Movement of Goods (Northern Ireland to Great Britain) (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Transitory Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024
(2 days, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:02 - Division on Lord Dodds of Duncairn’s Amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 96 - Amendment to the Motion disagreed.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 28 October be approved.
Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, this instrument forms 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 instrument uses powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It has two main purposes. First, it applies pre-notification and sanitary and phytosanitary certification requirements to goods that are not qualifying Northern Ireland goods 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 means 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.
Secondly, the regulations make consequential amendments to various pieces of sanitary and phytosanitary legislation. The qualifying Northern Ireland goods definition was amended earlier this year for food and feed goods. The consequential amendments in the legislation that I am presenting today ensure that the updated definition is reflected consistently across the regulatory framework.
I 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, published by the previous Government in February 2023, and the Border Target Operating Model, 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 those commitments.
The instrument does not make any changes to the arrangements for moving qualifying Northern Ireland goods into Great Britain. Qualifying Northern Ireland goods are not 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 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 this instrument are temporary. We will revoke this instrument when the transitional staging period, which allows for easements in the performance of official controls, ends. That is currently set at 1 July 2025.
A long-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 instrument allows for biosecurity controls to be in place for these goods entering Great Britain from Northern Ireland ahead of that, although that is of course without prejudice to unfettered access protections granted to qualifying Northern Ireland goods. I must also highlight that this 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 beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Dodds of Duncairn
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations implement the Northern Ireland Protocol and Windsor Framework which prevent Northern Ireland being a full part of the United Kingdom’s internal market, and undermine the democratic and constitutional rights of the people of Northern Ireland.”
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for moving the Motion, for the discussions that we have had and for her engagement with noble Lords and noble Baronesses from Northern Ireland on the various issues that affect us under the Windsor Framework protocol. I move my regret amendment because the regulations implement the Northern Ireland protocol, which has been renamed the Windsor Framework but in European law is still called the Northern Ireland protocol, and which prevents Northern Ireland from being a full part of the United Kingdom’s internal market for a large number of goods and agrifood products, as well as undermining the democratic and constitutional rights of all the people of Northern Ireland.
We had a debate in recent weeks on another statutory instrument. I am grateful that we have the opportunity to debate yet another statutory instrument flowing from the withdrawal Act and the implementation of the Windsor Framework because it is important that, in this Chamber and the other place, we have the opportunity to scrutinise and examine laws that are made by way of subsidiary legislation but carry out the wishes of a foreign political entity as far as Northern Ireland is concerned. It is therefore all the more important that we should be aware of what is happening.
While they may be described as technical in nature, the substance and import of these regulations have significant political and constitutional consequences. Together with the many other statutory instruments and subordinate legislation under the protocol/ Windsor Framework already passed and to be passed by this House and the other place, these constitute a substantial body of law imposing EU jurisdiction over part of the UK.
The Minister mentioned that the regulations are temporary in nature. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee included in its eighth report a number of paragraphs on the regulations. In its submission to that committee, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that the long-term approach to sanitary and phytosanitary controls, including checks on EU and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland, as it put it, is yet to be announced. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell your Lordships when we can expect the long-term approach to be implemented, whether this House will be consulted about those long-term arrangements and indeed what arrangements are in place to consult Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive on those measures. In the meantime, these are the regulations that we have in front of us.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my registered interests, including my membership of the Government’s Veterinary Medicine Working Group and of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House. I also declare that I support the Windsor Framework, I supported the protocol and I believe, like many others in Northern Ireland, that the Windsor Framework is a means of managing the friction of the trade in goods on the island of Ireland. It is about managing the delicate relationship that exists.
I am pleased that my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock is on the Front Bench. I must congratulate her on all the work she has been doing with the farming community in Northern Ireland. The latest such work was last week during her last visit, which I was told was very successful by the Ulster Farmers Union. They told me to say that they were very pleased that you visited the farm in Glenanne in County Armagh, which is an example of good farming practice in Northern Ireland.
This is the third debate in the last five weeks on regret amendments to Windsor Framework statutory instruments. Only last Friday in the House of Commons there was a debate on a Private Member’s Bill from Jim Allister, the Member for North Antrim. This sought to cancel the Windsor Framework and replace it with mutual recognition—maybe, in shorthand, the Liz Truss protocol Bill—which could impact on Article 2 of the framework on equality and human rights, as required by the Good Friday agreement, and even jeopardise our access to the single electricity market, which is protected by the Windsor Framework.
I ask my noble friends—I call them my noble friends because they are from Northern Ireland—do you really want to wreck our delicate political arrangements? Do you really want to wreck our special trading arrangements—that unique dual access for goods to the EU single market and the UK internal market? Those political arrangements reflect our unique political balance in Northern Ireland between unionists and nationalists and others. In turn, that could also jeopardise our economy and potential for growth.
Today in the Assembly—I do not know the result yet, but I can predict it—there was a debate on the democratic scrutiny committee on the Windsor Framework. I would say, “What have all of all these debates achieved?” but I imagine that today’s vote in the Assembly will result in a review of arrangements of the Windsor Framework. That would afford businesses, communities and individuals across Northern Ireland the opportunity to correct deficiencies and avail themselves of the benefits of two important global markets. This point was made this morning on “Good Morning Ulster” by the chief executive of the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland, Roger Pollen.
I know that perhaps the real purpose of the proposers —the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and on previous occasions the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—is that they want to cancel the Windsor Framework because they see it as causing certain constitutional jeopardy. I remind them that the majority of people in Northern Ireland voted to remain. In the last poll some weeks ago, 57% of the population in Northern Ireland support the Windsor Framework.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, could I just say something gently to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie? She always says that Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU. Well, London did, Scotland did, Tunbridge Wells did; we did not leave them in the customs union with some kind of trade border.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, on his explanation in detail of what these regulations do. Of course, they are another example of the Windsor Framework building on the protocol to work against the interests of people in Northern Ireland—and indeed of people in the rest of the United Kingdom, as we increasingly see. Up until now, most regulations have dealt with movement of goods from GB to Northern Ireland, but this puts the Windsor Framework on a different level, because this is about movement from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. I remember clearly when, I think, three previous Prime Ministers and the leader of the then Opposition all said that there would never be checks on goods going from Northern Ireland to GB. Now of course there is a slightly different phrase: “no checks on qualifying goods” going from Northern Ireland to GB.
The Government have said that they want to ensure that sanitary and phytosanitary controls are applied to European Union goods and any goods from the rest of the world entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland. They say that these controls are absolutely essential to maintain the United Kingdom’s biosecurity and food safety. Yet, as has been pointed out already by noble Lords, they do not seem to care about how Northern Ireland will be left exposed to any potential dangers. The SPS checks and certifications apply to goods 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 and staying in Northern Ireland. There are fears about that, quite rightly, because it has been clear that sometimes the authorities in the Republic of Ireland have been very lax when it comes to imposing regulations on animal safety and so on.
I just want to repeat that, according to these regulations, goods can move from the Republic into Northern Ireland, and can be used, be consumed, be eaten, or reach their final destination in Northern Ireland without any checks. It is only when they move to another part of our own country that such checks could 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. In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, how can the Minister accept that? What will she do to ensure that our lives and our safety in Northern Ireland are considered just as important as those in the rest of the United Kingdom?
In the Committee in the other place that discussed this last week, a Member of Parliament asked:
“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?”
I am just going to read the answer from the Minister there because I am sure the noble Baroness the Minister, who has done a great deal of trying to talk with us and keep us involved, will answer the question. The Minister in the House of Commons said:
“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”.—[Official Report, Commons, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 3/12/24; col. 10.]
That does not answer anything about the safety of the people in Northern Ireland being left with goods that come across without any checks.
There is a certain irony in what has been proposed. First, as has been said, we can do checks without physically stopping anything at the border. One of the reasons for the border being between Northern Ireland and GB was that we were told 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. Everybody said, “We do not want a hard border”; no one ever defined exactly what a hard border was, but now we are told that it can be done by the production of certificates, at warehouses, at the point of destination and so on. I really do not understand how a lorry coming just from Northern Ireland into GB can be differentiated from a lorry coming through Northern Ireland with non-qualifying goods. There will have to be random checks, which will mean that Northern Ireland lorries, or those going only from Northern Ireland to GB, are likely to be stopped as well. Will the Minister admit to this or suggest that it might happen?
The important question is: if there can be these checks away from the border, why do we need an Irish sea border in the first place? The costs have already been mentioned; millions have been spent not just on the trade or support scheme, but on building these great infrastructures at various places. The Minister needs to answer very clearly why this cannot be considered. We heard a brilliant speech last week—it would be helpful if Members read it—by Jim Allister in the House of Commons when he moved his Private Member’s Bill on mutual assurance. No one really can answer. People keep saying, “Oh, there’s nothing else. We’ve got to do this. The Windsor Framework is the only way we can protect the EU’s internal market and stop a hard border”. Yet mutual assurance was first suggested by people within the European Union and only stopped when the Irish Government realised that it was not going to bring about what they really wanted, which was part of the EU’s idea to punish the United Kingdom for leaving, and to make it much easier for the all-Ireland economy, which they are desperate to have, leading to a united Ireland. I just do not understand why sensible people looking at this, not from anything other than common sense, cannot see that there are alternatives to having to divide our own country with an Irish sea border.
I want to just mention today that at this moment in the Assembly there is a debate on whether these parts of the Windsor Framework should be continued. It is a pretty shameful day for this Government, and indeed for the previous Government. What we are seeing is the move back towards a majority rule within the Assembly. Cross-community votes have always been seen as what have to happen on controversial issues. Ever since the SDLP—the original party of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie—walked out of Stormont in 1971 and the UK Government then ended the Assembly a few months later, nothing controversial has been allowed to be secured at a vote without cross-community consent. The Government changed this to a majority vote, presumably at the behest of the Irish Government and the EU. I have no confidence whatever in that vote today being seen as legitimate; it is not, because it is not the cross-community vote that should have happened.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I support the regret amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds—hardly surprising, I suspect. The Government have a problem. These regulations mean one of two things, and neither will be easy for them to explain.
We have been assured by the Government that the Irish Sea border goes only one way—so goods can move freely without engaging a border if they move from Northern Ireland to GB. In this context, the intent is clearly that Northern Ireland-qualifying goods should be able to move freely without encountering a border, as if they were moving from Wales or Scotland to England. But there is a problem: how do they differentiate lorries carrying just Northern Ireland-qualifying goods from lorries carrying goods that are not Northern Ireland-qualifying or carrying a mixture of both? If they do so by means of random border checks to confirm that a lorry is carrying just Northern Ireland-qualifying goods, all lorries must potentially be stopped and checked, including lorries carrying just Northern Ireland-qualifying goods. If that is what the Government propose, they are proposing to move away from the Windsor Framework reassurance that there will be free movement without a border for Northern Ireland-qualifying goods moving from NI to GB.
Lest the Government seek to come back at this point and say, “Don’t worry—we will randomly stop only some lorries”, I gently remind the Minister that randomly stopping lorries is how borders work. Borders are not affected by a regime stopping all lorries because, if they were, everything would grind to a halt. So, if their intent is to randomly stop lorries—some of which will end up being shown to contain just Northern Ireland-qualifying goods—their purpose will plainly be to move beyond the Windsor Framework and introduce a border for goods moving from Northern Ireland to GB.
The sensible way to deal with this would be for the Government to require, by law, anyone bringing goods that are not Northern Ireland-qualifying across from Northern Ireland to GB to pre-notify and submit all the paperwork electronically before departure, and for the Government then to randomly require some of these lorries to attend an SPS facility for checks. In deciding to not randomly stop all lorries at the border but to depend on deploying a legal requirement, together with serious criminal sanctions, for anyone evading, the requirement to have the SPS facility actually on the border would be removed. It could be some miles from the border. No lorries would be stopped at the border, and only those randomly stopped would attend the SPS facility. This would mean, first, that lorries carrying just Northern Ireland-qualifying goods could move freely from Northern Ireland to GB, like lorries moving from England to Wales and Scotland to England, so that the internal market would be respected.
Secondly, it would mean that the border would be enforced in relation to non-Northern Ireland qualifying goods away from the border. This arrangement poses a huge question. If this sensible solution would work for goods moving from Northern Ireland to GB across the Irish Sea border then there is no justification for not having a similar soft border across the island of Ireland, along the international border.
Moreover, this question hits us with real force. If a soft border is effective, it makes the imposition of a hard border for goods moving from GB to Northern Ireland monstrous; its implications are the disfranchisement of 1.9 million people in 300 areas of law and the disrespecting of the territorial integrity of the UK in violation of international law. How could we have settled for an arrangement that disfranchises 1.9 million of our own people in 300 areas of law and then sought to justify this betrayal on the basis of an account of international law that does not stand up to scrutiny? In order for it to be a valid treaty, there is a requirement that it must respect the territorial integrity of the parties, which the Windsor Framework patently fails to do in making provision for the division of the United Kingdom into two by an international customs and SPS border.
It is impossible to reflect upon these matters without having regard to the beginning of the Second Reading debate on the European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill in another place, last Friday. This Bill provides a framework for a considerably more robust border than in this case, courtesy of its deployment of mutual enforcement. This compounds the ethical question facing the Government through these regulations to an even greater extent. I was appalled to read that a Member in another place responded to the suggestion that mutual enforcement provoked such a question of trust by reading—well done to him—from a scene from Shakespeare’s “Henry VI, Part 3”,
“For trust not him that hath once broken faith”,
as if trust was something that the UK Government owe only to foreigners. Their highest level of obligation is to their own, and it is in relation to their own that there is scope for the greatest measure of broken faith.
No one is talking about simply walking away from the EU without a conversation. The point simply needs to be made that, in a context where there are actually two ways of managing the border—one that involves disfranchising 1.9 million people in 300 areas of law and disrespecting the territorial integrity of the UK—there is a need for discussion between the UK Government and the EU, and the incoming Trump Administration, about finding a new solution to this very serious and vexed problem.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the amendment to the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, who has provided an excellent analysis of the issues facing businesses in Northern Ireland. Since the outset of the United Kingdom’s negotiations with the European Union, there has always been the potential for significant economic damage to be inflicted on one part of this United Kingdom and on the constitutional future of Northern Ireland in the union.
The root cause of the problems, with the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor Framework arrangements, is the continued enforcement of EU laws in Northern Ireland. It has been repeated in this House several times, and we will continue to repeat it, that in more than 300 areas Northern Ireland is subject to laws made not at Stormont or Westminster but by a foreign Parliament, which public representatives here in Westminster and in Stormont have no say over. Let us just get on with it and suck it up, they say, but we are not going to do that.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Dodds in his regret amendment: that this House regrets that the draft regulations implement the Northern Ireland protocol and Windsor Framework, which prevent Northern Ireland being a full part of the United Kingdom’s internal market and undermine the democratic and constitutional rights of the people of Northern Ireland.
I acknowledge and appreciate that many noble Lords have little interest in how the protocol and the Windsor Framework affect the people of Northern Ireland. They have their own mindset and, as far as they are concerned, it is done, it is over and there is nothing that is going to change it.
Of course, it is true that, as I said, there are those who have little interest. But, to those of us who are being denied our full democratic and constitutional rights, it is of major importance, and this wrong must be put right. I know that noble Lords may be dissatisfied with—perhaps even sick of—these debates coming time after time. I suggest that, until this is put right, this is not going away. We cannot close our minds or our hearts to it. Others have, but those who live in Northern Ireland, certainly from a unionist perspective, are not willing to let this go away.
I am amazed at those who say that they must at all costs protect the Belfast agreement. I know that, on many occasions, many in this House stood up one after the other to say how it is so vitally important that nothing is done in any shape or form that will undermine the bedrock of the Belfast agreement. But I remind noble Lords that at the heart of the Belfast agreement is the cross-community support for key or controversial decisions affecting Northern Ireland. Yet those same noble Lords can sit content with measures forced on the unionist community without its consent.
I assure noble Lords that, if measures were being forced on the nationalist or republican community against their consent, those in this very House who remain silent would be very vocal in their objections. So, if they believe that the Belfast agreement with the cross-community consent at the heart of it is so vital for the security, safety and prosperity of Northern Ireland, why are they not speaking up now, or whenever there has been a denial of that cross-community vote?
The protocol and the Windsor Framework place Northern Ireland under EU single market laws for goods, as though Northern Ireland was still in the EU, without any elected representative from Northern Ireland having any power to make those laws. They also destroy Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom internal market with respect to goods. Today, the Northern Ireland Assembly will vote to extend the Windsor Framework, but the safeguard of cross-community support was cast aside for the so-called new name on the block, the democratic consent mechanism. That is majority rule.
For 50 years, majority rule has been cast aside. It was not permitted. Whenever unionists had a majority, “No, no, no, we can’t have it”. We must ensure the bedrock of our future is cross-community consent. Of course, the EU fanatics, supported by the nationalist and republican Assembly Members, are able to get the simple majority, reminding unionists that Stormont is now a cold House for those with unionist convictions. So much for the Belfast agreement. I warn this House that sending the message that our constitutional rights within the United Kingdom can be undermined by the blatant repudiation of the Belfast agreement at Stormont today—with the support of many in this House—does nothing to aid the stability that every one of us craves for Northern Ireland.
A colleague of mine in Stormont, Jonathan Buckley, rightly said today that the vote was
“an illusion of democracy … a rigged vote of which the European Union already”
knew “the outcome … The protocol” is destabilising “Northern Ireland’s political landscape” and fuelling “division”. He said:
“Never has there been a more clear example of a zombie Assembly than today”.
Surely that gives a warning to Members of this House who want to close their mind, who think we should just keep it all going, that all is well, and that nothing needs to be changed.
This is in spite of the fact that businesses have been dealing with new checks and their related bureaucracy since 2021, when the original version of the protocol began to be implemented. Smaller firms with few resources face unpredictable challenges with the Irish Sea border, with sea border issues consuming a huge amount of time. This time should be profitably used in helping customers, not doing paperwork. Some have said:
“Small businesses are being crucified by the sea border”.
Under the changes made to EU legislation in February, the definition of “qualifying status”—that is, those goods moving from NI to GB—was amended, to clarify that agri-food goods from the Republic or elsewhere that do not have the necessary connection with a business in Northern Ireland will have to undertake SPS controls when moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain: not when moving from the Irish Republic to Northern Ireland but when moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.
The previous Government already introduced these import controls on a transitional basis for non-qualifying goods movements between the Republic of Ireland and GB. These regulations would introduce a requirement to pre-notify non-qualifying goods moving between NI and GB and provide the necessary certification. Although we fundamentally agree that goods produced in Northern Ireland that move to GB should be differentiated from Irish produce that moves between Northern Ireland and GB to avoid customs and SPS controls, the reality is that these regulations are attempting to provide an answer to a question that should never have been posed in the first place. The United Kingdom Government should never have conceded that there was a need to shift SPS controls away from the recognised international border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic to the Irish Sea. That was always going to create economic and constitutional harm that cannot be easily addressed.
These regulations underpin a system of SPS import controls that is convoluted and likely to be extremely hard to enforce without also stymying the transportation of Northern Ireland produce to the rest of the United Kingdom internal market. It would be a constitutional affront and economically disadvantageous if the only way to guarantee unfettered access for local producers is to cast a blind eye to trade flows originating outside Northern Ireland, and with no link to Northern Ireland, looking to enter GB by the back door.
There is also an irony in the fact that the draft regulations make provision for any controls on non-qualifying goods to be carried out away from a border control post—including, as my noble friend said, in warehouses or at the point of destination—as stipulated in Article 44(3) of the Official Controls Regulation. If it is acceptable to do this for goods entering GB from NI, why could the same flexibility not have been applied for trade between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic? The old proverb says that where there is a will, there is a way—but the truth is that the EU wanted to punish the UK for having the audacity to leave the EU. Sadly, Northern Ireland was to be the sacrificial lamb.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister again for introducing these regulations and for the extremely constructive way in which she has taken a personal interest in trying to find pragmatic solutions to this undoubtedly very complex set of issues.
It is clear from the several debates we have had on the Windsor Framework regulations, today and previously, that they provoke strong emotions and reactions from the noble Lords of the DUP and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. However, it is true that in Northern Ireland there are also different points of view on these matters, which we heard very clearly, eloquently and constructively expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie.
I will not repeat the Brexit arguments that I have made previously, but it is none the less true that we would not be debating these issues if we were still in the European Union or if the whole of the United Kingdom had remained in the EU single market. There are genuine and legitimate issues about how to carry out parliamentary scrutiny of EU single market regulations when we no longer have representation in EU institutions and have to be a rule-taker without a say in the process. I have suggested previously that it would be useful for the whole House to have a wider debate, at some point soon, on our relations with the EU and on the much talked about reset with the EU and what it would look like in reality. It would also be useful to have a debate on the approach towards parliamentary oversight of decisions and regulations adopted by the EU and their impact on UK businesses in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
On the specifics of the regulations we are debating this evening, from these Benches we broadly welcome them as a further pragmatic and temporary step to try to make this complex arrangement work slightly more effectively. As these regulations apply only to sanitary and phytosanitary controls on European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain from Northern Ireland, we believe that they sharpen the competitive advantage of Northern Ireland traders moving qualifying Northern Ireland goods.
I have three questions. The first is the same as the one the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked. Can the Minister say when this long-term approach to these issues is likely to be published and adopted? As she said in her introduction, these temporary measures will apply only until July next year. Can she say how MPs, noble Lords and all Northern Ireland political parties and businesses will be consulted in this process?
My second question is the same as the one the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked. Can the Minister say a little more about progress or otherwise on an SPS and veterinary agreement? It is clearly for the new Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in your Lordships’ House to decide its own programme, but it would be very useful if it were to look at some of these issues when it starts work next year.
My third and final question is something I ask every time. Can the Minister explain a little more about how these regulations will be enforced and policed in reality? Other noble Lords have raised this in a different way. I conclude by thanking her once again, and I look forward to hearing her responses.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, for bringing this regret amendment to the House. I listened to some very powerful speeches by him and his noble friends on both sides of the House.
His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have some significant doubts and concerns about these regulations, given the impact they may have on goods moving from Northern Ireland into Great Britain, but we will not oppose them. We welcome that some goods will continue to have unfettered access to Great Britain, but we are concerned about the non-qualifying goods and the effect this will have on businesses that trade across the Irish Sea.
While the Windsor Framework was a significant improvement on the original protocol, that is not to say that improvements cannot be made wherever necessary. The Opposition will continue to scrutinise the secondary legislation and assess its impact. Can the Minister confirm to the House that the Government will keep these regulations under review and take any action necessary to lighten the burden on businesses trading across the Irish Sea where possible?
The businesses affected by these regulations may need extra support. Can the Minister outline the steps that the Government are taking to give businesses in Northern Ireland the support they need? Indeed, what assessment have the Government made of the effect of these changes on businesses in Great Britain trading with Northern Ireland? How will the Government support that smooth trade?
Goods from Northern Ireland must be traded as freely as possible, and they should not be at an unfair disadvantage. That was at the core of our work when we were in government. We all know that the Windsor Framework was the result of a painstaking negotiation with the EU, but the Government should do everything they can to ensure Northern Ireland’s smooth and unfettered access to the UK internal market. As my honourable friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar said in the other place:
“The Windsor framework, I believe, is better than the protocol. ‘Safeguarding the Union’ is better than the Windsor framework, but that does not mean that further progress is not possible”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/12/24; col. 627.]
Does the Minister agree with that assessment?
We look forward to scrutinising the Government’s approach to Northern Ireland policy further, and to the Minister addressing our concerns about smooth trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and about upholding the importance of biosecurity—biosecurity not just in GB but Northern Ireland for goods that stop there. We will press the Government to bring forward plans to encourage businesses to trade across the sea so that we all benefit across the whole of our United Kingdom.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to today’s debate and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for his very thorough and clear introduction outlining his concerns and why he has tabled a regret amendment. Many thoughtful and constructive points have been raised, which reflects the importance of the legislation and the principles that it upholds but also the concerns. This Government take very seriously maintaining our biosecurity, supporting the smooth functioning of the United Kingdom internal market and honouring our commitments under the Windsor Framework. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for her extremely kind comments and her recognition that I have been working very hard to understand fully the challenges and concerns that a very complex area of legislation entails.
This instrument is looking to deliver the necessary provisions to ensure that Great Britain’s responsibilities on biosecurity and food safety are upheld and safeguard the health of our people, animals and plants. At the same time, it reaffirms and strengthens the Government’s unwavering commitment to unfettered access for qualifying Northern Ireland goods, ensuring that businesses in Northern Ireland can continue to enjoy their unique position in the UK internal market.
Turning to the points that were raised in this debate, I will focus specifically on the questions regarding the legislation and do my best to address them. I have been listening very carefully—I can assure noble Lords of that—but a meeting has also been arranged between me and noble Lords from Northern Ireland in January, and I am sure that we will be picking up many of these issues at that meeting.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and others, asked about consultation engagement. A period of engagement on the border target operating model, which contained an overview of controls that are introduced in this instrument, ran from 5 April 2023 for six weeks. There has not been specific consultation on this SI because it is delivering the approach that was set out in the BTOM, which was consulted on extensively.
As noble Lords have pointed out, the instrument is temporary and does not set out the approach for the long-term treatment of non-qualifying Northern Ireland goods entering Great Britain from Northern Ireland. Any future long-term approach will be developed with input from stakeholder engagement. Noble Lords have asked about that long-term approach, and I can come back to that.
The noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord McCrea, asked about the response from stakeholders on this legislation and other legislation coming forward. The feedback from the six-week BTOM consultation was published on 29 August 2023. As we did not specifically consult on this SI, the feedback did not specifically relate to it, but there were calls from Northern Ireland agri-food businesses that there was a desire to focus the benefits of unfettered access more closely on Northern Ireland traders, which is what this SI seeks to address. We will provide a further update on the timeline for implementation by next summer.
Collaboration with devolved Administrations was also raised in the debate. We will continue collaborating with the devolved Governments and all border stake- holders to support implementation readiness across the vital points of entry, to better protect UK biosecurity. We will communicate any additional updates well in advance so that traders have the time that they need to prepare. The Government will also work closely with devolved Governments to develop plans for the delivery of the long-term approach for the treatment of European Union and rest-of-the-world goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland. Noble Lords might be interested to know that only this morning I met with devolved Ministers and officials to discuss issues around BTOM, so that work is ongoing and very hands-on at a ministerial level. I wanted to reassure noble Lords of that. This was from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, so there is a lot of work going on. I have implemented those meetings to ensure that we all work together and understand each other and what we need to get out of any decisions that are taken. The important thing is to preserve that unfettered movement of qualifying Northern Ireland goods into Great Britain.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister but she has not really answered the question. If goods coming from the Republic through Northern Ireland into Great Britain have to be security-checked for phytosanitary and all the other reasons, why are people in Northern Ireland then left with nothing? How does the Minister know that we are not going to be poisoned or threatened by some kind of problem that she feels will come through to Great Britain?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I completely get the point that the noble Baroness is making. Our international commitments, and the trade and co-operation agreement, require us to treat EU goods equally, regardless of the entry point. As she is aware, there is a lot of legislation already in place. There are issues within the Windsor Framework. There are matters that we need to discuss with the EU as we go forward with the EU reset that has been discussed. These more complex issues are where we need to dig into the detail in our meetings outside of the legislation, and the whole point of me wanting to meet noble Lords is so we can do that. We can dig into those details and I can better understand the concerns, and we can look at whether there are things that we can do to manage this better. I hope the noble Baroness is happy that I am not trying to dodge it; I just need to understand it better, so that we can discuss it properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, asked about electronic systems for paperwork. We have been looking at this; it is quite complicated, but we are exploring whether it might be possible, to answer that specific question.
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie asked about the potential SPS and veterinary agreements with the EU. I thank my noble friend Lady Ritchie for her work as part of the veterinary medicines working group. This is a critical part of taking that work forward, and a way that we are working in collaboration and consultation to ensure that we get the best deal we can. It is quite difficult because it is early stages, and we want to get this right, so I cannot say anything formally at present. I assure noble Lords that a lot of work is going on behind the scenes on looking to get the best outcomes that we can for both SPS and veterinary agreements.
I conclude by summarising what we consider to be the benefits of these regulations. They 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. We believe 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 qualifying Northern Ireland goods definition in existing legislation ensures 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 these goods into Great Britain. I am sure noble Lords will be aware that there will be further statutory instruments to come on very similar areas—the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, assured us that this will be the case.
I am aware that the noble Lord, Lords Dodds, may well be minded to divide the House on these regulations. As I mentioned at the start of my response, I have invited noble Lords from Northern Ireland to come, in January, to another meeting, as a follow-up to our previous one, and I very much hope that they will accept. I reassure noble Lords, who clearly have very real concerns about statutory instruments regarding the Windsor Framework and the implementation of the new BTOM, that I am listening. I want to have the opportunity to consider wider concerns in more depth, so that I can properly understand them and see if there are ways that we can move forward together on this. I do not pretend to have all the answers or a magic wand to resolve what is, in many areas, a pretty impossible position, but I am genuine in wanting to work with noble Lords on this. With that having been said, I once again thank everyone for their contributions. I commend the regulations to the House.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to the points raised by a number of noble Lords this evening. I thank her also not just for the substance of what she said but for the tone in which she has approached these issues this evening and on other occasions, as well as for her willingness and dedication to work with us on some of the issues that affect so many people who we are speaking for in this House—both unionist and nationalist, because the Ulster Farmers Union, which she mentioned visiting, is made up of many people of different backgrounds and they all have common concerns.
When we speak about wanting to give a voice, a vote and a say in making laws and legislation for Northern Ireland, we want those rights to be for nationalists, unionists, and those who have no party at all. That is why it is staggering that tonight in the Northern Ireland Assembly there will be members of parties—the SDLP, Sinn Féin and Alliance—who will vote to deny themselves the right to make, develop and amend laws over 300 areas affecting vast swathes of our economy, including one of our most important industries, the agrifood industry, which is massive in Northern Ireland. They will vote to hand over the powers to develop those laws to a foreign political entity, which may on some occasions vote and decide laws beneficially but may on other occasions decide to vote and make laws in their own interests, which is perfectly understandable. Why would you want to hand that away? This is not a unionist argument; it is an argument for Northern Ireland and for the Assembly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, talked about working together. That is why we in the DUP voted to go into the Executive with Sinn Féin, despite its support for murder and mayhem, targeting many of us in political life and the security forces. We want to move Northern Ireland forward, but you cannot move it forward on the basis of a majority vote that excludes every single unionist. The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, referred to the fact that there are different views. Well, there is a nationalist view, supported by the Alliance Party, and there is a unionist view. That is why we have a cross-community voting mechanism in the Assembly. There has not been a majority vote on any matter of substance affecting Northern Ireland for 50 years—yet, tonight, there is. That is not acceptable in the long term. It will not endure.