Made a statement regarding the sub judice resolution, allowing full reference to the challenge to the Northern Ireland protocol as it concerns issues of national importance. Also allowed limited reference to active legal proceedings and open inquests related to historic troubles-related deaths, but advised Members not to include details of cases or names involved.

Supports the Northern Ireland Protocol while emphasising its need to uphold the Belfast Agreement, respect market integrity, and avoid new border infrastructure. Highlights trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland far exceeds that between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, noting significant grace periods remaining unapplied without evidence of risk to EU markets. Advocates for preventing diversion of trade and maintaining peace and stability through alternative solutions like mutual enforcement under Article 13(8). Calls for potential unilateral action if necessary.

Points out a significant increase in imports from the Irish Republic into Northern Ireland since the protocol's implementation, suggesting it encourages diversion of trade towards the Irish Republic.

Refutes the notion that Great Britain has no regard for Northern Ireland’s status within the UK, citing a poll showing over 50% of UK residents consider it unfair to treat Northern Ireland differently and 53% find it important for Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom.

Imposed a six-minute time limit on Back Bench speeches.

Congratulated his colleagues for securing the debate and highlighted the economic stakes for Northern Ireland due to the protocol. Emphasised that the current form of the protocol is unsustainable and needs change, setting out seven tests for any new approach: fulfilling the guarantee of the sixth article of the Act of Union 1800, avoiding diversion of trade, ensuring no border in the Irish Sea, giving people a say in making laws, preserving checks on goods movement between GB and NI, preventing new regulatory barriers without Northern Ireland Executive consent, and maintaining the constitutional status. He expressed disappointment that previous commitments were not honoured.

It is important to remind ourselves that Lord Frost negotiated, understood and signed off the protocol. The alternative arrangements without the protocol would likely be more complicated and costly. There are concerns among the loyalist community about the protocol being a stepping stone to a united Ireland or a move towards a border poll. However, the integrity of Northern Ireland as part of the UK remains unchanged by the protocol. Business wants engagement and there is scope for change and improvement in the protocol. The EU needs flexibility on goods at risk and precautionary principles. Trust between HM Government and the EU must be rebuilt to see progress. A joint investment conference should be held, formalizing business engagement.

The Prime Minister and Lord Frost negotiated the protocol, but now there is a lack of trust in the UK Government among 6% of Northern Ireland's population. Despite this distrust, many businesses are adapting well to the situation created by the protocol. Many manufacturers support keeping the protocol as it stands, seeing opportunities rather than threats. Technical issues can be resolved through adopting compatible veterinary standards between GB and EU, allowing for smoother trade. The erosion of trust is detrimental not just in UK-EU relations but also with the US and Northern Ireland governance. We must reduce rhetoric, focus on technical solutions, and rebuild diplomatic capacity quietly to move forward.

Congratulates the hon. Friend on initiating a timely debate; notes real concern in Northern Ireland due to material shortages and business difficulties; mentions national polling showing significant public dissatisfaction with the protocol; emphasises that the border issue was exaggerated, highlighting trade statistics to support this view; calls for mutual enforcement agreements as per Lord Trimble's recommendations.

Welcomes debate on Northern Ireland protocol and its negative impacts; criticises the 'foreign parcel' labels causing confusion among constituents; calls for political determination rather than court actions to resolve issues; supports unilateral removal of the protocol under article 16 or section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020; highlights commercial discrimination due to protocol and discusses new regulations affecting plastic products.

Welcomes the debate on the Northern Ireland protocol, highlighting that while it is disliked by many in Northern Ireland, the majority understands its necessity to protect the Good Friday agreement. Emphasises that alternatives proposed for scrapping the protocol are unrealistic and dismisses them as nonsensical. Argues that the issue should be seen as a genuine economic challenge rather than a constitutional or identity issue.

Asserts that the UK left the EU lawfully and democratically through Acts of Parliament, including a referendum. Highlights the importance of sovereignty under the United Kingdom's unwritten constitution and the Northern Ireland protocol made during parliamentary paralysis in 2019. Emphasises section 38(2)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which allows Parliament to override the withdrawal agreement and the protocol if necessary.

Welcomes the opportunity to speak in the debate and argues that the rigorous implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol would be economically disastrous for Northern Ireland. She criticises claims that Brexit breaches the Belfast agreement, stating there is no specific provision in the agreement requiring a customs union or continued regulatory alignment with the EU. Lockhart contends that the prospect of an Irish sea border is being cynically used by the EU and suggests solutions to protect the single market without necessitating such a hard border.

Congratulates his colleague on securing the debate and supports Carla Lockhart's argument that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement does not specifically mention a border. He asserts that the protocol is failing to support the agreement, creating division in Northern Ireland, and must be replaced with mutual enforcement to avoid checks at the Irish sea border. Duncan Smith highlights the EU's partiality in siding with one side of the debate and emphasises the importance of presenting alternative solutions to the current protocol.

Welcomes the opening portion of the motion but criticises the Government for not fully upholding the Northern Ireland Protocol and the Good Friday Agreement. Emphasises that parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly believe the Government is trying to undermine these treaties, encouraging violence from loyalists. Points out that large parts of the Good Friday Agreement remain unimplemented, questioning if opponents want to rip it apart while ignoring consent clauses. Concludes by stating the Prime Minister must uphold his responsibility and make the protocol work for communities.

Commends Sir Bernard Jenkin for introducing the debate and agrees with him on the importance of upholding the Good Friday Agreement. Discusses how the European Commission invoked Article 16 under the Northern Ireland Protocol, leading to a hard border situation which was widely criticised. Suggests that while all protagonists want to uphold the agreement, it is clear that the Unionist community in Northern Ireland does not consent to the current protocol. Recommends mutual enforcement as an alternative and stresses the need for the UK Government to negotiate with the European Commission or consider invoking Article 16 itself.

The protocol was a last resort after UK Government's choices, not everyone's preference. The Belfast/Good Friday agreement must be upheld despite some opposition. Businesses and peacebuilders want the protocol to work and urge for an EU-UK veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary agreement as the best solution. Community leaders are worried about negative perceptions and lack of hope.

Highlights the disruption caused by the Northern Ireland Protocol on trade and daily life, emphasising that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the UK under the 1800 Act. Calls for a more proportionate approach to the protocol’s implementation or for the Government to invoke article 16 if necessary.

The Northern Ireland protocol is a threat to Brexit, as evidenced by a recent survey where 57% of respondents believed it was designed to frustrate Brexit. The protocol represents an ongoing means for the EU to impose restrictions and challenge UK sovereignty. Sammy Wilson argues that the protocol undermines the Act of Union and takes powers from the Northern Ireland Assembly, contravening the Good Friday agreement. Additionally, he highlights economic impacts such as higher inflation in Northern Ireland due to supply chain delays and additional administrative costs. He proposes alternatives like mutual enforcement of rules but emphasises the lack of political will from the EU.

The UK Government's flexibility and restraint in negotiations with the EU must be commended, yet they need to act decisively now as trade is being diverted, community sentiments are disrupted, and peace is wobbled due to the protocol. John Redwood advocates for immediate action by the UK government if the EU does not negotiate a sensible solution soon, emphasising that sovereignty should be prioritised over any potential threats from the EU.

It is a privilege to take part in today’s debate on an issue of profound importance to the future not just of Northern Ireland but the rest of the United Kingdom. I appeal to Members to dial down the rhetoric and listen to contributions from hon. Members from Northern Ireland about making the protocol work for people there. The unique circumstances in Northern Ireland demanded special attention, leading to a deeply flawed but necessary agreement that protects the Good Friday Agreement. Despite its flaws, we must support it and find pragmatic solutions that alleviate issues raised by businesses and communities. Trade has fallen between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK due to protocol problems; this must be addressed for the good of all UK agrifood producers. We need clear, pragmatic solutions, trust, and mutual agreements from both EU and UK to support Northern Ireland’s people.

This debate should focus on the future rather than past issues. Article 6 of the Northern Ireland protocol states that the Joint Committee can adopt appropriate facilitations aiding the functioning of the UK's internal market. The EU could expand trusted trader schemes, simplify customs procedures, and agree to product-by-product mutual recognition agreements for streamlining checks based on mutual enforcement. Regulatory alignment by the UK is not acceptable; insisting on it stops agreement facilitation which is contrary both to the protocol’s terms and spirit of the Good Friday Agreement. It would be unreasonable for Canada to insist US align with its regulations for Alaskan goods entering Canadian provinces, similarly the EU should respect Northern Ireland's sovereignty over regulation. If the EU does not change stance, UK may need to take unilateral action in good faith to implement facilitations preserving both internal markets.

The Northern Ireland Protocol is causing significant difficulties for businesses, particularly small ones. Additional fees are being imposed on businesses to send goods to Northern Ireland, which affects their profit margins and competitiveness against larger retailers like Tesco and Asda that have exemptions. The protocol also impacts tourism negatively by imposing unnecessary travel restrictions for pet owners. Jim Shannon argues that the protocol undermines the Unionist community’s loyalty to the United Kingdom and calls for triggering Article 16 to save the day.

The debate highlights the importance of strengthening the Union, which is a core principle of the Conservative Party. The protocol's impact on the Union is significant as it raises concerns about the Act of Union of 1800 being impliedly repealed. Millar acknowledges the complexity but urges the Government to provide a plan for remedying any negative impacts on the Union in light of Mr Justice Colton’s remarks.

The Northern Ireland protocol could undermine the Belfast/Good Friday agreement by risking support from one community. The EU's concerns about a theoretical risk to its single market are disproportionate, as physical products moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland do not significantly harm the single market. Checks and controls should be proportionate to actual risks rather than theoretical ones. It would be helpful if the Minister could provide clarity on when the Government will set out their thinking regarding the protocol and which of the Democratic Unionist party's checklist items they agree with.

Intervened to emphasise that not addressing discontent in one community risks exploitation by those with a 'dark past' who could use violence rather than democratic debate to advance their objectives, which is detrimental to the Good Friday agreement.

Asked for clarification on a point during Mark Harper's speech.

Called for a fresh protocol that meets the needs of all parties in a sensible and practical manner. Emphasised the importance of involving Northern Irish politicians in negotiations to ensure any protocol receives support in Belfast. Proposed solutions such as shipping goods directly to the Republic of Ireland and labelling goods intended for Northern Ireland differently from those meant for export to avoid regulatory issues.

Thomson criticised the UK Government for twisting, obfuscating, and misrepresenting the consequences of Brexit. He highlighted that Northern Ireland did not vote for Brexit and pointed out the irony in Scotland’s potential future relationship with both Northern Ireland and England through independence and EU membership. Thomson emphasised the need to rebuild trust and secure a durable solution that works for everyone involved.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gordon, and I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex and the Backbench Business Committee for securing this debate. The issues with the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal and the Northern Ireland protocol are clear: there has been a strain on power sharing and increasing tensions in Northern Ireland due to economic separation caused by the protocol. This has led to a profound loss of trust, particularly among Unionist leaders who feel betrayed. Solutions, however, are available, such as negotiating a veterinary agreement with the EU, which would bring assurance to Northern Ireland and benefit food exporters across the UK. The Government must restore trust and find feasible solutions through proper engagement with Northern Ireland’s political representatives.

Thanked Members for their contributions, emphasised the importance of representing constituents' ambitions, highlighted the principle and courage in staying true to Brexit despite challenges. She criticised the EU's approach to the Northern Ireland protocol as not reflecting principles agreed upon, citing issues such as excessive checks and controls, disrupted trade flows, and increased bureaucracy. Mordaunt outlined UK Government efforts to support economic peace and prosperity through various schemes and facilitations, urging the EU to engage constructively in easing burdens on Northern Ireland.

Mr. Jenkin thanked his right hon. Friend for her strong speech, emphasising that the debate has been thoughtful and meaningful. He noted with satisfaction that the Opposition Front Bench supported the motion tabled, which would strengthen the Government’s negotiating position. Mr. Jenkin argued against rigid adherence to the protocol as it stands, calling for flexibility that acknowledges changes may be necessary due to issues like economic disruption in Northern Ireland. He stressed the need for action from the British Government if the European Union does not respond positively and with good faith to proposed solutions.