Debate contribution: Regulation (EU) 2023/2419: Applicability Motion

Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on 29 April 2024.

MLA

Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

29 April 2024

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Regulation (EU) 2023/2419: Applicability Motion

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4485860

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for sending the First Minister and me the formal notification, and I thank Members for their comments and input to the debate on the applicability motion. The case setting out the arguments for the measures contained in Regulation (EU) 2023/2419 being added to the Windsor framework are set out clearly in the UK Government's assessment in its explanatory memorandum accompanying the notification. Members will be aware now, in some way, of the procedure, having debated the previous regulation. For an applicability motion to pass, it must receive cross-community support, as outlined in section 4(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. If the threshold is met, the Assembly will have been seen to agree to the addition of the regulation to the relevant annex of the Windsor framework, and that will be adopted at the meeting of the UK-EU Joint Committee. If the applicability motion does not pass, the UK Government will veto the addition of the act to the Windsor framework of the Joint Committee. I believe that that section is still misunderstood by some. If the applicability motion does not pass, the UK Government will veto it. However, they can agree but only if the Minister considers that there are exceptional circumstances or that adoption would not create a new regulatory barrier between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Those were the new arrangements under the 'Safeguarding the Union' paper. In proposing to add a new rule to the Windsor framework on that basis — that it would not create a regulatory border or because there are exceptional circumstances — a UK Government Minister must make a statement to Parliament before doing so, explaining why they are of the opinion that either of those conditions have been met. The UK Government must also have indicated that, in this scenario, they intend to notify the Assembly of that decision. I will respond to some Members who have made comments during the debate. In my view, the cop-out thing to do on the issue would be to vote against the motion, to leave it to others to make those decisions with the Assembly having no say and no role. Personally speaking and with regard to my party's position, that is exactly why we fought for and secured new mechanisms to give this place a meaningful say on matters that impact the people of Northern Ireland.

No. Apologies. In particular, those mechanisms were designed to ensure that Members here would have a significant role in stopping potential future divergence. Indeed, the explanatory memorandum on the regulation before us, which was published on 4 April, makes it clear that adopting the regulation would lead to a common production standard across the UK; would avoid NI producers having to abide by a more stringent and costly requirement than firms in GB; would not impede unfettered access in marketing of NI produce in GB; would reduce burdens on local producers in the development of their product ranges, especially in sourcing ingredients; and would not affect organic pet food that is made to UK standards being sold and circulated in Northern Ireland. Some Members have referred to the constitutional position in relation to that matter. I firmly believe in the principle of UK parliamentary sovereignty; indeed, I understand that the Member who has just spoken on that does so, too, and agrees with my position that the UK Parliament can legislate if it so wishes. However, today's debate and the position that I have taken on the matter —

I will finish the point. The matter that we are considering relates to an existing provision in annex 2. Annex 2 applies in Northern Ireland through the Windsor framework and did so before that through the protocol arrangements, not because it was imposed by the EU but — sadly, in my view — because the UK Government and our UK sovereign Parliament agreed that the laws and regulations set out in annex 2 apply to Northern Ireland. Our UK sovereign Parliament sets out the fact that the mechanism for changing that relates to the amendment of EU proposals or replacement of the law. As the Member is fully aware, under the Windsor framework, there was no democratic accountability for this place in relation to that decision by the UK sovereign Parliament on the laws that apply here. That is why the new mechanisms — applicability motions and the Stormont brake — were brought in. They were brought in because we — I speak personally and of my party — highlighted the absolutely appalling democratic deficit in our sovereign UK Parliament agreeing a mechanism for rules and regulations to be made automatically in the case of amended law or, in the case of new law, by decision of the UK and EU sitting in the Joint Committee. It was my party that pushed for the mechanisms to be put in place in order to allow this place to have debate, not because we embrace the concept of annex 2 or we agree with our UK sovereign Parliament on the matter — indeed, we did not; we voted and spoke against it — but because, unlike some Members in the Chamber, I accept the legal reality of where we are. One thing that I will absolutely always do is put Northern Ireland first. I will ensure that Northern Ireland will not be left behind when the rest of the UK moves to a different position. I will not allow Northern Ireland to be in a position in which there is internal regulatory divergence in relation to new or amended law. Is this the way that I would ideally like it to be done? Absolutely not.

I have been clear on many occasions that it is not the way that I would choose to do these things, but, frankly, no pathway on the issue has been set out by any Member or by the UK Government. Therefore, we are exercising the mechanisms that we pushed for and secured so that the House now has a meaningful role in looking at regulations, primarily to ensure that what is done does not create a new regulatory barrier. If, indeed, we were to vote against —

— Northern Ireland would be the only place across the United Kingdom that would be stuck with the old rule. It is important to clarify for people out there that the regulation is not new and additional but a replacement law and that, if it were not applied in Northern Ireland, the existing regulation would apply, putting us in a different position from that of the rest of the United Kingdom.

Politics is about hard decisions. I wanted to stand here today to explain why —

— the right thing to do is, of course, to make sure that Northern Ireland is not left behind. Today's decision will be hard for many people. We disagree with the approach taken by the UK sovereign Parliament to the provisions, but those are the provisions that we currently operate under. We are therefore prepared to make the hard decisions on behalf of everyone in Northern Ireland to ensure that there are no new regulatory barriers across the United Kingdom.

The debated regulation relates to a small, defined area of —

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe that the Member may want to make some point about the constitutional position, but the reality is that the UK sovereign Parliament can decide to make regulations for Northern Ireland if it so chooses. It has chosen the mechanism that we are operating under today. The debated regulation relates to a small and defined area of trade and business. In the event of it not being adopted, we expect the impact to be negative from the perspective of both internal UK trade and NI-EU trade. It is, therefore, our jointly agreed view that the Assembly should agree to the addition of the regulation to the relevant annex of the Windsor framework. That is a demonstration of the democratic scrutiny mechanisms and the role that this place will have in ensuring that free flow of trade.

1,355 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:02 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification