Budget Resolutions

Robin Swann Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

When I look to the Northern Ireland-specific page and a bit in the Red Book, and remove any paragraphs that refer to funding or programmes that have already been committed to by this Government, there are actually only a couple of paragraphs left. So far down is the Northern Ireland Office in the pecking order at the Cabinet table that there was not even anything in the Budget for Northern Ireland that was worthy of a leak.

The Chancellor’s statement on Wednesday said that Northern Ireland would receive £370 million, but let us be clear: despite the Northern Ireland Office’s puff piece on the impact of the Budget on business and public services, explaining how lucky we are in Northern Ireland to receive a Barnett consequential, the figure breaks down to just £18 million this year. We have even seen a Northern Ireland Office Minister on social media singing the praises of investment in Northern Ireland from the Government’s Innovate UK fund. That investment was welcome, but it was delivered in 2023. The Chancellor said in her statement last week that Scotland was getting £820 million because the leader of the Scottish Labour party asked for it—I think that was repeated by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). My question to the Government is this: have Northern Ireland businesses not asked for recognition of the challenges that they face due to the impact of this Government?

Alan Lowry of the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland said that the £16.6 million that has been given for the internal market package

“will not be a quick fix, but by acknowledging that there is a problem in the first place means that we can work together to address it.”

It is good that the Government have finally acknowledged that the Windsor framework is an issue, but on other issues, such as veterinary medicine, they continue to ignore the impact of divergence.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that the Budget contains pay-per-mile charges on electric vehicles? How will someone crossing from Northern Ireland into the Republic of Ireland be impacted by that taxation? The Transport Secretary is present; I think it is a question that many people may well be asking.

[Robin Swann]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention—that is one of the issues I was going to raise. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was here earlier; when I asked that specific question, he could not answer it.

Our voluntary and community sector in Northern Ireland is facing a funding cliff edge with the end of the UK shared prosperity fund. The sector has a further ask that support be ringfenced, which now seems to be a common call from many sectors in Northern Ireland.

When I had the Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster here, the Prime Minister welcomed them to this place. Have those young farmers not made representations directly to Ministers on the impact of the family farm inheritance tax, which will have a disproportionate effect on them? The £1 million spousal transfer is a small token. What of the generational transfers so common in Northern Ireland farming—the transfer of a family farm from father to daughter, from mother to son, or from and to any other relative not mentioned in this case? Those asks have obviously fallen on deaf ears, tuned out by all but a select cohort of Back-Bench Labour MPs.

I have heard appeals from some noble Back-Bench Labour MPs, like the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), asking their own Front Benchers to review the family farm inheritance tax. Will we see a reversal, or has No. 10 or even No. 11 made the calculation that a U-turn like we have seen in other areas would not save their seats and written them off already, like the farming families of the United Kingdom? I hope not, because some of those Members are among the most passionate the Government have.

We hear of the headroom that the Chancellor has established. I hope that she can use it to reimburse the £500 million that the change to agricultural property relief was set to raise, because there should now be the quantum to do that now.

I welcome the fact that the Transport Secretary is present, because I welcome the investment in the midlands rail hub and the trans-Pennine route upgrade. I have raised with her and the Northern Ireland Office investment in rail in my constituency, specifically the rail link from Antrim to Lisburn, and the Department for Transport has kindly funded the £1 million feasibility study. She has had sight of that, but our own Minister for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland has yet to release it, even though she said she would do so this summer.

Those are the specific Northern Ireland concerns that we have with this Budget.

Draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025

Robin Swann Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 General Committees

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I rise to oppose these regulations, not because I am against improving energy efficiency, but because in our opinion they represent yet another example of unfair and unnecessary regulation being imposed on Northern Ireland. Although the Government have insisted that these measures are vital, it is noticeable that they are choosing to consult on similar regulations that will be implemented across the rest of the United Kingdom, while simply imposing them in Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister: why is it acceptable to consult in one part of the United Kingdom, but not the other?

The Minister referenced some items that the regulations would cover. These regulations will cover air conditioning units, comfort fans, computers, domestic ovens, hobs—there is a catch-all phrase for all electrical and electronic household and office equipment. They will also cover electric motors, electronic displays, dishwashers, tumble dryers, washing machines, light sources, fridges, smartphones, mobile phones, space-saving heaters, vacuum cleaners, water pumps and welders. These regulations have an impact on everyday life and everyday items in Northern Ireland specifically—they will only affect Northern Ireland. The items listed are parts of everyday life for each of us and each of our constituents. I therefore ask Committee members: why, in recognition of the implementation of these regulations, are my constituents of less importance or less worth than those of a Welsh, Scottish or Cornish MP? Why do we have to accept a differential or disruption on supply of these goods being forced on the people of Northern Ireland? Why does Northern Ireland continue to be treated as an afterthought when it comes to regulation?

This instrument, as drafted, follows a pattern we have seen before: Northern Ireland being forced to align with EU-derived rules, while the rest of the United Kingdom retains the flexibility to shape its own policies. The Minister said it was likely that manufacturers would follow the EU standard. I question whether a Government should really draft and implement regulations based on the likelihood of something happening by an outside body that they seek to have no control over.

This is not just an administrative issue; it has consequences. Businesses in Northern Ireland will face additional costs and compliance burdens compared with their counterparts across Great Britain, which may ultimately avoid them or get a say in shaping how the regulations are enforced. That places Northern Ireland and its consumers at a competitive disadvantage, creating yet another barrier to economic growth at a time when we should be supporting, not stifling, investment—something that we had been told, by both this Government and the previous one, would not happen under the Windsor framework. While the goal of improving energy efficiency is commendable, imposing a rigid one-size-fits-all approach does not guarantee real progress. Indeed, it risks increasing costs for manufacturers and consumers, while delivering minimal environmental benefits.

Have we assessed whether the regulations will genuinely reduce energy consumption in a meaningful way, or are we simply enforcing them for the sake of regulatory conformity? There was no consultation for Northern Ireland, no consultation with trade bodies, with consumer rights organisations or with families, who might, when their tumble dryer broke down, have looked for a cheaper or second-hand model, but now will have to buy the one that meets EU standards. Why should a constituent in South Antrim have less access to different products than someone in Southampton?

On consultation, the explanatory memorandum simply says that the bodies were not consulted because of previous consultation outcomes. Why were trade or consumer bodies not consulted in Northern Ireland? Was it because the Government did not want to hear their concerns, or let other hon. Members on this Committee know what they had to say? Or did they simply assume that they would not raise any objections, as they did last time?

Beyond the economic and environmental concerns, there is a broader constitutional issue at play. The Government speak of Northern Ireland as an integral part of this United Kingdom, yet time and again we see it subjected to different rules, dictated by external frameworks. That raises a fundamental question: are we truly committed to regulatory consistency across the UK, or is Northern Ireland to be permanently treated as a special case?

For those reasons, I urge the Committee to reject the regulations. If consultation is appropriate for Great Britain, it should be appropriate for Northern Ireland as well, as part of the United Kingdom. I believe that anything less is unacceptable, and I urge Members to oppose the measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Let me say to the hon. Member that we have absolutely looked at the regulations. As the UK Government, we believe that they are good for consumers. In fact, the ambition that has been set by the regulations is one that we wish to mirror ourselves. We will consult on these standards, not because the EU is telling us to but because we think that it is the right thing for UK businesses and consumers.

The vast majority of manufacturers who sell not only in the GB market but in the EU market are already making the transition, because that market is much bigger. They are already driving up product standards. That is good for businesses, and we want to support and encourage that.

I hear the arguments and the caution about not being dictated to by the EU, but please hear me when I say that we think it is right that we drive up standards for our consumers. We would want to do this. The EU has done it, but we would want to do it in our own right. That is why we have tabled this SI and it is why we are also planning to consult on improved standards.

[Robin Swann]

I thank the Minister for giving way. My opening comment was not about being opposed to the cost or energy savings that the regulations will bring about, but why is it right for them to be enforced in Northern Ireland now? Setting aside the Windsor framework and its implications, as a UK Minister, why does she feel it is right and proper that the rest of the UK is consulted and gets to engage, and that people get to have their say? Or is the Minister really saying to this House, “When the time comes, we will tell you that because it is the right thing to do, we are doing it?” The consultation that she is talking about, mentioned in paragraph 7.2, as well as her explanation of it, are actually fictitious, too, because it sounds to me as though this Government are going to do it anyway, while the Opposition sit on their hands.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are trying to work within the Windsor framework. We are not here to litigate that. It sets out a set of protocols and procedures that we are working under. EU rules have come forward, and it is right that we make sure that we create the legal framework so that these measures apply in Northern Ireland. Critically, irrespective of all that, the basics of what is proposed are good for consumers. They are about improving the efficiency and design of products. In the case of smartphones, it is about improving some of the protections that are available to consumers. The hon. Gentleman and other Members should want that, and we as a Government do want that, irrespective of whether or not we want to litigate the Windsor framework.

We are introducing the SI because we believe it is the right thing to do. We believe it is important that we improve and drive up standards. We will consult on the proposition because we think it is good. Based on the engagement we have had, manufacturers are supportive of the direction of travel. As they want to sell in the EU single market, that sets the default for industry. In that spirit, we propose the SI today and I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.