UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Northern Ireland

  • John Finucane – 2022 Comments on Northern Ireland and Conservative Party Leadership

    John Finucane – 2022 Comments on Northern Ireland and Conservative Party Leadership

    The comments made by John Finucane, the Sinn Fein MP for North Belfast, on 17 August 2022.

    The Tories have no mandate and not a single elected representative in Ireland and they have absolutely no regard for the democratic wishes of the people of the north.

    It’s totally insulting for Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak to rock up here today to choose a Tory leader and British Prime Minister that no one in the north voted for in the first place.

    What people did vote for was to oppose the destructive Brexit that they forced upon us and to invest an extra £1 billion to fix the health service that they have run into the ground with cruel cuts for over a decade.

    And now the Tories are propping up the DUP’s block on an Executive being formed and money being spent during a cost-of-living emergency, while attempting to strip away our businesses’ unique access to the British and EU markets that is creating jobs here.

    No matter who becomes Tory leader or British Prime Minister, it is clear that they will not act in the best interests of people in Ireland.

  • Deirdre Hargey – 2022 Comments on DUP Boycott of Stormont

    Deirdre Hargey – 2022 Comments on DUP Boycott of Stormont

    The comments made by Deirdre Hargey, the Sinn Fein Minister for the Communities, on 17 August 2022.

    News today that gas prices will rise again by up to 30% in October is another kick in the teeth for people whose bills are already through the roof.

    There is £435 million sitting in a Stormont bank account that can help ease the pressures people are facing, but it cannot be spent because the DUP are blocking an Executive.

    People are bewildered that a DUP minister is attending meetings to find workarounds to get the £400 energy payment out to households when the obvious solution is for him and his colleagues to get back to work around the Executive table.

    I am calling on DUP leader Jeffrey Donaldson to end this cruel boycott of government and stop punishing ordinary workers and families who are struggling to pay their bills. Their refusal is a dereliction of duty.

    Sinn Féin is ready to form an Executive today, to work with others, and put money in people’s pockets to tackle the cost-of-living emergency.

  • Caoimhe Archibald – 2022 Comments on Supporting Businesses in Northern Ireland

    Caoimhe Archibald – 2022 Comments on Supporting Businesses in Northern Ireland

    The comments made by Caoimhe Archibald, the Economic Spokesperson for Sinn Fein, on 16 August 2022.

    We are in the midst of a cost-of-living emergency which has reduced the ability of workers and families to buy even basics with some people facing the choice between heating or eating.

    This has had a knock-on effect on retailers who have experienced the biggest drop in sales in ten years which has resulted in businesses closing their doors as they struggle to cope with rising costs, particularly of energy bills.

    Inflation is at a 40-year high and workers and families are struggling with ongoing rises to the price of food, fuel and electricity.

    There is a real onus on the British Government to allocate funding to support our businesses and protect jobs, to date they have failed to take any action to help businesses.

    The reduced rate of VAT should also be reintroduced for businesses that had it reduced during the pandemic, including bars and restaurants.

    The British government must get real on the impact of the soaring cost of living and cost of doing business.

    The DUP should end its boycott of our democratic institutions so we can get money out to those who are struggling.

  • Colm Gildernew – 2022 Comments on GP Availability Crisis in Northern Ireland

    Colm Gildernew – 2022 Comments on GP Availability Crisis in Northern Ireland

    The comments made by Colm Gildernew, the spokesperson for Sinn Fein on health, on 16 August 2022.

    It is concerning to hear how surgeries are struggling to cope in our growing health crisis.

    We have news of several GP practices in Belfast applying to close down access to new patients joining them.

    Too many patients are not getting the care they need while others struggle to get to see a doctor at all and urgent action is needed to address this.

    We need an Executive up and running now to invest an extra £1 billion in the health service to recruit more doctors and nurses, to help people who can’t get access to a GP and are stuck on waiting lists.

    The DUP should end its boycott of government now, form an Executive and stop blocking this money being put into our health service.

  • Gerry Kelly – 2022 Comments on Bonfires in Derry

    Gerry Kelly – 2022 Comments on Bonfires in Derry

    The comments made by Gerry Kelly, the Sinn Fein MLA, on 15 August 2022.

    Scenes from bonfires in Derry tonight are absolutely disgraceful and wrong.

    The burning of flags, wreaths and posters which include politicians and other political figures is deeply offensive and is a hate crime.

    There is no place for these displays of hate anywhere in our society. It must stop now.

    It’s in stark contrast to the many excellent community festivals that are taking place across the city; celebrating art, culture, the future and everything that is good about Derry and the people who live in it.

  • Pam Cameron – 2022 Comments on Healthcare in Northern Ireland

    Pam Cameron – 2022 Comments on Healthcare in Northern Ireland

    The comments made by Pam Cameron, the DUP’s Health Spokesperson in Northern Ireland, on 6 August 2022.

    ‘These are deeply disturbing figures. Behind every statistic is a family mourning the loss of a loved one and that must drive us to realise the change desperately needed to secure better outcomes for local patients.

    Covid-19 and the disruption of many routine health services has adversely and disproportionately affected those on hospital waiting lists. Tragically, we may never fully know how many deaths were preventable.However, these problems did not start with the pandemic and they will not end with the pandemic either.

    It may be difficult to establish how many of these deaths were directly caused by delays in receiving attention or treatment but at a minimum it is clear that thousands of people across our Province are spending their final weeks and months in pain, discomfort or with deep uncertainty about their health. That isn’t something we should be willing to accept.

    At the recent election we put forward a 5-point plan, including the need to fix our NHS. At the core of that is reform and transformation of the Health Service to ensure it is capable of meeting current and future challenges. We will continue to make the case at Westminster for adequate funding and for a future local Executive to ensure the focus is on reducing waiting lists and reform of the health system.

  • Michelle O’Neill – 2022 Comments on Need to Form Northern Ireland Executive

    Michelle O’Neill – 2022 Comments on Need to Form Northern Ireland Executive

    The comments made by Michelle O’Neill, the Sinn Féin First Minister Designate, on 3 August 2022.

    Today marks 90 days since the Assembly election was held where the public voted for change and gave parties a mandate to form a government and set a budget to give workers and families a break.

    The DUP through their continued boycott of the Assembly and Executive, and their failure to accept the democratic outcome of the election are denying the public the public representation to which they are entitled and deserve.

    This is wholly unacceptable, untenable and cannot continue.

    People want the health service to be fixed. In a new Executive, Sinn Féin would invest an additional £1 billion over the next three years to reduce waiting lists and start to fix the health service.

    We stand ready to form an Executive today. To work together with all parties to put money into people’s pockets and deliver for people.

    Workers need help. Families need help.

    We are saying to those parties who are blocking an executive being formed – join with us, work with us, let us all deliver together to help everyone through the cost-of-living crisis, to help fix the health service, to make people’s lives better.

    Stop denying people the change they voted for and discharge your political responsibilities.

    I stand ready to work jointly with others and to lead an Executive to make politics work for everyone and to demonstrate that real change is possible.

  • Conor Murphy – 2022 Comments on Cost of Living Crisis in Northern Ireland

    Conor Murphy – 2022 Comments on Cost of Living Crisis in Northern Ireland

    The comments made by Conor Murphy, the Finance Minister in Northern Ireland, on 1 August 2022.

    We have repeatedly told the British government that they must act to support workers and families through the cost-of-living crisis as they struggle to pay their bills.

    They should start by calling time on big energy companies – whose profits are through the roof – and ensure they pay their way and aren’t ripping off ordinary people.

    Executive departments need more money to deal with the rise in inflation and the huge spike in living costs. The British government must step up and provide more money to ensure that can happen.

    They have failed to help businesses under pressure with rising costs, they need action now to keep their doors open and protect jobs.

    This is the big challenge facing workers and families this winter. We need an Executive up and running immediately so we can start putting money in people’s pockets.

    The DUP should end its boycott, rejoin the Executive and work with the rest of us to put the interests of workers and families first.

  • Peter Kyle – 2022 Speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    Peter Kyle – 2022 Speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    The speech made by Peter Kyle, the Labour MP for Hove, in the House of Commons on 19 July 2022.

    It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship once again, Mr Evans.

    I shall start by responding to a point made by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). To clarify, the Labour party and I voted against the protocol when it was before the House. In fact, we walked through the Lobbies together on this issue. I am surprised he does not remember such a memorable occasion—it is quite a rarity, it must be admitted. I hope that when he comes to speak, he will correct the record, because we have a good relationship. It is one that I value and that I hope will continue.

    Sammy Wilson

    For the record, will the hon. Gentleman tell us the stance of his party on the protocol today?

    Peter Kyle

    First, I am slightly disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity to correct the record from his previous intervention.

    My stance and that of the Labour party on the protocol is very clear: it needs to evolve, to change and to be improved, and that should be done by all lawful means. This Bill is not lawful. Of course, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Prime Minister, said on the Floor of the House just a few days ago that in her opinion it was unlawful. We heard from a former Attorney General in the last day of debate that he felt it was unlawful.

    For that reason, the Labour party believes that although we voted against the protocol in the first place, now that it is in domestic statute and part of an international treaty, the responsible thing to do is to negotiate a way forward. What we cannot do is repeat the debates of previous days. We need to stick to the clauses before us. Today, we are talking about—

    Ian Paisley

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Peter Kyle

    Of course I will give way, but I will not rehearse the debates of the previous two days.

    Ian Paisley

    I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s giving way. The issue of lawfulness, which he put on the agenda today, has to be addressed. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is the only Committee to have taken evidence on the lawfulness, or otherwise, of the protocol under international law. For the record, it was stated:

    “no, it does not violate international law. It does not violate the protocol.”

    I have heard people who should know better saying that it does, but I am afraid they are wrong. They are obviously not international lawyers. The evidence given to this House by the emeritus professor of public international law at the University of Edinburgh, who advises the Government and the Opposition, says that it does not break the law. Why does the hon. Gentleman persist with this inaccurate point?

    Peter Kyle

    Again, I will not repeat the debate from the first day of Committee, when all those issues were explored in detail. It is a shame to hear the hon. Gentleman say that of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, whom I know he respects. She said in the House that she asked herself three questions:

    “First, do I consider it to be legal… Secondly, will it achieve its aims? Thirdly, does it…maintain the standing of the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world? My answer to all three questions is no.”—[Official Report, 27 June 2022; Vol. 717, c. 63.]

    Stephen Farry

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Peter Kyle

    I am going to move on, because we need to stick to the clauses before us. I will give way once, but I promise, Mr Evans, that I will then crack on with the business before us.

    Stephen Farry

    Hopefully it will be a very helpful intervention. Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that it is important for Members to reflect fully on the evidence that was given to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee? The last time the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made reference to it, at least one of the people who gave evidence expressed concern, along with other international lawyers, that what was said did not fully reflect the subtlety of the arguments put before the Committee, which were not as simplistic as the hon. Gentleman said.

    Peter Kyle

    I am very grateful for that intervention. For the record, I think that all the interventions I receive here are helpful. They are certainly in the spirit of the debate that this place exists for. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is right, and I am grateful to him for setting the record straight so that we can move forward.

    Today, we are considering clauses 7 to 11, which deal with the dual regulatory regime the Government want to set up for Northern Ireland. Amendment 28 would require a Minister to carry out an economic impact assessment and a consultation before making any regulations for a dual regulatory regime. Some parts of the Bill indicate that the Government have been listening to problems that businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland are facing. In those areas, the Labour party is clear that the EU must show more flexibility to deliver the progress that businesses in Northern Ireland need.

    However, in proceeding with the dual regulatory regime, the Government demonstrate that they are ignoring the voices of most businesses. We saw that in the Government’s press release about Second Reading. It revealed, alarmingly, that the Government had only just begun

    “a series of structured engagements with the business community, to discuss and gather views on the detailed implementation of the Bill.”

    That had happened in recent days—not recent weeks, months or years, but in recent days. Businesses I know that are taking part in the process have asked for a commitment from the Government that they will publish the results in a report. I hope that the Minister will give that assurance from the Dispatch Box today.

    Instead of taking the time to develop a policy that works for businesses, the Foreign Secretary is doing what the Government have done from the start: they have been so preoccupied negotiating with the various factions in their own party that they neglect to engage meaningfully with the stakeholders and partners who are the only ones able to unlock the progress our country needs.

    Declan Billington, the chief executive of John Thompson and Sons animal feed manufacturers and co-chair of the Northern Ireland Food and Drink Association, said, when asked for his assessment of the proposals,

    “I cannot actually answer the question because when I say, ‘Lift the bonnet under the bill and show me the detailed policies that we can engage with,’ I hear conversations about co-design and, therefore, I cannot benchmark.”

    This is absurd. Instead of coming up with serious proposals, the Government are simply asking businesses to do the hard graft for them. In a damning assessment, the trade expert Sam Lowe described the proposed dual regulatory regime as

    “a solution looking for a problem: it is near-impossible to find a business in Northern Ireland advocating for it.”

    There are many reasons businesses are not calling for a dual regulatory system. High on the list is the shift in the burden of responsibility for ensuring that goods do not enter the EU off the Government agencies and on to the 75,000 individual Northern Ireland businesses. That might work for retailers, but exporters and businesses with highly integrated all-island supply chains see it as an almost existential threat. Again, the Government have been clear that their preferred outcome for the protocol is a negotiated solution. Such unserious proposals undermine the common ground in other areas.

    The dissent in Tory ranks complicates the situation further. Several prominent Conservatives, including the Attorney General, have said that they want the dual regulatory regime to be scrapped in favour of mutual enforcement down the line. The irony of asking for mutual enforcement is that it requires absolute trust between the UK and the EU. It would take serious negotiation and deep good faith to achieve it. It is pure fantasy to think that we can get there with this Bill, which unilaterally rewrites the agreement we have.

    Hilary Benn

    Will my hon. Friend give way?

    Peter Kyle

    It would be a pleasure.

    Hilary Benn

    The dual regulatory regime raises more questions than it answers. If I understand the Government’s position correctly, a firm can decide to operate under one regime or the other. Say, for the sake of argument, that UK regulation banned a particular ingredient for a food product, but it was not banned by the EU. Is it my hon. Friend’s understanding of the Government’s proposals that it would be legal for a firm in Northern Ireland to sell that product with the banned ingredient in the rest of the UK, so long as the company claimed it was operating under EU rules?

    Peter Kyle

    I am always very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his interventions in these debates; they always add a great deal. He has, with his forensic mind, picked a situation that shows one of the many absurdities thrown up by this Bill. It will, in practice, mean a huge amount of complexity for businesses across Northern Ireland and elsewhere. Some businesses will find it impossible to answer the questions he has raised, and will be deterred from trading on current terms, simply because they are worried about infractions from one of the markets or the other, or indeed about how the two interact. That is an area that I will move on to.

    I listened with great interest to the exchanges with Northern Ireland Members a few moments ago about the dairy trade, and to the interventions by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). I am straying into the same territory now as I quote the representative body for the dairy sector. I encourage all Members to read the written evidence that the Dairy Council for Northern Ireland submitted to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee just last week. This is a hugely important industry for Northern Ireland. There are over 3,200 dairy farming businesses there, which contribute at least £1.5 billion a year to the economy. It is very good to know that the hon. Member and his family are part of that success for Northern Ireland.

    In the words of the Dairy Council,

    “The NI Protocol Bill represents a threat to the IoI”—

    the island of Ireland—

    dairy value chain through the proposal for a Dual Regulatory Regime…which will open the potential for products used on dairy farms in the production of milk to be imported from GB without having to adhere to EU standards.

    The IoI dairy value chain operates on the basis that NI and RoI milk are produced to the same EU standards”.

    It also stated:

    “Annually around 800m litres of milk, about one third of total NI production, moves to RoI for processing. NI does not have sufficient processing capacity to process all the milk produced in NI, so anything that damages or limits the dairy value chain would have serious consequences for the NI dairy sector.”

    At present, Northern Ireland vets issue certification that the Republic of Ireland vets accept for each consignment of milk.

    Ian Paisley

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Peter Kyle

    After I have made this point, I will, because I am always interested in the hon. Member’s views on this issue.

    What the Government are proposing would impose additional layers of bureaucracy to prove that every step of the milk processing complied with EU standards. This would be disastrous for the dairy industry; it would require segregation of milk at every stage and push the sector into negative growth in Northern Ireland.

    Ian Paisley

    On that technical point, as the hon. Member will accept, the protocol is an example of red tape being used to tie up commerce. Given what he has just said, does he accept that a commercial opportunity is being set aside, and farmers are not being allowed to take it?

    Peter Kyle

    The hon. Member talks about what I said, but all I did was quote the words of the Dairy Council for Northern Ireland; I was not expressing my views. When I talk about an industry in Northern Ireland, I of course try extremely hard to listen to the people on the frontline who represent that industry. Of course I take into consideration his experience, and the frontline experiences of his family.

    My amendment 28 says, “Let’s listen to those on the frontline and get the Government to do an assessment before we do something that could have radical consequences for the sector.” I understand that the hon. Member has first-hand experience of talking to people, and of living in a family of people, who are affected by this. Expert opinion fed to me contradicts that view. What is the logical conclusion? Before we move forward with a set of regulations that could ride roughshod over the dairy industry in Northern Ireland, let us take the time to make an assessment. We should have an impact assessment, lay it before the House, and debate it before we pass a law that could radically impact the industry.

    Sammy Wilson

    The hon. Member has to be very careful in listening to bodies that claim to be representative of an industry; those at the top of the body very often have their own agenda. Let us look at the logic of his argument. A third of Northern Ireland’s milk goes for processing in the Irish Republic. In other words, some businesses in the Irish Republic are dependent on an awful lot of milk, which they cannot produce in their country, from Northern Ireland. If we have a system of dual regulation that ensures that the milk is as safe tomorrow as it was yesterday, and as safe after the Bill goes through as it was before the Bill, does he not think that businesses and Government in the Irish Republic will accept that Northern Ireland milk is essential for those industries, and so would not seek to put a barrier in its way?

    Peter Kyle

    The point I am making is quite clear. There is a difference of opinion here, and I think it is unwise to reject out of hand the representative body for the dairy sector in Northern Ireland. Let us engage with that. I have been very respectful of the right hon. Gentleman’s view, but I make the point that that was the second intervention from him, and I did ask him to correct the record in relation to his previous intervention, when he said something that was categorically untrue about my voting in the past. I hope that when he makes his next intervention he will do the right and honourable thing, which is to correct the record unequivocally and recognise that I voted in the polar opposite way to the way that he said I did.

    The best way for us to resolve these issues is to have an independent assessment of the impact on different sectors that might be negatively affected—or certainly affected—by the legislation. It would be irresponsible not to, because there is such a difference of opinion.

    Stephen Farry

    Talking of putting things on the record, would the shadow Secretary of State join me in standing up for the credibility of Mike Johnston, who leads the Dairy Council for Northern Ireland? I stress that no one here has any evidence whatsoever that he has any motivation other than standing up for the interests of his industry.

    Peter Kyle

    I am certainly very grateful for the intervention, and to the witness for giving the benefit of his insight, wisdom and experience to a Select Committee of the House—insight gained from his membership of his organisation. All submissions to this place are welcome, and must be received in the spirit in which they were given to the House. However, it is the role of Government to deliver, and I urge the Government and Ministers to deliver in the way that has the least chance of negatively impacting a sector as important as the dairy sector in Northern Ireland. We are talking about the dairy sector, but it is just one of many sectors that could be negatively impacted if the Government get the implementation of the Bill wrong.

    The Dairy Council for Northern Ireland estimates that processing all the milk that Northern Ireland produces would take three years and up to £250 million of investment. Let us be clear that we are debating a proposal that would cripple a part of the economy that supplies basic consumer goods and is working well. The proposals would take a wrecking ball to this key sector in the middle of a cost of living crisis, wreaking havoc on businesses and driving up prices. It would be a different debate if the Government were saying that they are introducing a dual regulatory regime because they do not want Northern Ireland to have dual market access any more, and this was the first step towards that, but that is not what Ministers are saying.

    On Second Reading, the Foreign Secretary said that this regime

    “cuts the processes that drive up cost for business”—[Official Report, 27 June 2022; Vol. 717, c. 40-41]

    and allows business to choose which market they want to use. That is the exact opposite of what businesses are saying that a dual regulatory regime would achieve in practice. It is self-explanatory that moving to a dual regime would lead to more administration. The clue is in the name: dual regulation, under a dual regime, means double the number of processes that a business could encounter.

    Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson

    I fear the shadow Secretary of State is approaching this on the premise that the dual regulatory system will be compulsory. As I understand the Government’s proposal, it is for each business—and sector, indeed, if it so wishes—to decide whether it wants to opt in or opt out of this system. Businesses and sectors could decide to opt into the UK system only or the EU system only, or both. The idea that every business and sector will have to adopt both sets of regulations is simply not true.

    Peter Kyle

    I am grateful for the intervention. I make two simple points: first, I used the word “could” encounter, not “would” or “be compelled” to encounter. Secondly, let us take a business that might be operating in both markets. It would be forced to undertake the bureaucracy required by both markets. He says that is optional. Of course it is, but it is not optimal if a business that is operating perfectly contently and successfully—perhaps even growing, and creating more wealth, opportunity and jobs in Northern Ireland—wants to withdraw from one of the markets just to avoid the paperwork. It would not be forced; I understand that. It would be voluntary, but let us not kid ourselves that withdrawing from one of the markets simply to avoid bureaucracy or red tape would not have any impact on jobs, prosperity and wealth in Northern Ireland.

    Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson

    Northern Ireland does not operate in a vacuum. A business in my constituency is no different from a business in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. If a business in his constituency wants to sell goods in the EU single market, is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that that business can apply British standards, even if they are different from EU standards, and sell those goods in the EU without complying with EU standards? Of course not. Businesses in Northern Ireland have to make commercial decisions. If they want to sell goods to the EU, they must comply with EU standards. If they want to sell goods in the UK, they must comply with British standards. That is the way the commercial world works. That is the way it is regulated. Let us not pretend that we are creating a new regime here for Northern Ireland businesses, and that if we want to sell goods both in the UK and the EU, we need only one set of standards. That is not the case.

    Peter Kyle

    I am not quite sure where to start with that intervention. The right hon. Gentleman suggests we take the instance of my community in Hove and Portslade, on the sunny Sussex coastline. If businesses there are exporting to the EU, then of course they have to do all the additional red tape that has been imposed by the particular Brexit deal negotiated by this Government, but they do not have to do so if they are selling locally. This is the problem we have at the moment: we are suggesting a dual regime for the domestic Northern Ireland market, so it is not the same. Those who trade within Sussex—there is such fantastic produce grown, compiled, sold and retailed there—would not expect to have two regulatory regimes forced on them in Sussex. I do not think we should conflate exporters with those who produce for the domestic market. That is the problem we face in Northern Ireland; producers there are certainly being forced, in that situation, to make a choice. I am not suggesting that anybody is being forced to trade under both regimes. They can unilaterally decide to withdraw from one of the markets and perhaps downscale their business. But let us move on.

    Hilary Benn

    I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; he is being most generous. The argument has been put by the Minister and others in the Chamber that businesses in Northern Ireland would be entirely free to choose whether they use one regulatory system or the other, but according to the explanatory notes, clause 11

    “allows a Minister to prescribe whether the dual regime should no longer apply to a specific class of regulated goods. It also provides a power for a Minister of the Crown to modify the different regulatory routes available in Northern Ireland.”

    In other words, the Government are taking for themselves the power to turn off the choice that they advocated that businesses should have, as an argument for voting for the proposals.

    Peter Kyle

    Again, my right hon. Friend makes a fundamental point about the weakness of the Bill. It is basically a one-sentence Bill. Paragraph (a) in clause 1 states that the Bill

    “provides that certain specified provision of the Northern Ireland Protocol does not have effect in the United Kingdom”.

    That is the heart of the Bill. The rest of the Bill is, as he says, powers for Ministers to act as they will into the future. That is a fundamental problem. We have heard time and again throughout the passage of the Bill that it repatriates the most enormous powers not to British traders and not to the regions of Britain and Northern Ireland, but to Ministers directly. It creates huge uncertainty. As I said earlier, businesses recognise that they cannot prepare, because they do not know how Ministers will implement the powers they have into the future. At the moment, all they are saying is that they want those powers to make use of as they see fit.

    Let us move on. If goods in Northern Ireland can be made to GB standards or EU standards, a Northern Ireland manufacturer with a presence in both markets could find themselves having to make goods to both standards because of customer demands. That will all have to be administered by a combination of Westminster and Stormont. There is also the issue of allowing businesses to continue to have market choice. According to the Northern Ireland Business Brexit Working Group, the biggest issue with a dual regulatory regime is that it causes significant reputational risks to Northern Ireland exports sold into the EU market, which could damage access. Our amendment 28 is simple. It would require the following:

    “Before making regulations under this section, a Minister of the Crown must carry out an economic impact assessment of the proposed regulations, and conduct a consultation on the proposed regulations with any stakeholders whom the Minister of the Crown considers appropriate.”

    A report on those exercises would then have to be laid before Parliament. It should not be controversial to ask the Government to do that before proceeding with proposals which could have such a devastating impact on businesses in Northern Ireland.

  • Michael Ellis – 2022 Speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    Michael Ellis – 2022 Speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    The speech made by Michael Ellis, the Paymaster General, in the House of Commons on 19 July 2022.

    I begin by thanking hon. Members for their participation in the debate so far. I remind them that, while the Northern Ireland protocol was agreed with the best of intentions, it is causing real problems for people and businesses in Northern Ireland, and this legislation will fix the practical problems that the protocol has created.

    On the clauses under scrutiny today, clause 7 makes it clear that businesses will have a choice which regulatory route to follow when supplying goods to the market in Northern Ireland. It introduces a dual regulatory regime in Northern Ireland for regulated classes of goods to which any provision of annexe 2 to the protocol applies. That will create a new option to meet UK rules, compared with the existing protocol arrangements, whereby goods are required to comply with the relevant EU rules. Where the relevant requirements allow, it will also be possible for the same product to simultaneously comply with both UK and EU sets of requirements. Current traders have no choice but to meet EU rules when supplying goods in or to Northern Ireland. This obviously deters some companies, especially those trading exclusively within the United Kingdom. We have seen numerous examples of that already. It deters them from serving Northern Ireland due to the costs and administrative burdens of meeting this EU law such as retesting, re-marking and relabelling of goods, all of which are expensive, as well as the appointment of a representative to undertake administrative duties. All that bureaucracy comes at a cost, which is unnecessary for goods that are to remain on the UK’s market.

    The dual regulatory regime provides businesses across the United Kingdom with choice. If a Northern Ireland business trades north-south in the island of Ireland, it can continue to follow EU rules if it wishes and sell its products in the EU and across the UK, because the Government have a commitment to unfettered access. However, if the model of a business is UK-focused, it can choose to follow UK rules and avoid the additional cost and burden currently applied to intra-UK trade.

    Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)

    My right hon. and learned Friend is right to highlight the significant frictions on trade within the UK that the protocol has caused. That has led the courts to conclude that there is a partial suspension of the 1801 articles of the Act of Union. Will the Bill fix that problem and ensure that the Act of Union remains fully on our statute book?

    Michael Ellis

    My right hon. Friend makes a powerful and valid point. The Bill will ameliorate a plethora of problems that have been caused by the protocol.

    As my right hon. Friend knows, by providing an alternative UK rules route to market in Northern Ireland, clause 7 protects the integrity of the UK’s internal market. Clause 8 ensures that the protocol no longer prevents a dual regime such as that introduced by clause 7. It makes provision to exclude EU law where it would prevent goods made to UK rules from being placed on the market in Northern Ireland in accordance with clause 7. It means that goods made to UK rules can be supplied in Northern Ireland in accordance with clause 7 to enable the functioning of this dual regulatory regime.

    Clause 9 provides a Minister with the powers to make provisions through secondary legislation to ensure the effective working of the dual regulatory routes in Northern Ireland. The dual regulatory regime will need to take into account the results of engagement with business, which we have already undertaken and will undertake much more of, and it will need to be able to evolve over time as UK and EU regulatory regimes change. The default dual regulatory regime may also need to be amended to ensure that it works effectively for different types of goods—for example, should it be required to ensure that specific highly regulated goods regimes can function effectively. So clause 9 is needed to ensure that goods are compliant throughout the supply chain for traders operating under this dual regulatory regime, whichever route is chosen, and it will therefore safeguard the interests of consumer safety and biosecurity arrangements and maintain appropriate public health standards. The clause is essential to ensure the effective working of the dual regulatory routes and protects the integrity of the UK’s internal markets as well as the EU’s single market.

    Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)

    Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm what the default position will be if a business has not made an election? Will it operate under EU law unless it positively chooses to use UK regulations? What will the process be for making this choice? Will someone have to file a document with an authority to say that they intend to use UK regulations when they make goods in Northern Ireland? Will there be a public register? Will it be an entirely private choice for a business? Will no one know publicly what they are doing?

    Michael Ellis

    The first thing to state clearly is that no business will be forced to do anything. They will not be obliged to choose one over the other. It will be up to businesses to do that. One power we will give to Ministers in due course, when the Bill has passed, is to make regulations that will fit in most neatly with businesses’ wishes and desires.

    Nigel Mills

    Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

    Michael Ellis

    If I may, I will make a little more progress.

    Clause 9 provides a Minister with the powers to make provisions through secondary legislation to ensure the effective working of the dual regulatory routes in Northern Ireland.

    I will move on to clause 10, conscious as I am of the Second Deputy Chairman’s admonition about speed. The clause defines the types of regulatory activity covered by the dual regulatory regime established in the Bill. This provides clarity on interpretation of the Bill’s provisions in relation to the dual regulatory regime and makes the scope of that regime clear.

    Clause 10(4) provides that a Minister of the Crown may, by regulations, make provision about the meaning of “regulation of goods” in this Bill, and that includes changing the effect of other provisions of the clause. We want to ensure that the sale of goods made to UK rules in Northern Ireland is not prohibited due to a particular aspect of regulation falling outside the meaning of “regulation of goods” in clause 7. So the power ensures that goods will be able to benefit from the dual regulatory regime.

    Ian Paisley

    This issue is very important because, before January 2021, goods travelling from GB to Northern Ireland had to fulfil four criteria to be loaded on to a lorry and transported to shops or outlets in Northern Ireland. Since January 2021 there are 15 compliance points, including heavy paperwork responsibilities. Is the point not that those matters will now be removed and we will be back to where we were in 2021—with frictionless trade in the UK?

    Michael Ellis

    The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and succinct point.

    Clause 11 gives Ministers appropriate powers to ensure that the regulatory regime in Northern Ireland operates for goods in any given sector, ranging from ball bearings and ice cream to lamp posts, gas cookers and children’s toys—myriad different items, but also intermediate goods such as chemicals. All are regulated in different fashions. We want to ensure that they can all operate effectively. So the powers in clause 11, which I know are controversial in the eyes of some hon. Members, allow a Minister to prescribe a single regulatory route for specific sectors, including a UK-only route with no application of EU law, for example. This can also apply to part or all of a category of goods or to some or all of a regulatory route. We consider the clause vital in ensuring that the dual regulatory regime can be tailored to the needs of industry and ensure the smooth running of the new regime for all sectors.

    Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Michael Ellis

    I will give way, but I am just about to come on to the amendments, so the right hon. Gentleman may wish to wait.

    Hilary Benn

    It is on the point that the Minister just raised. If I heard him correctly, he just said that the Government were taking a power to prescribe which regulatory route should be chosen. Earlier, he said that it would be entirely a matter for businesses to determine which they chose. Just so the House is clear, the Minister is saying that it is a free choice unless the Government decide that it is not a free choice.

    Michael Ellis

    No. Businesses will not be obliged to follow any particular route. They will not be forced to follow either UK or EU regulations. It is a choice, and I should be able to expand on that later.

    Amendments 44 and 45 are in the name of the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry). As I have said before, the Government are engaging broadly on the issues created by the protocol with stakeholder groups across business and civic society in Northern Ireland, in the rest of the UK and internationally. I have been to Belfast in recent weeks to discuss this with some industries. We will give plenty of notice to those affected. The clauses need to provide stakeholders with certainty that the Government will swiftly deliver the solutions that we have outlined to the problems that the protocol is causing.

    Our preference remains to reach a negotiated outcome with the EU. I emphasise that our door remains open. We need a lasting solution to these issues to restore stability in Northern Ireland and a working Northern Ireland Assembly based on the consent of the communities. Her Majesty’s Government have made proposals that would address the issues with the protocol. So far, I am sorry to say, the European Union has not been willing to agree to those, but there is no reason why it could not do so. We hope that it changes its mind. We are always open to discussions, and we want a shared solution—I cannot be clearer than that. However, amendments 44 and 45 risk tying the Government’s hands behind their back. On consent, I respectfully point out that the Northern Ireland Assembly is not sitting at the moment. It is exactly because of the breakdown of the institutions in Northern Ireland that this Bill is needed. We need to see the restoration of the institutions as quickly as possible. Further to that, I confirmed previously to the House that we hope the institutions will be restored soon and that it will be possible for the Northern Ireland Executive to bring forward, for example, a legislative consent motion. I therefore ask the hon. Member for North Down to withdraw the amendments.

    Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)

    We have been spun the narrative that this is about the consent and the engagement of Northern Ireland. Although, of course, businesses are up for ways to ease the frictions imposed by Brexit, these provisions are far in excess of anything that anybody has asked for.

    On the specific issue of restoring the Assembly, it is very vague as to what it will take for the Democratic Unionist party to go back in. Has the Minister any understanding of what the bottom line is for those people who walk around with scarves around their faces and create the protests that the Northern Ireland Office seems so engaged in? Do we think that they will happily accept green and red lanes, or will that be the next problem?

    Michael Ellis

    May I put it this way? The Sewel convention applies to this Bill, as it does to all Bills of the UK Parliament which intersect with devolved competence. I respectfully point out that the Northern Ireland Assembly is not sitting at the moment. It is exactly because of the breakdown of the institutions in Northern Ireland that we are where we are right now and this Bill is actually needed. We need to see the restoration of the institutions as soon as possible. I hope that goes some way towards answering the hon. Lady’s question.

    Claire Hanna

    Will the Minister give way?

    Michael Ellis

    Forgive me, but I must make some progress. I am sure that there will be another opportunity to intervene.

    Let me turn to amendment 36, in the name of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I addressed this point previously, so I shall be brief. It would potentially circumscribe the ability to design dual regulatory routes under clause 9 to preserve the unity of the UK’s internal market. Given that there are more than 200 pieces of goods regulation applied by the protocol, those powers are needed to ensure that the regime can function effectively in practice for each class of goods. The dual regulatory regime is necessary to remedy disruption to GB-NI trade, which will only worsen as the EU and UK rules diverge over the course of time. The arrangements will also need to be updated over time to reflect changes in UK and EU regulations, so Ministers will need appropriate discretion to make policy decisions in doing so. The right hon. Gentleman may well not agree with me, but I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

    I turn to amendment 28, also tabled by the right hon. Member for Tottenham, who I do not think is in his place. The Government have engaged broadly on the issues created by the protocol with stakeholder groups across business and civic society in Northern Ireland, as well in the rest of the UK and internationally. As the House will know, the Bill provides specific powers to establish a new regime in Northern Ireland, which addresses the issues with the current operation of the protocol. We are engaging with stakeholders on the detail of how those powers are to be used and will give plenty of notice to those affected.

    The Government have already begun a detailed programme of engagement to inform the specific design of the regime in Northern Ireland that will be created by this Bill. Furthermore, clause 9 is designed to provide stakeholders in Northern Ireland with certainty that the Government will deliver the solutions that we have outlined to the problems the protocol is causing. It is essential that this power can be used quickly if needed. Although in normal cases the Government will engage with stakeholder groups in Northern Ireland, and already are engaging with them, there may be occasions when the urgency of a situation means that the Government need to act swiftly. The amendment risks tying the Government’s hands behind their back.

    Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)

    Does the Minister note that, while the Opposition are now asking for an economic assessment of the protocol Bill, they did not seek any such economic assessment before they voted for the protocol? Even when the economic consequences were evident, they then still pursued the path of supporting the protocol. It does seem a bit hypocritical to ask for an economic assessment of this Bill while ignoring the economic impact of the protocol, which they support.

    Michael Ellis

    The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, and it is one with which I tend to agree.

    The full details of the new regime will be set out in and alongside regulations made under the Bill, and that includes economic impacts where appropriate. The regulations will be the product of engagement with business. We are going to talk to people to ensure that the detail of the new regime is as smooth and as operable as possible. That is what we are getting on with now. The House will have the opportunity to scrutinise these regulations in the usual fashion, under the normal parliamentary procedures. An additional requirement for the Government to lay an assessment and a report each time, which is what this amendment asks for, would clearly not be necessary. That is why I ask the right hon. Member not to press the amendment.

    Let me move on to new clause 13 in the name the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood). I argue that this new clause is unnecessary. The hon. Gentleman’s new clause would create a statutory obligation for the UK Government to publish, at least quarterly, what steps are being taken by Her Majesty’s Government to promote, uphold, support and facilitate dual access to the British market and European markets. The Government already publish a host of information on trade, and it is not necessary, in my submission, to duplicate existing publications on a quarterly basis and lay them before Parliament. The dual regulatory regime provides businesses across the UK with choice. If a Northern Ireland-based business trades north-south on the island of Ireland, then they can continue, as now, to follow EU rules and sell their products in the EU and across the UK, because of the Government’s commitment to unfettered access. But if their business model is UK-focused, they can choose to follow UK rules and benefit from the opportunities afforded there. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman not to press his new clause.

    Finally, let me turn to new clauses 14 and 15 in the name of the hon. Member for Foyle. These new clauses are, in some aspects, unnecessary, and, in other aspects, inappropriate. As the hon. Gentleman knows, article 14(b) of the protocol already requires the specialised committee to

    “examine proposals concerning the implementation and application of this Protocol from the North-South Ministerial Council and North-South Implementation bodies set up under the 1998 Agreement”.

    That is an entirely appropriate and valuable role. The hon. Gentleman’s new clauses, by contrast, would create a statutory obligation for the UK Government to “support” proposals relating to the regulation of goods made by the North-South Ministerial Council and other North-South Implementation bodies.

    That would cede control over the UK Government’s stance in the Joint Committee to a council on which the Irish Government—the Government of an EU member state—sits. The hon. Member can surely see that this would be wholly inappropriate. In any case, as part of our “New Decade, New Approach” commitments, the Government already ensure that representatives from the Northern Ireland Executive are invited to meetings of the Joint Committee, which discusses Northern Ireland specific matters, and these are also attended by the Irish Government.

    Claire Hanna

    Does the Minister agree that the North-South Ministerial Council and other architecture of the Good Friday agreement provide solutions to addressing some of the issues around democratic deficit and input of civic society? Does he acknowledge that the North-South Ministerial Council is not currently operating because strand one and strand two of the agreement are being held to ransom by the DUP?

    Michael Ellis

    I do not accept the characterisation of the hon. Lady’s point.

    The aspects of new clauses 14 and 15 obliging the Government to lay reports before Parliament are also unnecessary. The Government have already committed to—and do—lay written ministerial statements in Parliament before and after each meeting of the Joint Committee. We also provide explanatory memorandums on matters to be discussed at Joint Committee meetings. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Foyle not to press new clauses 14 and 15.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) asked in an intervention about businesses having a choice. Businesses will, of course, have a choice by default. He asked about processes. We are engaging with businesses. We may need to tailor regulatory routes in some cases, but businesses will have a choice by default.

    To conclude, the Bill on which this honourable House is spending up to 18 hours in Committee provides a comprehensive and durable solution to the existing problems with the Northern Ireland protocol by giving businesses a choice over which regulatory route to follow when placing goods on the market in Northern Ireland. I therefore recommend that the clauses under consideration stand part of the Bill.