Northern Ireland After Brexit (Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee Report)

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, it is an honour to speak in this debate and to be a member of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I thank our chairman for how he outlined the contents of the report today and, more broadly, for how skilfully he guides and chairs our committee. It is no mean feat to bring so many diverse views to some form of consensus, as his predecessor the noble Lord, Lord Jay, did, on the letters and reports that we look at. They make a valuable contribution to the overall debate and I pay tribute to him, to his predecessor, and to our clerk and our excellent staff and secretariat, who are across all the details and make our life so much easier.

I come to the contents of this report. It is entitled Northern Ireland after Brexit: Strengthening Northern Ireland’s Voice in the Context of the Windsor Framework, so the first thing we need to do is look at the Windsor Framework itself: it is in that context that we have to look at all these ideas and proposals. So what does the Windsor Framework do? We need to remind ourselves about what it does. It means that foreign laws made by a foreign legislature—a foreign polity, which makes laws in its own interests—are imposed on a third country, part of the United Kingdom, which is the fifth-largest or sixth-largest economy in the world. No Member of Parliament, Member of the Legislative Assembly or citizen in Northern Ireland has any say in the development, amendment or formulation of those laws.

The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, talked about condominium status—it is a form of colonialism. For a part of the United Kingdom and its citizens to be treated in such a way in the 21st century is, quite frankly, an appalling situation, and it does not cover just trade. The 300 areas of law in Articles 2 and 5 of the protocol all deal with various aspects of trade—state aid and so on—but it goes much wider than that: our committee proposes to look at the Dillon judgment and the effects on equality, human rights law and all the rest of it. So it is much wider than just trade; it affects every aspect of society in Northern Ireland, with large swathes of our economy governed by laws not made by us and not capable of being made by us but made by the European Union.

Our committee has wrestled with this notion of the democratic deficit, which really should be described as a democratic denial. It is the denial of democracy; it is not just a deficit. The fourth paragraph of our summary on page 4 says:

“This report examines the action that has been taken to mitigate the democratic deficit, and makes clear that what has been done so far is insufficient to resolve this fundamental issue”.


So anything that we suggest in this report can be only a mitigation of a disastrous situation that all self-respecting lawmakers should be appalled at and should seek to do something about.

What have we ended up with? We have ended up with, as has been described, this labyrinthine and opaque set of arrangements. The diagram on pages 24 and 25, which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to, shows this complex web of interlocking organisations and bodies, all set up with different purposes, rules, legal responsibilities and obligations.

Part of this is deliberate: every time a problem was raised, a committee was thrown at it. This was done in relation to horticultural movements, for example, which was raised with the Government during the talks leading up to Safeguarding the Union. It was pointed out that we cannot get seeds and certain plants moved to Northern Ireland. It is not just that it is complex; it is a complete bar. They said, “Well, we’ll set up a horticultural working group”. But what has that group done since? We cannot even know the names of some of the people on it. When I have asked the Government for the names—the Minister has replied to me on this—we are not even allowed, as legislators and people in Northern Ireland, to know who is on the committee, yet they are supposed to be coming up with ideas and solutions. It is totally ludicrous, but not just ludicrous: businesses are confused and angry—it is not just that people are bemused—at the unnecessary complexity and at the fact that the EU is insisting on full international customs border arrangements and complexities for internal trade between one part of the United Kingdom and the other. It is just not suitable or appropriate, and it is imposing great difficulties.

We heard evidence from the chamber of commerce in Northern Ireland over the last couple of weeks that this has been one of the most challenging years that it can remember. The FSB representative talked about the chilling effect on small companies and so on. This is happening now, even after the Windsor Framework, Safeguarding the Union and all these step changes that were supposed to make things better. Costs are increasing for consumers. Our committee heard evidence about the restrictions on choice for consumers in Northern Ireland. Many items available in the rest of the country are not available to consumers in Northern Ireland, for no good reason. I advise people to read the excellent recent report from the Federation of Small Businesses, which outlined a lot of these issues in detail.

We have called for the simplification and streamlining of these bodies. I think that it is important that that should be attempted, although I have to say that I have little faith that the EU side will look at this seriously, given the way that it refuses to contemplate any change in the current arrangements. Its attitude seems to be, “We’ve agreed this, everything’s fine, it’s up to the UK Government to deal with it, nothing to do with us”.

Turning to some of the specific recommendations, we heard evidence that the Northern Ireland Government cannot really influence EU legislation upstream early enough, before it is adopted, and that they are largely confined to reactive scrutiny after proposals are made. This is something that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, addressed in his report. It would be an improvement if there were an increase in resourcing for the UK mission in Brussels, for greater engagement between the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the mission and, through that, with Brussels, but I have to caution that we have a problem, because getting a settled Northern Ireland position in the first place is often not achievable.

We had an illustration of this when our committee tried to get evidence from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, on behalf of the Executive, about what the Northern Ireland Executive Office in Brussels was doing and what the Northern Ireland Government thought of all this. One would have thought that they would have been interested, but it was vetoed because there has to be agreement between the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Deputy First Minister was quite happy to come and the First Minister vetoed it. So how are we going to get settled positions in terms of Northern Ireland’s view? That has to be factored into the equation. It is not very helpful, and it is to be regretted, that we did not hear from representatives of the Executive.

The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, mentioned proposals to improve the Assembly’s Democratic Scrutiny Committee. I think that everybody agrees that that committee is not able to do its job, lacks sufficient access to information and is struggling to gather evidence within the timescales. I support the proposals that have been suggested to reform that committee. It is something that we should return to in a few months and ask whether this has made any difference, because if the Northern Ireland Assembly scrutiny committees cannot do the job properly and it is left to Westminster, either in the other place or in your Lordships’ House, then that is unsatisfactory. Elected representatives in Northern Ireland should be able to do the job properly.

We also looked at measures such as the Stormont brake and applicability Motions, which we referenced in our report. I have to say that these measures were sold very heavily in order to get Stormont back. We were told that this would give legislators in Northern Ireland the long-awaited answer to their democratic deficit complaints, but what has happened? They have almost disappeared from the political viewpoint. Nobody mentions them any more, because when they were tried the Government knocked them back, doing serious damage to political confidence. Those who warn about instability in Northern Ireland are right to do so, because if these issues are not properly addressed, there will come a reckoning at some point. As I have said before, some people say, “We didn’t see this crisis at Stormont coming”. I think that these issues are going to contribute to future instability if not properly addressed.

For instance, on the Stormont brake, at the end of the process the Government can veto it, and they did. On the applicability Motions, they can veto the process from the start. If they say that no new regulatory border will be created, this disapplies the applicability Motion from being heard in the Assembly. The Government can veto both the major safeguards—one at the start and one at the end. That has caused real concern in Northern Ireland among those who were told that this would be a major plank in getting Stormont restored. It is a disrespectful position, as far as the Assembly is concerned.

We have always been strong on the need to set up a register of applicable EU law—an office where regulatory divergence can be highlighted and exposed. That is something that both the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and our own committee have highlighted. The Government need to take that on board and set up a database and an office that can look at this. The one-stop shop has been an important addition to the ideas that have been brought forward. I thank the Government for their engagement on that matter. As the chairman mentioned—I am not going to go through all the issues that have already been highlighted—we need to see this up and running as quickly as possible. I am glad that the Government are taking it seriously.

I come back to the fundamental point, on which the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, ended as well. We can mitigate all we like; we can introduce tweaks here and changes there; and we can have a whack-a-mole approach, where one issue crops up and we knock it down and another one that we have not foreseen comes up and we try to deal with it. European law is dynamically aligning Northern Ireland all the time, sometimes to the detriment of our trade with Britain and sometimes not so much. Unforeseen things will happen and we will have to address the fundamental problem, which is that you cannot, in a modern democracy, expect people to live in a society where other people, in their interests, decide laws for them. Unless we wake up to that reality, we will have a real problem in the Assembly and the Northern Ireland political set-up. I hope that that does not happen, but it is incumbent on all of us who take an interest in these matters to make sure that it does not.