Draft Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 General Committees

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The regulations are the latest example of the humiliation of this proclaimed sovereign United Kingdom Parliament in adopting laws that it did not make and laws it cannot change—laws that are made in a foreign jurisdiction. We have already seen that in multiple examples. We have had it in the vehicle type regulations, under which people cannot now buy a new car in Northern Ireland made to GB-type regulations and must buy one made to EU-type regulations at an extra expense of £4,000; we have had it with tumble dryers—there are certain types of tumble dryers that can no longer be bought in Northern Ireland; and now we are to have it in respect of machinery. Who would have thought that the EU single market was so fragile that the composition of a leaf blower coming into Northern Ireland placed it in jeopardy? It really is ridiculous beyond belief.

The fundamental constitutional and democratic point is that in this Committee this afternoon, parliamentarians are being invited to nod through laws that they did not make, did not write and cannot change to enforce the EU regulation that is coming in in January, and to enforce it in a part of this United Kingdom in respect of which this is supposed to be the sovereign Parliament. What an insult to all of us as parliamentarians to belong to a proclaimed sovereign Parliament to have to pass laws that we did not make and cannot change. That is the very essence of what is before us.

The Government, as has already been referred to, have said it themselves. In order to produce their reset, they are going to bring in a statutory instrument to make the whole of the United Kingdom compliant with EU laws. Not satisfied with subjecting my part of the United Kingdom to a foreign jurisdiction making laws that we cannot change, they are now going to set the whole United Kingdom under identical laws made in a foreign place. I really do think it is time that we, as parliamentarians, woke up to what we are being asked to do.

I have one practical question for the Minister. Under the regulations, Northern Ireland’s goods will have to bear the European CE marking and the UKNI marking, and then they will be able to be sold into Great Britain. What about machinery made in Great Britain? How can it be sold into Northern Ireland? It will not bear the CE marking. Will it bear the UKNI marking? Have we created a situation in which we are going to cut the pipeline of supply from GB to Northern Ireland? I really would like the Minister to address this question: what is the effect of the regulations on the sale of machinery made in Great Britain to another part of the United Kingdom? I would like a very clear answer on that because, in significant measure, it goes to the heart of the matter. Please, Minister, answer that question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

The right hon. Gentleman rightly raises AI and cyber-security as part of our considerations. That is why it is so important that we keep up to date with technological developments and the impact on machinery. The EU’s machinery regulations, as he says, include provisions on software and AI to ensure that those new technologies do not affect the safe functioning of machinery. We are also working with the EU to ensure that the changes in Northern Ireland are compatible with wider product safety and regulatory reforms, including cross-cutting legislation on AI and cyber-security.

Overall, we expect the instrument to benefit Northern Ireland. We have extensively engaged with stakeholders in Northern Ireland, and SMEs in particular have indicated that it significantly helps in terms of resources—that is from our direct engagement with those businesses and the feedback we have received. It is a key consideration for businesses that they will be able to continue to benefit from dual access to both EU and UK markets. As we work towards introducing similar measures in Great Britain, continuing CE recognition and ensuring that the same machinery products can be placed on the market across the whole of the UK without unnecessary duplication of testing and administrative process will be absolutely vital.

The shadow Minister asked about the numbers of businesses involved. We estimate that around 230 businesses in Northern Ireland and 5,380 in Great Britain are in scope of the machinery legislation. She also referenced the £16.6 million of funding that I mentioned in my opening remarks. Funding was allocated in the Budget to deliver an enhanced “one-stop shop” advice service for small businesses beyond what is available on gov.uk, along with the new funding for Intertrade UK, and that commitment will be delivered in the course of the next financial year. The project has moved into a phase of more active engagement, with robust interest from stakeholders. Formal co-design workshops are ongoing to refine the service specification and ensure that the delivery model meets business needs.

I have briefly touched on the implementation of similar measures in Great Britain. My officials have already begun actively developing a further SI to modernise GB machinery regulation, which will ensure that the UK framework remains proportionate and aligned with the technological developments raised numerous times throughout this debate. Announcements about implementing similar measures have already been made, to provide businesses with the certainty that the shadow Minister also asked about.

The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire referenced enforcement and parliamentary scrutiny. The day-to-day enforcement of product safety legislation is largely local. For machinery in Northern Ireland, it would generally be undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland or by district councils, for workplace and consumer products respectively. However, the Secretary of State has enforcement powers under legislation, as the Office for Product Safety and Standards has an active enforcement role on behalf of the Secretary of State, particularly where issues are nationally significant, complex, novel, high risk or large scale. For example, the OPSS can intervene where a product risk affects consumers nationally or where co-ordinated enforcement action is needed across multiple agencies. I hope the right hon. Gentleman understands that enforcement will remain as it is under the current regime and that nothing will change; I hope that reassures him and answers his question.

When it comes to parliamentary scrutiny of CE recognition under the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025, we have consulted with stakeholders, and Northern Ireland provisions are done as part of the Windsor framework, which I touched on right at the start of my remarks. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the parliamentary process uses the affirmative procedure.

To conclude, we are using the PRAM Act powers, as I have mentioned, for CE recognition, which requires consultation with stakeholders. UKNI marking will only be used by a UK notified body; otherwise, it will be a CE mark only. We have heard that from businesses in Northern Ireland through that stakeholder engagement, and that is what they have told us.

As explained previously, this draft instrument ensures the effective enforcement of the EU machinery regulation in Northern Ireland. It maintains access to the GB market for compliant products and supports high safety standards while minimising unnecessary burdens on business. This draft instrument also ensures our compliance with international law in relation to Northern Ireland’s continuing dual access. I am pleased to commend this draft instrument to the Committee.

[Jim Allister]

Will the Minister address my question about what impact, if any, there is on GB-Northern Ireland sales?

[The Chair]

I am terribly sorry, but the Minister had already sat down.

Question put.

Steel Tariffs: Northern Ireland

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade to make a statement on steel tariffs in relation to Northern Ireland.

[The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)]

I hope you would agree, Mr Speaker, that I have always done my level best to come to the House first with any new announcements.

As I told the House last Thursday in written and oral statements, the Government’s new steel trade measure comes into force tomorrow, immediately succeeding the expiry of the steel safeguard, ensuring that there is no gap in protection for our domestic steel industry. The European Union has today also announced the details of its trade measure, which comes into force tomorrow. Since the announcement of its measure on 7 October last year, we have engaged extensively with the EU and agreed an approach that reflects the UK and the EU’s highly interconnected supply chains. This will provide stability for UK-EU steel trade from 1 July while we continue to work together to strengthen UK-EU steel trade for the longer term.

As Members would expect, our engagement has also covered the matter of Northern Ireland in some detail. This ensures that specific arrangements are and will be in place to facilitate the continued smooth movement of steel to Northern Ireland from Great Britain, guaranteeing that movements of steel within the UK market will not pay EU tariffs. These arrangements, which are aimed at comprehensively protecting the UK internal market, include the retention of the seven tariff-rate quotas—for categories 7, 8, 9, 13, 17, 25A and 28—and specific arrangements for other categories that will continue to mean that UK-origin steel can move tariff-free to Northern Ireland.

The arrangements will operate from tomorrow, 1 July, and taken together will serve to protect the operation of the UK internal market and flows of goods within it. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is now taking steps to confirm the arrangements with industry, including business representative organisations in Northern Ireland. The Government will continue to provide guidance and support to traders moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland through the trader support service, and we will work closely with the EU to ensure that these arrangements operate effectively in practice.

We are doing two things. First, we are protecting the UK internal market; secondly, we are giving UK steel production the protection it needs so that we have strong UK steel production that is able to meet at least 50% of the UK’s steel needs.

[Jim Allister]

I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the House. I have to say, there is an inherent absurdity, and indeed a constitutional offence, in having to come to the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom to ask whether there will be any tariff arrangements on moving steel from one part of the United Kingdom to another. Indeed, one recalls that last Thursday, the Minister said that he could not tell us because he had to await the EU decision, which underscores how absurd it is that these matters are governed by a foreign jurisdiction and not by ourselves.

I have three specific questions for the Minister. First, is there any quota differential in regard to any class of steel, and if so, in respect of which classes?

Secondly, will the EU’s new traceability rules, which it calls the “melt and pour” rules, be applied to steel being imported into Northern Ireland? If they are, they will impose an extra layer of bureaucracy, with form filling and certificates having to be obtained that are not required when steel is brought into Great Britain. Could we have clarity on that?

Thirdly, last Thursday the Minister said that 74% of steel imports to Great Britain will not be covered by the UK trade measure. Can the same be said of Northern Ireland? Is it the same level of exemption—if we want to call it that—in respect of Northern Ireland, given the import of the EU governance? I ask those questions because in Northern Ireland we do not make steel; we rely exclusively on importing it. Many businesses in Northern Ireland depend very much on steel imports, yet here they are facing a new regime tomorrow and only hearing about it today.

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry, but I think that the absurdity all lies with the hon. and learned Member. He seems to be trying to create a difference between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which we are striving in every way to prevent. We have made it absolutely clear that the existing—[Interruption.] If he chunters from his seat he will not be able to hear what I am saying; I might be able to enlighten him.

There are seven key categories that are most important to Northern Ireland. Category 7—steel plate—is important for shipbuilding and defence. Category 8—stainless, hot-rolled sheets and strips—is important for automotives. Category 9—stainless, cold-rolled sheets and strips—is also important for automotives. Category 13—rebar—is important for construction. Category 17—steel beams—is also important for construction. Category 25A—large tubes—is vital for the oil and gas industry. Category 28 —alloy wire—is important for fencing.

In all those categories, we have maintained the tariff-rate quotas. There is no difference. From the initial conversations I had with the European Union back in December last year, we have made it absolutely clear that we want to make sure that there is a single market between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that there is no border down the Irish sea.

All this shows the patent nonsense of having left the European Union. I know that the people of Northern Ireland agreed with me on that and disagreed with the hon. and learned Member. The truth is that we would not have to negotiate with the European Union on these matters if we were still a member, and there would not be any of these quota issues. It is true that there is a problem with overcapacity of steel around the world, but the UK is not the problem for the EU, and the EU is not the problem for the UK, so, frankly, we should come to a very sensible arrangement. That is what we have mostly managed to do so far, but we will continue to discuss it with the EU.

Seventy-three per cent of steel imports into the whole of the UK, which includes Northern Ireland, are completely excluded from the measure, and the tariffs only apply above the quota levels. For many categories, we have managed to create quota levels that are above existing trade flow levels, so I do not expect there to be problems in those. But in some areas we are deliberately trying to make sure that people use British steel, because Britain now produces only 4 million tonnes of steel. If we do not continue to make steel in this country, a significant problem will accrue to us into the future.

Steel Tariffs

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

The Government have done a very detailed assessment of the steels that are not made and could not be made in the UK. Unfortunately, because of how the categorisations are set, some steel grades are swept up in a tariff measure along with other steels that are made in the UK. The quotas are designed to deal with that, so this is really about getting the quota level right, and that is very much part of the discussion we are having today—but I do understand the problem.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

For Northern Ireland, there is both a key sovereignty question and a key economic question. Because of the iniquity of our being subject to EU law, we are already under EU tariffs when it comes to steel imports and quotas, paying 25% once we cross the quota. I have a simple question: can the Minister assure my steel importers that the writ of the United Kingdom will govern their imports, not the writ of the foreign EU?

[Chris McDonald]

The trade arrangements for Northern Ireland will be the same for steel as they are for anything else. I have already committed to meeting businesses in Northern Ireland, and if the hon. and learned Member has businesses in his constituency that would like to join that meeting, from my perspective they would be most welcome to join it.

Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is strikingly surreal to be debating a King’s Speech from a Government who are patently on their last legs. This is the King’s Speech of a Prime Minister who is working out his notice in Downing Street. It is equally surreal that after the biggest electoral trouncing that any Government have ever had, particularly in red wall seats, and in areas that voted strongly pro-Brexit, the Prime Minister thinks that the answer is more Europe. Dear help his wit, if that is his solution. Of course, that is also the solution of the wannabe Prime Ministers who are queuing up, bristling with European credentials—although I notice that Andy Burnham is feverishly trying to cover his Europhile tracks, because he thinks they might not go down too well in Makerfield. It is the height of folly for any Government who have been so trounced in an election in those areas to think that the answer is more Europe, but we are told that that answer will come in the European partnership Bill. I suspect that it will be a mere shell of a Bill, loaded with Henry VIII powers, so that as we increasingly align with the EU, this House will not even have the right to scrutinise those measures.

What does “dynamic alignment” mean? I can tell the House what it means, because I represent a part of the United Kingdom that, sadly, has continued to be dynamically aligned with the EU. It means that we become a supplicant rule taker. It means that we are subject to laws that we do not make and cannot change. It means that laws of absolute folly impose costs on our constituents. Let me give but one example. Northern Ireland is subject to the European vehicle type regulations. What does that mean? It means that buying a new car in Northern Ireland costs £4,000 more than it does in Great Britain, because it can be imported to and used in Northern Ireland only if it meets EU standards. That is what it is to be a supplicant rule taker in the United Kingdom.

[Ben Coleman]

The sanitary and phytosanitary rules, which are being discussing and negotiated with the European Union, will be implemented by the European partnership Bill. Does the hon. and learned Member not accept that that will give us a seat at the table, when it comes to developing food and drink standards? Does he not also take a certain amount of pleasure from the fact that the Bill will remove the food and drink trade barriers between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which arise from Northern Ireland’s effective membership of the European single market?

[Jim Allister]

I am sorry the hon. Member is so ill informed. Let us take the SPS deal. The Government are seeking an SPS deal not between the United Kingdom and the EU, but for GB and the EU. Why? Because, shamefully, in all SPS measures, the Government are going to leave Northern Ireland subject to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the EU. It would not be so bad if they were saying that they will have an SPS deal to take back sovereignty over SPS matters in Northern Ireland, but they do not even have the courage to say to the EU, “If we’re going to align, we’re going to make the laws for the whole United Kingdom.” They are prepared to continue to make Northern Ireland subject to the foreign jurisdiction of the EU.

What does that mean, and what will dynamic alignment mean for Great Britain as well as Northern Ireland? It will mean huge disfranchisement of the people of this United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, there are over 300 areas of law in which we do not make and cannot change the laws; they are made by a foreign Parliament. This Government are going to mirror that for the whole United Kingdom. That means that the people we represent cannot elect anyone to make those laws; they are disfranchised. Disfranchising is the very antithesis of democracy, yet it is the democratic price of dynamic alignment. What about the financial price? How much are this Government going to pay the EU to be a supplicant rule taker? It will be tens of millions of pounds, I am quite sure, but the Government have not wanted to tell us. That is the challenge: let them tell us how much it is going to cost financially.

I want to comment on one other Bill. The energy independence Bill will wilfully shut down our oil and gas industry. Only the deluded would want to produce a plan that will make us weaker, poorer and more dependent on others to meet our energy needs. Here we have a Government saying, “Let’s choose to leave billions in value under the sea, so we can squeeze our taxpayers for the money that is required to buy oil and gas from a foreign Government.” Where is the logic in that? It is the ultimate delusion, and it is because of such delusions that this Government are heading for the exit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

The right hon. Gentleman’s wife, and potentially he himself, will be pleased to know that those two things are entirely compatible. We will have to cancel absolutely nothing at all. The key point is that where it is in our national interest to align with EU regulation, the Bill will enable us to do so.

I want to address some specific points that were raised about Northern Ireland. The Government have worked closely with devolved Governments to design the Bill. The application of the agreements we are making alongside the Windsor framework will sweep away the majority of regulatory barriers for businesses moving agrifood goods.

[Jim Allister]

If the Minister is truly interested in sweeping away some of the barriers of the Irish sea border, in circumstances where sanitary and phytosanitary rules are being aligned, would the natural and proper constitutional move not be to take back control of the SPS system in Northern Ireland, instead of leaving it under the jurisdiction of the EU? If we are going to do a deal, let it be for the whole United Kingdom, so that the whole United Kingdom aligns, if that is what the Government think, instead of leaving Northern Ireland exclusively subject to the laws that the EU makes.

[Lucy Rigby]

As I said, the Government have worked closely with devolved Governments in the design of the Bill and we will continue to do that.

To conclude, the pro-growth legislation set out in the Gracious Speech will drive this country forwards. The Conservatives had 14 years to deliver their legacy, which left our economy weaker, left people poorer and, most of all, left our country smaller in stature. This Government are undoing that legacy and our pro-growth legislation will allow us to accelerate the change that the country deserves to see.

Our approach of a productive, active, agile state will ensure that we generate growth and lift living standards for people right across this country, not just for a few people and postcodes, but everywhere, because we value the contribution of the whole of Britain. The Bills in the King’s Speech are the path to a stronger and fairer future, and I commend the King’s Speech to the House.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Jake Richards.)

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I am happy to commit to updating the House as often as I possibly can in a way that is informative to the House. The hon. Lady is quite right, however, that I am slightly trying to manage people’s expectations about timeliness, partly because of the quantity of material and partly because there is a live police investigation and I do not want to jeopardise that.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will in a moment.

If there are things that are embarrassing to the Government, who cares? I want to make sure that we end up getting the proper justice that is necessary for the victims, and that means that we have to have a proper police procedure. If there are charges brought, that has to go through a judicial process as well and I do not want to undermine that. I am very happy, both privately and publicly, to update the House when I have anything possible to say.

I am trying to get to the end of my speech. People normally like it when I get to the end of my speech—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I have united the House, Mr Speaker, but I will give way to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister).

[Jim Allister]

I understand the concern about not treading upon the police investigation, but surely that investigation is about the conduct of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor in the role, whereas this Humble Address is about the appointment and the process of appointment. Is there not a distinction there, which means that this Humble Address of itself should not unduly impede any police investigation or be hindered by it?

[Chris Bryant]

If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not mind, I will quite happily explain to him outside the Chamber precisely why I disagree with him. Again, if I were to explain more fully in the Chamber, that might not be very helpful to either the police or the criminal process. I am happy to explain to him outside the Chamber and I think he might come back in and agree with me.

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

Given that ours was the first country in the history of the world to abolish slavery, the record of this House should remain that wherever we see slavery we will stamp it out. This is yet another way of doing that, so I urge the Minister to go off script and say that he will do this. It is morally right, it is economically right, and it is right for this House, and the people elected to it, to get this done.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Given that the Bill applies across this United Kingdom, one would naturally assume that it will bring a level playing field to this United Kingdom, and deliver parity and equality of opportunity for companies across the United Kingdom. These companies are all taxed on the same basis and pay into the same Treasury, so the reasonable expectation would be that if financial assistance is available and they qualify for it, they should be equally able to obtain it.

Sadly—although one would not know it from reading the Bill—that is not so, because the Bill is subject to a higher authority in respect of my constituency and the whole of Northern Ireland: sadly, we remain subject to EU state aid rules, which cap the delivery of that parity and equal opportunity for companies operating in my part of the United Kingdom.

The imposition of the EU’s state aid rules arises from article 10 of the protocol now called the Windsor framework, which the EU has accurately described in these terms:

“This means that EU State aid rules will continue to apply to the EU Member States, as well as to the United Kingdom in respect of aid that has an effect on the trade between Northern Ireland and the European Union that is subject to the Windsor Framework. It follows from other provisions of the Windsor Framework, and in particular its Articles 5 and 9, that trade in goods and wholesale electricity is subject to the Windsor Framework”.

Being subject to the Windsor framework means that, under article 10, we are subject not to the rules of this House on state aid but to the rules of a foreign jurisdiction, which makes rules and laws that we can neither unmake nor change. Therein lies the fundamental objection: though we are passing a Bill that rightly raises the thresholds of available assistance in Northern Ireland, this House is not sovereign in that regard. The Government can only grant that state aid to the level that the EU permits under its state aid rules.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. and learned Member accept that the situation is even worse than that? If goods that are subsidised or get state aid in GB have a tenuous connection with markets in Northern Ireland, the EU can again limit the amount of state aid given, disadvantaging some producers even here in GB.

[Jim Allister]

Yes, that is absolutely right. The Windsor framework is premised on an assumption of risk that goods from Northern Ireland will permeate the EU market, and therefore goods supplied from GB companies into Northern Ireland are also subject to that risk. If that risk is manifested, it would appear that those companies are also subject—or could be subject—to the same state aid restrictions.

We are supposed to be one sovereign United Kingdom, but the EU requires that businesses in Northern Ireland do not benefit from the same state aid to the extent that the goods in question might be sold into the EU. That inevitably puts businesses in my constituency, which pay the same taxes as businesses across the United Kingdom, at a distinct disadvantage compared with what in some cases might be competitors across GB in the production of goods.

In fact, it is even worse for Northern Ireland companies, particularly manufacturing companies. As part of the integrated United Kingdom market, those companies depend more often than not on their supplies and raw materials coming from GB, but that supply is now fettered by the Irish sea border. Those raw materials now have to pass through an international customs border with paperwork, declarations and, in some cases, tariffs, all of which add to the cost of business. Not only are businesses subject to the extra cost insisted upon through the Irish sea border, but they are now put in a position where they cannot have equal access to the state aid that might be available elsewhere. That is a fundamental inequity as it applies across this United Kingdom.

The situation is further compounded by the fact that if there is a dispute about whether something amounts to state aid or whether it infringes EU state aid rules, that is not decided by our courts, but by the European Court of Justice. Not only are we deprived within the supposedly sovereign United Kingdom of the right to grant equal state aid across this United Kingdom, but, if there is a question as to its validity, it is a foreign court that adjudicates upon that because of our subjection to EU law. It really is a double whammy in that regard.

Of course, the inevitable consequence is a chilling effect when it comes to Government considering whether to give state aid to Northern Ireland: they know that there could be a challenge from the EU and that that challenge could go to the European Court of Justice, with all the bother that entails. That chilling effect will therefore cause the Government to hold back from giving that aid. The loser, again, is businesses in Northern Ireland.

[Sammy Wilson]

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there is a further chilling effect? Namely, companies that might decide to invest in GB or in Northern Ireland may well feel that since they would be able to achieve less support in Northern Ireland than in GB, they will simply choose to invest outside Northern Ireland in GB, and jobs and investment opportunities will therefore be lost as a result of the picture he has painted.

[Jim Allister]

Of course. That is further compounded by the fact that if those companies did set up in Northern Ireland and were manufacturing businesses dependent on raw materials coming from GB, as most are, they would have to pass through an international customs border with extra costs as well. In Northern Ireland, they are being invited not only to set up in a place where state aid may be capped by a foreign jurisdiction, but to set up in a jurisdiction where the raw materials will, by virtue of the Irish sea border, cost them more.

The Minister will say, as he has said to me before, “Ah, but you have the advantage of dual market access.” No, we do not. We have the worst of all worlds in Northern Ireland. We have the worst of all worlds in the sense that our raw materials are hiked in price because of the Irish sea border, and we now have the reduction in available state aid—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is minded of the Bill that we are discussing and will soon get back to it.

[Jim Allister]

Indeed I will, but it was in fact during a debate on this Bill on a previous occasion that the Minister made the very point that I was seeking to answer.

It is those circumstances that caused me to move new clause 1, supported by right hon. and hon. colleagues. Going forward, it is right not just in the interests of transparency but in order to see just how level or unlevel our playing field is under this Bill for the whole United Kingdom that the Government should publish annually the levels of support given to each part. We are all here as constituency Members to jealously represent the interests of our constituents, and I want to know from this Government if my constituents and the businesses in my constituency are getting a fair crack of the whip. That is why, as set out in new clause 1, we should have a reporting mechanism to indicate that to us. I commend new clause 1 to the Committee. I also support the other amendments before the Committee.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). I stand to speak in support of new clause 1 in his name, which is supported by numerous people across the Opposition Benches.

New clause 1 is not radical or wrecking; it is actually very reasonable in what it asks, and should therefore be accepted. It seeks to ensure that when the House votes to increase financial assistance for industry and exports, the Government return within a year, and every year thereafter, and tell Parliament plainly how each part of the United Kingdom has benefited. That should not be controversial in any way, but it is sadly necessary, because Northern Ireland does not stand on equal ground.

The Bill lifts the cap on financial assistance under the Industrial Development Act 1982 and increases UK Export Finance’s statutory commitment limit. That is a good thing and it should, in theory, benefit every business across our country. However, under article 10 of the Windsor framework, EU state aid rules continue to apply in Northern Ireland, where support may affect trade in goods within the European Union. While the rest of the United Kingdom moves forward under one subsidy regime, Northern Ireland therefore operates under a different legal shadow.

The practical effect is hesitation—hesitation in Departments, hesitation in advice and hesitation in investment—because the final interpretation does not rest with the UK courts alone. That is not equality within the Union. We cannot view this in isolation from the wider damage that has already been inflicted on Northern Ireland by the protocol and the Windsor framework.

As I have said before in the House, the protocol and the Windsor framework are not a minor technical adjustment to trade, but a bureaucratic burden, a constitutional compromise and an economic noose around the businesses simply trading within our own internal market. We see that evidenced here in the Bill where it does not apply to Northern Ireland. The failure is not anecdotal; it is measurable, documented and deeply felt. The Federation of Small Businesses has reported that 58% of businesses in Northern Ireland face moderate to significant challenges because of those arrangements and that more than one third have stopped trading with Great Britain altogether to avoid the cost and complexity. Let the reality of that sink in. That is not frictionless trade or the best of both worlds; that is economic distortion inside our own country.

I have spoken about the businesses that have had essential goods delivered from Scotland, costing time and money. I have raised the case of used agricultural machinery being refused entry unless it meets EU standards, despite being road driven and clean. I have heard from retailers struggling to source ordinary goods from their main market in Great Britain because of paperwork and regulatory barriers that simply do not exist anywhere else in the United Kingdom. This is the lived reality of the Irish sea border.

We are told that all of this is necessary to protect the Belfast agreement, but it is not. The agreement is built on consent—the principle that Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom cannot change without consent of its people—yet our economic and legal position has been fundamentally altered without that consent. The agreement does not require an internal border within our sovereign state. It does not require that one part of the United Kingdom be subject to a distinct regulatory and subsidy regime, overseen in part by a foreign court, the European Court of Justice.

This Bill increases state support for British industry, but unless we confront the consequences of the Windsor framework honestly, Northern Ireland will potentially not benefit in step with England, Scotland and Wales. New clause 1 simply asks for transparency. If Northern Ireland is genuinely benefiting equally, let the Government publish the evidence annually. But if, once again, Northern Ireland is constrained while the rest of the United Kingdom moves freely, this House deserves to know just that.

Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Our businesses pay the same taxes, and they deserve the same support without qualification, hesitation or constraint. That is why I support new clause 1, along with my colleagues on these Benches, and I commend the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim for bringing it forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I cannot say anything more clearly than that I want to make sure that we in the UK are not reliant for our economic prosperity on the forced labour of others. We need to make that as comprehensive and effective as we possibly can. I know the two cases that the right hon. Member referred to, and I am happy to write to him, if he wants, in precise detail about those rather than to delay the House tonight. Funnily enough, the precise processes that we went through in the UK with UKEF in relation to those cases would have been met by the US legislation as well, which is arguably not as effective as it would like to be. I am as interested as he is in being effective in this space.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) gave an exceptionally good speech, I thought, on why we should not have left the European Union and why we should never have accepted the deal that was put on the table. I note that the people of Northern Ireland agreed with me and not with him on whether the UK should leave the European Union. I am afraid that—

[Jim Allister]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

If the hon. and learned Member will allow me, I will respond to the points that were made by him and the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart).

First of all, the requirements under new clause 1 are completely unnecessary because UKEF already reports annually, as required by legislation. All of that is cleared through the National Audit Office. It is all there, perfectly available for anybody to see. I got a sense that there was a suggestion that Northern Ireland was losing out because of the money from UKEF. It is quite the reverse. If either Member wants to go through what is already published in this sphere, they will see for themselves precisely how well Northern Ireland does—and, of course, it should do.

The whole point of the two Acts that we are referring to today is that they should be able to enable—[Interruption.] I will give way to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), if he could just hold his horses for a very brief moment.

I have two further points. First, UKEF has offices across the whole of the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. I think there is a misunderstanding here. Some people seem to suggest that what happens is that the Government say, “Give money to that business over there.” That is not what happens. This is a demand-led process, where UKEF is able to respond to the demand that arises. We need to make sure that that is spread across the whole of the United Kingdom, and that is what we intend to do.

UK-India Free Trade Agreement

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

May I thank the officials who have been working with the Minister on this trade deal? I am sure he will not mind me doing so. These trade deals are difficult, and they take a while to come to fruition. I would also like to acknowledge the reduction on whisky duty—although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) rightly highlighted, that has to be matched by domestic policy towards the whisky industry. That being said, I know that distilleries such as Arbikie in my constituency, which trade globally, will be absolutely delighted with that measure. It would be helpful, as we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench, to know more about some of the safeguards that have been put in place in relation to food and drink; the Minister has mentioned some, and I hope he will mention a little more later on.

This is exactly the kind of deal that we were told only Brexit Britain could deliver—that only if the UK left the European Union would we be able to deliver these kinds of deals. Except that the EU has gone and done exactly the same. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that all that stuff about Brexit Britain was absolute nonsense, and that the EU has been able to do exactly the same!

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Gethins]

It would be remiss of me not to give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

[Jim Allister]

What the hon. Member has not mentioned is that it took the EU 20 years to get a deal with India. It took the United Kingdom three.

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) says that I have not mentioned that, but I had just started. Of course, he represents a part of the United Kingdom that we have all been told gets the best of both worlds by being in the single market and the customs union. Imagine: the best of both worlds, as we have been told by Conservative and Labour Members!

On that point, will the Minister tell the House why the EU has been able to remove more tariffs on its EU goods? There is also—I wonder whether he will talk about this—a stronger commitment on climate sustainability as well as trading, including elements dealing with climate change. Of course, on bilateral income, although the EU is a bigger market and therefore the figures will be bigger, we know that the percentage for EU savings is also higher. I know that the Minister used to be a European enthusiast, although since he has gone into government that has dissipated somewhat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The Minister was one of the most ardent remainers that this House produced, yet he is proposing a trade deal that would not have been possible if he had had his way; I am sure the irony is not lost on him. It is only because of Brexit that it is possible for the United Kingdom to reach trade deals with countries across the world.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

The EU just signed one!

[Jim Allister]

I will deal with the fact that the EU just signed one.

As I said in an intervention, I was a Member of the European Parliament when Peter Mandelson was a Trade Minister, and I well remember him trumpeting the fact that the EU was going to negotiate a trade deal with India. That was in 2007. It took the EU until 2026 to cobble together a trade deal, such is the pace at which it proceeds. The post-Brexit United Kingdom has been able to reach this deal since 2022, so although EU fantasists seek to draw a parallel, what they say does not stack up.

[Stephen Gethins]

If Brexit has been so great, why on earth has nobody else followed the UK out the door?

[Jim Allister]

I suspect that one of the reasons is that the EU made the process a punishment beating of the United Kingdom, in respect of Northern Ireland, so that any other country that was thinking of daring to assert its sovereignty would be frightened out of it. I will return to the impact of this deal on Northern Ireland in a minute.

It is good to see the tariffs fall. Across the board, tariffs on UK products going to India will generally fall from 15% to 3%. However, I have a question for the Minister. From what I read in this deal, it seems that once the deal is confirmed, there will be an immediate, uninhibited flow of Indian goods that come under the deal into the United Kingdom, but it seems that the reciprocal movement of goods will be on a progressive basis, rather than immediate. Perhaps the Minister will explain to the House why that is. Why do the Indians get immediate access, but we get truncated and delayed access? We would all be interested to hear that.

I note that the deal reduces the horrendous tariffs on whiskey, but they are still at a very high level of 75%. I have Bushmills in my constituency, which provokes my interest in this issue. It provides good jobs. Ultimately, we are told, over 10 years, the tariff might reduce to 40%, but that is still a whopping tariff, though, yes, it is much better than 150%.

I want some clarification from the Minister on a point relating to vehicles. A portion of this agreement deals with access to the Indian market for United Kingdom vehicles, but that access is capped. May I ask explicitly if that includes buses, or is it just cars? It is very important that it includes buses, because in my constituency we have Wrightbus, which produces quality buses, and we also have buses produced in Falkirk in Scotland, and elsewhere. It is important that there is access across the vehicular market, that it includes buses, and that it is not unreasonably capped. Perhaps the Minister can explain the why of the cap.

I come now to the absurdity of the implementation of this deal, the Windsor framework and the protocol that afflicts Northern Ireland. Under the Windsor framework, we in Northern Ireland are left under the EU’s customs union. That means that any imports from India come to Northern Ireland subject not to the tariffs set forth in this deal, but to EU tariffs. Our exports, such as Bushmills whiskey, go out under the deal, but imports are blocked from having whatever tariff applies for the rest of the United Kingdom. We are subject to the EU tariffs; that is a common feature across all the deals that have been done and will be done.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Maybe the hon. and learned Member can enlighten me. A provision like that had to be introduced to keep the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland friction-free. Would not removing the Windsor framework impose a hard border between the two nations?

[Jim Allister]

No, it most certainly would not. In modern times, there is abundant opportunity to develop a scheme, with the assistance of modern technology, that would allow for mutual enforcement when it comes to something as fundamental as international trade.

If a company in my constituency wants to sell buses to Germany—I will stick with buses—it must make them to the standards of the German customer. If a German company wants to sell buses to the United Kingdom, it must make them to the standards of the United Kingdom. That is the fundamental starting point for trade. We create a circumstance wherein each country enforces the standards of the other, and we thereby protect the market of the other. To underwrite that, we introduce a criminal sanction saying that if any company in the United Kingdom breaches those rules, there is criminal liability, and we will look for reciprocal arrangements. That is the essence of mutual enforcement. That would work, but instead, we have sacrificed sovereignty over part of our country to a foreign jurisdiction, namely, the EU. We have said to it, “We will subject all our economy to your rules, which we do not make and cannot change,” and we did that utterly unnecessarily.

The real bite of unfairness in that is that many companies in Northern Ireland do not trade outside the United Kingdom—many do not even trade outside Northern Ireland—but they are caught by the same rules as if they did. They must make and market their goods as dictated by the foreign jurisdiction. They need none of the protections necessary for the EU single market, but they face the imposition of unnecessary restrictions.

The issue really reduces to this: are we a United Kingdom? If we are a United Kingdom, the laws of this nation should be made by this United Kingdom, not by a foreign jurisdiction, which imposes on my constituents in 300 areas of law. These are laws that we do not make and cannot change. We are a supplicant rule taker. That is so fundamentally wrong. The Minister will give me—and has given me before—a rather trite response: “Oh, that is all because of Brexit!” Sorry, but it is not. It is because we in Northern Ireland did not get Brexit; the Windsor framework denied us Brexit. It kept us in the EU’s customs union and single market, whereas the rest of the United Kingdom escaped. That is why we have this absurd situation where we do not get the full benefit of these trade deals. As a representative of my constituency, I ask other Members of this House: why are my constituents less important or entitled in these matters than those of every other Member from Great Britain?

We then have some in this House, such as the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins), who want us all to rejoin the customs union so that we cannot make trade deals, whether with India or any country. We could then have only the deals that someone else makes for us—it is such absurdity. Those are the fundamental issues that I would like to see addressed.

As for getting the best of both worlds, that is a fantasy for Northern Ireland, and there is a very simple reason why. We might have access to the EU market—as GB does through its trade deal with the EU—but we forget that to bring all our goods and raw materials from our main market in GB, they have to pass through an international customs border, with paperwork, checks and extra costs.

[Stephen Gethins]

That is Brexit’s fault.

[Jim Allister]

It is not Brexit but the Windsor framework. We did not have a Brexit, and that is what causes the Irish sea border. There is this fantasy that Northern Ireland is in some special position, but we have the worst of all worlds. Although we were told that, under the Windsor framework, we would become the Singapore of the west, not one extra job has been created by foreign direct investment, which proves what a fantasy it is. The reason it is a fantasy is that no company will set up on the basis that they could sell into the EU—as they can from GB—and forget about the fact that the raw materials will be subject to an international border and the associated extra costs, which more than cancels it out. I have probably tested your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will leave it there.

Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 General Committees

The following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(2):

[Allister, Jim (North Antrim) (TUV)]

[Lockhart, Carla (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

This is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is one of those parts of the United Kingdom that, far in excess of elsewhere, depends on maritime transport for its economic survival. The Scottish islands is another, and there arises the first glaring unfairness of this proposal. As ferries are their critical economic infrastructure, the Scottish islands will rightly be exempt, but Northern Ireland, which equally relies on its ferries as its essential economic infrastructure, will not be exempt. Where is the fairness? Where is the justification for that? I respectfully suggest that there is not and cannot be any.

When one puts upon the essential economic infra- structure —namely, maritime transport—this additional tax burden, the inevitable result is that Northern Ireland consumers will pay for this carbon tax. My constituents will have this extra levy passed on to them via their goods, which have already been made more expensive by the iniquity of the Irish sea border and the costs of checks. On top of that, they now have this maritime carbon tax. That point cries out so forcefully about the patent and inherent unfairness of the measure that, if the Government cared about the whole United Kingdom, they would not just listen to it, but act on it. Sadly, I fear they will not, as they took the convenient approach of slipping the ETS into the Finance Bill. Instead of separate legislation that we could have debated and drilled into in the House, we get an unamendable regulation slipped through this Committee. It is part of the Government’s indifference to what they are doing to a part of their own United Kingdom.

Let us never forget that maritime transport is already the most carbon-efficient mode of mass freight transport. Our domestic maritime emissions are 1% of total UK emissions, and yet we will selectively—in particular in respect of Northern Ireland—put this extra cost on the consumers of Northern Ireland. We will also do that in a context where the maritime operators have no alternative: “Six months, get your house in order”—how do they do it?

Net zero fuel is four to five times more expensive. Shoreside electricity infrastructure just does not exist, and will not exist within six months. There is no support whatever for the transition. The coffers of Government will be expanded by this carbon tax, but will they spend that money by putting it back into the sector? No, they will greedily hold on to it, and force the sector and thus the consumers to pay for the carbon tax, with all that it means.

I mentioned the Scottish islands. I represent a constituency that also includes an inhabited island, Rathlin island. As for the Isle of Wight East, there is no concession for Rathlin island. Why are my constituents who live in Rathlin island less important to this Government than those who live in the Scottish islands?

[Andrew Bowie]

No votes.

[Jim Allister]

No votes—probably. That is probably the same answer in respect of the whole of Northern Ireland. When the Minister gets a chance to listen, I say to him: I do not accept lesser service for my constituents than he obtains for his or any other Member of this House. If we are a United Kingdom, then we need to be a United Kingdom of equals, not with those who are taxed while others are not, and not with consumers who pay more while others do not—but that is the product of what this Government are doing to Northern Ireland and the Rathlin islanders as well.

It is not enough for the impact assessment to recognise that consumers in Northern Ireland are more exposed—but if they are, what will the Government do about it? The impact assessment recognises that Northern Ireland consumers are more exposed, but the Government turn their face away and will not do anything about it. That is neither tenable nor tolerable.

Furthermore, the Government say, “You must do this in six months.” What planet of unreality are they living on? They like to ape so much of what the EU does, but even the EU with its ETS has a three-year transition. Indeed, the EU is also reviewing what it is doing. Impossibly, however, we are saying to the maritime sector in the United Kingdom, “You have five months to get this sorted out, and then your consumers start to pay for our indulgence and for our self-congratulation that we are dealing with carbon emissions.” That is not an acceptable way to go. Because there is no investment and no transition, it is inescapable that this is but a tax, a carbon tax on my constituents, on the people of Northern Ireland, on the people of Rathlin island and on all those who have not been given the equality of treatment of exemption that has been accorded to others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Perhaps we can go through some of the assessments of the impact of cost inflation in more detail when we meet. Our modelling shows that that could largely be eaten up by normal inflation and normal operating practices, but there are decisions there for the operators to take into account. The hon. Gentleman made some pertinent points about the operators, and we can discuss those in more detail. He also mentioned international shipping through the Solent. Clearly, international shipping is not covered currently by this measure, but it is covered in the EU ETS.

Finally, I come to the points raised by the right hon. Member for East Antrim and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim might be surprised to know that there are actually quite a number of things on which we agree, and one of them, for certain, is that the United Kingdom must be the United Kingdom of equals. I am quite clear about that.

I wanted to clear up a couple of points about the situation with Northern Ireland. The 50% reduction that applies to Northern Ireland is there to create parity between vessels that operate between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and those that operate between Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. If we had not offered the 50% reduction, Northern Ireland would be disadvantaged in that way, and I want to be clear about why that is.

[Jim Allister]

The Minister is telling the Committee that parity with the Republic of Ireland is more important to him than parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. Really?

[Chris McDonald]

That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that it was important to us that Northern Ireland was not in any way disadvantaged, which is why the 50% reduction was offered. The hon. and learned Member mentioned Rathlin island in his constituency; I remind him of the 5,000 gross tonnage limit and how that applies.

The hon. and learned Member, the right hon. Member for East Antrim and the shadow Minister all made a general point about the cost associated with the changes. There is a cost to not tackling climate change. If operators of vessels were spilling oil into the Solent or the Irish sea, then I am quite sure that the hon. and right hon. Members’ constituents would be clamouring for the Government to introduce regulations to do something about it. The fact that this pollution is not observable to the naked eye does not make it any less important to tackle it. These environmental regulations—and the Government’s policy on net zero—are about tackling that pollution and providing a stable and predictable regime so that industry can invest.

Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 General Committees

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I will make some general points and then ask a Northern Ireland-specific question of the Minister. I really am amazed that in a debate where the starting point is that free allowances are to be removed, there is any serious dispute about the contention that an inevitable consequence of that is a rise in cost. One inevitably follows the other. If we take away something that is free to business and impose a charge, inevitably there will be something to pass on, which will be passed on to consumers. Indeed, the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) referred to paragraph 18.8 of the impact assessment, trying to make something out of the fact that the word “can” is used in the context of price increases, but he did not read on, because it continues—

“enabling substantial price pass-through.”

To whom? To the consumers.

What is abundantly clear is that, in liquidating the free allowances, the Government are saying—although it is sure to be hidden in verbosity, the impenetrable wording of this document—is that, de facto, the costs are going to be passed to the consumer. We all know, as has been said already in this debate, that means that businesses will not be able to continue in many cases, or in some cases might move abroad—all the consequences that could flow from that. It is retrograde, not progressive in any sense.

My next point is that within the draft order, it seems to me—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the ultimate destination is to attach ourselves to the EU benchmark without knowing what the EU benchmark will be, without ever being able to have an influence on what it should be. We are signing a blank cheque in pursuit of realignment with the EU, whereby it is the EU benchmark that will in future dictate what the levels are. That seems to me to be the height of madness.

I come now to my Northern Ireland-specific question. I assume I am right in thinking that emissions trading applies generally and therefore obviously includes electricity. If that is right, considering that Northern Ireland is, sadly, in a different emissions trading scheme in regard to electricity, how will the regulations apply, if at all, to electricity in Northern Ireland? Will the Minister please explain that? What are the consequences if the draft order does not apply, or if it does apply to a region whose electricity production is under a different ET scheme? That is a practical question. I would like to get a clear answer from the Minister, because frankly nothing is clear about the 104 pages of impenetrable prose that goes with the attempt to push this order on the British people.

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was there first, and then I will take an intervention from the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister).

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Member is absolutely right that the vast majority of the companies we will be talking about are SMEs—88% of the companies that benefit from UK Export Finance are SMEs. We are bringing forward this Bill because we are getting to the limit of what is allowed under current legislation and we need to expand that. I have specifically spoken to UK Export Finance about looking at new ways to support SMEs. The retail banking sector in the UK also sometimes needs to understand better how it can support small and medium-sized enterprises to export around the world. One of the things that I have been trying in my own small way is to do a supermarket sweep when I have been abroad for trade missions: to see whether Rose’s lime marmalade, Walker’s biscuits, Marmite, Irn-Bru or Penderyn whisky—or whatever it may be—is available around the world. The more we can encourage businesses to export, the more likely they are to prosper.

One of the advantages in Northern Ireland in particular is that, because of the Windsor framework, it has an opportunity to enter into an EU market much more readily than elsewhere. One of the sadnesses of Brexit is that 16,000 fewer businesses in the UK now export, and that is largely because they have given up on Europe. That is one of the things I radically want to change.

[Jim Allister]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I can see the hon. and learned Gentleman is practically pregnant with a question.

[Jim Allister]

It is always good to hear about a rise in the availability of financial assistance to industry. In the context of Northern Ireland, the Minister has referred to the Windsor framework. One of its drawbacks is that Northern Ireland is subject to EU state aid rules. In my constituency, I have a large bus manufacturer that sells buses to Germany. Can I seek an assurance from the Minister that that company, for example, will not be disadvantaged by the cap in state aid rules in comparison with a competitor bus manufacturer in another part of the United Kingdom where there is not a state aid limitation?

[Chris Bryant]

This is one of the problems with Brexit, isn’t it? It has provided a variety of different sets of rules for different parts of the United Kingdom, and that was always one of its inherent problems. Northern Ireland voted against Brexit, and we are now trying to make it work as best we can. The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course there are going to be problems under state aid rules for some businesses in Northern Ireland. That is why we are trying to do two things at the same time: to ensure that the Windsor framework is adhered to, but also ensure that we have a single UK internal market.

The Bill is short—it just manages to get on to a second page—but it does some important things. First, it increases the Industrial Development Act limit on financial assistance from £12 billion to £20 billion. Secondly, it raises the amount that the Secretary of State may increase the limit by from £1 billion to £1.5 billion. That is something he can do four times under the 1982 Act. Thirdly, the Bill amends the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991 to increase the commitment level from roughly £84 billion to £160 billion. Fourthly, the Bill allows the limit to be increased by increments of up to £15 billion by secondary legislation. Finally—this is perhaps the single most important and most useful thing to the ordinary punter out there—it changes the 1991 Act so that the limit is expressed in pounds sterling. In other words, it will be in common parlance, rather than referring to special drawing rights, which I think has confused an awful lot of people for a long time.

I will give just a few examples of why all of this matters. Some £14.5 billion of UK Export Finance support last year was used to support 70,000 jobs, adding £5.4 billion to GDP in the UK, including across several key industrial sectors such as clean energy, advanced manufacturing, life sciences and automotive.