Debate contribution: Democratic Consent Resolution

Debate contribution by Ms Claire Sugden on 10 December 2024.

MLA

Ms Claire Sugden

Party at the time

Independent

Date

10 December 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Democratic Consent Resolution

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4716691

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I appreciate the intervention. I cannot say that it has improved because, from a constituency perspective, I am hearing every day from constituents and businesses who are realising the issues. Genuinely, I have not heard of any benefits, and I would be keen to hear those. The reality is that, after the vote tonight, this arrangement will continue for at least four years. We need to be assured that, within those four years, we will get the progress that has been promised, because we are a number of years into the arrangements now, and it does not feel as though they are providing the balance that unionists like me were prepared to accept in the hope that we could actually improve things for Northern Ireland. Under articles 5 to 10, Northern Ireland is required to align with the EU rules on goods, trade and state aid. Although those rules affect every aspect of our economy and daily life, they are made in Brussels, where we have no representation. Northern Ireland's elected representatives have no seat at the table, no voice in the discussions and no opportunity to influence or amend these regulations to reflect the realities on the ground. That lack of representation has significant consequences. Without the ability to scrutinise the rules or challenge their suitability, Northern Ireland is left in a reactive position, simply implementing decisions that have been made elsewhere. That makes it harder to refine or improve policies to better serve our businesses and communities, because, when those constituents contact me as an MLA, I struggle to understand how I can address their concerns, and I suspect that every MLA in the Chamber feels the same way. Without representation, we cannot engage constructively to propose practical adjustments or ensure that our unique circumstances are considered. Unfortunately, it is not the first time that Northern Ireland has experienced a democratic deficit. We have been here before, and the outcomes were not positive. During periods of direct rule and, more recently, when the Executive were suspended, Northern Ireland’s ability to govern itself and address local needs was severely hampered. Decisions about health, education and infrastructure were made by Westminster, if at all, and often by Ministers who lacked the deep understanding of our unique challenges. That resulted in policies that were disconnected from the realities on the ground, and we are seeing the outworkings of that. Public services were left under strain, and we are seeing the outworkings of that. Citizens were underserved, and they tell us that every day.

Most Members agree that we are better served by local representation, yet those who are expected to vote in favour of the motion tonight will overlook a similar democratic deficit that applies through the arrangement. The lesson from direct rule and an absent Executive should be clear: when decisions are made remotely, without local input, the people of Northern Ireland suffer. Public services stagnate, policies fail to reflect local needs, and citizens lose trust in governance. The same risks apply under the current arrangements. By continuing to apply articles 5 to 10 without addressing the democratic deficit — let us be clear: there is one — we leave Northern Ireland vulnerable to policies that are ill suited to our needs and unable to advocate the changes that would make a real difference to our people and services. We have heard a lot about the supposed benefits of dual market access. Again, I am willing to entertain and embrace those, but let us not ignore the difficulties that the protocol has created for trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Take the example of food producers in Northern Ireland sourcing ingredients from Great Britain. They now face additional customs checks, higher transport costs and delays that make it harder to run their business. In some cases — there are many cases, if constituency casework is anything to go by — Great British suppliers have stopped delivering to Northern Ireland because the paperwork is just too complicated or costly, and it is not worth it. Northern Ireland is suffering. The Windsor framework has maybe made some improvements, such as the green lane for trusted traders, but it is not a magic fix. Goods deemed to be at risk of entering the EU single market still face checks, and even the green lane requires "Not for EU" labelling of products. Those things might seem small, but they add complexity, uncertainty and costs that weigh heavily on businesses. That means that Northern Ireland is being asked to choose between access to the EU market and seamless trade with Great Britain. That is not a choice that we should have to make in our own jurisdiction. East-west trade is vital to our economy, and those barriers should not be allowed to become permanent. The protocol and the Windsor framework were supposed to bring clarity and calm, but they have done the opposite. Unionists are all concerned about the current arrangements, which weaken our place in the UK jurisdiction. By "unionist" I mean those who would vote to stay in the Union and who extend beyond the political parties and loyalism to include people like me, whose constitutional preference is based on the best context in which to provide public services. Let us not dismiss this as an orange and green issue, although, at the end of the vote, it might seem as though it is, because it is perfectly fine and our right to have the constitutional preference of either unionism or nationalism.

Sure, yes.

I appreciate the intervention and the fact that there are people who have not made up their mind yet, but, if a border poll happens in Northern Ireland, it will not be a case of, "Yes", "No" or "Other"; it will be "Yes" or "No". If we look at opinion polls and elections, we see that, significantly, most people in Northern Ireland want to have an opinion. The Good Friday Agreement upholds and encourages that. It was the means to reconciliation. Cross-community consent was not just a nice idea in 1998. It was introduced under the Good Friday Agreement to ensure that major decisions in Northern Ireland reflected the support of unionist and nationalist communities. That is a necessary safeguard for a deeply divided society that is recovering from years of conflict. The Good Friday Agreement did not conclude the constitutional question, and, while people are rightly entitled to aspire, it is an important consideration in our politics. Cross-community consent ensures fairness, partnership and stability and gives both sides the confidence that their voices matter. Nowhere is that principle more —.

Sure.

I appreciate the Member's intervention. It ensured peace. It ensured that, however many years after the Good Friday Agreement, we are still able to sit in the Chamber and talk about the issues. Sometimes, it is difficult to believe that we have moved on in Northern Ireland, but we have, and tonight we are talking about issues that matter to people on the ground. That is important, and the provision of cross-community consent enables that. It is important that we have a constitutional opinion. It is the fundamental basis of our politics, as it is in Scotland, for example.

Yes, sure.

Let me respond to the Member, and then I will. I entirely respect those who have not made a choice on constitutional opinion. However, it is undeniably a fundamental part of our political basis in Northern Ireland. Certainly for me — this is my opinion — it is responsible and important that I take a position on it. It is not just about whether we want to be in one jurisdiction or another; it is the basis on which we provide public services. Certainly for me, as an elected representative, good public services are better in the UK context.

I appreciate the interventions from the Members, which just go to demonstrate that people are passionate about the issues and to disregard them in this context would be foolish. Certainly, it gives rise to a reason to continue to have the conversations. Cross-community consent is an important mechanism to ensure that decisions are fair, balanced and inclusive. If we abandon it on issues as sensitive as these, we set a dangerous precedent for future constitutional debates. Maybe in the spirit of Christmas, I found it interesting that the mechanism that we are employing tonight by not achieving cross-community consensus provides an opportunity for greater scrutiny and engagement under the arrangements. If the motion passes with a simple majority as expected but without cross-community support, the consent mechanism requires a review after four years instead of eight. It also triggers the Secretary of State to begin an independent review process. Therefore, it enables the House to have a more regular opportunity to revisit the issues and apply a form of scrutiny. Crudely, unionism and nationalism disagreeing is not necessarily a bad thing in this context. It increases democracy, albeit in a limited way. To conclude, I want to touch on specific issues that are causing problems for my constituents. With regard to regulatory divergence, as GB develops its own rules and regulations, Northern Ireland risks being left behind, stuck following EU rules. That divergence could make trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland even more complicated, and we have seen examples of that. With regard to costs for consumers, we are very much taken by the everyday costs of life, and shoppers in Northern Ireland are feeling the effects because changes in supply chains have driven up prices for some goods, particularly in the food and retail sectors.

Products that used to flow seamlessly from Great Britain — why not now? — now face delays and additional costs that will ultimately fall back on consumers. It seems to be easier to purchase goods from China than from across the Irish Sea. Many businesses still do not fully understand how the system works, because it is just another burden that, in a difficult market, they find difficult to bear. They worry about how future changes might impact on them. That uncertainty makes it harder to invest, expand or even plan ahead. We cannot keep papering over the cracks with temporary fixes. Northern Ireland and everyone in it deserve a system that genuinely works for people and their businesses. Rejecting the motion does not mean rejecting the need for solutions. We need solutions. Indeed, voting for the motion is causing complacency. We have been complacent up until now about the issues that we see on the ground. We need to fight for better. The story should not be over. I know that we all suffer from Brexit fatigue. I wish that it had not happened in the first place, but we are where we are, so we need to ensure that businesses can operate seamlessly across the British Isles. I firmly support the principle of avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland and, indeed, in the Irish Sea. That is non-negotiable. The current arrangements, however, have created other problems that are just as damaging in their own way. We need to push for better arrangements that respect Northern Ireland's unique position, protect east-west trade and address the democratic deficit. We need a deal that unites rather than further divides communities. Most importantly, we need a deal that ensures that Northern Ireland's voice is heard.

1,897 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:46 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.

Challenge this classification