Draft Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships (Protection and Disclosure of Information and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2024
(2 days, 2 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships (Protection and Disclosure of Information and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2024.
It is a particular joy, Mr Efford, to serve under your chairmanship in a statutory instrument debate—for the first time, I think. The regulations, which are part of a programme to implement the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, were laid before the House on 31 October. The Government are committed to tackling economic crime and enhancing the UK’s standing as a place where legitimate business thrives. The reforms in the 2023 Act support that by reforming the way in which Companies House operates.
There has already been much progress. In March, stricter rules and checks were introduced; that is already helping Companies House to cleanse the register of fraudulent filings. Companies House’s organisational transformation is also in full swing, with the expansion of its intelligence functions and relationship building with law enforcement agencies. Significant advances have, then, already been made, but much remains to be done to make all the reforms a reality. This SI is part of the next phase of reform.
It is a key principle that individuals running companies and other entities should register their details so that they are contactable and can be held to account for the entity’s affairs. However, disclosure of personal information on the public register can lead to a risk of fraud and identity theft or put individuals at risk for other reasons, such as in cases of domestic abuse. Currently, in certain cases, an individual can apply for protection of their residential address by the registrar; that prevents it from being made publicly available. However, the current legislation does not allow protection when a residential address was formerly used as a company’s registered office address. Companies House regularly receives requests for such protection, including from survivors of domestic abuse, police officers, judges and even Members of this House.
These regulations will deliver the first of several reforms to enhance the protection of personal information. The regulations allow applications to protect a residential address when it was previously used as a company’s registered office address. The statutory instrument also caters for the scenario in which a residential address was used as a dissolved company’s registered office address at the point of the company’s dissolution. In such cases, an application may only be made six months after the company’s dissolution. That is to balance privacy concerns against the interests of third parties who might need to restore the dissolved company to the register in order to pursue a claim against it; examples include creditors and personal injury claimants.
Those applying to court to restore a dissolved company to the register need the company’s registered office address as part of the court process. If the registered office address of a dissolved company has been protected, this instrument will also allow the registrar to disclose that address. To do so, the registrar must be satisfied that the address is needed to make an application to restore the company to the register.
Lastly, this instrument also amends legislation that applies company law to limited liability partnerships, to ensure that the framework for limited liability partnerships keeps in step with that for companies. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. It is important for the UK’s international business reputation that we should have a public companies register, and its transparency is important for dealing with economic crime. However, we accept that having personal information on the public companies register can put individuals at risk of fraud and other harms; I am sure that many hon. Members are aware of such cases. This statutory instrument widens the range of circumstances in which individuals may apply to the registrar to protect their usual residential address where it appears on the companies register by ensuring that the registrar is able to decide not to display that address publicly.
It is good to see the Government carrying forward our broader package of measures from the “Corporate transparency and register reform” White Paper published in February 2022. The White Paper and ensuing measures are important for supporting corporate transparency, which is vital to the UK because of its ability to attract investment, tackle fraud and build confidence.
We support reforms to create a more secure system that allows certain individuals to apply to protect their usual residential address from public disclosure. We are pleased to hear that progress is being made on the pledge from the last Government of a total of £63 million to support the reform of Companies House—about £20 million in additional budget per year, which is important.
We do, however, have some questions about this instrument, including its impact on fraud and public scrutiny of companies. We are not going to oppose the regulations, but I would appreciate it if the Minister replied to the following questions. The explanatory note says that Companies House has been “inundated” by requests to go into the undisclosed part of the register. Will the Minister assure the Committee that Companies House has sufficient resources to deal with the potential step change in workload that the regulations will create?
Does the Minister foresee any issue in people not being able to check whether a company is legitimate? What potential unintended consequences might there be? Could this instrument make it more difficult for people to check, or to see at all, whether their own address is being used for fraud? What steps will the Minister take to ensure that investigations into companies, such as shell companies locating at one address, are not hampered by this legislation?
In summary, will the Minister describe his ability to scrutinise the registrar’s own decision making process with regard to this statutory instrument? How much guidance can he exert in terms of the registrar’s discretion? How does he expect discussions to go with the Foreign Office given its work with some of our overseas territories to ensure greater transparency and disclosure of their registers?
Gareth Thomas
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who rightly said that additional resources have been given to Companies House that will help it apply not just this statutory instrument but others to help the implementation of the 2023 Act. We have carefully discussed, both across Government and with Companies House, the issue of whether there is a risk of not being able to track fraudulent individuals involved in a company. We believe that the right balance has been struck, although, of course, we will always keep these things under review.
On working with overseas territories, the hon. Lady will understand from her own experience that Government discuss legislation across Departments before it is brought forward, including with colleagues at the Foreign Office, to check that the implications of particular measures are being considered at all levels of the Government. We believe that when the package of measures under the 2023 Act are implemented in full, that will allow us to continue to crack down on economic crime while ensuring genuine privacy for individuals who rightly need it. I again commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024
(2 days, 2 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2024.
These draft regulations were laid before the House on 20 October 2024. Last week, the Secretary of State updated the House on COP29 and reiterated what we already knew—that speeding up our transition to clean power is in our national interest. It is the best way to bolster our energy security, getting us off the rollercoaster of fossil fuels, which we do not control. It is the best way to spark economic growth across the country, with hundreds of thousands of new jobs, particularly in our industrial heartlands, and to tackle the climate crisis for today’s and future generations. That is why this Government are running at our clean power by 2030 mission, and this instrument will contribute towards that march.
The contracts for difference scheme is the Government’s main mechanism for supporting new low-carbon electricity generation. CfDs are awarded through annual competitive auctions, with the lowest-priced bids successful. The sixth CfD allocation round, which ran earlier this year, was the largest round ever—more than double the size of last year’s round under the last Government. It awarded contracts to 128 clean energy projects across Great Britain, capturing 9.6 GW of renewable capacity and generating enough electricity to power the equivalent of 11 million homes.
However, we must continue to build on that success, which means continually evolving the contracts for difference scheme to ensure that it reflects the global challenges and opportunities in the renewables sector. Building on AR6, we plan to update the scheme using this instrument to continue our march to clean power by 2030. First, we propose to extend the option of phased CfDs to floating offshore wind projects and, secondly, to enable repowered onshore wind projects to apply for CfDs.
On the first point, the Government have committed to radically increase the UK’s offshore wind capacity, including floating offshore wind. As an emerging technology with less than 250 MW of capacity deployed worldwide, the floating offshore wind construction process is yet to be industrialised. Floating wind projects are likely to have a slower buildout rate, in part because of things such as capacity in ports and weather conditions. Phasing in the CfD allows projects to build in multiple stages. It allows for greater flexibility in the construction phase, enabling delivery to more realistic timelines and providing more certainty and confidence to investors. In turn, the reduction in project costs increases investor confidence in the UK’s growing floating offshore wind sector, unlocking the potential for us to massively expand.
On the second point, of enabling repowering for onshore wind, our analysis shows that approximately 1 GW of onshore wind is coming to the end of its operating life between 2027 and 2030. Repowering can help ensure that renewable generation capacity is not lost from older projects. It also provides an opportunity to increase the renewable generation capacity of existing sites through improvements in technology and more efficient use of sites. Enabling access to CfDs for repowered onshore wind projects offers revenue certainty for those projects in order to maintain and boost our capacity.
The CfD scheme did not previously have a policy on repowering built into it; these regulations will ensure that we do, to ensure that eligible generation capacity can apply for CfDs. In designing this policy, we are ensuring that we balance our objectives around decarbonisation, consumer value for money and security of supply by enabling repowering only for projects that both align with the fundamental aims of our CfD programme and, critically, have reached the end of their life and their operating life.
Our approach, and the approach that we are taking to everything we do as we make our march to clean power by 2030, will always ensure that we are protecting consumers, by intervening only when and where needed and where it is cost-effective to do so.
Before I conclude, let me say a word about the consultation process through which we sought views and evidence around the changes proposed for allocation round 7. We received a range of responses from across industry, including from developers, electricity traders and suppliers, businesses operating in the offshore wind sector, and consumer environmental groups. Most respondents agreed with implementing the phasing of floating offshore and repowering for onshore wind. Respondents also provided input into how we can implement these policies in the best way. The Department, as would be expected, will continue to engage with stakeholders in industry.
Let me end here. The instrument today is another important step towards delivering our clean power mission, shielding families from volatile fossil fuel prices that we know have been a result of the cost of living crisis that we face and establishing the UK as a clean energy superpower. It builds on the existing success of the CfD programme, but allows it to evolve to reflect the realities of the global market. Critically, we believe this is a step in ensuring that we can protect consumers and reduce bills.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I welcome the amendments that this statutory instrument brings to contracts for difference regulations, extending the existing CfD to offshore wind and permitting repowering projects to apply for CfDs. Contracts for difference is a scheme that the official Opposition are immensely proud of—delivering 29.4 GW of power in six rounds of allocation since 2014. Indeed, it was the Conservative Government under Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton that introduced the scheme, to combine the power of competition with certainty for investors for the strike price, to keep prices low while driving forward low-carbon energy projects. We are also proud of the consistency and certainty brought by annual licensing rounds, which we approved last year.
However, we have concerns about the direction of travel of the new Secretary of State for Energy and indeed that of the new Government. Their target for CfDs requires an almost hell-for-leather approach for which we worry that consumers and billpayers will shoulder the burden. In the Secretary of State’s attempts to rush to 60 GW of offshore wind capacity, he would need to secure 28 GW in the next two allocation rounds. That is more than in the last six rounds combined. That will inevitably require ditching the competitive element of the allocation rounds entirely. We worry that that will push up the strike price. Even The Guardian does not think the Secretary of State’s plans are realistic, claiming that his target of having 60 GW of installed offshore wind capacity by 2030 is
“still a long way from being credible”.
In the past, reasonable strike price mechanisms have enabled competition while encouraging new projects by providing certainty. However the new, ferociously ambitious targets will require a strike price which outstrips the reference price, meaning that the consumer is exposed to more of the burden. Industry knows that. The head of offshore development at RWE told a business conference that the
“consumer risks losing out”
under these plans. We must take very seriously his concerns that the rush to deliver by 2030 would
“create short-term resource constraints, spikes in prices”,
and that consumers will be the ones to bear the brunt.
It is no wonder, therefore, that the Government have backed down from claims of saving households £300 on their energy bills. It is clear that this rush for electricity decarbonisation by 2030 will see bills going up and up; the industry admits that. The signal to the market from the Secretary of State is “renewables at any price”—they will pay exorbitant amounts to create the capacity to achieve a hugely ambitious political target. We cannot be naive about the economic implications of that political choice.
We do support the amendments. However, I would like to put on record our concern about the implication of the Government’s politically motivated rush to the 2030 target, which it seems the Secretary of State will pursue at any cost.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
Let me respond directly to the question on bills. We are as exercised by and committed to protecting consumers through the transition to net zero. I say this is as the Minister for Energy whose job it is to protect consumers. Our judgment is that we have seen sky-high energy prices as a result of our dependence on international fossil fuel markets. Families at the moment are suffering the impacts of that reliance. The way that we break that is to break the dependence on fossil fuels and make the transition to clean power. All our analysis suggests that if we get this right, combined with interventions on energy efficiency and upgrading people’s homes, we will bear down on bills.
The status quo is not tenable—if you speak to any consumer, they will tell you that. We have made a strategic bet that if we can run clean power and break the link with gas and the dependence on fossil fuel, we will bear down on prices. The National Energy System Operator put out its publication on clean power and validated that. This approach will reduce costs in the system and, critically, bear down on bills. Consumers are at the heart of this transition for us. We are not doing this for ideological reasons. The status quo of people’s energy bills and their affordability is not something that we are willing to countenance. It is something that the last Government were willing to put up with, but we absolutely will not. That is why we are making the march to clean power by 2030.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Movement of Goods (Northern Ireland to Great Britain) (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Transitory Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024
(2 days, 2 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Movement of Goods (Northern Ireland to Great Britain) (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Transitory Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 28 October, form part of the Government’s commitment to implementing the border target operating model by ensuring that sanitary and phytosanitary controls are applied to European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland. These controls are essential to maintaining the United Kingdom’s biosecurity and food safety, as well as focusing the benefits of unfettered access arrangements on qualifying Northern Ireland goods.
The draft instrument, which uses powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, has two main purposes. The first is to apply pre-notification and sanitary and phytosanitary certification requirements to goods that are not qualifying Northern Ireland goods and that are entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland. These requirements are consistent with those already applied to certain European economic area goods and those entering Great Britain from Switzerland, Liechtenstein, the Faroe Islands and Greenland under the transitional staging period. This will mean that European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland are treated the same as such goods entering Great Britain through Ireland.
The second purpose of the draft instrument as to make consequential amendments to various pieces of sanitary and phytosanitary legislation. The definition of qualifying Northern Ireland goods was amended earlier this year for food and feed goods. The consequential amendments in the draft instrument will ensure that the updated definition is reflected consistently across the regulatory framework.
Let me emphasise from the outset that the Government remain fully committed to ensuring unfettered access for qualifying Northern Ireland goods to the rest of the UK market. The Windsor framework Command Paper, which was published by the previous Government in February 2023, and the border target operating model, which was published in August 2023, clearly state that Northern Ireland businesses will have unfettered access when moving qualifying Northern Ireland goods into Great Britain. The border target operating model also states that European Union and rest-of-world goods will be subject to sanitary and phytosanitary controls when moving from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. The approach adopted in this legislation is consistent with these commitments.
The draft regulations will not make any changes to the arrangements for moving qualifying Northern Ireland goods into Great Britain. Qualifying Northern Ireland goods will not be required to undergo any of the controls implemented by this legislation and will continue to move freely within the UK internal market. Indeed, by applying controls to European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland, these measures will more closely focus the benefits of unfettered market access on Northern Ireland traders moving qualifying Northern Ireland goods. This will sharpen their competitive advantage.
The sanitary and phytosanitary controls applied to European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland under the draft instrument are temporary. We will revoke the instrument when the transitional staging period, which allows for easements in the performance of official controls, ends. This is currently set at 1 July 2025.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
I note that the long-term approach to NI-GB movements is still being developed. Should that programme of work extend beyond the end of the current transitional staging period on 1 July, will we then perform an impact assessment for the draft regulations, given that an impact assessment has not been prepared for them because of the short period for which they are to have effect?
Emma Hardy
We will absolutely be looking at all options. I cannot predict what will have happened by 1 July 2025; the legislation currently states that that is when the transitional staging period will end, but as my hon. Friend notes, work is ongoing.
A longer-term approach for further controls on European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland is yet to be implemented. The temporary nature of the draft instrument allows for biosecurity controls to be in place for those goods entering Great Britain from Northern Ireland ahead of that, although of course that is without prejudice to unfettered access protections granted to qualifying Northern Ireland goods. I must also highlight the fact that the draft instrument extends to England, Wales and Scotland.
I reaffirm the Government’s steadfast commitment to supporting the businesses and communities of Northern Ireland while safeguarding the integrity of the UK internal market. I commend the draft instrument to the Committee and look forward to hon. Members’ contributions.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the Minister for bringing forward the draft regulations for the Committee to scrutinise. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have some significant doubts and concerns about them, however, because of the impact that they might have on goods moving from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. Although we welcome the fact that some Northern Ireland goods that qualify will continue to have unfettered access to Great Britain and will not be subject to sanitary and phytosanitary controls, we have some concerns regarding the rest of the so-called non-qualifying goods and the impact that the regulations will have on businesses that regularly trade across the Irish sea.
The Opposition will continue to scrutinise this secondary legislation and assess its impact. As was raised by the hon. Member for Worcester, given the temporary nature of the guidance, impact assessments will be needed on what it means for secure unfettered trade between GB and Northern Ireland.
How will the Labour Government support businesses in Northern Ireland when trading across the sea to Great Britain? What about the other way around, where businesses in England, Scotland or Wales want to do business with Northern Ireland? How will the Government support that smooth trade? How will the Minister monitor the impact of this secondary legislation on the trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain? How will the Minister monitor its impact on businesses in Northern Ireland dealing with the regulations, and their success?
Goods from Northern Ireland must be able to make it across the sea so that businesses there are not at an unfair disadvantage. Accordingly, as we have some concerns and reservations, the Opposition will be formally abstaining on this piece of secondary legislation.
We look forward to scrutinising further, and to the Minister’s addressing our concerns about smooth trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and about upholding the importance of biosecurity. We will press the Government to bring forward plans to encourage businesses to trade across the sea, so that we all benefit across our entire United Kingdom.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
First, may I make it clear why these regulations are required? The only reason for introducing them is that the previous Government, supported by the present Government when they were in opposition, accepted that Northern Ireland should be divided from the rest of the United Kingdom. Normally, these checks for goods coming from a third country would have been done at the recognised international border of the country that is imposing them. However, because of the decision to divide Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom and to disregard the international border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and the checks that would normally have taken place there, these checks are necessary for trade going from Northern Ireland into GB.
I welcome the fact that Northern Ireland trade has been differentiated from trade from the Republic of Ireland into GB, but the fact of the matter is that there will still be impositions for those who are trading across the border. Those impositions will be disruptive and will mean that trade is convoluted.
There is a certain irony in what is being proposed. First of all, we can do checks without physically stopping anything at the border. One of the reasons for a border between Northern Ireland and GB was that we were told that it was impossible to do checks on trade from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland or vice versa without having physical checks on the border. Now we are told that it can be done by the production of certificates, done at warehouses, done at the point of destination and so on.
There is a bigger question for the current Government. The issue is not going away; it is still causing difficulties for trade between GB and Northern Ireland. Why cannot the principle and the practice that are being established in these regulations be applied to all trade, including trade from Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic?
Secondly, the draft regulations will leave Northern Ireland exposed to the dangers, problems and issues against which we are trying to safeguard the rest of the UK market. The SPS checks and certifications apply to goods that are moving from the Irish Republic through Northern Ireland into GB; they do not apply if the goods are simply moving from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland.
There are fears about that, and quite rightly so, because it is clear that the authorities in the Irish Republic have been lax in the past when it comes to imposing regulations on animal safety and so on. According to the draft regulations, goods can move from the Republic into Northern Ireland and can be used in Northern Ireland, be consumed in Northern Ireland or reach their final destination in Northern Ireland without any checks. It is only when they move into another part of the United Kingdom that such checks will be imposed. That indicates that as a result of the current arrangements with the European Union, Northern Ireland is being left exposed not only to the disruption of trade, but as regards the safety of some of that trade.
I would like to hear from the Minister what the intention is in the longer term. If checks away from the border prove ineffective, and traders decide to ignore them or abuse them, at what stage do the Government envisage the possibility of physical checks on lorries crossing into GB from Northern Ireland? How would those lorries be distinguished from lorries originating in the Irish Republic? What about lorryloads brought into Northern Ireland, put into Northern Ireland-owned lorries and taken into GB? It would be a constitutional and economic affront if we found ourselves in a two-way system. Vehicles are already being checked when coming from GB into Northern Ireland, even though very little of that trade will ever finish up in the Irish Republic. If barriers were imposed in the other direction, it would be a double affront to people in Northern Ireland.
Whatever approach is taken, the issue will always arise of where the international boundary is placed within the country that we belong to. The Minister says that the regulations are an interim measure and that she will look at the border operating model later on, whenever it is imposed, formalising it in a more structured way. We will closely monitor how this works and what happens in future.
As long as this uncertainty goes on, businesses in Northern Ireland will be left with the question of the cost of doing business in our main market. We have already seen the uncertainty that the checks on goods from GB to Northern Ireland have caused for businesses in GB and in Northern Ireland. This is yet another irritant—another barrier that will disrupt the flow of trade between the two parts of our country. It does not augur well for the promise of unfettered access. Indeed, the very fact that we have to impose these checks indicates that the flow of trade within the United Kingdom is not normal and will not be normal until the issue of the protocol and the Windsor framework is dealt with.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. The regulations seek to address the issue of non-qualifying goods moving from Northern Ireland to GB requiring pre-notification, phytosanitary certification and other checks. While the intention might be to protect the integrity of trade flows, the reality is very different. These measures stem from a flawed premise that should never have been accepted in the first place.
Under changes made earlier this year, qualifying status for goods was amended to distinguish between goods genuinely produced in or linked to Northern Ireland and those from the Republic of Ireland. That distinction is now being embedded in law with additional controls for non-qualifying goods. While it is understandable to differentiate between goods originating from within Northern Ireland and those simply passing through, the fundamental problem lies with the decision to shift SPS controls from the international border with the Republic of Ireland to the Irish sea—a two-way Irish sea border that impacts GB-to-NI and NI-to-GB trade, which is something we were promised would never happen.
The shift has, again, created constitutional damage, as well as economic harm. It was inevitable that the system would lead to barriers, not just for goods coming into NI, but for those moving from NI to GB. The regulations will formalise a convoluted and difficult-to-enforce arrangement, potentially impacting the seamless movement of goods produced in Northern Ireland. Hauliers and logistics experts have highlighted the difficulty that that will create. A particularly troubling irony is that the regulations allow for checks on non-qualifying goods to be carried out away from traditional border control points at any point of destination, warehouse or other suitable location. If such flexibility is acceptable for trade moving from NI to GB, why is it not considered viable for trade across the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland?
The arrangements are transitional, as has been highlighted. We are told that a long-term framework for import controls will be introduced in the near future, but there has been little to no clarity about how the new system will work, and the balance that is needed for enforcement and the upholding of the commitment to unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses.
Finally, there is a risk of real disruption. There is no clarity on whether businesses have been given adequate guidance on how the controls will operate in practice. Without clear advice, there will no doubt be confusion and delays, which will further harm trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. This screams of, “As long as GB is okay, don’t worry about Northern Ireland”—Northern Ireland does not matter when it comes to animal and plant health, disease and the protection of our market, given that the border has now moved from its rightful place.
These regulations attempt to address a problem that should never have existed. They put an extra burden on our agrifood businesses, which are already squeezed. They highlight the harm caused by the Irish sea border and the need for a solution that respects Northern Ireland’s integral place in the United Kingdom.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Thank you, Mr Twigg, for the opportunity to contribute on this matter.
There are the practical considerations, and there is the ideology that lies behind these regulations. On the practical side, we are told that Northern Ireland qualifying goods—that is to say, those that originate only within Northern Ireland—will have free passage to GB. However, the very fact that we have to consider and discuss that within what is supposed to be one single country and one single internal market requires a commentary in itself.
The Minister would concede that to implement these regulations, there will have to be spot checks on NI qualifying goods moving to GB. Without them, there will be no protection against infringement, breaches and upset of the very thing that is meant to be protected. I suspect that, whereas it is easy to say that Northern Ireland qualifying goods will move unfettered from Northern Ireland to GB, the reality will be very different in time. Spot checks will inevitably be carried out as a protection, and that will have the full- frontal effect of fettering trade from Northern Ireland to GB.
The more fundamental point is that these regulations put the Government in something of a bind. They tell us, as their predecessor Government did, that trade from GB to Northern Ireland cannot be managed without an international customs border partitioning the United Kingdom down the Irish sea. Of course, that stems from the fact that the protocol surrendered customs control over Northern Ireland, because, under regulation (EU) 2017/625, Northern Ireland is deemed to be the entry point to the EU.
We are deemed to be EU territory, so all the rules relating to its customs code and single market apply to us—rules we do not make and laws we cannot change. This Government and the previous one said, “That’s the only way to manage the border, because having checks away from the border, and SPS facilities at factories and recipient points just wouldn’t work.” Yet that is precisely what these regulations are proffering, in terms of goods from the Republic of Ireland coming into Northern Ireland and going onward.
If the destination of the goods is Northern Ireland, there will be no checks whatever because Northern Ireland is deemed to be EU territory with regard to customs arrangements. If the goods are going onwards, they are to be subject to SPS checks, which can be carried out away from the border. If SPS checks can be carried out away from the border in a west-east transition, why on earth can they not be carried out away from the border in an east-west transition or a north-south transition?
That is the fundamental bind that the Government are putting themselves in. They are saying, on an unsustainable basis, “You must have an Irish sea border. You can’t have the checks at the international border, because you can’t do them away from the border at the factories from which they come or the places to which they are going.” But that is exactly what is on offer here for goods coming from the Republic of Ireland: they can be checked at SPS facilities away from the border. If that is good enough for goods that are going from the Republic through Northern Ireland to GB, why is it not good enough for goods going from the United Kingdom through Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland? That is the fundamental question.
If it fits for one, why does it not fit for the other? Patently it would and it should, but it only could if the Government recover sovereignty over Northern Ireland by discontinuing our treatment as an EU territory. Then there can be SPS checks, not at the border if we do not want them there, but at any facility, so that the goods travelling from GB to the EU through Northern Ireland are treated exactly as the goods coming from the EU through Northern Ireland to GB. I would love the Minister to explain to us why it could not and should not be a two-way process, because without it we will end up with a two-way border in the Irish sea.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. There are basically three questions for the Minister about the regulations, following her opening speech.
The Minister said that the draft regulations would sharpen competitive advantage. I seek clarification from the Minister on the basis of and context for that phrase, because that is not the experience of the businesses that I represent in Northern Ireland.
I seek further clarification on how, if and when the regulations are adopted, they will be disseminated across businesses in Northern Ireland. We currently have the trader support service, which is out for a competitive procurement exercise at this moment on the support mechanisms that it delivers to businesses in Northern Ireland. I recently met a group of businesses in my constituency of South Antrim, as well as road hauliers and delivery companies that have been dealing with them. They do not have clarity from the trader support service about how these regulations and others are implemented, or on how they are meant to comply without being on the receiving end of financial penalties for regulations that are neither well explained nor well delivered, nor actually clarified.
The Minister referred on a number of occasions to the fact that the regulations are temporary in nature. I seek clarification from the Government on the costs, delivery and designations of the permanent check posts mentioned in regulation 2(2) and (3). What physical structures are to be put in, and what are the costs of implementing the checks? How does that balance against the threat to the UK economy, or indeed the EU’s, relating to the delivery of the goods covered in the regulations and the relevant moneys?
Emma Hardy
I recognise the significant strength of feeling and the concerns that hon. Members hold about the draft regulations. I have been scribbling away and will do my best to answer as many questions as I can, but if Members are not satisfied with the level of detail that I am able to give, I commit to ensuring that my officials answer any other detailed questions in writing; I put that on the record. I am a little surprised, however, that the official Opposition are raising criticisms, considering that the regulations are a consequence of the Windsor framework, which was negotiated by the previous Government. If they had had concerns, that might have been the point at which to raise them. I will do my best to answer the questions of Northern Irish colleagues, but if they feel that I have not given them the detail that they require, I commit to ensuring that we follow up.
The full and constructive points that have been raised reflect the importance of the legislation and the principles that it upholds of maintaining our biosecurity, supporting the smooth functioning of the United Kingdom internal market and honouring the commitments made and negotiated under the Windsor framework. The draft instrument will deliver the necessary provisions to ensure that Great Britain’s responsibilities on biosecurity and food safety are upheld, which will safeguard the health of our people, animals and plants. I strongly reaffirm and strengthen the Government’s unwavering commitment to unfettered access for qualifying Northern Ireland goods to ensure that businesses in Northern Ireland continue to enjoy a unique position within the UK internal market.
I will cover as many as I can get through of the points that have been raised. I was asked about non-qualifying Northern Ireland goods. Non-qualifying Northern Ireland goods are any goods that fall outside the qualifying Northern Ireland goods definition, such as European Union and rest-of-world goods. For example, if goods have been moved into Northern Ireland from outside the UK, and one of the main purposes of that movement is to gain qualifying Northern Ireland goods status, in any subsequent move to Great Britain the goods are not qualifying Northern Ireland goods. Such goods do not benefit from unfettered market access. The draft instrument will ensure that they are subject to the relevant SPS and other controls on entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland. That will ensure that the benefits of unfettered access are targeted on Northern Ireland, rather than on EU and rest-of-world goods.
Sammy Wilson
Since those checks do not cover the goods when they come into Northern Ireland, but only when they go into GB, what assurances can the Minister give to people in Northern Ireland that they will not be subject to dangers or disadvantages that the rest of the United Kingdom will not face?
Emma Hardy
My understanding of the situation is that that is a consequence of the Windsor framework and the desire not to have a hard border within the island of Ireland, but if I am incorrect I will get the right hon. Gentleman a proper answer.
I was asked why the instrument is temporary. It will be revoked when the transitional staging period expires; as we have said, it is currently scheduled to end on 1 July 2025. The timeline for the implementation of further controls on non-qualifying goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland has not yet been announced. We will provide a further update on that in summer 2025. I repeat my commitment to inform and keep up to date all Northern Irish Members of Parliament especially, so that they know exactly what is happening and when.
Sammy Wilson
The move towards the border control operating model started under the last Government. As several hon. Members have already indicated, it was chaotic: no one could give any answers about how it would operate. I am sure that we have all met traders in our constituencies, especially hauliers, who could not get answers from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or any other Department. Will the Minister make sure not only that Northern Ireland Members are informed, but more importantly that businesses, which know the difficulties of operating under that model, are informed and have discussions with her?
Emma Hardy
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. We will absolutely do our best to make sure that all businesses and Members of Parliament are fully updated.
The temporary nature of the draft instrument allows the Government to apply biosecurity controls to European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain from Northern Ireland ahead of a longer-term approach.
I was asked about the long-term approach for the treatment of non-qualifying Northern Ireland goods. The border target operating model outlines that the SPS import controls on European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland will progress on a separate timeline. Further to the right hon. Gentleman’s point about businesses, we will continue to collaborate with the devolved Governments and all border stakeholders. We will support implementation readiness across vital points of entry to better protect UK biosecurity. We will communicate any additional updates well in advance to give traders time to prepare.
The UK Government will work closely with the devolved Governments to develop plans for the delivery of a long-term approach for the treatment of European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland. These plans will continue to preserve the unfettered movement of qualifying Northern Ireland goods into Great Britain, whether those goods are moving directly from Northern Ireland to Great Britain or from Great Britain to Northern Ireland via Ireland.
I was asked whether the measure will give effect to an Irish sea border. The short answer is no, because the legislation applies only to sanitary and phytosanitary controls on European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain from Northern Ireland. Qualifying Northern Ireland goods are not required to undergo any of the sanitary or phytosanitary controls implemented by this legislation and will continue to move freely within the internal market. This sharpens the competitive advantage of Northern Ireland traders moving qualifying Northern Ireland goods by more closely focusing the benefits of unfettered access on them. I reassure the hon. Member for Upper Bann that guidance will be provided with a sufficient lead-in time for traders; there was a similar concern about businesses.
The benefit of the regulations is that they will strengthen Great Britain’s biosecurity by delivering alignment in the treatment of European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland. It is right that goods from the European Union and the rest of the world are treated differently from goods moving within the UK’s internal market. Additionally, the consequential amendments to the definition of qualifying Northern Ireland goods in existing legislation will ensure that the updated definition, which focuses the benefits of unfettered access more squarely on Northern Ireland traders, applies to the direct and indirect movement of such goods into Great Britain. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Movement of Goods (Northern Ireland to Great Britain) (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Transitory Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024.