Debate contribution: Great Britain to Northern Ireland Trade
Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 16 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Great Britain to Northern Ireland Trade
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4532596
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I pay tribute to the Members who tabled today's important and timely motion for debate. This is my first opportunity to do so, so I also pay tribute to Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard on his recent elevation to the House of Lords. Mr Elliott will continue to be a strong advocate for the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, and for the people of Northern Ireland, here and in the House of Lords. The debate gives us all a unique opportunity to come together to send a strong and clear message that we recognise and understand our vital haulage sector's concerns and will all work together to try to find a resolution to outstanding issues. We can, if Members wish, try to rehash and re-debate the Brexit years. We can rehash and re-debate the rigorous implementation years. Indeed, we can criticise our fellow unionists and call them sell-outs, despite having no proposals or achievements of our own. I think that, instead, all the people of Northern Ireland want to see Members in this place work together to get the resolutions that matter to that vital industry and to our economy. The facts before all Members are very clear. In 2022, Northern Ireland businesses' purchases from the rest of the United Kingdom were worth £11 billion. That was over double the value of purchases from anywhere else, and, indeed, from all other EU markets combined. The UK is by far our biggest market for external sales. Whether people choose to believe that, it is there in black and white. It is vital that we try to continue to find solutions to the issues that the sector faces. As the Member for South Antrim articulated eloquently, a number of issues continue to impact on the sector, so it is vital that we continue to make progress on them. In the short term, it is vital that the Government, the Trader Support Service (TSS) and industry work collaboratively to identify problems, provide clarity and promote the free circulation of goods within our United Kingdom. As Mr Buckley has already outlined, the Road Haulage Association has been clear that, in the past two years, there has been a 30% drop in trade between GB and Northern Ireland. Building on the point that he made, I will say that the Department for the Economy's own assessment, published earlier this year, made clear that the appeal of Northern Ireland's unique market access may be limited by the extent to which traders are able to access the UK internal market. It is therefore a problem that all Members face. Yes, we can rehash the old political debates, but let us all work together to continue the progress that has been achieved and to get an outcome that works for everyone in Northern Ireland.
466 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.07 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.79).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.69).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.14 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.79 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.69 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.30 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.67 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.27 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.04 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:03 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.