Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between Lord Weir of Ballyholme and Baroness Hoey

3rd reading
Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I join with others in welcoming the robust yet civilised and courteous way in which this legislation has been debated. Obviously, at Third Reading, it is not appropriate to regurgitate all the arguments. However, given the significance of the Bill, it is also the case that it merits some level of, albeit brief, comment. While we have gone through this process, and I welcome the amendments that have been tabled to the Bill, they cannot render acceptable what is totally unacceptable.

We are still left with a Bill that is bad for the United Kingdom. We are not simply handing over sovereignty to Mauritius; we are paying it an expensive dowry to take over what has been British sovereign territory for 200 years.

From a defence point of view, we are left with a flawed situation. Rather than perhaps the jewel in the crown, we are left with a situation where, despite the assurances that have been given, we know, from a practical point of view, that we will see Mauritius in effect leasing out, in either official or unofficial form, to foreign powers—particularly the Chinese Government—surrounding islands. So, instead of a jewel in the crown, we will be left with a military base with a noose around it, ever tightening as time moves on.

In particular, even with the amendments, we have not dealt with the situation as regards our debt and duty to the Chagossians themselves. We have been left in a situation in which they have been denied complete access to the islands. They have no right of full self-return. More importantly, they have also been left without the right of self-determination.

This House has been united, as we saw a few moments ago, in rightly condemning what has been happening in Iran and supporting the Iranian people in their right of self-determination. This House, on a number of occasions, has utterly condemned the invasion of Ukraine and supported the right of Ukrainians to decide their own future. Similarly, I suspect that this House would be united in saying that the Greenlanders have the right to determine their own future and that it should not be imposed from the United States or anywhere else. The thread that runs through all three of these situations is the right of self-determination and democracy. That is the golden thread to which should be standing.

Yet, we are in a situation, as regards the Chagossians, that this can apply elsewhere in the world but, shamefully, not to the people who have actually looked to us to deliver for them. If we simply let this go through and the Government let this go through unaltered, we will lack the moral or political authority to dictate elsewhere in the world on the issue of self-determination. So I support the regret amendment in the perhaps vain hope that, by sending a signal today, we can at least say to the Government, “Think again before it is entirely too late”.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I very much support the amendment of regret and I am pleased it has been tabled. I find the word “regret” not nearly strong enough, because for me this will be a very sad day if the Bill goes through from the House of Lords to the other place.

Sentencing Bill

Debate between Lord Weir of Ballyholme and Baroness Hoey

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I apologise for my voice. I will try to keep going. It is not actually hurting the way it sounds, so noble Lords need not feel too much sympathy. I will follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and support Amendment 146, which I have signed.

Most of the Bill, as noble Lords know, does not apply to Northern Ireland, but Part 4 does. These very important amendments deal with deporting foreign criminals. I very much support the Government’s move to do that, but I hope the Committee needs no reminding that this House passed three Bills recently that it said applied to the whole United Kingdom, but we then discovered the courts overruled that. We had the Rwanda Act, the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the soon to be defunct legacy Act. We have had legal opinion from the former Attorney-General for Northern Ireland that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill will also not be able to apply. We were not able to bring in the export of live animals for slaughter Act to the whole United Kingdom as it does not apply in Northern Ireland.

The Minister is probably hearing this for the first time. Many Ministers have had to sit through statutory instruments in which those of us who wish to bring out the injustices of the Windsor Framework have been able to do so. However, Article 2 of the Windsor Framework overrules the sovereign Parliament; it very simply says that EU laws—laws that are not made in this House but by a foreign institution—overrule what our sovereign Parliament says. Whatever the history of this, and whatever party brought it in, we should all be beginning to realise that this is just not sustainable.

The three pieces of legislation to which I have referred have been overruled in respect of the people of Northern Ireland, due to parts of that legislation that offended EU rights and legislation. In the well-known Dillon case, the Court of Appeal decreed that it would disapply parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 because it offended rights supposedly given to victims by EU law. The relevant parts of the Dillon judgment are now before the Supreme Court, and we hope to get a judgment on that soon, which will give us more context to see how we are being affected by the Windsor Framework.

This specific amendment deals with the deportation of foreign criminals. As the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, pointed out, if a foreign criminal is an EU citizen already living in Northern Ireland and this law comes in, they will have enhanced protection against deportation. If they are not an EU citizen but a foreign criminal from somewhere else in the world who is living in Northern Ireland, they are also likely to have enhanced protections that they would not have if they were living in Great Britain, because of the importation of the reliance upon the European Charter Of Fundamental Rights. I do not need to tell noble Lords that Article 19 of the charter affords particular protections against deportation. It states that each deportation must be specifically examined and that there cannot be a provision for automatic deportation. Part 4 of this Bill is going to do precisely that: for a foreign criminal convicted in our courts, the presumption will be towards deporting them.

Anyone with any common sense must think that it would be outrageous if we end up with a law that says that a foreign criminal living in Great Britain and found guilty can be deported but that a foreign criminal living in another part of our own country, the United Kingdom, cannot. That is something we need to address. The Minister never seems to want to tell us whether he has had legal advice from the Attorney-General, but if he has, he will probably say that this is okay. But they have said that on three Bills, and each time they have been proved wrong. Noble Lords will forgive me if there is a little scepticism about how the Bill will apply to Northern Ireland.

It is an important issue not only for Northern Ireland’s citizens but for citizens of the whole of the United Kingdom. At some stage, we have to look at the constitutional issue of whether we can, in our own country, make our own laws that apply to the whole country. That really does need addressing.

As the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said, there is nothing about this in the Explanatory Notes—it has been completely ignored. The purpose of tonight’s amendment is to raise this issue and make it clear that many people believe that this will not be able to apply to Northern Ireland, and to ask the Minister to say very clearly that, if this Bill goes through, there will be an absolute determination—whatever it takes—to make sure that it applies in Northern Ireland.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. It is good to see that even a hoarse and croaky voice cannot silence her.

I am broadly in favour of the amendments in this group. I particularly commend Amendment 146, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, which offers a common-sense solution to a very real problem. As has been indicated by the previous two speakers, this is yet another problem that has undoubtedly arisen because of the protocol and the Windsor Framework. It is clear that we need a much more fundamental solution that tackles and recasts that relationship.

While we await that solution from government, and a recognition of the need to embrace that, we cannot simply sit on our hands and hope that everything will be alright until then, because this represents a real undermining of the Bill itself. Even the strongest supporter of the Windsor Framework or the protocol would have to admit that their application in these circumstances represents a high level of overreach. If the rationale behind our current arrangements with the EU as regards Northern Ireland is to regulate trade and try to protect the EU single market then the issues of the deportation of foreign criminals and immigration stand a mile away. They serve no purpose in the supposed objectives of that relationship.

There is a very good reason why issues around deportation are handled on a national basis, in whichever nation it happens to be. If there are regional variations within a country on issues such as deportation, that is, frankly, a road down which lies madness. That is what is being threatened by the current position we are left in. The Government in recent weeks have laid out a range of measures to try to help tackle and be serious about dealing with illegal immigration and foreign criminals, some of which are contained within this legislation. However, if the Government are to be successful in this objective, but do not tackle the issue relating to Northern Ireland, they leave their position fatally undermined.

This is not simply a constitutional affront and an outrage; it is a very real practical difficulty. If we are left with a situation in which this cannot be applied in Northern Ireland, or if a defence is offered by foreign national criminals to avoid deportation, this not only creates a situation in which Northern Ireland is treated as a second-class citizen but it leaves the whole of the UK vulnerable on this issue. Northern Ireland then becomes simply a back door to those criminals—a safe haven to either come in from or return to, with a perceived greater level of protection for those criminals than would be the case elsewhere. Wherever we set the boundaries on the issue of deportation, we need something that applies across the whole of the United Kingdom.

As outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, in particular, this is a real and practical issue. We have seen on a number of occasions, in particular in the three court rulings that the noble Baroness outlined, that this is not simply a theoretical debating issue but a practical issue in which rulings have been made. For instance, there are many in this House who would see deep flaws with the Rwanda Act, but the important thing about the ruling on that was that the courts said that EU law was supreme on this issue and therefore overruled the position in Northern Ireland, which meant that it could not be applied there. That renders the entire legislative process a nonsense. If we do not fix this, we will be left in exactly the same position.

So there is a challenge for the Government: they need to embrace what I think is a common-sense solution, to make their own legislation work better. I look forward to the response from the Minister. I hope that he will not simply say that this is not necessary and that they have given an assurance, because we have been down this road time and time again. With previous legislation, we have had reassurances, in this House and the other place, that the Government were completely confident that it would all be watertight and there would be no problem. However, on each occasion, the courts overruled the Government’s position, which was found to be wrong. I look forward to the Government responding and—I hope—adopting this amendment, because something of this nature is clearly needed if we are to solve that practical problem.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between Lord Weir of Ballyholme and Baroness Hoey

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

That is true of a party that votes against it at Third Reading in the House of Commons and then seems largely supportive of the deal here. So, yes, that could be a perfectly good opportunity, but that can be applied in several parts of the body politic.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I am getting rather tired of this Front-Bench thing about what the last Government did. The reality is that the last Government did not sign any treaty. They may have been talking. They could have talked and talked, but they did not sign a treaty. This Government came in and signed a treaty.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between Lord Weir of Ballyholme and Baroness Hoey

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I very much support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord Lilley. Once again, it raises the issue: why do our Government seem to jump as soon as some international court says something that is not even binding but advisory? The public need to know that we are actually selling out the people of the Chagos Islands because lawyers have decided that an advisory court has said that we should transfer the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. I think the public are beginning to realise more and more that we are being ruled far too much by international law that does not take into account morality to start with, and the rights of people to self-determination. These amendments really do get to the heart of what we are discussing.

I will add my remarks to those of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. I was very pleased to hear him talk about the way in which the Chagossian people could go back. It is interesting that, over all those years—from the 1960s right through to 2025—the British Governments, who could have allowed the Chagossians to go back, refused. We are now passing them over. We are selling them, buying them and spending a lot of money. Once the islands belong to Mauritius, they will be allowed to be repopulated, except for the island with the base. I absolutely agree that there seems to be no reason why the Chagossians could not live peacefully on part of that island. As the noble Lord said, we have not had any real answer to why that could not happen. British Governments did nothing over those years to allow the Chagossians to go back, but suddenly it is all right, because Mauritius is going to be running it. Of course, in debates on other amendments, we will go into whether we believe that Mauritius will allow the Chagossians to go back, and the way in which it is going to control them.

Clearly, the issue here is self-determination. I know we are coming to that, so I will not say any more now, other than that I would like a response from the Minister that actually answers some of the questions raised in this debate.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I will be brief. I was going to intervene on the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, but we reached a point at which there was a triangulation of interventions such that, for a brief period, perhaps the only person who was unable to contribute to that speech was the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, himself.

If we are to base this decision on where we stand on international law, the Government must explain much more clearly why they believed there was going to be an imminent binding ruling against us. At present, we have simply been served with an advisory position that, by definition, clearly does not hold any legal weight. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, has highlighted how weak the legal position is and that it would, in effect, be impossible to force us into a binding position. I do not want to reiterate all his points, but I very much support his amendment.

As I think was mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, we have heard the opinion given to the Committee on this subject, which, in effect, is an opinion from a third party. It may be a very well-informed third party, but we have not heard directly from the Government themselves. The Government need to explain their opinion. The suspicion of many of us is that that silence—the absence of a watertight explanation from the Government—signals a lack of confidence that this is going to be binding on the UK.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, indicated, in the absence of a binding legal position, we should undoubtedly be looking towards the self-determination of the Chagossian people. Self-determination is more than simply independence, because it is clearly not self-determination if you give people only one choice. Self-determination is about the level of choice, and it is very clear that the Chagossian people want to maintain the link with the UK. At times, the Government, and some Members on Second Reading, disputed that, saying that there are other Chagossian voices who want to go down a different path. There is obviously a very good way to test that out: to pursue the self-determination of the Chagossian people.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, noted that part of the complication stems from the fact that, in terms of the hierarchy of principles, we have seen the subjugation of self-determination to signing up to a fashionable support for anticolonialism. The noble Lord may well be right that this is the motivation of some people, but I would contend that some of the nations keenest to jump on the bandwagon of anticolonialism do not have a particularly good record themselves.

China is perhaps the most colonial nation on the face of the earth. It is not the old 19th-century version of sending a gunboat and an invading army; it is a lot more insidious. No nation is more colonial in trying to spread its effective control over a range of third countries. I do not believe that China or many of the other countries lecturing us on this are in a good position to hand out lessons to the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, indicated, we have a much better record on decolonisation. While there have been some problems, the UK does not have in its past an Algeria, an Indochina, a Belgian Congo or even a Mozambique, as other European countries do. Our record is much better.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Debate between Lord Weir of Ballyholme and Baroness Hoey

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 5th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I do not support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who seems to be attempting to turn the ICRIR and its reviews into the sum of all the existing legacy reinvestigations that have already happened, by the PSNI, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and by Operation Kenova under Jon Boutcher. His amendment is complicated but would effectively mean that the new arrangements would be no different from what went before, and that the time required and the funding involved would be limitless, as I have said in the past. Given that to date we have already spent some £2 billion on Troubles reinvestigations, for little resultant value, if we are honest, this is not an attractive prospect.

The amendment also attempts to bind the ICRIR to the international standards required by the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg. I thought that the Government had already dealt with that aspect in a very late amendment by invoking the Human Rights Act. That Act has a domestic UK effect which is exactly appropriate for the ICRIR, rather than it having to respond to the political machinations of the court’s enforcing body—the committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

In the earlier stages of this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and others, presented the Kenova process as a model for the ICRIR. That option seems to have disappeared from today’s amendment. I am not quite sure why the name has been removed. However, it is important to look a little at the background and history. The noble Lord knows that he played a very important role in an earlier stage of legacy policy, as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland between 2005 and 2007. In July 2005, seven years after the Belfast agreement, the IRA, in its words, “dumped arms”. A few months later, the Government responded with the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. This proposed an alternative justice system, outside the existing institutions, to deal with the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past.

Government Ministers have not mentioned this precedent for their current Bill, but they could well have cited this attempt to further the process, conducted by then Prime Minister Tony Blair and Jonathan Powell on behalf of the Government, and by Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness on behalf of Sinn Féin and the IRA. The political situation in 2005-6 was not unlike that prevailing during the course of this Bill. The then Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, was opposed by all local parties except Sinn Féin. However, Clause 1 of the 2005 Bill referred to offences

“in connection with terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland (whether committed for terrorist purposes or not)”.

This meant that the amnesty provisions—and it was an amnesty, which the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, was very honest about in his speech—could extend to the security forces. Immediately, in the other place in December 2005, Mark Durkan, the leader of the SDLP, asserted that the Bloody Sunday soldiers, still being inquired into by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, could benefit from the Bill. Sinn Féin immediately withdrew its support for the Bill and, in January 200,6 the noble Lord, Lord Hain, dropped the Bill. However, it is important to remember that the Republicans—the IRA/Sinn Féin—did not lose out. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness had been working on the on-the-runs scheme, which would soon move into its Operation Rapid phase, with comfort letters being issued to several hundred IRA men, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has said.

Now, 20 years on, this Bill with its many imperfections sets out what the Government believe is a new model for addressing the legacy of the Troubles, something that—everyone is now being honest—was not considered back in 1998, and which the local political parties have not been able to agree on since. I therefore oppose this amendment, as it brings us back to where we started and is not moving us forward in any way, no matter what we think of the Bill.

I want to mention the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen. I am pleased that I was signature to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, in his amendment, which did not get put to the vote. This amendment, picked up by Labour’s Front Bench, is beginning again to put the victim at the centre of the whole issue. I feel that, if the person who is the victim has gone through the whole process of listening to someone who has come forward and given what they say is the truth, and everyone has listened and a great deal of time has been invested, and in the end the victim—the person who has really suffered—is prepared to accept that that person can have immunity, we can live that. I am disappointed that the Government have not moved a little bit on that, because some sensible suggestions were made in Committee, particularly by the noble and right reverend Lord. I hope that today perhaps they will come back and look at that.

Overall, this legacy Bill is—and I hate to use this expression—a dog’s breakfast. It has been cobbled together in a way that tries to please everyone and is ending up pleasing absolutely nobody. The Government are determined to put it through, which is why I have, in the past, supported certain amendments that would make it slightly better. I think that is all we can do at this stage, but I certainly do not think that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, is moving us forward in any way.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I rise to deal particularly with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and support, in as far as it goes, the good intentions of his amendment. I say “as far as it goes”, because I think the noble Lord himself would be the first to admit the limitations that can be brought forward at this stage of any amendment. There have been, throughout this process, as my noble friend Lord Dodds highlighted, from all sides of this Chamber, attempts to mitigate and ameliorate this Bill. I am glad that at least some of those have been successful, and I think we should acknowledge where improvements have been made. It is undoubtedly the case that, despite of all that, we are left with a Bill that is unsalvageable and insupportable and which perverts the course of justice to the detriment of victims.

Nevertheless, as a House, I think we are left with no alternative but to seize, where possible, any opportunity to make any improvements that we can, however small. I support in particular the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, because it seeks to put the rights of victims much closer to the heart of this Bill, irrespective of what community those victims come from, irrespective of whether they come from Northern Ireland or are external to Northern Ireland, and irrespective of what organisation has been responsible for making them victims. It is right that the ultimate focus should be on victims.

When dealing with Northern Ireland, there are two glib but dangerous lies that are often told. First, it is said that collectively there is guilt for what has happened —that we are, in some shape or form, all perpetrators. That is fundamentally wrong. The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, from whatever community, were never involved in nor supported violence. They got on with their day-to-day lives. If there is acceptance of the idea that, in some way, there is a collective guilt, it gives credence to the notion that there was no alternative to violence. The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland pursued that alternative—the democratic alternative—and the violence was imposed by tiny minorities on both sides, and victims suffered as a result of it.

The second lie that is often told in Northern Ireland is that somehow collectively in our society we are all victims. There are many—indeed, there are some in this House—who have suffered that victimhood at first hand, and there are far too many victims in Northern Ireland, but we are not all victims. For my part, I was fortunate enough to grow up in as relative normality as I could. I was not a victim. I cannot and do not claim victimhood, which is one of the reasons why I am particularly disturbed by this legislation, because it seeks to impose on others a system that denies them their opportunities.

The principal reason why I was not a victim in Northern Ireland was because of the brave work of the men and women of our security forces in keeping us safe. I particularly want to highlight the brave women of the security forces, because they are sometimes forgotten. In particular, this month represents the 50th anniversary of the formation and first enlistment of the UDR Greenfinches. I think they were the first units in the British Army to serve alongside men on the front line. Four of the Greenfinches—Eva Martin, Jean Leggett, Ann Hearst and Heather Kerrigan—paid the ultimate sacrifice for protecting ordinary citizens like me against terrorism. That is a very good reason why we cannot throw justice out of the window.

Postal Packets (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023

Debate between Lord Weir of Ballyholme and Baroness Hoey

Wednesday 19th July 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

The approach taken to this statutory instrument, both in this House and when it was introduced earlier this week in another place, has very much been one of, “No worries, there’s nothing to see here”. As with a car crash at the side of the road, we have been directed that there is nothing really to worry us. Indeed, in another place, the Minister tried to give an assurance that this is

“a very, very small SI”.—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 17/7/23; col. 16.]

When this instrument was introduced in the other place, reference was made on four occasions to the fact that no change is being made, or words to that effect. That phrase has been echoed today by the Minister here, yet I suggest that significant changes are being made. For example, as has been mentioned, for the first time ever, parcels moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will be put in a separate category and categorised alongside parcels from a foreign third country. For the first time ever, the UK market is being divided between the rest of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, but we are told that there is no change. For the first time ever, parcels going from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will be categorised and defined in the same way as exports and imports but, again, we are told that no change is being made. These are not simply changes in processes that could be dropped at the whim of any Minister. These are being put in place directly in the law of the land via legislation.

Similarly, let us look at the wording of the regulations. The Explanatory Note makes reference to the fact that part of the purpose of the regulations is

“to make provision to apply such enactments relating to customs and excise as are for the time being in force to goods contained in postal packets sent from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, and to ensure that duties and other charges payable in connection with such postal packets are recoverable by the postal operator concerned”.

They will give directly a power to impose customs duties and a financial burden, albeit one that will supposedly be reimbursed, yet we are told that there is no real change here.

In their boast, the Government also tell us that this SI is an improvement on the protocol. In some ways it is, although we should always remember who brought about the protocol in the first place. The remarkable extent to which the Government are distancing themselves from the protocol that they negotiated is unusual in and of itself but the great boast of the Government—reiterated in both Houses—is that an individual sending a parcel to a friend or family member in Northern Ireland can do so without having to fill in customs declarations. They say we should be grateful that a granny in Liverpool is able to send something to her grandchild in Belfast. However, we should also remember that that is on the basis, as has been particularly referenced in EU legislation recently, of an exemption. The opportunity for the granny to do this is at the grace and favour of the European Union. There is a clear diminution of sovereignty yet we are told that, like grateful natives, we ought to be suitably delighted that this has been given to us.

Similarly, it has been indicated that if a business is sending a package to an individual consumer there will no customs declarations required, but I seek some information from the Minister. For a business to do that, will it have to be part of a trusted trader scheme? Also, because it is put on the same basis as freight, presumably any business-to-business supply could be only where that business is part of the trusted trader scheme.

Leaving aside the general concerns that we have with that, some movements—particularly if we talk about something that is to be moved in a parcel—may be very infrequent between two businesses in different parts of the United Kingdom. Many businesses will come to the conclusion that going through the bureaucracy of having to join a trusted trader scheme for an occasional movement of goods to Northern Ireland is simply not worth it. What we are likely to see, which is also part of the purpose of what has been put in place, is diversion of trade. People and businesses will simply seek to source from outside the United Kingdom.

It has also been indicated in another House that the new powers to be given to HMRC and Border Force are to stop illicit goods—a very accurate but misleading term—moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Let us remember that we are talking about giving powers to Border Force for movements entirely within the United Kingdom—from one part of it to another. When one talks of illicit goods, it conjures up a mental image of drug packages or another form of something illegal. But the powers already exist to stop movements of those goods, so when we talk about illicit goods we are really talking about goods that contravene what the EU says. This is not for something entering the single market but within the internal UK market.

I note that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has mentioned the question, which has not been answered particularly satisfactorily, of why, despite the fact that provisions are due to take place in 2024, these regulations are effectively being brought in now. When pressed on that in another place, the Minister gave two examples. One was: what if hazardous substances were being moved about? If hazardous substances were being moved by parcel, that should be a concern if it was moving from Glasgow to London, let alone coming into Northern Ireland. I am not quite sure why a provision needs to be put in place for that.

The other example given in another place was the risk of blood diamonds being moved. I have not had a recent conversation with my local postman. I am not altogether sure that they would tell me that they are burdened each day with blood diamonds moving from Sierra Leone or Liberia through Great Britain—because it would have to be there—and then on to Northern Ireland, with the risk of them moving into the EU. But supposedly, that is the excuse as to why these additional powers need to be given. Again, we are told there are no real changes.

Finally, in another place there was a subject of much controversy. This statutory instrument is so innocuous that the Government took the unprecedented step of removing five of their own MPs from the committee that was scrutinising it. One of the MPs said that whenever he indicated any level of scepticism towards it, he was first asked whether he would be happy enough to remove himself from the committee. When he said that he was not, he was then told, “Perhaps you want to take a week off—have a week’s holiday”. I think that MP missed a trick because, if they had held out with the Whips, perhaps the soon to be vacant post at the Ministry of Defence could have been lobbed in their direction as a reward for not being on the committee.

That is against the background that we should all be relaxed, as there is no real change. Rather than that argument, there is an equally strong argument that it changes everything for our sovereignty or is the first step towards that. I simply say to the Government that we are opposed to this statutory instrument, but it is high time that they, instead of doubling down and pretending with spin that everything is perfect, actually face the realities and make the changes that need to take place to restore the internal market of the United Kingdom. Once those changes are properly made and the union is restored, we can begin to see proper progress in Northern Ireland.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in as short a time as a few months, noble Lords will realise just how serious these regulations are. It will be the first of many statutory instruments that result from the Windsor Framework or, indirectly or directly, from the European Union’s attitude to it. As we all know if we read the Windsor Framework, and what the Government and the EU said, they are very different. Even on these postal packets regulations, it is very different.

A number of noble Lords referred to what the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said about why there is a rush—why the hurry? Why the Government want to rush this through is very straightforward. They know that, as time goes on and there is more detail, scrutiny and need to work with this in, for example, sub-post offices across the country or through customs officials, we will see that this is not right. It is not going to work. They want to get it through.

It has been mentioned, so I do not want to go into what happened in more detail. I sat through the committee on this SI in the other place, and it is absolutely shocking that our Government have so little confidence in their own Members that they had to remove five of them because they knew that they would not get their support. That was because those Members had read it. They had read it and listened, and they knew what they needed to do, because what the Government had decided was not right or good for the people of Northern Ireland and certainly not for the union.

These regulations are, without doubt, changing the status of Northern Ireland such that it is being treated as a foreign country and a foreign part of the administration of the United Kingdom. For some people, that is fine. Some people do not really care about Northern Ireland. Let us face it: there are an awful lot of Members, not necessarily in this House but in Parliament generally, who probably think, “Oh, Northern Ireland—what a nuisance. If only we could forget about it”. This is precisely what many people who do not care about Northern Ireland want to see happening—this dividing, this moving, this drip, drip, drip taking Northern Ireland further and further from the rest of the United Kingdom.

Imagine a young person coming to this country as a student, sending a parcel. The Government are saying that it will not be very different, but we know that the European Union will eventually decide whether even individual parcels from person to person will need authorisation from somewhere. That is not for the person at the moment, but someone in the sub-post office will have to get the authorisation and that is going to cost money. Who is going to pay for that? There are business-to-business costs from that. More and more costs mean more businesses in Great Britain being clear that they will not bother sending things to Northern Ireland. This is happening already and is going to happen even more.

Imagine a young student coming over here to England and deciding to send a parcel to their grandfather. They will be told that they are sending it to a foreign country. That is quite outrageous. The instrument has the same instruction for Regulations 5, 6, 9, 15, 20 and 21, namely to insert

“and all GB-NI postal packets”

after “foreign postal packets”. It is quite outrageous that people in Northern Ireland who have given so much loyalty to this country—so many people died during world wars—are now being repaid by this glibness around how they are treated.