Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Follow-up Report (European Affairs Committee)

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 11th September 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, open by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and his committee for this second excellent report—nine chapters and five appendices, with detailed evidence gathering, conclusions and questions for the Government. I, too, have not read the letter that the Government provided today, but the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, described it as “gritty”. That bodes well that it is answering some of the detailed questions raised. I think that the noble Baroness said that it corrected some of the points—but, no, she is shaking her head on that. Nevertheless, it is a gritty answer to the report of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, which is a good thing. My noble friend Lord Hain described the committee as a “right handful”, and I noticed that nobody demurred from that assessment of the committee—but I suspect that that is a compliment to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, as well.

The report looked in turn at all the areas covered by the framework. In each case, it set out an overview of the UK’s and EU’s respective positions on how the framework’s arrangements will work, and the evidence that the committee received from business representatives, Northern Ireland experts and other stakeholders. Overall, the committee concluded that

“the Windsor Framework is an improvement on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland as originally negotiated”.

We in the Opposition agree wholeheartedly with this principal conclusion. Nevertheless, the committee goes on to say:

“Nevertheless, it is evident that the Windsor Framework does not resolve all the problems with the Protocol”.


For instance, while some witnesses highlighted the benefits of the new red and green lane arrangements, the committee heard that they would not be available to all businesses.

We hope that the red and green lane system will prove beneficial to eligible businesses and by extension to consumers, who will be able to buy products that were essentially banned under the unamended protocol. However, as the Library briefing note says, it does not cover all businesses and would require many businesses—SMEs in particular—to prepare for and implement yet another set of changes to how they operate on a day-to-day basis.

The committee heard concerns from witnesses about

“the technical and legal complexity of the Windsor Framework, and the multiple documents and legal texts that form part of it”.

Witnesses were also concerned about

“the lack of operational detail”

against

“the backdrop of tight deadlines for compliance”.

The committee said it would explore with stakeholders in the autumn whether the new guidance published by the Government from June 2023 onwards has answered these concerns. I had a brief chat with the noble Lord, Lord Jay, before this meeting, and I am pleased that the committee is continuing its work up until the general election.

The committee found that the solutions reached on VAT and excise were

“pragmatic compromises between the UK and EU positions”.

It believed the compromise on state aid

“gives rise to some uncertainty”.

While the pharmaceutical industry “strongly welcomed” the solution on human medicines, the committee said that an agreement on veterinary medicines

“remains elusive, and is urgently required”.

The committee will be aware that the Government have now agreed terms for the UK to return to the EU’s Horizon and Copernicus schemes, which the noble Lord, Lord Godson, referred to. Although these are not directly related to the protocol and Windsor Framework, which we are debating, this is an example of how the UK-EU relationship has changed for the better. In fact, we in the Opposition argued that returning to Horizon is the lowest hanging fruit post-Windsor, and yet it has still taken six to seven months for the Government to get it over the line. We continue to believe that the Brexit agreement can be improved. While we would not seek to renegotiate the protocol again, our talks with EU partners suggest that a more constructive approach would enable add-on deals that benefit both Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

The committee found that the new Stormont brake mechanism “divides opinion” between those who see it as an

“innovative attempt to give Northern Ireland politicians a voice over the application of EU law to Northern Ireland”

and those who believe it will have a “negligible impact” because of its “stringent conditions” and “limited scope”.

We are expecting five SIs to be debated in the coming weeks in order to implement various aspects of the Windsor Framework ahead of them going live. I would like to ask the Minister what engagement has been carried out with Northern Ireland colleagues, of all parties and none, prior to those SIs being drawn up and laid. The very presence of these SIs puts into sharp contrast the importance of getting Stormont back up and running, partly to facilitate potential use of the Stormont brake under the framework, but primarily to bring an end to the democratic deficit faced by Northern Ireland citizens.

In conclusion, in August this year, the Secretary of State Mr Heaton-Harris said that talks with the DUP were “half way there” to re-establishing an Executive and Assembly. There was further speculation in today’s Times about ongoing talks. I hope the Minister can say at least something about the intensity of those ongoing discussions and where they may lead.