Goods Trading: Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered goods trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. Trade within any nation should be so simple and uncomplicated that it ought not to be a focus of much debate. And so it was within this United Kingdom until some time ago. One of the founding principles of this United Kingdom, as set forth in the Acts of Union, is that all parts of the United Kingdom should be on an equal footing when it comes to trade. That, of course, would manifest itself in utterly unfettered trade among and within all parts of the United Kingdom.

But then, sadly, along came the Windsor framework, previously called the protocol, which upended that equilibrium. That happened because the Windsor framework treats Northern Ireland alone within the United Kingdom as subject to the EU’s customs union. As a consequence, the EU’s customs union requires Great Britain, the other part of this United Kingdom, to be treated and regarded in trade terms as a third or foreign country, and from that flows the iniquitous Irish sea border—a full international customs, sanitary and phytosanitary and trade border—which is truncating and partitioning this United Kingdom.

In consequence of the Irish sea border, we have checks and customs declarations on goods travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland—a part of this United Kingdom whose economy was historically very integrated with Great Britain, which is where our raw materials came from, and to where we sold most of our goods. To impose upon such an integrated economy an international customs border was inevitably going to grossly and disadvantageously affect trade, and so it did.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It may seem of little consequence to say that there is a customs border, but in practical terms, does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it means that when goods are brought from GB, they are subject to full customs checks and customs codes have to be filled in? If Laird Grass Machinery in my constituency wants to bring a tractor in, about 15 items in the tractor have to have separate customs codes. Filling in the paperwork to bring in one piece of machinery can sometimes take an hour.

[Jim Allister]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. All our constituents in Northern Ireland who are in the business of trading goods have had many very daunting experiences in that regard.

Of course, the Minister will probably tell us, “Oh, but the Windsor framework established the UK internal market system.” What a fraudulent name. An internal market is customs-free, yet under the UK internal market, previously called the green lane, customs declarations still have to be made. People make customs declarations when they are travelling from one single market to another. They have to be in a trusted trader scheme, to which they have to pay to belong. They have to undergo checks on 5% to 8% of all goods passing through, and in some circumstances, they have to pay duties—truncating and utterly upending the idea of free trade as it should operate within any national internal market.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. and learned Gentleman on introducing the debate. One of the greatest issues we all face is the crisis in the supply of veterinary medicines following Brexit. They continue to be subject to additional EU regulatory requirements, and farmers continue to face potentially serious consequences for animal welfare and the responsible management of antimicrobial resistance. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman therefore agree that Northern Ireland cannot continue to be economically cut off under the regulatory burdens placed on farmers and vets? Those burdens must be reduced.

[Jim Allister]

I think all that is self-evident, but sadly, we have a Government who are deaf to those issues, and sadly, the hon. Member’s party seems to have come to terms with them, because in Stormont, the DUP is now prepared to implement the Irish sea border and the Windsor framework, but let me be very clear: the integrity of our single market has been utterly destroyed.

Among the practical consequences of that are unimaginable levels of trade diversion. We were once a wholly integrated part of the United Kingdom. Once barriers are erected, trade is discouraged. Various surveys show that that has happened. From the Federation of Small Businesses survey, we know that 34% of GB companies that used to trade with Northern Ireland have ceased trading. Why? Because this paperwork and this checking is such a disincentive that it is not worth the bother.

This week, I received figures from the Department for Transport that I find quite astounding, and they make the point with great clarity of what it means to have had trade diversion. According to the Department for Transport, in 2022, 8.6 million tonnes of goods were distributed in Northern Ireland by GB-registered vehicles—in other words, GB haulage companies bringing goods into Northern Ireland. Last year, that figure fell to a staggering 2.2 million tonnes. In just four years, there has been a fall of 75% in the quantum of goods coming from GB to Northern Ireland by GB-registered vehicles.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. and learned Member for securing the debate. Would he agree that the very fact that businesses face customs processes, extra paperwork and EU-derived rules when moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland proves that the Irish sea border is still very much in place? Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and goods moving from one part of our country to another should not be treated as though they are crossing an international frontier. Is it not time that the Government restored Northern Ireland fully to the United Kingdom’s internal market, instead of pushing us towards an economically united Ireland?

[Jim Allister]

I absolutely agree. The hon. Member makes a valid point. Some might say, “Well, what does trade diversion matter? As long as you get the goods, does it matter where they have come from?” Of course, the corollary of trade diversion is what it is doing to our economic links. It is consciously and deliberately building an all-island economy. In place of Northern Ireland being a fully integrated part of the UK economy, the whole idea of trade diversion—indeed, the whole idea of the protocol and the Windsor framework—was to build the stepping stone to an all-island economy, to step us out of the United Kingdom. And that is what is happening.

When the Windsor framework was introduced, it contained article 16. It promised that if there were any trade diversion, the Government would step in and sort it out with the EU. There is lamentable and demonstrable trade diversion, but the Government are blind and deaf to the issue, refusing to act. The challenge to the Minister is this: why, in the face of demonstrable trade diversion, is that other part of the Windsor framework—article 16—not being implemented?

[Sammy Wilson]

There are not many MPs here from other parts of the United Kingdom, but I find it even more staggering because that trade diversion has impacts on constituencies of MPs across Great Britain. If goods are being brought from the Irish Republic or other parts of Europe, that means jobs lost in GB, from suppliers that would normally have been selling goods in Northern Ireland.

[Jim Allister]

Of course. The fact that 34% of businesses—many of them small—that previously serviced and supplied Northern Ireland have ceased, is obviously having a detrimental employment consequence for those firms in GB. It is not just big or small firms that are suffering but ordinary consumers.

One of the most striking illustrations of that, particularly pertinent to this House, is that items purchased online from our own House of Commons shop cannot be delivered to Northern Ireland. It cannot supply to Northern Ireland because of the EU’s general product safety regulations. It is impossible to order a packet of House of Commons fudge, a leather folder, a candle, a keyring or a Christmas bauble—not even this bookmark I have here. Who would have thought that the EU single market was so delicate that it could not withstand the import into Northern Ireland of a bookmark? How preposterous and ridiculous is it that we have got to that point?

I suspect that the Minister, in trying to excuse and wave this away, will tell us that we have the wonderful advantage of dual market access. What a fraud and con. Dual market access has amounted to nothing for Northern Ireland. We were told that dual market access would make Northern Ireland the Singapore of the west. Strange then, that in all the years of the Windsor framework there has not been a single incidence of foreign direct investment because of dual market access.

That is for one very good reason. If a manufacturer coming to Northern Ireland is told it is wonderful that they can sell to GB and to the EU, they should ask where they are to get their raw materials. If they are told they should get their raw materials from Great Britain, they would have to pass through an international customs border. They might have to pay duties and do all the paperwork. Suddenly, the attraction of setting up in Northern Ireland as foreign direct investment disappears very fast.

Any perceived advantage of dual market access is cancelled out by the Irish sea border itself. Many the Minister will tell us that the Government will do an SPS deal, which will solve many of these problems. Will it? The SPS deal is not a United Kingdom-EU deal; it is a GB-EU deal, leaving Northern Ireland utterly, totally, irreversibly under EU rules pertaining to everything of the nature of SPS. The SPS-GB deal means that, in addition to Northern Ireland being disenfranchised by being allowed to make the laws that flow under SPS, the whole United Kingdom is to be disenfranchised and Great Britain is to join us, unable to make laws about her own SPS arrangements. It is no silver bullet whatsoever.

We might be told, as we are often foolishly told, “Oh, but it’s about protecting the Belfast agreement.” It has absolutely nothing to do with the Belfast agreement. Indeed, if it had anything to do with it, it is in this context: the Belfast agreement created a scenario where cross-community consent was supposed to be the barometer for everything, yet when it came to the Windsor framework being imposed on and extended to Northern Ireland, the one thing in the Belfast agreement that was liquidated was cross-community consent. That was taken out so that the protocol could be extended, knowing that it did not and would not have cross-community consent. The Windsor framework makes a nonsense of the Belfast agreement argument by trashing the very core of it—namely, by removing cross-community consent.

I come back to where I started. If we are a United Kingdom, why oh why are we denying to my part of the United Kingdom and that of my colleagues the most fundamental tenet of being a United Kingdom—namely, unfettered trade between and within all parts of the United Kingdom? It does not have to be like this. We could deal with the border issues with the EU through mutual enforcement—in other words, something relatively simple. It is a hallmark of international trade that if you are making goods for a foreign country, you make them to their standards and vice versa. That is the essence of mutual enforcement, with criminal sanction so that there is liability if that is not done. That is what protects each other’s markets.

We do not need all this paraphernalia of the Windsor framework. Indeed, if it had anything but the political purpose that lies behind it, we would not have all this paraphernalia. We are in the appalling situation where local businesses, particularly those that depend on GB-Northern Ireland trade, have no help from the Government and are having to set up their own Intertrade UK business association to try to highlight these issues. I am grateful for the work they have done and the statistics they have provided; thankfully, at least they are trying to look after our interests, in sharp contrast to this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

Far from trying to ignore issues, I am trying to explain that it is quite a complex situation. I have already acknowledged that there are concerns in particular sectors and with particular companies, but as I have said, I think it is important to take a more balanced approach. Overall, in my view and the Government’s view, and according to the economic numbers that I have presented, the Windsor framework is in fact having a net positive effect on the economy in Northern Ireland.

For example, the company Evri has invested in Northern Ireland being home to the new EU gateway. In Lisburn, PRM Group, which is a major chilled and frozen food distributor, has said that this influenced its investment decision, as well as the growth of its business. Businesses in other sectors, from medical devices to advanced manufacturing and consumer goods, have made a similar call.

I recognise that if businesses and consumers are to benefit from the Windsor framework, they must have access to clear advice and guidance. In our response to Lord Murphy’s review, the Government committed to strengthen our offer, and we are taking action in that regard. We are building on the comprehensive support available through the free trader support service beyond 2026, and work is under way to progress the £16.6 million regulatory support service, which will provide clear and targeted support to help businesses to trade across the UK and EU markets and to benefit from Northern Ireland’s unique dual market access. I am personally grateful to businesses and civic stakeholders for their engagement on this project as we design and build the new service.

[Jim Allister]

The Minister will know, because I dealt with it at some length, about the issue of diversion of trade, which is illustrated by the fact that there has been a 75% fall in the tonnage of goods supplied by GB-registered vehicles into Northern Ireland. Does he accept that there is diversion of trade? If he does, when will the Government activate article 16 of the Windsor framework, which is supposed to be a protection against it?

Health Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

I know that many hon. Members want to talk about the provisions in the Bill covering many important issues. I will therefore speak briefly about two Government amendments relating to medical device licensing and information sharing.

I will first address new clause 94 regarding medical devices licensing, and consequential amendments new clauses 99 to 101 regarding medical devices disclosure. These amendments are about ensuring that Great Britain’s medical devices regulatory framework remains fit for the future. As we know, medical technology is evolving rapidly, particularly in areas such as software and artificial intelligence, while our current framework was designed for a very different technological landscape. This set of amendments establishes the statutory foundation for a future medical device licensing regime, applying to Great Britain only. EU medical devices legislation will continue to apply in Northern Ireland.

Such a regime would require medical devices to be licensed and certain persons operating within the supply chain to hold a licence. By placing the detail in the regulations, the amendment allows us to work with patients, healthcare professionals and the medical device sector to create a regulatory framework that protects patients, supports innovation and strengthens the UK’s life sciences sector.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

In the aftermath of the Windsor framework and the damage done to intra-UK trade, section 45B of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 was passed, which was said to promise that there would be no further export procedures that could impact adversely on trade from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. Yet, in new clause 94, we have such constraints in the imposition of a licensing programme, whereby to bring—I will not say “export”, as it is an internal market—a medical device from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, a licence is needed by the recipient. How is that compatible with section 45B of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act?

Pathways Study: Puberty Suppression

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

This trial has been paused since earlier this year while the MHRA worked to strengthen the safeguards. Those stronger safeguards are now in place, which gives greater protection to young people who are involved in this trial. As I mentioned in my remarks earlier, one of my responsibilities as Health Secretary is to interrogate the detail to ensure that safeguards are adequate. I take that responsibility particularly seriously when it involves children and young people, and that is to ensure that we have the highest possible safeguards against harm of anyone involved in this trial.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The Health Secretary told us that his bottom line was to protect children, but he also conceded that puberty blockers can affect adversely bone density and brain development, so why is he taking the risk? Our 11-year-olds are not guinea pigs; they are children entitled to grow up without state-sponsored harm. Surely that should be the starting point.

[James Murray]

The reason for having this trial is to establish whether there are in fact benefits to this treatment for some children and young people as well as what the risks of harm are. I believe it is right, on balance, to proceed with this clinical trial to get clinical evidence on the basis of having the highest possible protections against a greater risk of harm to children and young people involved in this trial.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

It is welcome that my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour has raised this matter in the Chamber, drawing it to the attention of many Members on both sides of the House. I do not want to speak on behalf of my fellow Minister, but I am getting a nod from her—we will be happy to pick this up with my hon. Friend in future.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Points of order come after statements.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

rose—

[Mrs Hodgson]

I have always wanted to give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

--- Later in debate ---

Lords amendments 49 and 50 provide additional powers to allow for the regulation of technology in vapes. This responds to the emergence of concerning examples of technology being used to make vapes more enticing to young people, including puff leaderboards and rewards linked to increased usage. Lords amendment 80 places a requirement on the Secretary of State to review the operation of the Act within four to seven years of Royal Assent, and to lay a report before Parliament setting out the conclusions of the review.

[Jim Allister]

On the review of the Bill, can the Government give an absolute guarantee that all its parts will apply to the whole United Kingdom, and particularly Northern Ireland? We are still, alas, subject to the EU’s tobacco directive, which many believe conflicts with a key part of the Bill. If that aspect of the Bill is overturned in Northern Ireland, will the Government commit to legislating to ensure that it does apply across the whole UK?

[Mrs Hodgson]

We are content that the measures in the Bill, which are intended to apply to Northern Ireland, are compatible with the obligations under the Windsor framework. I hope that answers the hon. and learned Gentleman’s concern.

We hope that the review will be a clear demonstration of the Government’s commitment to monitoring progress against our smokefree ambition. Finally, Lords amendments 5, 8, 36, 41, 60 and 61, 63 to 76, 79, and 81 to 88 are technical amendments, some of which are consequential to the commencement of several other Acts. They also improve consistency in drafting across the Bill.

I encourage all Members to support all the amendments. These are meaningful changes that strengthen the Bill and respond to concerns raised by Members across the House and in the other place. The Government amendments tabled today will return to the other place for consideration, and I look forward to their timely agreement, and to the Bill completing its final stages.

--- Later in debate ---

We support this Bill. It has been through its iterations and has had legislative consent motions from the last Assembly and this one, too. It has received support from all parties—even from Members of the Legislative Assembly who support this Bill there, while their MPs in this place were opposing it.

[Jim Allister]

Name them.

[Robin Swann]

Well, it was Democratic Unionist party MPs who were prepared to oppose the Bill in this House while their MLAs supported it back in the Northern Ireland Assembly. That was a strange mixture, but that is where we are and that is where they are at this minute. I am assured that DUP MLAs support this legislation applying equally to Northern Ireland, and I think that was part of the debate in the other place with their peers. I finish by seeking reassurances from the Minister about the application of this Bill, because it is a good piece of legislation.

Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

As politicians, we all profess to be interested in protecting the vulnerable. If we are, surely one of the most vulnerable in our society are those going through adolescence. If anyone needs protecting, it is the adolescents.

Feelings and behaviours fluctuate during adolescence. I am sure that is the experience of all of us who are parents. More often than not, gender dysphoria resolves naturally during puberty. That is the reality. Yet for too long in our society, we have had this laissez-faire attitude to puberty blockers. Until 2024, there was no restraint whatsoever. What damage was done to those children who were given puberty blockers before the pause was imposed? Does no one care about the damage that was done to those children? Whether one likes the word or not, it is experimentation on children, and without a due process of consent. The trial is incapable of having a due process of consent.

When we endorse puberty blockers, we are turning a blind eye to the fact that they might have medical consequences on children’s bone density and on the development of their brains. Do we not care about that? If we care about that we need to cancel, not just pause, the programme.

Budget Resolutions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, sitting here for three hours for a three-minute speech is a bit like the Budget—there is not much in it for working people. Of course, the Budget is fundamentally controversial because it increases income for benefit families but increases taxation for working families. That is the summary of this Budget. It is a Budget born in controversy because the abiding and yet unanswered question is: since the Chancellor knew that tax receipts were up, why did she continue to conceal that in her Downing Street doom loop speech? There has not been an answer to that.

There is much in this Budget to disappoint. For hard-working family farmers, there is a big disappointment. The hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) laid out very clearly the disappointment of many of us at the fact that the death tax will continue for family farms. Every Member has an opportunity tonight, on resolution 50, to take a stand on that issue and I trust that many will.

On devolution, yes, there are Barnett consequentials for Northern Ireland of £370 million. The problem is that the money is already spent, because Stormont so mismanages its funds that it has already overspent by £400 million. The money is gone. We have the tragic situation of the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland saying this week:

“devolution has simply not worked for policing in Northern Ireland…We have lost out as a result of devolution.”

That is the sad commentary, and that means that people in my constituency are less safe than they should be. Instead of having 7,500 police personnel as promised, we are down to 6,200 because of Stormont’s mismanagement, by and large, of the money it gets. There will probably come a point, I suggest to the Treasury, when it will have to put the Stormont Executive into special measures so that they can understand how to balance their books and account for matters as they should.

This Budget talks about four AI growth zones for the whole country, but there is none in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister tell us whether that is because Northern Ireland is going to be subject not to UK law but to the EU’s AI law? Is that why we are being excluded from those growth zones? Are we going to have another Irish sea border, this time in AI?

Postural Tachycardia Syndrome

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Cat Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; I will take another.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I am much obliged to the hon. Lady. On the theme of this being a nationwide problem, in Northern Ireland not only does it take seven years for diagnosis, but we do not, it appears, have a single PoTS specialist, which is aggravating the situation. If the Government are to address this issue, they need to address it on a nationwide basis and they need to give it the urgency and funding that it obviously deserves and that to date has been neglected.

[Cat Smith]

The hon. and learned Gentleman has picked up on a theme later in my speech, which I hope he will enjoy.

Defibrillators

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for raising this important issue.

Saving lives should be in the interests of us all, and I am sure that is what brings us here today, but we have some hard questions to ask of Government. When the availability of defibrillators can definitively save lives and the absence of them can cost lives, we have to address the question of whether the Government are doing enough to fill the gap. One particular issue of concern relates to VAT, which I will return to.

We know from the statistics that the chances of surviving a heart attack that takes place outside a hospital setting are low—maybe as low as 8%—but that if a defibrillator is available, the chance of survival can increase by 70%. The key factor is the proximity of the defibrillator: the three to five minutes—the vital lifesaving window. Therefore, many of us who represent rural constituencies are concerned at the dearth of supply in some of our areas. In my North Antrim constituency, 63% of postcodes do not have a defibrillator within the three-to-five-minute lifesaving range. That is quite disturbing.

I pay tribute to the many community organisations that provide this lifesaving equipment. Very often, it is not the Government, education authorities or health trusts that put a defibrillator in the local village, but a local community organisation. The Government demand 20% in VAT from that community organisation, which is not VAT-registered and has no possibility of reclaiming it. It really is quite disturbing that the Government think they need that pound of flesh in taxation on defibrillators.

If the Minister takes away nothing else from this debate, I ask her to take away this fundamental humane appeal: instead of making it harder by putting a tax on lifesaving equipment, the Government should make defibrillators VAT-exempt supplies. If they made them VAT-exempt, there would be a huge opportunity to bring an uplift in life and survival to our communities.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tristan Osborne]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I want to take him back to his speech, when he said that he would consider an increase in age to 21 or 25. My concern is that that would introduce a two-tier adult status. If we increase the age from 18 to 21 overnight, there will be adults who previously could smoke who will then be banned from smoking for three years. I do not accept the premise that we should have two-tier adults, which is why I believe in a staged increase in smoking cessation.

On new clause 13, I support the Government’s ambition to reduce smoking and I want to make it absolutely clear that this measure is part of a global standard to reduce smoking around the world. The Bill is pioneering and I urge Members to support it.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

On Second Reading, the Government said that this is a four nations Bill. On the face of it, it is, but the legal reality is that it is not. The provisions applicable to Northern Ireland are inevitably destined to be struck down by the High Court because of Northern Ireland’s subjugation, under the protocol or Windsor framework, to EU law. The specific EU law that Northern Ireland is subject to relevant to this Bill is the tobacco directive. According to that directive, states cannot limit the placing on the market of tobacco products. That caused the Governments of two countries within the EU—the Governments of Denmark and the Irish Republic—to withdraw proposals, while acknowledging that they wanted to do what this House is doing, but could not do so, because it would breach the tobacco directive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. If I am allowed to finish, that is one of the issues and that proposal may not necessarily improve environmental outcomes. However, we consider that powers are already available to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that enable the Government to limit the damage to the environment caused by filters, so the amendments are unnecessary.

Similarly, new clause 14, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson), would prohibit the supply of all cigarette filters or cigarettes containing filters, whether they contain plastic or not. Ultimately we believe that the best way to tackle filters is through the reduction of smoking rates. On bundles of tobacco products, the Bill gives the Government the powers to regulate retail packaging of tobacco products and devices, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers, as well as vaping and nicotine products. In addition, the Bill already gives the Government powers to regulate how products are packaged together in bundles, so amendments 86 and 87, also tabled by my hon. Friend, are not necessary.

Amendments 46, 90 and 91 and new clauses 8 to 10 and 15 would all undermine our promise to the electorate to stop vapes being advertised to children. We have a clear mandate, with 74% of adults in Great Britain supportive of a ban, and we will not create any exemptions that could undermine this. On amendment 90 and new clause 15, let me reassure the shadow Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) that the Government are not prohibiting the promotion of vapes in general as a smoking cessation tool.

Let me reassure my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend and for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) that the Bill already provides the Government with powers to limit the amount of nicotine in a nicotine pouch, to regulate vaping products in such a way that would prohibit the sale of high puff count vaping devices, including setting tank capacity limits for devices where multiple refill tanks are attached, and to ban any other ingredient that may be harmful. The Government believe that these measures are more appropriate for secondary legislation due to the technical details that need to be captured, rather than in primary legislation as new clauses 4 and 21 would require.

On amendment 37, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend, we recognise that vape flavours are a really important consideration for adult smokers seeking to quit smoking, but we also know that sweet or fruity flavours are the main flavours that appeal to children and that certain flavours and ingredients can be particularly harmful to health. We have been clear that we will carefully consider our future regulations so that we get the balance right, and this is subject to a statutory duty to consult. Similarly, I reassure my hon. Friend that amendment 88 is unnecessary. We will honour the long-established principles of good consultation when consulting on regulations under part 5 of the Bill, including in relation to who is consulted.

On new clauses 6 and 7, while the Government are committed to protecting children from the risk of harms through addiction, our approach across all products in the Bill is for age to be verified at the point of sale, not at the point of use. Mandating any age-gating technology for vapes would create harsher restrictions on vaping than smoking. That could make vapes less accessible and attractive to adult smokers wishing to quit and use vapes as a smoking cessation tool.

I recognise the concerns of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about online sales. However, it would not be proportionate to ban all online sales because that would impact on those retailers seeking to operate within the law.

As was discussed in Committee, going back to the issue of wider enforcement, new clause 18 and amendment 89 do not reflect the complex processes required to develop the licensing scheme in England and Wales. Although I am sympathetic to the shadow Secretary of State’s aims, rushing to publish draft regulations within two months of Royal Assent would risk creating flawed policy.

I pay tribute to colleagues in the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. This UK-wide Bill has been developed in partnership with them, and I thank them for their support. Our manifesto committed to resetting our relationship with the devolved Governments, and this Bill is a great success in demonstrating collaboration across Governments in improving the health of the nation.

[Jim Allister]

Since the tobacco directive applies to Northern Ireland under the protocol through section 7A of the 2018 Act and applies directly, and the directive forbids the type of proposition in this Bill, would the Minister care to explain to the House how this Bill will be applicable in Northern Ireland as long as the tobacco directive applies?

[Ashley Dalton]

This Bill has been put together, as I said, with collaboration across all the Governments and bearing in mind all the Government’s legal obligations under the law. All those things have been taken into account, and the Bill is able to be brought forward in that way. Our manifesto committed to delivering the smokefree generation, and we are working across all Governments to ensure that we deliver that, as well as honouring our international obligations. As a result, the Government do not consider new clause 3 tabled by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) to be necessary. That is because we are content that measures drafted in the Bill that apply in relation to Northern Ireland are consistent with our obligations under the Windsor framework, and the proposed new clause would put us in breach of international law. In the drafting of the Bill, as I have stated, we have considered all its domestic and international obligations, and it is for those reasons that the Government cannot support new clause 3.

The Bill will bring about a real change by creating a smokefree generation. As we have discussed, there is no liberty or choice in addiction, and almost all smokers want to quit and two thirds wished they had never started. I started smoking at the age of 16 and decided I would stop when I was 18—I could not stop. I thought, “I know, I’ll stop when I am 21” and then it was 25, then it was when I graduated, and then it was when I had a child. At no point was I able to give up this pernicious addiction. It took a cancer diagnosis to scare me into being able to stop smoking, and I do not wish that on any of our young people.

In conclusion, many of the amendments are unnecessary because the Bill already grants the Government the power to take forward the issue through the more appropriate route of secondary legislation. This is a landmark Bill: the most significant public health intervention in a generation. It strikes the right balance on the interests of public health by being proportionate and not overly burdensome. It allows the Government to bring forward the appropriate primary and secondary legislation to ensure that we can deliver a smokefree generation that protects all our children from the addiction of tobacco, a uniquely harmful substance.