← Back to House of Commons Debates
Northern Ireland (Protocol Repeal) Bill - Second Reading of the entire Bill
06 December 2024
Lead MP
Jim Allister
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
EconomyNorthern IrelandBrexit
Other Contributors: 57
At a Glance
Jim Allister raised concerns about northern ireland (protocol repeal) bill - second reading of the entire bill in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The Bill seeks to repeal provisions under the Northern Ireland Protocol, which Jim Allister argues undermines democratic rights and sovereignty in Northern Ireland by surrendering law-making authority over 300 areas of governance to EU control. He emphasises that this is not just a trade issue but affects human rights laws and other crucial sectors such as customs, disease, animals, food hygiene, medical devices, pesticides, waste, and more. Allister asserts the protocol violates Northern Ireland's place within the United Kingdom and undermines economic activity by creating an international customs border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland that stifles trade with GB suppliers. He proposes clauses to restore sovereignty in these areas and promote mutual enforcement agreements instead of checks at a physical border.
Stella Creasy
Lab Co-op
Walthamstow
Creasy argued against the Bill, emphasising that it would undermine equal human rights protections for people in Northern Ireland. She questioned the consistency of opposing EU influence while supporting the use of the European Court of Human Rights for legal challenges.
Sammy Wilson
DUP
East Antrim
Wilson supported Allister, emphasising the extensive volume of laws controlled by the EU under the protocol and criticising the inefficacy of mechanisms like the Stormont brake.
Alex Ballinger
Lab
Halesowen
Ballinger raised concerns about pre-empting the Northern Ireland Assembly's debate on consenting to procedures, suggesting the timing of this debate was problematic.
Allison Gardner
Lab
Stoke-on-Trent South
Gardner argued that the Windsor framework addresses democratic deficits through mechanisms like the Stormont brake and questioned whether Allister's Bill would create more problems than it solves.
Richard Tice
Reform
Boston and Skegness
Tice, while not a member of the DUP or Conservative Party, supported Allister by referring to the Stormont brake as rusty and non-functional.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Shannon agreed with Allister that the Bill is crucial for protecting Northern Ireland's place in the UK, arguing it safeguards peace and stability against economic detriment and stealthy changes.
Joe Powell
Lab
Kensington and Bayswater
Powell proposed a veterinary agreement with the EU to reduce checks on goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, recognising potential issues but suggesting a practical solution.
Scott Arthur
Lab
Edinburgh South West
Arthur noted that 2020 was not representative due to the pandemic and suggested that trade with the wider EU is crucial for Northern Ireland's economy, despite Allister's focus on GB.
Robin Swann
UUP
South Antrim
Swann thanked Allister for introducing the Bill and pointed out that upcoming regulations would increase bureaucracy and costs for suppliers in England, Scotland, and Wales supplying Northern Ireland.
Will Stone
Lab
Swindon North
Stone noted a report suggesting Northern Ireland's economy could be stronger than the rest of the UK due to the Windsor framework, implying that it is beneficial for business investment.
Gavin Robinson
DUP
Belfast East
Robinson supported Allister by noting Invest Northern Ireland's inability to point to a single example of foreign direct investment in Northern Ireland directly attributable to the Windsor framework.
Andrew Lewin
Lab
Welwyn Hatfield
Lewin questioned whether the 27 member states of the EU are allies or colonizers and suggested that Allister's language was extreme, not helpful for moving forward sensibly.
Chingford and Woodford Green
Duncan Smith supported Allister by referencing the practical conclusions of Sir Jonathan Faull's task force, emphasising that the Bill is about solving an unworkable position rather than hating the EU.
Ben Coleman
Lab
Chelsea and Fulham
Coleman argued for moving away from extreme language and suggested that discussions should focus on finding a sensible agreement to avoid a hard border while protecting Northern Ireland's place in the UK.
Deirdre Costigan
Lab
Ealing Southall
Costigan expressed concern about the potential economic impact of changing regulations, arguing that rapid changes could harm businesses and the economy in Northern Ireland.
Torcuil Crichton
Lab
Na h-Eileanan an Iar
Crichton argued that delivery problems Allister described are not unique to Northern Ireland but common across other peripheral areas like the highlands and islands of Scotland.
Amber Valley
Farnsworth suggested that Allister's frustrations are a reason to focus on resetting the relationship between the UK and EU rather than undermining it with such legislation.
Claire Hanna
SDLP
Belfast South and Mid Down
Claire Hanna criticises the hon. and learned Member for suppressing the Northern Ireland Assembly, creating a health waiting list crisis, and driving constitutional change through his Brexit actions. She emphasises her commitment to democracy within the UK's current constitutional reality.
Deirdre Costigan
Lab
Ealing Southall
Costigan questions the feasibility of mutual enforcement between countries and raises concerns about breaking existing deals with the EU, which could undermine future trade relations.
Fleur Anderson
Lab
Putney
Anderson criticises the idea of mutual enforcement as impractical and dismisses it as 'magical thinking'. She emphasises that a pragmatic solution, such as the Windsor framework, is the only viable approach.
Richard Tice
Reform
Boston and Skegness
Tice references an expert report suggesting that technology could overcome border issues but argues that political will is lacking in Brussels, highlighting a technical solution's potential.
Peter Lamb
Lab
Crawley
Lamb questions the hon. and learned Member’s stance on US trade deals and argues that policy should be made in Parliament, not influenced by external parties.
Robin Swann
UUP
South Antrim
Swann thanks the hon. and learned Member for recognising the protections built into the Belfast agreement and emphasises the unionist population's anger at the Northern Ireland Protocol’s imposition.
Alex Ballinger
Lab
Halesowen
Ballinger asks why the Bill does not guarantee powers for the institutions established by the Good Friday agreement and questions the hon. and learned Member's support for those principles.
Danny Kruger
Reform
East Wiltshire
Kruger acknowledges that while he might not have supported the Good Friday agreement initially, it recognised the sovereignty of the UK in Northern Ireland and reinforced its principles.
Peter Dowd
Lab
Bootle
Mr Dowd opposed the amendment, arguing that it undermines the Windsor framework's success in narrowing EU rules applicable to Northern Ireland to less than 3% by the EU’s own calculations. He highlighted the importance of maintaining the agreement for ensuring peace and stability.
Louise Jones
Lab
North East Derbyshire
[Intervention] Ms Jones agreed that there is space for fulsome debate on these matters to ensure democratic scrutiny and understanding of their impact on the family of nations.
Jim Allister
TUV
North Antrim
[Intervention] Mr Allister challenged the notion that his friends have spent since July trying to undo previous government actions, arguing they should do so if it is deemed necessary.
Stella Creasy
Lab Co-op
Walthamstow
[Intervention] Ms Creasy emphasised the importance of upholding the Good Friday agreement in any legislation and argued for mutual enforcement of rules under international treaties.
Sammy Wilson
DUP
East Antrim
[Intervention] Mr Wilson questioned the integrity of those who negotiated the agreements, noting discrepancies between versions provided to this House and those in other contexts.
Christchurch
[Intervention] Mr Chope suggested that the current situation creates a second-class citizenship within parts of the UK, advocating for solutions presented by Jim Allister’s Bill.
Calvin Bailey
Lab
Leyton and Wanstead
[Intervention] Mr Bailey argued that the Bill undermines the security architecture underpinning the Belfast agreement, jeopardising national security and international standing.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Jim Shannon criticised another MP for not addressing the rights of Unionists and others in Northern Ireland, emphasising the need to speak up for these groups. He also highlighted concerns about business supply issues due to GPSR rules and their impact on local businesses.
Robin Swann
UUP
South Antrim
Swann mentioned that his party campaigned for remaining in the EU, expressing concern over current regulations affecting Northern Ireland. He noted additional supply issues due to EU regulation and highlighted the global context of medicine supply shortages.
Sammy Wilson
DUP
East Antrim
Wilson emphasised that Ministers should be accountable in Parliament, highlighting instances where Members complain about lack of explanations from Ministers regarding policies impacting Northern Ireland. He argued that similar complaints would arise if Labour Members were in power.
Andrew Lewin
Lab
Welwyn Hatfield
Lewin supported Rishi Sunak's Windsor framework, stating it led to a serious improvement after nearly 10 years of moving away from the EU. He argued that it was an important step towards practical solutions.
Jim Allister
TUV
North Antrim
Allister questioned whether supporting the infringement of territorial integrity aligns with international law and urged a new Government to address what he perceived as a humiliating concession. He also challenged Labour Members on their stance regarding trust within the UK.
Ben Coleman
Lab
Chelsea and Fulham
Coleman suggested reducing red tape introduced by Brexit through sanitary and phytosanitary agreements with the EU, but noted concerns about gaining trust from the EU in negotiations.
Calvin Bailey
Lab
Leyton and Wanstead
Bailey highlighted the instability caused by breaching treaties, questioning whether those supporting the Bill understand its implications for international relationships.
Stella Creasy
Lab Co-op
Walthamstow
Creasy argued that the Bill would undermine human rights in Northern Ireland by removing article 2 of the Windsor framework, denying people access to remedies and equal citizenship.
Alex McIntyre
Lab
Gloucester
McIntyre asked about cross-community consultation regarding the Bill, highlighting the importance of community engagement in legislative processes.
Scott Arthur
Lab
Edinburgh South West
Arthur noted that the Windsor agreement has adapted and evolved over time, suggesting it can continue to do so. He argued against presenting a false choice between adhering strictly to the framework or abandoning it.
Claire Hanna
SDLP
Belfast South and Mid Down
Ms. Hanna opposes revisiting past debates on Brexit, arguing that it has created unnecessary friction without significant benefit to public services or the economy. She emphasises Northern Ireland's rejection of Brexit in 2016 and its subsequent support for mitigations, urging cross-community consensus rather than a winner-takes-all approach. She supports streamlining processes within existing frameworks instead of tearing them down, highlighting her party's proposals endorsed by the Northern Ireland Assembly to move forward while protecting economic opportunities.
Chingford and Woodford Green
Argues that mutual enforcement was originally proposed by the UK during Brexit negotiations. He emphasises that it is about trust, practical governance, and improving relationships rather than going backwards. Cites examples of how similar arrangements work with New Zealand, suggesting that the EU trusts their officers to enforce SPS rules. Also suggests that mutual enforcement could facilitate smoother trade relations with the US.
Deirdre Costigan
Lab
Ealing Southall
The hon. Member for Ealing Southall argues against the Northern Ireland (Protocol Withdrawal) Bill, stating it is unworkable and a political stunt rather than a serious attempt to progress Northern Ireland's interests. She criticises the Bill as undermining international law, specifically the Windsor framework, which she sees as crucial for maintaining stability in Northern Ireland post-Brexit. The member highlights that removing the at-risk/not-at-risk test would introduce unnecessary uncertainty for businesses and undermine economic progress in Northern Ireland. Additionally, she emphasises the risk of paralysing decision-making processes by changing the consent mechanism from a simple majority to cross-community support, which could lead to political stagnation rather than co-operation. She also points out that there is no clear implementation plan or transitional support for businesses affected by the Bill.
Jim Allister
TUV
North Antrim
[INTERVENTION] The hon. Member for North Antrim challenged the Labour member's assertions about undermining the political balance and asked her to give way, indicating he would provide a rebuttal or further insight supporting his position.
Joe Powell
Lab
Kensington and Bayswater
[INTERVENTION] The hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater agreed with Deirdre Costigan's point about trade, stating that disapplying the Windsor framework would have ripple effects across all constituencies.
Robin Swann
UUP
South Antrim
[INTERVENTION] The hon. Member for South Antrim stated that Deirdre Costigan did not understand the principles of the Good Friday agreement, specifically regarding cross-community consent and its importance in protecting minority concerns.
Alex Burghart
Con
Brentwood and Ongar
Argues that while mutual enforcement has potential, the current framework needs to be upheld. Suggests that 'Safeguarding the Union' improved the Windsor framework and should continue. Raises concerns about investment promises not being fulfilled and the impact on Northern Ireland's economy and healthcare sector.
Fleur Anderson
Lab
Putney
The amendment is incompatible with international law, fails to consider unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, undermines Assembly powers. It would lead to economic instability and uncertainty detrimental to businesses and job growth in Northern Ireland.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
The amendment addresses issues raised by Unionist Benches, highlighting examples of businesses struggling under current regulations. Constituents fear inability to trade or provide employment without the proposed changes.
Jim Allister
TUV
North Antrim
Queries the validity and extent of EU law applicability in Northern Ireland, arguing the Windsor framework fails to address fundamental issues such as customs code control by the EU.
Sammy Wilson
DUP
East Antrim
Raises concerns over security arrangements and border management under current agreements, questioning respect for common travel area. Highlights issues of illegal immigration checks on roads in and out of Northern Ireland.
Gavin Robinson
DUP
Belfast East
Asks the Minister to address concerns about border security and incendiary comments made during EU discussions, urging caution on such sensitive issues.
Chingford and Woodford Green
Suggests mutual enforcement as a principle for building on the Windsor agreement and proposes influencing EU to remove border between Northern Ireland and rest of UK.
Claire Hanna
SDLP
Belfast South and Mid Down
Critiques the Bill for attempting to remove Northern Ireland from European Court of Justice and single market, arguing it is unrealistic and harmful to economy.
Rupa Huq
Lab
Ealing Central and Acton
Ms Huq opposes the Bill, arguing that it undermines the Good Friday agreement and human rights protections by seeking to disapply section 7A of the Windsor framework. She expresses concern over the lack of oversight in mutual enforcement proposed by the Bill. Ms Huq also highlights her constituency's strong support for remaining within the EU, emphasising the importance of trust and international agreements like the Windsor framework.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.