Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025

Lord Morrow Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew (CB)]

I accept completely the point made by the noble Baroness.

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I have high regard and respect for the noble Lord, Lord Bew. I am always interested in listening to what he has to say on subjects such as this. I do not take lightly what he says, but I detect a sense of—although perhaps this not how he meant it—“If you see something that is not right, just turn your head and look the other way, and it will be all right”. It will not be all right. This House and the other place need soon to learn that it will not be all right when we have been removed and we have 300 areas of law which we cannot do anything about. If anyone thinks that that is acceptable in this wonderful, modern and democratic age in which we all live, then frankly, they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Lots of things are written down but they have been trumped by legislation. This evening, I do not so much blame the Minister. He has inherited a lot of bad things, but sometimes, you are better disowning some inheritances, and saying, “I’d prefer not to have that, thank you very much”. I have always found him to be courteous and respectful, and I thank him, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has, for facilitating a meeting quite recently which gave us an opportunity to look at things just a wee bit closer. He did not push back from that, and I hope he continues to do that in the future.

I support the regret amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. As the noble Baroness has explained to the House, there are two principal problems with the regulations before us today. The first pertains to undermining the citizenship of the people of Northern Ireland, such that this legislation applies to them automatically. It derives from the EU Commission, from which we are alienated twice: first, on account of it being unelected by anyone; and, secondly, on account of the fact that it is also foreign and thus effectively colonial. I have used that word in the past in debates and I know I got a frosty response, but I still think that it has to be said.

When challenged by the honourable Member for North Antrim, as has been raised not least by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, the Minister in the other place replied saying:

“There is no requirement to consult … These regulations apply automatically in Northern Ireland under the terms of the Windsor Framework and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”.


So, it does not matter what the people of Northern Ireland have to say—we are being treated as a colony now and not as a democratic place to live. Rather than providing an answer addressing the assault on the integrity of UK citizenship in Northern Ireland, the Minister’s response only served to set out a problem; it did not go for a solution.

The second problem pertains to the effective undermining of the citizenship of the people of the rest of the United Kingdom, as they are effectively encouraged—albeit with the covering dignity of the consultation which we are now denied—to surrender the freedoms afforded by Brexit to develop our law, and instead to become a rule taker from Brussels, like Northern Ireland. In short, the dead hand of Brussels still has its unwelcome grip on the region of the United Kingdom in which I live.

There may be some who would be tempted to say that in this, we are having our revenge, that we are showing those who thought that they could sacrifice Northern Ireland in order to get Brexit done for Great Britain that this is not possible. However, people who think like this do not understand unionism at all; they have no concept of it at all. The essence of unionism is that we are not just concerned about the well-being of the part of the United Kingdom from which we come; the essence of unionism is about recognising that we are more than the sum of our parts and that the well-being of each part is tied up in the well-being of every other part. It is the inherently relational nature of unionism that should make it, and not nationalism, the winning creed of our time.

So, no, I am very troubled about the prospect of Great Britain losing the benefits of Brexit, just as I have been very distressed by the undermining of the union by means of denying Brexit to Northern Ireland. Let me be very clear: to those who might stand in your Lordships’ House today or on another occasion and say that this is the cost of Brexit, I remind them that we did not get Brexit. I want your Lordships’ House today to take note of that.

I believe not only that we should benefit from Brexit but that the whole United Kingdom should do so, and that nothing should place that in jeopardy in any part of our country. The question on the ballot paper was, “Should the United Kingdom leave the European Union?”. It was not, “Should the United Kingdom break up and parts of it leave and parts of it stay?” Over 17 million people, in the biggest manifestation of democracy in the history of our islands, said yes. We are often told that Northern Ireland voted to remain. Well, so did Scotland and so did London. But we are never told that, for whatever reason. Maybe one day we will be.