Official Controls (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, I will make only a few brief comments. I thank the Minister for bringing forward the legislation in the first place, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for her amendment. What she says is absolutely right, but the difficulties and problems did not start with these retained EU law animals, food, plant health and trade regulations. They started back with the weak negotiations with the European Union that gave us the protocol and then the Windsor Framework. That is where our problems have come from, and now we are seeing the outworkings of it—and this is just one of the outworkings.

On the issue around human medicine, I welcome the resolution that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, highlighted. Robin Swann, when he was Health Minister, secured that with the European Union. It is just a pity that we could not get the same resolution for animal health medicines, which is a massive issue for the agricultural sector in Northern Ireland. I know from discussions with the Minister that they are hoping to make progress on that, and we might hear something on that when she speaks.

I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Frost, say that we need to have a different route and that the Windsor Framework needs to be ditched. It is about time people started saying that and that we plan for a new resolution. The resolution that we got back in 2019 was disastrous for people in Northern Ireland and for small businesses, which are finding huge difficulties and problems in that respect.

Th noble Lord, Lord Dodds, mentioned the Stormont brake. It is pretty useless, even if it were implemented. I know we had a test case quite recently, but the reality is that, if the Stormont brake was accepted by the UK Government and put to the European Union, what in actual fact would happen to that legislation in Northern Ireland? We would not get the UK legislation then. We would be back to the old European regulations and legislation. We in Northern Ireland would be left in no man’s land, because we would have the new UK regulations and Northern Ireland sitting with a different regulation altogether. I have argued right from the start that it is pretty worthless, even if it were to be implemented, and I stand by that comment. Indeed, when we met officials in the Northern Ireland Assembly some time ago, they explained in very great detail that it would not be practical if it were to be implemented.

I just wanted to make those few brief comments. I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, but that is not where our problems are at the moment. Our problems are much wider and deeper. It was the poor negotiations that brought us the Windsor Framework in the first place.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

Like my colleagues, I support the regret amendment put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. I preface my remarks by thanking the Minister for the gracious manner in which she has always dealt with concerns expressed by noble Lords, even when those opinions were very different from those of the Government. Her manner has been deeply appreciated.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and my colleagues who have spoken, have dealt with the specific technicalities of these regulations. I wish to deal with the underlying vehicle that has brought these regulations about.

By now, the Government must realise that the issues of the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor Framework will not go away and must be removed. They are a direct challenge to the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom, for through them Northern Ireland is no longer seen as a full and equal part of this United Kingdom. Rather, when leaving Great Britain to enter the other region of the United Kingdom —Northern Ireland—you are recognised as using an entry point to the EU under laws pertaining to goods. In 300 areas of law, Northern Ireland is subjected to laws not enacted in any other region of the United Kingdom, over which the people of the Province, through their elected representatives, have no say, and nor is there any democratic accountability. This is totally unacceptable.

It is well recognised that we got into this mess because the previous Westminster Government were anxious to get Brexit done, and the Irish Republic’s Government defiantly ensured that Northern Ireland was used as the bargaining chip—and ultimately all we were was collateral damage. Over the years, the people of Northern Ireland have witnessed some of the most harrowing terrorist atrocities from Irish republican terrorists because they dared to defend their British citizenship, only to be betrayed by successive Governments at Westminster. Indeed, many across the world cannot understand why our people are so loyal to Britain, but our allegiance and loyalty is not to any political party or Government here at Westminster, but to our King and country.

These regulations treat Northern Ireland as a “third country” in relation to Great Britain—that is, a foreign country—which is not only disrespectful, but insulting. Therein lies the constitutional issue at the heart of the protocol and Windsor Framework. As was stated in the committee in the other place, powers have been surrendered to the EU under regulation 2017/625 and the UK Government

“cannot provide for the entry of consignments of goods to the United Kingdom; they can provide for the entry of consignments of goods only to Great Britain”.—[Official Report, Commons, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 8/1/25; col. 6.]

De facto, we have partitioned our United Kingdom with a foreign regulatory border.

The protocol/Windsor Framework was designed to make special provision for Northern Ireland that is not made for the rest of the United Kingdom—so they said. Our Government have handed over the passage of goods from one part of the United Kingdom to another to a foreign jurisdiction. That would not be acceptable in any other region of the United Kingdom. Why should it be acceptable to the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland?

We are witnessing the outworking of the Windsor Framework in the manner some of us warned of in previous debates. I and my colleagues in your Lordships’ House warned of the constitutional, democratic and—for many—economic damage of the Windsor Framework. I know there are those who would prefer that the matter of the Irish Sea border, the protocol and the Windsor Framework would just go away—“It’s as good as you are going to get”. But for unionists in Northern Ireland, not to highlight the damage that has been and is being done, and not to demonstrate the inequity of the constitutional and democratic injustice that has been inflicted on the people of Northern Ireland would be to acquiesce in all this. My colleagues and I are not willing to do so.

The Windsor Framework was built on quicksand and many of the promises made to the people of Northern Ireland in the selling of it are now exposed as falsehoods. The recent issue of the so-called Stormont brake, which I originally described in this House as something that could not stop a child’s toy tricycle, never mind the EU steam train, exposes the evident corrosion and decay in the Windsor structure. When will our Government have the courage to stand on their feet and face down the European Union, instead of bowing to its every demand? Can the Minister tell us what has happened to the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper and its outworking? How have this Government sought to defend the union, and what positive actions have been taken to do so?

I know there are those who have a defeatist attitude and suggest that nothing can be changed. I remind them that that was what we were told about the Northern Ireland protocol: it was set in stone; it came down, like the commandments, from heaven and could not be changed.

In conclusion, I have noted a change of heart, as did the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. When these regulations were voted on in the other place, only one Conservative Member supported them—only one, and the one was no surprise at all to anybody from the unionist community—and 65 Conservative Members voted against them. The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, mentioned some who are in the shadow Cabinet. I trust that many across this House will have courage to join us in the Division Lobby tonight in rejecting the regulations.

There are numerous other things I wish to say, but I will not detain the House any further. I commend to noble Lords the amendment brought by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.

Movement of Goods (Northern Ireland to Great Britain) (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Transitory Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

So, the nonsense that we could not have some sort of checks on the border was, in fact, total lies at the end of the day. But we must find a solution to the problems. These debates are very important to highlight the issues that need to be highlighted in this Chamber, and to keep these issues before this House continually until we get a resolution to the problem. And, yes, we all have to work together to get a resolution and to find a way forward in how we deal with these issues, now and in the future.

[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.

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

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I rise to support the regret amendment, moved so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and supported by my noble friend Lord Dodds.

The protocol and the Windsor Framework were built on a false and rotten foundation. The Windsor Framework was sold as a great step forward from the original protocol through which Northern Ireland would enter into the promised land flowing with milk and honey and foreign investors would be so excited by Northern Ireland’s favoured position in the United Kingdom, having access to the single market of the European Union, that they would be camping out and patiently waiting in line to invest in the Province.

Of course, having access to the European single market, we would have to subject ourselves to EU laws over which the elected Members here at Westminster or in the Assembly would have no influence. The concept that 300 areas of EU law should be imposed on Northern Ireland is highly offensive. It recklessly violates our constitutional position in the United Kingdom and dismisses the fundamentals of this heralded Belfast agreement, which demanded that any constitutional issue would have to be decided by a cross-community vote—in other words, by a majority of unionists and nationalists.

The purpose of this instrument is to provide a statutory basis for the Northern Ireland pet travel scheme, which is agreed under that Windsor Framework. According to Defra, the scheme will enable the “smooth and straightforward movement” of pets—pet dogs, including assistant dogs, cats and ferrets—from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, while ensuring that any pet movements from GB into Ireland or any other member state remain subject to the relevant EU law requirement. It has been acknowledged by the department that this is but another example of where a wider consultation would have been desirable. In other words, it did not take place in that wider context.

However, to my mind, deeper consultation would be meaningless whenever we have a Government that have closed their mind as regards the implications of the Windsor Framework. When Europe makes its demands, our Government usually cave in. The United Kingdom Government have got Northern Ireland so entangled with Europe under the protocol and the Windsor Framework that the only way to grant equal constitutional rights to the people of Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom is, in my opinion, to scrap the protocol and the Windsor Framework.

I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said about taking the way forward and getting the alternative. But there is a big problem with an alternative because the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, who has spoken, and the noble Baroness who is speaking for the Lib Dems have in fact said that the protocol had to be rigorously implemented. In actual fact the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said again tonight that she wants the Windsor Framework to be rigorously implemented. Getting an alternative, when there are those who see a need not for change but rather for a rigorous implementation of what is there at present, which is totally unacceptable to many within Northern Ireland as British citizens, is going to be very difficult.

Under these regulations, pets can travel from Northern Ireland to GB and return from GB without needing any pet travel documents and will not be subject to any checks or processes. However, the same does not apply to pets travelling from GB to Northern Ireland. This is another part of the United Kingdom. GB pet owners will need to show that they have a valid pet passport document which applies to the pet that they are travelling with. They will need a valid GB address to obtain a pet travel document and that will be checked during the course of applying for it. Why has this happened? It is simply because the EU has legislated for it to happen within the United Kingdom—a foreign authority legislating what happens between two parts of the same United Kingdom. We have been told constantly that we have left that authority. In fact, listening to the Minister earlier on today we were told that Brexit will not be changed, so therefore we have left.

If persons from GB come to Northern Ireland with their dog and then wish to visit a friend over the border in the Irish Republic, they must subject themselves to a full SPS border check for their pet. Under these regulations, should the EU feel that they are not being implemented to the satisfaction of EU-authorised personnel, their operation can be suspended, or whatever other steps the EU feels appropriate will be taken.

If any animal—pet dogs, including assistance dogs, cats or ferrets—does not meet EU standards regarding documentation or identity checks, the animal can be taken into SPS custody. What impact assessment has been done on the regulations, or is this another example of simply being subservient to EU demands? What detailed consultations were held with guide dog owners? In the other place, the Minister explained the reason for her acceptance of this imposition by Europe and divergence within the United Kingdom:

“We believe in keeping our word and in fulfilling our obligations”.—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 6/11/24; col. 7.]


I ask the Minister: what does she feel about her Government’s obligations to the people of Northern Ireland and respecting the integrity of the United Kingdom? Surely, it is time to take a stand and to reject this Windsor Framework imposition. I, for one, am happy to vote—

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, he referred to the necessity and requirement for cross-community support, and he is absolutely right to highlight that important part of the arrangements in Northern Ireland. Therefore, would he accept that when the noble Lord, Lord Empey, read out various paragraphs of the proposal from Boris Johnson to the European Union at that time, he seemed to overlook and omit a key paragraph of part of that? He has done this on a number of occasions. It is that those proposals could happen only with the full consent of unionists and nationalists, not just in the Northern Ireland Assembly but in the Executive—so both nationalists and unionists would have an absolute lock on whether it happened or not. That is something that, of course, now unionists in Northern Ireland would take your right arm off for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention and I wholeheartedly agree with him. It is now on the record, and I think it would have been good to read that part into the record as well.

The sad reality is that the goalposts have been moved recently. Because, in the vote taken in the Northern Ireland Assembly, for the first time—50 years—they have now declared there is no need for a cross-community vote. Members in this House have campaigned that this was so essential. The Belfast agreement was quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, tonight. The Belfast agreement.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

Sacrosanct.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

It is sacrosanct; it cannot be changed. Yet the reality is that, for this vote, it is being put into the bin and now it must be a simple majority vote. That is despicable, that is disgraceful and those who support it ought to be ashamed.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I was not going to speak, but I feel I should, given some of the commentary around the House—some of it, quite frankly, was not correct. I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Dodds corrected some of the commentary from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, in relation to 2019. Of course, we know that the reasons we got to 2019 were laid in 2017, in relation to the Prime Minister’s negotiations and how she set the agenda at that time.

One area I will raise again, like other noble Lords and noble Baronesses, is openness and transparency. Again, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee concluded that wider consultation would have been desirable. I take the point that was made about the level of scrutiny in the other place being fleeting at best. When I read through Hansard for the other place, I was, frankly, shocked at the level of scrutiny that had taken place.

Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme) Regulations 2023

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and I am very pleased that he has raised his concerns about these regulations on retail and plant safety made under the Windsor Framework. I share those concerns on two main grounds.

First, there is the impact on trade, about which noble Lords have spoken. I draw your Lordships’ attention again to the report of the European Affairs Committee’s sub-committee on the Windsor Framework in respect of plant trade. It pointed out that plants such as prunus, hazel and hawthorn are on the prohibited list and so must use the red lane. As noble Lords know, these are vital to the hedgerows and ecosystems of both islands: the whole of the island of Ireland, including Northern Ireland, and of the UK. We ought to look at the problem as a whole.

My second concern is about who can send or receive these items. To the best of my knowledge, unless you are a registered provider you cannot use the green lane. This will eliminate internet providers, many of which are small businesses that rely on internet trade. It will undermine such providers’ competitiveness. Needless to say, I am also concerned about the impact of these regulations on producers in Northern Ireland, who will suffer a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis the Dublin Government’s arrangements with the EU.

Finally, the constitutional status of Northern Ireland should prompt His Majesty’s Government to rethink the whole premise of the Windsor Framework. I understand that it is an easement, but it should be seen as an easement in some respects for certain areas of trade and certain traders. It should not be seen as an end in itself until the whole arrangement respects the constitutional status of Northern Ireland under both the Good Friday/Belfast agreement and the protocol. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, referred to Article 1(2), but the whole protocol respects the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. We are undermining that by giving our consent to regulations that do not accept the premise of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement or even the Northern Ireland protocol.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, at paragraph 7.10 the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“The Windsor Framework establishes a new, sustainable and durable framework for GB-NI trade … This instrument is required in order to implement the Framework”.


In coming to consider the regulations before us, it is possible to assess whether they are worth while only if noble Lords first ask what their purpose is? As other noble Lords have mentioned, both instruments relate to EU Regulation 2023/1231, whose object is to affirm and effect two different border arrangements, one of which is less destructive than the other. As such, the regulations are not about removing any sense of border in the Irish Sea, as the Prime Minister suggested, but rather they are concerned with providing two different border experiences. Notwithstanding their differences, they are both united in upholding a border that can be negotiated only with an export number, customs and SPS paperwork—the extent of which, as my colleagues have said, varies depending on which set of border arrangements you use—at least 100% documentary checks, 5% to 10% identity checks and some physical checks at border control posts. This plainly does not give effect to the reintegration of Northern Ireland into the UK single market but, rather, puts in place mechanisms to process the challenges arising from the fact that, rather than Northern Ireland being integrated and enjoying unfettered customs and SPS access, fettering is being put in place, with costs and profit-loss margins recalculated and commercial decisions revised accordingly.

Given that rather than removing the border, these regulations are concerned just with the details of the border arrangement and the extent of SPS border bureaucracy and cost, the question necessarily arises about whether it is right to support regulations that have the effect of affirming and effecting aspects of the border and EU Regulation 2023/1231. The question is: why have a border? What is it for? It is there to protect the integrity of the different legal regime that exists in Northern Ireland from what might come to Northern Ireland and from the different legal regime that exists in Great Britain. That confronts us with a central difficulty that some might be willing to paper over and ignore but that we unionists living in Northern Ireland have not the luxury of ignoring: the fact that every one of the different laws in Northern Ireland is a result of legislation that has been imposed on us by the EU without our consent.

The Windsor regulations are concerned with navigating the border and thus affirm it in at least two ways. First, they authenticate the border by making provision for dealing with it through EU regulation 1231, which is based on the existence of the border. Secondly, in engaging with the EU regulation that I have mentioned, the regulations inevitably authenticate the principles set out at the heart of Article 14: that the EU can impose a division on the body politic of the United Kingdom as exists between separate states. Some 700 different pieces of legislation have been imposed on us since January 2021, and of course over time the divergence will become greater as more new EU laws are passed and as more laws are made by Westminster. EU laws will be imposed on Northern Ireland without any representation or democratic accountability. I ask Members of your Lordships’ House whether that is acceptable? Would it be acceptable for England, Scotland or Wales? Why, then, for Northern Ireland? The border created by these regulations must be rejected not only because it places obstacles between Northern Ireland and our main market in GB but because it is a symbol of our denial of full democratic rights within the United Kingdom. It tells us, the long-suffering people who have recently endured a murderous campaign for over 30 years, that while the people of England, Wales and Scotland are worthy of the right to stand for election to make the laws to which they are subject, the people of Northern Ireland are not. The right that we should enjoy, being British, is having a common citizenship with every other citizen of the United Kingdom, but these regulations prove otherwise and therefore ought not to be accepted.

When we carefully consider what we are asked to support today in these regulations, I say so much for respecting the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom and the consent principle which we were told lay at the very heart of the Belfast agreement. The agreement said

“it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people”.

It prohibits any change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland that involves a shift away from government by the United Kingdom towards more government by the Republic of Ireland or the EU, save with the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. The words “any change” include the threat that often emanates from some Members opposite, that if unionists do not get back to Stormont, Northern Ireland will be governed by a cabal of UK and Republic of Ireland Ministers. In reality, the suggestion is to bin the central principle of the Belfast agreement—an international agreement, we are told, that numerous Governments across the world heralded as historic and must not be broken; it is set in stone. However, the Government have chosen to mark the 25th anniversary of the Belfast agreement by rejecting parts of it in agreeing the Windsor Framework and hoping that no one notices.

The Windsor Framework and its forerunner, the Northern Ireland protocol, were mischievously sold on falsehood. Learning the lessons of the past, unionists are fed up with successive Governments’ spin and will not be beguiled by it, but we will carefully scrutinise the substance. I notice that the spin continues—my noble friend Lord Weir referred to it—because the Government suggest that what is happening under the present arrangements, which started only on 1 October, is a resounding success, when, in fact, it has not been really implemented. That undermines credulity, but it satisfies the government spin-makers. We are told to welcome warmly the PM’s amazing achievement with Europe concerning the Windsor brake. However, it is a convoluted complaints procedure which, when the dressing is removed, has as much chance of succeeding as a genuine brake on Europe as refloating the “Titanic”.

Official Controls (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Wednesday 1st March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention as it will allow me to conclude—to the relief of the House—very quickly. He is right about the nature of the vote but wrong about the context. In the first place, under the Government of Ireland Act and the Good Friday agreement, trade is a reserved matter. It was a decision of this Parliament, and the beginning of the change from the May agreement—Johnson’s agreement at least mentioned the Northern Ireland Assembly, which was not mentioned a few months earlier. It is part of the long struggle to deal with significant parts of the democratic deficit. I take the noble Lord’s point completely. You could argue that it would be better if it was a different style of vote.

However, in this new White Paper we have the announcement of a new Stormont brake, where the voting system is exactly what the noble Lord wants. Suddenly we discover that we have a voting system for a petition of concern. It is exactly what has been asked for, but it is still not good enough. There is a point at which one really has to respond to the seriousness of the moment.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I know it may dismay some Members that noble Lords from Northern Ireland want to speak on the future of our country. We were expecting this debate not to be at this time but earlier on. However, seemingly the usual channels decided to put it off so that other Members could get home and would not be inconvenienced.

I support everything that my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn said in his introduction to this debate. What we are witnessing, through the powers that are being given here, is a Defra Secretary of State being given the powers to order permanent border control posts. That is undermining the authority and power of the Northern Ireland Assembly, because this is its responsibility.

Even though they believe this will undermine the union, the decision tonight will force the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly to acquiesce—even though they disagree with it. That is not an appropriate way to go forward.

I have sat in numerous debates in this House when the Benches opposite were absolutely packed with noble Lords expressing absolute horror that the Government would dare to ever think of introducing Henry VIII powers. Yet the Opposition Benches are empty tonight because it is to do with Northern Ireland. There has been much talk of the exercise of powers that my noble friend mentioned; they are also the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but whenever it suits the Government, they will take it and exercise it here. They say it is because the Assembly is not meeting. The Assembly is not meeting at this present moment, and there is agreement across all the major parties in Northern Ireland for reorganisation of health, but that did not come here, because they have full powers. They say that the health service is in such a crisis that we need this reorganisation now. Well, why has it not been brought here when they are able to do it on other occasions? It suits them: they believe by not doing it, even though there is a crisis in the health service in Northern Ireland, that will force the DUP back in because there is constant pressure.

Tonight, we had it once again. At the beginning of the week, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, told us that if we did not accept the agreement between the European Union and the Prime Minister that was coming—even though he did know at that time what it really was; it was not called the Windsor Framework at that time—unionists should “just remember this”. He was looking across at us and said: “It is not going to be rule from Westminster; it will be joint authority with Dublin.” That was the threat that came from the Lib Dems at the beginning of the week, and now we have a threat today from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, just to add to it. If that did not make us sit up—we have been told a number of things—we will “pay a price at the ballot box”. With the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and the noble Members of this House, the Democratic Unionist Party is always happy to go to the ballot box; that is where we get the authority for our stand and the support. We have been written off so many times. As the Democratic Unionist Party in this House, we have been told what the people of Northern Ireland want and what unionist people want. Yet many of the people who say that have seldom, if ever, been to the Province, but they know what they people of Ulster are thinking; they know what unionist family is thinking. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, “If you don’t accept what you are given now, we’ll change the Assembly rules”—that was tonight, that was him. We are being to do what we are told: “Sit in the corner and do what you are told, or else. This is what you’ll get, and you’ll have to suck it up.” So much for the Belfast agreement.

The Belfast agreement is premised on cross-community support. Members across the Benches, in every debate about Northern Ireland, said that the Belfast agreement is sacrosanct and the greatest treaty in the world, and nothing—but nothing—must be done to undermine it. But, when it does not suit the Benches opposite, or even some Members on the Benches around us, they tell us that they will change the rules.

Agriculture Bill

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 20th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendment 18B in the name of my noble friend Lord Curry. The issue of maintaining animal welfare and environmental standards is of huge concern, as has been mentioned by many noble Lords. We have previously received a number of assurances from the Government, which are undoubtedly sincere, but there is legitimate concern to see that assurances are turned into deliverable action to create systems and mechanisms that provide a degree of independent advice and scrutiny to government.

As the UK starts negotiating its own trade agreements as an independent sovereign state, we have a chance to clearly demonstrate by actions, not just words, that we will negotiate on the basis that equivalent animal welfare standards and suitable environmental standards apply to the food we import, just as they apply to that which we produce ourselves. This is not about protectionism but giving our farmers a level playing field to compete on, and setting out a global exemplar position on animal welfare and the environment.

Last week, I had the pleasure, coming back from our local town, of passing a field of beef cows, with their well-grown calves at foot, contentedly grazing amid the woods and hills of Perthshire, all in a lovely wildlife-rich, biodiverse environment. Are we going to risk exchanging that for feedlot cattle that live their life on bare earth and are fed soya; or, worse, cattle reared not on natural grassland but on cleared rainforest? The UK is rightly proud of its climate change commitments, but what is the point of trying to reduce our agricultural carbon emissions if we import beef from cleared rainforests?

The creation of the Trade and Agriculture Commission was a welcome step and it will set out a framework for future trade deals, but it will cease to function by January. I submit that there will be a need for continuing advice and scrutiny. Why would any Government not want a readily available, very affordable pool of independent expertise to consult? For imported food, to protect our food safety, there is the Food Standards Agency. To protect animal and plant health there are the international sanitary and phytosanitary protocols. There is a deficit in independent oversight for animal welfare and environmental standards on imported products.

The amendment proposes that Parliament and a continuing Trade and Agriculture Commission should provide that oversight. If the Government object to this revised amendment, will they consider bringing forward their own suitable amendment in the other place? That would go a long way to assuage the very real concerns of the public—let us not forget the NFU petition which over a million people signed—and the legitimate concerns of the welfare and environmental bodies, the veterinary profession and our farmers. What is there not to like?

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 16B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and Amendment 18B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. We have the opportunity through this legislation to shape future policy on food production, standards, the environment and animal welfare. Surely it is imperative that we do so, ensuring that those who produce our food to the highest standard are protected from unfair competition.

The rejection of the previous amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Curry, was a blow for UK agriculture and consumers. I appreciate that the Government have on several occasions repeated their commitment not to lower food safety standards, which are presently safeguarded under UK law, but I cannot understand why they are so hesitant to strengthen their arm in putting this clearly down in legislation. Flooding the UK market with cheap imports, with lower standards, would have a serious and detrimental effect on our farming industry and place UK food and farming in serious jeopardy. It surely cannot be right to negotiate any international trade agreement without securing clear food, food safety, hygiene, traceability, and animal health and welfare standards.

Verbal commitments are insufficient and can be easily set aside, as we witnessed during other recent negotiations. We need to set the parameters without ambiguity. What happened in the other place was a missed opportunity and we must do our best to rectify it. There is absolutely no excuse for us not granting Parliament a firm and coherent role in any future trade deals. For the Government to demand the highest standards from their own food producers, with all the considerable cost implications, while not demanding the same rigorous standards from those importing food to the United Kingdom, is unacceptable. The House must endeavour to press the Government on this issue by supporting the amendments. They are not wrecking amendments; they are constructive and deserve our support. They would permit a level playing field for all food producers and grant the necessary protection for the consumer.

Agriculture Bill

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 17th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

I have received a request from the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, to ask a short question of elucidation.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]]

To clarify, does the Minister believe that the term “exceptional adverse conditions” covers exceptional events such as extreme weather and serious diseases, which can cause major financial problems for farmers and food security? Does this Bill cover them?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I assure the noble Lord that this Bill will cover those situations.

Agriculture Bill

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interest in a small farm holding, which is in the register of interests. I also pay tribute to the courteous and patient manner with which the Minister has dealt with a very wide range of amendments debated since the Bill has been in Committee.

I appreciate that the Bill deals primarily with the needs of England, but it contains powers which are relevant to Northern Ireland and provides certainty for the distribution of direct support to local farmers for the forthcoming year. The continuity provided by the Bill will afford the devolved Minister time and space to bring forward new proposals for longer-term farm support in Northern Ireland.

It is, however, of great regret that the other place rejected the inclusion of measures which would have upheld standards of imports in a number of areas, including food, welfare and environmental standards. The amendment tabled in the other place would have been a welcome addition, and this House must right that wrong and give protection to consumers and farmers. It is vital that we do not outsource our food production to countries which do not have the same high standards as our farmers have to comply with. The Bill should be sent back to the other House reflecting this. That is why I support Amendment 271, which places an obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure that the standards to which any agricultural or food product imported into the United Kingdom under a trade agreement are processed and produced are equivalent to or exceed the relevant domestic standards and regulations relating to animal health and welfare, protection of the environment, food safety, hygiene, traceability and plant health. The standards that British farmers adhere to, with significant cost implication for them, leaves them at a price disadvantage compared to cheaper imports.

It is also worth noting that producers and agri-food businesses stand to be doubly hit if the threat from barriers within the UK internal market stemming from the Prime Minister’s disastrous agreement on the Northern Ireland protocol are not mitigated. Therefore, I also strongly support Amendment 270 on the creation of an international food standards commission with legal standing to scrutinise import standards for food. This would help to ensure a level playing field for our farmers and no future dilution of standards.

While the establishment of the UK Trade and Agriculture Commission and the inclusion of the UFU representation is a welcome step in ensuring that the interests of local producers are represented, it must be more than a talking shop. There must be legislative protection. Advisory reports are not legally binding, and although Ministers Eustice and Truss in the other place have indicated they wish to act in good faith, agriculture needs firm guarantees.

The recent pandemic has demonstrated the importance of food security in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is evident that there is growing support for British produce. The Government’s approach to trade talks and funding must reflect the desire of any local farmer to maintain exemplary standards, to produce safe food and to ensure that our environment is safeguarded for future generations.

In the current climate farmers need certainty and continuity. Agriculture is the cornerstone of job creation and growth in the Northern Ireland economy, sustaining approximately 100,000 jobs and adding value in the region of £1.5 billion to that economy. That contribution must be sustained for the future. We welcome the Government’s commitment to retain the same level of direct support to farmers until the end of this Parliament. However, we must have the same commitment around replacement funding for rural development funding. I trust the Government will listen to the views clearly expressed by numerous Members of your Lordships’ House and will make the necessary changes to this Bill.

Agriculture Bill

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 10th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]]

I draw noble Lords’ attention to my interests in the register and express my total disappointment that my noble friend Lord Morrow could not participate in this debate, even though he had prepared for it.

Under the Bill, the Government would be required to report on the state of the nation’s food security every five years. Surely this is a relevant and important measure in the light of the empty shelves and food queues that we have experienced in recent months—something that I had never experienced before in my lifetime. However, I am convinced that farmers throughout the United Kingdom believe that this should be strengthened in the Bill and made a yearly requirement instead of a five-yearly one. By doing so, the Government and producers would have a clear understanding of how much of our nation’s food comes from domestic producers, thereby assisting us in our endeavours to be as self-sufficient as possible. I believe that this would be in the national interest, and I encourage the farming industry to be both stable and efficient in future.

With Brexit, the United Kingdom is fundamentally reassessing its trade relationship with partners in the European Union and the rest of the world. I have no doubt that many see major opportunities for the United Kingdom but undoubtedly there are also challenges. These trade negotiations coincide with one of the most serious crises that the world has faced in a generation, in the form of the coronavirus, and the ongoing challenges of climate change and biodiversity decline. A future trade policy that undermines our farmers will mean that a common goal of a more prosperous, sustainable and nature-friendly food and farming sector will be made much harder to achieve, and our nation’s already declining food self-sufficiency and security will continue to be eroded. The UK will also have missed an opportunity to set out its stall as being serious about tackling its global footprint and being at the forefront of sustainable production and climate-friendly farming across the world.

If UK farming is to face a future as a vital strategic sector, producing the food that we eat and meeting the challenges of climate change, food and security and the high expectations of the UK public in the way that we treat our farm animals and wildlife, the Bill must not undermine that very goal by allowing in food imports that fail to meet its high ideals. As in Northern Ireland, farmers and growers across the United Kingdom are very proud of their high standards of production. It is important that UK farmers are not in any way unfairly disadvantaged through the imposition of high costs, direct or indirect, that are not shared by overseas competitors exporting food to the United Kingdom. It is therefore imperative that the Agriculture Bill is amended to ensure that agri-food imports are produced to environmental animal welfare and food safety standards that are at least equivalent to those required of producers in the United Kingdom, which are so highly valued by the British public.

The British Government stated that they had no intention of allowing the UK’s high standards of production to be undermined after the UK left the European Union, but that will be the outcome of allowing the import of food produced at a lower standard. UK consumers will be left hostage to food on the market that will be unsafe and our UK farming industry seriously undermined. If the Government fail to amend the Bill accordingly, I believe they will be failing not only our food-producing industry but the UK consumer.

Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for all the additional work he has had to undertake with regard to Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, this has come about because, as we know, there is no Northern Ireland Assembly or Executive to discuss and pass these Motions. However, I think all of us here hope that the ongoing talks taking place in Stormont will prove successful, and that might relieve the Minister. It is vital, however, that these Motions are agreed to protect animals and plants in Northern Ireland from disease, which can be imported from other countries, so I very much welcome the regulations. Northern Ireland has some of the best policies that defend animals and plants from imported disease. When the European Union certificate is replaced by the phytosanitary certificate, it will obviously involve additional administration. Can the Minister say who will bear the additional cost: the importer or the exporter, or will it be passed on to the public? Once again, I thank the Minister for all his work and for keeping the Northern Ireland Peers so well informed about these matters.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

I shall follow on from my noble friend. The Minister talked about the consultations between officials from Defra and the Irish Republic. Can he tell the House what consultations have taken place with the Ulster Farmers Union and the other groupings that represent farmers in Northern Ireland, and do they agree with the regulations before the House this evening?

Also, do any of these regulations have any connection with the backstop being demanded by Europe in the present negotiations? If they relate to the present negotiations and the backstop, which is opposed by many within Northern Ireland, certainly my colleagues in the Democratic Unionist Party will have to look afresh at these recommendations.

My noble friend also asked about the burden being placed. Do any of the proposals place a greater burden on the agricultural and business community in Northern Ireland than those in the rest of the United Kingdom? Who will bear the financial responsibility for that?