EU Tariffs: United States and Northern Ireland Economy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

As I think I have said to the hon. and learned Gentleman before, I would not have started from here myself in relation to the cause that led eventually to the negotiation of the Windsor framework, which was a huge improvement on the Northern Ireland protocol. We do not control the decisions that the United States Administration have taken. What we have to do is make sure that we stand with businesses, including in Northern Ireland, to provide them with support, and a mechanism that allows them to reclaim the tariff is the most practical step we can take. It is already in place because of the Windsor framework.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State has outlined the case, but I am afraid he has not given any answers, and that is disappointing. The promise was made to Northern Ireland MPs that we would not be disadvantaged by any EU retentions. That is clearly not to be the case, and Government need to address that directly. Will the Secretary of State set out when discussions to extricate Northern Ireland from EU rules will begin and when we can expect to see our interests looked after, as was promised by both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State? I was here last week when we got those promises, but today, unfortunately, we do not.

[Hilary Benn]

The situation that Northern Ireland businesses may find themselves in if there are EU retaliatory tariffs is a product of the Windsor framework, which gives benefits to businesses in Northern Ireland as well as requiring the payment of the tariffs that can be claimed back. The single most important reason for sticking with the implementation of the Windsor framework is that we want to negotiate closer economic relationships with the European Union, including a sanitary and phytosanitary and a veterinary agreement.

Members from Northern Ireland have on many occasions raised the consequences of the current arrangement. Things could be a lot easier if we get that agreement, but as I have pointed out to the House many times before, if we do not honour the last agreement that the United Kingdom as a country signed under the last Government with the European Union, how exactly do we expect to get a new agreement—in particular an SPS and veterinary agreement, which would help many businesses in the movement of goods across the Irish sea?

Clonoe Inquest

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

May I start by thanking the Secretary of State? The public will not necessarily know that it is very unusual for the Secretary of State to respond to an Adjournment debate, and his presence here demonstrates how important this is and how seriously he takes the task. It also brings back fond memories for me, but that is another matter.

I hope that every Member of Parliament elected to this House believes that upholding justice should be our first priority as a Parliament. The right to life is the first among the rights we should uphold. That justice, and that right, should be even handed, and there should be no exception for agents of the state. I believe that, and accordingly I was a fierce critic of the state in, for example, the unlawful killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, the torture of Binyam Mohamed, and the failure to protect and provide justice for the six Catholics who were murdered at Loughinisland in 1994. There is no general exception when the state gets it wrong. Justice must, by definition, be fair and practical, and I am afraid the findings of the Northern Ireland coroner on the Clonoe incident were neither.

To understand the significance of this inquest ruling, we must consider the context. Operation Banner was the British Army’s longest deployment, spanning from 1969 to 2007. More than 300,000 soldiers served sequentially in Northern Ireland, and despite immense challenges, the British Army performed admirably. They were not beyond reproach—Bloody Sunday is a striking example, I fear—but the massive majority of our soldiers acted with professionalism and restraint in the face of danger.

The troubles led to 3,500 deaths and 50,000 injuries. More than 90% of them were caused or brought about by paramilitaries. The British Army’s rules of engagement were clear—governed by the yellow card, which soldiers carry at all times. Soldiers were required to issue a challenge before using force, unless doing so would put them or others in immediate danger. The intent was clear: to protect innocent lives, while allowing the use of lethal force when it was necessary and reasonable. Some 1,400 members of the security forces died in those troubles. They killed approximately 300 terrorists. Those figures, and that ratio reveal the discipline and restraint of our soldiers and our policemen acting under yellow card rules. They also reflect the personal risk to the soldiers and policemen of observing those rules.

Unsurprisingly, the IRA members never carried a yellow card. They targeted civilians and committed murder without warning. Their methods ranged from torture, followed by a bullet in the back of the head, through to the mass murder of innocent civilians in atrocities such as the Omagh, Claudy and Ballykelly bombings and the utterly cold-blooded Kingsmill executions. Incidentally, the IRA was responsible for more Catholic deaths during the troubles than any other group.

The IRA members were terrorists, but we should not forget that they were also criminals specialising in organised crime. They made £5 million or £6 million a year from protection rackets, smuggling, extortion, drugs, tax fraud, state benefit fraud, fraudulent front companies, illegal gambling, theft and other crimes throughout the island of Ireland. If colleagues want evidence of that criminality, in 1990 I carried out an investigation of those activities, which was written up on 6 November of that year in the Financial Times. The point is that the IRA was both a criminal gang and a terrorist organisation. Now it is trying to rewrite history.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I commend the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He has been a stalwart supporter of the armed forces on every occasion in the time that I have been in this House. He has been a supporter of what is right and of justice, and he sets a standard for us all to follow. I commend him for that, and I thank him. I also thank him for working alongside my party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) on these issues and for moving things forward with this Adjournment debate.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the message sent through this coroner’s report is a massive overstepping of power? It will have security implications for every branch of policing and the armed forces in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and it must be struck down as not only ultra vires but factually incorrect. Those who carried out the attack on the Royal Ulster Constabulary station did so with the intent to take life, and they were rightly assessed as doing that and dealt with in an appropriate manner. This republican rewriting of the truth must end now in this Chamber.

[David Davis]

The hon. Member is exactly right, and he prefaces what I intend to say. He repeats the point that his party leader made in the urgent question, when he said that the judgment was ultra vires. I believe the right hon. Gentleman was right in that, although I leave that to the lawyers.

To answer the rest of the question from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), we have to return to the actual facts of the Clonoe incident. The self-styled East Tyrone brigade was one of the most active Provisional IRA units. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, it undertook a surge of activity, pursuing a Maoist-style murder strategy. I think it was called Lynagh’s strategy at the time.

In August 1988, eight soldiers were killed by a Provisional IRA bomb at Ballygawley. On 7 March 1989, two Protestants were shot dead at a garage in Coagh. A former member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, Derek Ferguson, was murdered in 1991, also at Coagh. An attack against Glenanne barracks on 31 May 1991 left three soldiers dead. It is also thought that some of their members were involved in the Derryard attack in 1989, notably using a heavy machine gun, probably the DShK we will see later in this story, to kill two British soldiers.

In February 1992, the RUC special branch found out that the IRA was planning a number of attacks on 15 and 16 February. It had information that an IRA team, armed with a 12.7 mm Soviet DShK heavy machine gun and three Kalashnikov rifles, would attack the Coalisland police station. The intelligence indicated that the attack would be mounted from the Clonoe chapel car park, so the SAS commander’s plan was to arrest the terrorists as they formed up at the car park, preventing the attack on the police station altogether and seizing the heavy machine gun.

The commander did not know how many terrorists, vehicles or weapons would be involved, but it was thought that as many as 20 IRA members could be involved. The troop sergeant assessed the rather straggly hedge line adjacent to the car park to be the only suitable position where partial concealment was possible, but it notably did not provide cover from gunfire. The SAS team carried the standard Heckler & Koch G3K rifle and one soldier had a general purpose machine gun. Perhaps more notably in this context, some had shotguns loaded with alternate rounds designed to smash windscreens and deliver tear gas to immobilise the drivers and stop the vehicles. The soldiers also carried caltrops to wreck the tyres of vehicles attempting to escape. The armour-piercing rounds that the judge referred to could penetrate body armour, but their primary purpose in this context was to penetrate the engine blocks of the vehicles and stop them.

The equipment was all designed to stop escape and allow arrest—that is the key point. The plan was to close in on the IRA operatives and to arrest them as they assembled and mounted the heavy machine gun on to the vehicle in the chapel car park. At 7.40 pm on that dark February night, 12 members of the SAS were in position on the boundary of the Clonoe chapel car park, behind the hedgerow. The soldiers observed the movements of five cars in and out of the car park. They were assumed to be reconnaissance vehicles scouting out the car park for the lorry to which the DShK was to be attached.

However, the intelligence briefing was wrong—an error that ended up creating chaos and extreme danger. Instead, at around 22:40 hours, the lorry-mounted DShK was used to attack the Coalisland police station. Sixty rounds were fired at close range from the DShK and from the Kalashnikovs. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the attackers’ intent was clear: to kill police officers. They were all would-be murderers; of that, there can be no doubt. The gunfire could clearly be heard and the tracer bullets were observed by the SAS patrol in the car park at Clonoe.

After a minute or two, the soldiers heard another burst of gunfire. The soldiers, of course, did not know that that was simply bravado. For all they and their commander knew, hiding behind their hedge, the murder gang were engaging other soldiers or other policemen. Within a minute, the lorry appeared out of the darkness, driven at breakneck speed, lurching around corners and with its engine screaming in too low a gear. As it drove into the car park, the IRA truck’s headlights illuminated the SAS position behind the hedgerow. At that point, the soldiers did not know whether they had been spotted. The soldiers then stood up, advanced on the occupants of the lorry and three other vehicles in the car park with the lorry, and opened fire. Four IRA members were shot dead, four were wounded, one of whom was arrested at the scene and, notably, given first aid by the soldiers, and others fled in cars.

Now we come forward to February 2025, when Mr Justice Michael Humphreys ruled that the use of lethal force by the SAS in this incident was unlawful. The ruling is demonstrably wrong and ignores the plain facts of the case. The SAS soldiers operated under the control of the police force, and the operation was carried out with police officers in close proximity. They faced heavily armed terrorists who had just carried out an attack on a police station—lethally, for all they knew. They did not know how many terrorists there were, but they assumed that there could be up to 20. They did not know how many vehicles there were or how many weapons were in the other cars. That creates a number of problems for issuing a challenge, which is the first option under the yellow card system. While it may be reasonable to stand up and issue a challenge to either one terrorist or a small number of terrorists who could be seen and covered while they respond, the circumstance is completely different when there is an unknown number of antagonists in an unknown number of cars with an unknown number of weapons.

The probability of one of 20, let us say, deciding to fire on the soldiers is much higher, particularly when that individual may be out of sight of the patrol. That is doubly so when one remembers that this band of killers had just attempted to murder many policemen and had returned in a high state of excitement, pumped up with adrenalin and firing their weapons in the air. Secondly, the fact that the SAS commander did not know where they all were meant that his issuing a challenge could expose his entire troop to a lethal crossfire. Remember: this was happening on a dark February night at about 10.45 pm. Issuing a challenge under those circumstances could have amounted to collective suicide. Circumstances such as that are precisely why the yellow card rules allow a soldier to fire without challenge when the danger is too great.

I find it hard to imagine a more clearcut case that allows firing without challenge, but in his ruling the judge ignored several significant facts and appears to have been naive in his view of others. His selection of facts appears to be extremely partial. For example, the judge made much of the SAS’s use of armour-piercing bullets, but he made no mention of the fact that the anti-aircraft gun the IRA was using fired armour-piercing incendiary rounds five times the size of any rifle bullets, or the fact that they could be fired at a rate of 600 to 1,200 rounds a minute. Those bullets can pierce concrete walls or shoot down aircraft at a mile range. The machine gun had just been deployed and could have eliminated the entire SAS patrol in a matter of seconds. It was a terrible weapon, and capturing it before it could be used to kill more people was an important part of the SAS tasking.

The judge accepted assertions that the IRA weapons all had their safety catches engaged. Frankly, if that were true, there was no way at all for the SAS commander or the troops to know that at the beginning of the fight. In fact, how likely was that? Let us take the DShK, which the forensic examiner said had its working parts forward, with no round in the chamber. The gun was mounted on a lorry that had just been driven back at breakneck speed from Coalisland in a few minutes. During the few minutes of that journey back, getting the gun into the state described would have required nine actions, some of which require two hands, while hanging on to the side of a lurching truck. I am afraid it all sounds just a bit improbable. The forensics specialist did not actually arrive until two hours and 45 minutes after the action, at a scene contaminated by firemen, police, soldiers and other staff—indeed, she complained about that very contamination.

Against the forensic specialist’s views, we must take the observations of soldiers on the ground and other evidence. Four soldiers reported seeing flashes from the back of the lorry, which they interpreted as muzzle flashes. We are not talking about inexperienced soldiers: they would know what they were looking at. Two soldiers heard rounds striking the ground to their right, near the hedgerow where the SAS was hiding. The forensic examiner documented bullet strike marks on the hedgerow. One soldier received a bullet wound to the face that knocked him to the ground. Without any forensic evidence, it was attributed to a ricochet, which implausibly would have required the round to go through a 180° change of direction.

Soldier G heard the exchange of gunfire and saw a soldier go down, which

“confirmed my belief that the terrorists were shooting at us”.

There was also an interview taken by the Garda, in the Republic of Ireland, of one of the IRA drivers, who said he could not understand why his colleagues had opened fire. He had been in a position in which he was able to judge where the fire was coming from and obviously believed that it was from his own side. He refused to sign the interview notes, presumably when he considered the consequences for him back home of giving away such critical data.

All of this was countered by the claim that no bullet casings were found on the ground in the car park, but a number were found in the lorry, and one of the cars present appeared to have had a general-purpose machine gun and an AKM on board. If those weapons were fired from inside a car, there would of course have been no casings on the ground in the car park. Instead, GPMG live ammunition and disintegrating links were found in that car, as well as an AKM casing from a rifle other than those recovered, implying that a fourth AKM had been fired from the car. The car had all its seats other than the driver’s laid flat, which was standard practice for the IRA when using a hatchback as a weapons platform. The car escaped and was then set on fire, and the fire services were kept away from it while it burned out—another standard IRA tactic to destroy forensic evidence. I am afraid that this ruling exposes the double standards that have plagued the legacy of the troubles.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Can the Secretary of State further outline what representations he has made to Cabinet colleagues to ensure that the UK industrial strategy pays more than lip service to the position of Northern Ireland’s manufacturing industry, as seen in aerospace, shipbuilding and defence, which has a global reputation for being top-class? How will he advocate for our own Government to invest in those sectors even further and even better?

[Hilary Benn]

I have already pointed out examples of that investment. To Harland and Wolff, I would add the order that is going to Thales to make more missiles for Ukraine, which will create an additional 200 jobs. As the answers that I have given demonstrate, Northern Ireland has enormous strengths, and the task of the strategy, and for all of us, is to build on them.

Horticulture Trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Mr Campbell]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Campbell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Mr Campbell]

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

European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for bringing forward this issue. His passion for victims is long-standing and admirable. Does he agree that we need to set in stone the truth about victims in Northern Ireland? For all the attention that is given to 10% of victims, the families of the 90% suffer in silence. Will this day ensure that true victims’ stories are told and remembered without any whitewashing whatsoever?

[Gavin Robinson]

I appreciate the intervention because there is a task on the part of the Government, with the legislation they are considering at the moment, on storytelling, reconciliation and the narrative that people wish to share. Their truth must be told and their truth known.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

I agree, and I am glad that WAVE and SEFF have been mentioned this evening. NHS services are also vital for specialist trauma counselling, such as the regional trauma network, which I visited with Minister Nesbitt.

On the legacy Act, acknowledging and addressing the suffering of victims of violence was an important aim of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, but I agree that the task remains incomplete. The Government take their responsibility to victims and survivors of the troubles extremely seriously, which is why we have been working with victims, survivors and all interested parties to correct the mistakes of the last Government, and to put in place measures that will provide answers, accountability and acknowledgment for families who have waited too long already.

In December, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland laid a draft remedial order to correct several of the human rights deficiencies of the legacy Act, including removing the bitterly opposed conditional immunity scheme, which would have granted immunity from prosecution for those who carried out the most appalling terrorist crimes. The Secretary of State will introduce primary legislation that will reform and strengthen the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.

The right hon. Member for Belfast East referred to the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. The Government was pleased that the ombudsman recently returned to work following an extended period of absence. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the legal proceedings, but for families who are waiting to receive the ombudsman’s reports, I understand the concern and frustration with publication delays. Many families have already encountered too much delay in seeking information and accountability. I know that the ombudsman’s office is doing all that it can to publish reports.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Fleur Anderson]

I am afraid I do not have time, because I want to respond to the issues that the right hon. Member for Belfast East raised.

The right hon. Member rightly highlighted that a number of troubles-related cases have a cross-border dimension, including the Kingsmill murders, which are an appalling example of the pain and suffering inflicted on civilians during the troubles. It is right to acknowledge that the implementation of truly holistic legacy mechanisms, which can provide families across the UK and Ireland with as much information as possible about the circumstances of their particular case, will require the co-operation of both the UK and Irish Governments to facilitate the disclosure of information held by authorities in both jurisdictions. This Government consider the Irish Government to be an essential partner in the process of seeking a way forward on legacy issues that is human rights compliant and can command public confidence across communities.

Turning to the Omagh bombing inquiry, last month’s commemorative hearings were a painful reminder of the impact of cowardly terrorist actions on communities and families. Victims do not need hearings, inquiries or commemorative days to know that; they live with it every day. The Secretary of State has received political assurances from the Irish Government on their full co-operation with the UK inquiry. That is important and should be welcomed. The Irish Government are currently working at pace to determine how to facilitate that in practice through a memorandum of understanding. The right hon. Gentleman’s comments in the Chamber today will not have gone unnoticed. The details of those arrangements are ultimately a matter for the inquiry, which rightly is independent of the Government, but I agree with him that they should provide for the greatest possible level of co-operation from Irish authorities. The Government look forward to seeing those details in due course. In the meantime, our focus remains on ensuring that the UK inquiry that has been established can successfully fulfil its terms of reference.

I close by remembering all those who have been killed by cowardly terrorist acts. I pay tribute to everyone who is carrying on—not getting over what happened, but getting on and working around the gap of the people they lost, or of their own life that they had before, despite the grief that can engulf them. They are getting up every day when it is not getting easier, remembering people who should be here and are not. They are not giving up on getting answers and justice for their relatives, families and friends. In the memory of all who have died, we will keep taking action against terrorism and for peace and justice. We will remember.

Question put and agreed to.

Trade Diversion and Windsor Framework

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The issue of diversion of trade is becoming an increasing problem of manifold proportions for Northern Ireland. Before the protocol, goods could be moved from Birmingham to Belfast as easily as they could be moved from Gloucester to Glasgow, but no more. The resulting Irish sea border, and all that comes with it, has caused a huge and increasing diversion of trade.

We can get an insight into how things naturally should be and how business wishes them to be by looking at the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency figures of recent years. If we look at the pre-protocol days, we see that in 2018, for example, the volume of goods purchased from the Irish Republic was £2.8 billion, but the amount purchased from GB was five times that—£13.4 billion. There we have a snapshot of the natural inclination of trade in Northern Ireland, particularly for our raw materials.

Before Brexit, there was a similar situation. Indeed, we could say—and some may say—that that is a better reflection of whether there has been trade diversion. Before Brexit, we could as readily buy our goods from the Republic as we could from GB, because we were all in the EU single market. Even then, the predominant trading of choice was from GB. That is no surprise because for decades Northern Ireland has been a particularly integrated part of the UK economy.

However, along came the protocol, which requires Northern Ireland to be subject to a foreign customs code—that of the EU—which of course treats GB as if it is a foreign country. Therefore, when goods come from outside the EU into the EU, and we in Northern Ireland are regarded as being in the EU for these purposes, those goods have to be checked, with customs declarations, documentary checks and physical checks on, for example, all our raw materials. So it is no surprise that that is inevitably bound to cause diversion of trade.

We were told, as part of the spin of selling the protocol, “Oh, there are protections against the diversion of trade, and it wouldn’t be allowed to happen”. Article 16 of the protocol, we were told, was our safety net:

“If the application of this Protocol leads to…diversion of trade…the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.”

It has led to the diversion of trade, but the United Kingdom Government have not taken unilateral action in that regard.

The fact of the diversion of trade is a challenge to the protocol’s proponents. It is a challenge to those who put this upon us, and it is one that they have to meet, but which I fear they will not meet. Where is the proof, some may ask, of the diversion of trade? Again, it is in the NISRA statistics. Dr Esmond Birnie, a renowned economist in Northern Ireland, has done a succession of studies of the NISRA statistics. He wrote back on 11 December 2024 that the data

“provides further evidence that the NI economy is becoming more trade integrated with the Republic”,

and of

“North-South trade growing at very rapid rates at the expense of what previously was an inflow of goods from GB.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Jim Allister]

Perhaps in a moment.

We also see that in the purchase of goods figures that NISRA reports. It has given us figures from 2020, contrasting them in a table with those for 2023. The year 2023 was only the beginning of things getting difficult, as the Irish sea border did not in effect come into place until October 2023 because of the grace periods. However, those NISRA figures show that Northern Ireland’s purchases of goods increased from 2020 to 2023—of course, it was a period of inflation—by 24% from GB, but by 50% from the Republic of Ireland, meaning twice the growth rate in the buying of goods into Northern Ireland that would previously have come from our integrated United Kingdom economy.

The Office for National Statistics business insights and conditions survey states that 13.1% of currently trading manufacturers based in GB had sent goods to Northern Ireland in the past 12 months. That was at the end of 2024. But in January 2021, 20% of manufacturers in GB were sending goods to Northern Ireland. So, in just those four years there has been a dramatic fall in the number of manufacturers supplying goods to Northern Ireland. It has nearly halved in four years. The ONS data for 2024 tells us more: 11.7% of companies tell us they have stopped trading with Northern Ireland. Why? Because of the bureaucracy, because they have to make customs declarations, because they have to have them checked, and because they have to employ extra staff to do all that. Many companies, particularly in smaller sectors, have simply said that they are not going to do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister]

That is the absurdity of where we have got to, and it has been accentuated by our subjection to the EU’s general product safety regulations. Those regulations provide that if a company is supplying into Northern Ireland from outside the EU—in other words, from GB—it must have an agent resident within the EU. The company must complete the paperwork on the origin of its goods and on the customs declarations, and it cannot do so without employing an agent within the EU. Anyone who knows anything about business will know that that is added cost that will cause many businesses to say, “Northern Ireland is not a huge market to start with, so I shall just not bother with it.” That is what all our businesses in Northern Ireland are suffering from.

[Jim Shannon]

I congratulate the hon. and learned Member on securing this debate. Small businesses in my constituency have told me that they are now having to pay His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs a duty for buying goods from English suppliers and then selling the same goods in Northern Ireland to the Northern Ireland consumer, remaining within the internal market. Last Friday, one trader told me that he is now having to pay more in duties to HMRC than the invoice was for the goods. That is because HMRC does not trust that the goods will remain, but assumes that they will be sold into the EU. Does the hon. and learned Member not agree that the same HMRC displays greater trust and acceptance of VAT declarations, on the premise that they will be checked at random, than it does for internal trade within the United Kingdom? What a backward step that is.

[Jim Allister]

I agree. Let us just think about the Irish sea border. Given the infinitesimal amount of goods and trade that cross that border—infinitesimal when compared with the proportion of EU trade—it is incredible that it has 20% of all the checks across the whole of the EU. That infinitesimal amount when set against the totality of EU trade warrants 20% of all the checks in the EU. It would be easier to bring in goods from Belarus into the EU than it is to bring goods from GB into Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

If I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman correctly, from a sedentary position he said, “punishment”. I could not disagree more. I would encourage him to reflect on what he has said, because I do not think that he acknowledges that there was an issue there that had to be addressed, and wishing it away was never going to work.

[Jim Shannon]

I am reminded of the wee song we used to sing in Sunday school many years ago:

“So high, you can’t get over it,

So low, you can’t get under it”.

The Stormont brake does not work because it is too high and too low; it is just not functional. In my intervention on the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), I referred to the HMRC cost. To give the Secretary of State an example, last week a business said that the HMRC charges have got to the stage where they are even more expensive than the goods the business is bringing in. There has to be something wrong when it gets to the stage where it is not the issue of getting the product across but the cost factor. Could the Secretary of State look at that, because there is something wrong with a system that ends up costing us more, when it did not cost that amount before the Brexit system came in?

[Hilary Benn]

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

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

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

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

Clonoe Inquest

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Societies around the world that have faced terrible conflict have each taken their own path to try to find a way forward. The release of 400 prisoners in the two years after the Good Friday agreement was a very bitter pill to swallow for many in Northern Ireland, but I support that step—it was nothing to do with me at the time—because it was the right one to take to enable the Good Friday agreement to be reached. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have met people, including the family of a member of our armed forces who was murdered by the IRA, who expressed to me their bitter opposition to the immunity provisions of the legacy Act.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The sharpened tension in Northern Ireland is palpable after the ruling. The day after the shooting, the Provisional IRA issued a statement boasting that the men were in the East Tyrone brigade and on active service. Mr Speaker, you and I know the Bible, and it is very clear: live by the sword, die by the sword. If you live by a machine gun that you use to shoot a police station, you die by a machine gun—that is the way that I see it. For right-thinking people in Northern Ireland, and indeed throughout this United Kingdom, to be told that the use of lethal force was not justified flies in the face of common justice, and feeds the feeling that the judiciary are not just complicit but active in their rewriting of history. What can the Secretary of State do to rectify that situation?

[Hilary Benn]

The findings of the coroner in this case stand for themselves and are on the record, and all of us are able to read them. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s direct question about what the Government are doing, as I indicated to the House in my answer to the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), the Ministry of Defence is, of course, giving very serious consideration to what the coroner had to say.

Northern Ireland’s Political Institutions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Fleur Anderson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on securing this important debate—I believe it is her first debate since her election—and on the constructive and sensitive approach that has been adopted. She brings an important contribution to the debate. Since her arrival in July, the hon. Member has already demonstrated her passion for the issue and her enthusiasm in making a case for the potential evolution of the Northern Ireland institutions in future. I agree with her that stable political institutions and a devolution settlement that works for all the people of Northern Ireland remain a priority for this Government and, I am sure, for all in Westminster Hall today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is important that we place it on the record that I, as a Unionist—as well as all of us Unionists on the Back Benches here today—am committed to finding a way forward that politically can bring us all together. However, does the Minister of State agree that there can be no effectiveness of the institutions when hampered by EU interference, with no representation, and that effective devolution will take place only when we can make those devolved decisions in the best interests of Northern Ireland, not of the EU?

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and for his shared commitment to finding a way forward. I think that is what everyone in Northern Ireland wants to see. It is the Windsor framework that enables the UK internal market to be protected post Brexit, and it has established powerful democratic safeguards for the Northern Ireland Assembly. They are what should be used to enable the institutions to function effectively for the people of Northern Ireland. That is what I am going to outline in my speech. However, what do we mean by effectiveness?

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I certainly do. That is one of the great benefits of the commercial agreement that has been reached with Navantia on buying Harland and Wolff, and the adjustments made to the contract to ensure that the fleet solid support ships could go ahead. This is a great facility, and it is open for business, including for other orders.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

A company in my constituency of Strangford is among those that will suffer because of Harland and Wolff being in administration. This small family firm—I will not put its name in Hansard—will lose half a million pounds. The impact on that company and others is quite catastrophic. What can be done to help those companies that, through Harland and Wolff being in administration, will either not be able to trade, or risk losing out entirely?

[Hilary Benn]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. This is a product of the failure of the old Harland and Wolff. It now falls to Navantia to decide which of the invoices it wishes to pay, but it will want to secure a relationship with suppliers contributing to the fleet solid support ship programme.

European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 6th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. and learned Gentleman for bringing forward the Bill. It is important for us in Northern Ireland and for this whole great United Kingdom to look at this. Our constituents must not lose their place in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland without consent, by stealth, but that is what is happening. Brexit was a vote for all of us to leave Europe, not for Northern Ireland to leave the UK, and this outstanding matter is detrimental to our economy, peace and stability. Does he agree that the Bill must be supported by all in the House if there is to be justice for all in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Jim Allister]

The hon. Member touches on a fundamental. In June 2016, we all had the opportunity to vote on Brexit. Some liked it and some did not, but the question on the ballot paper was: “Do you want the United Kingdom to leave the EU?” The question was not: “Would you like GB to leave the EU, and leave Northern Ireland behind?” But that is what we got. That is a fundamental denial of Brexit to my constituents in Northern Ireland. That is the source of the disparity, and undemocratic consequences have flowed from that.

I mentioned the 300 areas of law. They are all recited in annex 2 of the protocol. It is no surprise that the first area of law covered in annex 2 is customs, and that the first law put on the people of Northern Ireland is the EU’s customs code: EU regulation 952/2013. What does the customs code do? It operates on the basis that GB—those who got Brexit—is no longer a part of the EU; it is, in the words of the customs code, a “third country”, or in common parlance a foreign country, whereas Northern Ireland is treated as EU territory. Therefore we have this absurd insult under the customs code that goods coming to Northern Ireland—a supposed part of the United Kingdom—from GB must be subject to all the rigour of declarations, checks and reporting of data recording. Why? Because GB is treated as a foreign country when it sends its goods, particularly its raw materials, to my part of the United Kingdom.

That is the iniquitous effect of the Union partitioning and dividing the customs code and protocol. Some Members seem to find that amusing. If hon. Members believe at all in the United Kingdom—maybe some do not—they should be as offended as I am by the fact that moving goods from one part of the United Kingdom to another involves an international customs border under the control of foreign law. How could any MP—amused or otherwise—think that is right and equitable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robin Swann]

rose—

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Peter Dowd]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) and then to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

[Peter Dowd]

As far as I am aware, the framework attempts to tackle some of those issues. I completely accept that the hon. Member maybe does not accept that or does not want to accept it; I do not know. I am not casting aspersions at all on the integrity or beliefs of Members. At no time do I say anything that denies the right of people to hold the views that they hold, which are clearly, deeply and obviously felt. In a way, I actually celebrate those differences.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. I want to give the point of view of my constituent, who runs a business. She says, “I currently supply materials to a lady in Devon, who then produces goods for sale within the United Kingdom, only I’m at a complete loss as to what to do regarding the GPSR rules coming in. The United Kingdom voted to leave the EU. Successive Parliaments have done what they can to make this nation as dysfunctional as possible and return us to EU subjugation.” What would the hon. Member tell my constituent’s business, which must close as part of the price to pay to further the aim of having an all-Ireland Irish Republic? That is what my constituent says, and it is very much contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said.

[Peter Dowd]

As I understand it, that issue is being negotiated. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not accept the point he made about subjugation. I do not think it is subjugation, and I will come to that. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I respect the point he made, and I respect the views of his constituents, just as I respect the views of my constituents. But it does not alter the fact that the negotiation is taking place. As I said before—I will repeat it again—these things are never, ever symmetrical.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Dowd]

The question we have to ask ourselves is whether the Bill before us is a breach of a treaty or agreement. I will leave that question in the air while I let the hon. Gentleman intervene.

[Jim Shannon]

Everyone in this House respects the hon. Gentleman for his honesty, and for the way he has stood up for justice. In all the debates we have been in, in Westminster Hall or this Chamber, he has epitomised those who seek justice and honesty. However, in his contribution today, the rights of the people of Northern Ireland, of Unionists and of all those who wish to have their rights restored through this Bill have not been referred to. I ask the hon. Gentleman I know to take that on board, and to speak up for the people of Northern Ireland; unfortunately, he has not done that so far.

[Peter Dowd]

I regret that the hon. Gentleman takes that view of what I am saying. I would not say it is not fair, but I am genuinely trying to be as conciliatory as I can be given the circumstances in relation to the question of trust. The question is this: is this Bill a breach of an agreement or a treaty? In my view it is, and I think most people are not denying that assertion. There may be some people who do so, but as a House of Commons paper of 4 December says on page 17:

“No rule of a state’s domestic law can be used to justify a breach of its existing international obligations. This principle is set out in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.”

I genuinely believe that I am bound by that. We can caveat any breach of international law until the cows come home; it can be claimed that it is out of the concept of necessity as referred to before in terms of international law. However, although we can claim whatever we want, it does not wash with other countries with which we have negotiated, and that in a sense is all there is to that particular point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for co-sponsoring the Bill and being present today. He is right: the people who say in this or other debates that we cannot change what is written in tablets of stone are of the very party that was, from 1998, part of securing the Good Friday agreement, which was worked on in a political way, with parties in Northern Ireland, including my own, and changed time and again through processes at Leeds castle, the St Andrews agreement and the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006. The very arguments that they are deploying against change ignore the fact that they have a history of doing exactly the same thing—particularly on the Belfast agreement, which they often suggest is written in tablets of stone.

[Jim Shannon]

Let me quote someone from a small business that relies on supplies from Etsy. They say:

“I simply cannot continue without this supply. My suppliers have said that they can’t understand the system and can’t afford to look into this any further. Therefore, I am cut off. I am having to give notice to my landlord. I was barely making ends meet as it was - another business lost.”

The Bill is an opportunity to retrieve that and every other business, which would help the economy in Northern Ireland to thrive and create jobs. The Government need to do something.

[Gavin Robinson]

That is a fair point, and illustrates the requirement to honour the agreement—supported by the Minister and her Labour colleagues back in February—to eradicate routine checks within the UK internal market system. Does that deal with all the issues? No, it does not. Does it deal with what is in the red lane? No, it does not. Does it deal with the constitutional impurity of the overarching framework? No, it does not. But is it a step forward? Does it remove the frustration of my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna), who does not share my constitutional outlook? Yes, it does, and it should have been delivered in October.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim has also included in the Bill aspects on customs and parcels—another commitment made back in February and supported by the Labour Government. It was to be implemented in October this year, but they delayed it. The Minister and Members should know that we did not get overly exercised by the delay, because we recognise that it will be implemented by the end of the financial year. However, owing to the practicalities, the fact that attention was diverted because of the general election and all the rest, it did not happen in October. It is happening, which is good, but it is being done in a way that recognises the overarching imposition that we have from relationships that are totally unnecessary.

If the business run by the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is bringing in thread, wool and felt from Etsy to make craft, I defy any Member to stand up and indicate how that will have a material impact on the integrity of the single market. I defy any Member to stand up and give me an example—other than from “The Lord of the Rings”—of where a tree has come from GB to NI and been planted, and has then got up and walked across the border. It does not happen, yet we are told that sending a tree from Stranraer to Belfast would destroy the sanitary and phytosanitary integrity of the single market. It is a nonsense.

We are having to live with, and try to work through, the practical solutions to the overarching imposition that this Parliament agreed to, in spite of the concerns raised by people like me who were here during the Brexit years, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) was. We raised concerns, but we were ignored. So when people stand up in 2024 and say, “Why are we still talking about an issue that started in 2016?”, it is because Members on both sides of the House did not listen to the warnings, the concerns, and the opportunities for compromise and agreement. Moreover, in repeating the same approach today, we are storing up greater potential for frustration in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Fleur Anderson)]

Let me begin by expressing thanks to all those who have contributed to this debate so far—I am sure that there will be many more after me—and to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). He has set out his view to the House with the same ardour as he did a fortnight ago, although at greater length than he was allowed to in Westminster Hall, and he made his case during his time in Stormont as well.

It is important to restate to him what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said to this House a fortnight ago, which is that the Government want Northern Ireland to prosper and flourish as an important part of the Union. On that, many of us will find agreement. We are here to do what is best for the people of Northern Ireland. I also reiterate the Government’s commitment to both the Windsor framework and to the UK internal market. It was on that point that the Secretary of State respectfully disagreed with the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim in this House a fortnight ago.

I will set out the Government’s objection to this Bill, which is not compatible with international law, does not account for Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances, and would take away powers that are given to the Northern Ireland Assembly to make decisions about Northern Ireland. It would result in a regulatory black hole that would be very bad for businesses, jobs, growth, the Northern Ireland economy and the rest of the United Kingdom.

I will start by outlining some of the good news for the Northern Ireland economy—news that shows what the Windsor framework, the prospect of stability, the Executive returning, and the stability of a new Labour Government are doing for the economic outlook in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland composite economic index indicates that economic output increased by 0.4% over the quarter to June 2024 and by 2.3% over the year. Ulster University’s economic policy centre shows that Northern Ireland has a forecasted growth rate of 1.4% in 2024 and 1.7% in 2025. The region’s economy is performing better than was expected at the start of the year. This has been driven by strong growth in employment, particularly in the transport, construction and health sectors.

The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency’s interdepartmental business register shows that the number of businesses registered for VAT or pay-as-you-earn operating in Northern Ireland in 2022 is estimated to have risen by 1,550 since 2021 to 77,640, and is continuing to increase. I could go on and on; I have a longer list of the good news stories for Northern Ireland. The economy is working, but all the businesses I speak to talk about the need for stability, and the underlying premise of this Bill would change that stability. We would go into uncertainty and chaos, which would not be good for the Northern Ireland economy.

[Jim Shannon]

Honestly and sincerely, each one of us on the Unionist Benches who has concerns has presented examples of where things are not working, and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) introduced the Bill to address those issues. I gave two examples of businesses, and I could give many more if you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were to let me, but I know that you will not. The Minister might say that what has been done is positive, but for us there is not positivity. Constituents with businesses have told me that they will no longer be able to trade, to have a business, or to provide employment and pay wages, and that has to be addressed. Those are the issues that we are raising, Minister. Tell us what will happen.

[Fleur Anderson]

I listened carefully to the examples that the hon. Gentleman gave on behalf of his constituents. They are concerning, and we need to listen to them carefully. I absolutely understand the concerns raised by other Members in this debate as well. It is useful to have this debate, so that we can talk about those issues, but without the Windsor framework, there would be no framework from within which to negotiate changes. Many changes have been made since the establishment of the Windsor framework, and that shows that it can flex, allow negotiation, and allow for practices and schemes, such as the internal market scheme, that enable the smooth flow of trade. That is the benefit of having the Windsor framework, rather than ditching it.