Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme: Plant Health) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts(1Â month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, time does not permit me to reiterate or examine the constitutional issues that this SI raises. They have been dealt with by a number of other speakers. Nor can I comment on whether those constitutional concerns are in any way ameliorated in practice by the impact on the plant health trade. I have to confess that plant health is not something I know a great deal about; I suspect I may not be alone in the Chamber on that.
In the Explanatory Memorandum for this SI, the Government themselves indicate that there was no consultation on the SI. It was felt to be not necessary, so it is hard to see how the Government can also say with confidence that this is of practical benefit. It is clear that while this SI would align the whole of the UK with the EU, it does not create any compensating removal of the internal border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It leaves in place, for retail movements, an export licence, customs declarations, SPS checks and identity checks. The Government may be able to claim that this is at a reduced level than it would otherwise have been, but the one thing they cannot do is claim that this creates an unfettered or frictionless border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. That creates a major problem for the future.
As has been indicated, we are moving into further reset discussions. We wait to see what direction the new Prime Minister takes. I simply say that if we reach a point at which, at the end of those reset arrangements, we have full alignment on SPS with the EU while leaving in place an internal border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it is not the much-vaunted best of both worlds. We are leaving ourselves in the worst of all possible worlds.
Electricity Bills: VAT Removal
Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts(2Â months, 2Â weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I remind my noble friend that they left us with a black hole of ÂŁ22 billion. Among other matters, there was ÂŁ2.6 billion of new unfunded policy announcements, ÂŁ6.4 billion for asylum and illegal migration, which was not funded, and ÂŁ9.4 billion for pay awards, which was not funded. We need to find a few hundred million pounds to help the people most in need. I think that they should reflect on what they did in government.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we shall hear from the Cross Benches.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, any easing of the cost of living is to be welcomed. However, the Minister will be aware that the VAT reduction cannot be directly applied to Northern Ireland because of the rules of the Windsor Framework and the arrangements with the European Union. At best, we will have a situation in which a convoluted alternative route will have to be found, which clearly will lead at least to delays for consumers in Northern Ireland receiving any level of help. As this points to the need for a much deeper and longer-term solution, what action are the Government taking in the short term at least to get a derogation from the EU, so that Northern Ireland consumers can enjoy the same benefits as those in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
We know the issues around VAT in Northern Ireland, for example on electricity bills. The Northern Ireland Executive will receive comparable funding to enable them to support NI households with the cost of living. We have taken into consideration all the issues around the Windsor Framework, and we will continue to help the people most in need who live in Northern Ireland.
Inheritance Tax, National Insurance and VAT
Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts(1Â year, 8Â months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)[V]
Whatever the stated intentions of the Government are with this raft of measures, it is clear that the suspicion is that they are, at best, ideologically driven or, at worst, tribal in nature, with farmers, those sending their children to private education and even pensioners above the level of pension credit being seen as fair game. It is economically illiterate and, I believe, runs contrary to the Government’s aims.
No better example of this can be given than the proposed imposition of VAT on private schools. The negative impact of the diversion of pupils is not simply supposition or scaremongering but has been proven by experience. About 15 years ago, the then Sinn Féin Education Minister imposed a similar measure on prep schools in Northern Ireland, with the end result that fees rose by about 20%. The impact on families was that schools became unaffordable; some schools became unsustainable. The unintended consequence was that instead of parents paying 70% of the cost of their children’s education, the state was left to pay 100%. Some 15 years on, the number of prep schools in Northern Ireland has decreased by one-third as a result of these changes and the number of pupils attending those prep schools has declined by 40%. In pure financial terms, for every pound that was saved by the state, £2.30 has had to be spent in additional educational expenditure.
The real victims of this are not the very rich. They will survive all this raft of measures. The people who will really suffer are medium and small farmers, consumers, employees and many pensioners. I simply urge the Government to think again, look at the unintended consequences of this and, even at this eleventh hour, do a U-turn on this raft of deeply damaging proposals.
Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Follow-up Report (European Affairs Committee)
Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts(3Â years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I join others in commending the noble Lord and the committee for a thorough, fair and balanced report. Its conclusions do not surprise me. Along with the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, I served on the DUP panel examining the Windsor Framework and receiving a wide range of evidence from stakeholders, which is largely reflected in this report. Some highlighted that burdens had been eased and improvements made. I perfectly accept that, although as a unionist it sticks in the craw that, even when we see improvements, such as on family-to-family parcels or medicines, that is through the prism of what we are being granted, in Northern Ireland in particular and the UK in general, as effectively grace and favour from the European Union. We are told what we are permitted to do within the United Kingdom.
Leaving aside that major constitutional problem, the report strongly highlights a range of practical issues and concerns from businesses with real issues on the ground. They have highlighted a lack of clarity from government. In particular, the haulage industry is concerned that the Windsor Framework has made things worse than before. Sadly, the Government’s approach to this issue has too often been characterised by obfuscation, confusion, ambiguity and spin. Two key, telling themes of the report are that a number of recommendations seek clarity from the Government on what further steps need to happen and the somewhat divergent positions between what the UK Government and the EU say which creates a major problem.
I turn to what needs to happen for a way forward. In simple terms, we need to see the constitutional position of Northern Ireland restored and the effective removal of the sea border for Northern Ireland’s internal trade. That means strengthening the internal market to ensure that goods can flow well in both directions and addressing some of the very real concerns about the green lane, such that it is not prohibitive to small companies and does not become, as described by one witness, an express red lane. We also need to see a range of unresolved issues tackled, be they veterinary medicine or horticulture, and real democratic accountability. The Stormont brake falls well short of giving genuine say.
We need to see substance rather than spin. Had the Prime Minister delivered everything he said in February, we would probably not be that far off the mark, but, unfortunately, we have had platitudes rather than substance. We do not need a perishable product that looks very good and tastes brilliant on day one, is probably okay a week down the line, but is very quickly of no use. We need something durable and comprehensive. That is the real concern that needs to be addressed and met if we are to find a way forward.