Northern Ireland After Brexit (Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee Report)

Lord Caine Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure, on behalf of the Official Opposition, to congratulate the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, on producing such a comprehensive and stimulating report. In addition, I put on record our thanks to the distinguished former Secretary of State the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, for conducting his independent review of the Windsor Framework, commissioned following the democratic consent vote in the Assembly in December 2024. Both the committee’s report and the noble Lord’s review contain a number of important recommendations that complement each other and which should be read side by side.

It was a privilege to be a Northern Ireland Office Minister when both the Windsor Framework and the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper were negotiated and published. As such, I was responsible for—some might say guilty of—taking a number of the measures contained in both documents through your Lordships’ House, including the Stormont brake, to which reference has been made today and which I genuinely hope that I did not try to oversell.

Like my noble friend Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, I, too, would not start from here. However, the origins of the Windsor Framework were of course in the desire of the previous Government to deal with the consequences of the flawed and highly defective protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland that had been negotiated in October 2019—although I am of course fully aware of the context in which that negotiation took place. Within a short space of time from the coming into force of the protocol in January 2021, those consequences had become all too apparent. As I put it in a debate in Grand Committee on 13 September 2021, while a member of the former sub-committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme:

“It has disrupted trade, damaged businesses, hit consumers and contributed to growing political instability … we now risk rushing headlong into a full-blown political crisis from which the institutions established under the 1998 agreement could take years to recover”.—[Official Report, 13/9/21; col. GC 253.]


That crisis manifested itself only a few short months later, in February 2022, when the DUP First Minister resigned, triggering the collapse of the institutions—I should add, just weeks after I had taken through legislation as a Minister, part of which was designed to make it more difficult for that to happen. Instead, and as a result of the DUP’s decision, devolved government ceased to function for another two years.

The Windsor Framework was, therefore, an attempt—a valiant one, in my view—by the Sunak Government to address these issues, motivated, as I can assure noble Lords, by a desire significantly to reduce checks on goods that the protocol had introduced, protect Northern Ireland’s position within the UK internal market, and of course copper-fasten Northern Ireland’s place as an integral part of our United Kingdom. Taken with the subsequent Command Paper, Safeguarding the Union, in January 2024, it ameliorated some of the worst impacts of the protocol. It has led to the freer flow of goods coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and vice versa, while at the same time ensuring that Northern Ireland has unfettered access to the EU single market—a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick—so vital for industries such as the agri-food sector. In addition, both the framework and Safeguarding the Union in particular facilitated the restoration of devolved government at Stormont in February 2024—and we should not lose sight of the importance of that.

However, that is only one side of the story. When I took the Stormont brake regulations through your Lordships’ House, I said, rather too candidly for the Cabinet Office officials, who sought to censor my speech, that

“the Windsor Framework is not a perfect document”,

but that it

“represents very significant improvements on the old protocol negotiated in 2019”.—[Official Report, 29/3/23; col. 318.]

Taken alongside Safeguarding the Union, I still hold to that view. However, I fully accept that we clearly did not get everything right or solve every problem—although, given the unfortunate history of the protocol and the joint report of December 2017, it might be argued that it was the best we could have achieved in the circumstances. Anyone with experience of dealing with the EU, of which there are a number in the Committee today, will testify as to just how difficult it can be to persuade the Commission even to consider reopening agreements, especially ones that have only recently been reached.

As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, despite our best endeavours as a Government, significant problems remain. There is clear evidence of trade diversion, and my noble friend Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee highlighted figures from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency just this month that I was going to cite in full to support this. What consideration are the Government giving to the sensible proposals put forward by the Road Haulage Association that could reduce the burdens deterring operators from moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland? I agree that a trusted haulier scheme, also endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, lifting the existing £2 million turnover threshold for the inclusion of SMEs into the UK internal market scheme—and, crucially, moving the determination of at-risk goods from the point of entry into Northern Ireland to the point of sale—would be important and welcome measures. My noble friend Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard also raised significant problems around the movement of agricultural machinery and ongoing problems over veterinary medicines.

On democratic scrutiny, whatever the measures to improve this in the Windsor Framework and Safeguarding the Union, such as the Stormont brake and the applicability Motion, it is at least arguable—I put it mildly—that these have not necessarily worked as effectively or strongly as we might have hoped at the time. As a result, as many noble Lords pointed out, Northern Ireland, uniquely in the United Kingdom, has to accept and implement laws put forward by a supranational body of which we are not a member and over the shaping of which it still has little or no influence. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, put that point powerfully in his contribution, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hain.

We have never taken the view that the Windsor Framework was the final word or beyond improvement in what is an evolving or, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, put it, dynamic situation. We will always look at constructive proposals for change and reform. It is in that spirit that the Opposition approach both the committee’s report and the independent review. I will confine my comments to a few of the recommendations.

I fully accept what the report describes as the “labyrinthine complexity” of the arrangements under the framework, highlighted graphically by the impenetrable charts on pages 24 and 25, to which the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Jay, drew attention. Like my noble friend Lady Sanderson of Welton, I sometimes wonder how a party whose instinct is, or at least always should be, to make life for business and consumers easier could have settled for such a mind-boggling set of arrangements.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Empey, who said that we had gone completely OTT on this, and with my noble friend Lord Lilley, who described the current arrangements as a “sledgehammer to crack a nut”—a phrase I used in the debate to which I referred earlier, in 2021. There must surely, therefore, be scope to streamline and reduce the number of bodies involved in the implementation of the framework, and anything that simplifies matters for business, particularly for SMEs—which are the overwhelming majority in Northern Ireland—has to be welcomed.

Like everyone else who spoke, we particularly support, therefore, the establishment of the one-stop shop, also recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, as a place where business can seek advice and support to assist with problems that arise during the course of its trade and transactions. I strongly agree with the points transmitted to the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in this respect. Like others, I invite the Minister to give an update on progress towards establishing that one-stop shop when she winds.

The Government have accepted that the Democratic Scrutiny Committee should have more time to decide whether to launch an inquiry into replacement EU legislation, and will legislate when parliamentary time allows. Can the noble Baroness give us an assurance that this will take place in the next Session, which we anticipate beginning in May?

On commitments in Safeguarding the Union, which is covered by the committee’s report, will the Minister commit both to the long-term funding and longevity of the principal bodies established under the Command Paper: the independent monitoring panel, InterTrade UK and the east-west council? Can she also tell the Committee what is the status of the pledge in Annex B of Safeguarding the Union to publish a series of papers by sector that highlight the benefits of Northern Ireland’s place within the union? This is something that I have pursued through Written Questions but, sadly, the replies have been hardly enlightening.

Time prevents me from commenting on the so-called reset and proposed future dynamic alignment, although these will obviously have significant implications.

In conclusion, the recommendations in both the committee’s report and the review from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, are to be welcomed. They are overwhelmingly positive and should, if taken forward, make a number of improvements to the operation of the framework, including maximising Northern Ireland’s influence in Brussels and ending a number of the complexities regarding the current arrangements. But looking ahead, it is clear that at some point more fundamental changes are going to be needed to deal with the outstanding problems, and a number of noble Lords, not least my noble friend Lord Lilley, put forward suggestions in that respect. As a constructive Opposition, we are open to ideas and meaningful dialogue with all interested parties and organisations as to how this might be done, consistent always with the economic and constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom, which we hold so dear.