My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, with whom I have the pleasure to serve on the Northern
Ireland protocol Select Committee, to which she referred. I endorse what she said about the need to get resolution on veterinary medicines. We heard evidence last week, from the Ulster Farmers Union and others, about the serious implications of the failure to resolve that issue. The indications coming out of Brussels are that it is not interested in a solution that would guarantee the continued flow of Great Britain vaccines and other medicines for veterinary purposes to Northern Ireland. I would like a timescale from the Minister of when he expects farmers and the agri-food industry in Northern Ireland to be reassured that that matter will be resolved so that they can continue to access British veterinary vaccines and other medicines in the same way that they do now.
Unlike the noble Baroness who just spoke, I do not regard the Windsor Framework/Northern Ireland protocol as a fair and balanced resolution to our problems with the free flow of trade between parts of the United Kingdom. This is very much a process that has protected certain parts of the Belfast agreement, as amended by the St Andrews agreement—namely, the north-south arrangement—but that has completely trashed the east-west relationship and the strand 1 relationship at Stormont. We can see that because there are no functioning institutions of strands 1, 2 or 3. People say that the Windsor Framework and the protocol are designed to protect the Belfast agreement, but show me the evidence of that. It has trashed the Belfast agreement and its institutions.
The Windsor Framework is now being implemented by a series of statutory instruments, through both negative and affirmative resolution. The noble Baroness referred to news reports about the Government taking further powers—that may well be. It sometimes makes you wonder why they talk about wanting to get the Assembly back so much, because all they do is keep taking powers from it and devolved Ministers. There is not much regard for the Sewel convention or any of that, and then they ask people to go back and administer less and less of what they should be administering. For vast swathes of our economy and the agri-food industry, no Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly of any party—unionist, nationalist or whatever—or any MP from Northern Ireland has any powers to make any laws in those areas. We are told that the Assembly must get back to administer Northern Ireland, but those powers have been taken away from Northern Ireland and from elected representatives in the other place and this House.
These are fundamental issues; they are not small matters but fundamental constitutional, political and economic issues. That is why we feel so strongly about these areas, and we will continue to expose a Government who claim to uphold the union but continue, as my noble friend Lord Morrow exposed in considerable detail, to implement EU laws over part of the United Kingdom. That is the nub of the problem.
This statutory instrument is one of those related to the Windsor Framework/Northern Ireland protocol, and it requires an affirmative vote in Parliament. The retail movement scheme statutory instrument, which was laid during the Summer Recess, is being implemented under the negative resolution procedure. Other important
statutory instruments required to build the Irish Sea border and conform internal UK trade arrangements— I stress “internal”—with EU law are also being tabled by this Government under the negative resolution procedure.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has examined the regulations in front of us, as well as others. They are interlinked, as has been said, yet we have not been able to debate them—so far, that is; I am sure that we will find ways of getting them debated in due course. Up to now, the Government have not sought a debate on some of the most important regulations, including on the retail movement scheme itself. That is deeply regrettable.
6.15 pm
Our party, the Democratic Unionist Party, made extensive submissions to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee; indeed, it was the only organisation to do so. I am glad that the committee has taken note of our concerns. It expressed concern about the lack of an impact assessment or even “basic information”, as it put it. It said that the absence of such information and the way in which secondary legislation is laid before Parliament are concerns that it has raised repeatedly.
This is not unique to delegated legislation. We as Members of your Lordships’ House have the same problem concerning basic information and factual answers all the time. The Government seem unable—or, perhaps more accurately, unwilling—to answer factual questions that are tabled through parliamentary Questions. Can the Minister explain in detail how he answers the criticisms of the committee?
The Explanatory Memorandum to the regulations that established the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme states that an impact assessment will be published in due course. Can the Minister tell the Committee today when that is likely to happen? The SLSC points out the fact that the retail movement scheme came into force during the parliamentary recess, denying Parliament the opportunity to form a view and expresses concern about the timetable. How does the Minister respond to that specific criticism?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said, there is a clear pattern of behaviour here. That needs to be called out. It is right that we hold the Government to account over not only the substance of what they are doing but the way in which they are doing it in the face of consistent, detailed, forensic criticism from your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It is not good enough to continue simply to ignore that; the Government must answer.
In the Government’s view, these regulations, along with all the others that I have referred to, are necessary to build and erect an Irish Sea border between one part of the UK and the other. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply not looking at the facts. The Minister said—I think I picked him up right—that this removes the Irish Sea border. I ask the Minister and other noble Lords to read the report on the Windsor Framework from the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland Sub-Committee, which we published earlier this summer and in which that idea is completely disproved. It is not the statement of any political party; it is the
statement of a cross-party committee that consists of remainers, Brexiteers, unionists, nationals, Conservatives, DUP, Labour and Lib Dems. That is the report. I challenge the Minister to read it and then see whether he comes to the same conclusion.
The Government’s argument is essentially: “Well, it’s better than the original form of the protocol. You should be grateful and thankful for that and take it”. Of course, many people—including the SDLP, the Alliance Party, Sinn Féin, the Irish Government and many Members of your Lordships’ House—wanted to see the original implemented rigorously and argued that it should be even though all sides now acknowledge the damage that that would have done to Northern Ireland’s economy, politics and constitutional position. Now we have the same people urging us to accept the Windsor Framework, saying, “Well, it’s slightly better”. That argument does not wash with those of us who believe that as citizens of the United Kingdom, we are entitled to the same rights as everyone else in the United Kingdom.
It is not unfettered access that is being delivered. As my noble friend Lord Morrow said, this certainly does not deliver what the Prime Minister promised the people of Northern Ireland about doing away with any sense of a border. These regulations are being brought in not to implement a British Act of Parliament but to implement EU regulation 2023/1231.
Under the framework, it is the EU that dictates the law under which goods move from one part of the United Kingdom to another. Let us think about that for a moment. There is no democratic oversight or input into the development of such laws by anyone elected in Northern Ireland. Of course, the relevant EU law can be amended, changed or removed at any point, but only by the EU—I repeat: only by the EU. If the EU decides that it does not like the way that the so-called “green lane” is being operated, it can force everybody into the red lane.
The Government have of course failed to get any kind of reciprocal arrangement the other way. The new arrangement will result in trade diversion; indeed, it is already happening. The argument is that it would have been worse under the original protocol. That is not justification for the diversion which will undoubtedly take place. We have already heard from Tesco, for instance, about implications for it of this framework. Goods coming into Northern Ireland will now be examined to ensure they comply with GB standards.
Will the Minister explain whether goods produced in Northern Ireland itself for the Northern Ireland market, or for the GB market for that matter, can now be made, manufactured or produced so that they comply with UK or GB standards? Or, is it the case that they must meet EU standards while people importing from the rest of the United Kingdom do not have to, and therefore Northern Ireland businesses could become less competitive? I would like a clear answer to that because businesses in Northern Ireland are very interested in the costs of this regulation for them, which may not apply to their competitors.
On the issue of seed potatoes, can Minister tell us whether they can be sold to the public in retail outlets, such as garden centres and so on? Can the Minister tell us how many plants and species of trees remain
banned? We have had a list of those that the Government have asked the EU to allow into Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom. Will the Minister spell out in detail which will not be able to be moved from Great Britain to Northern Ireland?
It is important to say in conclusion that the Windsor Framework does not live up to the hype that the Prime Minister gave it when he launched earlier this year. As our report sets out, the key conclusion is that the Windsor Framework makes things worse for many businesses compared to what they have experienced until now because of the grace periods, derogations and so on. The original protocol was unworkable; it could not be implemented. That is what led to the grace periods and easements. Now they are being done away with and replaced with the full implementation of the Windsor Framework. It renders us worse off in respect of the Irish Sea border and creates greater checks and barriers to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom compared to what we have experienced thus far even if it theoretically—this is what the Government’s case rests on—improves the original, disastrous form of the protocol.
I am glad of the opportunity to debate these matters. I urge the Government to take on board the criticism of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and bring these matters for debate so that we can explore myth versus fact, law versus politics. Then we will have a proper understanding of what really is at stake for Northern Ireland.