European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 6th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson]

My right hon. Friend is right. That is where it becomes thoroughly obnoxious for people in Northern Ireland. They say, “Whatever the constitutional views are, and whatever the Labour position on this and the Conservative position on that, why am I being impinged on? Why am I being treated differently? If a workaround is available that allows goods from the Republic of Ireland into the GB market, why is there not one for me?”.

When we talk about market access and the UK internal market system, we are in principle talking about a marketplace—somewhere to both buy and sell, where trade flows in both directions. However, when Government Members talk about market access, they all too often consider one direction only, and not the implications for businesses in Northern Ireland.

I will conclude with a point about the democratic scrutiny mechanism and the vote that is due on Tuesday. The arrangements are a complete inversion of the commitments that were given in the Belfast agreement. They were brought forward following Boris Johnson’s bedazzlement with Leo Varadkar in the Wirral. The protections that were offered to the people of Northern Ireland were stripped away in haste as a result of that political union. It has left us in a position where, even though cross-community support will not be attained, articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework will continue.

There is a strong argument, which others have made, that we should not countenance that process with our presence, but as I said at our party conference in September and since, we will be there on Tuesday. If the vote proceeds, we will vote against the continued application of the Windsor framework, in the knowledge that if we demonstrate our opposition, we will not leave anybody on other Benches or in the European Union with the chance credibly to argue, “They weren’t even interested enough to vote—they didn’t even turn up.” With our vote and our voice, we will demonstrate our opposition to the continued application of the framework.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for his Bill. It is disappointing that I will not get to make a speech on it; I trust that you will show me a little leniency, Madam Deputy Speaker, in my intervention as I have deliberately not jumped up and down during others’ speeches.

Does my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) agree that those in this House underestimate at their peril the damage caused by the current arrangements? Unionism is reeling at the fact that our mother Parliament has sacrificed and continues to sacrifice Northern Ireland on the altar of political expediency. Unionism has had enough. Businesses and consumers have had enough. They cannot get plants, seeds or trees from GB. They cannot bring in farm machinery, just because it may have British soil on its wheels. They cannot bring seed potatoes from Scotland. All traditions in Northern Ireland—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I think the hon. Lady has made her point. I call Gavin Robinson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

No, I do not think I am being impatient, because this is an extremely important subject. We were all aware, when the Command Paper was published earlier this year, that this would need to be done. The framework was in the Labour party’s manifesto, so we assumed that it was making those preparations. It is perfectly possible to put together terms of reference for Intertrade UK within three months, for example. We are not being impatient; such things need to be done for a reason and within a reasonable time. I know that the Minister is alive to the importance of those things, but I hope that she will hurry that work along.

It is clear that under this Government the Windsor framework will continue to run. How successfully it runs will depend on any deals they strike and on whether they are able to uphold the commitments made in “Safeguarding the Union”. However, as Opposition Members have said, the limitations of the Windsor framework, in practical terms and on constitutional principle, are clear. That is why we must continue to seek even better solutions.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green talked about the Bill’s central issue: mutual enforcement. During the Brexit negotiations, mutual enforcement was categorised as “magical thinking,” but I think that was an unfair ploy used by people who did not want to do it. It is thinking that has magical potential but it is not magical thinking, because, as my right hon. Friend spelled out, mutual enforcement has already been done. We have seen it work in the EU’s dealings with New Zealand. Significantly, we heard that Monsieur Barnier was open to it, and that people involved in formulating policy at the time have stated again that they know it is deliverable. I just do not want anyone on either side of the House to think that mutual enforcement cannot be pursued; it can and must be. With the good will and the technology, there is no reason why there cannot be a future in which mutual enforcement plays a role.

During the Brexit negotiations, I remember being told repeatedly, as a Back-Bench Member, that there could not be any border checks, any infrastructure, or any checks near the border. However, in recent months we have seen that is not true. We know that it is not true because the Republic is conducting Operation Sonnet, which it is perfectly entitled to do. Operation Sonnet is a series of checks performed by the Garda on people crossing the border to make sure that they are not crossing illegally.

[Carla Lockhart]

I commend the hon. Member on his speech. Does he agree that today, sadly, is a missed opportunity? We had it within our grasp in this place to end the application of EU law in Northern Ireland, to restore Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market by removing the Irish sea border, and to address the democratic deficit, but we failed, so we will just have more of the same as of tomorrow.

[Alex Burghart]

I am very glad that the hon. Lady has had an opportunity to make that point.

As I have said, we have seen that the Republic is carrying out checks on the other side of the border, so things that we were told were not possible are. If that is the case, it must open up possibilities for the future. I remain strongly of the view that the Windsor framework with “Safeguarding the Union” is a better solution than the Windsor framework was; that the Windsor framework was a better solution than the protocol; and that the protocol was a better option than the backstop. However, that does not mean that there are not better solutions available.

Those of us who believe in the Union do not wish for a sea border, or for a settlement that infracts the Acts of Union. Mutual enforcement obviously has the potential to be a sensible alternative, particularly if it is backed up by very serious penalties for those who infringe those arrangements. Indeed, in those circumstances, it could be remarkably effective. We would not start from here. We are where we are, but that does not mean that we cannot get back to where we once belonged.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I do agree with that. As my hon. Friend and the House will know, the longest waiting lists in the health service in the United Kingdom are to be found in Northern Ireland. That is not acceptable, above all for those people who are waiting far too long. There is a plan for reform, which I welcome, but the people of Northern Ireland want to see progress happening.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Just last week, I attended and spoke at a rally hosted by the Ulster Farmers’ Union in response to the change to agricultural property relief. It was attended by 6,000 farmers, with every political party in Northern Ireland standing together in opposition to the change. When will the Government acknowledge that their figures are not reflective of the average farm, and that this death tax will result in the break-up of family farms as we know them, the selling of land to pay the tax, and the purchasing of devalued land by big businesses that are not interested in using it to feed our nation? Will the Secretary of State outline whether he has shared the concerns of Northern Ireland farmers with the Chancellor?

[Hilary Benn]

I have spoken to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and a Treasury Minister about this. I understand that the changes are unwelcome and difficult, but given the fiscal position, the Government are having to take difficult decisions. There is, however, a difference of view about how many farms will be affected, and the Treasury estimate is about 500 claims a year. We cannot infer from land values an inheritance tax liability, because it depends on the ownership structure of the farm.

Windsor Framework

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Allister]

That is a model that I am more than familiar with. It has manys an application, and one such fitting application is here.

Let me return to the issue of the 300 laws. Those are not incidental laws, but laws that shape and frame much of our economy: how we manufacture, package, sell and trade our goods, and much besides. Of particular political significance is the fact that those economic laws are now identical to those that prevail in the Irish Republic. Under the framework, a situation has evolved whereby Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic are governed by identical economic laws in those 300 areas. Of course, that is about building the stepping stone to an all-Ireland economic area, which was always the intent of the protocol. That gives it an added offensive political dimension.

The very concept that 300 areas of EU law—not our law—should be imposed on us, as if we are a colony—because that is what it is like—is offensive in the extreme. Of course, it is said, “Ah, but wasn’t the Windsor framework about protecting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement?” The Windsor framework has driven a coach and horses through the Belfast agreement. The fundamental modus operandi of the Belfast agreement was that, because of Northern Ireland’s divided past, any big or constitutional issues would have to be decided on a cross-community vote—in other words, a majority of both nationalists and Unionists. That is in section 4(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. However, in respect of the Windsor framework, that was expunged.

In a couple of weeks, we will have an astounding situation in which the Northern Ireland Assembly, which elects MLAs—Members of our Legislative Assembly—will be asked to disavow their power to legislate for Northern Ireland in these 300 areas. They were never asked in the first place, but they are now going to be asked, for the next four years or more, to disavow their ability on behalf of their constituents to make laws in those 300 areas and surrender that sovereignty and right to a foreign Parliament and foreign politicians. The laws have not even been dreamt up yet, because in the next four years who knows what the EU will decide is good for itself—and, coincidentally, for us? Democratically elected Assembly Members are meant to vote to sign away their democratic rights, on behalf of their constituents, and endorse whatever comes down the track. Never mind what it is; we are just going to accept it like colonial patsies, which we now are under the protocol.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The hon. and learned Gentleman knows where I stand on this issue. I share his concerns about the Windsor framework, the protocol and the impact they are having on businesses, consumers and the constitutional future of Northern Ireland within this great United Kingdom. Does he agree that those parties who hold up the Belfast agreement as the be-all and end-all are the very same people who are now content to allow a majority vote? That has not happened in 50 years, and it runs absolutely contrary to the Belfast agreement, which the protocol is supposed to uphold.

[Jim Allister]

Yes; for the first time in over 50 years, we are going to have a majoritarian vote on a key issue, which, of course, has immense constitutional significance. That is why the Supreme Court of this land had to rule that the effect of the protocol was to put into suspension article VI of the Acts of Union, which is supposed to guarantee us all within this kingdom the same unfettered trade rights. Obviously, if we build a border that partitions and fetters trade, it cannot be said that there are the same constitutional and trading rights. Yet on that fundamental issue, we are going to have a majoritarian vote.

The message to Unionism—it is a very chilling message—is that cross-community votes were only ever about protecting nationalism; they were never about protecting Unionism. Unionists are just meant to suck it up, because this is the way forward. That is unacceptable. On behalf of those who sent me here believing that I was being sent here as a legislator, and sent Members to the Northern Ireland Assembly believing they were being sent there as legislators, I abhor and protest against the fact that in the next few weeks, we will have that obnoxious, obscene vote to remove from the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives the right to have a say in over 300 areas of law that govern them. There has never been a greater act of disenfranchisement of voters anywhere within this United Kingdom. It is wholly incompatible with the basic tenets of democracy.

People say, “How then do we handle the border?” Yes, there is a challenge in an interfacing border between EU and non-EU members, but the way to handle it is not through this constitutional Union-dismantling monstrosity; it is to return to the basic elements that govern much of world trade. We should mutually respect the laws, requirements and trading demands of those with whom we are trading. We should mutually enforce, from one country to another, the standards and requirements of the country to which we are exporting. If we do that, we do not need the Irish sea border, or a border on the island of Ireland. It should be backed up with criminal sanction so that, if someone does trade in breach of the requirements of the recipient country, they face a penalty. That is how it should be done, but it was not done, simply because the EU saw an opportunity to make Northern Ireland the price of Brexit. We continue to pay that intolerable price.

In a couple of weeks, we will be debating my private Member’s Bill, which will address those very issues, and mutual enforcement will be at the heart of it, because that is the way for the Government. I know they inherited all this—maybe with some enthusiasm—but they can now fix it. If they do not, they are saying to my constituents, “You are some sort of second-class democrat. You are not entitled to elect those who make your laws. You must be a subservient rule-taker from politicians who make the laws for you in a foreign jurisdiction.” How insulting is that? Yet that is the essence of what the Windsor framework puts upon us.

Police Funding

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I commend the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing his first Westminster Hall debate and for his efforts. I agree with much of what he said. Members will forgive me for continuing to champion the needs of Northern Ireland and highlighting the uplift needed.

The House is well aware that Northern Ireland is running a deficit of an estimated £37 million. The numbers are well below what is safe for policing, and crime is on the increase. It would be remiss of me, as a female MP from Northern Ireland, not to raise the increased attacks on females in Northern Ireland: 42 have been killed in the last eight years, making Northern Ireland the most lethal place in Europe for women.

Drugs, criminality, terrorism and changing crime patterns—especially the rise of cyber-crime—place additional demands on police resources. The recent PSNI-led investigation into Alexander McCartney’s online crimes, which tragically involved hundreds of victims globally, illustrates the massive resources that complex cyber cases require. Traditional crimes are no longer a measure.

Years of tight budgets have left officers facing even greater workloads, but pay has effectively fallen by 25% over the past decade. Low pay and increasing job pressure are driving officers to leave soon after completing training—a costly waste of resources. We have the highest number of officers leaving after their two-year probation. Retention is a major concern in Northern Ireland, but the exodus is not all about money; officers feel demoralised by slow, punitive disciplinary systems and worry about being targeted unfairly. The situation is driving up sickness rates and early retirements due to mental health issues, further straining resources. The PSNI is now grappling with record levels of sick leave and rising medical retirements, with nearly 800 officers off sick on a given day.

There is also the issue of mission creep. As other public services have faced cuts, the police are increasingly called on to fill the gaps, especially with mental health and social care. Officers in Northern Ireland, and across the UK, spend a significant portion of their time in A&E, and the demand from children’s homes is high with calls about children who miss curfew—a task that stretches resources and takes time away from core duties.

What am I getting at? Policing budgets must reflect the wide array of duties that are now attached to policing in Northern Ireland. While there are those in this place—although they are not present today—whose party bemoans the Chief Constable’s ask of the Prime Minister for urgent moneys, I want to say that my hon. Friends and I support him 100%. He does so knowing the crisis point we are at, and because he presides over the crisis. Therefore, I support his asks and trust that the Minister is advocating for such with the Treasury.

There are specific challenges that the Police Service of Northern Ireland faces that differ from those in England and Wales. Unlike police forces in other parts of the UK, the PSNI does not receive funding through a local precept, although we acknowledge that it gets a top-up to help address terrorism threats. Also, unlike its counterparts in England, the PSNI lacks easy access to mutual support from neighbouring forces. When English forces need extra help, they can call on neighbouring teams, which is a very cost-effective and efficient solution. For the PSNI, mutual aid requires extensive planning, which limits flexibility in emergencies, so headcount must reflect that.

Another urgent issue for the PSNI is the compensation bill related to the recent data breach and fines from the Information Commissioner’s Office, which again will deeply impact already stretched budgets. It was bitterly disappointing, but not surprising, that policing in Northern Ireland did not feature in last week’s Budget. UK policing—we accept that this is right across the UK—faces a funding shortfall so deep that it is not just about money and funding now; it is about a thoughtful, strategic funding package. We need to rethink how to resource the police so that they can meet the needs, retain their officers and focus on core responsibilities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I do. Indeed, raising £113 million was part of the deal that the last Government put in place as part of the £3.3 billion package that led to the restoration—well, that followed the restoration of the Executive. That includes delivering a balanced budget in the current year, and I am very encouraged by the statements of the Northern Ireland Finance Minister in that regard.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The budget sustainability plan is commendable, but does the Secretary of State agree that our public services are in crisis? Our roads are crumbling, we have the longest health waiting lists in the whole of the UK, and our schools need investment. Northern Ireland needs to be in receipt of a fair long-term funding allocation, based on Treasury needs. Will he confirm to the House that he is making the case for that to the Treasury for the people of Northern Ireland?

Northern Ireland City Deals

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

There is quite a lot of information already available about the two schemes that are going ahead, what they have achieved and what the plans are. I think that is readily available, if the right hon. Gentleman needs it, and I will bear in mind the point he makes about information on the other schemes. He and the House have already heard me say a number of times that clarity as soon as possible would be in the interests of everybody.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State has kindly agreed to meet the council leads in the Mid South West deal area, for which I am a Member of Parliament. Upper Bann, Fermanagh and South Tyrone, and Mid Ulster are all included, but he will note that the other MPs for those areas are absent from this place.

The Secretary of State speaks of partnerships, synergy and the great things that can be achieved. Sadly, in the Mid South West deal area, we are not going to be able to achieve them because the main partner has pulled the plug and paused the deal, which is impacting on infrastructure, tourism and regeneration. Will the Secretary of State assure the House today that he will make the case for the Mid South West area, which is home to over half a million people and a vital economic driver in Northern Ireland within this United Kingdom?

[Hilary Benn]

I have already indicated to the House that I of course give that assurance. As I said in answer to the previous question, all those who have an interest in these schemes progressing and who are concerned about the impact of the pause—the plug has not been pulled, and you cannot pause a plug, but I think the hon. Member will understand the point—should be making the case, too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I pay tribute to the work that veterans and members of the police and the security services did over many years during the troubles in trying to keep people safe from terrorism. I undertake, as part of the consultation that I have already set out to the House, to consult veterans’ organisations.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his position. Will he further outline what discussions he is having with groups and organisations who represent innocent victims? Will he assure the House that in repealing this legislation, there will be no pandering to those who were the victim makers? What meaningful engagement is he having with the Irish Government, who oppose the Act but have disgracefully refused to deal with the many allegations of state collusion with the Provisional IRA? I am thinking specifically about the long-awaited public inquiry into the Omagh bombing.

Northern Ireland

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

In my approach to the Humble Address, I hope it is in order, by way of introduction, to comment on the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper. It has been a very wide-ranging debate, so I assume that that is appropriate.

I acknowledge those within my party who have worked hard to improve the unacceptable situation that we found ourselves in. I welcome provisions including, among other things, the monitoring committee, the East-West Council, the new provisions on rest-of-world products, and the UK Government’s commitment to stand by Northern Ireland in the absence of a resolution on veterinary medicines. The DUP has unfortunately had to take steps, for which it is often criticised, to address the far-reaching implications of the protocol. We have often been blamed for many of the problems that have flowed from that unforgivable move on the part of our Government back when the iniquitous protocol was implemented. I welcome the improvements but, as has been said, there remains much work to be done. I, along with colleagues on the DUP Bench, am all too aware of the work that lies ahead.

I, too, take this opportunity to raise issues of which the Secretary of State will be very aware, including horse movements from GB to Northern Ireland and vice-versa, rare breeds and plants, and so on. All those issues have been raised with me in my role as agriculture spokesperson. I look forward to the engagement that has been promised and to getting results on those issues.

Part of the answer lies in the text of the Humble Address, which tells us that the economic provisions provided by article 6 of the Acts of Union are of “foundational importance”. That is absolutely correct. In the 21st century, being part of the same country means being part of the same internal market, which means that goods can flow freely within it without encountering border control posts, demanding customs, and SPS paperwork and checks that increase costs and can make the difference between whether a domestic economic venture is viable or has to fall by the wayside. Having the right to border-free access within the internal market of the country of which we are a part is certainly, from the vantage point of today, a basic right of economic citizenship.

The really odd thing about today is that although we are gathered here to affirm that article 6 and the rights that it confers are not only important but are, in the words of the Humble Address, of “foundational importance”, on 8 February 2023, paragraph 68 of the Supreme Court judgment ruled that they are in part suspended. We cannot withdraw, even temporarily, anything that is foundational without inviting the structure that it supports to topple, or ensuring that it does so. Part of the partial suspension of the economics provisions under article 6 results in Northern Ireland being cut off from the rest of the UK through a customs border that has to be crossed, whether it is approached through the red lane or the internal market system.

The alternative border experience for customs that constitutes the UK internal market system is actually defined by the Commission delegated regulation EU 2023/1128, which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) referred to earlier. The formal EU description of that regulation is:

“amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 to provide for simplified customs formalities for trusted traders and for sending parcels into Northern Ireland from another part of the United Kingdom”.

The provisions thus simplify customs formalities, but do not remove them. Rather than removing those movements from the remit of the EU customs code, they have the effect of amending how the EU customs code deals with them.

It is quite extraordinary that the UK Government agree that movements of goods within the United Kingdom should be subject to a border imposed by 27 other states that regulate movements from one part of our country to another through their customs code, regardless of how demanding or undemanding that code is.

[Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that point. Many goods ordered online and delivered from a GB company make their way into Northern Ireland after being shipped into Dublin at night, so the members of the public who order them have to pay customs to the Republic of Ireland for goods that are to be used within the United Kingdom. That is another area that has not yet been addressed and needs serious consideration.

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that valid point. The Minister will, in his new role, be extremely busy in dealing with the many remaining issues.

Some might say, “Well, if the EU sought to change the customs code to increase the demands on trusted traders, we could refuse to accept the change.” That goes to the heart of the matter. If we were prepared to refuse such a change from the EU under those circumstances, why would we accept them under the current circumstances, through arrangements that involve the partial disenfranchisement of 1.9 million UK citizens who can no longer stand for election to make all the laws to which they are subject and, under the brake, must instead make do with the right to stand for election to try to stop laws already made for us by a foreign Parliament?

The truth, as was pointed out in the other place, is that the Windsor framework is an invalid treaty. There are rules about what makes a treaty valid or invalid, and one of the most basic is respect for the territorial integrity of states, which involves states renouncing claims to make the laws of other states. The Windsor framework involves 27 states refusing to recognise the territorial integrity of the UK, seeking to divide our country in two, and then claiming the right to make some of the laws for part of our country. In that context, the UK Government should declare the treaty void, and, acting on the determination set out in this Humble Address, declare that article 6 is of foundational importance, and look for the earliest opportunity for Parliament to un-suspend—and thus fully restore— article 6, so that the people of Northern Ireland are not alienated, however temporarily, from any aspect of this provision, which is, as the Humble Address rightly acknowledges, of “foundational importance”.

Many in Northern Ireland have welcomed the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly and its ability to deal with health, education and infrastructure. I, for one, will raise many of those issues with our colleagues in the Assembly. I trust that we will see much change in those issues, which have a daily impact. However, we must not paper over the cracks. There remains much work to do. This has been a sensible debate that has allowed many issues to be raised constructively. I look forward to engaging with the Minister on many of these matters.

Northern Ireland

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

With the leave of the house, I will answer a few of the points that have been raised. We have heard a wide and varied range of contributions on all aspects of the regulations from Members across the House. In my closing remarks, I wish to take the opportunity to address those points.

First, I thank the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) for the way that he has approached everything we have done. He asked a few questions, which I shall try to answer. He talked about these measures and how we will be protecting the European single market with this package. What these measures also do, which is unbelievably important, is protect our internal market at the same time. [Interruption.] I know that the right hon. Gentleman knows that, but I just wanted to emphasise the point, because it is important. He asked for an example—I think that it is in proposed new section 13C introduced through the regulations—of where there would be a significant adverse effect. I can refer him best to the example I gave of the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill, where there is an obvious advantage to Northern Ireland to be different, which we took on board. He very kindly showed some ankle on Labour’s position on our future relationship with the EU. Can I beg him to continue to do that? While we all enjoy a good political debate—I will not go too far into this point, because we are in a consensual place—we would very much like to explore exactly what Labour’s position is on European Union free movement and a whole host of other things.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The right hon. Member makes reference to the fact that, within the legislation, there is now a safeguard around significant disadvantage towards Northern Ireland and significant adverse effect. Does he not agree, though, that the significant adverse effect is very subjective? It has no concrete definition and section 13B allows the Minister to go ahead anyway, even if it does cause a significant adverse effect.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Before I answer it, may I say that I owe her an apology, because I completely misheard her question yesterday? I was having trouble hearing her—I think it might be my age, but hopefully it was the microphone—so I wanted to apologise for not answering her question properly. I disagree with her and I think a written ministerial statement allows this place to scrutinise what the Minister is doing and to allow more transparency.

I also wish to make a point—I hope that I will not punch a bruise here—about the intervention of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) on the right hon. Member for Leeds Central. The hon. Member for North Antrim said that tariffs between GB and Northern Ireland would be acceptable if they were the will of the Parliament. I disagree. I think a £3 tariff on Bushmills would not be that great. None the less, all of the arrangements in the framework are given full effect by the will of this Parliament, and so, by his definition, it must be completely acceptable. I thank him for his support.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Windsor Framework (Constitutional Status of Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.

United Kingdom Internal Market

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

It is a privilege to speak in the debate and to follow the many hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken with great wisdom, knowledge and personal experience on these matters.

It is informative to apply to article 6 of the Acts of Union the four tests for impact that were developed by Justice Colton—specifically, Northern Ireland’s compliance with certain EU standards; the bureaucracy and associated costs of complying with customs documentation and checks; the payment of tariffs for goods at risk; and the unfettered access enjoyed by Northern Ireland businesses to the EU single market. I question the representation of the Supreme Court judgment as set out in paragraph 14 of annex A to the Command Paper, but those were matters for the last debate, and there is not time to make my point.

The Windsor framework removed many EU standards for GB-produced consumer goods destined for Northern Ireland. That does not change under the SI before us. The second test—on bureaucracy and compliance costs associated with customs—should concern us, as the protocol saw the diversion of £1.2 billion-worth of goods in supply chains from GB to the Republic. Indeed, logistics businesses testified to the Lords Windsor Framework Sub-Committee on the complexity of managing mixed loads, with two large haulage firms stating that groupage had been “forgotten” in the framework.

Expert analysis has also suggested that 75% of output in non-exempted manufacturing sectors, including electronics, engineering and chemicals, comes from firms with turnover above £2 million, which will see their GB supply chains stuck in the red lane or diverted abroad. The Command Paper published yesterday contains a pledge—a UK internal market guarantee—that no more than 20% of goods will flow through the red lane. In practice, that creates a monitoring panel to report on any failures to hit the target and make recommendations to which the Government must respond. That is admirable but does not represent a material change to existing customs requirements under the protocol. It is also worth noting that, worryingly, that could be achieved simply by diverting supply chains away from GB towards the EU, as affected GB businesses cut Northern Ireland out of their distribution chains.

The regulations before us create important easements for Northern Ireland to GB trade, including a guarantee that future divergence will not impact the ability of Northern Ireland traders to freely access GB markets. That is welcome, but the bulk of distribution has always pertained to GB-to-NI trade, not the reverse. As is also noted in the Command Paper, although technology may ease compliance costs in the medium to long-term, those costs will still exist. Shipping from London to Belfast will continue to require significantly more bureaucracy than shipping to York or Edinburgh. The third test, on tariffs, is not covered and does not apply.

Finally, let me turn to Northern Ireland’s preferential access to the EU single market. I must emphasise that the clear trade-off that we have chosen to give Northern Ireland unregulated access to EU supply chains comes at the cost of complicating access to GB ones, despite the fact that Northern Ireland imports from GB are two and a half times those from the EU and six times those from Ireland. Whatever easements we offer, that has created a customs, judicial and legislative border across the kingdom, and it is hurting our businesses. The fact that Northern Ireland continues to have preferential access to the EU single market is unarguable, but it should not be misunderstood. Again, I find that final test informative.

Nothing I say today is intended to diminish the achievement of the deal when it comes to material gain for Northern Ireland. Although I welcome the elements within the new deal, which undoubtedly offer increased safeguards for the Union, it does not change the fact of EU law’s application to Northern Ireland, additional bureaucracy for GB businesses attempting to access Northern Ireland, the existence of tariffs, or Northern Ireland’s de facto placement within the EU single market. Once again, the qualities and effectiveness of this deal will emerge over the months and years ahead, I am sure, and through the scrutiny that must come from this place. I will continue to offer my support in those months and years ahead.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I believe the hon. Gentleman has finished his speech. I call Gavin Robinson.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would be very happy to let my colleague in if she wishes to respond to the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar).

[Carla Lockhart]

I think it needs to be reiterated that if the people of England, Wales or Scotland woke up tomorrow morning and found that they would have to stand for election to try to stop laws in 300 areas being imposed on them by a foreign Parliament, it would be outrageous and seen as outrageous by this House. That point should not be lost on this gathering.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am glad that I allowed my hon. Friend to make that intervention even though the hon. Member for Aberconwy had brought his contribution to a conclusion, because that is an important point.

In the context of the UK Parliament, I am proud to stand in support of the SI before us, and to recognise the efforts over the past number of years to deal with what was imposed on us and the people of Northern Ireland by colleagues in this Chamber and by a Government, arising from the arrangements reached in the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. A series of measures were taken designed to encourage those who did not overly concern themselves with the position in which they had left Northern Ireland, to redress the harm done.

Today is, in many ways, a culmination of part of that process, but not an end to it. For the past number of years, my colleagues and I have stood firm in this regard. We have taken a principled position about the imposition of the Northern Ireland protocol and the harm it has caused our country and our place within our country, and have worked determinedly for solutions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I will adhere, as I always do, to your timescale, Madam Deputy Speaker; I know my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) has a lot to say as well.

The combined years of negotiation have to be recognised. There has been movement, and even the harshest critics must be fair and admit to the huge steps that have been taken. It is right and proper that I thank those in the DUP, notably my leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), and deputy leader, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), sitting on the right and left of me here in this Chamber. I also thank the others who have contributed, such as the Secretary of State and others with influence: the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) has been a great advocate for Unionism in Northern Ireland, and we thank him for that. So I am grateful to all who have done the bulk of the work by tirelessly advocating for change. They have secured a deal, and I am thankful for that.

However, I must be clear: this is not the fulfilment of a wish list. It does not go as far as I would wish and I would like to see more, but how can I change that? I change that from in this House; I change it in this Westminster House of Commons. That is how we do it—as a democrat, that is how I believe we must do it. That is a point worth making.

I am an active constituency MP, as we all are—I am not saying that no other Members are—and I have travelled the length and breadth of my constituency discussing this matter. I met with Orange brethren and sisters in January this year, and did the same last year. I met with teachers, NHS workers, individuals and community groups. I took time on the doorsteps to explain to my people why we had to take the necessary step of bringing down Stormont, to try to provide the justification for staying out of Stormont at times when money was being withheld and every threat other than physical was being lodged at us. I took the time to attempt to tell people that it was not a matter of us being thran, to use an Ulster Scotsism, but it was a matter of us taking seriously the economic and constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the Union.

That is what my colleagues have done for two years, and I have stood firm on this and on the seven tests that the DUP outlined. Now today we see the legislation that I and others called for—constitutional legislation to secure our place within the internal market—and I retain some level of concern and press the Government for more assurances. Ministers would expect me to do that.

It was highlighted yesterday that the European laws may be overruled by Government, but the wording suggests that they may also be accepted, allowing Northern Ireland to diverge. All the people I represent seek an assurance from our Government that this deal and the legislation before this House will do exactly what it says on the tin and secure our place in the internal market—in fact restore and then secure our place.

I say gently to my colleagues on the Treasury Bench and across the Chamber that there is a lack of trust, which boils down to the treatment of Unionists by ruling Governments in this House for decades. The Secretary of State kindly took that on board when I raised it in an intervention. I look forward to that trust being built upon in a way that enables us to secure the trust of the people I am privileged to represent in this House.

The Irish Government have no issues with supporting calls for reunification, yet our Government Ministers have been afraid to appear unbiased. Government need to be unbiased. The opinion of this House on our sovereignty should be clear. My party leader sought not simply to secure legislation and change for this to take place now, but to future-proof it. In other words, we are not just dealing with it for today: we are dealing with it for the future of my children and grandchildren and those I probably will not be here for. Many of the people I represent have stated their lack of trust in a Government who told us they had given us the best they could and then did not deliver.

[Carla Lockhart]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about trust. The way the people of Northern Ireland have been treated over the past number of years by this Government is terrible. We need only look at the abortion laws that were forced on the people of Northern Ireland and the relationship and sexuality education change brought into Northern Ireland. So trust is at an all-time low, and there are people in my constituency who look at this not through rose-tinted glasses but with the view that we need to go much further and do more.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend clearly illustrates the distrust. To be fair, the Minister of State and Secretary of State have recognised that and know the job they have to do. It is clear why some of my electorate question not the dealings of the DUP, but rather those of the Government, wondering whether this deal is deliverable and will stand the test of time. Under the methodology before us, the Government must take a step, and only when they take that step can we then make an assessment of whether the deal is deliverable and will stand the test of time. That is what the issue boils down to, and it is why I express concerns. There is a huge lack of trust, and that has spilled over to many being unable to accept the spirit of the deal, and in all honesty—I say this respectfully—I fully understand the distrust.

Just to give the House one quick example, on Tuesday morning I had the opportunity to look over the deal. A gentleman has been in touch not just with me, but with my hon. Friends on these Benches. He said, “Jim, I’m going to test this out to see if the paperwork is less.” That was Tuesday morning. He came back to me Tuesday night, and he sent me a text today, which I think others may have had, to say that for the 251 products that had each needed 300 pages of paperwork, the paperwork was away. He also told me that the pet foods that he could not get, he will be able to get in three weeks’ time. That has to be progress. Why did that happen? It happened because of some of the things that have been done here.

I took the opportunity to speak to businesses and to the farmers. Farmers and their union have told me that as far as they are concerned, they see progress on machinery, tractors and vehicles. In an intervention on the Minister earlier, I mentioned the importance of having a veterinary committee. I make a plug for my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) to be a member of that, because his influence in that area will be critical. He has done the spadework, and he seems to me to be the right man to be in there to fight for us.

My electorate want their representatives back to Stormont, but not at any price. Rather than the spirit of Chamberlain’s peace at any price, which emboldened our enemy, they hold to the mantra of Churchill that we will fight them on the beaches, and how true that is. We have sought to secure the internal market, but reading the SI makes it clear that a lot of interpretation is in the hands of the sitting Government. My constituents are desperate to get the billions that have been wilfully withheld. I said that with great respect to the Secretary of State last week. Those awaiting treatment on the NHS list deserve funding to reduce their time in pain. The bus drivers standing a few yards down from my constituency office in the freezing cold deserve a pay raise. The children with special needs deserve the security of knowing that their day centre will remain open and not close due to insufficient funding.

All those people deserve those things, whether or not this deal is struck, but we also deserve the truth of who we are in the light of the legislation. Are we a casual member—[Interruption.] I will finish soon, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am rushing quickly to meet your timing. Are we a casual member of the UK, with the EU to have a continuing say on laws and the recognition of status, or do we have full UK membership, with the benefits and security of every other part of the UK? The deal has been hard fought for and seeks to address that, but the real power to assure us lies in this House, with the Ministers and the Government. At home, people are urging us to keep our word, and I agree we must, but we can do so only if the Government in this place also keep their word. Northern Ireland deserves our place in the UK, and my party leadership has fought hard for it. The question is simple, and so is the answer I seek: are we British in law, in economics and in parity, or are we not? Speak the word today and ensure that my Government and Ministers here keep it tomorrow.