Lord Frost (Non-Afl)

My Lords, I support the regret amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea. One must acknowledge that there is a slight Groundhog Day feel to this debate—the third in three weeks—and that the points we have made this evening have already been made many times on the previous two occasions. However, they are justified and no less important for their repetition. Indeed, the tone of these debates has changed a little, week on week, as we have reflected on the situation we are facing. It is right that we keep these great matters of principle at the forefront of our minds; they bear repetition. The great Lady Thatcher, when she was accused of saying the same old thing, said, “Of course I am. The truth always is the same old thing”. That is true of this debate as well. In some ways, the Minister made it easier for us tonight. I do not know whether, on the previous two occasions, she grew weary of trying to say that there was nothing to see here and that we should not worry about it, because, in her opening statement, she was quite open about the fact that there is no discretion on this and that the regulations have already been in force for two years. We are talking about supplementary enforcement arrangements for regulations that are already being enforced. There is no choice around the legal requirement to impose these new laws, because they are already in place. As has already been noted, there is a legal requirement to enforce laws on criminal offences that have been made elsewhere and on which nobody in this country has had any say. As I said last week, there is an element of performative lawmaking and discussion in this, where there is no discretion. If that is not a lack of autonomy, I do not know what is. I use that word because, as the Minister may remember, last week I quoted her as saying in our first debate: “We retain complete autonomy to make our own regulatory decisions”.—[Official Report, 2/9/26; col. 201.] She was referring to Northern Ireland. I questioned whether, in the light of the regulations we were discussing, that statement could stand up. I do not think she responded to that last week; perhaps she could take the time tonight to explain how she justifies that statement when we are discussing regulations over which we have had no choice. The Minister was also honest about her intention to replicate in Great Britain this legislation that is already in place in Northern Ireland. It would be better if, at some point, the Government admitted that it is their policy to replicate in Great Britian, where they can, laws that are already in place in Northern Ireland as part of a bridge, no doubt, eventually to the single market for goods. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, for her comments. They may not have been entirely fair, and I would not agree with everything she said, but the tone was good. We should be able to have pragmatic and calm discussions on this, while not forgetting the important points of principle involved: democracy, discussion and proper lawmaking. In my final few seconds, I will pick up the point of dual market access. That is not a good term. Northern Ireland is a member of another market for goods—that is the situation. It is a market in which Northern Ireland has no say. It has attenuated access to GB, but the real problem is that Great Britain has very limited access to Northern Ireland. That is the real underlying problem of the Windsor Framework, and until we deal with that problem we are going to be coming back to discuss this for years to come.