Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme: Plant and Animal Health) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2024

Motion to Annul

19:37:00

Moved by

That an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme: Plant and Animal Health) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2024 (SI 2024/853), laid before the House on 9 August, be annulled. Relevant document: 3rd Report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

My Lords, I thank the Minister for kindly meeting me last week to discuss these regulations and for having a larger meeting with all the Peers from Northern Ireland on where aspects of the Irish Sea border are affected and where Defra has responsibility. I am very grateful for her time and consideration. I am deeply concerned by these regulations which we are discussing tonight. Part of the reason for praying against this statutory instrument is to ensure that your Lordships genuinely understand just how important they are, not just to Northern Ireland but to the whole of the United Kingdom. Ever since the broadcast of the recording of the private meeting where Michel Barnier said that the policy was to use Ireland in order to secure the broader Brexit purposes in relation to the United Kingdom, many of us have felt strongly that the people of Northern Ireland are being used as pawns in a bigger game. We have always worried that the European Union would use the imposition of EU standards on Northern Ireland—as a result of the protocol and the Windsor Framework—to pressurise the rest of the United Kingdom not to diverge from EU standards and so miss out on some of the benefits of having a competitive advantage from leaving the European Union. The regulations before us tonight provide a very clear articulation of this strategy, but in a form of smoke and mirrors. They impose on Great Britain the same entry requirements for rest of the world goods as to the European Union. This is supposedly in order that those goods should be able to move freely from Great Britain to Northern Ireland without the interference of the Irish Sea border, because the whole of the United Kingdom—not just Northern Ireland—has, in this regard, submitted to EU standards for these areas. This is being presented as some kind of trade off: GB submits to EU standards and then the border, for that purpose at least, can disappear. This is where the regulations before us are particularly telling. Your Lordships might have expected, given this so-called trade off, that the border that has been imposed, dividing our United Kingdom, would be removed to deal with the rest of the world goods, allowing their genuinely free, unfettered movement from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but that is just not the case. Under the terms of these regulations, even with our negotiators agreeing to adopt EU standards, the goods still cannot move freely from Great Britain to Northern Ireland: they still have to cross an international customs border and an international sanitary and phytosanitary border. Some of your Lordships may say, “But surely they can move now, within the UK Internal Market Scheme”—this new title for what used to be called the green lane. It is true that they can move via what the Government call the UK Internal Market Scheme but it is not what anyone else in the world would call an internal market system and it is certainly not what EU regulation 2023/1231, which defines what our Government have called the UK Internal Market Scheme, calls it either. In the real world, an internal market is defined, as we all know, as a market where goods can move freely without having the expense of having to cross an international customs border and an international SPS border. It is what we used to enjoy in this country until 2021, as goods moved freely from one part of the UK to another. The process that the UK Government call the UK Internal Market Scheme is, frankly, a deceit because it is anything but an internal market system—rather, it is a means of managing its opposite: the international customs and SPS border that now divides our country into two. In essence, what the misnamed UKIMS—or green lane, as it used to be called—offers is a redistribution of the border burden, rather than its removal. On the one hand, the international customs and SPS border requirements are simplified; on the other hand, you have to submit to additional burdens, such as successfully applying for and keeping trusted trader status and submitting to “Not for EU” labelling requirements. In return for GB submitting to EU standards, the EU is not offering that the border be removed for the purpose of those goods, but rather that the border remains and those bringing the goods be subject to an alternative border experience, but a border experience it remains just the same. First, you can cross the border only with an export number. Secondly, you are subject to customs and international SPS paperwork. Thirdly, you are subject to 100% documentary checks. Fourthly, you are subject to 5% to 10% identity checks at border control posts, which have already cost £190 million and they are not even half finished. Fifthly, you have to successfully apply to become a trusted trader and keep that status. Sixthly, you have to submit to “Not for EU” labelling. Another striking thing about these regulations is that they put us in a position of complete dependence on the EU. The regulations make sense only because of a prior piece of legislation, which I have already mentioned: EU regulation 2023/1231. This is not a piece of UK legislation but an EU regulation. It is quite impossible to scrutinise these regulations without simultaneously scrutinising EU regulation 2023/1231, because without it the regulation before us would be null and void. It is important to note some things about this EU regulation. First, it was passed in June last year, more than two years after we were supposed to have left the European Union, and yet its title makes it clear that it not only applies to the UK but to the UK and the movement of goods within it, as if we are some kind of EU colony. Secondly, in this regulation the EU makes it absolutely clear that it governs the border that divides our country in two, reserving to itself the right to pull the alternative border experience that the UK Government have ridiculously called the UK Internal Market Scheme, and default back to a 100% red lane, if it wishes. This means that while we can pass these regulations today, they could be rendered entirely null and void at any time, not because of a decision of this Parliament but because the EU uses its Article 14 powers. At the end of the day, these regulations are about perpetuating a deep injustice: the division of our country into two by 27 other countries which have chosen to disrespect the territorial integrity of the UK, not just by claiming the right to make some of our laws but through the imposition of an international customs and SPS border. This disenfranchises 1.9 million United Kingdom citizens in relation to not just one area of law but to some 300 areas. I cannot understand how any Government, past or present, who supposedly support the union could have gone along with this.

19:45:00

We know that there is another way of managing the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland that does not involve disenfranchising anyone and which respects the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. That, of course, is mutual enforcement. Surely our newly elected Government, rather than parroting the same old line of the previous Government, should insist that that solution be discussed now and all their relationships reset—which I know is the great new word about what will be happening with the European Union. I have no doubt that the EU would respond by saying that it prefers the Irish Sea Border way of managing the border—I wonder why?—over mutual enforcement. But, as the honourable Member for North Antrim, Jim Allister, wrote in the Telegraph Brexit Bulletin after his mutual enforcement Bill had its First Reading last week in the Commons, if the EU continues to insist on the Irish Sea border as if mutual enforcement did not exist, it

“will have to own the consequences of needlessly being the instigator of the largest disenfranchisement operation in the Western world, in violation of the Belfast Agreement and the territorial integrity of the UK”.

The nonsense of what is happening on the ground is apparent to all. The Irish Sea border transparently is not even working because people from the south of Ireland are continuing to travel over the border to Northern Ireland’s border towns, filling up their white vans with cheaper “Not for EU” goods and taking them back to the Republic of Ireland for sale. It just proves the utter nonsense of the European Union proclaiming that this is all about protecting its single market.

Now the Government are on the verge of making matters much worse by seeking to validate this injustice. In 1972, it was determined that in the future it would be wrong to force on a reluctant community majority voting on controversial issues at Stormont. There have now been no majority votes on matters of controversy at Stormont where any community has objected for over 52 years. Yet, on 31 October, less than two weeks away, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is required to send a message to the Assembly asking it to vote on the most controversial proposition to ever come before Stormont in 103 years. The motion will be to endorse Articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor Framework. The practical effect of voting for this is, first, the endorsing of an all-Ireland single market for goods and thus the removal of Northern Ireland from the UK single market for goods—a precursor to unbundling the UK and forming an all-Ireland economy. The second would be the creation of an all-Ireland legislative framework to govern the all-Ireland single market for goods, where the legislation is made by the Republic of Ireland and 26 other countries, but not Northern Ireland or the UK. The third would be to renounce the rights of the people of Northern Ireland to be represented in the legislature making the laws to which they will be subject in 300 areas for up to eight years.

This hugely controversial and, frankly, indecent proposition—no elected politician should be asked to renounce the rights of their constituents to be represented in the legislature making the laws to which they are subject—is to be dealt with by majority vote. The EU pushed for this not to be a cross-community vote and the last Government meekly folded—supported, I have to say, by the Labour Opposition.

Even at this late stage, I call on the Government to bring forward emergency legislation relieving the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of his current obligations to act on 31 October and set in train the most controversial vote at Stormont in its history and the first on a controversial majoritarian basis for over 52 years, as I said.

The vote will effectively silence unionism on the most consequential decision to have ever come before Northern Ireland’s legislature in the history of the Province. It is a huge injustice to abolish the cross-community vote to achieve the continued imposition of the Windsor Framework and an Irish Sea border, contrary to the core principles of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which requires cross-community consent for key decisions.

This is the greatest myth at the heart of the framework. Its much-flaunted purported objective was to protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, but in disapplying the core cross-community safeguards central to that agreement it has cut a huge hole in it. The framework does not protect the Belfast agreement but rather rewrites and reinterprets it for the sole benefit of Irish nationalists, the Irish Government and the European Union. There is no self-respecting unionist or democrat who can or should validate this illegitimate consent vote, because to do so would be to legitimise the claim that the protocol framework is consistent with the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It is not and it never was, and nothing that has come subsequently, including the worthless Safeguarding the Union deal, has altered that reality.

Northern Ireland is being left, colony-like, trapped under the EU, locked into a fast approaching economic united Ireland, with key safeguards for unionism removed. That is not a basis for political stability and this issue is not going to go away. It will continue to act as a permanent source of resentment for every unionist, as it ought to for every democrat and every Member of this House.

The previous Government decided that they would compromise on Northern Ireland, in the hope that it would be only short-term because the EU would realise that it would be absurd for it to pursue the division of a sovereign state as a long-term arrangement. If we had faced the European Union as a United Kingdom, the extraordinary proposition that only part of the UK could leave the EU would not have been entertained and we would not be in the situation in which we find ourselves, whereby, because Northern Ireland has been denied properly leaving the EU, the rest of the UK is beginning to be compromised as well.

The Prime Minister has constantly referred to his involvement in Northern Ireland, his working there and his support for the union. I suppose that tonight is the first opportunity to hear from the new Government their position on all of these issues. It really is time that some of the warm words about people who respect the union and support the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are actually delivered on—it must be more than warm words. That is why I hope that Members will look carefully at what we are discussing and take from my speech that the regulations we are going to pass—or not pass, perhaps—are very much to the long-term detriment of not just the people of Northern Ireland but the people of the rest of the United Kingdom. I therefore beg to move the Motion.

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and her Motion to annul these Windsor Framework regulations. I understand that these regulations are supposed to make it easier for some rest-of-the-world goods to move to and from Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but there are a number of problems with them, one of which I wish to concentrate my remarks upon. Let me make it clear: continued barriers to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are unacceptable and undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom. The regulations we are debating are based on recognition of the Irish Sea border, an iniquitous imposition upon the people of Northern Ireland emanating from the Northern Ireland protocol, which had no support from any unionist elected representative in Northern Ireland. One might have imagined that if Great Britain submitted to EU standards like Northern Ireland, the border would to that extent be removed, but these regulations do not do that; rather, they build upon a totally unacceptable foundation. The best way to understand the border to which these regulations relate is to go behind them to the legislation to which they relate and without which they make no sense—EU regulation 2023/1231. That regulation is considerably more honest, in that it does not pretend to define a UK internal market system but simply an alternative international border experience, enabling goods to move from what is regarded as a foreign country, Great Britain, to what it regards as part of itself, Northern Ireland. I sometimes think the Government believe that the people of Northern Ireland are totally gullible and content to believe that a border is not a border if you simply call it by a different name. Under these regulations, if rest-of-the-world goods enter the United Kingdom at, say, Southampton, being subject now to EU entry standards, they will be able to move freely from England to Scotland or from England to Wales, because it is an internal market. There is no customs border and no international SPS border. But what happens if the business in Southampton then desires to send the goods to the other region of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland? The reality is that it has reached the limit of the internal market for goods and that the goods cannot get to Northern Ireland within the internal market in which England, Scotland and Wales are located. Therefore, we have to leave the internal market for goods, cross an international customs and SPS border, and enter another single market for goods. The goods can leave one internal market for another only by crossing the border, and under the regulations before us there is only the option of using the alternative border experience set out in EU regulation 1231. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has mentioned what that means. It means having an export number; submitting to customs forms, which although simplified are still forms that you do not have to complete if moving goods within the GB internal market for goods; submitting to international SPS forms, which although simplified are still international and not domestic SPS forms; and submitting to 100% documentary checks and to 5% to 10% identity checks. Then, of course, people do not get access to this border experience, with the simplification of some forms, without having to pay for it by submitting to the additional burden you can avoid via the other, red lane border experience; namely, the requirement to join and remain part of the trusted trader scheme and to have “not for EU” labels. Does the Minister feel that I have misunderstood the present process demanded under the Windsor Framework? If so, can she enlighten me on where I am wrong? If the provisions in these regulations are somehow meant to make the border acceptable then the Minister is completely misguided. Protecting the so-called integrity of the market that now exists in Northern Ireland is about protecting the results of our being subjected to a different legal regime from Great Britain’s in 300 areas of law. The laws that call the border into being are laws made by a foreign Parliament, in which we in Northern Ireland are not represented. The border is, therefore, in a very real sense, as has already been mentioned, the border of our disfranchisement. What the Minister must answer is this: is she content to acquiesce with our exploitation or will she stand against this injustice? The previous Government sold the Windsor Framework by stating categorically that Northern Ireland would attract millions of pounds of additional trade, having what they proclaimed was the best of both worlds. But recently, even Invest Northern Ireland now tells us that there is no actual advantage in reality. Who is telling the truth? The present situation disrespects the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom and violates the Belfast agreement, which this Government and the House proclaim to hold so dear to their hearts. Rather than removing the Irish Sea border, these regulations help cement it in. I am pleased that all unionist representatives in the other House are supporting the mutual enforcement Bill to be debated on 6 December. Surely it will not be possible to ignore the call for mutual enforcement for very much longer. To conclude, there is a way forward and I know that my party leader and other unionist colleagues are willing to participate in charting a democratic way forward to restore our rightful place within this United Kingdom. I assure this House that the Windsor Framework and the outworkings of the Northern Ireland protocol are not the answer. I support the noble Baroness’s Motion.

20:00:00

My Lords, it is hardly surprising that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee highlighted this instrument as likely to be of interest to the House on the grounds that it is “politically or legally important and gives rise to issues of public policy”. To that, I would add that it is constitutionally important. I am therefore grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for proposing this Motion to annul the regulations. Under them, the UK Government will impose EU import laws on certain packed agri-goods entering this country from the rest of the world such as basil, cut flowers, fruit, and certain chicken products from Thailand and China. Not only, therefore, is Northern Ireland to be subject to the EU’s economic and trade laws, or even the lighter-touch version we are told is the aim of the Windsor Framework for goods going there from GB, but so too is the whole of the UK to be under certain EU laws. The Government say that they want to promote the integrity of the UK’s internal market. That is something they also claim to desire in the new Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. I suggest that one way to do that is to extend the UK’s post-Brexit trade freedoms to Northern Ireland and continue the serious negotiations for revising the 2019 agreement, which combined sticks with carrots. However, the Government intend to do so by imposing EU laws on the rest of the UK by statutory instrument and instead of the UK’s own statutory regime. That sounds to me to be mighty like the Chequers agreement, which was rejected the by House of Commons three times, but piecemeal and by the back door of statutory legislation. Can the Minister reassure me that this is not the case? The Windsor Framework, which was at least put to a parliamentary vote, is, like most episodes in the complicated history of my native country, Ireland, testimony to the way difficult problems become intractable, and complexities become overwhelming as a result of political interests which want not to resolve them but to the exploit difficulty for political gain. We heard about some of those interests tonight. The Windsor Framework was announced by the then Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak. It was said to ameliorate the obstacle-ridden movement of goods from one part of the UK to another —Northern Ireland. There was much fanfare, many photocalls with the EU commissioner, warm words and a hotchpotch of operational changes to another flawed settlement imposed by the EU on this country: the Northern Ireland protocol. However, the protocol was not supposed to be permanent. In parts, it made it clear that both parties accepted the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the integrity of the UK’s internal market. Each party was also bound to best endeavours legally to resolve what was acknowledged to be a temporary arrangement and designed—I fear—to meet the EU’s desire to keep Northern Ireland as a fief subject to EU economic law. By retaining under its laws part of the sovereign UK, the EU violated the Good Friday agreement, whereby constitutional change must be by the consent of the people, and the promise in the 2019 settlement to respect and accept the integrity of the internal market. This instrument under the Windsor Framework therefore has a flawed pedigree. I did not vote for the Windsor Framework. I did not and do not support the imposition of EU laws on one part of the UK in violation of this country’s sovereignty without a policy of such importance being a matter of primary legislation. It should not be smuggled in the back door to undo the gains of Brexit for most of this country in order somehow to right the wrongs under which Northern Ireland continues to suffer.

My Lords, I refer to my registered interest as a member of your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and of the Government’s veterinary medicines working group. It will come as no surprise to anybody in your Lordships’ House that I support the Windsor Framework, as I supported the Northern Ireland protocol. Therefore, I do not support the Motion before us to annul this statutory instrument. I believe that the Windsor Framework was the best means of dealing with the challenges presented by Brexit for trade and goods on the island of Ireland. Before Brexit, goods moved freely across the island, helping to sustain and underpin our economies in Ireland north and south. To take the example of the dairy industry, milk is supplied from farmers in Northern Ireland. It is processed in factories in the Republic of Ireland, and it comes back, either as butter, whey or cheese, and is sold in the north—and vice versa. We have to give that due recognition. This dual nature and, I suppose, the fact of the all-Ireland nature of part of our economy were recognised in the Good Friday agreement, through the three-stranded relationship and the establishment of the political institutions: the Assembly, the Executive, the North/South Ministerial Council, with north-south implementation bodies, of which one was InterTradeIreland, and the British-Irish Council. Prior to and since the vote on the Brexit referendum, my colleagues in the SDLP and I have always insisted that there was a need for a special status for Northern Ireland due to the unique trading and other relationships on the island. That has not diminished and manifests itself in the Windsor Framework, which exists to manage those challenging trading relationships. Therefore, we enjoy dual access to the UK internal market and to the EU customs union. Where there are imperfections with some areas of trade, as has been demonstrated by some of the Windsor Framework instruments, they need resolution, not annulment, through dialogue and negotiation between the UK and the EU, as is happening with veterinary medicines—that work is ongoing—otherwise our agri-food industry could be undermined. Having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, the mover of this Motion, and the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, I note the desire to challenge every piece of secondary legislation on the Windsor Framework as an attack on the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom. I think this is a little bit disingenuous, because notwithstanding the Windsor Framework and my own political position, Northern Ireland remains within the UK. This was the view of those people—many who sit on the opposite Benches as well as my colleagues from other parties in Northern Ireland—who argued for the hardest possible Brexit. I say to them: sometimes you get what you argued for. Put simply, it would have been better for us to remain within the EU. I am pleased that my colleagues on the Front Bench in the new Labour Government are working with the EU—via the Prime Minister and other senior Ministers, such as the Paymaster-General—on a reset of relationships, notwithstanding the realities of the situation. I hope that leads to a resolution of all the outstanding difficulties and to less tension and brinkmanship. Through less tension and through negotiation, you can build your economy and good relationships based on collaboration and co-operation. Yesterday there was a meeting of the Specialised Committee on the Implementation of the Windsor Framework, covered by a joint statement. The joint chairs welcomed the operation of tariff rate quotas for certain agricultural products, and they discussed the intensive work under way in the areas of agri-food, customs, medicines and trade. They noted the importance of “continued constructive joint working to support those efforts and monitor progress”. We should all support the Government and the EU in that important work to achieve the full and faithful implementation of the Windsor Framework, and to ensure that wrinkles and challenges are overcome and resolved for hauliers, businesses and the logistics industry. I believe that serves the best interests of all in our communities in Northern Ireland, ensuring that the best possible outcomes are achieved for our economy, society and communities. The purpose of this instrument on the retail movement scheme for plants is to expand the list of agri-food goods imported for retail into GB from the rest of the world that can move to Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland Retail Movement Scheme, an issue referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. This is all achieved by making changes to the entry requirements for importing these goods into GB so that they can align with the EU-derived entry requirements for importing such goods into Northern Ireland. As a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I note that we recognised—remember that our job is purely process driven—that this piece of legislation was likely to be of political interest. That is probably why we are debating it tonight. It is important to emphasise that the changes made by this instrument will ease the movement of certain goods from GB to Northern Ireland via the Northern Ireland Retail Movement Scheme. In fact, Defra emphasises that the changes made by the instrument were sought by business. Those who argue vociferously against this and other statutory instruments do so, they say, on the lack of proper consultation on constitutional imperatives. Can the Minister, my noble friend Lady Hayman, advise us of the type and nature of the consultation that has already taken place with businesses? It is important to emphasise that businesses want to see a resolution to all the challenges presented by Brexit and the bureaucracy. They have said to me that they welcome any agreement when faced with the catastrophic alternative of a no-deal Brexit. That is why businesses have been fully co-operative in all these areas of the Windsor Framework. Business and trade in Northern Ireland welcomed an agreement that provided continued access to the all-Ireland market, which many businesses in Northern Ireland relied on. Furthermore, business welcomes a unique solution for a unique place, with trade, social, family and emotive ties with both Britain and Ireland. But it also wants any resolution of the wrinkles in the bureaucracy.

20:15:00

I welcome the fact that the new Government intend to implement the Windsor Framework with pragmatic good faith. As the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said, it was necessary to negotiate a veterinary agreement with the EU and to protect the open border on the island of Ireland, on which we depend for trade and the sustainability of our economy and businesses, as I have said. Therefore, that pragmatic solution is required.

Does my noble friend the Minister agree with me that debate is necessary in a democratic society? But we all have to ask: is this in the best interests of our businesses and communities? The debate is necessary, but the continuous badgering on about the inadequacies and iniquities of the Windsor Framework is definitely not helpful to businesses. As their immediate priority, they want the resolution of those difficulties, and they want full implementation. Can the Minister give us the Government’s view on sustaining the economy and businesses in Northern Ireland?

My Lords, I will be brief—I know that most people say that, but I genuinely do want to be. I refer to my registered interests, particularly my recent appointment as chair of InterTrade UK. Paragraph 107 of the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper states: “We have therefore already taken forward the steps necessary to enable the expansion of the arrangements permanently to allow at least an additional 26 Rest of World meat and plant products to be covered by the Northern Ireland Retail Movement Scheme. This will include the critical retailer proposal for Thai poultry, as well as Chinese poultry, and a range of cut flowers and herbs, and we will provide the same commitments on safeguards as we have for all existing Rest of World goods covered in the scheme”. Part 3 of this statutory instrument gives statutory power for the EU-approved poultry meat plants in China and Thailand to be exempted from provisions of animal health law, but EU-approved meat plants in Brazil are not included. This is an important point, although I accept that it is niche. It is especially important for a company that raised the issue with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—namely, Universal Meat Company from Northern Ireland. It imports a significant amount of tonnage from Brazil. In response to concerns raised, Defra has said that the list of products included in the scope of this legislation was developed with industry stakeholders in the United Kingdom on the basis of factors such as the volumes of trade and the impact on supply chains, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said. The department went on to list other ways to deal with Brazilian goods. But it would be so much more straightforward if this exemption included those Brazilian plants. In its conclusion, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee indicated the “importance of consulting widely”, which is an important point—I hope the Minister will reflect on that. It is about not just volumes in a UK context but what matters in a Northern Ireland context. That is important. Given the specific concerns about Brazil and the fact that the factories concerned there are EU approved—it is important to say that—can the Minister proactively look again at this specific issue? The volumes may not be as large as the two countries listed—China and Thailand —in respect of poultry meat in UK terms, but, for Northern Ireland, Brazil is a significant supplier and its absence from this list will impact on the supply chain, consumer choice and customer cost. That is an important point. Noble Lords are aware that I have been appointed chair of Intertrade UK and, while I await terms of reference from the Government, I intend to closely monitor the impact of statutory instruments. It is important that we have these debates and find out where there are difficulties, such as the one before the House today. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for bringing this Motion to the Floor of the House; otherwise, we would not have had the opportunity to raise what are important issues for suppliers, businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland. It has given me the opportunity to raise this specific concern and I hope the Minister can address it.

My Lords, I too can be quite brief, but there are a few points I want to register. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for the Motion and for her helpful remarks. These regulations testify to something we always feared: that differential arrangements for Northern Island, in which it remains closer to EU laws and rules, would end up being exploited to restrict our freedom and keep the UK-EU relationship one of high alignment, and that is what has happened. It has become harder to get the gains of setting our own laws in our own interests, and there is a risk that we remain in the political and psychological tractor beam of the EU. And so it has proved. Ever since the original sin, as I regard it, of the joint reports in December 2017, it has been impossible to entirely undo the agreement about the imposition of EU law in Northern Ireland. The Johnson Government, both when I was responsible and under my successors, tried to water down commitments and made it clear they could not be durable, and eventually did their best to unpick it, culminating in the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which was so intensely disliked in this House. But that Bill fell, with Prime Ministers Johnson and Truss, and the Sunak Government, having promised one thing, then did another and agreed the Windsor Framework. This did little to improve the situation in practice, but the big change it did make was that the British Government were now actively committed to defending protocol-like arrangements, and that meant defending EU interests in areas covered by the protocol in Northern Ireland. What we are seeing happen with the regulations today is what we always said would happen: the easy way out would always be taken, and we would increasingly choose to align ourselves with EU laws rather than go our own way. These regulations mark a new stage in that process. Hitherto, the Windsor Framework arrangements were confined to the GB-Northern Ireland “border”, but now we are also aligning a GB external border with EU laws—admittedly for a limited category of third-country goods. As others have said, including my noble friend Lady Lawlor, it will not end there. The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which is also being considered by your Lordships’ House, has exactly this purpose in mind, and is much more sweeping in what it can do. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, pointed out, this pre-emptive legislative cringing to the EU hardly even brings us any benefits. It still does not improve the “border processes” between GB and Northern Ireland, and the same will be true of the product regulation Bill. As I have said before, these arrangements make little sense unless they are the first stage in a process in which the second stage will be formal adoption of EU laws enforced by EU methods. That is, of course, how you get the paperwork to be eliminated, but at what price? We have the gradual watering down of this country’s democracy still further in favour of laws set elsewhere. To conclude, there are only three possible destinations from where we are. I have just described one, which is the gradual, further dissolution of UK sovereignty in important areas of the economy. The second is an attempt to make the unworkable work, to constantly offset the complexities and the nonsensicalities of the Windsor Framework by more and more complex legislation, with more and more exemptions and special treatment, creating a bigger regulatory burden and, in practice, separating out Northern Ireland still further. If we go down this road, we will be dealing with more and more unsatisfactory pieces of legislation like this one. The third route is the one that, one day, must be taken and has been referred to already, and that is the route of mutual enforcement, for the Windsor Framework to be ditched and for UK laws to apply in Northern Ireland, as they do anywhere else in this country. In my view, that is the right way forward. I do not think the current arrangements can or will stand. They are overcomplex, create too many political anomalies and simply will not work over time, and it is only a matter of time before that becomes clear. One day, we will sweep away the Windsor Framework and make this a properly United Kingdom once again. Can the Minister say which of these three paths she believes the Government are on? What is their approach to the Windsor Framework, and what is the direction of travel?

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for giving us a chance to have this debate. I find myself in a slightly confused frame of mind, in that I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Frost, has just said about the 2017 agreement and its consequences. However, we are where we are. There is as much chance of mutual enforcement becoming an acceptable solution to this crisis as there is of all the European countries and the United Kingdom deciding that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the best way forward for governance—in fact, there is rather more chance for the dictatorship of the proletariat. To tell the people of Northern Ireland to keep on going, that mutual enforcement is somehow a realistic option, is misleading. On the disfranchisement of the people of Northern Ireland, the truth is that the Assembly will vote on this matter. I know there are those who dislike that. The major change between the Johnson agreement and the May agreement was putting in that there should be a vote in the Assembly on any new arrangements, giving the Northern Ireland Assembly a chance to vote. As for the talk about 1.9 million people being disfranchised, they are not being disfranchised—they are going to get a chance to vote. I understand the objection to the form of the vote, which is by a majority vote, although that is so because trade matters are actually the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament. It was a special concession to give a vote to the Assembly on this occasion. In 1938, at the time of the very controversial Anglo-Irish trade agreement, the unionist MPs all accepted it was nothing to do with Stormont; it was a matter for the Westminster Parliament even though they were concerned it was unfair to Northern Irish businesses. A special case has been made for this vote. In 2017, there was a general election in Northern Ireland. The DUP got 36% of the vote—it is closer to 20% now. The total unionist vote is little short of 50%. When it was agreed in 2019 that the Assembly would have a majority vote on this matter, it was not so obvious what the outcome would be. Today it is, but when that was agreed to in 2019, it was not at all obvious that a majority vote would be acceptance of the Windsor Framework arrangements, as we are all sure it will be now. It was not at all sure, and it was not inevitable. There is an argument that one reason why the unionist vote has collapsed is the constant putting forward of solutions which are not solutions, like the mutual enforcement scheme. There is nothing at all wrong with it, had it been serious five years ago. We are now three international treaties down the road, and the European Union is not going to change its mind, and Parliament voted by a huge majority for the Windsor Framework. There is more chance of the dictatorship of the proletariat being decided as the way forward for Europe and the United Kingdom than the idea that suddenly people are going to turn round and say, “Let’s try something else completely different”—considerably more chance. I have made general observations of where we are, and it is with regret that I say some of this because I think mutual enforcement should have been more properly discussed. The 2017 agreement is deeply flawed and set a framework which leaves us with many remaining difficulties which we have to talk about. None the less, this is where we are. I hate to be so simple about it, but it is the case.

20:30:00

The Windsor Framework has been critically denounced by the DUP this evening. One of the great achievements of the Windsor Framework is on human medicines—though not so much on veterinary and animal health issues, around which there is ongoing dialogue, as has been referred to tonight. Human medicines have been removed absolutely out of any EU context, straight back into a UK set of regulations. That is an absolutely clear-cut victory for a particular position. In a situation where there had to be compromises, that is one for the UK view of the matter.

That we have to get this matter sorted out is the central, lead point in the DUP’s manifesto for Assembly elections. I never see it referred to subsequently, yet it is so rare for a party to get a 100% win. I mention this because the Windsor Framework is not simply a matter of its flaws; it is worth recalling that there are things in it—for example, the Stormont brake—which are of major importance and help to explain why, when the Assembly votes, there will be a vote for it. It also helps to explain why the move in public opinion in Northern Ireland is increasingly towards this.

To be very crude about it, if you look at the impact assessment, you find that it shows the impact of this SI to be very slight. There is no real impact on business— I think the word used is negligible—and no direct costs to consumers were identified. This SI is not going to transform public opinion one way or another in Northern Ireland; it is just too intangible, as is so much of what has flowed from what is an inadequate deal with Europe, which has very bad roots, as was rightly said by the noble Lord, Lord Frost.

However, we are at a particular moment. Parliament has voted and the European Union is not going to shift its position either.

My Lords, I support the Motion moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. The regulations referenced in this evening’s Motion do not deal with the imposition of the large swathes of EU law which impinge on Northern Ireland’s economy. The regulations before us are intended to expand the range of goods—namely, Thai and Chinese poultry, and cut flowers from the rest of the world—that are eligible to be supplied to Northern Ireland from Great Britain under the retail movement scheme. These regulations are not a solution to the long-term problems born of the protocol. In imposing on Great Britain EU standards that already apply to Northern Ireland, these regulations evidence a desire to use that fact to seek to undermine Brexit in the rest of the country. It is a strange anomaly that although EU regulation 2023/1231 was made after the UK left the European Union, it relates only to the governance of the United Kingdom and not the European Union. The United Kingdom Government have not scrutinised this legislation and have no power to alter it. Is it really acceptable that laws which apply only in the United Kingdom should be made by a foreign entity of which we are not a part? Far from removing the barriers to trade between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom created by the protocol, the Windsor Framework has entrenched many of these and will impose heavy costs on Northern Ireland/Great Britain trade and damage living standards in Northern Ireland. I know that my time is brief, so I will consider just a few points. It has been argued that the restrictions on state aid set out in the protocol have been significantly eased by the de minimis regulations introduced on 1 January 2024. Unfortunately, this is clearly not the case, since the United Kingdom Government’s capacity to provide financial support to Northern Ireland’s large businesses remains severely limited. This may have made it impossible for the last Government to provide the necessary funds to prevent the Harland & Wolff shipyard in Belfast going into administration. Can the Minister clarify the position regarding the future operation of the Belfast shipyard, in particular the building of naval ships? The negative consequences of the United Kingdom fulfilling its commitment to extend the requirement for “not for EU” labelling to products consumed in Britain should not be overlooked. This will cause the isolation of the Northern Ireland market, since the increased cost of providing a small product line with different labelling for Northern Ireland will inevitably disincentivise many British traders from supplying goods to Northern Ireland. Can the Minister explain why the Government have reneged on their commitment to introduce this legislation throughout the United Kingdom? I warmly welcome the arrival of the mutual enforcement Bill, which I see has now been propelled to Second Reading in another place. Unlike the regulations before us today, the Bill provides a sensible solution. It replaces the Irish Sea border—which violates the Belfast agreement in disfranchising the people of Northern Ireland—with mutual enforcement, which disfranchises no one and restores the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom without requiring border infrastructure on the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland border. Finally, we were informed that the protocol would bring prosperity and untold opportunities for business. To date, I believe that there is very little evidence to show this. I support the Motion.

My Lords, this has been a characteristically impassioned debate and, with the notable exception of the very pertinent points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, it has perhaps been rather less about the substance of the regulations before us and more about concerns of identity; but as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said in his very thoughtful speech setting out the historical context, we are where we are. From these Benches, we welcome the Government stating that they are fully committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith and protecting the UK’s internal market. If the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, pushes her fatal Motion to a vote this evening, we will not be supporting her. On the substance of these regulations, I can be extremely brief. These changes, which are fairly limited in scope, impact Scotland, Wales and England and are necessary, we believe, to make the Windsor Framework work in practice. It is welcome that the Government consulted with the devolved Administrations of Scotland and Wales and have received legislative consent from both. But, turning to some of the wider issues that these regulations raise following the change of government, this can be seen to be the beginning of a wider debate about our general approach to alignment with or divergence from the EU. We are going to have to debate whether we want divergence for divergence’s sake, which I would argue is the logical consequence of some of the speeches we have heard this evening, or whether we wish to align whenever possible with our European partners where it makes sense to do so. If we wish to align with EU legislative changes as they happen, this inevitably raises questions about the democratic deficit and being a rule taker. As someone who was very much against leaving the European Union, I think it is worth recalling from time to time that prior to Brexit we had MEPs, a commissioner, Commission officials and Ministers who were all in a position to debate these issues in Brussels before, during and after the legislation was developed by the EU. Now we have to decide whether or not to follow these changes without having any say—but that was the decision taken in 2016. Ultimately, this is about managing divergence with our biggest market and keeping up with changes as they take place within the European Union. The business community, in particular, is keen to have clarity on this. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, I would be very grateful if the Minister could say a little more about what discussions are taking place with the business community on the possible consequences of divergence. Turning to the democratic deficit, it is welcome that the Liaison Committee of this House is considering establishing a Northern Ireland scrutiny committee. Such a committee could replace the very important work previously carried out by the Northern Ireland protocol committee. But it is also important that we continue to debate many of these issues as fully as possible, including in this Chamber. In that regard, it would be very useful to have a debate in government time on the future approach to the Windsor Framework as well as the wider government approach to EU trade. Can the Minister in her concluding remarks give a brief update on where we are with practical re-engagement with the EU? In particular, can she say a little more about where we are regarding agreements on SPS and on veterinary matters?

My Lords, I declare my farming and land management interests as set out in the register. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for introducing this Motion and for raising the key issues for people living in Northern Ireland. I also thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate with such passion and energy and who have candidly shared their deep frustrations. From the outset, I would like to confirm my personal commitment and that of my noble friends on this side of the House: we are all dedicated unionists. We also remain strongly supportive of the importance of implementing the Windsor Framework agreement, securing the application of British standards for goods which move to and stay in Northern Ireland, and ensuring that the same goods are available for consumers in all parts of the UK. It upholds Northern Ireland’s access to the rest of the UK internal market and safeguards Northern Ireland’s privileged access to the EU single market, which has been a clear demand from businesses in order to protect livelihoods. Following the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, earlier in this debate, I too hope that the Minister can restate the Government’s manifesto commitment: “Labour is committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith and protecting the UK internal market”. I also ask the Minister to confirm that this instrument is consistent with the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper, published in January 2024. In line with the concerns raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and that we have heard today from my noble friend Lady Lawlor and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, I would also like to press the Minister to explain to the House the extent of the consultation undertaken. What is the nature of the parties that have been consulted? How many have been consulted and on what questions? Is it possible to publish the anonymised consultee responses? Has the policy been adjusted or impacted by any of that consultation to arrive at the position we see it in today? If so, whose responses carried the most weight? In addition, how would the Minister respond to concerns expressed by many noble Lords that this instrument appears to be intent on aligning with EU law and thus has constitutional significance? As is the custom in this House, we on these Benches will not be supporting the fatal Motion on an instrument such as this, but I hope the Minister will listen carefully to noble Lords’ concerns.

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for introducing this Motion and allowing us to have such a detailed debate on this issue. I also thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, some with a great deal of passion and energy. I know this is a subject close to many noble Lords’ hearts. I draw noble Lords’ attention back to the very positive impact that this legislation will have on the union of the UK and on businesses and citizens right across our country. This statutory instrument will enable a broader group of goods originating from the rest of the world to move via the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme from GB to Northern Ireland. This enhances the existing measures in the Windsor Framework, which have already significantly reduced the requirements associated with the original Northern Ireland protocol. The list of eligible goods, which already includes products such as tomatoes, cauliflowers and New Zealand lamb, was designed in collaboration with industry stakeholders across the UK. Recently, I had a constructive and helpful discussion on the Windsor Framework with the Northern Ireland Business Brexit Working Group when I went to Belfast in August. The Government will keep under review the movement of products from the rest of the world. We need to ensure that we can reflect and respond to industry feedback. My officials meet with businesses on a regular basis to discuss these matters and to support them in implementing the Windsor Framework, which I confirm to the noble Lord we are committed to delivering. This legislation delivers on a key commitment of the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper, which was published earlier this year and which the noble Lord also inquired about. As colleagues know, that provided the basis for the return of the Northern Ireland Executive. In addition to expanding eligibility for goods from the rest of the world to use the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme, the Government are committed to supporting businesses in moving agri-food goods into Northern Ireland. To that end, since 30 September, the new tariff rate quota solution enables traders to take advantage of UK tariff quotas of over 13,000 tonnes of lamb, beef and poultry every year. As set out in our manifesto, this Government have been clear in their objective to secure improved arrangements for agri-food trade with the EU via a veterinary or SPS agreement. We are clear that we want to continue to simplify this process, as far as possible, to support the UK’s thriving agri-food trade.

20:45:00

I will now go through some of the key points made and questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and other noble Lords. On the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme, the list of goods from the rest of the world was established as part of the Windsor Framework and is designed to reduce significantly checks and paperwork for retail agri-food products moving from Northern Ireland into the rest of the UK. Products imported from outside the UK or the EU—in other words, the rest of the world—can use this where the products feature on the list of goods from the rest of the world. Products are also included if they are substantially processed in GB or the EU, or if they have cleared an EU border control post.

There were also questions about why Northern Ireland is being treated differently under the Windsor Framework from the rest of the world. The idea with the Windsor Framework, as I am sure noble Lords are aware, is that we are trying to achieve the smooth flow of trade within the UK internal market to support Northern Ireland’s place in the UK. We want to try to remove the burdens that have, until now, been disrupting east-west trade.

On that note, I will give some more information about SPS zones, which the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, referred to. It is important to stress that the island of Ireland has always been a separate SPS zone. GB is a separate zone. Imports from other zones are subject to SPS certification import checks, such as ID checks. These products will continue to be subject to checks and SPS certification on entry into GB. They would have been subject to them without this SI. The addition of these products to the list of goods from the rest of the world means that international checks and certification for these products will no longer be necessary in order to move from GB to Northern Ireland.

On SPS zones, the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Suttie, asked about negotiations with the EU. All I can say is that it is very early days, but it is a top priority, and I am working with both the Cabinet Office and the Northern Ireland Office on how we move forward.

There were also questions about why EU laws and standards will continue to apply in Northern Ireland. Under the Windsor Framework agreement, agri-food goods produced and processed in Northern Ireland are required to meet EU standards. We have worked very hard to listen to feedback from farmers, food producers and food manufacturers in Northern Ireland, who told us that they prized their ability to produce and sell food across both the Great Britain and EU markets. I visited a very large dairy business just outside Belfast recently, and this is what they were focused on. They were also very keen that they remain an integral part of UK food supply chains with unfettered market access; however, at the same time, they need to be able to grow and develop their existing production models. As my noble friend Lady Ritchie said, we simply cannot allow our agri-food industry to be undermined—this is also a priority for the Government.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the influence of the EU on UK law and sovereignty. The UK will always be able to choose how to respond to changes in the EU’s import controls for any of the affected products. Government processes, established under the Windsor Framework guarantee, provide democratic oversight and the power permanently to veto an application of a harmful new rule to Northern Ireland.

On 1 February 2024, the Secretary of State signed into law the regulations that will give legal effect to the Stormont brake. The Government have now published clear operational arrangements that underpin the Stormont brake’s use, reflecting our commitments in the Command Paper Safeguarding the Union.

In talking about the EU, the noble Baroness mentioned concerns about Article 14 powers and their use by the EU. We do not see that as a likely occurrence. Actually, rebuilding a constructive relationship with the EU is a reason to focus on the fact that it is less likely the EU will bring in these powers if it has a good, constructive working relationship with the UK Government. We are in frequent contact with the European Commission on all matters concerning the implementation of the Windsor Framework through the structures of the withdrawal agreement. As my noble friend Lady Ritchie pointed out, we have been clear on our objective to work closely and productively with our EU counterparts.

Noble Lords asked about consultation. Although there was no formal consultation on this SI, we have had extensive informal engagement on this matter. Senior officials regularly meet with a group of retailers and trade associations that represents retailers, both in GB and in Northern Ireland. It covers more than 200 retailers, plus thousands of smaller independent retailers, through a number of niche retail trade associations that are themselves members of the larger trade associations operating in this sector.

In September last year, the Government consulted that group to identify the priority products that could benefit from inclusion on the “rest of the world” list. As well as engagement with businesses, factors such as volumes of trade and impact on supply chains informed the products that are included in the scope of this legislation. In addition, we regularly engage with traders who use the Northern Ireland Retail Movement Scheme on an individual basis where issues specific to their businesses are raised.

I mentioned that I recently met businesses in Northern Ireland. I assure noble Lords that, for me, this is an ongoing process and an important part of my role in the department. I shall be visiting Belfast and speaking to businesses again before the end of this year.

I come to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, who asked specifically about Brazilian meat. Brazilian meat can be moved under the Northern Ireland scheme, as I am sure she is aware, if it enters through an EU border control post before entering the UK. Moreover, products can be imported directly into Northern Ireland. From 30 September, the new tariff rate quota solution has enabled traders to take advantage of quotas, as I mentioned, of over 13,000 tonnes of lamb, beef and poultry. We are trying to reflect Northern Ireland’s integral place in the UK through this, but I assure the noble Baroness that officials have met with Universal Meats and that the list of products remains under review. As part of that ongoing work, I would be very happy to take into consideration the points of view expressed by the noble Baroness in this debate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, asked about regulatory divergence between the UK and the EU. We must continue to identify and assess regulatory developments and the implications for Northern Ireland, but if the UK and EU regimes do diverge, the UK will have to determine whether to adopt measures to match the EU. Again, this will be part of our ongoing discussions with government and businesses in Northern Ireland.

This instrument upholds commitments made under the Windsor Framework, which facilitates the movement of goods throughout the UK while protecting the biosecurity of the island of Ireland. The changes mean that more products can move under the Northern Ireland Retail Movement Scheme, which benefits businesses and citizens right across the UK, significantly reducing certification and checking requirements and ensuring that citizens across the UK have access to the same products wherever they live. Again, this reflects the integral place of Northern Ireland in the UK, which, I stress, is the Government’s priority in this area.

I have focused very much on the statutory instrument that is in front of us. However, I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has wider concerns. I thank her and other Peers for having had a very constructive and helpful discussion last week. To noble Lords who represent areas in Northern Ireland, I say that I want to continue to work, going forward, in the constructive manner that we had in the meeting last week. I would be very happy at those meetings to pick up the many wider concerns that have been mentioned tonight and which lie outside the scope of this SI.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. It has been a very wide-ranging debate, as these narrow debates on Northern Ireland tend to be. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I also thank the two GB Lords, as I might call them, the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lord, Lord Frost. In most debates on Northern Ireland it is just Northern Ireland Peers who take part, so their contributions were encouraging and very welcome. As well as general support, there was at least a recognition that there is an alternative. Mutual enforcement, which was mentioned by a number of Peers, is something that we are going to hear a lot more about because of the Private Member’s Bill in the other place. I welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said about the importance of setting up again some kind of scrutiny committee for what is happening in Northern Ireland. Also important, perhaps, is a wider debate. I am aware that many Members have been held back tonight, because I did say that I probably would not press this to a vote, so I welcome that there are so many here. As I said earlier, it is very useful for people to understand why many of us feel so strongly about the Windsor Framework and its effects, and not just on Northern Ireland—I reiterate that. It would be helpful if those who think that the Windsor Framework has been a benefit, because of the dual access, listened to what Invest Northern Ireland said last week. There has been no benefit whatever from any of the so-called joint access because we have lost direct access from Great Britain. So many businesses are not sending things to Northern Ireland any more. But that is for another debate. I hope that I will not have to have many more of these. However, the consent issue and the vote that is coming up are very controversial. I hope that noble Peers understand how people in Northern Ireland feel about the fact that, on this one crucially important issue, a reason has been found to make it majority voting and not cross-community. Many who support that are doing so for reasons that not many of us in this House would agree with. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.