Northern Ireland Protocol Bill - Clause 12

Amendment 45 complements Amendment 44 by specifying conditions under which the option to choose between dual routes would be activated. It introduces an objective threshold for ministerial power and requires economic impact assessments before implementing regulatory changes.

Mr Paisley questions the necessity of seeking EU permission to trade within the UK, suggesting that such a condition undermines sovereignty. He emphasises the importance of domestic decision-making in regulatory matters.

Mr Shannon highlights concerns from local farmers and industry leaders, including Sam McChesney and the chief executive of Lakeland Dairies. He argues that changes proposed by Amendment 44 are impractical for businesses seeking to operate effectively in both British and European markets.

Mr Eastwood agrees with Mike Johnston, the chief executive of the Dairy Council for Northern Ireland, that the Bill risks reducing trade opportunities worth £600 million and harming rural economies.

Mr Wilson questions how sectors like dairy would be disadvantaged under dual regulation, suggesting that EU regulations should not prevent compliant products from entering the market. He seeks clarity on the practical implications of the amendment.

Mr Lloyd suggests that concerns about changing rules are more aligned with certain political factions rather than genuine regulatory needs, expressing worry for the agricultural sector's stability and competitiveness.

Supports Michael Ellis's position that the Bill will fix trade frictions within the UK caused by the Northern Ireland protocol. Asks if the Act of Union will be fully restored.

Asks for clarification on default regulatory route and processes businesses must follow when electing a regulatory regime. Inquires about public transparency of business choices.

Highlights the reduction in compliance points for goods travelling from GB to Northern Ireland, aiming for a return to pre-2021 frictionless trade.

Questioned the Minister's statement on businesses' free choice versus Government prescription. Suggests that the Bill undermines business autonomy.

Critiques the narrative of consent from Northern Ireland, pointing out that provisions exceed stakeholder requests. Questions DUP's conditions for Assembly restoration.

Defends the Government against accusations of hypocrisy regarding economic assessments on the protocol and this Bill.

Asked Peter Kyle to clarify his party's stance on the protocol and challenged the accuracy of claims about its lawfulness.

Defended the Government's proposals, questioning whether Northern Ireland milk could continue to be accepted by businesses in the Irish Republic under a dual regulatory regime.

Supported Peter Kyle’s argument, emphasising that Members should reflect fully on evidence given to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and questioned whether businesses would face a choice or obligation under the Government's proposals.

Joined Peter Kyle in questioning the logic of the dual regulatory regime, suggesting that it raises more questions than answers and could create legal ambiguities for businesses operating under both regimes.

Argued against the idea of a mandatory dual regulatory system, emphasising that businesses and sectors could opt into one or both systems based on their commercial interests.

Mr. Thomson supports amendments that would limit ministerial powers, mandate economic impact assessments for dual regulatory regimes, ensure appropriate consultations with the EU on dual routes, refer back to the Northern Ireland Assembly for input, and require transparency regarding UK-EU Joint Committee discussions.

Raises concerns about the impact of the Bill on Unionist identity while acknowledging efforts to address symbolic effects. Criticises the DUP for ignoring the majority support for the protocol in Northern Ireland and seeks consensus among all traditions.

Suggests that allowing the North South Ministerial Council to meet would be a forum for discussing issues. Questions if proposed customs checks will address constitutional concerns among Unionist population.

Supports amendment 28, arguing that it would prevent the government from making regulations without an economic impact assessment. She raises concerns about the lack of cross-community support and the potential negative economic impacts on Northern Ireland. Mary Foy criticises the government's disregard for international agreements and expresses worries over the credibility damage to Great Britain.

Wilson supports the Bill, arguing that it addresses democratic concerns in Northern Ireland by allowing firms not trading with the EU to be exempted from costly regulations. He criticises opponents for being agents of the EU and suggests their concern for farming is inconsistent.

Intervened to argue that Wilson's criticisms are hollow, highlighting that the North South Ministerial Council already operates on consensus and can provide a voice for Northern Irish interests as per strand 2 of the Good Friday agreement.

Emphasises the protocol's negative impact on trade, citing additional paperwork and costs imposed by post-2021 regulations. Discusses the adverse effects on dairy farmers and manufacturing businesses like Wrightbus, urging for immediate resolution of issues such as veterinary product imports from EU.

Intervened to correct a mischaracterization by highlighting the dairy sector's position on the protocol, noting that his party listens to various industry voices and emphasised the importance of aligning with Dairy Council positions.

Intervened to highlight specific businesses impacted by the protocol, noting increased costs for Wilson’s Country and AJ Power in her constituency, advocating for the Bill to resolve these issues.

No business, including in the dairy sector, will be worse off as a result of UK action. The Bill will not force any change on sectors but allow Ministers to respond if appropriate. Understanding concerns from Northern Ireland's economy is at the heart of our work; engagement with stakeholders continues.

Amendment 37 and Amendment 41 change the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.

Restoring control over VAT and subsidies in Northern Ireland within UK sovereignty is essential. The EU has been unwilling to negotiate properly, so clear legislation is necessary for cross-community consent and proper functioning of the internal market.

Inclusion of Northern Ireland under EU VAT regime means UK cannot change VAT rates easily. The wording deeming an issue 'appropriate' rather than 'necessary' is correct to allow for flexibility and unforeseen circumstances.

Recognises genuine concerns about state aid and VAT but suggests negotiation with the EU as a solution. States that companies will operate across goods and service sectors, making state aid rules complex. Argues for reduced rates of VAT in line with UK policy to support renewables and help people with bills. Highlights that discussions have not taken place between Treasury and EU regarding VAT changes despite the door being open. Suggests that unilateral action will not provide long-term outcomes; negotiation is necessary.

Interjects to question why constituents have to wait for EU negotiations before VAT changes can be implemented in Northern Ireland. Asks if it is wrong that such a minor benefit (£1 million) takes so long to implement.

Argues that the issue is not about the scale of sums but rather the constitutional damage caused by the protocol, which constrains Parliament's ability to set VAT rules for Northern Ireland. Highlights multiple instances where businesses in Northern Ireland face challenges due to tariffs and VAT differences compared to GB, citing examples like second-hand car salesmen and aluminium tariffs.

Mr. Donaldson argues against the VAT relief scheme proposed by the Chancellor, highlighting that Northern Ireland cannot benefit from it due to external rules imposed by the European Union. He emphasises that this situation undermines the principles of Brexit and the control over laws and money for Northern Ireland. He also points out the political instability in Northern Ireland resulting from the protocol and the need to protect the Good Friday/Belfast agreement.

Mr. Wilson supports Mr. Donaldson's argument, asserting that it is a concern for all Members of the House that the Chancellor cannot apply decisions uniformly across the United Kingdom. He also argues against negotiating with the EU to allow VAT reduction in Northern Ireland, stating that such an action would be demeaning and contradictory to the 'taking back control' rhetoric.

Mr. Farry expresses sympathy with Mr. Donaldson's argument on VAT but provides context about the background of Brexit and the protocol, which led to certain decisions such as Northern Ireland retaining access to the single market for goods. He acknowledges the validity of the DUP's argument while emphasising that addressing it requires negotiation.

The hon. Member acknowledges the Minister's clarification but expresses concern over the extent of powers given to Ministers under clause 12(3). He suggests that these powers might be too broad, leading to potential misuse. Despite this, he decides to withdraw his amendment due to time constraints and hopes for more detailed scrutiny in another place.

Asked the Financial Secretary about recent discussions with the European Commission regarding VAT rates flexibility for Northern Ireland, expressing concern over previous statements made by the Government indicating no progress was being made in negotiations.

Inquired whether the Treasury would use the argument that they cannot apply VAT cuts on energy due to Northern Ireland's position within EU regulations, potentially harming both GB and NI. He requested a commitment from the Government to pursue full sovereignty over VAT.