on Church appointments just like his predecessors.

This Bill resolves a live, practical issue and removes an outdated restriction that has no place in our modern parliamentary democracy. With hon. Members’ support, I hope that it will not detain the House for long.

I understand that some Members might raise questions about why non-Anglican Prime Ministers or Ministers should be able to advise the sovereign on appointments to a Church whose faith or denomination they do not share. However, the Government firmly reject that view. The legal restrictions that we are seeking to repeal only apply to individuals professing the Roman Catholic or Jewish faiths. They do not apply to people of other faiths, other Christian denominations or no faith at all. That is why former Prime Ministers Rishi Sunak, a professed Hindu, and Sir Keir Starmer, a professed atheist, as well as many other non-Anglican Prime Ministers in the 20th century were able to advise the sovereign on Church appointments without risking disbarment from office.

While the Church of England is the established Church, one of our country’s great strengths is that it is made up of people of different faiths and backgrounds, who should all enjoy equal treatment under our laws. To suggest that a Minister must personally share the faith of the established Church in order to convey its advice would be to misunderstand the constitutional role of the Crown’s principal adviser.

As a modern parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy, the King is the Head of State and acts on the advice of his Ministers, who are accountable to the electorate and to this place. It is therefore right that the Prime Minister, regardless of his religious beliefs, is able to advise the King on Church appointments.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

I support the principle of the Bill and obviously will not oppose it. May I ask the Minister to unpack the point he just made about the role of the Prime Minister in conveying the advice of the Church on appointments? That is exactly how it works at the moment. As the Minister said, the Prime Minister is the principal adviser to the sovereign, and ultimately it is the sovereign who has authority to make episcopal appointments. Does he agree that the Prime Minister has a function to play in the advice given to the sovereign, or does he think this is purely a procedural matter in which the Prime Minister is simply transmitting advice that he receives from the Church hierarchy?

[Mr Falconer]

The point I was seeking to cover is that it is an important constitutional principle that the Prime Minister is the principal adviser to the sovereign, including in his role as the head of the established Church. Clearly, in practice—I think this is well known to the House—the Prime Minister does not take an active role in selecting members of the clergy, but that does not mean that it is wise to continue with this discrimination, in particular against Catholics and Jews.

Clause 1 makes provision to repeal sections 17 and 18 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and to repeal the Jews Relief Act 1858 in its entirety, lifting all statutory restrictions on Ministers advising on or making Church appointments. Crucially, the Bill treats and removes restrictions on Roman Catholic and Jewish individuals in exactly the same way, ensuring complete parity and equal treatment between both faiths.

The clause also removes outdated restrictions on making Church appointments, referring to rights of patronage such as those held by the Lord Chancellor to directly nominate vicars to parish benefices. While those provisions have been partially repealed and are generally no longer of any practical effect, completely repealing them removes any lingering legal uncertainty.

Clause 2 sets out the UK-wide territorial extent and provides for commencement immediately on Royal Assent.

Members may recall that last year we passed a similar piece of legislation: the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Act 2025. The Government’s approach is both principled and pragmatic. We address archaic, centuries-old statutory restrictions such as these as and when they have a live practical impact on public life. Last year, we acted to facilitate the historic appointment of Lady Angiolini—a practising Catholic—to the office of Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. We are bringing forward this Bill now because these 19th-century provisions are having an impact on ministerial advice for the first time.

No doubt, there may be questions about whether we will need a third Bill to address further historical religious restrictions. Let me reassure hon. Members that, with the passage of this Bill, the job is complete. Following this legislation, I assure the House that there will be no remaining religious restrictions affecting Ministers and other individuals appointed by the Crown, and we are confident that no further such action will ever be required.

There we are: a short, simple and straightforward Bill. While it will take up only a few lines of our statute book, this legislation corrects an archaic historical wrong and ensures that our constitutional arrangements reflect a modern, equal society where no Prime Minister, regardless of his religious beliefs, is restricted from being able to advise the sovereign. I hope that the Bill will receive support from all sides. In that spirit, I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Divisions.

On the draft Railways (Interoperability in Northern Ireland) (Convention on International Carriage by Rail) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 345 and the Noes were 108, so the Ayes have it.

On the draft Code of Practice on Access and Unfair Practices During the Recognition and Derecognition Process, the Ayes were 295 and the Noes were 111, so the Ayes have it.

On the draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 345 and the Noes were 108, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

Before we move on, just a note to the Minister: I am sure that he meant to refer to the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton. I call the shadow Minister.

Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I will keep my remarks brief. As we have heard, this Bill’s purpose is to lift archaic historical restrictions that prevent an individual of the Roman Catholic or Jewish faith from advising the sovereign on Church appointments, or from making Church appointments where their office gives them the right to directly nominate someone. The Bill will therefore ensure that the current Prime Minister and, indeed, any future Prime Minister who professes either the Roman Catholic or Jewish faith can perform their constitutional responsibility to advise the sovereign on these matters without risking disbarment from public office.

I give heartfelt thanks for the insightful contributions of hon. and right hon. Members, particularly the Father of the House and my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I thank the Opposition for the spirit with which they have approached the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) acknowledged, today’s debates have featured some very thoughtful contributions about the development of our constitutional arrangements.

I am grateful for the support of hon. Members from across the House for the approach that we have taken. I know that the House will agree that although the Bill is modest, it is an important step forward in ensuring that our laws reflect our belief that a Prime Minister’s faith should not restrict their ability to undertake their role. I commend this Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 General Committees

[The Chair]

I want to point out that the cast list has been slightly altered. Matthew Patrick has replaced Jeff Smith.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. 

It is a pleasure to appear under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. The draft regulations were laid before both Houses on 14 July. 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 commitments to the Windsor framework, the UK internal market and building a stronger relationship with our partners in the EU.

I am sure that right hon. and hon. 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 20 November. That summit, as the Prime Minister put it, presents an opportunity to make progress on the crucial issues of our economic growth and immigration. Its outcomes stand very much to benefit Northern Ireland, alongside the arrangements set down in the Windsor framework. They include an agrifood agreement to smooth flows of goods and reduce the unique processes and paperwork required to do so, which 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 that was acknowledged by a number of right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber and in a Westminster Hall debate on Monday.

This instrument takes forward and supports certain commitments that the Government have 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 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. That similarly has the aim of supporting the Assembly’s 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.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

How have things changed since that safeguard was written in under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020? That safeguard was written in in 2020, and the Minister is now saying that we need to remove it. Why?

[Mr Falconer]

The decision to change followed the independent review conducted by Lord Murphy, which I referred to. It is intended to keep the governance arrangements working effectively, 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.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Falconer]

I will make a little bit more progress.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Will the Minister take another intervention on the same point from me?

[Mr Falconer]

I think I have to take turns, so I will take an intervention from the hon. and learned Gentleman.

[Jim Allister]

Can the Minister tell the Committee where in the Murphy review it recommends the removal of section 15C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018? Where in the Murphy review is that? I cannot find it.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

I am surprised by the degree of emphasis on the point about letters or meetings. I will come back to that, but I emphasise to the Committee that I am a Minister in writing, in person, when I am sitting and when I am standing. In all those guises, I am fully accountable to Parliament for the decisions I make. I thought the tone of some of the interventions from Members earlier was suggesting that letters in my name—for I am the British co-chair on the Joint Committee—would be done by other people. I reiterate to the Committee that I take my responsibilities both as co-chair and as a Minister in this House very seriously. I reject any suggestion that, whether in writing or in person, I would not take my responsibilities with the seriousness that the Committee would expect.

Let me turn to the question about the purpose of the review, and therefore the purpose of the regulations. The purpose of the review was to provide for the streamlining of these arrangements. The purpose of the regulations is to see that effected. 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 the change with reference to the larger streamlining of governance.

I had two different flavours of objections from the Opposition Benches: one flavour of objections, from the Traditional Unionist Voice Benches, was about adding insult to an injury introduced by those on the Conservatives Benches in the Windsor framework and the Northern Ireland protocol while they were in government. The Government of which I am a part have inherited those arrangements, and we are seeking to improve them in the way I set out in my opening remarks.

I emphasise to right hon. and hon. Members that this instrument is not the only action that this Government are taking at home to build a strong future relationship with the European Union. We have announced £16.6 million to strengthen the UK internal market and help Northern Ireland boost trade with Great Britain. That includes a comprehensive one-stop shop regulatory support service beyond what is available on gov.uk currently. We will be helping businesses to trade across the UK and EU markets and to benefit from Northern Ireland’s unique dual-market access. We have improved the duty reimbursement scheme so that businesses whose goods are determined to be at risk when entering the UK can easily secure a reimbursement of duty. We have continued to ensure the smooth supply of veterinary medicines. And we have been working concertedly to ensure that the impacts of changes to the rules that apply in Northern Ireland account for its specific circumstances.

However, there is more to do. Right hon. and hon. Members have already touched on the approach to the future relationship with the EU and the important role of scrutiny in that. This Government are very clear that 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 our agrifood sector.

Getting the right outcomes for Northern Ireland and the rest of the country rests on a relationship of trust and co-operation. I have been pleased to hear that recognised, including in some of the responses to the Prime Minister’s words on Monday afternoon. I emphasise that we can build that trust and co-operation only 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 Committee Room and beyond who may be instinctively more sceptical 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 and no reduction of costs. That, to my mind, seems 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 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 the progress since last year’s summit and secure deals that make a real difference to people’s lives, and around which we will set out the different options for our long-term relationship with our European partners, helping us find a path forward. We must continue to build on these foundations and bring real benefits to all parts of the UK. 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 an eye to a better future.

Question put.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

3. What recent discussions she has had with her EU counterparts on the future EU-UK relationship.

[The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

This Government are committed to deepening our ties with the European Union. It is right at the centre of everything that we are trying to do on the cost of living and energy, as well as the security of our continent. I will continue to lead discussions with my counterpart, Commissioner Šefčovič, who I met most recently on Monday, on how we can continue to strengthen the UK-EU partnership.

[Caroline Voaden]

British farmers and fishers, and my shellfish exporters, continue to face unnecessary trade barriers with our largest export market. A 2024 report from the Centre for Inclusive Trade Policy found that exports of British food to the EU had dropped by nearly £3 billion since Brexit. Our farmers and fishers desperately need a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement—and fast—to reduce costs and bureaucracy, and to allow them to export their produce to the EU, yet the second UK-EU summit was postponed following the resignation of the former Prime Minister, and we have had no update on when it will take place. I hear the Minister say that he met Mr Šefčovič, so can he commit to the summit taking place this year? Can he give our British farmers and fishers a date for when that will happen?

[Mr Falconer]

I am determined to get the SPS agreement done—it is the subject of intense discussions. I cannot provide the House with a date just yet, as that will need to be agreed between the UK and the EU, but I hope to be able to provide a further update soon.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

An extraordinary debate is going on right now inside and outside AI companies about whether the possibility of AI destroying humanity is more or less than 10%. The European Union is moving ahead with a comprehensive AI regulatory framework, but the UK continues to rely on existing regulation. What discussions is the Minister having with the European Union about aligning AI regulation, especially given that Anthropic has refused to submit its model to the AI Security Institute? How is he ensuring that we can keep European and UK citizens safe?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the shared challenges that we face with the European Union, including the very rapid developments in artificial intelligence. I am proud to sit next to my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan), the first AI Minister to attend Cabinet—here, and indeed anywhere—and I know that he will be answering some questions during this session. This is clearly a matter of real interest and concern, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) says, and we are working at pace to address it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister to his post. I very much look forward to him updating the House on his negotiating mandate and his conversations with the European trade commissioner. Earlier this summer, the Prime Minister said that it would be wrong to rerun divisive arguments about rejoining the EU, but, soon after, the Minister refused to rule out rejoin being an option in the next Labour manifesto. Will he tell the House: will Labour rule out rejoin featuring in its next manifesto? [Interruption.]

[Mr Falconer]

I can hear that there is outrage behind me. I have many responsibilities, but writing the next Labour party manifesto is not one of them. We are committed to the red lines. We were all elected on that manifesto. We want to go further and faster—we have inherited a poor deal with the European Union, and it is my job to improve it.

[Alex Burghart]

It is perfectly reasonable to rule things out. The Minister has had plenty of time to talk to No. 10 since his interview on Sky. I am sure the Labour party would rule out many things at this stage—I am sure it would rule out leaving the European convention on human rights, getting rid of net-zero targets and bringing back the death penalty—so why is it so hard for the Minister and the Government to rule out rejoining the EU?

[Mr Falconer]

I want to be really clear with the House, as the Prime Minister has been repeatedly: despite the anxious desire of Opposition Members, we are not rerunning the arguments of 2016 once again. My constituents, and the constituents of Members right across the House, are concerned with the day-to-day impacts of the deal we have inherited; it is my job to improve it, and that is what I am focused on. Our manifesto red lines remain in place, and I will of course update the House on the proceeds of the negotiation. We have been clear in the King’s Speech that, should that negotiation result in the need for legislation in this House, it will of course face scrutiny here.

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

4. What steps her Department is taking to co-ordinate cross-Government work to strengthen the UK’s long-term economic capabilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

9. What steps her Department is taking to revoke the honours of disgraced individuals.

[The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

There is a well-established process for the revocation of honours. Any instance where a recipient may be deemed to have brought the honours system into disrepute can be considered by the independent Forfeiture Committee.

[Ian Byrne]

In December last year, the Independent Office for Police Conduct found that Sir Norman Bettison, the chief inspector for South Yorkshire police at the time of the Hillsborough disaster, would have had a case to answer for gross misconduct had he still been a serving officer today. This related to his role in the Hillsborough cover-up, his deliberate dishonesty in the aftermath of the disaster, and his lying about his involvement during his application for the post of chief constable of Merseyside police in 1998. Yesterday I wrote to the Prime Minister to ask whether the Forfeiture Committee has taken December’s finding into account. Can my hon. Friend confirm that that finding is being considered by the Committee? If not, will he make representations that it should be?

[Mr Falconer]

Let me start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on this issue. This Government are absolutely clear that nothing like the Hillsborough disaster must ever happen again. That is why the Public Office (Accountability) Bill will establish a new duty of candour and assistance at inquiries and investigations, backed by criminal sanctions. That will also extend to police misconduct investigations. My hon. Friend will understand why I am not in a position to comment on an individual case from the Floor of the House, but I reassure him that I have seen his correspondence with my predecessor on this question. I am looking at it very carefully.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. How many people potentially eligible for compensation have applied to the infected blood compensation scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

Brexit has created a web of red tape preventing businesses in Wokingham from developing relationships with European partners. Will the Government start negotiations for a growth and defence partnership with the EU to boost trade and growth?

[The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

We are engaged in discussions with the European Union on exactly the questions that the hon. Member refers to. We have made good progress in the first two years; I wish to go further, as I set out in my answer to the question before.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

Returning to the emergency alerts, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of issuing alerts on a regional or county basis for important but more local emergencies, such as bluetongue outbreaks in cattle and sheep in rural areas?

EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I extend gratitude to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for providing a rich opportunity on our second day back. Much history has been discussed: two referendums and what should have been in our manifesto. I was disappointed to see colleagues from the right unwilling to enter into greater detail of the debate about Maastricht and John Major. I must confess that I suspect our constituents are slightly less interested in going through the entrails of the history. It is important to focus on the future.

I will quickly say three things about my overall position regarding the negotiations to come. I will also try to answer some of the specifics raised. Some hon. Members may wish to intervene, which they are welcome to do, but I will try to cover a little ground initially. First, I want to pay an enormous tribute to my predecessor, who did incredibly important work in resetting our relationship with the European Union. In the spirit of unity, I will resist the temptation to respond to the accusation from the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) that I am providing “a masterclass in the art of the bad deal.” My predecessor faced a true masterclass of a bad deal left to him by the previous Government, and he did incredible work on a reset.

I want to be clear on three points. First, I want to go even further and faster than my predecessor. There is great urgency to address the shortcomings in our arrangements. Secondly, there are challenges facing Europe of security, defence and the economy. I discussed those challenges with my European counterparts in Austria this week. Thirdly, Britain is part of Europe. We are Europeans. European security is British security. We must be a close partner with our European friends in dealing with shared challenges.

[Jim Shannon]

First of all I thank the Minister, who always tries to answer our questions. In my contribution, which was specific to Northern Ireland, I asked him whether he had had an opportunity to consider the issues and the impact of the Windsor framework on Northern Ireland and how it affects our trading with the United Kingdom and Europe. Also, I thank him for coming back from his honeymoon to his new position.

[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.