Horticulture Trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Campbell]

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

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

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

[Mr Campbell]

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

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

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

European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson]

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

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

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Let me briefly mention that motion that has just taken been debated in the Assembly, which was secured by the Ulster Unionist party and amended by the DUP. We often hear in this place that when all parties stand together in the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Government will react. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in asking the Minister to respond to that debate?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Mr Robinson, there are nine minutes remaining of this Adjournment debate.

Trade Diversion and Windsor Framework

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Jim Allister]

In a moment, perhaps. I need to make sure I get through what I need to say.

It is beyond doubt, I would respectfully say, that there has been trade diversion. Back in September, the Road Haulage Association gave evidence to a parliamentary Committee of this House. It told the Committee that 30% of haulage lorries that take goods to GB are returning empty. Why? Because GB companies have stopped supplying. Now, that is an incredible thing to contemplate. Trade works on the basis that you take goods out, and then you fill your lorry and bring goods back. That is how you make it viable and how the economy works. That 30% of lorries now returning to Northern Ireland are returning empty is an incredible indictment of the operation of the protocol.

And things are getting worse. The EU regulation on general product safety now puts more burdens on companies selling into Northern Ireland, because they have to meet enhanced EU product safety regulations. I have mentioned the craft sector in this House before. Recently, 11 suppliers in that niche market stopped supplying Northern Ireland. It will get worse, because the partial border is coming and they will have to do more paperwork and make more declarations about sending simple parcels from GB to Northern Ireland. Tesco has slides that it shows to its own suppliers stating that they should now buy from the Republic of Ireland because it is easier to supply from there than from GB. The same is happening in veterinary medicines and in every sector.

Why does that matter? It matters for a very pertinent political reason. The whole idea of trade diversion and the whole purpose of the protocol was and is to build an all-Ireland economy: to dismantle the economic links between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and enhance links with the Irish Republic, thereby creating stepping stones out of the United Kingdom into an all-Ireland for Northern Ireland. That was the determination that lay behind the protocol.

We do not need a protocol to govern trade. It is demonstrable that if we can organise trade through Northern Ireland to GB without border checks in the Irish sea, and if, as the Government now say is possible, we can do it with checks away from the border, then equally we could do it in the other direction, through mutual enforcement. That would mean recognising that if we are going to export from one territory to another, our manufacturers must produce goods to the standards of the other, and we would enforce that by making it a criminal offence to do otherwise. That is the essence of mutual enforcement. It would work, but it is not allowed to work, because the political agenda of the protocol is to ensure this reorientation and realignment.

We are told that we now have Intertrade UK, but it has no staff and no budget, in comparison with InterTradeIreland, which has more than 50 staff and a budget of £6.5 million a year and is active across the whole area. Intertrade UK has been set up as a shadow, but it is not able to compete in any sense.

This Government have allowed the economy of Northern Ireland to drift out of the United Kingdom. I believe those who are protocol enthusiasts want that to happen. Now it is happening, the onus is back on the Government to do something about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Business is like water: it follows the easiest course. When we were an integrated part of the UK economy, the easiest and cheapest course was to do the greater bulk of our trade with GB. That, historically, has been our basic supply market for our raw materials and everything else. However, when a fettering of trade is imposed, naturally, business will follow the easiest route. The easiest route now, sadly, is to cease trading from GB and accentuate trading with the EU, and most particularly the Republic of Ireland.

The United Kingdom was built on two pillars, according to the Acts of Union. The first was a political union, with article 3 establishing this House as one sovereign Parliament for the whole United Kingdom; the second was an economic union, through article 6, which established unfettered trade between and within all parts of the United Kingdom. That was what article 6 said—that there should be unfettered trade. But along came the protocol, which fettered trade, leaving the Supreme Court with no choice but to accept that the protocol had therefore subjugated article 6. The very foundation of our economic union, article 6, which says that there shall be unfettered trade, is in suspension. It is no wonder that the consequence of that fettering of trade is a diversion of trade.

[Robin Swann]

I thank the hon. and learned Member for giving way. It is on that diversion of trade that I wish to speak. He and most Northern Ireland MPs will know of the fantastic Colemans Garden Centre in my constituency of South Antrim. It supplies quite a number of people across Northern Ireland who have had difficulty in getting plants and fruit brought across from their main supplier, McIntyre Fruit, in Scotland. Just before this debate, the manager of Colemans Garden Centre told me that he had been in contact with Stuart McIntyre who said that he had just picked up a contract to supply a firm in Japan. He said that, bureaucracy-wise and administration-wise, it is easier for a supplier in Scotland to supply into Japan than it is to supply across the 14-mile stretch of water into Northern Ireland.

[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.

Clonoe Inquest

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

There is no equivalence at all—none whatsoever—for the reasons that have been set out by Members in this exchange, following the question asked by the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington. There is nothing in the European convention on human rights that says there must be equivalence. Our armed services personnel, the RUC, security services and others were doing their best to protect the citizens of Northern Ireland from the murderous onslaught that they were subjected to over the years of the troubles. That is why there is no equivalence between them and those who chose in those circumstances to use violence to try to advance their cause. In the end, the terrible violence that we are discussing was brought to an end by the Good Friday agreement—by people finally recognising that that is not the way to proceed.

Going back to the question asked about the cost by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), there was an alternative cost, which is what we would have faced if the Good Friday agreement had not been successful in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. We should recognise what a significant moment it was, but we should stand with our soldiers.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Much has been made in recognising the service of our armed forces, including the members of the RUC and the PSNI, because not only did they defend our communities, they lived among them. Does the Secretary of State agree that the soldiers acted inside the rules of engagement in that they believed their lives were in danger from heavily armed terrorists, who were intent on murder, and that decisions taken in a split second by the military commander were, in his view, justified?

[Hilary Benn]

In all honesty, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that, of course, I was not present at the time; I am not the coroner; I have not looked into the circumstances of the case; and therefore I am not in any position to answer the question that he has put to me. But I have read the summary of the coroner’s findings. They of course raise serious matters, which is why the Ministry of Defence is considering them.

Northern Ireland’s Political Institutions

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I will not; I will make some progress.

It is in the spirit of the Good Friday agreement that I campaign for reform of our governance. The Good Friday agreement must be understood as it was intended, as a foundation for future progress, integration and normalisation, rather than a permanent solution to the divided society that we had in 1998.

As far back as 1999, my Alliance party wrote of the inherent risks in embedding rigid consociationalism within our political structures. We have always been pragmatic about the need for our political structures to evolve. More than 25 years later, the political structures born out of the Good Friday agreement, and the subsequent agreements, no longer reflect the diversity and progress of our society.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I will make some progress.

Today, close to 40% of the population hold a national identity that is not exclusively British or Irish, while the proportion of Members of the Legislative Assembly designated as neither Unionist nor nationalist has more than doubled since 2011. The days of defining Northern Ireland’s politics in purely binary terms is over—I am proof of that—yet our power-sharing arrangements continue to do so, at the expense of stability and progress.

There is also a misconception that reform of the Good Friday agreement would be an unprecedented departure from our peace agreements. Again, that is untrue. For example, the changes made during the St Andrews agreement in 2006 on how the Executive operated were a significant departure from the Good Friday agreement, and increased instability and the unfettered power of the two largest parties to the detriment of good government.

The proposals that I will outline would move us closer to the original purpose of the Good Friday agreement’s provisions. Although we will have had an Executive in place for the past year, the truth is that our institutions are no more stable today than on the day they collapsed. It is my firm view that it is not a matter of if Stormont collapses, but when. Over the past 12 months, any number of the political events that have unfolded could have triggered a collapse. That risk is never far from my mind or those of my Lagan Valley constituents.

Most of all, that constant looming threat prevents the transformative, bold action necessary to get Northern Ireland’s public services and finances in order. That will remain the case for as long as our power-sharing structures grant individual parties the ability to veto the functioning of government. Who bears the brunt of ransom politics and those perpetual cycles? It is the people of Northern Ireland, whether they are Unionist, nationalist or neither, such as myself.

For decades, our communities have yearned and fought for progress only to be shackled by a system that is fundamentally flawed. It is a system that allows one party to veto progress as and when it pleases, leaving the people and public services of Northern Ireland in limbo and decay. The outworkings of this system have been immensely damaging. As many hon. Members will be aware, Northern Ireland has by far the highest health waiting lists in the UK. Our schools are underfunded, our roads in disrepair, and our public services stretched to breaking point. At the same time, our talented young people are leaving for opportunities elsewhere because they see no future in a system that continually fails them.

I asked myself whether I would mention that we have some of the longest waiting lists and that our public services are under pressure, because hon. Members across the UK—and we in Northern Ireland are part of the UK—have the same issues. The outlier is that we have the biggest spend per head in the UK on health, yet we have the worst outcomes.

[Robin Swann]

On Northern Ireland having the biggest health spend, will the hon. Lady reflect on the fact that that in its recent publication, the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council equated the spend in Northern Ireland to that of north-east and north-west England? It is therefore incorrect to say that we have the highest spend. What we have are the challenges resulting from dysfunctional single-year budgets since 2016 to support our health service, which does not allow for the transformation it needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I will make progress.

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

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

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

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

[Robin Swann]

South Antrim.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Sorry, I mean the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann)—North Antrim was his old life; the new hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) is here in Westminster Hall. What do we have to show for those Treasury costs? The outcome is directly related to our inability to plan and budget long term, and to take the brave action necessary to reform our public services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

No; I will make some progress.

Our partnership approach enables us to work together to overcome joint challenges and to strengthen the institutions through delivery.

[Robin Swann]

Will the Minister give way?

[Fleur Anderson]

No; I will make some progress.

One of the most important contributions that we, as the UK Government, can make is to provide that long-term certainty and stability to Northern Ireland after the tumult of recent years. It is the focus of the UK Government and, I am sure, of all the Members here present. We do not want Stormont to fall into a pattern of collapse, as we have seen previously.

I know that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley feels strongly about the political evolution of those institutions, as do many in Northern Ireland. I remain committed to listening to those conversations going forward and to listening to all the views of MPs and Members of the Legislative Assembly, but the priority must be to support the Executive to deliver on those most pressing public service issues—health, jobs, the cost of living and education.

The third measure of effectiveness is delivery. Although the strand 1 institutions have been a significant success, more remains to be done to ensure that Northern Ireland is the thriving, successful place we know it can be. Northern Ireland has much to be proud of, benefiting from increasing economic prosperity and investment since 1998, both from the UK Government and the private sector. Northern Ireland has thriving tourism, film, TV production and cyber-security sectors, which are a leading dimension of Northern Ireland’s diverse economy.

However, from my conversations with many people in Northern Ireland, I know that palpable frustration remains at the state of the public services, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley outlined. I am very aware that receiving medical treatment in a corridor or waiting more than 12 hours in one of the hospitals across Northern Ireland has become normal, that some children with special educational needs wait for more than a year for the educational support they are entitled to, that social housing waiting lists are increasing, and that court delays remain a challenge, with a significant difference between court delays in the rest of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. I do not highlight these examples to be critical, and I know from my many conversations with Northern Ireland Ministers that they are fully aware of these challenges and serious about addressing them.

Improving public services is, rightly, the responsibility of the Executive, so the key question is whether the institutions, in their current form, can deliver on public services. The answer is yes, they can. The Executive now have the political will and stability, as well as a record funding settlement of £18 billion for Northern Ireland in 2025-26, which is an increase of £1.5 billion. Funding for the Northern Ireland Executive in the autumn Budget exceeds 124% of comparable UK Government funding per person in the rest of the UK, and the Executive have all the levers they need to tackle these challenges. The UK Government are focused on delivering our five missions across the UK, are a willing partner with the Executive in this and want to help the Executive to seize this opportunity. We are committed to working collaboratively and ensuring that Northern Ireland’s institutions can work effectively to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.

[Robin Swann]

I raised the issue of the £235 million transformation fund that the Government have given with the Minister in Northern Ireland questions. I know the Minister and I agree that it is crucial that we get that transformation money released to the Executive and spent in Northern Ireland to transform those services as soon as possible.

[Fleur Anderson]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised that issue. There is a £235 million part of the restoration package focused on transformation, and it is transformation that can demonstrate the effectiveness of the institutions. This is a demonstration of the UK Government’s willingness to work together in partnership for genuine transformation. I know that these projects will be agreed by the Finance Minister shortly, and I agree that this needs to be done quickly. As the hon. Gentleman knows, transformation takes time. There needs to be collaboration, willingness and political will, and we have that with the Executive right now.

In conclusion, Northern Ireland’s political institutions, arising from the Good Friday agreement, have been extremely effective in embedding and upholding peace. They have enabled locally accountable decision making and brought increasing prosperity to Northern Ireland since the signing of the agreement in 1998. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley has outlined the challenges and frustrations felt by many in Northern Ireland, and we are politicians in challenging times. The focus of Government policy in Northern Ireland remains the securing of a brighter future for generations to come.

The UK Government remain committed to working with the Executive—in a spirit of collaboration and partnership that was not seen with the previous Government—to support the transformation of public services and ensure the institutions’ long-term effectiveness to deliver on those issues that every Member in Westminster Hall today will agree matter most to people in northern Ireland—economic growth, the cost of living, safety, jobs, education and health.

I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley for her contribution to this debate; an ongoing debate needs to happen all the time on the reform of Northern Ireland’s institutions.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson]

Yes, I do. Integrated education is a devolved matter for the Executive, but this Government are unapologetically supportive of integrated education. I have spoken to the headteachers of Bangor academy and Rathmore primary school this week, and they, as well as parents and pupils at the schools, are shocked by the decision. I hope that the Education Minister will work with them to resolve his concerns and listen to parents, who overwhelmingly want their children to benefit from integrated education.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The Minister talks of transformation. When the Executive were restored at this time last year, the Government put a pot of £235 million into transformation. A senior Northern Ireland Office official sits on the board. To date, not one penny has been spent on supporting the transformation of either the health service or the education service. Can the Minister update the House on what the hold-up is in regard to spending that money?

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for raising the issue of the Public Service Transformation Board. As he says, the interim board has a £235 million budget for transformation. Several major projects—on health, special educational needs and justice—are now being sent to the Northern Ireland Minister of Finance for agreement, and I have pushed for the full board to be set up by the end of this financial year. I agree that it needs to move ahead and get those projects done.

Draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 General Committees

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I have a couple of queries for the Minister. The chief electoral officer says that 87,700 retained electors are due to be removed on 1 February. The explanatory memorandum suggests that almost all of them live at the address on the register and

“are therefore eligible to be registered to vote at this address.”

That would suggest that those 87,700 electors are real, live people who are able and eligible to vote in Northern Ireland, so I assume that they had the opportunity to do so in the general election only six months ago. In my opinion, that is an exceptionally high number. I wonder whether the Government, although perhaps not at this stage, could ask the chief electoral officer to provide a breakdown of those 87,700 retained electors by constituency so that we can see whether there is any trend or specific registration issue in Northern Ireland of which we need to be aware.

I turn to a more specific question. Proposed new regulation 46C of the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2008, which is entitled “Retained register entries: residence audit”, provides an opportunity to

“conduct a residence audit in respect of any retained elector”.

That indicates that there will be opportunities to do an individual residence audit. Is that the intention of the draft regulations? If so, who would instigate such an audit of an individual’s residence to see whether a retained elector is eligible to vote before a removal warning is issued? Could a residence audit be instigated only by the chief electoral officer and his staff, or could a member of the general public query the eligibility of an elector or their residence at an address?

Further to the point that the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, made about voter ID, may I encourage the Government to look at how voter ID is used in Northern Ireland? Perhaps I might encourage them to extend that approach to the rest of the United Kingdom.

European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill

Robin Swann Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 6th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister]

I will deal with that more fully, but for now I will say that the trade that matters the most to Northern Ireland is with our biggest partner, Great Britain. That is the source of the overwhelming majority of our raw materials that keep our manufacturing industry going, but as a result of this pernicious Irish sea border, that trade is fettered. All raw materials have to pass through the full ambit of an international customs border. If the hon. Member’s constituents envy the position of my constituents, they really need to reassess the situation, as does he. It is nothing to envy.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I thank the hon. and learned Member for introducing the Bill. At Prime Minister’s questions, I asked the Prime Minister about the general product safety regulation that will come into effect next Friday, which will force suppliers in constituencies across England, Scotland and Wales to increase bureaucracy and costs if they still want to supply Northern Ireland consumers and producers. Does he agree that it is absurd that we are putting additional costs on our internal UK market to facilitate the requirements of the European Union?

[Jim Allister]

I agree absolutely. We already see the consequences. [Interruption.] Again, this seems to be a matter of humour to some on the Government Benches. Increasingly, we see that GB suppliers simply stop supplying, because they will not put themselves through the rigours of the customs code, documentary declarations and everything else. It is very difficult for anyone trying to do business in Northern Ireland. In the main, small and medium-sized businesses do not have the resources to employ the extra 10 staff that a big business might to meet the requirements of crossing the Irish sea border. Small suppliers do not have the necessary resources, so they simply stop supplying Northern Ireland. That feeds the continuing diversion of trade.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister]

There are human medicines, and there are veterinary medicines. The vast swathe of veterinary medicines currently stand to be prohibited. As for human medicines, there are some for diabetics that are still subject to difficulties.

[Robin Swann]

rose—

[Jim Allister]

The hon. Member was the Health Minister in Northern Ireland and knows all about that, so I will gladly give way to him.

[Robin Swann]

On that point—I see that Members are smiling; I am quite concerned about the attitude to the issue of some of those on the other Benches—a serious piece of work has been done with the European Union on the subject of continuing the supply of human medicines to Northern Ireland. The challenge is not in the legislation but in the fact that producers and suppliers must meet EU requirements for specific Northern Ireland labelling, which makes it not worth their while to supply items to Northern Ireland, with the result that some manufacturers are still not doing so.

[Jim Allister]

The hon. Member knows that from experience.

I want to make some progress, and to make one point very strongly: the economic consequences are dire for Northern Ireland. We have heard much talk about the fantasy of a dual-access bonanza. We have been told that Northern Ireland will become the Singapore of the west, that we now have unrivalled access to the UK market and to the EU market—consisting of 500 million people—and that everyone should be overwhelmed by the fantastic opportunity that this provides. How wrong that has turned out to be, and for one very simple reason, already alluded to by the right hon. Member for Belfast East.

We have heard the suggestion that inward investment will flow into Northern Ireland because of this dual market access, but it has not done so. Invest Northern Ireland has had to admit that there has been no upturn—and why is that? Because any benefit, if there is one, is countermanded by the fettering of the trade from Great Britain. A manufacturer wishing to set up a business in Northern Ireland in order to have access to the EU market is bound to say to himself—because investors are intelligent people—“Where will I get my raw materials? Oh, I will get them, as most do, from Great Britain.”

But then he will discover that those raw materials will have to pass through an international customs border, with all the regulation, all the delay and all the inspection, and the shine soon goes off that idea. Far from being a bonanza, this has turned out to be anything but.

I have already pointed out that the one sector that is flourishing is the service sector. That does not just happen to be the case; it is able to flourish because it is outside the protocol. And things will get worse: next Friday, when the general product safety regulation comes into force, many small suppliers will simply stop supplying because of the bureaucratic burden that will be placed on them. Already, in so many cases, when someone wants to buy an item online, this will pop up: “Not available in Northern Ireland.” Why is that? Because the small suppliers from Great Britain find it impossible to handle the burden of bureaucracy, so they are simply saying, “We are not supplying to Northern Ireland.” That is hugely frustrating for so many people in Northern Ireland—including, I might say, Mrs Allister, who, like many a woman, wants to order things and then finds that they are not available in Northern Ireland. How would hon. Members from Great Britain feel if “not available in Scotland,” “not available in Wales” and “not available in England” constantly popped up? Would they not be asking why? And when they heard the answer, “It is something called the protocol,” why would they continue to be enthusiasts for the very thing that is blocking their consumers from getting the supplies they need? This is a practical issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister]

Brexit was a national vote, decided for better or for worse on a national basis. The people of London did not vote for Brexit, but no one is saying they should now be ruled by laws from Brussels. The People of Northern Ireland by a small majority did not vote for Brexit, but Members are saying that we should be ruled by laws from Brussels. That does not stack up. I am simply calling in aid what the Belfast agreement says: the Belfast agreement says key decisions are cross-community. Is anyone denying this is a key decision? If so, why is it not a cross-community vote?

[Robin Swann]

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for introducing this Bill, and I acknowledge his recognition of the strengths of those protections in the Belfast agreement, which were built in by my party and especially by Lord Trimble, the former leader of the Ulster Unionist party and the crafter and political deliverer of unionism in support of the Belfast agreement at that time. He said:

“I feel betrayed personally by the Northern Ireland Protocol, and it is also why the unionist population is so incensed at its imposition.

The protocol rips the very heart out of the agreement, which I and they believed safeguarded Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom and ensured that democracy not violence, threat of violence or outside interference, would or could ever change that.

Make no mistake about it, the protocol does not safeguard the Good Friday Agreement. It demolishes its central premise by removing the assurance that democratic consent is needed to make any change to the status of Northern Ireland. It embodies a number of constitutional changes that relate to Northern Ireland.”

[Jim Allister]

The late Lord Trimble was absolutely right about that. What is happening on Tuesday is an invitation to the Assembly, courtesy of the Government’s directive, to tear up the key central portion of the Belfast agreement on cross-community consent. There is another point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

The framework attempts to do that, and there is nothing, I suspect, that prevents those issues being teased out in more detail as time goes by, but at the end of the day, I do not live in a perfect world—I do not know about anybody else. I have constituents, for example, who have been unable to get access to drugs, and that is nothing to do with this issue; it is to do with a whole range of matters that have developed over the past 14 years in relation to Government policy, but I do not want to go there. I and other hon. Members are trying to do the best we possibly can, given the circumstances we have inherited. I know that might be cold comfort for some Members across the Chamber, but it is said with the best intent and with sincerity. It is not to brush this matter aside; it is a recognition that there are challenges, but those challenges were bound to crop up given some of the points I raised earlier.

[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).

[Robin Swann]

I thank the hon. Member for making that point. It looks like I will not get to make a speech, but I want to put on the record that the Ulster Unionist party actually campaigned to remain in the European Union. We thought it best at that point, because we foresaw exactly what is happening now. We respect the referendum of this United Kingdom, but we are now seeing the enabling of what we were concerned about because of the lack of interest in this House with regard to some of the regulations that are coming through and how they are applied to Northern Ireland. The hon. Member mentioned medicines. Yes, we have supply issues, which are global issues, but we also have additional supply issues because of regulation from the European Union.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s position, but again, I disagree with his assertion.

[Robin Swann]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Peter Dowd]

Just a moment. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to call a Westminster Hall debate in relation to a whole series of breaches of treaties—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will be in his place for a Westminster Hall debate whoever secures it. If anyone wants to secure a Westminster Hall debate to tease out those matters in a little bit more detail and in an atmosphere that is a little less fraught, I would be more than happy to be there either as the Chair or as a participating Member.

[Robin Swann]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Peter Dowd]

I am coming to a close, but I will give way. I have found this subject to be crucial to the wider constitutional and democratic process of which we are all supportive. There are times when people are unhappy with decisions, and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will continue to be unhappy, so I will let him speak.

[Robin Swann]

It is not that I am unhappy, and I applaud the hon. Member for the tone he has brought to the debate in opposition to the Bill; it is that we want to see a resolution to these things. He talks about breaking agreements and when trust is removed, which brings me back to my intervention about the Belfast agreement and how Lord Trimble said that the protocol

“demolishes the agreement’s central premise by removing the assurance that democratic consent is required to change Northern Ireland’s status.”

I gently remind the hon. Member of that persuasion.

I am also reminded of the contribution that Lady Sylvia Hermon made when she was in this place in challenging the former Deputy Prime Minister about the Belfast agreement. When he started to talk about it, she simply asked whether he had read it. I simply encourage any hon. Members in opposition to the Bill to ensure that they have actually read the Belfast agreement before quoting it.

[Peter Dowd]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I was going to quote from the Belfast agreement in detail, but I decided not to do so. I did read it, and I remember it at the time as well. I implore him not to push me on that matter.

There are times when I have been unhappy with the decisions made. I have been perplexed when, during the Parliaments I have been part of, conventions and understandings that had been in operation for decades were pushed aside for short-term political expediency. It is one thing to go down that path in the operation of the workings of this House, but it is another to invoke that type of approach when dealing with agreements and treaties, especially when those are with trading partners and neighbours.

I was tempted to explore the Bill clause by clause—all 25 of them—in this contribution, but I resisted—[Interruption.] I did, and it was born out of discipline and willpower. I decided not to test the patience of the Chair and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I will draw my contribution to a close, and hope that hon. Members across the House take what I have said in good faith and without any rancour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deirdre Costigan]

Let us look at the intent behind the existing democratic consent mechanism. The Windsor framework carefully designed the process to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland, through their elected representatives in the Assembly, have a say in whether the key provisions of the framework continue to apply. By allowing a simple majority vote, the framework ensured that the democratic will of the Assembly could be expressed efficiently and effectively. That system reflects the realities of a power sharing arrangement, where decision making can already be complex and contentious.

Clause 19 proposes a significant and disruptive shift. By requiring cross-community consent in the Northern Ireland Assembly—a majority of Unionist and nationalist representation—the Bill introduces a mechanism that grants de facto veto power to either community, and Opposition Members know that. That risks creating scenarios where no decision can be reached at all, with no explanation in the Bill for whether the Windsor framework would continue under such circumstances. Such provisions invite obstruction and brinkmanship on a critical issue.

[Robin Swann]

The hon. Member is countering what she said earlier about having read the Good Friday agreement. Obviously she has not understood it, because that cross-community consent has been central to the protections that were applied in the Belfast agreement at the start to ensure minority concerns are protected. That was the purpose of it. What she is saying in regard to the change from five to 10 on removing cross-community support and consent undermines the principles of the Belfast agreement, which my party paid so much for.

Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Troubles

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I can indeed give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is absolutely what we should do when we are thinking, in this particular case, of those who served in the armed forces—the 250,000 people who served in Northern Ireland as part of Operation Banner.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

In this place on 11 September, the Secretary of State made a statement with regard to another inquiry. At that point, I asked him whether, for those families who had lost loved ones to terrorism, he had closed down all the other options for an inquiry. He told me at that point that ICRIR would be the only option. My understanding tonight is that he has now put back on the table several cases, inquests and inquiries. What confidence do those families now have in ICRIR when the Secretary of State says tonight that it needs reform, that he will bring forward further proposals to reform it, and that he has not detailed them? On the Stormont House agreement, I remind him that the Ulster Unionist party did not support it.

[Hilary Benn]

On the one inquiry I announced to the House, in relation to the murder of Pat Finucane, I explained the unique circumstances that led me to reach that conclusion. If I may correct the hon. Gentleman, inquiries were never taken off the table as an option. They have remained on the table. It is for the Government of the day to decide whether a public inquiry is ordered or not. He is right that civil cases and inquests in due course will return. It is the case that some people do not have confidence in ICRIR. That is why I think it is important that we should take further steps to try to build that confidence, but I have no doubt about its capacity to do the job that is required on behalf of the families that seek its help. As I made clear in the House previously, in the end, ICRIR’s effectiveness will be judged by those families. Do they get the answers that they have sought for so long by approaching it? I know that Sir Declan Morgan is really committed to making sure that he can do that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson]

I recently met Lilian Seenoi Barr, the first mayor in Northern Ireland from an ethnic minority background, who is showing the way for others. I agree that people must see themselves represented, so I join my hon. Friend in urging all parties across Northern Ireland to look at their selection processes and their invitations to meetings, and to make sure that all parties welcome everyone from every background.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Jay Basra is a 20-year-old Ulster Unionist candidate who ran in Mid Ulster at the last general election. Jay describes himself as Punjabi-British. When he announced his candidacy, he received a torrent of online abuse, which he described as “dehumanising” and “abhorrent”. He said:

“It reduces me down to my skin colour rather than myself as a person.”

However, he has also said:

“If anything I’m even more determined to run again and increase the Ulster Unionist vote like I did in the general election.”

What words of encouragement does the Minister have for people such as Jay?

[Fleur Anderson]

I am horrified to hear of that online abuse, and I am horrified to hear of any abuse that any politicians receive. I commend Jay for his courage in saying, “Actually, this is not putting me off. I want to stand again.” The hon. Member is quite right to raise this matter, as we would all want to do, and to show support for Jay and others who want to be able to say that they can stand and not receive such abuse. We should call it out whenever we see it.