Windsor Framework (Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals) Regulations 2024

Debate between Baroness Suttie and Lord Morrow

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, it will hardly come as a surprise to anyone that I will support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, as will my colleagues. In the debate on these regulations in another place, the Minister’s main defence was that they should be celebrated as an achievement because they represented an advance on what went before. There are two huge problems with that argument, as I see it, and I implore the Minister to be more sensitive to Northern Ireland—somehow, I think she will be—than the Minister in the other place was.

In the first instance, if these regulations were an improvement on what went before, they would be wholly unacceptable, because they are still a function of EU regulation 1231, which has already been mentioned tonight by others. It allows our country to be divided in two and hands the governance of that division, in the final analysis, to the European Union. In the second instance, they are not an improvement on what has gone before but a deterioration, because the marker against which the Government suggest that an improvement is being made is entirely theoretical, because the division to which they allude was never ever accommodated.

Let us, therefore, not play with words: these regulations confront us with a new level of division within ourselves from March 2025. I also appeal to the Minister not to confuse the issue by saying that Northern Ireland has always been treated differently for SPS purposes. There is a distinction, in my view anyway, between internal SPS checks within a sovereign country, on one hand, and the imposition of an international plant health border—I cannot think of any other way to say it—along with an international customs border, on the other, for the purpose of dividing our country into two. This is why people travelling from England to Northern Ireland have never before had to travel with a pet passport, border checks and the possibility of having their dogs remitted to an SPS facility. It is incredible—unbelievable.

I also appeal to the Minister not to tell us in Northern Ireland that we have nothing to worry about because the difficulties face those moving from GB to Northern Ireland and not the other way around. In the first instance, it is not correct that there are no burdens imposed on the movement of pets from Northern Ireland to GB. EU regulation 1231 makes it clear that pets must be microchipped, which is currently common only for dogs. In the second instance, however, and far more importantly, people who state that we have nothing to worry about because the burden is on east-west movements completely misjudge the situation and completely misunderstand us. Northern Ireland is the smallest part of the United Kingdom. If the Government impose any obstacles on people moving from GB to Northern Ireland, that necessarily makes the people of Northern Ireland feel more isolated and cut off, which is completely unacceptable.

The regulations confront us with exactly the same difficulty we confronted when looking at the Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme: Plant and Animal Health) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2024 in October. On that occasion we were forced to recognise that it was impossible to scrutinise the regulations without also scrutinising EU regulation 2023/1231, especially Articles 4 and 12. On this occasion, we have to look especially at Articles 12 and 14 of regulation 1231, as well as the regulations immediately before us.

In coming to today’s debate we must first remind ourselves of the title of EU regulation 1231:

“Regulation (EU) 2023/1231 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2023 on specific rules relating to the entry into Northern Ireland from other parts of the United Kingdom of certain consignments of retail goods, plants for planting, seed potatoes, machinery and certain vehicles operated for agricultural or forestry purposes, as well as non-commercial movements of certain pet animals into Northern Ireland”.


This is a piece of legislation that relates not just to Northern Ireland but to the whole United Kingdom and it divides our country by an international border imposed by and governed by the EU.

Article 12 requires that if you wish to travel from Great Britain to see family in Northern Ireland with your pet dog, you can do so only if, first, you acquire a pet travel document validating that your pet is micro- chipped. Secondly, you have to sign a form renouncing your right to travel with your pet into the Republic of Ireland. Thirdly, your pet and its papers have to be checked on moving from GB to Northern Ireland—and you do so uncertainly, because you know that both you and your pet can be prevented from proceeding freely and may be sent to an SPS facility and not allowed to leave unless and until permission to do so is granted. In other words, you are made to feel like you are visiting a foreign country, and we are made to feel like we are foreigners.

In the last debate, the Minister sought to defend the imposition of EU regulation 1231, by which the EU not only imposes but asserts its sovereign right to govern the border in a way that is completely contrary to international law. The UN Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations does not tolerate any action such as that effected by the Windsor Framework and EU regulation 1231. It states that:

“Every State shall refrain from any action aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of any other State or country”.


How can we accommodate legislation, such as the Windsor Framework, that violates international law? No country can accommodate its division into two, especially when this also results in the disenfranchisement of 1.9 million people and the creation of a colony in 2024. The Government can kid themselves that all is well and that we can all live with this, but no country with an ounce of self-respect or commitment to its citizens, and any hope of a future, can accommodate this. They must wake up and adopt the EU (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill that is to have its Second Reading on 6 December in another place.

As my noble friend Lord McCrea has ably stated, we do not do majoritarianism in Northern Ireland. We have not been doing it for 50 years but, all of a sudden, in this instance, it is the acceptable way. If there was to be majority rule on other things in Northern Ireland, I suspect that those who are in favour of this regulation would be the first on their feet to say, “This is not the way we do things”. This is not the way it is done in Northern Ireland and the pending vote, which the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, has already referred to, is a departure from those who gave us the Belfast agreement.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to these regulations, and for all the hard work she is doing to try to resolve the extremely difficult issues, which have been raised so eloquently by so many noble Lords.

I have three brief points. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for the opportunity to discuss these issues. However, I am not going to disappoint her, and I am going to say what she predicted I would. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and, as I have said on several occasions during these debates, I am afraid that we are in this situation because of the type of hard Brexit that the previous Government chose to adopt, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, eloquently said when he read out Boris Johnson’s memo.

In the rush to get Brexit done, incompatible promises were made in haste, which means that measures such as these regulations will keep on being introduced in order to make the system work. None the less, these Benches welcome these regulations because we believe they are a significant improvement on their previous requirement, as set out in the Northern Ireland protocol. They are a move towards a common-sense approach to these matters, allowing maximum freedom for pets between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, while recognising the need to maintain high biodiversity standards.

It is particularly welcome that the pet travel document will be valid for the lifetime of a pet, which I believe—indeed, I hope—will minimise the need for bureaucracy. However, I would like to follow the question asked by noble Lords from the DUP, although I will ask it in a slightly different way. It is about how these regulations will be enforced in practice. As I understand it, the pet owner will be obliged to confirm that the pet which has travelled from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will not then subsequently move to Ireland, and therefore the EU. However, given that there is no border on the island of Ireland, how will these provisions be checked and enforced in reality?

My second question is really one of curiosity: why are these regulations just limited to dogs, cats and ferrets? What happens to pets being transported from Great Britain to Northern Ireland that are not currently covered by these three categories? Perhaps there is a logical reason for it, but I am not quite sure what it is.

Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Suttie and Lord Morrow

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I add my best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and wish her well. This morning, she sent me an email saying that she is feeling a little better, but we are certainly missing her contributions to this afternoon’s debate.

I have added my name to Amendments 2, 20 and 37, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said, are probing amendments to understand a little better from the Minister why this particular definition of “public authority” was chosen in the Bill. I want to add to the questions already asked by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. Can the Minister expand on paragraph 23 of the Explanatory Notes and say what kind of circumstances he can imagine where public authorities would be added or removed as a result of this legislation? I should note that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has suggested that Section 6 of the Human Rights Act would provide a better, wider definition of “public bodies”. Does the Minister agree, and can he explain why that definition was not used in this Bill?

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, with permission, I will speak to Amendments 2, 20, 37 and 39. This set of probing amendments relates to the definition of public authorities that are subject to the Bill’s provisions. We are against it for the following reasons. We are convinced by the case for an expansionist approach to the range of public authorities captured by the Bill. Given the Minister’s insistence that the statement of funding accompanying the Bill does not give rise to any responsibility for the Government, it seems unconscionable that the Executive should have to bear the cost of UK-wide bodies adhering to requirements or requests issued by the offices created under the legislation. More than that, at a time of a crippling cost of living crisis and with mounting challenges facing our health service and criminal justice system, we believe that a precautionary approach is preferred.

Implementation should be targeted. We have consistently expressed concern about whether this legislation is proportionate or reflective of the priorities of the majority of people in Northern Ireland. There is a fear that expanding the extent even further would impact on public confidence. There is already concern about the framing of certain provisions, namely the identity and culture principles and their potential impact on competing fundamental freedoms. It may be prudent, therefore, to display caution and monitor the impact of the Bill before making further wholesale changes. There is already provision in the Bill allowing Ministers to amend the definition of “public authority” moving forward.

The proposed new clause in Amendment 39 would oblige public authorities to comply with obligations accepted by the United Kingdom under the Council of Europe’s European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. It is worth noting that the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British commissioner would already be under an obligation to advise on the effect and implementation of the charter under proposed new Section 78R(3)(a).

I am pleased to speak to Amendment 32 in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Dodds of Duncairn, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown and Lord Hay of Ballyore. As I will reflect in more detail in the debate on subsequent groupings, the integrity of the provision of the Irish language commissioner and the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British commissioner depends not only on the commissioner having identical functions but on their being accorded equal importance, and on this equal importance being made manifest—certainly through each having a similar cost footprint, in terms of both the running of their offices and their impact on the action and spending of public authorities. In this context, it is absolutely imperative that the existing functions of the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British commissioner are given access to as robust an enforcement mechanism as those pertaining to the Irish language commissioner.

In this context, it is really concerning to note that, as currently defined, the Irish language commissioner is favoured with powers of enforcement on two bases that are denied the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British commissioner, one of which we will address in this grouping and another in the eighth grouping. In my Amendment 32 in this grouping, a public authority is required by proposed new Section 78N to

“have due regard to any published best practice standards”

produced by the Irish language commissioner and to

“prepare and publish a plan setting out the steps it proposes to take to comply with”

this duty. Inexplicably, while the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British commissioner is similarly given the responsibility of issuing guidance to public authorities, the Bill before us today contains no parallel obligation on public authorities to have due regard to their guidance. Neither does it contain any parallel obligations on public authorities to prepare and publish a plan setting out the steps they propose to take to comply with this duty.

I very gently express the hope to the Minister that the Government can understand why some within the unionist community regard this extraordinary difference of treatment as discrimination. It is vulnerable to be characterised as a crude attempt to set up two commissioners with the apparent intention of generating the sense that the two communities are being treated equally, hoping that one will not have the sense to check and see that the standards of protection afforded it are dramatically weaker than those afforded the other. This discriminatory difference of treatment can be resolved by Amendment 32, which affords the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British commissioner the same respect as the Irish language commissioner in the form of placing equal statutory obligations on public authorities to have regard for his or her advice and to publish a plan setting out how they intend to comply with his or her advice.

I am genuinely at a loss to understand how anyone sensitive to the challenges we face in Northern Ireland, let alone a body supposedly committed to the notion of equality of esteem, can have regarded the enforcement provisions afforded unionists in the Bill as anything other than discriminatory when compared with the enforcement provisions afforded nationalism. I urge the Minister to recognise that this inequality of treatment is utterly indefensible and flies in the face of the principle of equality of esteem. I plead with him to accept this modest amendment.