Debate contribution: Democratic Consent Resolution

Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on 10 December 2024.

MLA

Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

10 December 2024

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Democratic Consent Resolution

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4716309

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I hesitate to get into the detail of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, but I am sure that the Member is fully aware that all key decisions — indeed, all decisions — of the House are subject to a petition of concern, and, ergo, a cross-community vote could have been triggered in relation to that vote, as is the case with every single vote. I am afraid that, if the Member from the SDLP does not recall that, I suggest that he goes back and reads again the Northern Ireland Act 1998, because this is the only key vote in the House since 1998 and since the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement that will not be subject to the ability to trigger a cross-community vote.

The values of that agreement, we were told by those who wrote it and put it together, were consensus and inclusion, but the agreement is about consensus and inclusion only if it is a matter that is important to you but not if it is a matter that is important to unionism. It is absolutely appalling.

This, frankly, is a rigged vote. The message being sent from the Chamber today is of a vote that has not gone through the normal procedures that underpin these very institutions. The protections promised in early October 2019 by Boris Johnson were of a cross-community vote in the Assembly. That promise disappeared after his little chat with Leo Varadkar, which fundamentally changed what was on the table. The DUP immediately pointed that out, highlighted it and opposed it. We have opposed the provisions from the very start, and, over the years, we have worked tirelessly to undo the incredible harm caused by the protocol agreement. The DUP has fought against the damaging protocol at every stage. We opposed it to the Prime Minister, voted against it in the House of Commons and voted against it in the House of Lords. We publicly and legally challenged its provisions. Our opposition could not have been more clear. We could see the damage that it would cause, even if others, including many in this place today, refused to see it. That is the reality. It was not just the harm done by the then Prime Minister but that done by an impatient House of Commons, which was eager to just get it done with and vote it all through. Yes, our UK Parliament voted for it, and we cannot get away from that fact. It is something that, day in and day out, grieves me, because that is where this is based. I can criticise the European Union, criticise the Irish Government for their interventions and criticise others, as I will in due course, for rigorous implementation, but I also criticise my sovereign Parliament for not caring about the constitutional implications. When we got to court, why was the challenge defeated? It was defeated because the sovereign Parliament had voted for the protocol. I appeal once again for that Parliament to have a rethink, and that is why I agree absolutely with the many Members who have spoken from this side of the House today who said, "Wouldn't it be so good for us to send the message to the UK Government and to the EU that the provisions set down in articles 5 to 10 are causing real difficulties for businesses, creating limited choice for consumers and causing issues with supplies and for suppliers?". There is no way of getting around that, and, while there are always promises and more promises of a possible benefit down the line from so-called dual market access, we have confirmation that that has not yet been realised, if it ever will be. We have caused real practical issues for our economy and for our businesses on the promise of something that has simply not materialised. That is unacceptable. Others, once again, pontificated about how the negotiations were over, because, of course, the protocol was only a certain point in all of this. We were told, once again, that there would be no changes to the protocol. We were told to forget all about it and that the negotiation was over. We were told that by so many of you who are sitting in the House today. Once again, you said, "Don't waste any time on that". We could see the danger in it, however. We could see the many, many issues. Even getting access to human medicines had not been resolved. Literally thousands of products were going to be stopped coming into Northern Ireland, and the only reason that citizens throughout Northern Ireland did not notice it was because of the grace periods. Rigorous implementation of the protocol would have ended those grace periods. It would have brought in everything in it. It would have caused huge disruption for every supermarket, corner shop, takeaway, restaurant and small business, and that had to be dealt with. We therefore went to the UK Government and to the EU, and we tried to renegotiate to fix the damage done by that terrible protocol. While we were trying to do that, there was a restoration of the Assembly. We were going through COVID. Every time that we made a little bit of progress, what happened? We were undermined. I am absolutely unashamed to say clearly that we were undermined by some of those who are sitting here from the SDLP, the Alliance Party and Sinn Féin. While we were involved in live negotiations to try to get the worst parts of the protocol changed, you were running to the European Union and running down the road to Dublin, asking them to rigorously implement something that would have caused huge harm to Northern Ireland. That is shameful, and it led directly to the point where we had no choice but to step forward, stand up and force people back around the table. Did we want to do it? No. Were we reluctant to do it? Absolutely, but we had to force people back to the negotiating table, and what was produced from that process? The Windsor framework. The reality is that the DUP took the abuse. We were attacked for our actions, but it is undeniable that the Windsor framework is a significant move forward. Thousands and thousands of goods were removed from being impacted by the protocol. The provision on the internal movement of goods for supermarkets, restaurants, takeaways and cafes meant that they were all able to access supplies from GB. For the first time, it gave the UK a unilateral veto on amended and new EU legislation. That was something that we had asked for during the protocol negotiations and had highlighted as a concern to Theresa May and Boris Johnson, but it was achieved by Rishi Sunak. The Windsor framework addressed a number of issues, but there was more to be done. That is why we did not go back into the Executive: it did not resolve everything, and we made that clear at the time. It was an improvement but, unfortunately for unionism, we had to take a hard decision. The DUP, as leaders of unionism, had to take a hard decision. We care about the people of Northern Ireland. We care about health, we care about education and we care about the economy. We want the Northern Ireland economy to do well. That meant that we had to get best deal that we could, which is why we did not accept the Windsor framework. We recognised the progress that had been made, but we fought on for the best deal that we could get. The 'Safeguarding the Union' paper represented steps forward, but, again, it was not perfect. We said that clearly at the time. I so rarely get the opportunity to speak about it, but, my goodness, I have had to sit and listen, time and time again, to people telling us what we said about 'Safeguarding the Union'. We said that it was progress — it was progress — but there was more to be done. There were still problems with it, but it represented real progress and built on the progress of the Windsor framework. That is why we are where we are. There have been improvements. I speak to businesses all the time, as, I know, many of you do too, but there have also been many unexpected problems. We might as well rename the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee the "Whack-a-mole Committee" because, frankly, it deals with issues as they pop up left, right and centre. Unexpected and unpredicted, they suddenly come from nowhere. The UK Government did not see it, and the EU did not see it. I appeal to everyone to understand that, because the origin of the provisions are in a deeply flawed protocol document botched by Boris Johnson and his Government, those issues will continue to flow. They continue to flow because of articles 5 to 10. I have already heard Members asking today, "What is the alternative?". The alternative is a logical system based on an assessment of risk, proportionality and looking at issues such as mutual enforcement and a mutual recognition of standards.

I will indeed.

I thank the Member for his contribution. The Ulster Unionist Party was, of course, talking to the same people about the mutual enforcement concept at the same time as we were. That is an issue on which we made representations to the UK Government. You will have seen many contributions by our Members in the House of Lords and the House of Commons on that issue as well because, of course, there are many different ways to do the same thing. We must not forget that, at this moment, the UK is fully aligned with and signed up to the same standards as the EU.

We are tracking goods from one area into another area with exactly the same standards; it is absolutely ridiculous. It is totally disproportionate, it is not based on risk, and it is bureaucracy gone mad.

I thank the Member for his contribution. Of course, it goes back to the fundamental issue of Brexit. The UK voluntarily joined a club, and that club was the European Union. Under the terms of joining voluntarily, of course, you could leave at any time, yet, my goodness, the wails of outrage when the people of the United Kingdom democratically decided to leave. The mature thing to do and what you would have expected from sovereign Governments and international bodies was to accept the result — the outcome of a democratic vote — and try, mutually, to work together for the best possible deal. It is not beyond the wit of man and woman to have two sovereign places working together side by side as good neighbours that can trade with each other, both wanting high standards of food products and manufactured goods for their people on the basis of an assessment of risk, proportionality and mutual recognition of high standards. That is what ought to have happened, but it did not. Northern Ireland is paying the price of a botched Brexit.

There are numerous relationships between trading partners that do not look or feel like the European Union situation. We always seem to get away from this fundamental point: at the moment, EU goods can flow freely into Great Britain because Great Britain is not exercising a protectionist system. The reason why GB goods cannot flow freely into the European Union is that the European Union — it is globally notorious for it — operates a protectionist system. Those are political choices. It is the political choice of the European Union, if it wishes, to lift customs from Northern Ireland. To do checks or not is a political choice. If the EU has broken the mould, as it keeps telling us that it has, with the Windsor framework, it can continue to break the mould, but it will do so only if we send the clear message, "We need to strive for better. We need to strive for something that will work". If, for the next four years, we have to look at constantly trying to fight against issues as they keep popping up, that is a crazy system. Yes, we need that reactivity in the short term. We need a reaction from the UK Government and the EU to deal with issues as they emerge, but better still would be a system that does not result in those issues continuously coming up unexpectedly and unpredictably. I will move on to the outstanding commitments in the 'Safeguarding the Union' agreement and policy. I appeal to the Labour Party: there are a number of outstanding commitments. The Labour Party voted for and supported the Windsor framework and 'Safeguarding the Union'. It undertook to fulfil the promises, acknowledging that the then Government, who had done the deal, were in their dying days. That was the basis for restoration. The Labour Government must step up and deliver what was promised, what they voted for and what they said that they would do. Where are we with implementation and delivery today? What is the Government's position on eradicating routine checks in the UK's internal market system, which they promised to do? That is what Labour voted for. We face, on Friday, the general product safety regulation coming into force. That will have a real impact. I am being contacted all the time by people who will have issues with supplies. The Labour Government promised, along with the then Government, that they would ensure the free flow of internal UK goods across the United Kingdom without checks. Let us see that happen. On parcels and customs, another commitment was made in February and supported by Labour.

Let us make it clear: we would not have moved forward only that those were supported and voted on by Labour, because it was inevitable that there was going to be an election. Therefore, it was going to be a Labour Government that had to stand by those agreements in terms of what needed to be done. It was to be implemented by October of this year, but they have delayed it. They have promised that they will do it, but those promises need to be fulfilled. UK-wide labelling has been ditched, and, again, there was a good reason for that. It was to prevent the withdrawal of suppliers from the NI market. It would not have brought with it any significant cost, but it would have helped to protect the UK internal market. More must be done. We also need urgent action and response when things emerge. I mentioned the GPSR. I took the opportunity to raise that directly with the Prime Minister, with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and with the Ministers responsible for EU relationships. Make no mistake: it is an excellent example of something that emerges despite the fact that in February 2023 the UK extended agreement to alignment with EU standards. EU standards continue, and, despite that, this coming in under regulations agreed prior to the protocol and Windsor framework arrangements will have a real impact on the UK internal market, particularly for Northern Ireland. The reality is that SPS negotiations will take years. Negotiations will not produce the answers to any of the issues in the next number of months. Therefore, we should send a clear message from this place: do better. Go back and try to achieve more. You made a promise to the people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, to the people of the United Kingdom that there would be a free flow of trade across our United Kingdom. The integrity of our single market matters. It matters to us, but it should always matter to businesses, and to you, regardless of your ideological and constitutional background. The Northern Ireland protocol has been imposed on us without any support from unionist representatives. It is doing harm, and we stand here today, even though the process has been delegitimised, because we are not willing to complete the disenfranchisement of our constituents by not participating in today's debate and vote. However, by participating and by voting against it, we ensure that no one, whether in Westminster or in the European Union, can claim that we are uninterested or absent. Today, we make it clear that we oppose the ongoing application of the framework, which causes so much difficulty for businesses. Today provides an opportunity for unionism to unite and send a clear message to London and the EU. We will vote against the continued application of the current arrangements, and we encourage all Members of the Assembly who value democratic decision-making in this place to join us.

2,793 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:46 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