Northern Ireland After Brexit (Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee Report)

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Carlile. I do so with some temerity; I cannot understand why I have been put so high up the list, since my expertise in these areas is probably less than almost everybody else on this Committee. But I pay tribute to the committee for producing a report that is thorough and detailed in its analysis of a labyrinthine problem. Every tree in the forest of issues has been identified and described, but the report stopped short, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, mentioned, of examining why this forest of problems exists and whether there is some way of removing them or finding a permanent route through the forest.

The basic reason for the impenetrable barriers that we have to get through and which prevents the people of Northern Ireland having a proper say, or even a veto, over the laws that govern them is that Northern Ireland is, effectively, a condominium. We should recognise that fact. It is governed jointly by the EU and the UK in many respects. It is a bit like the old condominium of Sudan and Egypt, which was an Anglo-Egyptian condominium, or, more recently, the New Hebrides, which was jointly controlled by a Franco-British condominium. It was such a nightmare that it was known as the pandemonium, not the condominium. I suspect that the consequences of trying jointly to govern Northern Ireland by EU law, 300 areas of law and UK law elsewhere, and a consultation between the UK and EU authorities are inevitably bound to create pandemonium. It is impossible, under that arrangement, to give voice to the local people any more than it was possible in Sudan or the New Hebrides.

That raises two issues. Is this situation permanent? If it is not, is there an alternative that would provide a much more satisfactory long-term arrangement that would allow democracy to return? I was struck when I bumped into some young people from Northern Ireland who said how insulted they felt that they were not allowed to vote for people who would determine the laws in large areas of life that affected them. We have to deal with that issue.

We all agree that there should not be a hard border in Northern Ireland. That is the basis of the present arrangement. The only body ever threatening to erect a hard border with physical facilities and carrying out checks at the border was, of course, the EU itself. The EU has a perfectly legitimate objective, which is to prevent goods that do not conform to its rules entering its territory. It has to maintain the integrity of the single market. To do that, it insisted and persuaded at the very opening of the negotiations on the withdrawal agreement that there should be no hard border. Effectively, that led to the continuation of EU law north of the border. The EU insisted that all goods produced in Northern Ireland must conform to EU rules and all those entering from GB must conform to EU rules if they go into the Republic. This is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

I want to see whether there is a case for removing this present situation before I come to an alternative. Let us think back to the time when the withdrawal agreement was negotiated. Mrs May—now the noble Baroness, Lady May—asked to negotiate the trade arrangements that would follow on from us leaving the European Union alongside the withdrawal arrangements. She was refused by the EU, which said that it was not possible for it to do that under EU law. It could not reach a permanent agreement on trading arrangements with us until we had left, because the EU had powers to reach agreements only with independent countries—non-members. So we needed first to have left the EU before it was possible to reach any agreement with us.

The EU then went ahead and agreed the withdrawal agreement before it would start proper negotiations on the trade and co-operation agreement, but it insisted on including trading arrangements with Northern Ireland in the withdrawal agreement. Whenever I raised this and said, “Well, hang on, I thought you couldn’t reach trading agreements”, the EU said, “Oh, we can, as long as it is temporary and designed to deal with the problems that may arise if Britain leaves without a permanent trade and co-operation agreement”, or other transitional arrangements to do with us leaving. But it is intrinsically temporary. We need to remember and remind ourselves of that.

This was all discussed in the House of Commons at the time. The then Attorney-General, Geoffrey Cox, explained to the House that

“article 50 of the Treaty on European Union does not provide a legal basis in Union law for permanent future arrangements with non-member states”.

He went on to say that, if European traders felt disadvantaged by aspects of the protocol in future, they should,

“beat a path to the door of the Commission and the Court, and there to say, ‘Didn’t you say that article 50 is not a sound legal foundation for this arrangement?’ And I tell you frankly, Mr Speaker, they are likely to win”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/18; cols. 547-55.]

So the Attorney-General, who rarely expresses opinions on the possible outcome of hypothetical legal cases, thought it was absolutely clear-cut that this is a temporary arrangement that cannot continue permanently.

The withdrawal agreement, which is based on Article 50 of the European Union treaties,

“does not aim at establishing a permanent future relationship between the EU and the UK”—

that was the wording in the original protocol. It was not in the second protocol, but that does not mean that it did not apply, because the second protocol was bounded by exactly the same aspects of the treaties of the European Union. So it is temporary and it must sooner or later be replaced. With what can it be replaced that will meet the legitimate objectives of the European Union to maintain the integrity of its single market, the people of Northern Ireland to have a say in their government and the United Kingdom as a whole to maintain the integrity of its own market?

It has been suggested by very distinguished people, such as a former director-general of the EU Commission, Sir Jonathan Faull, and distinguished professors of EU law at both Harvard and Madrid, Joseph Weiler and Daniel Sarmiento, that we should collectively agree mutual enforcement. We do not need to go even that far. We can have unilateral enforcement. Britain can pass a law that will prohibit the export of goods that do not meet EU laws, checks and standards from our territory to the EU.

In the normal way, that law would not be enforced at the border. Indeed, existing export controls to the rest of the world are rarely, if ever, enforced at the border, port or airport. Applications to export goods, or likewise to import goods under customs duties, are analysed electronically. If analysis or intelligence suggests that a company may be exporting or importing non-compliant goods without having obtained an export or import licence, enforcement action would normally be at the point of production or dispatch, not at the port or border. Likewise, should the UK suspect or be informed by the Irish Government that non-EU compliant goods were being or planned to be dispatched across the border, enforcement would take place at the trader’s premises in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, or in transit, not at the Northern Ireland border.

So there is a perfectly workable and enforceable system that we could introduce. We would like it to be reciprocated by similar arrangements for goods coming into Britain from the EU, but we do not need that. HMRC said repeatedly in all our debates and discussions that there were no circumstances in which it would need to carry out checks at the border to maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom internal market.

I congratulate the committee again on having looked at ways to try to ameliorate the problems that are inherent in the present situation, but let us not forget that the present situation is temporary. It legally must be replaced, and there are alternatives to replace it with that meet the legitimate expectations of the EU, as well as the needs of the people of Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I am. Noble Lords heard it here first. Perhaps I do have a little power, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said—or rather, the people behind me do.

My noble friend Lord Murphy touched on the SPS agreement and how important it is. We are currently negotiating with the EU on an SPS agreement to make agri-food trade with our biggest market cheaper and easier, cutting costs and removing barriers to trade for producers and retailers across the whole of the UK. The agreement will benefit Northern Ireland through the interplay with the Windsor Framework, by making a more consistent approach to agri-food and plants. We will smooth the flows of trade still further. On 9 March, the Government provided an update on the changes this would entail for businesses. This includes a call for information from businesses so that the Government can understand exactly what they need.

My noble friends Lord Murphy and Lord Hain asked about the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels and the investment provided. The Government have agreed to provide funding to this office to cover up to three additional posts to ensure that Northern Ireland’s interests are accounted for in Brussels and that EU policy-making is accounted for in Belfast.

Parity of esteem was raised by my noble friend Lord Murphy. This seems particularly apt given how close we are to the anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We are committed to the agreement in all respects, which of course includes parity of esteem for the identities and aspirations of both communities. The application of the Windsor Framework does not shake that commitment.

Gently, I want to touch on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. He raised many issues related to how we got to this point and the question of what is temporary. I was given a slight history lesson earlier today about how many pieces of legislation have the word “temporary” in them, and that has not exactly been an unusual part of our legislative framework historically. I gently suggest that the agreements we have been discussing today were signed by his party when in government, and my party is trying to make the Windsor Framework work for the people of Northern Ireland, which is why we are also currently in the process of resetting the relationship.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

They were, of course, signed by the past Government, but they were described by the EU as temporary. That was the sole justification the EU gave for including trade with Northern Ireland in the withdrawal agreement. She cannot make a party-political point about it. She is either going to ignore the EU or believe it.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I believe my party is quite clear on our position on the EU, not least because I believe in international law and complying with our agreements.

One of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, was on veterinary medicines and the prices going up. She raised a specific case. I should very much like to hear the detail of it because to date, we do not have any evidence of prices going up.