Official Controls (Plant Health) and Phytosanitary Conditions (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Morrow and Lord Dodds of Duncairn

Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

Does the noble Lord also accept that, as well as those capital costs, which are very significant, we have to add the £450 million-odd going into the Trader Support Service, the Movement Assistance Scheme and other schemes, adding up to hundreds of millions of pounds being thrown down the drain at a time when we are told that there is no money available for public services?

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

I thank my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, who is forensic on this issue. He has again pointed out that the figure I have mentioned is but a fraction, and I thank him for making that point.

In the second instance, as the Explanatory Memorandum makes plain, if the UK Government judge that Heterobasidion irregulare, known to cause annosus root and butt rot, poses a non-acceptable risk to GB, would that not also pose an unacceptable risk to the rest of the United Kingdom? Similarly, if the United Kingdom Government have judged that specific import requirements must be imposed in relation to—this has been referred to—Popillia japonica, which is simply a Japanese beetle, because it is spreading in Europe, and that therefore it warrants additional measures to prevent its entry into GB, does the spread in the rest of Europe not similarly constitute a threat to the biosecurity of Northern Ireland? If the Minister’s answer is to be the same as her answer to us of 29 January on the related biosecurity foot and mouth question, I say respectfully that that will not do.

The levels of protection that the UK Government insisted on for GB—and rightly so—could not have been more different from those that the EU provided for Northern Ireland. The UK has abdicated its biosecurity responsibilities in relation to Northern Ireland, as the noble Baroness said. In this context, the claim by the Minister in the other place that Northern Ireland farms are just as important looks quite limp, downright pathetic and absurd.

The Minister responded, saying,

“he rightly laid out the situation that Northern Ireland is in as being part of the EU regulations and the fact there is a surveillance zone in Germany. I want to stress that the EU takes its biosecurity responsibilities for something like foot and mouth extremely seriously. There had not been a foot and mouth outbreak in Germany since 1988, so this is very significant for them”.—[Official Report, 29/1/25; cols. 359-60.]

That may not be as reassuring as some would perhaps want it to be, because we have heard this evening a charge of a dereliction of duty. Would there be any remote possibility that Europe could show a dereliction of duty at times too, or have we just to utterly trust it? Quite frankly, I am one who would not be prepared to utterly trust it. It is not enough to say that in Northern Ireland biosecurity standards are now determined by a different country from the rest of us, whose Government you do not elect and cannot change, but not to worry as they are very good in their duties. That is not acceptable any more.

The answer also fails the Windsor Framework because it demonstrates how its operation is now failing in its own terms. Article 1 of the Windsor Framework is designated as having very specific function by means of its heading, “Objectives”. I will not go into those because my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has already articulated that very well. If the Government are to fully and faithfully implement the Windsor Framework, the task of ensuring that its operation is faithful to those objectives is plainly of the utmost importance.

Furthermore, the objectives include a requirement that the Windsor Framework respects the territorial integrity and essential state functions of the United Kingdom. The regulations before us today do neither; they divide the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland into two, with an international SPS border, disrespecting the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom of GB and Northern Ireland. They testify to the fact that an essential state security function has been passed from the UK to the European Union, in whose legislature, Executive and judiciary the UK is not represented.

In her response to the debate, I very much hope that the Minister will not suggest that a veterinary agreement with the EU is the answer, for I must tell the House emphatically that it is not. If the Government negotiate an SPS agreement with the EU that will not remove the Irish Sea border or restore the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom, because the United Kingdom will still be divided into two by an international customs border and subject to EU law in all manner of areas—law that we do not make and cannot change—that is just not acceptable. We will still be subject to the EU customs code, which deems that Great Britain is a foreign country in relation to Northern Ireland.

In this, it is my purpose not to offer a counsel of despair—far from it. The truth is that the way the Government are managing the movement of non-qualifying Northern Ireland goods from Northern Ireland to GB, in respect of these and the other SPS regulations, through the Official Controls (Amendment) Regulations and without SPS checks on the border, already provides the answer of how to manage the SPS checks on the international border. However, things can be made even more robust by adopting mutual enforcement, which has already been mentioned by a number of speakers this evening. That has been developed within the EU Commission by Sir Jonathan Faull, together with the academics Professor Joseph Weiler and Professor Daniel Sarmiento, and it provides a means of protecting the integrity of both the United Kingdom internal market for goods and the EU internal market for goods without a hard border across the island of Ireland. I pose the question: what is so desperately wrong with that, when, in fact, it does not hurt either territory? There has to be some other reason that the Government must tell us.

If the current delivery mechanism of the Windsor Framework was exchanged for SPS checks away from the border, as is already the case on west-east movements together with mutual enforcement, the objectives of the Windsor Framework, as set out in Article 1, would be clearly met. Not only would the territorial integrity and the essential state functions of the United Kingdom be respected but the other components of the objectives of the Windsor Framework, as set out in Article 1, could then be fulfilled: namely, protecting the Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions. While I will not digress on that point, the reasons that the current Windsor Framework, far from protecting the Good Friday agreement in all its parts, constitutes the greatest existential threat to the 1998 agreement were eloquently set out recently in an important article in one of our local papers.

There are some strong advocates in this House for the Belfast agreement, and I fail to understand why they are silent on this matter, because it is not being protected. I appreciate that, in 2019, the EU decided that it preferred the Irish Sea border to mutual enforcement, but now we are in a situation where it is clear, in 2025—in part courtesy of the regulations before us today—that the changes necessitated by the Windsor Framework are causing it to contradict, violate and undermine its own objectives as set out by Article 1. The issue must be revisited as a matter of urgency.

In conclusion, I hope that the regulations before us today can rapidly be withdrawn and replaced by regulations that are not implicated in the division of the United Kingdom into two and in the ceding of essential state functions to an entity of which we are not a part. I stress, lest the Minister might be tempted to point this out, that Northern Ireland has been part of the same epidemiological unit since long before the introduction of the Irish Sea border. This point is well understood and is not relevant, because it was never objected to. What is objected to is Northern Ireland being divided from the rest of the United Kingdom by a customs border and an international SPS measure which necessitates Northern Ireland being disenfranchised in hundreds of areas of law.

Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Morrow and Lord Dodds of Duncairn

Report stage
Wednesday 6th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak to Amendments 2A, 4, 16, 35A and 37, and I point out at the commencement that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, is a signatory to them but regrettably is unable to be with us today due to domestic circumstances. We wish him well and I thank him for attaching his name to them. My noble friend Lord Browne, to my left, will speak on some of these amendments in place of the noble Lord, Lord Empey.

I want to be very clear from the outset that the view of the DUP is that the two commissioners are different and their functions do not need to be made identical; indeed, we do not believe that making them identical would be appropriate. However, it is vital, not least in order to respect the principle of parity of esteem, that both commissioners be respected by all parts of government and society as equally important. One key way in which this respect needs to be manifest is in ensuring that the amounts of public money devoted to both are comparable. In making this point, I observe that the Explanatory Notes suggest that the funding for both commissioners will be similar, but it is my contention that this assertion is made on a problematic basis. The costing is assessed narrowly, in terms of the direct costs of running the offices of two commissioners, but that is surely just a fraction of the impact—certainly of the Irish language commissioner—on the public purse.

One can only have any hope of assessing the impact of the provision of the commissioners if, in addition to assessing the relevantly limited cost of running their offices, one has regard also for the budgetary impact they will have in placing additional demands on public authorities. It is in relation to their impact on public authorities that the real cost of the commissioners will be felt, and it is important, especially in the context of the current cost of living crisis, that we are open and honest about this fact.

The relevant public authorities are defined by the Public Services Ombudsman Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, which lists well over 70 public authorities in Northern Ireland. If we consider the principal aim of the Irish language commissioner, described in new Section 78K(1) as,

“enhance … the use of the Irish language”,

it is possible that every single public authority in that long list will be in receipt of significant new obligations and costs, relating to the provision of the services of the public authority in question in Irish. They will, however, also benefit from a duty to have regard to obligation being placed on public authorities in relation to them and the complaints procedure with respect to the entirety of their obligations as defined by the Irish language commissioner.

By contrast, the role of the Ulster Scots commissioner is also defined in terms of the same list of public authorities, the principal aim of the commissioner, to

“enhance … the language, arts and literature”,

of Ulster Scots, rather than enhancing the use of the language, as described in new Section 78Q(1), is such that while it is clear that some public authorities concerned with culture and the arts will be engaged, it is also likely that the demands placed on the long list of others, including, for example, the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority, the Health and Safety Executive, the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, et cetera, will be very limited indeed.

Put another way, while every public authority is equally and extensively open to engagement by the Irish language commissioner, because all public authority services must be provided in the context of the use of language, it seems to me that every public authority is not as equally and as extensively engaged by the Ulster Scots/Ulster-British commissioner.

At this point, I should perhaps anticipate the response that the Bill makes reference to the role of the Ulster Scots/Ulster-British commissioner in terms of,

“facilitating the use of Ulster Scots in the provision of services to the public or a section of the public in Northern Ireland”.

However, while the principal role of the Irish language commissioner, as described in new Section 78K(1), is focused on enhancing the use of the language in public service provision, the parallel principal role of the Ulster Scots commissioner is defined in terms of enhancing the language, literature and arts of Ulster Scots. Although facilitating the use of Ulster Scots by public authorities in service provision is by no means off limits, the fact that it is not front and centre, as in the case of the Irish language commissioner, is underlined by the fact that reference to it does not occur in the principal role definition when it is mentioned lower down, as in new Section 78R(2)(b) where it is only in brackets.

In response to the debate on costs in Committee, the Minister referred simply to the Explanatory Note, which focuses narrowly on the costs of running the three organisations, not on the cost to the public purse with respect to public authorities. In responding to that debate, the Minister stated also that it was not the business of Westminster to get involved in monitoring the costs of the new bodies. I accept that point, after the bodies are established.

My Amendment 37, however, pertains to the period before the Bill comes into force and so is directed at Westminster and Whitehall. While it is not our job to run offices, it is our job to make this legislation very clear about the costs for which Northern Ireland must prepare. Amendment 37 requires that, before this Act can come into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report assessing both the operational costs of setting up and running the three offices, and the costs to public authorities of engaging with the new commissioners and their requirements. Critically, it requires also that this assessment demonstrates how the resulting spending allocation, including that from the public authorities, will give effect to the principle of the parity of esteem between the unionist and nationalist communities.

Amendments 4, 16 and 35A would place a similar obligation on the First and Deputy First Ministers for once the two commissioners are up and running in order to ensure that the spending allocations to each community are broadly comparable. Amendment 2A applies the same obligation in relation to their assessment of the spending of the office of identity and cultural expression.

I hope that the Minister is in a position to give the following assurances that I am looking for in speaking to these amendments today: first, that the role of both commissioners should be accorded equal importance; and, secondly, as a function of this, that the budgetary footprint left by each commissioner in terms of their impact on public authorities should be broadly the same. In responding to the debate today, I ask that the Minister directly addresses these two points. I beg to move.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I will very briefly add a word or two. By way of general introduction, I agree with noble Lords who have already said that this is a matter that should be decided and debated in the Northern Ireland Assembly rather than in this place. Of course, had the Government wished that to be the case, they could have left it to the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, it was a decision taken by Her Majesty’s Government to bring it here, and we are therefore debating it today. Nevertheless, we are now examining these matters in detail, and the other place will deal with this in due course.

Since I had spoken on this issue of accountability and financial responsibility in Committee, I wanted to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, in the amendments that he has set out, and to stress the point that the Minister in Committee said that these were matters for the Northern Ireland Assembly and therefore that it would be inappropriate to have Whitehall, the Northern Ireland Office or this Parliament have reports presented to them on expenditure in relation to these commissioners, bodies and so on. But the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, has referred on the costs to public authorities, which would require that a report be laid before the commencement of the Bill, is right and proper for this Parliament to consider. It is entirely right that the Comptroller and Auditor-General will examine the accounts of the commissioners’ offices, and I urge that that should also look at the parity issue in relation to the fairness of expenditure across the board between the two offices and the office of identity and cultural expression.

However, the impact on public authorities has not been adequately investigated or probed thus far. While the Minister referred to cost, which the noble Lord has alluded to, in the Explanatory Notes, as I understand it, the estimated cost to public authorities of fulfilling the requirements in terms of guidance and so on has never been set out. I would be grateful if the Minister could deal with that point in his response and indicate whether any study or work has been done with those public authorities which will be engaged and affected by this legislation and by the guidance that emerges from the commissioners’ offices. Has any work been done with them about the impact on them in terms of costs, where any budgetary pressures may emerge and how those will be met? This matter deserves a little more scrutiny. We have had representations on it, and I hope that the Minister can address it when he sums up.