EU Tariffs: United States and Northern Ireland Economy

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

In the circumstances in which this country and many countries around the world find themselves, we are having this discussion because of a decision that the United States Administration have taken. We do not control that. What we do have to seek to control is our response to it. I have tried to lay out for the House today what the position is and what is available to support businesses that may be affected by the EU tariffs, once we understand what those are. We will see how extensive they may or may not be, and then businesses will start to work out for themselves what is the consequence and how we can use the mechanism of the reimbursement scheme in the Windsor framework to get back the money that they have to pay in a tariff.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Businesses require clarity and certainty. Will the Secretary of State undertake to come back to the House as soon as we have that clarity and certainty? Will he ensure that the EU understands that the open border he keeps talking about is an unclosable border and tries to give businesses more certainty so that they can develop in the future?

[Hilary Benn]

Notwithstanding what we have been discussing today, Northern Ireland imports about £800 million-worth of goods from the United States of America, which is about 2% of the total purchases made by Northern Ireland. The rest—98% of the purchases—is unaffected by any EU retaliatory tariffs relating to goods brought into Northern Ireland. As I travel round Northern Ireland, I see that there are great business opportunities and lots of investment coming in. As I said to the House last week, Northern Ireland has a higher rate of growth than the UK as a whole and the lowest unemployment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely agree. Public service transformation is not just about funding; it is about how to spend the money that the Northern Ireland Executive has with the record £18.2 billion settlement. Health is devolved, but we work together to share best practice and expertise, as well as recently agreeing £61 million of funding for multidisciplinary teams in GP surgeries. We will work together to create an NHS fit for the future, and I will be meeting the Health Minister again in Northern Ireland this week.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Will the Minister ensure that any future discussions with Northern Ireland Ministers about public sector reform include the need for employment practices and procedures in many parts of the public sector to result in workforces that are more broadly representative of the working-age population? The Unionist community has been under-represented in many sectors, including for many years in the public sector.

[Fleur Anderson]

Workforce challenges are a huge part of public service transformation. Workers across Northern Ireland do fantastic work in health, education and justice, and they need to be supported to do that and to be representative of the community. Workforce issues are devolved, but they are important, and supporting our workforce, and working with unions to do so, is an important part of our working together in an active partnership with the Executive.

Horticulture Trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered horticulture trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. May I say at the outset that I am glad to see the Minister in her place? On a separate issue, I thank her publicly for her endeavours with a constituency query of mine a week ago, on which she went above and beyond the call of duty. Both I and my constituent are extremely grateful to her for doing so.

The horticultural sector encompasses mostly small and medium-sized enterprises, and it supports over 700,000 jobs across the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, the original protocol agreement presented substantial difficulties for horticultural businesses based in GB in supplying Northern Ireland. It has to be said, and I am more than happy to say so, that in the time since then there have been some improvements, but unfortunately those improvements do not get us where we need to be. They simply get us a few steps along what seems as if it will be an exceptionally long road, and we have to try to make it much shorter than it looks like being at the moment.

The problems with which we were originally faced emanated from what I call the fantasy of the so-called hard border—the whole concept of a hard border on the island of Ireland—which just was not going to come about, but was used by the EU, and we ended up with the protocol as a result.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend my hon. Friend. He says there have been some advances or steps forward, but all they are really doing is just picking at the scab, so the scab is still there. Does he not agree that, after the Government have been saying for months that the kinks are being worked out, consumers in Northern Ireland are still finding it impossible to procure seeds for plants that simply pose no risk to the EU, which is absolutely frustrating? With the greatest respect, the Government must negotiate, on our constituents’ behalf, with those who refuse a common-sense approach. If only we all had common sense, it would be a big day, would it not?

[Mr Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and yes, indeed. We have come a small number of steps, but there is an exceptionally long road to reach the finishing line.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this debate. As he knows, I have raised this in relation to Colemans Garden Centre in my constituency. It has said about one of its suppliers based in Scotland, which got a new contract in Japan, that it is easier for that Scottish supplier to send plants to Japan than to send them 14 miles across the water to Northern Ireland. Richard Fry, the manager of Colemans, has said that when it engaged with that supplier it just came up against a wall of bureaucracy, in having to name everything on a pallet and in the trailer with the trailer’s registration number. The bureaucracy and the paperwork have actually stolen that easier trade.

[Mr Campbell]

I thank the hon. Member for that. He itemises a problem that is faced on multiple occasions by many of the companies in our constituencies. How that wall, or that restriction, came about was summed up by the then Chief Constable six years ago, who said:

“There are 300 crossing points between our two countries, how on earth are my officers supposed to police that effectively?”

He was of course talking about the security implications, but similarly it applies to the consumer border that exists.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Does the hon. Member agree that the sixfold burden on horticultural trade, encompassing regulatory divergence, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, certification requirements, increased costs and paperwork, is imposing an untenable strain on businesses across Northern Ireland?

[Mr Campbell]

I do indeed agree with the hon. Member. A year ago, I said:

“Whilst prohibitions have been lifted for 12 types of plants, engagement continues between the UK and EU on a further 9 species, there needs to be further progress.”

The horticultural working group was set up to identify and resolve issues such as this, but it needs to move on these outstanding problems so that a simpler system is in place to enable people of all backgrounds to purchase goods within their own country. For example, large full-scale advertisements in daily broadsheet newspapers for various seeds and plants say at the bottom that they are available throughout most of the United Kingdom—but not all. At the bottom of the adverts in small print there is the wording, “We are also unable to ship seeds or plants to EU countries and Northern Ireland.” That is as a result of the issues that emanated from the protocol.

A local nursery in my constituency works closely with Magilligan prison to reduce reoffending, and with inmates who are coming to the end of their term and are trying to work their way back into society. The local nursery project wrote to me recently to say:

“The project has established a ‘UK and Ireland Sourced and Grown’ accredited native tree nursery within Magilligan Prison, working with inmates to supply native trees to the public, private and voluntary sector. In recent weeks”—

they said almost six months ago, and I checked with them last week and this still pertains now—

“the tree nursery has run into difficulties sourcing saplings from UK suppliers...At present DAERA advise that it is impossible to bring from the UK to Northern Ireland, species on this following list”.

The letter itemises the list, and then goes on to say:

“The current situation threatens the sustainability of the tree nursery within HMP Magilligan with impacts on the future supply of trees from the tree nursery and the associated employment of staff assisting with delivery of the tree nursery (the funding of these roles with Causeway Coast and Glens Heritage Trust relies on income generated), and the rehabilitation of inmates engaged with delivery of tree nursery activities. I wished to bring this situation to your attention, in the hope that in your discussions with the UK Government you can raise the bizarre situation in relation to the bringing of plant saplings from UK suppliers to supply a UK and Irish Sourced and Grown Accredited Tree Nursery in Northern Ireland.”

That letter is from a local nursery that is telling me and others that there is a huge problem, where it is being told that it cannot bring in some saplings, and the outcome of not being able to do that threatens employment and the good work that the nursery and the prison are doing to try and rehabilitate prisoners coming to the end of their sentences.

The Consumer Council in Northern Ireland did research a few months ago looking at the experiences of retailers that do not deliver to Northern Ireland, focusing on online marketplaces. It did a survey of over 1,000 Northern Ireland customers, and 76% of those surveyed stated that they had experienced online marketplaces that do not deliver to Northern Ireland. The second most common product category was garden plants, seeds and horticulture—38% of those surveyed said that they experienced the impossibility of getting plants and seeds delivered.

The ironic thing is this: as an MP from Northern Ireland I am in Westminster today; before the end of the week, I will go to an airport. En route to the airport, if I wanted, I could go to a garden centre and acquire the self-same seeds. I could pay for them at the garden place, put them in my pocket, board the plane and arrive in Belfast, and there would be no checks whatsoever. I can distribute, plant, sow or do whatever I want with those seeds in Northern Ireland, having taken them from the same nursery that will not supply customers in Northern Ireland online or by post. It is no wonder that my local nursery in Magilligan says that this is utterly bizarre, and it needs to be resolved.

The Consumer Council informed us of the situation, and it says that the problem is not getting any better and that improvement is needed. That is why I hope the Minister can respond on the horticultural working group and what progress it has made. It would appear that the progress is quite small, in so far as it has achieved anything.

The Horticultural Trades Association represents 1,200 businesses, the majority of which are small and medium-sized enterprises, and it made a representation to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. My good friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), is present today, and he serves on that Committee. In its evidence, the HTA gave some information and highlighted the problems, including the continuing ban on up to 30 native plants and complete species, and it said that online sales from business to consumer were still not possible in Northern Ireland. The HTA indicated that the new Northern Ireland plant health label represents some marginal progress but still requires compliance with a range of rules, creating additional cost. The diversion of trade and re-orientation of production to the EU is a major problem.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In my constituency, we lost a large number of trees as a result of the storm five or six weeks ago. Mount Stewart had 10,000 trees destroyed, and other people across Strangford and the Ards peninsula, as well as those further afield, had something similar; but garden centres in my constituency tell me they cannot access the trees for replenishment. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is now an even bigger onus on us to ensure that the trees are available?

[Mr Campbell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; that is just further evidence of the ongoing problems. I suppose the problem is that we have potential solutions in the making but they seem interminably long. The establishment of Intertrade UK offers us the prospect of further progress, but it needs to be given adequate support not only to identify the problems, some of which we have identified here today, but to try to provide the solutions. The EU must be persuaded of the miniscule impact. In the grand scheme of things, Northern Ireland is 3% of the population of the United Kingdom, so any thought that this will jeopardise or provide unforeseen problems to the EU internal market is ludicrous.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this morning’s debate. I believe the biggest problem that we face is the fact that Northern Ireland has basically been left outside the UK’s plant health area, which means that NI businesses have to comply with EU rules over British ones. Many native British trees are not available in Northern Ireland, and the Woodland Trust free school packs are not available in Northern Ireland for that very reason. Decade-old trading arrangements have been undermined, and there is bureaucracy. The protocol and the Windsor framework are failing horticultural society, and we need our Government to step up and intervene for this sector, or it will fail.

[Mr Campbell]

My hon. Friend is right. I will conclude with this important point: this is not a political issue in the Northern Ireland sense of Unionists complaining about the protocol. Plants, seeds and business affect people of every community. This is not a Unionist problem; it is a problem of unfairness to everybody in Northern Ireland who wants to do business—every firm, no matter their background, and every customer, no matter their background or political persuasion. It is a problem that needs to be resolved.

There will not be any checks. I recently raised with the Home Office the issue of electronic travel authorisations in terms of visitors to the Republic coming to Northern Ireland, and the point I made was that there will not be any checks because there cannot be. There are 300 crossing points on a 300-mile land border. There are not going to be any checks for ETAs for travellers, just as there are not going to be any checks in terms of people taking seeds across by plane or by ferry, or a boat from Cairnryan to Larne.

We need to get it resolved. Burying our heads in the sand will not make the problem go away. The problem will not be dealt with by politicos simply complaining about it, which is what we have seen and heard about over the past few years. I have been exceptionally critical of those politicos who complain but do not offer a diligent, effective representation to try to get a resolution. I hope the Minister will be able to contribute and give us some examples and indications of the significant progress that will be made in the next few months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that. I would be very pleased to visit and talk about exactly what practical issues still exist. The label scheme should have enabled free movement from business to business, so we need to address the fact that it has not in the case she mentions. The horticultural working group needs to address that as well. I would be pleased to visit and to hear more about the issues that she has already raised in the House.

The framework safeguards horticultural movements—generally—providing a sustainable long-term footing. However, I recognise that improvements need to be made in the areas raised by the hon. Members for Upper Bann and for East Londonderry, and by others. That is the focus of the horticultural working group, and I commend its work. The body is co-chaired by senior officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Cabinet Office, and it draws on support from other officials in those Departments and across Government as the focus of the agenda requires. There are representatives of the Ulster Farmers Union, the National Farmers Union and the Horticultural Trades Association. Business leaders, as well as a small number of other horticultural businesses, also sit on the working group. The group meets regularly to address issues, and I welcome the constructive and honest way in which it approaches its work. I am also very ready to meet any of its members; I met the Ulster Farmers Union last week.

There is guidance and support available to help businesses in Great Britian understand the schemes that can be used for moving goods from GB to Northern Ireland. The horticultural working group membership worked with UK Government officials to revise that guidance, which was published earlier this year. I reassure the House that it is a well-established process through which industry can raise issues and they will be addressed.

In addition, the framework and our improved relationships with our European Union counterparts continue to facilitate the movement of high-risk plants. As the hon. Member for East Londonderry pointed out, there has been progress, but more needs to be made and that is what we need to keep working on.

Through that constructive engagement, we are seeing results. Last month, we lifted the ban on a further two species of plant—silver and downy birch—taking the total to 23. The hon. Member for East Londonderry highlighted how important that is for the tree nursery in his constituency, which is doing such good work rehabilitating prisoners. The hon. Member for Upper Bann pointed out that the Woodland Trust free school packs are not available. I hope the horticultural working group will listen to that. I will point out the issue to its members, and they can work out why it is happening and work on common-sense ways in which we can overcome it.

Active scientific dialogue is taking place on a further six species, including white dogwood and English yew. There is a small list that is being worked through one by one. The UK Government have submitted a further 17 species for scientific assessment, again with areas of focus being led by industry and its priorities. In matters relating to horticulture, as in other sectors, the Government have sought to resolve challenges in constructive and mutually beneficial ways. These are the actions of a responsible Government responding to the concerns of their citizens and abiding by their commitments in international law on the world stage.

There are other ways in which the Government can intervene to protect and support the internal market and the flow of horticultural goods. The hon. Member for East Londonderry wrote to the Secretary of State recently to advise him of a GB-based seller of plants and seeds that was not selling to consumers in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State asked DEFRA officials to meet representatives of that company to provide more information on the schemes available to facilitate GB-NI trade. As a result of that conversation, the company has undertaken to review its current arrangements. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned that there needs to be common sense in this discussion. We need to have businesses exploring solutions with the Government, hopefully enabling us to support each other.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

I thank the Minister for her reference to my correspondence with the Secretary of State. Indeed, I was quoting the management of that firm, who say that they are still unable to supply Northern Ireland. Will the Minister indicate when those discussions may terminate? Are they likely to end in the company revising that advert to remove the statement, and supplying to Northern Ireland?

[Fleur Anderson]

I recognise that it is frustrating that, this long after Brexit, we are still trying to work this out but it is the reality of the situation. I am glad that the hon. Member secured this debate because it adds to the urgency that is clearly needed by businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland. I want to see a solution agreed. The horticulture working group and businesses need to look at ways to work this out. Business-to-business is enabled, but business-to-consumer is hard. That is where the solution is needed.

European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have high regard for him. We explored these issues at great length when he chaired the Defence Committee and I was but a lowly member of it. The truth is that there are hundreds if not thousands of individuals in Northern Ireland who have been prosecuted already. How often do we see them go to meet their victims, or the families of their victims? How often do we see them try to apply balm on the wound that has never healed? And those are the individuals who have received justice.

I started to talk about truth and justice before the explosion of interventions. They are important for this debate. For the last number of years, the terminology from this Chamber has been very clearly, “You’re not going to get justice, but we can offer you truth. And the only way you can get truth is if we deny justice.” That is what the legacy Act presented to the people of Northern Ireland. That is why we opposed it. They want justice. They want their day in court. They have had to suffer evasions of justice in Northern Ireland for decades. We did not support the Belfast agreement because of the release of prisoners. We do not support the notion that those who take life could be sentenced for two years—sentenced for much longer, but only have to serve two years. Nor did we support on-the-runs letters. Nor did we support amnesties for terrorists throughout the Labour Government proposals or the Conservative Government proposals, because the approach that denies justice is one that will never allow the wounds to heal.

I want to reflect on a number of institutions we have that are supposed to aid justice, truth and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. One of them is the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, which was established to allow members of the community who did not support the police to buy into the police, to get confidence in the police. Yet I am sorry to say in this debate today that we have a police ombudsman in whom I have no confidence—none whatsoever. We have a police ombudsman who constructed the notion of collusion. She was struck down by the courts, so she constructed the notion of collusive behaviours. She was struck down by the courts. More recently, she has been missing in action: she is fit to do the job; she is unfit to do the job; she is being investigated by the West Midlands police herself. Yet whether she is obstructing in her role or not, I will raise one family, one gentleman: Alan Black.

Alan Black was a workman who was out to work with his colleagues. All of them, bar one, were Protestants. In 1976 in Kingsmill, all bar one were attacked by the IRA. When asked to identify themselves, the one individual who identified himself as a Catholic was allowed to leave. Eleven of Alan’s colleagues were murdered that day for no other reason than that they had a Protestant faith. Alan survived. He went to the police ombudsman looking for answers on the investigation 14 years ago. He had an inquest, which concluded 11 months ago. We hear from the ombudsman’s office that it is ready to report, but, 11 months later, there has still been no outcome, no publication and no report for Alan. Alan is an old man now. He is an ill man because of the attack. He has suffered greatly, yet he put his faith in the organisations in which he and members of our community should be able to have confidence, and he has received nothing.

The Omagh inquiry started five weeks ago. The first four weeks were testimonies from the families who lost someone so tragically that day. Four months after the Belfast agreement was signed—four months after, when society was meant to be basking in peace—29 people and two unborn babies were killed that day in Omagh. The inquiry has a cross-border dimension: when the courts in Belfast said in 2021 that there should be an inquiry in Omagh, they said there also needed to be one in the Republic of Ireland, because the bomb was constructed in the Republic of Ireland and was planted by a Provisional IRA bomb team who were operating from the Republic of Ireland, travelled from the Republic of Ireland and escaped to the Republic of Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) indicated her support for such an inquiry in the south. It is for this reason that answers are required.

What do we have so far? Reluctance on the part of the Irish Government—there is nothing new in that. The Irish Government have singularly failed to do anything on legacy apart from criticise the British Government for the past 30 years. During the troubles, they allowed people to hide in the Irish Republic, armed people in the Irish Republic and would not extradite terrorists from the Irish Republic, yet today they stand and look square in the eye the families of the 29 Omagh victims and say, “We are sorry—we are not going to do that for you. We are not going to give you answers.” The same bomb team responsible for Omagh were responsible for 20 bombings in 1997 and 1998. Whether it was in Banbridge, Portadown, Lisburn, Newry or Moira—right throughout Northern Ireland—they were making their mark and making their voice heard in the run-up to peace negotiations. It is an outrage.

That the Irish Government still stand back and say they will not provide an inquiry is a disgrace. They have offered honeyed words for years, yet they do nothing to aid the sorrow. They will not provide the conditions that would allow us to challenge Garda Dermot Jennings, who is accused of having said “We will let one more through, lads,” because he knew the bombing team. Who is going to challenge and question the J2 Irish intelligence officials and ask them the questions? Our inquiry cannot do it, because it does not have the powers. I know the Government are considering a memorandum of understanding with the Irish Government, and that is important. However, if that does not allow for the production of people as well as papers, it will never work. It is why there has to be an inquiry in the Republic of Ireland, too, and I am glad there is broad support for that.

The Committee on the Administration of Justice in Northern Ireland—with which I struggle, Madam Deputy Speaker—published a brilliant report in the last four weeks castigating the Irish Republic for its total failure to do anything on legacy over the past 30 years. It has no legacy bodies, no legacy investigations unit, no historical enquiries team and no ombudsman service; it has no infrastructure whatsoever to answer questions on legacy, and no infrastructure whatsoever to aid the healing of the past.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

What concerns many people in Northern Ireland is that often, when things happen in Northern Ireland that are of a particular disposition, the Republic of Ireland’s Government will weigh in heavily to press our Government to do certain things. However, it seems that on many occasions when things happen on which our Government should make representations to the Republic’s Government, they fail adequately to do so.

[Gavin Robinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At a summit last week, not one word on these issues emerged, save the Irish Government saying they are not yet quite ready to withdraw their challenge against the British Government for the legacy Act. They ruled against an amnesty being provided, just as we did, but they decided to challenge their near neighbours in the British Government through the European courts. They decided to do that without trying to address these issues, yet when the onus is on them—when the shoe is on the other foot—they offer nothing.

Just this evening, the Northern Ireland Assembly passed a motion to say that the Irish Government should hold an inquiry into Omagh, and I agree. It was amended by the DUP and unanimously supported by every party in Stormont. That is a message that I hope that the Minister will take to the Irish Government about the strength of feeling on this issue. We looked a lot of victims in the eye last week, but we cannot continue, year after year, to look victims in the eyes and say nice things, but offer no hope, offer no truth and offer no justice.

Trade Diversion and Windsor Framework

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)]

I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on securing the debate. The House, once again, has been left in no doubt but that he speaks about Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements with fervour and sincerity, as he did in the Westminster Hall debate in November, to which I responded, and in the debate on his private Member’s Bill in December, to which the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland replied on the Government’s behalf. On the Windsor framework, his position is quite clear: he is opposed to it.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State has outlined that on a number of occasions, both he and the Under-Secretary have responded to issues that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) has raised. He will be aware that I wrote to him about a month ago about the problems with horticultural industry trade between Scotland and Northern Ireland, but I have yet to get a response.

[Hilary Benn]

I can only apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I try hard to be punctilious about responding to correspondence. Those watching will have noted what he said, and he can, I hope, anticipate receiving a reply from me very soon.

For the Government’s part, I want to be equally clear. We needed to have a system in place for managing a unique set of circumstances. The system we have is the inevitable result of leaving the European Union. That is where this all began; if that had not happened, we would not be having this discussion. What did that result in? Two trading entities—the United Kingdom and the European Union—with different rules, but an open border between them. That is to be found nowhere else in the world. In other words, all of us together—everyone has to take responsibility for what they argued for, and for the consequence of that—faced the question: how do we deal with the unique situation of two trading entities with different rules having an open border between them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to provide me with further information about the particular example he has raised, I will of course look at it.

On trade, I have a slightly different set of figures from those that the hon. and learned Gentleman used. From 2020 to 2023, purchases in Northern Ireland from GB went from £13.4 billion to £16.2 billion—an increase of 20.7%. Sales to the year ending December 2023 from Northern Ireland to GB rose by 12.4%, to £17.1 billion. He used a phrase at the beginning of his speech—I hope I wrote it down correctly—the “natural inclination of trade”. I would simply observe that the inclination of trade is a consequence of decisions that individuals and firms make, and those patterns change over time depending on what they want to buy or sell and what the market itself looks like.

The point I was making, without seeking gratitude, is that in every one of the examples I have just given, the Government worked to resolve the challenges we faced, working with stakeholders in Northern Ireland and with the EU, in what I think is a constructive and mutually beneficial way. That is what a responsible Government do, including abiding by commitments in international law on the world stage. The hon. and learned Gentleman advocates triggering article 16. That measure refers both to trade and to instances where serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties are liable to persist. Given that most goods are flowing relatively smoothly between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, how can it be argued that we are facing those difficulties?

I would just make the point that if one goes to the port, the lorries come off and most of them go on their way—the goods are moving. That is in contrast to the argument that the hon. and learned Gentleman put towards the end of his speech, when he used the phrase “cripple” in relation to the Northern Ireland economy. I have seen no evidence that the Northern Ireland economy, which, by the way, has the lowest unemployment in the whole of the United Kingdom, is being crippled by the matters that we are discussing.

[Mr Campbell]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

I will give way, but then I will make progress.

[Mr Campbell]

The Secretary of State is being very generous with his time. He just said most goods are flowing freely. Does he not agree that he should amend that to say, “In certain sectors, most goods are flowing freely, but in certain other sectors, they most certainly are not”?

[Hilary Benn]

It depends on the hon. Gentleman’s definition of “freely.” There are requirements that certain goods must meet. There is the retail movement scheme and the horticultural scheme, and certain paperwork and documents are required, looking forward to the customs requirements being reduced later this year—hopefully when the new arrangements come in—but the goods move, and I do not think that anyone in the debate can stand up and say that the goods are not moving in those circumstances.

As I have indicated, the Windsor framework represents a step forward. Although I respect the sincerity with which the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim makes his argument, I do not believe that current circumstances meet the article 16 test. Pulling that lever in the current circumstances would actually throw away the progress secured by the framework and damage the good faith that has been built up in taking the framework forward. We all need to remember that, not long ago, we had a Government who signed an international agreement and then set about showing that they had no intention of honouring it. That did extraordinary damage to the United Kingdom’s international reputation.

Clonoe Inquest

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I will only say to the right hon. Gentleman that the characterisation of the views that he attempts to attribute to me is incorrect, but I make no apology for telling the House about this Government’s support for the European convention, because this set of findings by the coroner has nothing to do with the European convention on human rights. The coroner was faced with a set of circumstances. He considered them and produced his findings, as inquests do all the time. People are entitled to criticise the outcome, but it is an independent coronial process.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Compounding the problems that the coroner has created with his comments is the fact that in the past whenever innocent people were killed, the judiciary has commented that attention should be drawn to those behind the scenes who send young men out to carry out the killing. These young men were sent out to kill; they had murder in their minds. It is a pity that the coroner did not mention who was behind that—why are their names not being brought to public light? Does the Secretary of State agree that something like that might have helped a little to minimise the compounding problem created by the coroner’s comments at the time?

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about how we come to tell the truth about what happened; to give the families answers—I have met many of them, as have my predecessors—about what really happened. Although we will repeal and replace the legacy Act, I decided to keep and reform the independent commission because I believe it offers the best means of trying to provide those answers in the round. The problem with the inquest system in certain cases is that it has no capacity to deal with sensitive information; the independent commission does. That is why I urge families in Northern Ireland who are still seeking answers to talk to Sir Declan Morgan and his colleagues, because he is able to produce reports that can range as widely as he thinks appropriate.

Northern Ireland’s Political Institutions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I thank the hon. Member for the intervention. I am not sure of the provenance of that line on spend; as the former Health Minister for Northern Ireland, he will be aware of the intricacies. His point is well made, however, because there are structural issues within Northern Ireland. Simply put, our health issues in Northern Ireland are linked to the fact that we cannot manage to have Government long enough to embed a long-term system of public transformation, which is exactly what we need.

For years, Alliance has championed practical, achievable reforms to restore stability, hope and trust in Northern Ireland’s governance. First, we must change the way that we nominate the First and Deputy First Ministers. Currently, the process allows one party to block the formation of an Executive, holding the entire system hostage. Indeed, whenever I was first elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly, I sat in my seat on more than one occasion and we voted across the Chamber to elect a Speaker but, due to the rules of the game, we went away time and again for nearly three years because we could not form a Government. Reforming that process would ensure that no single party could veto democracy.

We also need to replace the outdated system of parallel consent, which entrenches division rather than promoting collaboration. Instead, we should adopt mechanisms that reflect the diversity of our society and encourage cross-community support. The petition of concern is another area crying out for reform. Originally designed to protect minority rights, it has been weaponised to block progressive legislation time and again.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I will make progress.

That tool has been used not to protect but to prevent. It is time to reclaim it for its intended purpose. Those proposals are modest and should not be controversial; they do not alter the fundamental principles of the Good Friday agreement. The reforms are not about party politics, but about people. I am sure that every single Member of this House who represents Northern Ireland, and every single Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, wants to put their constituents first and does not want a system in which they go without Government. How in all good conscience could they support such action?

Finally, I turn to why Westminster must act. Some may argue that reforming Northern Ireland’s institutions should be left to the local parties, but let us be honest: that ship has sailed. The Secretary of State’s reliance on consensus has stalled progress and it is the people of Northern Ireland who are paying the price. Indeed, it is the people of Northern Ireland—whether they are Unionist, nationalist or other—who constantly say, regardless of their dearly held political beliefs, that they do not believe it is fair for one player to walk off the pitch and thereby, at a very basic level, deny people government.

The UK Government are the co-guarantor of the Good Friday agreement. They have both a legal and moral duty to ensure effective governance in Northern Ireland, and there is a precedent for that. In the past, when consensus has been unachievable because of our institutional framework, the UK Government have stepped in. On Irish language rights, marriage equality, organ donation and reproductive rights, consecutive UK Governments have stepped up to the plate to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland, which is a constituent part of the UK, are not held back by our institutional failure. Westminster acted because it was simply the right thing to do to implement what I would regard as long-held and settled policies across the rest of the United Kingdom.

The reform that I am discussing today is in not just Northern Ireland’s interests, but all our interests. A stable Northern Ireland reduces Treasury costs and boosts economic growth across the UK. Many MPs have rightly questioned—indeed, the hon. Member for North Antrim mentioned—

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

We have debated at length the pros and cons of the Windsor framework, and I know we have different opinions on it. The Windsor framework enables the internal market to work and the smooth flow of goods, at the same time as allowing democratic institutions—the Assembly—to have their say and to have those democratic safeguards, as has been demonstrated recently.

We need to establish what we mean by the effectiveness of the political institutions. In Northern Ireland, the key measure of effectiveness in the institutions is peace. The Good Friday agreement remains an unparalleled achievement for Northern Ireland. Almost 27 years on from its signing, it has brought an end to armed conflict in Northern Ireland, and it has enabled a generation to grow up in relative peace, increasing prosperity and allowing the people of Northern Ireland to take steps towards reconciliation.

The journey to the signing of that agreement required incredible political courage and imagination from the Northern Ireland parties. They were required to set aside their deeply felt differences and commit to working together in a new suite of institutions in the hope of a better tomorrow. As we stand here in 2025, I recognise that the same commitment to collaboration, and to helping Northern Ireland achieve its full potential, is among the parties, is witnessed here today, and remains strongly in the Northern Ireland public.

I am delighted that the strand 1 institutions that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley focused on, the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, are fully operational again, having been restored nearly a year ago, in February 2024. I am extremely grateful that in full operation, they are doing what they were established to do: enabling power to be shared between communities in Northern Ireland. It is through devolved government that decisions can be taken locally on the issues that matter most to the people of Northern Ireland.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

On the stability of institutions, does the Minister agree that there used to be a complaint about the use of the petition of concern, which was alluded to by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), but which has not been used in the past year at all since Stormont returned? We can proceed only when there is agreement between the divided communities in Northern Ireland, and that has to be the basis on which we proceed.

[Fleur Anderson]

I welcome the hon. Member’s intervention. There was stability for 10 years when power sharing was enabled, and that is at the heart of what must be enabled by the institutions there. Unless there is a real change shown in various different ways, we need to ensure that those institutions maintain that power sharing. That is what has worked to give us peace up to now, but the stability has been in question. That is why it is good to have these debates, as we are today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I have indeed seen that report. The problem is that the approach set out in the legacy Act has been found, in that respect and many others, to be unlawful. Of course we will continue, as the previous Government did, to see whether we can find a lawful way of dealing with the issue that the right hon. Gentleman has identified. That work will continue.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the job of the commission in helping people to deal with the past is made much more difficult when we have reprehensible incidents such as Sinn Féin First Minister Michelle O’Neill attending and speaking at a commemoration of three IRA terrorists who died when the bomb they were transporting through County Londonderry in 1971 exploded prematurely, killing them rather than the innocent people they intended to murder, and when we now have the possibility that the former Sinn Féin leader and terrorist Gerry Adams may be about to receive compensation?

European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 6th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson]

This Bill does not take us back. If we are interested in building trust and resetting our relationship with the European Union, why is it not conceivable that we could get to a place where we respect one another, acknowledge one another’s purity of legal services and legal systems, and recognise the importance of the rule of law and the ability to mutually enforce standards with one another? Why is that so inconceivable?

Why is it possible for the European Union to outline a system that allows goods to move from the Republic of Ireland through Northern Ireland and into GB without any border checks, but not the other way around? Why? Will anyone stand back and ask themselves whether all of this, with the attendant hassle and constitutional impairment, is necessary or worth it? It cannot be sustained, neither practically nor pragmatically.

The impositions are not required. We started this journey in a place of equilibrium on standards. When we left the European Union, our standards and theirs were exactly the same. Mutual enforcement was not mythical then, and it is not magical now. There is no reason why I cannot conceive a solution based on a reset of relations, if necessary, and a rebuilding of trust so that mutual enforcement is the better answer.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

If the Bill is talked out, as seems almost inevitable given the attitude of Labour Members, the Prime Minister has indicated that he will speak with representatives of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in the next few days. If the Labour Government are saying, “Yes, there is an opportunity to make progress and, yes, there are difficulties to be resolved,” does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an opportunity in the next few days for the Prime Minister to tell us exactly what he is going to do if Labour Members do not support the Bill?

[Gavin Robinson]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend.

I want to give the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) another example. She will have heard colleagues in interventions, she will have heard the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) at Prime Minister’s questions and she will have heard me at Northern Ireland questions raise the issue of the general product safety regulations that come into force next Friday. What is the best answer we had from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? “We are in discussions.” What do we hear from Labour Members? “It’s in train.”

Information should have been given to businesses long before next Friday, but have I ever heard a Labour Member say, “Actually, in January 2024, the Conservative Government extended the February 2023 agreement to adhere to the requirements and standards of EU safety markings—the CE markings on goods—and general product safety”? Why are we in a situation where our Government—the last Government, but still our Government—agreed to adhere to EU standards on general product safety, only to find that, come next Friday, it will all be too problematic for GB businesses to trade with a part of the United Kingdom? It is wrong. It should not be the case, and it is not at all satisfactory that we are talking today about the aspiration to have a solution when this comes in on Friday. Businesses should already have the information.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I will try to be as brief as possible, to allow others to speak.

I wish to come to what the Bill is actually about, rather than what people say it is about, but first I want to dispel the idea that it would mean going backwards. The idea of mutual enforcement in fact originated, as others have said, in the EU itself at the time. It came from those who were tasked, as senior officials—British and others—to come forward with a solution, before the end of the Brexit debates and so on, with an alternative way to make the borders work and to take the heat out of what later became really quite powerful and ended up with a Government literally unable to move any motion at all and have it succeed.

I have personal experience of this issue because, when there was a break in the negotiations between the UK Government—who handled it pretty badly at the time, by the way—and the Commission, I managed somehow to get a team of people together to go and see Monsieur Barnier directly. We sat at a table with all his negotiators, and a few of ours who were there, and we talked through the principles. This was before mutual enforcement became a concept, but we talked about what already existed in the EU with others from outside the EU and inside the EU, and how they traded. We ended up reaching very much the same conclusion as originally reached by Sir Jonathan Faull and others: that mutual enforcement was the better deal. Monsieur Barnier agreed with us. At the end of that agreement—I can see him following me out as I put my coat on—he said, “The principle behind any chance of this being agreed is that we must have trust. Without trust, we cannot have an agreement.”

The sad part about it was that when I came back to the UK to speak to my Government, they did not want to take any interest in that as a departure. They had already got bogged down in other areas. Sadly, two weeks later, what actually happened was that the Government went back in and carried on with their complicated and hopeless negotiation, without first setting out the principle of what they wanted. I think Monsieur Barnier was open to that and I think the EU wanted mutual enforcement. At that stage, there was no question about weaponising the border; it was about how we could reach an agreement. We could have done much more then, and I still today think that this idea is it.

The Bill, then, is not about going backwards in the sense that it destroys what we have done; it actually says something about what we have done so far in two stages. The protocol, it seems to me, could only ever have been temporary, and the Windsor agreement, which I did not support, opened up the negotiation again, which was good, but the ask was so limited, and in some ways rather restrictive, that we have ended up with the principle being there, but the practical bit does not work. That was the moment when we should have used the opportunity to go back into mutual enforcement. What is so wrong about that? The EU already uses the principle in its dealings with other countries.

As I said in an intervention earlier, the classic example is New Zealand. The EU trusts the New Zealand veterinary officers—particular key ones, but they trust them all once they are registered—to say whether certain foodstuffs are, under SPS rules, packaged properly and agreeable under the EU rules. They are trusted to say that EU rules are met. That is a critical component. When those foodstuffs are shipped and arrive at Rotterdam, most often it comes up on the computer and they are waved through. Any checks that have to take place in Rotterdam for non-EU countries take place 30 km behind the border, and they are spot checks just in case something has happened en route or something else has changed on the way. In other words, things move smoothly through. But such arrangements were not agreed in the various agreements here.

Eventually, in trying to draft this idea together, I sat down with others to try to figure out how we could make mutual enforcement work. I give credit to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for having brought forward the Bill, because it gives us a chance to debate the matter. I know very well what goes on in this Chamber and I know only too well how Fridays work, and the sad part is that if the Government do not want to have any further debate on something, they arrange for it to be talked out. It has happened on both sides; cynicism exists on all sides. I understand that. Lots of people will have come in, particularly from London because they are closer, and they will do what they have to do to talk this out. The Bill is not going to get through; I never expected it to. [Interruption.] Honestly, do not object; Government Members know very well that that is exactly what happens. Some will be here because they believe in something—I look across at my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—but the majority are not. Therefore, let us just understand fundamentally what we could have been discussing and what the current Government could now be engaged in; they could be talking to the EU about changing these arrangements.

The current arrangements are damaging relationships and causing issues around Northern Ireland. We know that; nobody is arguing that that is not the case. If we have such problems that affect the constitution and the smooth running of businesses both in Northern Ireland and the wider United Kingdom, then surely any Government would want to make sure those are settled. It is not a polemic, it is not a right or left wing thing to do; it is called practical governance to try to figure out how this works.

I did not agree with my Government when they brought forward the Windsor agreement in its final stages, and I voted against it. I voted against it because I thought they had lost a real opportunity. The EU had accepted that its imposition earlier on did not work and it had to change it, but what we ended up with was a de minimis change which did not solve the problems; in fact some of them have got worse.

When we strip out all the politics, the key component is that mutual enforcement requires each side to make reciprocal legal commitments to each other and to enforce the rules of the other with respect to trade across the border. In other words, we would accept that where our exporters export to the EU, we are responsible if they breach EU regulations. So if the EU says a company or individual is exporting goods in breach of the terms of its trade, the UK Government will take the responsibility to proceed against them, and vice versa for the EU.

That does not require no border, because there has always been a border in Northern Ireland; we just do not want a hard border. That was always the issue. People talk about borders, but they mean a hard border. I had some experience of that when I had to man one of the checkpoints there when I was sent to Northern Ireland. I hated doing it, but that was a hard border. We do not want a hard border and mutual enforcement obviates the need for a hard border. Borders will exist, and we talked about that in terms of currency and VAT.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

On this mythical hard border, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be impossible to implement such a thing for any land border of 300 miles with 280 crossing points, and that the process we are embarked upon is trying to get a two-way flow of trade that obviates the need for any of those checks anywhere on the border?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The real point is getting rid of the Irish sea checks; it is anathema that one part of the United Kingdom is now treated separately from the rest of the UK. That is surely a reasonable idea and if it is in this Bill then the Government should want to take it through to the next stage and debate it. This is what the Bill does. Mutual enforcement does not of itself remove customs duties; neither does it harmonise or require mutual recognition of standards. It works by inverting the usual approach to customs enforcement; duties may, for example, be imposed for anti-dumping reasons or due to subsidies that one party claims are injurious to itself or to companies as a result of goods failing to qualify for zero duty under rules of origin. That is what the Bill does. All the rest that has been talked about is not in this Bill; it is very simple and very practical. The trade and co-operation agreement between the EU and the UK already has an agreed mechanism, which is very important for identifying and addressing these distortions. If we are able to allow that and make changes, that is how it will work.

There are other areas, too, which I will speed through as quickly as possible. Mutual enforcement can also under these terms accommodate the collection of customs duty. The detailed procedures are obviously beyond the scope of briefing papers and the Bill, but the reality is that we could have a system whereby an order of goods from the UK to the Republic of Ireland triggers a UK export declaration and an EU import declaration such that in terms of the EU’s customs data any sums owed are put into the goods invoice and paid by the importer to the exporter. There are many other ways ahead that can be facilitated, particularly now that almost all of this is done using modern technology, not large sheathes of paper and with a man standing at the border with a ladle to check whether the brandy being imported or exported tastes like brandy. That does not happen any longer, but from some of the debates it would seem somehow we have not moved on from 17th-century customs requirements.

To ensure compliance with this regime, a penalty in this arrangement would apply to those parties who failed to follow the procedure. The penalty would apply to both exporters and hauliers, therefore incentivising all parties involved in the carriage of goods to ensure that appropriate EU customs duties are paid. By the way, the same would be required in the Republic for its importers. It should be noted—this is the important bit that has gone missing—that an analogous system would in any event be required for the red and green lane approach prescribed in the Windsor framework.

Is this going back? No. It is using what we have and ultimately making it better. That seems to me the practical principle behind this idea of mutual enforcement. We should have started in this place, but we now have an opportunity to look at this issue and decide if there is a better way to do it that will take some of the good stuff already there and improve it by saying to the EU that we want a smooth process between the EU and the UK, because everything else then follows. Many EU members already agree; I have heard their discussions.

I cannot remember who it was, but somebody got up and said, “Did we not think they were allies? Did we not think they were friends?” It is because we think they are allies and friends that we want to get rid of the things that make us have rows and arguments about the most practical issues that could be dealt with. That is the point of this mutual enforcement process: to get rid of the ludicrous arguments about who we are and who they are. We can then be very good allies and friends, which we are and will need to be over the next few years, as we enter arguably the most dangerous time that I can remember.

I have a point for the Government. Given that almost identical rules apply in the EU and the UK, the EU could, and arguably should, negotiate an SPS equivalence agreement with the UK, as it has done for countries as far away as Canada and New Zealand, as I have said before.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the important aspect of business innovation and for mentioning those businesses, which are important to Northern Ireland’s economy. We are working with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure the best outcome for Short Brothers and its staff in relation to Spirit. The Department for Business and Trade remains in contact with Spirit, Airbus, Boeing and other potential buyers. We want to see an outcome that includes a commitment to develop Short Brothers and its supply chain as part of any acquisition and that provides the best possible opportunity for growth in Northern Ireland. The Department for Business and Trade continues to provide over £13 million of support for Short Brothers’ research and development activity.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Across these islands, Northern Ireland is at the forefront for fibre broadband due to our confidence and supply deal with the previous Government. Can the Minister indicate what is being done to promote this golden innovative opportunity nationally, which would help small businesses right across Northern Ireland?

[Fleur Anderson]

This Government are working across the whole of the UK to promote those businesses, and the industrial strategy provides an excellent opportunity to have this discussion. The UK Government are working with businesses, trade unions, local and devolved leaders, experts and international partners to develop that international strategy, which will cement this work and growth. Eight growth-driving sectors have been identified, including some that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) has already identified—advanced manufacturing, clean energy industries, creative industries and so on. The transition to net zero also provides huge opportunities, and we will make the most of them.