Ian Marshall – Written evidence (IIO0003)

NAME: Ian Marshall

Queens University Belfast. Institute for Global Food Security

DATE: 09:06:21

Experience and Expertise

Ian Marshall was elected as an Independent Senator in 2018 to Seanad Eireann, making history as the first ever Ulster Unionist elected to the upper chamber of the Irish Parliament in 100 years, serving from 2018-2020.

As well as his work within the Seanad he served on the Committee for the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the , the Joint Committee for Climate Change and Environment, and the Joint Committee for Rural and Community Development. He has attended British Irish Association (BIA) events and has participated in British Irish Parliamentary Association (BIPA) meetings as part of his role as a Senator.

Ian’s unique position within the Seanad created a platform to build relationships and facilitate cooperation across the island and between two islands, north, south, east and west, across many areas of business, trade, and education. He focused on breaking down barriers, uniting people and building relationships.

A former President of the Ulster Farmers Union, he worked extensively between Belfast, London and Brussels representing UK farming interests in the European Union, as part of the UK farming unions’ team.

Ian was a member of the Agri-Food Strategy Board for , responsible for developing the ‘Going for Growth’ strategy document as a template to grow and develop the industry to maximise opportunities and realise future industry potential.

As well as a deep understanding of politics and political lobbying in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and the United Kingdom, he has an extensive knowledge of business and the agri-food industry from ‘farm to fork’.

He currently works in the Institute for Global Food Security (IGFS) in Queens University Belfast, as a Business Development Manager, linking research and development with the industry in food security and integrity, food, health and nutrition, and farms of the future.

Ian completed an Msc in Agri-Food Business Development in 2009 at and Babson College Boston, USA, and is a Professional Member of the Institute of Agricultural Management through the Royal Agricultural University, Cirencester. In addition, he has over 35 years’ experience across all sectors of the agri-food industry and currently manages the family farm business in Armagh, in partnership with his son. Institute for Global Food Security

The Institute for Global Food Security (IGFS) focuses on three ‘Grand Challenges’ or areas of research. Farms of the future, global food integrity, and food, nutrition and health. IGFS connects research institutes, farmers and the agri-food industry, government bodies and NGO’s locally nationally and internationally to deliver world leading research with real-world application supporting government policy decisions by delivering evidence based policy.

The implementation of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol will undoubtedly impact on the agri-food industry in Northern Ireland with the potential to disrupt or change trading relations between NI and ROI, and between GB and NI. Appropriate implementation will be critical to minimise interruption and capitalise on opportunities in the short, medium, and long term.

This is the rationale for this submission.

QUESTIONS

1. What is your assessment of the overall socio-economic and political impact upon Northern Ireland of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland since it came into force on 1 January?

The impact to date has been wide and varied across a number of different sectors, with the agri-food industry being particularly exposed due to the significance and importance of SPS regulations across the sector. How businesses have dealt with protocol disruption has been largely dependent on size and scale of the business, prior knowledge of exporting or trading across jurisdictions, and the availability of information or lack of clarity in the specific area of business. Positive and negative impacts can be highlighted, however any gains or losses have been overshadowed by the political ‘spin’ and potential threat to the NI position within the UK, future constitutional arrangements, or disregard for identity or culture during the entire conversation over the last 6 years.

2. What would you identify as the main practical issues that have so far arisen in relation to the Protocol’s operation, including both for GB and Northern Ireland-based businesses? How significant have these problems been, and what impact have they had on the ground?

The main practical issues arise in the agri-food sector or land based industries with trade or movement in animals, plants and foods being especially exposed. Practical issues revolve around increased costs, increased bureaucracy, time delays and general disruption to supply chains. This disruption has resulted in some ‘pivoting’ of supply chains to source raw materials and goods from ROI or suppliers not currently disadvantaged by the UK position as a third country. 3. What impact has the Protocol, and UK withdrawal more broadly, had on trade flows between Great Britain, Northern Ireland and Ireland, and the rest of the EU?

Many businesses have continued to trade relatively uninterrupted as a consequence of the grace period. However, where there has been disruption businesses have focused on the ‘path of least resistance’ to trade with partners in the UK, ROI, and the EU.

The agri-food industry functions on large turnover and very slim margins. In addition, it has established as a ‘just in time’ supply chain for many companies, unable to deal with interruption to supply, logistical inconvenience, or addition costs to product, process, transport, or access to the market. Specific issues have been identified in areas of the agri-food industry that will present huge challenges after the expiry of the grace period.

4. Has the Protocol had any positive impact for Northern Ireland?

As discussed widely the protocol could present some positive outcomes for NI business and industry. However, it must be noted that without resolution to the industry specific problems around SPS regulations, capitalising on these opportunities will be challenging.

5. Is there a viable alternative to the Protocol?

The Protocol has been stigmatised and become divisive. It is a legally binding arrangement but needs adjusted and amended to address and acknowledge the size and nature of the NI economy and the relationship between Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland. Flexibility and pragmatism are required in conjunction with an acknowledgement of the sensitivities around identity to detoxify the Protocol and utilise mechanisms available to make it work to our advantage. Not current alternative exists.

6. How would you characterise the attitudes of the communities in Northern Ireland in relation to the Protocol? How significant, compared to other issues and concerns, has the Protocol been as a contributory factor to the recent community disturbances in Northern Ireland?

At least two different attitudes current exist in Northern Ireland in relation to the Protocol. Firstly, a nationalist/republican position is evident where the feeling is that Brexit was foisted on them against their will, with the Protocol being an outworking of this and a necessary component of the new relationship between NI, the UK, ROI, and the EU, and something this community is quite content to accept. On the other hand, unionism and loyalism feel that the Protocol has emerged as an alternative to any checks on a land border and has been imposed in order to comply with the terms of the GFA, even though they believe the Protocol actually breaks these terms from their community’s perspective. Ultimately, what is crucial to understand is that the ‘perception’ of what the Protocol actually threatens is critically important. Loyalist unrest is partly due to a feeling that identity is being further eroded and that no one from the British and Irish government has been listening to their concerns for the last three years.

7. What action would you wish to see the Northern Ireland Executive take in relation to the Protocol, including in its engagement with the UK Government, the EU and the Irish Government?

Firstly, the Northern Ireland Executive must clarify and explain exactly, without ambiguity, what the Protocol delivers or threatens, and the reality that it cannot be completely removed now or in four years’ time. Media reporting and opinion pieces have distorted and often misrepresented the reality. They must clearly identify the instruments at their disposal to make it workable, where there are concessions to be make, and where there are any threats to identity of culture, perceived or real. The Northern Ireland Executive must genuinely listen to all concerns across civic society and political groups.

8. What is your assessment of the UK Government’s approach to the Protocol, and its engagement with Northern Ireland stakeholders, since it came into force?

I believe the UK Government’s approach was well intentioned however I think there was a lack of understanding of the subtleties and nuances of what the Protocol represented to the PUL communities beyond the realms of business, trade and commerce, especially with regard to culture and identity. The UK Government’s work to deliver a grace period was welcomed but unfortunately does not provide solutions whenever this time elapses. I fully understand the desire to take back control and deliver independence and autonomy outside the constraints of the EU, however, genuine concerns exist for businesses and stakeholders. These businesses could potentially offer a range of solutions within their specific sectors if a consultation process was embraced.

9. What is your assessment of the EU’s approach to the Protocol, and its engagement with Northern Ireland stakeholders, since it came into force?

I believe the EU’s endeavours were also well intentioned from the outset. However, I think they were not adequately informed about the realities on the ground and ultimately did not understand the sensitivities around identity and culture that underpins society in Northern Ireland from both a PUL or CNR perspective. I believe they failed to recognise that an would present as much of a threat to the PUL community as the land border across the island would to the CNR community. There has been a failure to recognise or understand these concerns and the perception that the Irish Sea border presents challenges for identity and culture in exactly the same way as a land border would, as referenced in the GFA.

10. What practical steps can the UK and EU take through the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee and Ireland/Northern Ireland Specialised Committee to mitigate the Protocol’s negative impact on the people and businesses of Northern Ireland? Both committees must examine the instruments that would address the negative impact and concerns regarding the implementation of the Protocol for all communities in Northern Ireland. The agri-food industry is arguably the most adversely impacted sector of business due to SPS regulations on animal and plant health and food safety. As a temporary interim measure, consideration should be given to a ‘common veterinary area’ as a temporary solution, caveated to give protections and flexibility, based on the reality that UK divergence will not happen in an initial period but may occur at a later date. This interim measure would not compromise the Brexit position in the medium to long term or negatively impact on the UK’s ability to negotiate new trade deals with other countries.

Furthermore, an interim mechanism would demonstrate a gesture of ‘good will’ by the UK and is something that the EU could be encouraged to reciprocate as implementation negotiations continue.

In essence the Protocol must become ‘invisible’. In effect, both the practical issues and the perception concerns must be addressed.

Firstly, mechanisms already at our disposal must be utilised to deal with products already highly regulated and controlled such as pharmaceuticals and medicines where traceability and controls exist throughout the entire supply chain from manufacture to the consumer. In such circumstances extra checks at any internal Irish Sea border would be deemed unnecessary.

Secondly, risk based checks and safeguards could be applied on the vast majority of trade and business between GB and NI especially in the area of agri- food which is regarded as a high turnover low margin industry. Coupled with the geographic location of NI as a unique jurisdiction on an island, with less than 7 million citizens, off a larger island, on the western margin of the EU, with little or no risk to the integrity of the internal EU market. The very nature of the agri- food industry in conjunction with the access to current data and technology would ultimately remove any risks. The application of technology and integrated supply chains can deliver safeguards and assurances on products such as processed foods, animals movements, or trade in plants and horticulture where validation and documentation could be conducted at origin or point of production, in advance of movement to Northern Ireland. In addition, and based on the assumption that a greatly reduced volume of freight would need checked on route, it would therefore be feasible to categorise freight at GB ports such as Stranraer, Cairnryan, Liverpool, Heysham, and Holyhead into low or medium risk, and utilise the transit time at sea to authenticate cargo and conduct any necessary checks on shipments identified as medium risk. Any discrepancies or concerns could be checked at an NI inspection centre near the ports on shipments deemed as needing further clearance whilst at sea.

This would result in a negligible number of shipments requiring inspection in Northern Ireland after docking, with the vast majority of freight free to disembark unrestricted, without delays or checks, supporting the idea of unfettered access from the GB market. It would also negate the requirement for significant infrastructure or customs personnel in Northern Ireland and render the border/Protocol ‘invisible’. As a consequence, any perception of disconnection or separation from GB via interruption at a sea border could be alleviated with minimal evidence of customs infrastructure or customs personnel at the ports.

11. What practical difference would a UK-EU veterinary/SPS agreement have on the operation of the Protocol?

A UK-EU veterinary/SPS agreement would provide a temporary mechanism to allow the agri-food industry time to adjust and find solutions to address disruption and deal with supply chain challenges across the vast majority of businesses. This arrangement would need to be caveated to ensure that it is temporary, and would not compromise the ability of the UK to negotiate third country trade deals or have autonomy to diverge in the medium to long term after the arrangement has expired. This window of opportunity would present NI companies time to alter or amend supply chains, or reconfigure business models to address the new trading relationship.

12. How can concerns about the perceived democratic deficit at the heart of the Protocol, in view of the continued dynamic application of significant areas of EU law to Northern Ireland in the absence of UK participation in the EU institutions, be addressed?

Northern Ireland has a unique set of circumstances. The new arrangements in a post Brexit scenario will ultimately mean that the application of significant areas of EU law will affect business, trade, commerce and could have a potential impact on wider society in Northern Ireland.

To address this, I believe that Northern Ireland should be granted a voice in the EU conversation, or the Joint Committee, acting as a direct conduit between the Northern Ireland Executive and the EU and subsequently via existing arrangements between the Executive and the UK Government. Local knowledge and expertise would be the most effective way to mitigate and deal with ongoing issues as a result of Brexit and the Protocol.

As a consequence, concerns and issues affecting Northern Ireland could be raised directly with the EU and an implementation and review process used to address any EU concerns whilst liaising directly with Westminster simultaneously.

13. What work would you like to see this Committee undertake in scrutinising the operation and impact of the Protocol?

The committee must base its scrutiny on evidence and facts, and be risk based. Nearly six months after Brexit much of the conversation around the Protocol is based on ‘opinion’, by large swaths of the UK and Irish media, and ‘perception’ of many people either directly or indirectly impacted across the UK and ROI. An analysis of the reality of the operation and impact of the Protocol with business in Northern Ireland is imperative to assess the current situation and to manage the ongoing situation as circumstances change and develop. 9 June 2021