Northern Ireland After Brexit (Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee Report)

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, it is an honour to speak in this debate and to be a member of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I thank our chairman for how he outlined the contents of the report today and, more broadly, for how skilfully he guides and chairs our committee. It is no mean feat to bring so many diverse views to some form of consensus, as his predecessor the noble Lord, Lord Jay, did, on the letters and reports that we look at. They make a valuable contribution to the overall debate and I pay tribute to him, to his predecessor, and to our clerk and our excellent staff and secretariat, who are across all the details and make our life so much easier.

I come to the contents of this report. It is entitled Northern Ireland after Brexit: Strengthening Northern Ireland’s Voice in the Context of the Windsor Framework, so the first thing we need to do is look at the Windsor Framework itself: it is in that context that we have to look at all these ideas and proposals. So what does the Windsor Framework do? We need to remind ourselves about what it does. It means that foreign laws made by a foreign legislature—a foreign polity, which makes laws in its own interests—are imposed on a third country, part of the United Kingdom, which is the fifth-largest or sixth-largest economy in the world. No Member of Parliament, Member of the Legislative Assembly or citizen in Northern Ireland has any say in the development, amendment or formulation of those laws.

The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, talked about condominium status—it is a form of colonialism. For a part of the United Kingdom and its citizens to be treated in such a way in the 21st century is, quite frankly, an appalling situation, and it does not cover just trade. The 300 areas of law in Articles 2 and 5 of the protocol all deal with various aspects of trade—state aid and so on—but it goes much wider than that: our committee proposes to look at the Dillon judgment and the effects on equality, human rights law and all the rest of it. So it is much wider than just trade; it affects every aspect of society in Northern Ireland, with large swathes of our economy governed by laws not made by us and not capable of being made by us but made by the European Union.

Our committee has wrestled with this notion of the democratic deficit, which really should be described as a democratic denial. It is the denial of democracy; it is not just a deficit. The fourth paragraph of our summary on page 4 says:

“This report examines the action that has been taken to mitigate the democratic deficit, and makes clear that what has been done so far is insufficient to resolve this fundamental issue”.


So anything that we suggest in this report can be only a mitigation of a disastrous situation that all self-respecting lawmakers should be appalled at and should seek to do something about.

What have we ended up with? We have ended up with, as has been described, this labyrinthine and opaque set of arrangements. The diagram on pages 24 and 25, which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to, shows this complex web of interlocking organisations and bodies, all set up with different purposes, rules, legal responsibilities and obligations.

Part of this is deliberate: every time a problem was raised, a committee was thrown at it. This was done in relation to horticultural movements, for example, which was raised with the Government during the talks leading up to Safeguarding the Union. It was pointed out that we cannot get seeds and certain plants moved to Northern Ireland. It is not just that it is complex; it is a complete bar. They said, “Well, we’ll set up a horticultural working group”. But what has that group done since? We cannot even know the names of some of the people on it. When I have asked the Government for the names—the Minister has replied to me on this—we are not even allowed, as legislators and people in Northern Ireland, to know who is on the committee, yet they are supposed to be coming up with ideas and solutions. It is totally ludicrous, but not just ludicrous: businesses are confused and angry—it is not just that people are bemused—at the unnecessary complexity and at the fact that the EU is insisting on full international customs border arrangements and complexities for internal trade between one part of the United Kingdom and the other. It is just not suitable or appropriate, and it is imposing great difficulties.

We heard evidence from the chamber of commerce in Northern Ireland over the last couple of weeks that this has been one of the most challenging years that it can remember. The FSB representative talked about the chilling effect on small companies and so on. This is happening now, even after the Windsor Framework, Safeguarding the Union and all these step changes that were supposed to make things better. Costs are increasing for consumers. Our committee heard evidence about the restrictions on choice for consumers in Northern Ireland. Many items available in the rest of the country are not available to consumers in Northern Ireland, for no good reason. I advise people to read the excellent recent report from the Federation of Small Businesses, which outlined a lot of these issues in detail.

We have called for the simplification and streamlining of these bodies. I think that it is important that that should be attempted, although I have to say that I have little faith that the EU side will look at this seriously, given the way that it refuses to contemplate any change in the current arrangements. Its attitude seems to be, “We’ve agreed this, everything’s fine, it’s up to the UK Government to deal with it, nothing to do with us”.

Turning to some of the specific recommendations, we heard evidence that the Northern Ireland Government cannot really influence EU legislation upstream early enough, before it is adopted, and that they are largely confined to reactive scrutiny after proposals are made. This is something that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, addressed in his report. It would be an improvement if there were an increase in resourcing for the UK mission in Brussels, for greater engagement between the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the mission and, through that, with Brussels, but I have to caution that we have a problem, because getting a settled Northern Ireland position in the first place is often not achievable.

We had an illustration of this when our committee tried to get evidence from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, on behalf of the Executive, about what the Northern Ireland Executive Office in Brussels was doing and what the Northern Ireland Government thought of all this. One would have thought that they would have been interested, but it was vetoed because there has to be agreement between the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Deputy First Minister was quite happy to come and the First Minister vetoed it. So how are we going to get settled positions in terms of Northern Ireland’s view? That has to be factored into the equation. It is not very helpful, and it is to be regretted, that we did not hear from representatives of the Executive.

The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, mentioned proposals to improve the Assembly’s Democratic Scrutiny Committee. I think that everybody agrees that that committee is not able to do its job, lacks sufficient access to information and is struggling to gather evidence within the timescales. I support the proposals that have been suggested to reform that committee. It is something that we should return to in a few months and ask whether this has made any difference, because if the Northern Ireland Assembly scrutiny committees cannot do the job properly and it is left to Westminster, either in the other place or in your Lordships’ House, then that is unsatisfactory. Elected representatives in Northern Ireland should be able to do the job properly.

We also looked at measures such as the Stormont brake and applicability Motions, which we referenced in our report. I have to say that these measures were sold very heavily in order to get Stormont back. We were told that this would give legislators in Northern Ireland the long-awaited answer to their democratic deficit complaints, but what has happened? They have almost disappeared from the political viewpoint. Nobody mentions them any more, because when they were tried the Government knocked them back, doing serious damage to political confidence. Those who warn about instability in Northern Ireland are right to do so, because if these issues are not properly addressed, there will come a reckoning at some point. As I have said before, some people say, “We didn’t see this crisis at Stormont coming”. I think that these issues are going to contribute to future instability if not properly addressed.

For instance, on the Stormont brake, at the end of the process the Government can veto it, and they did. On the applicability Motions, they can veto the process from the start. If they say that no new regulatory border will be created, this disapplies the applicability Motion from being heard in the Assembly. The Government can veto both the major safeguards—one at the start and one at the end. That has caused real concern in Northern Ireland among those who were told that this would be a major plank in getting Stormont restored. It is a disrespectful position, as far as the Assembly is concerned.

We have always been strong on the need to set up a register of applicable EU law—an office where regulatory divergence can be highlighted and exposed. That is something that both the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and our own committee have highlighted. The Government need to take that on board and set up a database and an office that can look at this. The one-stop shop has been an important addition to the ideas that have been brought forward. I thank the Government for their engagement on that matter. As the chairman mentioned—I am not going to go through all the issues that have already been highlighted—we need to see this up and running as quickly as possible. I am glad that the Government are taking it seriously.

I come back to the fundamental point, on which the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, ended as well. We can mitigate all we like; we can introduce tweaks here and changes there; and we can have a whack-a-mole approach, where one issue crops up and we knock it down and another one that we have not foreseen comes up and we try to deal with it. European law is dynamically aligning Northern Ireland all the time, sometimes to the detriment of our trade with Britain and sometimes not so much. Unforeseen things will happen and we will have to address the fundamental problem, which is that you cannot, in a modern democracy, expect people to live in a society where other people, in their interests, decide laws for them. Unless we wake up to that reality, we will have a real problem in the Assembly and the Northern Ireland political set-up. I hope that that does not happen, but it is incumbent on all of us who take an interest in these matters to make sure that it does not.

UK-EU Customs Union

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, and the noble Lords, Lord Docherty and Lord Doyle, on their excellent maiden speeches. I look forward to that yet to be made, and to the valedictory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Offord.

Under a customs union, the EU would strike deals in its own interests, while the UK would be required to apply those terms automatically, without any guarantee of reciprocal access or consideration. Countries negotiating with the EU would have no obligation whatever to offer the UK equivalent market access, yet we would be bound to trade terms we did not negotiate. There is a constant underplaying of or failure to grasp the asymmetry this creates, with obligations imposed in this country but no corresponding duties on third countries.

Having said that, I want to highlight where we are as a country in real terms regarding a customs union, because there seems to be a reluctance to face up to reality, and it has not been mentioned thus far in this debate. We need to face the fact that this country has already acquiesced in precisely such a customs arrangement, not merely in theory but in practice, through the Northern Ireland protocol/Windsor Framework. It is not an inevitable outcome of Brexit, as some would say, but a choice—the wrong choice—about how to manage trading arrangements.

We have a situation, which is either not noticed by people or deliberately ignored, in which part of this United Kingdom is today subject to the European Union customs code and single market rules: rules it does not make and cannot amend. In 2026 in Northern Ireland—part of the United Kingdom—EU law, not UK law, applies dynamically in over 300 areas of law, covering goods manufacturing and agri-food production, never mind the effects of EU VAT rules, state aid rules, Article 2 requirements covering human rights and equality legislation, and all that. So, in debating the pros and cons of the customs union and the single market in the abstract, how can anyone not have regard to the fact that we already have such arrangements in reality for one part of our country?

The Windsor Framework formalises a reality in which internal trade within the United Kingdom is governed by rules made abroad and enforced with no democratic control. A July 2025 report from the Federation of Small Businesses found that the Windsor Framework has created significant disruption to internal UK trade, with over one-third of businesses having stopped trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, while 58% report moderate to significant challenges. It says it is fuelling confusion and cost, breaking down UK internal market connectivity rather than resolving trade barriers. It says it is creating a “labyrinth” of bureaucracy, making it harder to move goods within the UK than to export globally.

Whether noble Lords are for or against a customs union for the UK as a whole, one thing that is not sustainable is having one part in the customs union and the rest out of it. That is not acceptable or sustainable. It is complex and unnecessary. It raises impediments to our prosperity. It erects barriers between us in Northern Ireland and our largest market in Great Britain. The cost is being paid by consumers, manufacturers and businesses. Fundamentally, it is a breach of democracy. Laws being made for British citizens in Northern Ireland are being made by a foreign entity in its interests, with no input, role or vote for any elected representative from the people of Northern Ireland, either in the Northern Ireland Assembly or at Westminster. That is an unsustainable position. We must take this into account in any debate regarding the customs union, the single market and the reset.

UK-EU Relations

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

On fisheries, the UK and EU share a commitment to protecting the marine environment through various international agreements. We do believe that, by working together on this and other food export issues, we can effectively deliver on our commitments in a way that supports the long-term sustainability and resilience of our fishing fleets, and that protects our food exports and imports in a way that benefits the UK in the trade position we will have going forward.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, in the reset talks to what extent are the Government taking account of two factors affecting Northern Ireland? First, with the current review being carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, into the workings of the Windsor Framework, how will that play into the discussions? Secondly, given the continuing lack of any support whatsoever in the unionist community for the current arrangements under the Windsor Framework, there is a breach of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. To what extent are the Government cognisant of those very fundamental points?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord referenced the commissioning of my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen to conduct an independent review of the Windsor Framework. This will report within six months. Looking ahead, we are committed to continuing to seek joint solutions with the EU to challenges that might arise in the future around the Windsor Framework. We are taking forward our commitments, as set out in the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper, including the implementation of the UK internal market system. For example, the Government announced the membership of the independent monitoring panel, and the chair of InterTrade UK.

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

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Monday 11th September 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this debate taking place so quickly after the production of our latest report on the Windsor Framework. Like others, I thank our chair, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for the presentation today, and the way in which he chairs the committee on which I have the honour to serve. I thank Stuart Stoner and all the staff for their excellent work and the way in which they service the committee.

The committee has done extraordinarily useful work in shining a light on the complex details of the protocol/Windsor Framework because the two are really the same; there are a few tweaks here and there, but they are fundamentally the same mechanism. It has not been easy to shine that light, given the Government’s failure in many cases to be open or transparent on the issues, or to provide full—in some cases any—answers to straight questions. The detailed examination of legislation, from both the EU and His Majesty’s Government, is proving invaluable in holding the Government to account. It is proving very important to those who have a genuine interest in and concern for the facts—not spin or hype. The most recent report of the committee on the Windsor Framework is another example of this.

I would like to take a slightly broader view of where we are at with the framework and political process in Northern Ireland. There has been a lamentable failure, in practice and outcomes, to acknowledge that the Belfast agreement, as amended by the St Andrews agreement, only works when the interests of unionists and nationalists are both respected, and when it is recognised that each of the three strands of the agreement must complement each other. It is now clear that the failure to respect that balance of interests and to uphold the various strands in a balanced and fair way has led us to the place we sadly, but inevitably, find ourselves in.

The protocol/Windsor Framework could only have come about through the adoption of a nationalist interpretation of the Belfast agreement. Things that would never be tolerated by republicans, nor would be imposed upon them, have been recklessly imposed upon unionists with little regard to the need to maintain balance in all the strands and to maintain the confidence of both communities. These are essential for the political process in Northern Ireland to work.

It took a long time to move people away from the original position of rigorous implementation of the deeply flawed protocol. The Alliance Party, the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Irish Government and, indeed, some here in Westminster were all rigorous implementers, despite the damage it would entail to both the economy and political stability in Northern Ireland. The so-called grace periods and derogations by the British Government, which were so necessary, were condemned to high heaven by many, while they turned a blind eye to similar actions—or indeed threats, such as to stop vaccines—on the part of the EU.

The reality is that the protocol/Windsor Framework and the intended imposition of EU law on Northern Ireland without consent and the creation of an Irish Sea border, which deeply impacts upon Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market, are things that were bound to undermine the institutions of the Belfast agreement, as amended by St Andrews. For many months, the Democratic Unionist Party worked with the Government of the day and the various Prime Ministers to bring about substantial change. It maintained its First Minister in Northern Ireland to allow that to happen for well over a year, until patience finally ran out with the continued delay and failure to deliver on commitments made by Prime Ministers.

The fact is that you cannot trash strand one—the internal affairs of Northern Ireland —and strand three—the east-west relationship—and expect no instability as a result. Work remains to be done to fulfil the pledges which have been made to the people of Northern Ireland. The DUP leader Jeffrey Donaldson in setting out his seven tests was merely consolidating and reiterating promises made by British Prime Ministers to the people of Northern Ireland. They were not invented or made up by him. Incidentally, the seven tests were part of our manifesto in the most recent elections.

The basis on which the protocol was brought about was nationalist distaste for any checks on the border on the island of Ireland. Unionists never wanted or sought such but cannot accept that such should be imposed between us and the rest of the United Kingdom. I think that is a fair and balanced position, and it is achievable. It is something that the Government must address. They have not done so so far, and the Windsor Framework has not addressed that problem. Legislation which is currently being considered by the Government must address the entirety of Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom and remove impediments from Great Britain to Northern Ireland as well as reaffirming what we have for Northern Ireland to Great Britain. I trust the Government will addresses these fundamental issues and in doing so achieve political stability in Northern Ireland.

European Union: Border Control Checks

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, the Brexit support fund was indeed not fully used, which suggested to us that it was not the best means of providing support to companies. That is why we have brought in the export support service, which I hope will grow and become more focused in time—in particular to help SMEs, which obviously have most difficulty in dealing with the new arrangements.

The noble Lord is obviously correct to say that this is business for the trade specialised committees, and when we have particular evidence of difficulties, we will certainly raise them in those fora.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, in the week that the Government have announced, for very understandable reasons, that they will extend free, unfettered access for firms from the Irish Republic—part of the EU—to the UK market, is it too much to hope that British firms sending goods to the other part of the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland might also benefit from free, unfettered access? Surely that is not too much to ask, and can the Minister tell us when we are likely to see that?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

The noble Lord makes an extremely good point. If I may dwell on it for a moment, it is obviously true that the legal framework for Northern Ireland and Ireland goods coming to Great Britain is different because of the unfettered access commitment. In practice, at the moment, it is not always possible to distinguish between the two categories of goods, but that will change in future and we will need a definitive solution to this question. Of course, the degree of pragmatism that we show in future to Irish goods coming to Great Britain will be related to the degree of pragmatism and flexibility that the EU shows in allowing goods to move freely around all parts of the UK.

Northern Ireland: Supply of Medicines

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, there are a number of difficulties in this highly technical area of the supply of medicines. We have been looking at the proposals made by the Commission. The problem set out by the noble Baroness is not the only issue that needs to be resolved. At the moment, we are not confident that what is on the table would resolve all the issues, but we continue to talk.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the grace period to allow medicines to come to Northern Ireland from Great Britain is about to run out and that that will have devastating consequences for the supply of over-the-counter medicines and essential drugs for hospitals for people in Northern Ireland? What will he say to people in Northern Ireland to bring certainty on this vital issue? Does he accept that medicine should never have been part of the protocol in the first place? Why was it?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, the grace period formally expires at the end of this year, but we are also in a standstill agreed between the two sides in July that keeps current arrangements running. It is our expectation that the current grace period arrangements will continue beyond the end of the year as long as we are in constructive discussions with the EU. The existence of the grace period has meant that some of the supply difficulties that we had earlier in the year have changed, but obviously we need to find a permanent solution to this problem.

Ireland/Northern Ireland: Solid Fuels

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a very fair point about the objectives of this legislation. That is why we need to establish the detail of what the Irish Government intend to do and how they intend to go about it. What he says rather proves the point that we have always made: it is perfectly possible for two separate jurisdictions to pursue complementary policy ends that do not involve accepting exactly the same legislation in exactly the same way. That is the approach we have tried to take.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, to come back to what the Irish Government actually said about this matter—not the interpretation that has just been put on it—are we not in an ironic situation? The Irish Government and others said that any checks on the island of Ireland equalled a hard border and that a hard border would lead to violence. Now the Irish Government are proposing such a thing—that is the reality of it. People can shake their heads all they like, but the fact of the matter is that the Irish Government, when Varadkar came to power, changed what Enda Kenny was doing and said that no checks—even away from the border or digitally—would be acceptable. Will the Minister go back and indicate to his good friend Simon Coveney, whom he is meeting and talking to later today, that no checks means no checks if what they believe is true?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, there has indeed always been some complexity in interpretations of this matter. It is certainly true that in areas such as red diesel, for example, where there is a need to avoid fraud due to different excise rates between Northern Ireland and Ireland, there is very good co-operation between HMRC and the Irish Revenue Commissioners. There is lots of multiagency and cross-border co-operation, intelligence and information sharing and so on, and that works perfectly well. I do not necessarily say that is a model you can generalise to absolutely everything, but it certainly shows that this issue is not quite as black and white as it is sometimes painted.

Retained EU Law

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is not present, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, a bonfire of regulation or a selective shredding of EU retained law here in Great Britain will of course not apply to Northern Ireland because we still remain under EU control and EU laws and, as the Minister has said, with no democratic input whatever from anyone elected in Northern Ireland. How is Northern Ireland going to remain competitive or even on a level playing field if Britain diverges from it continuously, not just now but over years and decades to come, unless the protocol is changed?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

The noble Lord raises a very good question. It is indeed one of the difficulties with the protocol, as constructed, that EU law, in areas of the single market for goods, is imposed without any agreement by the institutions in Northern Ireland. That is a situation we are seeking to remedy in the negotiations I am currently conducting.

Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Impact on UK Internal Market

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn]

To ask the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) what assessment Her Majesty’s Government have made of the impact of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland on (1) Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom internal market, and (2) the flow of trade.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) (Con)]

My Lords, the protocol recalls the importance of maintaining the integral place of Northern Ireland in the UK’s internal market and is clear that Northern Ireland is part of the UK’s customs territory. We are concerned that these provisions are not reflected in the way in which the protocol is being implemented. As a result, there is clear evidence of trade diversion. Trade data shows that trade between Northern Ireland and Ireland has increased significantly in both directions this year.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, the Minister knows that the protocol is having a major adverse impact on trade flows between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, never mind the massive destabilising effect on the political institutions and the political process in the Northern Ireland. The chairman of Marks & Spencer says the EU proposals threaten to increase the administrative burden on imports to Northern Ireland. They could result in “worsening friction”, he says and, as a result, his firm and others might have to stop sending goods to Northern Ireland.

The head of the Road Haulage Association in Northern Ireland referred to the EU proposals as “window-dressing”. He knows, as we all know, that the EU proposals do not address the fundamental issues of the protocol. Will he now tell the House and tell the people of Northern Ireland when he is going to implement the proposals set out in the Command Paper of July this year to finally restore Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market fully, to fully restore Northern Ireland’s place inside the UK customs union, not on paper but in reality, and finally restore full democratic accountability to Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom in the 21st century?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord sets out serious concerns, which we share. I should like to make our position on these negotiations and Article 16 100% clear, as he asks. Whatever the messages to the contrary that the EU may think it has heard or read, our position has not changed from the one I set out on 10 November or, indeed, in July at the time of the Command Paper. We would prefer to reach a negotiated agreement if we can. That is the best way forward for the stability and prosperity of Northern Ireland but I want to be clear that, as the responsible Minister, I would not recommend any outcome from the negotiations that I did not believe safeguarded political, economic or social stability in Northern Ireland. In such circumstances, we obviously would need to provide the necessary safeguards using Article 16. Those safeguards remain very much on the table and they are a legitimate provision in the protocol. No decision has been taken to exclude a priori any specific timing for Article 16. That will be shaped by whether and how quickly negotiations make progress.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Wednesday 13th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I asked myself that question implicitly in the speech and I still do not really know the answer. I think our behaviour since the start of the year as a fully independent country has been extremely constructive internationally. For example, we have established our own sanctions regime; we have been very proactive in it; we have welcomed citizens of Hong Kong to this country; we have been among the first to raise questions about the treatment of the Uighurs; and we have been the first to bring in sanctions against Belarus. I think we have been extremely constructive in this process over the years. I am sorry that from time to time we have faced accusations that we do not behave accordingly, but I do not think they are justified by the facts.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, issues of sovereignty and democracy lie at the heart of the problems with the Northern Ireland protocol. Does the Minister agree that we may solve some practical issues, and the EU will produce proposals on that later, but unless we do away with the issue of laws being made for part of the United Kingdom in the 21st century without any say—yea or nay—of elected representatives of Northern Ireland, it will store up future problems of divergence and diversion of trade? Therefore, issues such as the ECJ and the democratic deficit need to be addressed if there is to be a permanent solution to the problems of the protocol.

[Lord Frost (Con)]

I very much agree with the thrust of the noble Lord’s question. We would like to find a permanent solution to this problem, a solution that everybody can get behind in Northern Ireland and beyond and that represents everybody’s interests. That is why partial solutions that tinker around the edges of the existing arrangement will not do the job. The question of sovereignty is fundamental. We have to find solutions that are consistent with UK sovereignty in Northern Ireland and, to come back to it, that support the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which is fundamental to politics in Northern Ireland.