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.