Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025

Debate between Baroness Hoey and Lord Leong

Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that. I am sure that, as a former Minister, she will know that we will try our best to get that done swiftly. Further to her question on the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism, CBAM, we have always been clear that we will apply the UK’s CBAM across the UK, including in Northern Ireland, and that the EU’s CBAM does not apply to Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee yesterday wrote to the Government on this issue and we will respond in the usual way.

My noble friend Lady Ritchie and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, also asked about veterinary measures. The vast majority of veterinary medicine will remain available in Northern Ireland from 1 January. The Government continue to engage extensively with industry and have announced two new schemes to support supply to Northern Ireland.

I come now to the question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, on impact assessments. An impact assessment has not been prepared for this instrument, as measures resulting from the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 are out of scope for assessment. However, my officials have engaged in discussions with a range of industry stakeholders and government departments on Commission delegated regulation (EU) 2022/30 and have not identified any significant impacts or concerns for this instrument. We therefore expect limited impacts, if any, on the supply of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.

As I have set out, this instrument ensures effective implementation in Northern Ireland of Commission delegated regulation (EU) 2022/30, which applies additional essential requirements for manufacturers of certain radio equipment and enables them to be enforced. As a former businessperson, I am constantly encouraging my colleagues at the Department for Business and Trade to engage regularly with micro and small businesses. The Government are committed to engaging and supporting all businesses, not only in Great Britain but across Northern Ireland.

Many businesses have already prepared to comply with these new essential requirements, which came into force on 1 August this year, in order to continue to supply the EU. My officials have not identified significant impacts on this instrument in discussions with industry stakeholders, including trade associations. This is because many businesses have already adapted to these new requirements. We therefore expect the impact on the flow of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland to be very limited.

This instrument ensures our compliance with international law in relation to Northern Ireland’s continuing dual access. I am therefore pleased to commend this statutory instrument to the House.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response to this rather wide-ranging debate. We tend to have them on statutory instruments, because there seems to be no other way of raising and having debates in this place on the overall issue of the Windsor Framework and how it is affecting Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland officials in the Northern Ireland Office must have it very easy because, with all these SIs, they simply exchange the word “radio” for “motor car” or “dental” and then produce the rest of the speech more or less the same—we hear more or less the same response every time. I appreciate that the Minister is carrying out his party policy.

I was very disappointed, as I said, that there was no one here from the Liberal Democrats, because normally what they say is, of course, that it is all about Brexit: “If we hadn’t had Brexit, you wouldn’t have a Windsor Framework protocol”. But I am sure that Liberal Democrat noble Lords will be pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, seems to have taken up that mantle. Indeed, the Minister himself said that the best thing would be to rejoin the customs union and the single market. Has the Labour Party policy changed, or was that just a throwaway line?

Clearly, there was absolutely no need to have the Windsor Framework protocol because the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union; they did not have on their ballot paper, “Northern Ireland to be left under 300 areas of law”—absolutely outrageous. The Minister did not raise—and none of the Ministers who respond ever raise—that kind of constitutional issue. It is all about the EU saying that we must comply.

There was much agreement between the rest of the noble Lords who spoke about the Government dressing everything up as, “Oh, but you’ve got dual access”. Dual access is a joke. It has not produced a single job; that has been confirmed by Invest Northern Ireland. We might have dual access, but the raw materials and so on need to come in from Great Britain and through an international customs border.

This particular SI will affect small businesses. We have had no real response to what might be given in mitigation to help them and no response to a number of the other questions. But I would say one positive thing: I welcome the more critical response of the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, to the SI. Perhaps that is just a bit of movement within the opposition party towards accepting that what was signed up to in the Windsor Framework protocol is not in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole, never mind the people of Northern Ireland. What we have ended up with is the Minister basically saying, “We didn’t write this law and we can’t change it, so you’re just going to have to put up with it”. Noble Lords will be relieved to know that I withdraw the amendment.

Sustainable Farming Incentive

Debate between Baroness Hoey and Lord Leong

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

We will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and then from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I thank the noble Lord for that.

No matter what is said in justification, this will still be seen as an attack on farming, particularly on small farms. Does the Minister agree that the most important job for farmers is to produce good-quality food, and that all funding going into farming should have that as the priority? Why are we allowing so many solar farms to be put on good agricultural land, with other land being used for things other than farming? Surely that must be a priority if we genuinely care about food security?