Draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
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.
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.
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
On a point of order, Mr Efford. The Minister appears to be making assertions that he cannot substantiate. Is that in order?
The Chair
Heaven forfend that someone should do such a thing in Parliament, but I do not think that is a matter for the Chair at the moment. What is a matter for the Chair is that we do not go down this rabbit hole, which is not within the scope.
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.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I want to make it clear from the outset that while His Majesty’s Opposition do not object to every provision within these draft regulations, we cannot support them today.
We have no quarrel with the purely technical updates to statutory terminology, nor do we oppose implementing the practical recommendations of Lord Murphy’s review to strengthen the hand of the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Democratic Scrutiny Committee. Giving the committee 10 working days rather than five to decide whether to hold an inquiry and clarifying that Northern Ireland Departments must comply with reasonable requests for information are sensible steps. However, statutory instruments are unamendable and the Government have chosen to package these modest Stormont reforms alongside regulation 2(6), a measure that points in the exact opposite constitutional direction by deleting section 15C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
We oppose that approach for three fundamental reasons. First, we resist the use of Henry VIII powers to weaken governance and strip away primary legislation safeguards in this area. Section 15C was not a drafting oversight. When Parliament inserted it via section 35 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act, paragraph 325 of the explanatory notes stated explicitly that its purpose was to preclude a Minister of the Crown from using the written procedure to adopt Joint Committee decisions or recommendations. That lock was enacted by primary legislation to ensure that decisions are taken by a Minister in person, and that there is full ministerial accountability, including to Parliament, for all decisions made in the Joint Committee. Using delegated powers in secondary legislation to reach back into an Act of Parliament and delete a deliberate accountability safeguard placed upon the Executive is a misuse of Henry VIII powers, and it is a particularly concerning precedent ahead of the Government’s EU reset Bill.
Secondly, we strongly oppose removing the prohibition on the Joint Committee making decisions between meetings. We have great sympathy for the submission made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. As he rightly exposed, paragraph 5.7 of the Government’s explanatory memorandum merely states the mechanical effect of deleting section 15C, without offering a single word of explanation as to why a safeguard that was once deemed essential is no longer required.
Worse still, there has been no meaningful consultation on removing that safeguard. Section 7 of the explanatory memorandum relies on the Murphy review as its consultation basis, yet Lord Murphy never recommended repealing section 15C. In fact, Lord Murphy noted that the Joint Committee meets at ministerial level alongside the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, and he specifically recommended broadening the inclusion of stakeholders into these meetings to bring greater transparency and openness, not less.
Under section 15C, formal Joint Committee meeting dates are announced well in advance, giving Parliament and the public a clear focal point to track decisions. By repealing section 15C, decisions and recommendations can be signed off on paper between meetings and slipped through at any time without notice. Only when pressed by the Scrutiny Committee in July did the Cabinet Office finally admit that the real driver behind this change is facilitating decision making between meetings for the point when future UK-EU agreements are in force.
Sir Christopher Chope
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. Does he agree that his points are compounded by the fact that the Minister has refused, or expressed himself unable, to respond to any of these issues?
Mike Wood
My hon. Friend obviously has a long and strong record of promoting accountability in Government. That was not always to the pleasure of the Whips Office when we were in government, but it is particularly important that he continues that function when measures like this are being implemented through secondary legislation. If the Government want new governance mechanisms for future EU reset deals, they should make that case openly in primary legislation rather than stripping away statutory locks by stealth today.
Thirdly, we need better oversight of the Windsor framework regulation-making process, not weaker scrutiny. As the House of Lords Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee highlighted, we are currently in the extraordinary position of not even having a complete public list of all the EU laws to which Northern Ireland is subject under dynamic alignment. That Committee rightly called on the Cabinet Office to establish a dedicated regulatory divergence unit to maintain an up-to-date public database on the National Archives website, alongside more detailed statements after joint meetings.
Yet in its July responses to the Scrutiny Committee, the Cabinet Office admitted that section 15C provides no statutory notification mechanism and that Westminster scrutiny relies on explanatory memorandums triggered by EU Council decisions establishing the EU’s position, not the UK’s position, which are then followed by publication on the gov.uk website after the fact. Relying on Brussels paperwork to alert the UK Parliament to decisions our own Ministers are taking by written correspondence, and publishing those decisions on gov.uk only after they have been signed, is no substitute for proper parliamentary oversight.
Until the Government bring forward proper transparency and scrutiny over the Windsor framework regulation-making process and stop using inappropriate Henry VIII powers to dismantle primary legislation safeguards on Joint Committee decision making between meetings, His Majesty’s Opposition cannot support these regulations.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Tucked within these regulations—it does not have its genesis in the Murphy review, and the Committee will have noted that the Minister was unable to verify that it did—is regulation 2(6), which will omit section 15C of the 2018 Act, which stated:
“The United Kingdom’s co-chair of the Joint Committee may not consent to the Joint Committee using the written procedure”.
Why might it have said that? We get the answer to that when we look at the reasoning of the then Government for inserting that section through section 35 of the 2020 Act. What did the explanatory memorandum say about why section 15C was being inserted? It stated:
“No use of written procedure in the Joint Committee…The provision precludes a Minister of the Crown, as the UK’s co-chair, using the written procedure…to adopt recommendations or decisions of the Joint Committee. This ensures that decisions made by the Joint Committee are made by a Minister in person. The purpose of this provision is to ensure there is full ministerial accountability, including to Parliament, for all decisions made in the Joint Committee.”
That was the fundamental reason for ensuring that the Minister made the decision in person, and to ensure that that gives some semblance of accountability.
Why does this matter? What does the Joint Committee do? It has some very fundamental functions, one of which is to evaluate all new EU laws that might be relevant and to decide whether they are within the scope of the Windsor framework—in other words, to decide whether they should apply without further ado to a part of this United Kingdom. That is what the Joint Committee does, among other things, although that is probably its most critical function. When the EU makes a new law, the Joint Committee decides whether that falls within the Windsor framework and therefore whether it should automatically—without further debate, without scrutiny, without the right to amend it and without the right to even debate it—apply directly to a part of this United Kingdom. That is such a fundamental issue that it was properly written into section 15C as a safeguard that the matter would be considered seriously by a Minister. It would be done in person, and there would be some semblance of accountability.
What the Government want to do today is to remove that safeguard and to do it on the false premise that it falls out of the Murphy review. There is not a word in that review about this—not one word. So why is it in regulations supposedly implementing the Murphy review? Let me say this about the Murphy review: the Government promised there would be a debate on the Floor of the House of Commons on the Murphy review. There has never been such a debate. But they come to this debate and try to slip in this fundamental change.
It is no accident that this statutory instrument is specified as dealing with constitutional law. So it does; it fundamentally affects constitutional law. Remember what my constituents are subject to in more than 300 areas of law: EU law that they do not make. They do not elect anyone there and cannot change those laws, which have their entry point on to the Northern Ireland statute book through the Joint Committee. That is it: once it gives those laws the go-ahead, they are on the statute book. Constitutionally, that is utterly absurd in itself, but to then, in those circumstances, withdraw the one safeguard there is—namely, the assurance that a Minister has at least considered them and not just ticked a box in some written exercise—adds great insult to the injury already done by the process that exists.
Would any member of this Committee contemplate, for one moment, lawmaking of that sort for their constituents? I respectfully suggest that none of them would be so dismissive of the rights and interests of their constituents as to say that it is okay to apply law by means of a written procedure, where no one ever debates that law, no one can ever amend it and we did not make it ourselves, but where we just colonially implement it from the EU. No one on this Committee would accept that for their constituents, so why should this Committee ask me to accept it for my constituents?
The very least of safeguards is to be removed. Many decisions will slip through unnoticed. At least when the Joint Committee meets, there is a publication. Even though it meets in private, there is a publication of what it does and what it approves, so we can at least, by a very tortured route, try to follow what it is doing. Take that away from the meetings of the Joint Committee, and we will be left with virtually nothing but unbridled colonial rule from the EU.
That, of course, goes against the entire trend of the need for more transparency. Murphy himself talked about it. The first report of the House of Lords Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee demonstrated that, rather than requiring less transparency and scrutiny, the Windsor framework is crying out for more. This is what it said:
“We recommend that the Government engages with the EU in order to bring greater transparency to the workings of the UK-EU bodies of the Windsor Framework. This should include producing more detailed statements after joint meetings.”
Now they are going to remove the substance of the joint meetings—the ministerial involvement in them—and allow things to be done in a paper exercise, whereas the House of Lords Committee is quite right to say that the opposite direction of travel should be pursued.
I say to the Committee that this is not just some technical change. Yes, there are lots of technical changes here, changing words to insert the words “Windsor framework” and so on, but that is not the substance of this. The substance is the surreptitious removal of the single protection that exists under section 15C. Why do the Government want to remove that? We have had no explanation. The explanatory memorandum does not give an explanation. The Minister tried to tell us that it is because of the Murphy review; I stand on the ground that it is not. There is nothing in the Murphy review to that effect, so why are we doing this, other than the convenience of not having to bother considering, in any sensible way, legislation that might apply to my constituents, and of just rubber-stamping and passing it all through, because who cares whether it is good law or bad law? That is not an attitude for any legislator to take. Members of the Committee need to pause, think and put it in this context: would you do this to your constituents? If not, do not do it to mine.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.
I want to say a few words, as the Minister did, about the context of these regulations. The history of our relationship with the European Union was that, whenever a Minister brought a proposal to the House to increase the powers of the European Union or to enlarge its activities in our own jurisdiction, it was always, “There’s nothing to see here. This is already being done. This proposal just recognises what is already happening. There is no change.” By increment, we got further and further away from democratic accountability, which led to the British public deciding that they wanted to leave the European Union.
This statutory instrument is another chip being taken out of our democratic process. The Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor framework are about as undemocratic as one could possibly imagine—that is, there is no direct possibility of intervention by the people of Northern Ireland in the lawmaking process for their own Province. Incidentally, if we have dynamic alignment in the UK as a whole, that will apply in the UK. No Member of Parliament, no majority of the House of Commons and no majority of both Houses will have the power to block or stop a new regulation being applied by the European Union if we cement ourselves into a process of dynamic alignment.
The sanitary and phytosanitary agreement is meant to generate an extra £10 billion of economic activity in the UK over the period to 2040—I think I have that correct. Well, that adds up to barely more than £700 million a year. That is a peanut in the overall scheme of things. What is holding back the economic activity in this country is excessive regulation and excessive taxation. [Interruption.] I note what you are indicating, Mr Efford. My point is that the trade-offs for agreeing to the SPS agreement are not matched. As the Secretary of State for Business and Trade said recently, were we to join the customs union, it would have an adverse effect on the trading arrangements we have agreed with the rest of the world.
These regulations seem to embed Northern Ireland further into an undemocratic regulatory process with the EU, by removing the safeguard of section 15C of the 2018 Act. The Minister has not provided an explanation for why that is going to happen. I reinforce the point made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim: it is not in the review to which the Minister referred. If it is in the review, please can he quote from it? If it is not, what is the justification for doing it? He has not given an explanation, and it is time that he did.
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.