European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 6th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister]

I respectfully and utterly disagree. As part of the United Kingdom, we are all subject to the Human Rights Act 1998. The Human Rights Act is what fundamentally gives the hon. Lady’s constituents the rights that they have in that sphere, and she would lose nothing by losing the control of the foreign court of the European Court of Justice.

I am listing examples of the 300 areas of law that have been purloined by the EU in its sovereignty grab over Northern Ireland. I mentioned the 34 different diktats on animals. We have even reached the point in Northern Ireland where, under these arrangements, our cattle can no longer bear a UK ear tag. They now have to have a specified European Union ear tag. That is but an illustration of how absurd and utterly wrong and offensive it is that the right to make the laws in our own country has been surrendered to a foreign power.

All those 300 areas are set forth in annex 2 of the protocol or, as it is now more kindly called, the Windsor framework. Look at annex 2, look at the hundreds of laws—289 of them which now have been removed from the ambit of the lawmaking of this House or the lawmaking of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It is amazing to look at the volume of law: there are 70 pages containing not the details of the law but simply the headings of the law. That shows the extent to which the EU has its foot in the door in Northern Ireland.

[Jim Allister]

Absolutely. I printed them off a couple of months ago and I was staggered by how voluminous just the titles are. It is not just 300 laws; it is 300 areas of law which have been surrendered.

I have a challenge for every Member of this House who comes from a different part of the United Kingdom from Northern Ireland—those who represent GB constituencies. My challenge to them today is: “How would you feel if in 300 areas of law affecting your constituents, you had no input—you couldn’t change, you couldn’t move an amendment—because those laws were made colonial-like in a foreign Parliament by those elected not by your constituents but by the constituents of 27 other countries?” How, I ask this House, could any democrat, any representative MP, say that is right and correct?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister]

Maybe the hon. Member could help me. What would he call taking a territory and subjecting it to someone else’s laws? What would he call it other than colonisation? Is that not the very essence of what he and his colleagues wear as a badge of pride in their anti-colonialism? Is that not what it is in name and in truth?

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman remember that in the Brexit negotiations those so-called allies made it clear that the price of Brexit would be Northern Ireland’s removal from the United Kingdom? Far from being allies, they declared themselves to want to be colonisers.

[Jim Allister]

Yes, that was the boast of Mr Barnier and his staff: that the price of Brexit would be Northern Ireland—and so it has proved to be. That may be something of indifference, or indeed pride, for some people in this House, but it should be a badge of shame that we allowed a part of the United Kingdom to be colonised by the EU, and that we have surrendered our rights to make our own laws.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister]

I absolutely agree. The fascinating point is the very concept was articulated from and originated within the EU itself.

During the early stages of the negotiations, Sir Jonathan Faull and academics Daniel Sarmiento and Joseph Weiler came up with that proposition. It is not my proposition. It is not a United Kingdom proposition. It was an EU proposition. They said the answer is mutual enforcement. Today we have a statement from those three gentlemen, which has been made public. It says, “On Friday of this week, the House of Commons will be debating a Bill which attempts to address some of the difficulties resulting from the Brexit divorce agreements between the EU and the UK, which might be of interest to readers. In 2019, we proposed a solution which would have obviated any need for these complicated and divisive legal manoeuvres. The UK and the EU could have respected each other’s positions and saved everyone a great deal of time and effort. The Financial Times characterised the proposal as a ‘win-win solution’. Regrettably, it was not followed.” I echo that: regrettably, it was not followed. Why was it not followed? Because the politics took over. Instead of looking for a workable, practical border solution, the politics of making the United Kingdom pay for leaving the EU took over. That is how we got into this morass of a pernicious imposition through the border.

[Sammy Wilson]

During the early stages of the negotiations, the permanent secretary of the then Brexit Department told the Select Committee that the Irish Government, before Leo Varadkar took over, were actually exploring those kinds of solutions. The politics of the changeover in the Irish Republic and the willingness of Leo Varadkar to become the puppet of the EU in these negotiations stopped that method of looking at the border.

[Jim Allister]

I fear that there is a lot of truth in that. As I say, the politics took over. A further truth is that for some—not all, but some—enthusiasts of the protocol arrangement of a nationalist or Irish republican persuasion, there is a political gain that subsumes all doubts that they might have as democrats. For 30 years and more, the IRA terrorised through bomb and bullet to try to push the border to the Irish sea: “Brits out—push the border to the Irish sea!” That is precisely what the protocol has done: it has pushed the border to the Irish sea.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would be the first to admit that we do not always get these things right—whoever does? What we have to do is try, try and try again, and attempt to do our best in good faith. I will come back to that in a moment.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Member has quoted some of the comments that were made in this House, but does he accept that of the two people who negotiated the very things that he is referring to, and to whom those comments refer, one thought that he had signed up to an agreement for no paperwork? He said that if there was any paperwork, people should simply tear it up, as it does not matter. Does he accept that the other one negotiated an agreement whose EU version was totally different from the version that he gave to this House and the people of Northern Ireland? Let us not fall back too much on the comments made about either of the two agreements of the time, because many were made either with a lack of knowledge or with hope that was not fully founded.

[Peter Dowd]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, and I am not going to challenge the integrity of the people who were part of that negotiation. It is not for me to challenge their integrity: they are hon. Members, and I believe that they did what they did with the best intention. During the statement on 27 February, I believe that, on the whole, most comments were supportive, but I acknowledge and accept that some were not, such as those from the right hon. Gentleman himself. He made his views known, as did others.

I acknowledge that some of the Members who spoke during that statement are in the Chamber today and express disquiet. I welcome the fact that they have taken their places on the Benches, but their disquiet and the disquiet of others must be set in the context of the following—namely, that the agreement, according to the Command Paper, which is important and which I referred to earlier,

“narrows the range of EU rules applicable in Northern Ireland – to less than 3% overall by the EU’s own calculations.”

In any negotiation in the circumstances, coming away with that figure is not necessarily unreasonable. Would a figure of 100% be the acid test? Maybe it would, but I do not think so, given the circumstances—in practical terms, that is unlikely. That is the nature of negotiation: otherwise, it would be called imposition. We must recognise that those on the other side, who have their views, passions and commitment to their communities as well as their histories, have also been fraught with other people.

I will finish with this. I do not accept the idea that some of our partners in the European Union—some of those eastern bloc European countries that were under the yoke of the Soviet Union as a coloniser—would take the different view that they, in turn, were part of a group or cabal trying to impose a colonialist approach to another country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

As I understand it, that issue is being negotiated. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not accept the point he made about subjugation. I do not think it is subjugation, and I will come to that. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I respect the point he made, and I respect the views of his constituents, just as I respect the views of my constituents. But it does not alter the fact that the negotiation is taking place. As I said before—I will repeat it again—these things are never, ever symmetrical.

[Sammy Wilson]

I know that the hon. Member and others on the Government Benches have tried to make light of the use of the words “subjugation”, “colonisation” and everything else, but almost every week in this place, Members complain that Ministers do not come to this House to explain and elucidate on their policies, and that they are not prepared to be questioned on those policies, and quite rightly so. If Ministers were able to do that continuously in this place, would Labour Members not be claiming that we did not have accountable Government, that we did not have a Government who respected democracy, and that they were subjugating the people who are affected by those laws? I guarantee that no Members present would accept that from Ministers in this place, but they accept it in Northern Ireland.

[Peter Dowd]

In this place, we are enabled to ask these questions in a whole variety of different ways, including oral questions, written questions and meetings with Ministers. They are still available right across the piece, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that. Over a number years in this place, I have sometimes felt that I have not been listened to by the Government of the day. That is what I believed. [Interruption.] I was often listened to by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), who is on the Opposition Front Bench, and I completely accept that there were honourable exceptions. But at the end of the day, we live in a democracy in which we can challenge time after time, and we have to be persistent. I repeat that there are differences of opinion, but I respect them. I hope that today’s debate is being conducted in an as open and transparent way as possible.

This is not the end of the matter. Even if the Bill does not go through, the matter is not over. Nobody is going to pretend that somehow we are all going to go our separate ways and no one is ever going to ask a question or challenge a Minister in the future. This issue will come back time after time. I know emotion has its place, but so do hard facts, statistics and evidence, and they have to be balanced against one another. However, passion can sometimes lead to a febrile atmosphere that dominates, and we have to guard against that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is right. I reject the Bill as respectfully as I can. Countries have to operate in an international rules-based system. That is the position that this country has taken on many occasions, even when the consequences for us have been dire. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim talked about foundations. I do not want to undermine the foundation of the rules-based system, trust and good faith. That is what I do not want to breach.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Member not accept that trust in the United Kingdom is important? The Belfast agreement makes it clear that a promise was made to the people of Northern Ireland that there would be no change of any sort to our constitutional position unless they expressed a wish for it. The people of Northern Ireland have continually voted to be part of the Union. I know that the hon. Member is a Unionist. The Labour party fought hard to maintain the Union when Scottish nationalists tried to break away. Does he accept that he has an equal obligation to Unionist people in Northern Ireland—an obligation to stand by the promises that were made to them in an internationally agreed settlement? [Interruption.]

[Peter Dowd]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) says from a sedentary position, the framework strengthens the Union. That is exactly the point that I would have made. I know that some people do not accept that, but I believe that it strengthens the Union. Like a curate’s egg, any treaty will have good and bad parts for both sides. We would not need treaties or agreements if we all agreed about everything. The reality is that dissonance comes with the territory.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes a really important and fair point. We have to be very careful in this area when we have international obligations, and we have to be even more cautious when we are dealing with the situation that we found ourselves in given the context of the Belfast agreement.

I am drawing to a close, Members will be pleased to know, but it is worthwhile exploring the concept in a little more detail, because as I said, it goes to our position as a custodian. The circumstances in which we can depart from obligations are fairly clear: for instance, by mutual agreement—that is unsurprising—or implied right to withdraw. Neither of those is the case in this situation. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks they should be, but I do not believe that they are.

Can we say that the treaty or agreement is no longer in place due to agreed time limits or sunset clauses? The answer to that question is no. Has the other side materially breached the treaty or the agreement, which would in turn absolve us of our obligations? Well, I do not think that applies either. What about our ability to carry out the agreement because of the “disappearance or destruction” of an object crucial to the operation of the treaty? That get-out clause does not exist, either; well, not that I am aware. In fact, the Windsor framework is protected by the Vienna convention on treaties, as was brought out during the statement that I referred to.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Member mentions whether the other side has ever broken the treaty. Of course it did: the EU did so in a fit of pique, rage and vengeance against the United Kingdom during the covid crisis. It caught itself quickly, because it realised exactly what it had done, but the fact of the matter is, in the mind of the EU, the treaty is not as sacrosanct as he is trying to make it out to be for the UK. He suggests that we should not even think about breaking the Windsor framework and the protocol. The EU, when it is convenient, has shown that it will.

[Peter Dowd]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s position, but again, I disagree with his assertion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

I will not respond to the hon. Lady’s last line; I will leave it to others to determine. She and I have engaged with each other—sometimes helpfully, and sometimes crossly—for years. When there are opportunities to work together to benefit my constituency or anybody else’s in the United Kingdom, I will do it. What I am actually doing at the moment is sharing agreements that were reached. She and her colleagues voted for them, yet we are still waiting for their implementation.

Let me give another one: an agreement outlined in “Safeguarding the Union” required a labelling regime across the United Kingdom. The reason for that was that there were no cost implications or benefits for businesses in Scotland, England and Wales if they simply chose not to supply our market in Northern Ireland. We have heard every hue and cry from drinks manufacturers and food manufacturers across the United Kingdom, who have said that this is costly and will cause them difficulty, yet Asda, Sainsbury’s and Tesco simply put it on their best-before date line. It costs them nothing, but what does it ensure? No divergence of trade within our own country. What does it ensure? Access to the Northern Ireland market and the removal of a disincentive.

What have we heard? The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has no interest in honouring the very aspect of the agreement that Labour supported back in February. It is now saying, “Yes, we will take the power, but we will not use it, unless—”. Unless what? It is repudiating a commitment from an agreement that it supported, but it will not say what is the trigger point. At what point is it OK for it to step in? At what point should Northern Ireland be disenfranchised before our sovereign Government and our sovereign Parliament will take steps to protect the consumer interests of the people of Northern Ireland? We do not know, but what we do know is that even when they have been prepared to engage in discussions that are of practical benefit to the people of Northern Ireland to resolve these issues—and Labour supported those—there has not been full and faithful implementation. It is not governed by the Vienna convention, but we are not seeing that full and faithful implementation.

[Sammy Wilson]

My right hon. Friend says that even when solutions are found, they are not implemented. We have heard examples of things that people never imagined would be problems becoming problems. The fact is that every time a solution is found, because we in Northern Ireland are subject to laws that are different from those in the UK, new problems arise. Unless we deal with the fundamental issue, namely what is causing the problems, we will be continually looking for solutions and continually fighting to get them implemented, and that is not good either for business in Northern Ireland or for confidence in the Union.

[Gavin Robinson]

My right hon. Friend is entirely correct. What have we achieved over the last five years? A game, and not a very enjoyable game, of whack-a-mole, for it is about as strategic as whack-a-mole. An issue comes up involving the VAT margin schemes for second-car salesmen; we find a solution. Then another issue pops up, and another, and another. Whack-a-mole! That is the best strategic approach that this Government, and the previous Government, have adopted to deal with issues that are affecting us because of the decision taken back in 2019.

I remember the parliamentary discourse about the quest for agreement, but I know this. When the previous Prime Minister, Boris Johnson—[Interruption.] Just let me finish. No need for your wee quips. When Boris Johnson engaged with this issue, in respect of the protocol, he went to the Wirral for a walkabout in a wedding venue with Leo Varadkar, and became smitten with Leo. He ditched the democratic consent principles in section 4(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. It was always part of the preceding arrangements that a consent vote in Northern Ireland would adhere to the consent principles in the Belfast agreement, and Boris Johnson ditched them.

In “Safeguarding the Union”, there was a commitment to remove and repeal a legacy provision in section 10(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, on having due regard to an all-island economy—a commitment that Labour supported, but now repudiate because it is in “Safeguarding the Union”. Let me remind the House that it is only in “Safeguarding the Union” because it features in the Windsor framework. Much of the approach from the Government Benches seems to amount to “We cannot achieve anything with the European Union unless we demonstrate our trust and our integrity—or our servitude!—to the European Union.” Paragraph 53 of the Windsor framework indicates very clearly that there is no need to have a legal due regard to an all-island economy that does not exist. Anyone who stands up here today and talks about their full-throated support for the Windsor framework should read what paragraph 53 has to say about the all-island economy. It is a matter of fact that we do not have an all-island economy; we have strands within our economy that operate on a cross-border basis in the context of two legal jurisdictions, two tax jurisdictions, two currency jurisdictions, two VAT jurisdictions and two regulatory jurisdictions, unless covered under annex 2 of the protocol. We do not have an all-island economy. It is a superfluous piece of legislation that is drawn out of the joint report from 2017, and it should go. It should go because I say so; it should go because it was agreed under the Windsor framework, which is quickly forgotten and ignored.

We have talked about article 2 in this debate. No one on this side of the Chamber is indicating that we should leave, through this argument, the European convention on human rights, nor that we should replace the Human Rights Act 1998, which embeds those commitments in our domestic legislation. The argument being raised on article 2 of the Windsor framework is that what has been presented as an international treaty, an agreement and a resolution on trade is impacting and frustrating the ability of this sovereign Parliament because of how the courts in Northern Ireland are interpreting the provisions on myriad areas outside trade.

Immigration is a classic example. The hon. Member for Walthamstow was right that we worked on this and we talked about this, but let me be very clear: whenever I stood up in this Chamber on behalf of my colleagues as our spokesman on home affairs to say that I would not vote for the Illegal Migration Act 2023, it was not because I did not think there was an issue with immigration. I do. It was not because I was ill-prepared to support Government in their endeavours. I was prepared to do so. I said this in this Chamber and my colleagues supported me: it was because, though the Government said that the provisions would apply in Northern Ireland, we were indicating that they would not.

The very same people who told me that the immigration legislation would apply in Northern Ireland launched a leadership campaign on the back of the arguments I was making afterward. We were right, but it is wrong that a trading agreement should have any impact whatever on the ability of this sovereign Parliament to set a uniform immigration policy across the whole United Kingdom. It was wrong then, and I am glad that the Secretary of State on Wednesday night indicated that that is a ground of appeal that the Government are bringing forward, because it is wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend.

I want to give the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) another example. She will have heard colleagues in interventions, she will have heard the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) at Prime Minister’s questions and she will have heard me at Northern Ireland questions raise the issue of the general product safety regulations that come into force next Friday. What is the best answer we had from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? “We are in discussions.” What do we hear from Labour Members? “It’s in train.”

Information should have been given to businesses long before next Friday, but have I ever heard a Labour Member say, “Actually, in January 2024, the Conservative Government extended the February 2023 agreement to adhere to the requirements and standards of EU safety markings—the CE markings on goods—and general product safety”? Why are we in a situation where our Government—the last Government, but still our Government—agreed to adhere to EU standards on general product safety, only to find that, come next Friday, it will all be too problematic for GB businesses to trade with a part of the United Kingdom? It is wrong. It should not be the case, and it is not at all satisfactory that we are talking today about the aspiration to have a solution when this comes in on Friday. Businesses should already have the information.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does my right hon. Friend not find it even stranger that for products moving from the Republic of Ireland into GB, the Government rushed to find an accommodation? Only last week, the Minister told us that she was totally satisfied that checks away from the border would be perfectly suitable because producers in the Republic of Ireland were getting concerned about access to the GB market, yet our Government cannot find any urgency for facilitating the movement of products from GB to Northern Ireland.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

I am going to make some progress. To the Government’s mind, this commitment to normal security arrangements could not be met, under the common travel area arrangements, with a hard border of the sort that the Bill would institute.

The hon. and learned Gentleman indicated that, come what may, he wants his part of the UK enabled to follow the rest out of the EU. I need not remind him that the whole of the UK left the European Union, and that the debate has been settled. We can see that he would prefer that damaging hard border for Northern Ireland.

[Sammy Wilson]

First, will the Minister accept that the arrangements referred to in the Belfast agreement were security arrangements—army watchtowers and Army posts along the border? Secondly, despite what she has said about the common travel area, does she accept that guards are stopping and searching vehicles on roads in and out of Northern Ireland, to take people off them, because they believe that they are illegal immigrants? The common travel area is not even being respected by the Irish Government.

[Fleur Anderson]

There are absolutely minimal stops along the border. It is not a hard border, but circumstances would be very different under the Bill, which implies an ideological hard Brexit—

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

I hope the right hon. Member understands that I am talking about the difference between a hard border and a soft border. The Windsor framework enables the smooth flow of trade, which is good for businesses on both sides of the border and also safeguards the Union. The Windsor framework does not damage the Union; it actually strengthens it and ensures that it can continue.

[Sammy Wilson]

On the issue of a hard border, will the Minister give way?

Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Troubles

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I have talked tonight about a lot of process, future legislation, remedial orders and so on. That is why I said at the end of my statement that, in the end, this is about the families—the families, whom many Members in the House will have met, who still do not know what happened and who carry the incredible pain from what they have been through with them to this day. The very least we can do is to try really, really hard to find a way of giving them the answers that they have been seeking.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the fact that the Government, as part of their appeal, will appeal the way in which the scope of article 2 has been extended, even to include overreach into national policy. I say to the Secretary of State that as long as article 2 remains, there will always be contention about how much say the EU will have—not only on law and activities in Northern Ireland, but on policy made in this House.

On the decisions he has made on inquests, civil cases and disclosure, the Secretary of State has to be honest with this House: that is not going to result in terrorists being taken through the courts or through the process in Northern Ireland. It will result only in ageing members of the security forces being dragged once again through the courts and suffering as a result of the service they gave in Northern Ireland. He said he intends to continue to speak with the Irish Government. The Irish Government have shamelessly taken our Government to court while doing nothing about the collusion and activities of the Irish state and Irish security forces in aiding and abetting the killing of soldiers and genocide along the border. Will the Secretary of State ensure that if there is a discussion on legacy, they address the past sins they are guilty of?

[Hilary Benn]

In dealing with the legacy of the troubles it is important that everyone faces up to the consequences of what happened and of what they did or did not do—everyone. It is a painful and difficult process indeed. The implication of what I have announced to the House today is that nobody can escape prosecution, because the immunity that was offered by the legacy Act has been removed. If there is evidence—although I acknowledge to the House that with the passage of time that becomes more and more difficult, for reasons the right hon. Gentleman alluded to—at least that possibility remains.

On article 2, I would simply point out that this agreement was reached between the British Government and the European Union, and it is the British courts—not the European courts—that have interpreted it. That is why the Government are of the view that we should seek to get a definitive ruling on the nature of that interpretation from the Supreme Court.

Windsor Framework

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Windsor framework.

When the Windsor framework was introduced, it was the original protocol by another name, because it made no substantive changes to the original text. It was portrayed, sold and packaged as a tremendous opportunity for Northern Ireland. Some time later, we even had the President of the United States, President Biden, talk extravagantly about $6 billion of awaiting investment in Northern Ireland. We had acolytes of the Government talk about Northern Ireland becoming the Singapore of the western hemisphere, and it seemed that no boast was too large to make.

The reality is very different, however, and matters rather came down to earth with a bump just a couple of weeks ago, when Invest Northern Ireland representatives appeared before a Stormont Committee. Remember that the Windsor framework was supposed to unleash an avalanche of foreign direct investment into Northern Ireland because—we were told—our access to the single market of the European Union was the panacea for all things economic. The witness from Invest NI had to confess that there would be no uptake in foreign direct investment, and the framework was not producing the results that were claimed.

There is a very simple reason for that: the counterbalance to accessing the European single market is the fettering of our links to our GB supply market. In order to have that access to the foreign single market of the EU, we had to subject ourselves to EU law. Its customs code says that, with GB not being in the EU but Northern Ireland being treated as an EU territory, GB has to be regarded as a foreign country, hence the erection of the obnoxious border in the Irish sea for the bringing of goods from GB to Northern Ireland. The counterbalance to that alleged wonderful access to the EU single market was the building of a border to fetter trade from GB, and that is why the framework has not produced that magical foreign investment. Anyone looking at investing thinks about not just where they will sell their goods, but where they will get their raw materials from. If the raw material supply line is fettered by an international customs border governed by foreign law—and that is what it is—they are going to think twice about that, and obviously they have thought twice. All the proposals and packaging largely turned out to be insubstantial spin.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The boast was that Northern Ireland would have the best of both worlds—the European market and the UK market. Would the hon. and learned Member accept that all the evidence says that, even apart from just the undemocratic nature of laws being imposed on us, businesses are facing huge tax burdens, where they have to pay taxes and then claim them back? They have been shut off from their markets and cannot get supplies, and there are still many sectors of the economy that cannot get supplies from GB.

[Jim Allister]

It has infected every sector, and none more so than the farming sector, which is topical today. Northern Ireland’s veterinary medicines are now under the regime of the EU, and we are facing a cliff edge in that regard—there could be a cut-off of supply from our primary market of veterinary medicines very shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and he and I have had many discussions about progress on implementing the commitments made in “Safeguarding the Union”. He can see the progress that has been made, and he and I have discussed issues where there is work in progress.

By the way, the original protocol, which had many flaws and difficulties, and the Windsor framework negotiated by the previous Government, which represents a considerable improvement, were both approved democratically by this Parliament. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim argues that they were imposed from Brussels, but it was this Parliament that decided the way to reconcile the choices—impossible choices, in a way—that leaving the European Union created. Frankly, I would not have started from here, as I think he well understands, but this is a consequence of a decision taken by the British people, and Parliament decided to put these arrangements in place. To reject the idea that there is an issue that needs to be addressed is not the responsible thing to do, and therefore the Windsor framework represented a considerable step forward.

[Sammy Wilson]

The Secretary of State is making much of the fact that this Parliament imposed these arrangements on Northern Ireland, but he set out three objectives: to protect the EU market, to protect the Union and to protect the UK internal market. The European Union is happy with the arrangements, but the other two objectives have not been achieved. Whether this Parliament voted for it or not, the internal market is not operating. There are lots of examples of that, as the Secretary of State knows, because I am sure people complain to him every month, as they do to us. As has been pointed out, we are not part of the United Kingdom any longer when our laws cannot even be made in our own Parliament.

[Hilary Benn]

Northern Ireland is very much part of the United Kingdom. I was merely pointing out that the protocol and the Windsor framework were democratic decisions of this Parliament, of which Northern Ireland is a part. After much debate, consideration, argument and disputation, that is how this Parliament decided to move things forward. The Windsor framework, which I spoke in favour of and supported, was a considerable step forward on the arrangements originally negotiated in the Northern Ireland protocol, which were never going to work. For example, requiring an export health certificate for every one of the items on the back of the supermarket lorries that come across from Cairnryan to Larne and Belfast every single night was never a practical proposition. The Windsor framework has replaced potentially 1,000 or 2,000 certificates with one certificate. That is a step forward by anybody’s definition.

Turning to the question of the consent vote, that is part of the provision that has been made to allow the Assembly to take a decision. I have triggered the consent process, as Members will be aware. It is for the Assembly to take that decision. If it approves the continued operation of the Windsor framework, it will last for another eight years if the approval is on a cross-community basis, or—I speak from memory—for another four years if not. It is for the Members of the Assembly to make that decision, but the framework really does bring a lot of benefits.

At the beginning of his contribution, the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim talked about the fettering of Northern Ireland businesses’ access to GB, if I heard him correctly. There is no fettering of Northern Ireland businesses’ access to GB.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

It is really important that the medicines that are required continue to be supplied. The industry has had quite a period in which to make arrangements to ensure that the labelling rules are met. I hope that, in the time available, those companies that have not done so will do so.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

6. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on implementing the Windsor framework labelling requirements set out in his Department’s Command Paper entitled “Safeguarding the Union”, published on 31 January 2024.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)]

Having carefully considered the results of the consultation with industry, the Government decided not to proceed with the introduction of mandatory “Not for EU” labelling in Great Britian from 1 October 2024. Instead, we will take the powers necessary to apply “Not for EU” labelling in the future, if that is required to secure supplies in Northern Ireland.

[Sammy Wilson]

The result of the Northern Ireland protocol, signed by the previous Government, has been to create an economic border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and the imposition of EU law, which has created a problem for the supply of goods to Northern Ireland. When in opposition, Labour supported the idea of food labelling as a way of avoiding an interruption in the supply of food goods from GB to Northern Ireland, so why have the Government reneged on that promise, and what will be the trigger for its imposition if needed?

[Hilary Benn]

The consultation on UK-wide labelling led the industry to say that such labelling would impose huge costs on industry, and therefore on consumers, through raised goods prices. The aim is to ensure that goods are not delisted in Northern Ireland. That is why we are taking a power to ensure that if there is any evidence of that happening, the labelling requirements set out in “Safeguarding the Union” can be applied, including on individual products on a sectoral basis.

Northern Ireland City Deals

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and important point. The progress that Northern Ireland has made over the past 26 years since the signing of the Good Friday agreement is what everybody is striving to continue. I am confident that the Treasury will pay close attention to the exchanges on this urgent question, and the hon. Gentleman’s eloquence speaks for itself.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I have listened to the answers that the Secretary of State has given, and I cannot understand his logic. First, one of the reasons for not progressing with these deals is that they are not far enough advanced. Does he not recognise the amount of money that has already gone into developing them, and how this decision puts that money at risk? Who will put further resources into those schemes if there is no certainty at the end?

The Secretary of State has talked about Northern Ireland being part of economic growth. In the Causeway Coast and Glens case, much of the investment will be for economic growth, whether that is the development of food and drugs at the University of Ulster, the innovation hub at North West Regional College, or the innovation hub in Cushendall. By not having those schemes in place, the Secretary of State is going to affect economic growth, so can he explain the logic of the decision he has made?

[Hilary Benn]

In fairness to myself, I have pointed out that these two schemes are not as far advanced as the Belfast and the Derry/Londonderry and Strabane city deals, because one of them only recently signed its heads of terms and the other has yet to do so. From memory, the time it took for the Belfast and the Derry and Strabane deals to get from heads of terms to full financial deal signing was between two and a half and three and a half years. So there is some way to go based on past experience, precisely because a great deal of work has to be done in partnership with the private sector, the Northern Ireland Executive, local businesses and the councils to put the shape of the deals in place. The right hon. Member makes a powerful argument for clarity as quickly as possible.

Patrick Finucane Murder

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

This is a bad decision today. It will cause anger and further hurt for the many hundreds of families who have not had justice for the murder of their loved ones, including the mass murder of Protestant workmen at Kingsmill, the blowing up of Protestant workmen at Teebane and the horrendous murder of worshippers at Tullyvallen, among others. I think the Secretary of State has to explain to the House why, after tens of millions of pounds have been spent on inquiries and reviews of this case, he still believes it is necessary to acquiesce in the demands of the family by having another inquiry. How does he justify it to those hundreds of families that no such resources will be put in place to seek out the truth about the murders of their family members? Given the record of inquiries of this nature being a golden goose for barristers and solicitors in Northern Ireland, how is he going to ensure that the costs are capped?

[Hilary Benn]

The right hon. Member recounts some of the terrible murders, and I have myself met, as I am sure others have, the only survivor of the Kingsmill massacre and heard at first hand the truly chilling story of what happened on that day. First, considerable resources are now being given to the independent commission, and it is important to recognise that, because it has a huge task on its hands. I hope others will come forward to the commission to avail themselves of what it can offer.

Secondly, and I have said this to other Members in answering their questions, in this particular case a commitment was made twice, and I think it is important that we honour it. We also have to recognise in this particular case that the Court held in 2019 that all of the investigations—I accept what the right hon. Member said about them and their extent, and of course they involved the expenditure of public moneys—did not meet the requirements of article 2. Faced with that, and faced with the quashing at the end of 2022 of the decision of a previous Secretary of State not to call an inquiry pending further investigations, it has fallen to me to look at this and to decide how we are going to go forward. I have set out my reasons as clearly as I can hope to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

2. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the redevelopment of Casement Park.

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)]

10. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on funding for the redevelopment of Casement Park.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)]

The Government are committed to ensuring that Euro 2028 benefits the whole of the United Kingdom. We are working as quickly as possible with all partners to assess the options on the Casement Park project.

[Sammy Wilson]

Many people were surprised when the Secretary of State, on first being appointed, made it his priority to deliver on Casement Park. Committing £320 million for a stadium to host five matches at a time when there are huge waiting lists to be dealt with in the health service, and with special educational needs and social housing needing funding, is an indefensible use of public money. Can the Secretary of State assure us that the Government’s view has not been influenced by any personal interventions by the chief of staff of the Labour party, for whom this is a personal project, and can he confirm that such an intervention would be a breach of standards in public life?

[Hilary Benn]

I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that I said this was a priority because a decision needs to be made. The fact is that the Government have inherited a commitment to hosting the Euros at Casement Park. It is now a year and three quarters since UEFA awarded that right to Northern Ireland, and to the United Kingdom and Ireland, but nothing has happened during the year and three quarters since then to progress the project. We are left with a situation in which the cost has gone through the roof, and even if we had the money, we do not know if we could build it in time. That is why the Government are looking at it, and that is why I said it was a priority to make a decision.

Northern Ireland

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Whether this Humble Address is or is not a love letter to anyone, I will leave for others to debate, but it certainly can be described as a coda to the recent restoration of the institutions in Northern Ireland. As we have heard from the Minister, it addresses a number of matters that I shall briefly touch upon, but may I make it clear at the beginning that the Opposition will be supporting it?

This is our first opportunity as a House to welcome the return of devolved government, and I wish to acknowledge the leadership of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) in recognising that, for the sake of Northern Ireland and its people, the DUP needed to return to government, and in arguing the case for that course of action so persuasively. The Secretary of State and I have both had the pleasure of meeting the new First Minister and Deputy First Minister. I must say that I agree with the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), that they have made a positive start and have set the tone for what we all hope will be a constructive and productive Administration. I join him in wishing both of them, together with the other members of the Executive and indeed the whole Assembly, every success in their responsibilities, because their task—our task, collectively—is to ensure that this restoration endures. Let us be frank, however. I hope people will also recognise that never again should Northern Ireland find itself without its Assembly and its devolved Government.

It is also right that we reaffirm our support for the Good Friday agreement in all its strands and dimensions. It is important for us to do so, because the agreement made possible the considerable progress we have seen in Northern Ireland, including the establishment of power sharing. That reaffirming is also needed because there was a perception that some of the language in the recent Command Paper was not wholly in keeping with the spirit of shared commitment.

I will raise one section of the Command Paper that I found genuinely puzzling, which is what it said about the all-island economy and the Government’s commitment to remove the legal duties to have regard to the all-island economy in section 10(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. That section of the withdrawal Act actually refers to having

“due regard to the joint report from the negotiators of the EU and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50”

on the United Kingdom’s orderly withdrawal from the EU. The report runs to 15 pages, but there appears, as far as I can see, to be only one reference in it to the all-island economy, in the last two lines of paragraph 49.

In responding, can the Minister explain what the effect would be of repealing section 10(1)(b) of the 2018 Act, given that it refers to the whole of the joint report, and not just to the reference in paragraph 49 to the all-island economy? Does that mean Ministers would no longer have to have regard to anything at all in the joint report —surely that cannot be the case—or are the Government saying that they wish to remove the reference to the all-island economy in paragraph 49? In that case, given that it was a joint report agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union, have Ministers told the EU of their intentions? To follow up, when might we see the legislation and the new statutory guidance?

No one is in any doubt that Northern Ireland does far more trade with the UK internal market than it does with Ireland, and that will continue to be the case, but it is also evident that trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic has increased since we left the European Union. That tells us that the all-island economy is both a fact and greatly to the benefit of businesses and people in Northern Ireland, whether that is milk from Northern Ireland going south to be processed, or Coca-Cola produced in the firm’s flagship plant in Lisburn being sold all over Ireland and beyond, or Guinness coming north from Dublin.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The right hon. Gentleman has rightly identified one of the impacts of the Windsor framework and the Northern Ireland protocol: namely, that trade is now being diverted to the Irish Republic, as firms in Northern Ireland find it more difficult to link with their supply chains in GB and are forced to look at supplies from the Irish Republic. Some of the people who are now purchasing from the Republic tell me that those supplies are more expensive and of lower quality.

[Hilary Benn]

The first point I would make to the right hon. Gentleman is that the three examples I have just given have nothing at all to do with the Northern Ireland protocol or the Windsor framework; they were all pre-existing facts of the all-island economy, which those businesses welcomed because it is about the ability to trade, find markets, sell their goods and make a return. Secondly, he returns, understandably, to the essential problem that the protocol and the Windsor framework have been trying to address, and it is the point that the Minister made openly in his speech, which is that once we left the EU, there was an issue about the border. One way or another, a way had to be found to ensure that goods moving across that non-existent border complied with the rules of the single market. The current Government under a previous Prime Minister made a choice as to how it was going to be done. I strongly support the Windsor framework, precisely because it is an important step forward in trying to make that trade, as the Minister referred to, as easy as possible for businesses. I make that point because many businesses do not really understand why the phrase “all-island economy” should provoke such strong feelings, especially when there has recently been a warm welcome to the allocations from the shared island fund for cross-community projects that will strengthen the all-island economy, including the much-needed improvement to the A5, a more regular train service between Belfast and Dublin, the Narrow Water bridge connecting the counties of Down and Meath, and a contribution to the building of Casement Park so that, in four years, we can all celebrate Northern Ireland helping to host the European football championship. I make that point because many businesses do not really understand why the phrase “all-island economy” should provoke such strong feelings, especially when there has recently been a warm welcome to the allocations from the shared island fund for cross-community projects that will strengthen the all-island economy, including the much-needed improvement to the A5, a more regular train service between Belfast and Dublin, the Narrow Water bridge connecting the counties of Down and Meath, and a contribution to the building of Casement Park so that, in four years, we can all celebrate Northern Ireland helping to host the European football championship.

Nevertheless, we warmly endorse the renewed commitment to the Good Friday agreement contained in the Humble Address, which of course was the then Government’s extraordinary achievement with all the parties involved in the negotiation almost 26 years ago. It is only right that we should remind ourselves as a country of the peace that it has created and of the obligations we took on when we signed it. That includes, as the Minister said, recognition that the future constitutional status of Northern Ireland is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland alone, and that with our co-guarantor, the Irish Government, we have a shared interest in continuing to promote peace, prosperity and progress north and south.

On the next section, when I read the Humble Address I wondered in passing when the Acts of Union 1800 were last referred to in a motion tabled by the Government. In the light of recent events, I felt that I should familiarise myself with the original Acts, although they have, of course, been considerably amended since. The Act of Union (Ireland) 1800 is short by modern standards—they knew how to say things much more briefly than we seem to manage these days—and contains a number of interesting provisions, including the application of tariffs and excise on certain categories of goods moving between Great Britain and Ireland. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley raised that point with me when we debated the matter recently.

Now, I do not think anyone wants to restore tariffs and excise on certain categories of goods moving, and I do not think anyone wants to restore section 21 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which required that movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland be treated as imports and exports for the purposes of forms to be used and the information to be furnished. As we were told, customs officers were instructed to conduct physical inspections of ships with daily sailings twice weekly. How many people even recall that, in 1947, the Stormont Parliament introduced a requirement that workers from Great Britain would need a work permit to go and work in Northern Ireland?

Those are not just interesting historical facts. As the Command Paper’s informative annex pointed out—congratulations to the civil servants who did the research and drafted that—the Acts of Union have not been a guarantor at all times of free and unfettered movements of goods and people over the centuries. Instead, they have framed a slightly more complex relationship than is sometimes suggested.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I think many people in North Down, a Unionist constituency, will be wondering what kind of representative they have. The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) was probably a good proxy for a Sinn Féin representative in his disregard for Unionists’ concerns about the protocol and in his unwillingness to apologise for the fact that he and his party wanted the Government to double down on the protocol, despite the damage it was causing. His party said during the negotiations that they had negotiated a wonderful package. There is still underfunding because of how the funding formula is applied in Northern Ireland, yet the only plea he made for additional funding this evening was to pay for Casement Park. The Gaelic Athletic Association has said that it will not give one penny more to that stadium. The GAA expects the UK Government to divvy up for its state-of-the-art stadium.

The Humble Address tells His Majesty of this Parliament’s commitments in respect of a number of issues. Significantly, it has been brought forward because of the way in which successive Prime Ministers from the Conservative and Unionist party have betrayed Northern Ireland by choosing to side with the EU, and not to annoy the EU, even if that means weakening the Union of the United Kingdom. The sad reality is that these reassuring words, which the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) described as a “love letter” to Unionists—when we look at it, we will see that it is not such a love letter—are essential because of the trust that has been broken by a Government who were quite happy to hand Northern Ireland over to the European Union as a vassal state, to use the term of the former Prime Minister who was responsible for some of the damage done.

A number of issues are addressed in the Humble Address, and the first is to affirm the importance of upholding all the strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Why is that necessary? The reason, of course, is because this Government acted at the behest of the European Union, which required that the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom be weakened, with any attempt to address that situation being thwarted by changing the voting arrangements in the Assembly.

We already knew that Northern Ireland was not all that important to this Government, because the whole principle of consent to change Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom was simply ignored. The damage has been done, and there has been no attempt to undo that damage. The Belfast agreement made it clear that any change—any change—to Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom could happen only with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. That change took place when the UK Government agreed that the EU would have the ability, in 300 areas of law, to make laws for Northern Ireland, and that Northern Ireland’s representatives would have no say in the making of those laws.

In fact, the only country on the island of Ireland that would have a say is the Republic of Ireland, because of its membership of the EU. The EU and the Irish Republic would have the ability to make laws in relation to Northern Ireland in 300 areas of law and Northern Ireland politicians elected to the Assembly would have no say. The hon. Member for North Down might be happy that his party members are elected to an Assembly and have no say on a raft of areas of law.

[Stephen Farry]

We are relaxed about EU law, but the thing we were certainly not relaxed about was not having an Assembly whatsoever for the past two years. Anyone who wants to talk about democratic deficits needs to refocus away from the technicalities of EU law and on the fact that no one was in charge of health, education and the economy for the past two years and on the damage that has been done. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will show some humility and recognise his role and that of his party in the chaos that has been forced upon Northern Ireland in the past two years, when they have taken their time negotiating this new arrangement with the Government.

[Sammy Wilson]

Is the hon. Gentleman’s stance not amazing? He talks about the democratic deficit that existed for two years while the Assembly was not operating, but he is happy to have a democratic deficit that will last for decades as a result of the arrangement in place now. So he cannot now get concerned about the inability of politicians in Northern Ireland to do something. We had the two years of Stormont not operating because the principle on which it was bound to operate—that there had to be consent and the views of nationalists and Unionists had to be taken into consideration—had been simply wiped aside; it could not have worked anyway because the very foundation of the Belfast agreement had been removed.

I have to ask the Minister: how can the Government affirm the Belfast agreement when we have in place today arrangements that came about only because one of the central principles of the agreement had been removed? Of course, this is about looking at not just the past, but the future. The Assembly will have a decision to make and it will have a vote at the end of this year on the arrangements that are in place. That vote will be very controversial, because it looks both back and forward. First, were the arrangements put in place acceptable? Far more importantly, will the arrangements going forward be acceptable? The vote will not simply be about EU law, because in four years’ time nobody who is taking part in this vote will even know about the EU laws; this vote will be about whether the Assembly is going to continue having the Republic of Ireland and the EU making laws that are unknown and that we will have no say in formulating in the future. There can be no more controversial vote than that, yet the Belfast agreement says that a vote of that nature should not be made on a majority basis.

Since 1972, votes and issues that were controversial could not be made on a majority basis in Northern Ireland. Yet here is one of the most controversial votes that the Northern Ireland Assembly will be involved in, and the Government, at the behest or demand of the Irish Republic and the EU, set aside the requirement for cross-community support in that vote. So the Minister is today proposing a motion that affirms

“the importance of upholding the Belfast…Agreement”,

knowing full well that he has agreed to and defended, and will continue to put in place, arrangements that undermine the very principle of consent for a most controversial issue, on which a vote will take place at the end of this year. So when we address His Majesty and say that we are affirming the Belfast agreement, we have to look at the way we have dispensed with its central provision in the past and the way we are going to remove the ability to use the consent principle in the future on one of the most controversial issues.

Secondly, the Humble Address acknowledges

“the foundational importance of the Acts of Union”.

I find it strange that it acknowledges not just the Acts of Union but their “foundational importance”, because in the court case taken against the Northern Ireland protocol, the Government’s lawyers said that when the House voted for the withdrawal agreement, we had implied the disapplication of article VI of the Act of Union. The courts ruled that article VI, which contains the foundational economic rights, had been suspended, and they have not been unsuspended. Why were they suspended? It was because, as a result of the EU being given the say to make laws in respect of Northern Ireland, there had to be some impediments to trade between GB and Northern Ireland.

The shadow spokesman talked about how even under the Act of Union there were impediments to trade, and he is right. However, there is one fundamental difference: those impediments were put in place and were decided upon by Administrations within the UK, because they saw that an advantage was created. The difference now is that the Act of Union and its foundational economic rights have been suspended because the EU demands that that is the case. Now, as Northern Ireland is part of the single market, the EU requires certain restrictions and checks to be put in place. A further irony is that those restrictions in place, even with the new arrangements, are far more intrusive and far more difficult hurdles to overcome when it comes to trade between GB and Northern Ireland than they would be for trade between France and GB or Germany and GB. That is what has put so many people off trading with Northern Ireland. The Government are now going to say to them all that they should come back to the Northern Ireland market—the shadow spokesman talked about the way in which trade had been diverted—but that is a conscious decision that firms have made because of the difficulties in bringing goods into Northern Ireland from GB.

[Hilary Benn]

On the issues about which the right hon. Gentleman complains, it pains me to say it but they were put in place because the House of Commons voted to pass the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It is not correct to say that they are enforced upon Northern Ireland by the EU of its own volition; they were arrangements that the House decided should be put in place because the people of the UK had voted to leave the European Union. That, too, is a fact.

[Sammy Wilson]

That vote was made in this House on two grounds. First, the EU made its terms clear and we had a spineless Government that were prepared to bow to it, saying that if those arrangements were not put in place, there would be no deal. Weighing up the impact that might have on the rest of the United Kingdom and the impact it would have on Northern Ireland, the Government decided that Northern Ireland would be the sacrificial lamb. Secondly, we were told at that time, as was this House and businesses in Northern Ireland, “Don’t worry,” and were promised, “You’ll get some bits of paper but just tear them up, or give the Prime Minister a ring and he’ll make sure you don’t have to worry about them.” I accept that the decision was made by this House, but it was made on that basis, and the fact is it still had a detrimental impact on Northern Ireland.

Changes have been made by the Windsor framework, the Northern Ireland protocol and the “Safeguarding the Union” document, but the economic foundational importance of the Act of Union is still being undermined. We are told that 20% of goods still have to go through a red lane. Most of those goods go to manufacturing businesses or distributors in Northern Ireland, in many cases because they are parts of products that will eventually be sold. The businesses will still be subject to checks because the product has not been made—it is only parts coming in—and because of the eventual destination of the products, even though most businesses can say, “Look, we sell in Northern Ireland, outside EU or to GB”.

I spoke to a businessman this morning who informed me that the situation is going to get worse. The paperwork for the last order he got for goods coming through the red lane took six hours. When people are working on very thin margins, that additional work makes them question whether to invest further in Northern Ireland or to jump over the border to the Irish Republic, so the red lane requirements have a huge economic impact.

Even the UK internal market requirements are at the gift of the EU, because the EU still has control of trade that comes from GB into Northern Ireland through regulations 2023/1231 and 2023/1128. If the EU deems at any stage that the arrangements for the internal market lane do not meet its requirements, the ultimate say as to what happens to those movements of trade will remain with the EU and it can go back to the default position with 100% checks. I note that those two regulations have not been removed by the EU as a result of “Safeguarding the Union”. The EU still holds that control, which is worrying for businesses in Northern Ireland. The Humble Address is all about telling His Majesty that the foundational importance of the Act of Union will be respected and is being respected by the Government, but that is just not true.

My final point is about the part of the Humble Address that says that

“executive power in Northern Ireland shall continue to be vested in His Majesty, and that joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 in respect of the UK and Irish Governments.”

There is no definition of “joint authority”. In the past, Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box and told us there has been no change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland as a result of the protocol and the Windsor framework, and Northern Ireland was still fully part of the United Kingdom. Words can mean whatever they want, it seems, when the Government find themselves challenged by the agreement they have made with the EU.

I trust that the Government will not accede to some of the demands that have been made. In his intervention, the hon. Member for North Down said that he wanted a review of the Belfast agreement. That would open all kinds of doors. If he had his way, the review would be based on a majority view of what should happen in the future. The removal of the consent principle and the majority vote in the Assembly is what he and his friends in Sinn Féin and the SDLP are aiming for now. Unionists are now a minority, so majoritarianism is no longer a problem.

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

I have listened with great interest to many of the points made. I am particularly taken by the attention the hon. Gentleman has given to the foundational importance of constitutional matters, which exercises many hon. Members on the Government Benches. Does he agree that it seems incongruous that changes to constitutional law—not primary legislation, but constitutional law—were made in this Chamber through the use of statutory instruments? We had to seek an extension to secure 180 minutes of debate on those measures. Does he agree with many Conservative Members that matters of constitutional law should be treated with proper respect and subjected to proper debate and scrutiny by this House before they are changed?

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. When we agreed to the withdrawal agreement and legislation, the Act of Union was changed without Ministers even mentioning that that was happening. They used that defence in court later on. A couple of weeks ago, when we discussed protecting Northern Ireland-GB trade and protecting against the threat of a further wedge being driven between Northern Ireland and GB as a result of changes in the law made in this place, we got 90 minutes to discuss those changes and not a great deal of time to scrutinise them. At the end of the debate the Minister had about three minutes to sum up, which did not give him time to answer any of the questions that had been asked.

[Gavin Robinson]

I agree with my hon. Friend that that is not right. The Government did not make the argument after the fact that article 6 had been impliedly repealed or subsequently found by the court to be temporarily suspended—I raised the question in the House of the Minister before the legislation passed and they had not a clue what was being asked of them. The notion that this Parliament chose to proceed along a path that was encroaching on article 6 is not right because it was asked and it was answered negatively by Ministers at the time. We scrutinised. We raised the constitutional importance of the actions they were taking. It was the Government who denied that was the case.

[Sammy Wilson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. In all the discussions he has used his knowledge of the issues. If we have a Government who simply ignored the points that he made, either because they did not know or did not want others to know, that makes it even more disgraceful. That is why when we have a Humble Address, it is right that we scrutinise, ask questions and raise issues about what exactly is meant by the promises made to His Majesty and the people of Northern Ireland. Sadly, I do not believe that what has been said or the promises that have already been made address the issues. If we are going to address the issue of keeping Northern Ireland firmly within the United Kingdom, the Windsor framework has to go and the principle of consent has to be restored. The people of Northern Ireland and elected representatives in Northern Ireland must have the ability to make the laws that they are elected to make.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. As Members know, we had two significant statements after departmental questions, and it is likely that this debate will go for another hour. A significant number of people put their name down for the general debate on farming that was to follow. That will now be rescheduled, and Members will be told in the usual manner when that debate will take place.

United Kingdom Internal Market

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

rose—

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Baker]

I will. I cannot say that I am astonished; this is the important moment.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the Minister accept that all the statistics show that it is not true that 20% of the trade that goes through Northern Ireland goes to the Irish Republic? In fact, it is about 0.1% to 0.4%. Much of that trade, which will go through the red lane, consists of goods going into Northern Ireland, either to warehouses or to manufacturers in Northern Ireland. They might never go near the Irish Republic. They might stay in Northern Ireland, go back to GB, or go to the rest of the world, yet such products will still be subject to checks going into Northern Ireland.

[Mr Baker]

I would not accept that. I am not in a position to set out the statistics, and I do not doubt that the statistics need some work applied to them. It pains me to say this, as I have always regarded the right hon. Gentleman as a great friend—he and I have walked a long way together on this and I have always regarded him as an ideological bedfellow, both on the Union and on Brexit—but as his group leader, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), said earlier, we voted for, and fervently supported, the protocol Bill. We said that we were willing to have a red lane in order to safeguard the legitimate interests of our friends and partners—and family members, as the Irish ambassador Martin Fraser said. This was always a family dispute, and we were always going to get through it.

Our friends in Ireland, and indeed in the EU, have legitimate interests, which we should have the humility to respect. Even if we had acted unilaterally as a single united Parliament, ridden roughshod over any international negotiation and just done what suited ourselves with the protocol Bill, we would have implemented the red lane. I am afraid that I will part company now with anyone who says otherwise. We would rightly have implemented the red lane, even acting unilaterally, out of respect for the legitimate interests of our friends and trading partners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Sammy Wilson]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

There are two speakers left, and I suggest they speak for nine minutes each.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

I will not go over the wide range of what is in the Command Paper or the SI, but will focus on some particular points in the SI. It is well known that I do not support this deal or agreement, and I have given reasons why not. It is important that we have the opportunity to examine the detail of it, and the way that this legislation has been hurried through today has not allowed that examination. That is one reason why I will focus just on one particular aspect of it.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) was speaking, he talked about the need to get rid of the debris or litter that was still around. The first point I want to make—perhaps the Minister can answer this in summing up—is that a lot of legislative litter is still around as a result of the arrangements put in place for the red lane and the green lane. We have statutory instruments on which I have spoken in Committee on a number of occasions, and EU regulations, including regulation 2023/1231, which gives the EU the right to make the final decision to suspend goods going through the green lane—and, I suspect, the internal market lane —and make the red lane the default position. I wonder when we will see the removal of all the infrastructure around the previous arrangements in the protocol and the Windsor framework. That would indicate that the UK Government were totally in command of goods flowing into Northern Ireland, rather than, as the EU legislation and indeed the withdrawal agreement state at present, the EU having the final say.

Secondly, my hon. Friend indicated that the movement of goods between Northern Ireland and GB was an issue of concern. It is, and indeed it is likely to be an issue of concern in the future, especially since the Windsor Framework (Constitutional Status of Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024 make it clear that legislation could be introduced in the House that would impact on trade between Northern Ireland and GB—for example, if the Government decide to change some retained EU law. The only assurance given is that a Minister would have to make an assessment of the impact and report it to the House. But at the end of the day—this is clear in proposed new section 13C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—he could make a decision to proceed nevertheless, even though that would likely have an impact on trade.

EU law could be another reason for divergence. We could find decisions made or practices allowed in the EU that put the GB market at risk. That is why we will be introducing the border operating model. The danger is that Northern Ireland goods could get caught in that. I imagine hearing people, including the Minister, saying, “But the legislation prevents that.” It does—on the face of it, we cannot have any border checks for what are called Northern Ireland qualifying goods going into GB. Indeed, local authorities will be informed that trade cannot be restricted, that no barriers can be put up to that trade and that Northern Ireland qualifying goods should have free access. Of course, all the export declarations previously required are to be dropped. However, perhaps the Minister can tell us what is meant in proposed new section 45B of the UK Internal Market Act 2020, which indicates that if goods fall into one of five categories, they will require export declarations.

Leaving that aside, let us look at the situation—actually, it is provided for in this legislation—whereby it is quite clear that the freedoms given for Northern Ireland qualifying goods to sail through into GB are being abused by exporters from the Republic, who bring goods through Northern Ireland and declare them as qualifying goods. By the way, it appears that no evidence has to be given; it will simply be taken on trust when goods are declared to be qualifying goods. I see the Minister is nodding.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)]

indicated dissent.

[Sammy Wilson]

Perhaps the Minister can tell us what proof companies will have to give and how onerous that proof will be. What will happen where it becomes clear that there is abuse in goods moving through Northern Ireland into GB? It appears—again, if I am misreading this, perhaps the Minister can explain it to me—that proposed new section 45C indicates that guidance will be given to local authorities, probably through bodies and so on, as to what needs to be done to keep the free flow of goods between Northern Ireland and GB, but proposed new section 46A states:

“The Secretary of State may revise or revoke (in whole or in part) any guidance issued under this section.”

In what circumstances would that guidance be given? If it were given, what would the impact be on the free flow of goods from Northern Ireland to GB, which is more than 60% of our market? It is about those details.

When we have this kind of seal of an agreement, with all the wide-ranging and broad-brush aspects, we sometimes find that when we get down to the detail it falls apart, as happened in the Windsor framework—let us not forget that it fell apart within about two days of the Prime Minister giving the assurances. It is important that we understand all the various scenarios that are being painted in such a detailed SI as this.

First, will the Minister give us an assurance about what is happening to the green lane infrastructure—will the SIs and the EU regulations be removed, or will they stay in place, as part of the Windsor framework, the protocol and the withdrawal agreement? Secondly, what are the five categories of goods that will require export declarations? People need to know. Thirdly, when it comes to the goods flowing into GB, under what circumstances will the border operating model be applied to them? The final point I want to make is this—

[Julian Smith]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sammy Wilson]

I only have one minute left. We are told in paragraph 100 of the Command Paper that for goods going through the green lane, some declarations of “standard commercial information” will be required. Perhaps the Minister could tell us what standard commercial information companies will be continue to be required to supply, even under the agreement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Baker]

I am extremely short of time but, out of respect, I will give way.

[Sammy Wilson]

Will the Minister admit to the bottom line, as contained in proposed new section 13C(2)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, set out in the draft Windsor Framework (Constitutional Status of Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024, which requires

“a statement to the effect that the Minister is unable to make such a statement”—

that is, that the Bill in question will not affect trade between Northern Ireland and GB—

“but His Majesty’s Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill”?

The bottom line is: yes, divergence can happen and trade can be disrupted.

[Mr Baker]

I readily concede that there can be changes to retained EU law and that divergence can happen, but we have set out the safeguards at some length. I also encourage the right hon. Gentleman—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who made an excellent speech, said, and as indeed the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said—to look at the section of the Command Paper in relation to the Acts of Union. I myself learned a great deal about it.

Northern Ireland

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I am afraid that the back of a postage stamp is too big to write what they have achieved. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) has achieved so much in this deal in safe- guarding the Union and his detractors have not come up with anything.

The changes the right hon. Gentleman has secured in these regulations and the other instrument before this House, which we will consider shortly, will further enhance those protections. The regulations end any presumption that there is any form of automatic and unchecked dynamic alignment with European goods rules. Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the so-called pipeline of EU law, is now expressly subject to the operation of vital democratic safeguards that the Northern Ireland Assembly, when sitting, will be able to exercise, including the Stormont brake. Indeed when— I emphasise when—Stormont begins to sit again and first assembles, I will be able to sign that Stormont brake legislation into law and it will be available to be used by the Assembly as we move forward. When Parliament passed the 2018 Act, it was exercising its sovereignty so that the UK-EU withdrawal agreement could be implemented in domestic law.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State indicates that there are now “vital democratic safeguards”—he used the plural term—to guard against EU law, including the Stormont brake. Can he tell us what the other safeguards are?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Yes: we have the withdrawal Act itself, and the right hon. Gentleman is sitting in the place that safeguards our laws themselves.

It is right that we are updating domestic law to reflect the fact that democratically elected representatives in Northern Ireland will now be able to reject new and amended EU law and that the withdrawal agreement’s implementation is subject to robust scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Actually, for an element of law that would be triggered by the Stormont brake, I think the biggest say would be with Assembly Members, though this place—Parliament—is sovereign, and the hon. Gentleman will know that this place has already chosen for Great Britain to diverge from Northern Ireland. That has happened on the matter of animal welfare and livestock exports, and for good reason: Northern Ireland has a land border and a vociferous and lively trade in live animal exports with the Republic of Ireland, and were we to extend the ban in Great Britain to Northern Ireland, that would affect the export of about 3,500 cattle, 1,700 pigs, 337,000 sheep, and so on. Those are the figures for livestock moved to Ireland from Northern Ireland in 2022. This place already makes such decisions and it will continue to do so.

[Sammy Wilson]

The Secretary of State is at odds in making that argument. That is one argument that the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries made in saying why Northern Ireland should be excluded, but the reason given was that, because Northern Ireland is part of the EU single market, there could not be discrimination between cattle being transported to the Republic of Ireland and cattle being transported thousands of miles away to the south of Italy. That is the real reason why this House once again found itself subservient to EU rules in Northern Ireland.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. I know that he has written to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries—I have his reply, which I was copied into—expounding that some sort of carve-out should be made. But this is on the basis of a range of international agreements and their core principles, and that includes the World Trade Organisation. As good a Eurosceptic as I am, I am careful not to blame the wrong organisation for the wrong things. We have signed up to World Trade Organisation rules, and we benefit from those rules. One element of this issue is World Trade Organisation rules, and he is picking the wrong thing to point his finger at. Those rules prevent discrimination against different countries in all sorts of ways, and they are important, vital rules. I am afraid that on this particular point, he is completely wrong.

I have long been clear to right hon. and hon. Members that I serve in the Government proudly as a Unionist. I am pleased that the regulations, which I commend to the House, will address the concerns expressed by part of the community in Northern Ireland in past years that our Union of nations has been somehow diminished as a whole. The regulations demonstrate that the Government have listened so that trust can be rebuilt, so that people and businesses can be reassured that they are in the UK’s long-term future, and so that we can see Northern Ireland’s political institutions restored.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I am a teetotaller, so perhaps I do not feel the suffering in that example in the same way as other Members. However, the right hon. Gentleman is an observant student of Northern Ireland history, and he makes his point extremely forcefully.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the right hon. Member recognise the difference between a tariff being put on by this Parliament or the Assembly or a Parliament in Northern Ireland, where the people of the country elect representatives who take a decision on tariffs that act as an impediment to trade, and a tariff imposed by an outside body such as the EU, which is the case in Northern Ireland? That is how the Act of Union is being disrupted, because an outside body can interfere with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, his continuing interest in Northern Ireland and his work in this place to strengthen and protect our Union. He makes a strong point, which I welcome.

[Sammy Wilson]

I acknowledge the point made by my right hon. Friend, but does he also accept that, in proposed new section 13C of the Windsor Framework (Constitutional Status of Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024, the Government still reserve a right in the statute book to introduce laws that will interfere with trade in Northern Ireland?

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I urge my right hon. Friend to read all the proposals. If he does, he will see that a new statutory duty will be introduced that will ensure that in circumstances where there is the risk of divergence, the Minister in charge of the new policy or law will come to this House and make a statement, not only informing the House of any potential impact on Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom internal market, but setting out the measures that the Government must take to ameliorate that situation. That is set out clearly in the Command Paper. It is a commitment by the Government, on which we intend to hold them to account.

Going forward, it is important that we have a means of scrutiny and cutting the EU pipeline, as we have through the amendment to section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. People told us, by the way, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we would not achieve legal change, and yet that amendment to section 7A cuts the EU pipeline and ends the automatic alignment of Northern Ireland with EU law. That is something this party can take great credit for, because we have achieved what none of our detractors has been capable of achieving. That offers us the opportunity to influence clearly, as we stated in our seven tests, how we might proceed.

In conclusion, on behalf of my party, I welcome this legislation. It is important constitutional legislation that safeguards our place in the United Kingdom. We will hear later about further changes to the law that will protect our place in the UK internal market. Taken together with all the proposals in the Command Paper, I believe we have a basis for moving forward.