Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Leong, to his position. He is about the third noble Lord we have had answering SIs, so we are gradually getting round all of them. It is of course very nice to see the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, who is very involved with and supportive of Northern Ireland, and she is very much respected there. The noble Lord has set out in detail why this is happening, with a lot of words and explanation, but the reality is that it is happening because the United Kingdom Government signed up to the Windsor Framework protocol, which is now ensuring in legislation after legislation that Northern Ireland is treated differently. To comply with the EU law, we are therefore now required to update the EU law as defined in our 2017 regulations to take account of the new directive. The regulations before us today seek to comply with this European Union diktat by applying a new regulation, Regulation 6A, into the United Kingdom regulations with respect to how they apply to Northern Ireland only. The legislative change does not apply to the rest of the United Kingdom; it does not apply to Great Britain. I see there is an absence of the Liberal Democrats here today. That is because the Liberal Democrats tend to think that such regulations should be hidden away in the committee room and fail to understand that when it is an affirmative regulation, we have the right to bring it here to the Chamber. We do that because these regulations provide us with an object lesson of all that is wrong with the Windsor Framework protocol and the Irish Sea border that it creates. To really understand the problems with these regulations and others like them, it is important to assess them from the vantage point not just of their immediate physical impact—which I will mention—but of their wider impact in Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom. The Irish Sea border arose from a decision of Parliament, but unlike the decisions in relation to devolution and joining the European Union, the resulting arrangements were not operated consistently with its ethos as a representative body. From the outset, their very point of conception, they have been fundamentally alien to the political tradition we have in the United Kingdom, because they involve transferring lawmaking powers for a part of the UK to a Government beyond the UK—to legislative arrangements that do not represent the United Kingdom. This deeply affects the part of the United Kingdom in question, because as participants in a political nation, a political body politic that is nurtured, upheld and sustained by representative principles, this does not just take from us the ability to make some of our own laws but necessarily disinherits us from a key aspect of our identity. In this context, the Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations, along with all other imposed legislation, are deeply problematic. It is worth reminding the House that while the Northern Ireland protocol was addressed through primary legislation, since February 2023 every piece of legislation that has been introduced and given effect to the Windsor Framework—without any say from people in Northern Ireland—has been by means of statutory instrument. Someone engaging with this subject for the first time—perhaps a noble Lord today—might come to one debate and see that it highlights the imposition of EU law in one narrow area. However, that is very narrow; we have to regard the cumulative effect of all the different statutory instruments that have been brought in, and will be brought in, in the past and coming months. That is why, along with other noble friends from Northern Ireland, we will continue to bring these debates to the House. The House needs to understand that this is not just about one law—radio equipment—this is about the whole way we are now being governed in Northern Ireland. That said, the draft Explanatory Memorandum makes the position very clear, and the Minister has gone through the far-reaching effects of the radio equipment regulations. Everyone needs to read paragraphs 5 and 6, which state: “The essential requirement not to harm the network or its functioning applies to any internet-connected radio equipment … consumer electronics and smart devices … the protection of user/subscriber personal data and privacy also applies to the following radio equipment, where that equipment is capable of processing personal data, traffic data or location data: Internet-connected radio equipment; and Radio equipment, whether internet-connected or not, that is: (i) designed or intended exclusively for childcare; (ii) covered by the EU Toys Directive; or (iii) designed or intended, to be worn on, strapped to, or hung from the body or clothing”. The final bit of the explanation states: “The essential requirement to ensure protection from fraud also applies to internet-connected radio equipment, if that equipment enables the user to transfer money, monetary value or virtual currency”. It is very wide-ranging. Turning to those who will be impacted by the legislation, the draft Explanatory Memorandum is very clear that the effects on business are far-reaching. It states: “This instrument will impact on manufacturers of specific types of radio equipment that are placed on the Northern Ireland marketplace, authorised representatives carrying out manufacturers’ tasks on their behalf, importers who place these products on the Northern Ireland marketplace, and distributors who make these products available on the Northern Ireland marketplace”. It actually states: “There is no, or no significant, impact on charities or voluntary bodies”, but the impact on small businesses is also very clear. It states: “The legislation does impact small or micro businesses … The legal requirements do not differentiate between businesses in terms of their size. Therefore, we are unable to take any mitigating actions to minimise the regulatory burdens on small or micro businesses”. The officials who drafted this draft Explanatory Memorandum pass over those points very quickly, without acknowledging and confronting the obvious implications of what has been said. This legislation relates only to Northern Ireland and has an impact on small businesses and micro-businesses, yet Northern Ireland is the part of the United Kingdom where the economy is more dependent on such businesses than any other. In that sense, if we were told to apply this to one part of the UK, Northern Ireland would be the last place to start because of the unusual size of its small business sector. Can the Minister say what the Government will do practically to help those small businesses that are already drowning in an Irish Sea border of endless paperwork and bureaucracy? The Minister will recall—the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, will certainly recall—the Federation of Small Businesses research, which, critically, was conducted before the introduction of the Irish Sea parcels border in May, the used farm machinery border in June and the huge increase in labelling requirements on 1 July, not to mention the impending arrival of the pet medicines Irish Sea border, which is due in January 2026, together with the application, from 1 January, of the much more demanding Import Control System 2. The report demonstrated that 33% of GB suppliers had already withdrawn since the arrival of the Irish Sea border. I ask the Minister: how much more pain would the Government like to devise for small businesses in Northern Ireland? This imposition of EU legislation on Northern Ireland effectively declared that while the people of England, Wales and Scotland are worthy of the right to stand for election to make all the laws, or to elect a fellow citizen to represent them for this purpose, the people of Northern Ireland are only worthy of the right to stand for election to make some of the laws to which they are subject. These changes do not have just a narrow functional effect, so that some of our laws are made by others; they actually erode and undermine our place in the nation of the United Kingdom. I do not think that noble Lords will fully appreciate that, until they themselves, perhaps as fellow citizens, find that that has been taken from them. In coming to terms with this, we must also understand that the purpose of all these imposed laws is to create an all-Ireland single market for goods. The political importance is hard to overstate, because the prerequisite of achieving statehood is described internationally as securing economic nationality. One disturbing consequence of all this is that once people have been subject to the laws of another country or another institution, they not only lose the right to stand for election to make the laws to which they are subject, or to elect someone for this purpose; they also lose the right to be consulted about the law. The Explanatory Memorandum states: “The Government has not undertaken a formal public consultation as this instrument’s provisions are confined to the implementation of provisions as required by the terms of the Windsor Framework, ensuring that Northern Ireland has in place EU derived essential product safety requirements.” In other words, the legislation has to be imposed because the EU has told us to impose it, and we signed up to that, so we do not need to bother with the consultation because there would be no point. The other striking feature about these regulations is that the Explanatory Memorandum and supplementary paperwork are distinctive in not volunteering that the Government will definitely align GB with the new Northern Ireland legislation, opening the door to regulatory divergence. Paragraph 9.1 says: “Many UK businesses also supply the EU market (as well as the UK market) and have already taken steps to come into compliance with the Radio Equipment Directive. We therefore do not anticipate significant impacts on the supply of products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland”—anyone in Northern Ireland will tell you that they have heard that before—“and the UK’s Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act sets a framework for the cyber security of internet connected products in the UK and works alongside radio equipment directive provisions in Northern Ireland.” As has been said, the Government intend to review the operation of the PSTI in the coming years, including through an interim post-implementation review in 2026, and will continue to monitor the functioning of the internal market. That is very complacent, and we could be left with legal divergence for a very long time. Why are the Government not more energetically seeking to avoid legislative divergence? If most companies in GB will comply automatically anyway, why accommodate needless legislative divergence? Finally, I want to pick up the point that the Explanatory Notes suggest that these regulations are a good thing because they are part of the delivery of the wonderful dual market access. We need to be absolutely clear that dual market access is a myth. We have not secured a single piece of inward investment to access this special status, because it does not exist. Businesses are not stupid. If there was a special advantage, they would have come in from across the world. Of course, you will find companies that would rather have the border in the Irish Sea because their business is based on trading with the Republic of Ireland and not with GB, and which say that they benefit from the current arrangements. However, if you drill down into that, it is not because they get dual market access but because at the end of the day, although the Windsor Framework fetters access to GB production inputs, it provides completely unfettered access to the Republic—that is, single market access to an all-Ireland economy—which is what they actually want. The problem is that most Northern Ireland businesses are based on needing unfettered access to GB, which is denied them by both the red and green lanes. It is therefore a very clear net negative for the Northern Ireland economy as a whole rather than a net positive. I do wish that Ministers would stop saying, every time the Windsor Framework is mentioned, that this is why it is so great. I want to end by reading out two emails that I got sent yesterday from Northern Ireland relating to the veterinary effect which will come in in January. The first is to a lady who has pets and gets her veterinary medicine from GB: “Thank you for your query regarding veterinary medication to Northern Ireland. Since Brexit, we have been operating under a grace period that has allowed us to continue medications to Northern Ireland. However, this grace period will come to an end on 31st December 2025. From 1st January it will no longer be possible for suppliers based here on the UK mainland to ship any class of medication, including prescription medications, to Northern Ireland”. Another email reads: “Good afternoon and thank you for your email. We will be stopping the last delivery to Northern Ireland on December 19th. This is due to a change in the Windsor Framework, which means medicines now need a Northern Ireland licence or EU licence to be sold there and cannot be imported free”. This is happening over and again, and it means that many pet owners who cannot afford insurance and who go on to the internet to get the same veterinary medicine more cheaply from Great Britain are not now going to be able to get it. We are seeing, over and again, ridiculous things that are happening because of the Windsor Framework/protocol. I cannot understand how any sensible person, including ex-Government Ministers from the previous Government, cannot realise that this is not in the long-term interests of Northern Ireland. Therefore, I beg to move this regret amendment with very great pleasure but with sadness that we are having still to come back to this House over and again on this issue.