My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and I will do a bit of both the things he mentioned: look at the detail and, I hope, look at the bigger picture. Northern Ireland has had to endure another two years of rudderless governance at a time of the worst cost of living crisis in living memory and of burgeoning waiting lists—the noble Lord, Lord Hain, will know that I have raised this issue so many times in this House.
I was always opposed to the boycott of the institutions at Stormont. For unionism to adopt Sinn Féin tactics never seemed to be a strategic good idea to me. Of course, I refer to the previous three-year collapse of Stormont brought about by republicans between 2017 and 2020. The big difference between those two periods of collapse has been the outcomes. Sinn Féin got what it wanted with the language legislation, while the DUP
failed to shift the border in the Irish Sea, returning to Stormont with the protocol/Windsor Framework unaltered. All this chaos is due to the disastrously negotiated Brexit deal. None of the legislative contrivances before us tonight would have been necessary had we remained in the EU, or had there been a properly prepared and effectively negotiated departure of the UK from the EU.
9.15 pm
These SIs are bits of sticking plaster but, however well intentioned they may be, they are riddled, clause by clause, with the confirmation in the domestic law of the United Kingdom that a foreign power has already legislated for significant areas of policy in part of our country, and that the EU will continue to do so. We are actually incorporating that into domestic legislation. We are saying in these SIs that in fact we are looking over our shoulder at what the EU is going to do and how we interact with it; I will come to that a bit later.
An attempt is being made in the constitutional SI, in an amendment to the EU withdrawal act 2018, to provide assurance that further divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland will be avoided with an obligation placed on a Minister by Section 13C, where a Minister must make a statement that, if enacted, a Bill would not have
“a significant adverse effect on trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom”.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, drew attention to that. This provision is completely undermined by the next paragraph, which says that if a Minister cannot make such a statement, the Government can go ahead with the Bill in any event. Can the Minister clarify for the House that this means that the Government could in future legislate even if this meant adversely affecting trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland? That seems the inevitable consequence of the proposal.
In the Explanatory Notes to these SIs—I agree that they are sometimes the better place to look—frequent references are made to the UK’s international obligations. For example, in the EM on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, paragraph 7.3 confirms that
“The Government remains fully committed to meeting its international legal obligations in all circumstances”.
Can the Minister confirm that this means full implementation of the Windsor Framework? Again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, on this: I have asked two Parliamentary Questions, I have been fobbed off, and that is entirely unsatisfactory. I hope that we can have a debate on this, because there is a whole area on the Windsor Framework—we are finding it in your Lordships’ Committee—where we are not getting responses quickly enough. We got one today two years late. There is a huge issue of parliamentary accountability there.
Paragraph 7.1 points out that the protocol
“raised concerns over the status of Northern Ireland”
in the United Kingdom, but in response the Government negotiated the Windsor Framework with the EU, and that agreement is now being implemented. Paragraph 7.13 again excludes any
“decisions or agreements made under the existing Windsor Framework”.
It is therefore essential to know whether the Windsor Framework has been changed and, if so, in what way? Can the Minister confirm that and will he point to the relevant text of such changes? I mentioned the Parliamentary Questions and I will probably want to come back to those at another time.
Paragraph 6.2 of the internal market EM, in the “Legislative Context” part, again qualifies the Government’s intentions with respect to their international obligations. Parliament can judge the effectiveness of these SIs only in the context of how His Majesty’s Government see and interpret their international obligations. Will the Minister clarify this for the benefit of Members?
With regard to the internal market SI, reference is made to goods in transit between Northern Ireland and GB going via the Republic of Ireland, and goods coming from Northern Ireland to GB where a load may contain products from the EU travelling via Northern Ireland. Can the Minister tell the House how such mixed loads are to be handled, whether they enter Great Britain from the Republic of Ireland or from Northern Ireland with mixed loads?
I appreciate that some of these issues are quite complicated, and I fear that His Majesty’s Government may not have worked them all out yet—shock horror at such a prospect. However, we must have answers. That being the case, I am sure the Minister will write to me and other Members with detailed answers in due course.
I have touched on only a few issues; there are so many one could mention. Nearly two years ago, I was part of an Ulster Unionist Party delegation that went to Brussels. I remember it very well, because it was the day that President Zelensky addressed the European Parliament. It was a very emotional day. Later that day, we spent 90 minutes talking to European Commission Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič. During that discussion, he said he could get rid of 95% of the checks that were being performed. That was his figure, and that was two years ago. Negotiation with the EU from a functioning Stormont and improved relations with the EU were perfectly capable of delivering change without the blunt instrument of boycott and collapse of the institutions.
Further than that, we have to be honest with the people of Northern Ireland about what has been achieved by these measures and the accompanying documents. The aims of the boycott, as I understand them, were to eliminate a regulatory border in the Irish Sea, remove the remit of the ECJ in Northern Ireland and prevent the imposition of EU laws and regulations in Northern Ireland, as this would mean a foreign power making laws for Northern Ireland without the ability of the Northern Ireland Assembly or Westminster to stop this. As far as I can see, none of these objectives has been achieved. The border in the Irish Sea remains, the role of the ECJ is unchanged, and Brussels law continues to apply to Northern Ireland and will do so into the foreseeable future.
Like other Members of this House, I spent some time this afternoon as a member of your Lordships’ Sub-Committee on the Windsor Framework. We looked at page after page of detailed correspondence with His Majesty’s Government dealing with proposed
EU regulations to be applied in Northern Ireland, and letters to and from Ministers to that effect. In fact, I discovered that in the cc list on some of the ministerial letters, one of the recipients of this communication is the EU document scrutiny manager. Such a person exists. The idea that, somehow or other, there has been some miraculous change, is false. We are integrated into the EU law and regulatory system by dint of the agreements and legislation that have already been passed. That, of course, was the decision of this Parliament.
In this House, we criticised the former Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis, who said there was no border in the Irish Sea. Last year, we criticised the Prime Minister because he made similar claims. I am very surprised and disappointed that Sir Jeffrey Donaldson and some of his colleagues are saying the same thing today. They must have taken leave of their senses if they have come to that conclusion. It is nonsense. The border is there now, and these SIs are now further woven into domestic law.
I understand that people will always try and oversell what they have achieved—we have all done it. However, these claims, far from being the spoils of victory, are anything but. In many respects, it has resulted in a significant defeat. I also note that two years ago, when the rallies against the protocol started, people came out in towns like Markethill in the freezing cold to join a platform to protest—perfectly legitimately—about the protocol and its impact constitutionally, and potentially economically. We have heard reference to the platform party already. Many of us could see then that the platform party would not survive any length of time. Difference was inevitable. How many times have loyalists been marched up the hill to be marched down again? It happens again and again—and now it has happened once again.
I was a bit perturbed by my noble friend Lord Bew’s comments on how the negotiations to get the Assembly back were conducted. I make it clear that, despite the reference in some of the documentation to other parties being engaged, my party was not engaged in the discussions and negotiations. There were a couple of perfunctory meetings, including one with officials, at a very late stage, but we were not part of the negotiating process. Had that attitude been adopted, we never would have had the Good Friday agreement or some of the other deals that were done. People must be engaged so that they have ownership of what comes out of it. This back-stairs stuff has all been done before, and we have all been engaged in it, but it does not work in the long term.
My noble friend Lord Bew put this matter in the context of a series of documents, and I take his point. He also made a very valid point about the Acts of Union. Drawing from our conversation, I got some material pertaining to the Acts of Union, particularly the schedules, which are very shocking to read in today’s context. We use phrases that unionists like to hear: “copper-fastening” the union and “future-proofing” the constitution. But this Parliament could not future-proof the lock on its Door, because one Parliament is not bound by what another one does. If the Acts of Union, when they were enacted by 1801, were such a great piece of kit for unionism, why is it that there is
an Irish Republic? If that document was supposed to protect a unionist in Dublin, it did not work very well. If the referendum in Scotland found that one more person voted to leave the United Kingdom than voted to stay in it, the Acts of Union with Scotland would have had no impact whatsoever on the unionists of Scotland.
The only way you can preserve the union is to ensure that there are more people on the ground that want it than do not want it. Everything one does, as a unionist, should be engaged to maximise the number of those people. No Act of Parliament and no statement from a Minister will do it. So I feel that people have been led up a trail that has no prospect of success.
I am against the boycott and was always against it; I think that it was a strategic mistake. However, another strategic mistake has been made in mis-selling it, and misrepresenting what it is trying to achieve, to the people they are trying to convince. If they are not lies, very significant misrepresentations are certainly being propagated, and people will find that out. Examples such as the flowers that the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, mentioned do not matter; it used to be bendy bananas in the days when people were attacking the European Union. There will always be something—I accept that—but let us not get focused on something that is irrelevant to the long-term preservation of the union.
The only thing that will preserve the union is making the case and ensuring that there are more people in Northern Ireland who want it than do not. As far as I am concerned, everything we do in this place should be measured in that way. I appreciate that a lot of work and negotiations have gone into these SIs—they have probably been done with the best of intentions—but trying to keep these things secret and bounce people at the last minute is not the right way ahead.