Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will in a moment.

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

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

[Jim Allister]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

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

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

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

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

[Jim Allister]

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

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

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

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

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

[Sammy Wilson]

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

[Jim Allister]

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

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

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

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

[Jim Allister]

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

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

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

[Jim Allister]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

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

UK-India Free Trade Agreement

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Gethins]

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

[Jim Allister]

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

[Stephen Gethins]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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

[Iqbal Mohamed]

The EU just signed one!

[Jim Allister]

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

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

[Stephen Gethins]

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

[Jim Allister]

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

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

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

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

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

[Iqbal Mohamed]

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

[Jim Allister]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Stephen Gethins]

That is Brexit’s fault.

[Jim Allister]

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

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

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 General Committees

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Andrew Bowie]

No votes.

[Jim Allister]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

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

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

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

[Jim Allister]

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

[Chris McDonald]

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

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

Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 General Committees

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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

“enabling substantial price pass-through.”

To whom? To the consumers.

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

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

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

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

[Jim Allister]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Jim Allister]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

Draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 General Committees

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. Here we have another egregious example of how my constituents are disenfranchised when it comes to making laws that govern aspects of their lives. All of us in the United Kingdom were subject to the EU regulations on radio equipment through the Radio Equipment Regulations 2017. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark wish to intervene?

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

indicated dissent.

[Jim Allister]

It is only in Northern Ireland, however, that without any consent or consultation, additional laws under the 2022 legislation are going to be enforced.

The basic premise of this House and of a democratic society is that people get a say in the laws that govern them. That is not so for my constituents. These are laws being imposed courtesy of the Windsor framework, which simply decrees that the United Kingdom has abandoned all claim to make laws in over 300 areas, and has subjected itself to imposing whatever laws are made in those areas by a foreign Parliament and a collection of foreign Ministers. That is the absurdity of how my constituents are governed in those 300 areas of law, of which the draft regulations represent but one.

The draft regulations apply to everyday items: the baby alarm in the bedroom down to the living room—[Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order. I am the Chair of this Committee, not the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark. If he wants to intervene, he should do so by rising—if I see him. I was allowing the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim some leeway, but could he keep within the scope of the regulations?

[Jim Allister]

The scope of the regulations includes baby alarms, the alarms that hang around an elderly person’s neck, and the smartphones in our pockets—any internet-dependent radio device. That is a vast array of things. The upshot is that laws that do not apply in the United Kingdom, and that have not been instigated or approved either by the devolved institutions or by this sovereign Parliament, are to be imposed upon my constituents. Would any Member of this House sit silent if it were their constituents who would be affected? I suggest that they would not; they would think that they were sent here to make the laws that govern them. That is the essence of the matter.

Indeed, this has illustrated just how much in subjection we are. In paragraph 7 of the explanatory memorandum, the Government say that they did not carry out a consultation. They did not carry out a consultation because a consultation could make no difference. They have signed up to enforcing whatever Brussels wants, not what those they might consult—the people affected—want. The absurdity is illustrated by the Government saying in the explanatory memorandum that they have

“not undertaken a formal public consultation as this instrument’s provisions are confined to the implementation of provisions as required by the terms of the Windsor Framework”.

In other words, “We have to do it. It doesn’t matter whether we like it or not. It doesn’t matter whether those to whom it will be applied like it or not. Just lump it, because we have to do it, courtesy of the Windsor framework.” That is why I began my remarks by talking about the disenfranchising of my constituents, of which this is but another example. Neither this Government nor the last, who put this upon us, ever want to face up to that.

The Government admit that the measure will affect small business. In paragraph 9.3 of the explanatory memorandum, the Government say that the instrument

“does impact small or micro businesses”,

and add in paragraph 9.4 that

“we are unable to take any mitigating actions to minimise the regulatory burdens on small or micro businesses.”

What are the Government saying? “We can’t help you. Yes, it’s going to have a negative effect on micro and small businesses, but we can’t do anything to help you. Suck it up.” That is no way for a sovereign Government to treat any part of their own country, yet that is the tragedy of how my constituents are being treated.

The Government try to dress it up by saying, “Oh, but you have dual access.” Dual access is a joke. It has not produced one job in Northern Ireland. That has been confirmed by Invest Northern Ireland. We might have dual access, but the raw materials we need for anything we want to manufacture have to come through an international customs border, nullifying any effect of dual access. That is no excuse whatsoever, and it is another sorry commentary on any Government that they come before a Committee such as this and plaintively say, “We didn’t write this law. We can’t change this law. We’re just going to impose it on those who had no say whatsoever in it.” That is absurd and wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

I thank the shadow Minister for his warm welcome and kind words; I look forward to working with him. I also thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim for his contribution. As I explained, this instrument ensures effective implementation in Northern Ireland of the Commission delegated regulation that applies additional essential requirements for manufacturers of certain radio equipment. I hope my introductory speech laid out why we are bringing this SI today, the reasons behind it, our intentions and our work with stakeholders and businesses so far, many of whom have already prepared to comply with the new essential requirements, which came into force on 1 August this year.

The shadow Minister asked about the precise percentage. We have worked with the stakeholders and trade associations that have come into compliance. Although I am not able to give a precise percentage today, we will keep him updated, as we are keen to continue discussions with industry stakeholders, including the trade associations. As I mentioned, we have not identified any significant impacts of this instrument, as many businesses have already adapted. Crucially, we expect the impact on the flow of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland to be limited. He also mentioned the impact of our work with the US and other competitive markets. Again, we will be happy to discuss that further with him.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim will be aware that we remain committed to implementing the Windsor framework in good faith, and taking forward commitments in a way that best delivers for the people in Northern Ireland. We are keen to work constructively with all stakeholders—the EU, the Northern Ireland Executive, political parties, businesses and civic society in Northern Ireland—to achieve that.

[Jim Allister]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kate Dearden]

The hon. Member spoke for a considerable time, but I will be kind and give way.

[Jim Allister]

The Minister talks about implementing in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. How can it be in the interests of people to impose laws that they are not consulted about, that they did not make and cannot change? How can that be in anyone’s interest in a democratic society?

[Kate Dearden]

Regarding this instrument, it is an essential requirement that as products are developed, we ensure that they do not harm networks and that we protect personal data and guard against fraud. As devices become smarter and more connected and embedded in daily life, we have to keep pace with the regulatory framework. That is why this instrument is so important to protect consumers and networks.

Hydrogen Supply Chains

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I have the privilege of representing North Antrim, which has the success story of Wrightbus. One of Wrightbus’s many claims to fame is that it produced the first hydrogen double-decker bus in the world, and has been a leader in the technology in the evolving success story that hydrogen can be.

The fundamental problem for our nation in fully exploiting hydrogen is the mismatch between the technology and the infrastructure. The ability to refuel hydrogen buses is curbing their potential production. From talking to Wrightbus, I know that it could and would produce a lot more hydrogen buses, but for the fact that customers are restrained by the lack of infrastructure for servicing them and keeping them on the road. Despite the remarkable range of the Kite Hydroliner bus that Wrightbus produces—it can do up to 1,000 km—it needs to be refuelled. That is what is holding us back in the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland.

It is not without significance that, although Germany is a major player in hydrogen production, Wrightbus has been able to sell it a large number of hydrogen buses. Why? Because Germany, through a Government programme, has advanced its focus on synchronising with the infrastructure that is needed. There is also a considerable German programme to actively support the hydrogen bus market. That is why it is possible. China, of course—as in most things—is also a big player when it comes to hydrogen. In particular, it has advanced the production of hydrogen from organic waste; in that regard it is probably well ahead of most of the rest of us.

There are multiple opportunities in relation to how hydrogen is produced, because we now have the leading technology to use it in transport, particularly in buses. However, the one area in which I think we are failing is in providing the infrastructure, which must be there to make it succeed.

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

Does the hon. and learned Member agree that to provide certainty for long-term investment and strategic infrastructure development, and to support robust supply chains, we must invest in changing regulatory environments by working with and funding regulators—such as, for example, the Civil Aviation Authority—to enable a long-term, clear road map for hydrogen development, production, supply chains and use? Does he also agree that £16 million for a four-year road map offers great value for money?

[Jim Allister]

Yes, I am happy to agree with that. It feeds into this point: the Government talk about their industrial strategy, which is good, but that strategy needs to energise the infrastructure in synchronisation with the technologies we are using. When it comes to hydrogen, part of that industrial strategy needs to focus more on ensuring that we have the supply infrastructure to enable the deployment of the buses and other vehicles that we can readily produce to use of hydrogen.

[Jamie Stone]

We all want to see electric vehicles being used as much as possible, because that is part of getting to net zero. However, in a far-flung constituency such as mine, it is significant that a hydrogen-powered car has a greater range than an electricity-powered car. That backs up the argument the hon. and learned Member is making.

[Jim Allister]

The range for hydrogen is excellent, but when drivers get to the end of that range, they need somewhere to refuel it readily. The refuelling is quick: a hydrogen bus can be refuelled in 10 minutes. It is not a lengthy process, as it sometimes can be for electric buses. The technology for hydrogen is good and is developing at pace, but the infrastructure is the drawback. That is what is holding us back.

I say to the Government: let us do it in tandem. Let us of course continue to develop the excellent technology that we have, and the world leaders that we have in it, but let us synchronise that with ensuring that the infrastructure is there to match it.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Back-Bench speeches must finish in time for the Front-Bench speeches to begin by 10.28 am. Thank you everyone so far for your co-operation.

UK Internal Market

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) on securing this debate, which cuts to the very heart of what it should mean to be part of the United Kingdom.

If we construct, at a foreign institution’s behest, an internal international border within our own country and require customs checks and declarations, and the payment of tariffs on the movement of goods, it should be no surprise that we will hugely upset our country’s internal market. That is exactly what has happened. I would go further and say that that is exactly what was intended, as it was notoriously said in Brussels that the price of Brexit would be Northern Ireland. What we have evolving before our very eyes is the dismembering of the United Kingdom, as an object lesson to any other member state of what happens if they dare to leave the EU.

We have created a situation where, because Northern Ireland is in the EU single market and under its customs code, GB is in law decreed to be, within EU terms, a foreign country whose goods must be checked when they move to within the EU, which is how Northern Ireland is regarded as far as the single market is concerned. It should be no surprise that there will be disruption to the market as a consequence. It was the intention of the EU to build an all-Ireland economy as a stepping stone. That was the design, and the protocol is working in that sense: it is delivering what it was intended to deliver.

When we hear from the FSB report that 34% of businesses that previously traded with Northern Ireland have stopped trading, that inevitably means that trade with the Irish Republic—it was the purpose of the protocol to build an all-Ireland economy—is increasing. We have statistics from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency to show that, over recent years, purchases from the Irish Republic have increased by 50% in comparison with those from GB, taking account of inflation. We therefore have the protocol in action illustrated for us, and its intention to build an all-Ireland economy.

All that is set against a background where the Minister present today is under a statutory obligation, under section 46 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, to secure and maintain Northern Ireland’s internal place in the UK market. It is supposed to ensure that goods can travel freely, but it does not and never will, because that is impossible to achieve.

More than that, with all the spin that attended the Windsor framework, we were told that we were protected under article 16. If there was any diversion of trade, we were told that the Government would step in and take actions permitted under article 16. Well, there has been diversion of trade—lamentable, demonstrable and huge diversion of trade—and what have the Government done? Nothing. They have simply run away, taken a blind-eye approach and refused to act under article 16.

Indeed, only a few weeks ago in a Delegated Legislation Committee, I had a Minister tell me that article 16 specifies that there has to be

“a massive distortion to trade.”—[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 23 June 2025; c. 9.]

No, it does not; it refers to any diversion of trade. There has been a diversion, but there has been no action, which makes the Government wholly complicit in the dismantling of this Union and the divorcing of Northern Ireland economically from the rest of the United Kingdom. Unless and until that is addressed, this issue will not be settled.

The Government talk much about their great reset—well, they had an opportunity, and they did not take it. If they are going to align SPS rules, why did they not say to Europe, “We’re taking back sovereignty and control of SPS in Northern Ireland.”? That is not what the reset does; it retains EU sovereignty of SPS in Northern Ireland, and then makes a separate deal for GB. We are on the road to dismantling this Union, courtesy of this protocol—and that is why, as a Unionist, I will always hold out against it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) for securing this debate.

The majority of people in Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU. The Conservatives’ botched withdrawal agreement has caused nothing but problems for the Northern Irish economy and has hit small businesses particularly badly. The Conservatives said that they had an “oven-ready” deal for leaving the EU, yet they left Northern Ireland in the deep freeze. The idea of dual market access under the Windsor framework was sold as a unique advantage for the people of Northern Ireland—businesses would be able to access both the EU single market and the UK internal market—but widespread dissatisfaction with the Windsor framework is becoming increasingly clear. Northern Ireland should be able to exploit dual access, but businesses are not being helped by the Northern Irish Executive, nor by the UK Government.

[Jim Allister]

Will the hon. Member give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

He is staying in place.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) on securing this debate. He referred to not having a great deal of luck in applying for debates; perhaps he is right that he has not faced as much competition because this is the last day before recess. But he is also right that this is an important issue. Given the number of Members here today, there are clearly things that people wished to raise. I want to address as many of the points as I can in the time that I have. If I do not get around to all of them, I will ensure that the relevant Minister responds.

I start by stating the current position. In January, we announced that we were reviewing the UK internal market, a move that would be quicker and broader than was required in statute. We published a public consultation on the operation of the UK Internal Market Act 2020, and at the outset of the consultation the Government made it clear that they would not repeal any part of the Act, as it contains important provisions relating to the Windsor framework and the unfettered access of qualifying Northern Ireland goods to Great Britain. It is important that we have that in the back of our minds when debating these issues.

Upholding Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market was a key manifesto commitment, and we are determined to fulfil it. At the time, the Government stated that they were not minded to weaken the protections offered by the market access principles in the Act. Those protections facilitate the free movement of goods, provision of services and recognition of professional qualifications, resulting in real benefits for businesses and people across the whole of the UK.

We recognise, however, the concerns—and hear them again today—about how the UK internal market has been operating in practice, particularly for businesses. The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lothian East (Mr Alexander), made a written ministerial statement to the House last week with the Government’s response to the review and the public consultation. The review made clear that businesses across all sectors strongly support the UK Internal Market Act’s market access principles to avoid unnecessary barriers to trade.

[Jim Allister]

Will the Minister give way?

[Justin Madders]

If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not mind, I have an awful lot of responses to get into, so I will not eat into that time with interventions.

The Department has been very much guided by businesses in developing the response to the review and the consultation, and in designing the changes and improvements we will make. We also believe that growth and prosperity are supported by devolution—a belief no doubt shared by hon. Members here. The outcome of the UK Internal Market Act review has been carefully crafted to ensure that unnecessary barriers to trade do not arise within the UK, while maximising the scope to realise the benefits of devolved decision making.

We want to work with the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure that businesses and the Office for the Internal Market are more involved in discussions about the management of the UK internal market. We are confident that the changes we announced in our response to the review represent a more balanced and proportionate approach to managing the UK internal market than that pursued by the previous Government.

Our approach seeks to avoid the imposition of unnecessary new costs on businesses, while respecting devolved competence. Those reforms are part of our broader plan for change, which has shaped both the UK’s trade strategy and industrial strategy to make the UK the best place to do business, while respecting devolved powers and delivering prosperity across the nations. We are keen to work with devolved Government Ministers to implement those improvements as soon as possible and put in place the necessary changes to the UK internal market in an effective way for the benefit of all our citizens.

Hon. Members have spoken passionately, as we would expect, about the Windsor framework. I hope it goes without saying that this Government are wholly committed to the Windsor framework. It forms part of the withdrawal agreement between the UK and the European Union, and it supports the peace and prosperity brought about by the Good Friday agreement—one of the proudest achievements of the previous Labour Government. It also plays a vital role in ensuring the smooth flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is why we supported the Windsor framework in opposition, and we continue to support it in government.

I recognise that the framework does not operate perfectly for everyone. Concerns raised by hon. Members today show that there is more to do in this area, but more than 10,000 traders have now signed up to the UK internal market scheme, and more than 1,100 operators are registered for the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme and Northern Ireland plant health label. Indeed, Northern Ireland is now one of the UK’s fastest-growing regions.

We also recognise the importance of ensuring that the right advice and guidance is available to businesses when they need it. We will continue to work on those issues. I heard what was said about the Federation of Small Businesses survey. We will speak to the federation and work with it moving forward—there were some pretty damning critiques from hon. Members today about what that survey found.

Our own surveys have found that customer satisfaction with the trader support service is running at 90%, so there is a significant disconnect between what our surveys are finding and what the survey from the Federation of Small Businesses has discovered. HMRC trade statistics published on 17 July showed that 11,400 businesses were associated with Great Britain and Northern Ireland customs processes in 2024. That was actually up 200 on the number for the previous year. I therefore suggest that the picture is not quite as apocalyptic as has been suggested by Members today, but we want to understand some more detail about why that survey showed such dissatisfaction with the current arrangements.

In taking forward commitments made in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper last year, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has established the new body Intertrade UK. That body is independently looking at promoting trade across the whole of the UK, and at how we can guide and encourage businesses to trade more, invest more and grow more.

It is also important that we take the opportunity to look ahead at the broader benefits that businesses across the UK will yield from the common understanding that we are taking forward with the EU. This new partnership in agrifood, emissions trading, electricity and other issues, will remove barriers for businesses trading with our nearest neighbours. We hope it will also help smooth the flow of trade to the advantage of Northern Ireland, reflecting our commitment to the UK internal market.

On our commitments, I take issue with the comments made by the right hon. Member for East Antrim about the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who I believe is an honourable man. He is committed to Northern Ireland, and I do not accept at all the characterisation that he is disdainful or could not are less about Northern Ireland. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The right hon. Member for East Antrim also raised the issue of the duty reimbursement scheme. I understand there have been issues with that. We are seeing increased use of the scheme. HMRC processes claims quicker now than it previously did, with an average processing time of 14 days, but clearly there is more to do in that regard.

The right hon. Gentleman also raised the example of custard—clearly not a trifling matter, Dr Huq, if you will pardon the pun. The Northern Ireland retail movement scheme simplifies the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, based on UK food safety standards. In return, it was agreed that the “Not for EU” labels would be applied to some retail goods eligible to be moved by the scheme, but through the SPS agreement with the EU we will ensure that there is a consistent regulatory framework for SPS, and therefore expect “Not for EU” labels and checks to diminish significantly.

DEFRA is working closely with traders to ensure they are clear about where goods need to be labelled to be eligible for the scheme and has published detailed guidance to support that. Where possible, enforcement is proportionate, with only non-compliant goods removed, the rest of the consignment continuing on to its destination. The majority of NIRMS shipments pass into the Northern Ireland area without any issue or delay, but if there are specific examples of where things have gone wrong we would certainly be grateful to hear more detail and whether we can do anything more. However, we are making progress.

In terms of other issues raised, the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) asked about Lord Murphy’s report. I can pass on to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the eagerness of Members to see that; I am sure he will be hearing those messages already. There is a commitment to publish the report in the UK Parliament and in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am sure the Secretary of State will be keen to deliver that as soon as is practical.

I need to give the right hon. Member for East Antrim a moment to respond. I apologise for not having covered every issue that has been raised. To conclude, the Government are committed to protecting the UK’s internal market and delivering for all UK citizens and businesses. We need to work together to understand where the issues are so that there are no unnecessary barriers to the flows of goods and services. Like all members of this Government, I am committed to working with hon. Members from across the House to ensure that that is the case.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Jim Allister Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

New clause 1 is purely for probing purposes. It was tabled to get the Minister’s attention, and his time yesterday allowed me to do that. I know it will not go much further than this, but I am grateful to the Government for their discussions with me. I know the Minister has great consideration for the importance of place in the industrial strategy, and I know from our conversations that he understands why we are pushing the ceramics line hard in Stoke-on-Trent. All I will say is that as future Bills progress, we will aim to bring is provisions back in other formats and ways, because while this Bill may not be the most appropriate place for it, there will be other opportunities for it. I hope that when that time comes, the Government may feel able to support us.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I agree and endorse what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said. He makes logical and coherent points, and the Bill could be used as a vehicle for his suggestion. I therefore support his new clause 1 and new clause 4, which is of a similar ilk.

However, aspects of the Bill are democratically dangerous, because it gifts to Government unbridled capacity to make regulations, with virtually no oversight from this elected House, on matters which touch on not just the sanctity of our product production, but the sovereignty of this nation. This Bill, with little attempt at subtlety, enables a Government, if so minded—this one, I fear, might be—to sabotage Brexit in many ways. I stand to be corrected, but I do not think a single member of this Government voted for Brexit, which was the settled and declared will of the people greatest number of people who ever participated in a democratic vote in this nation. Yet in the Bill, we have the capacity, particularly through clause 2(7), to dynamically align all our regulations with those of the EU, without having recourse to this House, at the whim of the Executive. Whatever the subject matter, that surely is a most unhealthy situation.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The hon. and learned Member is making an important point, which is why I will support the Opposition amendments in this vein today. Does he agree that the reports from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Lords are important in bringing to light just how skeletal the Bill is, and is that not a reason why we should pay attention? We should not always leave it to the House of Lords to do our work for us. We should have those debates about the future on the Floor of this House, rather than having things done by ministerial diktat.

[Jim Allister]

I agree, absolutely. The House of Lords has done some very informative and useful work on the Bill. I only hope that it is not wasted on this Government, but that is my fear.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Has the hon. and learned Member had time to look at amendment 13, under which, if there was any backsliding by the Government, the matter would be brought back to this House for determination? I suspect that he, like me, would not accuse Ministers of being capable of abusing Henry VIII powers at the moment, but those in some future Government might. That is why we need amendment 13, particularly to ensure that retained EU legislation, a third of which the previous Government binned, canned, and got rid of, does not start creeping back over months and years, taking us back to where we began prior to 2016, and effectively taking the public for fools.

[Jim Allister]

I agree, absolutely. No Member of this House should glibly pass over clause 2(7), because it expressly and emphatically sets out that regulations, which can be made without recourse to this House, can provide that

“a product requirement is to be treated as met”

if it meets the relevant EU regulation. That is indisputably a bold platform for dynamically realigning this United Kingdom, in all its regulations, with the EU, so that we become rule takers. That is what I fundamentally object to in the Bill.

This House’s lack of scrutiny powers on these matters is made worse by the fact that we no longer have the European Scrutiny Committee. If we had that Committee, we would at least have that opportunity for scrutiny. That is why I welcome new clause 15, which would require the authorities of this House to explore and hopefully ultimately establish a Committee to scrutinise the regulations being made. Surely the minimum expectation of anyone democratically elected to this House is that we should have the capacity for oversight, challenge and scrutiny of laws being made in the name of those we represent, although made exclusively by the Executive, without the consent or processes of this House. That seems so fundamental to me that it would be a very sad commentary indeed on the intent behind the Bill if new clause 15 was not acceptable to the Government. If it is not, they are saying that they want unbridled, unchallenged, unchallengeable power to make whatever regulations they like, despite and in the face of this House.

[Mr Holden]

The Government have said throughout the passage of this legislation that it is not about the European Union, yet as the hon. and learned Member makes clear, it is only the European Union that we can align with through regulations made under it. Does that not fundamentally undermine the Government’s entire argument, and show why these amendments are so vital to protect this House?

[Jim Allister]

Absolutely. The Government tell us, “When we make trade deals, we may be able to ensure the requisite alignment,” but this Bill provides for alignment only with the EU, which rather lets the cat out of the bag. The Bill is not about facilitating international trade, so that we could, in the relevant circumstances, align with the United States, Japan or whoever we are making deals with, because it is exclusively and singularly focused on alignment with the EU. I suspect that is because the purpose of the Bill is to advance, at the speed of the Government’s choosing, and without the restraint of this House, down the road of dynamic alignment. To me, new clause 15 is very important.

Amendment 16 is key, because it will pull the teeth of clause 2(7) and protect us from the intended course of action. I strongly support amendment 16, because it would rein in powers that need to be reined in, and would remove the threat—indeed, the allegation—that the Bill is about realignment with the EU. A couple of weeks ago, we had the so-called reset with the EU, but the reset is as nothing compared with this Bill. This Bill is the legislative vehicle whereby Brexit can be sabotaged. That is why it is important to address the core issue in clause 2(7).

If the Bill were not about securing dynamic alignment with the EU, there would be Government support for amendment 25, which would make a reference to “foreign” law and not “EU” law. That amendment would put to bed the concerns of those of us who believe that the Bill is a subterfuge to secure realignment with the EU. However, I fear that the Government will not support that amendment.

The legislation is a Trojan Bill. It has a very clear direction of travel, which is to be secured by ignoring the question of what powers of scrutiny this House should have, and by affording to the Executive alone the right to realign dynamically with the EU at a pace and time, and on the content, that they alone approve of. The Bill needs these radical amendments, including the surgery that amendment 16 would do. At the very least, it requires the semblance of oversight that new clause 15 would provide.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

It gives me huge pleasure to call our resident metrology expert, Adam Thompson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Thompson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention—it was perfect. He is absolutely right, and I will leave the perfection to the mathematicians. To illustrate my point, I hear people in engineering asking for products to be made perfectly—for the angle of the corner of the table to be exactly 90° or the surface of the microscope to be infinitely smooth. To study metrology is to understand the concepts of imperfection and uncertainty and apply those to everything. If one zooms in close enough, the angle is never exactly right, and the surface is never perfectly smooth.

On Second Reading, I made reference to the optical mirrors used in the James Webb space telescope. They are incredibly smooth, yes, but to examine them at the atomic scale, one would find deviations from the nominal plane that mirror those in the Grand Canyon. Being an engineer involves accepting these deviations within the context of the work we undertake towards our goal of constant improvement—be that in the creation of, say, aerospace engines or, indeed, national legislation.

My expertise within surface metrology was in the development of X-ray computed tomography for measuring surfaces. Alongside my good friend Dr Andy Townsend at the University of Huddersfield, who made similar discoveries at the same point in history—a phenomenon that is common across science—I was among the first to be able to use X-rays to measure the interior surface of parts that were otherwise hidden to both the eye and the machine. X-ray computed tomography had never previously been good enough to measure surfaces, with the imaging resolutions achievable lagging significantly behind those required to separate measurements from noise. Previously, such measurements were not really needed, as to manufacture a surface, one generally had to access that surface with a machine tool, so one could similarly access it with a measurement tool.

However, with the birth of industrial additive manufacturing—often called 3D printing—we could suddenly make things with hidden internal geometries that did not need tool access and could not be measured. Without measurement, though, we cannot verify that the parts we make will function as we require them to. As such, new technology was required to allow us to create additively manufactured parts, be they novel, much lighter aeroplane parts or new joint replacements finely customised to suit the individual. Alongside our colleagues, Andy and I solved this problem by demonstrating that X-ray computed tomography had become good enough to measure those surfaces.

This Bill mirrors that “good enough” paradigm. Current legislation places us at risk of falling out of alignment with the rest of the world, which in turn risks our ability as the British to maintain our position at the forefront of international science. In its current, unamended form, the Bill grants the Secretary of State the necessary authority to keep pace with the guidance of relevant experts. The amendments proposed by the Opposition would only hinder our ability to stay aligned with the continuous advancement of progress.

[Jim Allister]

In lauding the Henry VIII powers in this Bill, as an elected Member of this House, is the hon. Gentleman at ease with the fact that the Bill could see criminal offences created without any scrutiny or input from this House? Is he at ease with the fact that the liberty of our constituents—which I think we would be interested in protecting—could be jeopardised by criminal offences created by the Executive alone?

[Adam Thompson]

I thank the hon. and learned Member for his intervention, but I disagree with his assessment. This Bill is about providing the Secretary of State with the powers necessary to ensure that we remain at the forefront of science. Opposition Members have incorrectly claimed that the Bill hands over authority to foreign powers, or overly centralises it in the hands of the Secretary of State. This is not a matter of ceding control to external entities; rather, it is about maintaining the United Kingdom’s position at the forefront of scientific and regulatory innovation. It is about ensuring that the British scientists who follow in the footsteps of Newton, Franklin and Hawking can continue to lead the world in their fields.

These Opposition amendments appear to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding—or perhaps a complete lack of understanding—of what metrology and standards frameworks entail and why they are vital. I urge all Members to vote against them and support this Bill through its Third Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

May I say what an interesting debate this has been? I have a huge amount of sympathy for the case that has been put for new clause 1, which was made in a very coherent way. I also have great sympathy for the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and her proposed new clause 15. I will explain how our amendments would address some of the issues she has spoken about. The Liberal Democrat amendments, and new clause 4 in particular, make a great deal of sense. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) tabled a range of amendments that cover points made in His Majesty’s loyal Opposition’s amendments, which I will come to.

We should ask ourselves why this relatively small and technical Bill has attracted nearly 50 amendments on Report. It is because, as was said, it is a Trojan horse Bill. We tabled our amendments because the Bill does a lot more behind the scenes than appears on the surface. When, in 2016, the voters of Britain—on an 80% turnout—voted to leave the European Union, it created an opportunity for the country to tailor our regulatory regime to best fit British industry, and to set a global standard, so that it is easier to do business. The UK’s product regulation and metrology, as we heard from our resident metrologist, the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), once set the standard for the world, and indeed has the chance to do so again. When in government, the Conservatives started the work of capitalising on that opportunity. We see the Bill as a terrible step back and a Trojan horse, because it will tie us to EU red tape on which we have no say.

The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) spoke about his hopes for businesses in Harlow. Through this Trojan horse Bill, Labour will restrict Britain’s innovators with over-burdensome regulations, meaning that British industry will fall behind international competitors. As we heard the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), say when speaking to her amendments, it is a prime example of a skeleton Bill. There are two major areas of concern for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition: the use of sweeping Henry VIII powers; and the ability to dynamically align by the back door with the European Union. I will speak to the amendments we have tabled to address those concerns.

When the Bill started its passage, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place found that the powers in the Bill, particularly in clause 1, were excessive, and it recommended that they be removed. Many of our amendments address those elements of clause 1. In the other place, the Government watered down the Bill following those criticisms, but afterwards the Bill was still described as a skeleton Bill that shifted powers “to an unacceptable extent”. As recently as 21 February, the Committee in the other place said that the amendments made in the other place were

“limited changes that do not address the fundamental concern we have about the skeletal nature of this Bill…The Government has not taken the opportunity to add flesh to the bones of this skeleton Bill. It remains the case that the Bill provides for almost all of the substance of the regulatory regimes for product safety and metrology to be provided for by Ministers in regulations.”

While we acknowledge that the current Secretary of State may act responsibly, we do not want to put things on the statute book that future Ministers might treat differently.

We all agree that strong, consistent product safety rules are needed, and we acknowledge the risks from online marketplaces and unsafe imports, but we do not think that the Bill is the right way to deal with that. We also think that Parliament must retain proper oversight, so amendments 9, 11 and 12 seek to remove the broad powers granted to the Secretary of State in clause 1.

Clause 3 is of equal concern, because it grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers to create new criminal offences, creating new complexities in our criminal justice system. It also allow Ministers to create civil sanctions for non-compliance with product and metrology regulations through secondary legislation, reducing parliamentary scrutiny of an issue that is incredibly important for our constituents’ freedoms. The clause also allows the Government to introduce new penalties, and even prison sentences; new powers of entry; and new fines on businesses, which will drive up the cost of doing business. Our amendments seek to change those elements. We believe that such serious offences should be subject to considerably more parliamentary scrutiny. That is why amendment 24 seeks to ensure that new criminal offences that could have consequences for the Ministry of Justice and the criminal justice system are not created through new product regulations under the Bill.

[Jim Allister]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is quite astounding that among the criminal offences that are anticipated being made by the Minister without parliamentary scrutiny are indictable offences, which could result in people losing their liberty for whatever period is specified in the offence? Is that not a retrograde departure from the standards of oversight that any citizen would expect Members elected to this House to exercise?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I agree. We all know the types of people being let of prison by this Government. It is a total scandal that suddenly a person can be imprisoned for perhaps inadvertently having products in stock that have not followed a dynamic alignment process that has not been very visible to Parliament. That is why I hope that the whole House will support amendment 24 in the Lobby.

Amendments 21, 22 and 23 seek clarification of the functions that may be conferred on a relevant authority, and the powers that may be granted to inspectors. The phrase “relevant authority” is used throughout the Bill, and it is not entirely clear what all such authorities might be.

In clause 13, we once again see Henry VIII powers being used, despite the concerns raised in the other place. Amendment 18 would therefore add to clause 13(6), and require that any regulations made under the legislation that amend or replace primary legislation be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I am sure all parliamentarians will want to support that amendment.