Windsor Framework: Internal Market Guarantee

I will call Jim Allister to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make speeches only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Windsor Framework Internal Market Guarantee.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. In bringing this matter to the House again, the intention is to retain a focus on the egregious and anti-business situation that continues to prevail in respect of internal trade to Northern Ireland within this United Kingdom.

However one dresses this matter up—the Government excel in their attempts in that regard—the fundamental reality is this: courtesy of the post-Brexit arrangements that were first enunciated in the protocol and then, by change of name, in the Windsor framework, we have the absurd situation whereby a part of this United Kingdom is governed by the trade laws of a foreign jurisdiction, namely the EU. The very essence of being part of the United Kingdom should surely be the unfettered nature of trade: the fact that people can trade as freely from Cardiff to Carlisle or from Gloucester to Glasgow as they should be able to trade from Birmingham to Belfast. That is the essence of being in a United Kingdom, where unfettered trade lies at the heart of that economic union. Of course, that is already specified in article 6 of our Act of Union.

The current arrangements are based on the fact that when Brexit occurred, Northern Ireland, instead of getting Brexit, was left behind under the EU’s customs code. That means that Northern Ireland is treated for these purposes as EU territory, and that GB is treated in that context as a third, or foreign, country. Hence, under the purview of the EU customs code, there is a need for the Irish sea border—an Irish sea border that is not established directly under United Kingdom law but that is provided for by various EU provisions.

We have the most astounding position that the regulation of goods moving from GB to Northern Ireland comes under EU legislation. EU regulations 2023/1128 and 2023/1231 specify the “customs formalities” for trade from GB to Northern Ireland and the

“rules relating to the entry into Northern Ireland from other parts of the United Kingdom of certain consignments of…goods”.

Even in the title of that EU legislation we see how wrong and absurd it is that trade within this United Kingdom, which is supposed to be a free internal market, is governed by laws that we do not make anywhere in this United Kingdom—laws that we cannot change anywhere within this United Kingdom, but that are made by 27 other countries. That is not just an economic outrage but a democratic outrage.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not find it astounding not only that the laws on the border were made by the European Union, but that when it comes to those laws being applied, EU officials are actually directing officials from Northern Ireland as to which lorry should be searched, which goods should be looked for and which actions should be taken? We have foreign laws and foreign officials dictating the terms of trade between GB and Northern Ireland.

It invariably amounts to Northern Ireland being treated as an EU colony, and it has all those characteristics. Into this comes some of these magical phrases, such as the internal market guarantee—that sounds very reassuring. Listening to that terminology, we would think that the protection of our internal trade is guaranteed. It is then further ensconced by the deceptive language of the UK internal market system. It is nothing of the sort; it is not a UK internal market system.

The genesis of this is very interesting. We had the protocol, and we then had the Windsor framework. That change of name introduced this concept of a UK internal market system, which is really the green lane, as it was previously called. We then had the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper, which was supposed to bring in groundbreaking innovations, but its only innovation was giving cover to the DUP to get back into government with Sinn Féin, and to help implement the protocol. Within that Command Paper, we then had the internal market guarantee, but let us look at this UK internal market system.

It is not a system that allows free and unfettered trade from GB to Northern Ireland; it is a system that brings the operation of the international customs border down one peg. We have the red lane—a full-blown international customs border enforced by the EU—that partitions the United Kingdom with a border down the Irish sea. With this deceptive language, we then have the so-called UK internal market system, or the green lane. However, it still requires customs declarations, an export number and a percentage of checks, so it is anything but a free internal market. It is the encapsulation of the enforcement of EU requirements on our internal trade within the United Kingdom—under their control, not UK control. The depths of attempts to find deceptive language only compounds the insult involved.

I commend the hon. and learned Gentleman on securing this debate. Of course, the issue goes further than that; it has escalated for businesses and delivery services in my constituency of Strangford and further afield in Northern Ireland because of so-called changes in the internal market, as there always is a cost factor now. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Minister and the Government must do what they promised years ago and sort out the mess? Further, does he agree that they must initiate their withdrawal from the agreement that has been put forward?

Of course, it was the last Government who, in their folly, brought this upon us. However, this Government, with maybe greater enthusiasm, are implementing the partitioning and dividing of the United Kingdom. The economic consequence of that is the diversion of trade; most of our raw materials come from GB, and we had a very integrated UK economy in which Northern Ireland was heavily dependent on its trade to and from GB. However, we are saying to a business supplier in GB, “If you want to send goods to Northern Ireland, or even if you want to send a parcel to Northern Ireland, you must have an export number and fill in a customs declaration, and we will carry out a percentage of checks on the goods.” That is on the supposed internal market system, never mind the red lane.

The Government are deliberately and consciously closing their eyes to this, but its natural consequence is diversion of trade, which has been self-evident in recent years. The Government do not want to observe it or take account of it, because they should be under a duty to act under article 16 of the protocol. But this is a Government that have so kowtowed to the EU that they are never going to act on the issues that they should do.

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for securing this debate and for continuing to raise what is an important issue. He mentioned the manufacturers, but would he also agree about the impact on the Road Haulage Association? We have seen not only the implementation of additional bureaucracy and costs but the recent introduction of the import control system 2—ICS2—which the Government said would go live in September. They then told hauliers that it would be live in December of this year, but they actually put the system live in August without engagement or interaction with the Road Haulage Association and hauliers in Northern Ireland, increasing bureaucracy and costs.

Yes, and when it comes to spending money on partitioning the United Kingdom, this Government have no qualms. We have seen expenditure of £190 million to build border posts. Where are there border posts other than at an international border? That is the reality of the United Kingdom today; it is partitioned by an international customs border. When someone goes from GB to Northern Ireland, they are effectively leaving one customs territory, governed by the laws of the United Kingdom, and entering a customs territory governed by the laws of the EU—laws, I say again, that we do not make and cannot change. It is such a fundamental assault on not just our constitutional position but our businesses and trade, that it is causing increasing difficulties.

Northern Ireland remains subject to over 300 areas of EU law, meaning that our businesses face checks, paperwork and ongoing diversions that no other firms or businesses in England, Scotland or Wales have to contend with. Even recently, there have been numerous lorries turned back at the ports for transporting food, which we were told was sorted out. Is this not a clear breach of the principles of unfettered access, and a fundamental weakening of our place within the Union?

Of course it is, but that is the intent of the protocol. No one should be under any illusion: the Windsor framework is designed to set the scene to usher Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom by the mechanism of creating an all-Ireland economy. That mechanism works in this way: it makes it increasingly difficult to trade from GB, therefore forcing business to look elsewhere for supplies; it then maximises the north-south dimension and builds an all-Ireland economy—that is the purpose of the protocol—as a stepping stone of taking Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. That is the very clear, iniquitous political purpose of the protocol. It is that that this Government and the last were facilitating with some enthusiasm.

Now, the Government told us, “Oh, we are going to take all sorts of steps to make sure that trade is not diverted. We even passed the Internal Market Act—that must be good. Section 46—doesn’t that guarantee you all sorts of wonderful things?” The Government then said, “We are going to set aside a lot of money. We are going to introduce the mutual assistance scheme.” Let me talk about the mutual assistance scheme: it was brought in to assist businesses that were having difficulties with the costs imposed at the border. It was extended, but finally ran out on 30 June this year. This Government did not extend it. What does that mean? I will tell you, Dr Allin-Khan.

I have a potato wholesale business in my constituency that relies on bringing potatoes from GB to Northern Ireland. Since 30 June, the cost of a veterinary inspection for those potatoes has been £127.60, and the cost of the phytosanitary certificate has been £25.52. That was previously covered by the movement assistance scheme, but now it is put upon the supplier in GB. And what does he do? Surprise, surprise, he puts it upon the recipient in Northern Ireland. If that is not guaranteed to dissuade trade and force trade diversion, I cannot imagine what is.

Here is the question for the Government: in the plethora of assurances that they gave when they said that they were not trying to drive Northern Ireland trade and business out of the United Kingdom, why did they not renew the movement assistance scheme? I trust that the Minister, who knows more about these things than anyone else in this Government, will explain why they did not renew it.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Government, in their own words in the framework document, have accepted that without smooth trading there will be economic and constitutional impacts? They not only owe it to the economy of Northern Ireland to sort out these issues; if they do not, they are accepting that they are happy enough to see the constitutional position of Northern Ireland affected.

Sadly, the only conclusion one can make is that they are happy enough about that.

What is this internal market guarantee guaranteeing? That 80% of goods from Northern Ireland, instead of passing through the full-blown international customs border, will pass through the international customs border that we misname the “internal market system”, but they will still require a customs number, customs declarations and checks. The guarantee is 80%. You cannot be 80% pregnant, and you cannot be 80% part of the United Kingdom. We need to be completely part of the United Kingdom, and that requires the restoration of where this United Kingdom started, under article 6 of the Acts of Union: free and unfettered trade, equal for all parts of this kingdom.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, I think for the first time, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on securing this debate, and I thank the other Members for their interventions. He has also asked me questions in the main Chamber a number of times, and he always makes his case powerfully. He and I share a background in law—we were barristers before becoming Members of Parliament—so I recognise how he structures his argument effectively.

I begin with the things on which we agree, and I will leave it to the hon. and learned Gentleman to judge at the end of the debate whether my language is “dressing up”. We agree on the importance of protecting Northern Ireland’s integral place in the UK’s internal market, and I repeat my commitment to that endeavour today. That is every bit as sincere as the commitment I made to stakeholders across Northern Ireland when I visited. I have great affection for Northern Ireland. When I came into this job, an early priority of mine was to visit Belfast to speak to politicians, visit the Assembly and speak to businesses and people across Northern Ireland.

Yes, of course I speak today as a Minister in the Government, but it is also my great privilege to serve as Member of Parliament for Torfaen. Serving as a Welsh Member of Parliament only adds to my conviction that our nations of this United Kingdom stand to achieve far more economically, socially and culturally by working together than we would ever achieve alone.

I say directly to the hon. and learned Member, and indeed to all those who have intervened today, that this Government’s commitment to the UK internal market is not a vague concept or an aspiration; it is real.

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way and for his engagement on this issue. I wrote to him at the beginning of the year, asking him to come to hear directly from businesses in Upper Bann. The offer was declined, but he kindly sent officials along.

The impact was laid bare at the meeting with those officials last week by used agricultural machinery folks, by small retailers who are impacted by the parcels border, and by agrifood businesses. Each business around the table noted the diversion of trade. Today, we are alerting the Minister to the diversion of trade. What is he doing about it? There is anecdotal evidence from each of those businesses, but there is also evidence from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency that the proportion of GB manufacturing selling to Northern Ireland has reduced from 20.1% to 12.9%. We need action, and we need it now.

I will certainly be visiting Northern Ireland again. However, on the diversion of trade, that is precisely what the independent monitoring panel is currently looking at. The panel is looking at it for the earlier part of this year, and I expect it to report shortly. Of course, when the panel makes recommendations, where there are issues, the Government will consider them very carefully.

The Government’s commitment to the UK internal market is in our manifesto. It is set out in law, in section 46 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which, to respond to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, also explicitly provides that Northern Ireland is part of the UK’s customs territory. As I say, this issue is not just about the guarantee, important though that is; it is also important that the independent monitoring panel does its work.

I also have to say that the position of Northern Ireland has always been at the forefront of my mind when I have negotiated with the European Union. The hon. and learned Member talks about checks on the Irish sea. Of course, it is the case that this Government will implement the Windsor framework in good faith. Indeed, I give credit to the previous Government for negotiating the Windsor framework. We supported it in opposition, and we have implemented it.

Of course, the purpose of what I have been doing is, far from increasing checks on the Irish sea, to reduce them. That is what a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement will do, once we are able to implement it. In a speech I made in recent weeks, I said that I want to see the SPS agreement in place by early 2027. That will have the effect of reducing precisely the kind of checks that the hon. and learned Member has been referring to.

I have only about seven minutes left. I will give way to both Members, but I will have to do so quickly.

I thank the Minister for giving way. Things have improved only marginally, and not at sufficient speed. I suppose that those of us who live in the real world will say that things would have been much worse if Stormont had not been back up and running. However, I will give an example of the issues.

A constituent who visited me just this week said that they had ordered a product from the Natural History Museum, here in the centre of London, but they got this reply:

“Unfortunately, we are currently unable to ship to any EU countries.”

That is a reply from the Natural History Museum in London to a resident of Northern Ireland who was trying to order a product. Is that not an example of how much distance we have yet to travel?

I would certainly be interested in learning more about that specific case. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me about it, I will happily look into it.

I thank the Minister for giving way. Having issued that invitation to my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), Members in this Chamber will probably raise a whole lot more cases.

The Minister has indicated that, as a result of the SPS agreement and so on, checks will be reduced even further. Could he explain why a £140 million border post is being erected in my constituency, with work being frantically carried out to make sure it is operational by October this year? If fewer checks will be needed, why are we spending all this money on building state-of-the-art border posts?

Quite simply it is because, to secure further agreements, the United Kingdom has to show good faith with the agreements it has already signed. The Windsor framework had cross-party support. We voted for it in opposition, so we have to show good faith in implementing it. However, there will come a point when we can reduce the checks—and it is not a point in the distant future, as we will be implementing the SPS agreement by 2027. At that stage, I will be more than happy to visit the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency to see the reduction of checks.

The internal market guarantee mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim is hugely important to the Government. Alongside independent scrutiny, it is there to deal with precisely the concern about trade flows. He talks about “Safeguarding the Union”, which is on my desk as I am looking at this issue.

An exercise has been carried out to see whether the guarantee was being met in the first scrutiny period during the first part of the year—from January to June 2025. As I have indicated, that will report shortly. If the report recommends further action that the Government need to take, we will look at that.

More generally, and the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to this, I have a role not only to supervise the Windsor framework in the Cabinet Office, but to negotiate with the EU. In that endeavour, which I have led and will continue to lead in the months ahead, I have always had Northern Ireland at the forefront of my mind.

There have been a lot of references to businesses, as well as to a number of businesses benefiting from dual market access, such as PRM group, which is investing £15 million in new premises and jobs distributing chilled and frozen foods. The chief executive of Denroy, a manufacturer, said it really has

“the best of both worlds.”

Manufacturing supplier Crushing Screening Parts has described dual market access as giving it

The spin was that dual market access would make Northern Ireland the Singapore of the west, but the fact is that Invest Northern Ireland has had to say that there has not been a single inward investment because of dual market access. The reason for that is very simple: it is all very well to have access to the EU, but there is no advantage whatsoever if access to raw materials from GB is fettered. Inward investment is not happening because they do not want to have to bring their goods through an international border.

The four businesses I have just quoted evidently do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He and I both want to see an economically successful and prosperous Northern Ireland, and I have no doubt that dual market access will provide that.

I am conscious of the time, but I repeat not just this Government’s commitment, but my personal commitment to the UK internal market. As I negotiate with the European Union, Northern Ireland will be at the forefront of my mind.