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

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Grand Committee

Under Section 15C there is the opportunity to ensure that recommendations and decisions can be tracked in advance of joint committee meeting dates being announced and that one can monitor any public document in relation to that. Why has this been removed? If it was put in to give full accountability, then its removal does the opposite. I thought that what the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, suggested was to strengthen the place of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee. Therefore, it would strengthen, as it should be, democratic accountability. The removal and deletion of Section 15C of the withdrawal agreement Act 2018 is therefore a serious matter.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed introduction to these regulations. From these Benches we welcome them and very much welcome any measures to implement the recommendations contained in the important report by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, which we very much supported.

As the Minister will be aware, there remain a great many concerns about the Windsor Framework in Northern Ireland, as the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, has illustrated very well. However, from these Benches we have always recognised that it is a pragmatic solution to a far from optimum situation stemming from the hard Brexit approach adopted by the previous Conservative Governments.

I have two quick questions for the Minister. Can she say whether there is a timetable for implementing the rest of the recommendations contained in the important report from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy? Can the Minister, to follow on from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, say whether there plans for a wider strategy on how to ensure parliamentary oversight here in Westminster for secondary legislation stemming from the Windsor Framework and other legislation resulting from dynamic alignment with the European Union?

The Minister will be aware that there are already lots of debates on regret Motions on regulations relating to the Windsor Framework. Indeed, I believe there is another one tomorrow evening from the noble Lord, Lord McCrea. She will be aware that even more will result from the EU Bill, so it will be very useful for us to understand the Government’s thinking about Westminster’s oversight role in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords in this regard.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, this instrument makes changes to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, which scrutinises EU law that is applicable in Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework, implementing some of the recommendations made by the independent review of the Windsor Framework.

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are of the strong opinion that the Government must explain why they are removing the safeguards introduced by the previous Government prohibiting the use of written procedure in the joint committee, which were meant to ensure full ministerial accountability for its decisions. This instrument removes Section 15C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Explanatory Memorandum to this instrument says that this provision was being made:

“to facilitate decision making between the co-chairs on time-sensitive issues during the period in between formal meetings, noting the bulk of decisions at the Joint Committee relate to the Windsor Framework”.

However, the Explanatory Notes for the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which introduced Section 15C into the 2018 Act, stated that the prohibition on the use of written procedure in the joint committee by the UK’s co-chair was to ensure 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 … for all decisions made in the Joint Committee”.

That was well highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea.

Introducing the use of written procedure in the joint committee by the UK’s co-chair was not recommended by the independent review. In line with the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, we have one important question: will the Minister explain in more detail the rationale for allowing the written procedure? Is there a risk, as has already been discussed, that it would allow changes to slip through inadvertently without even the minimal scrutiny currently in operation?