Debate contribution: EU Customs Fee on Small Parcels

Debate contribution by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on 13 January 2026.

MLA

Ms Sinéad McLaughlin

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

13 January 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

EU Customs Fee on Small Parcels

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5316019

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I want to begin by grounding the debate in the reality facing businesses right across Northern Ireland, particularly small and medium-sized firms that are already under pressure from rising costs, labour shortages and fragile supply chains. I meet such businesses regularly, as does every other Member from across the House, and I am acutely aware of the challenges that they face when trading with GB. For many, the Windsor framework has introduced added complexity, additional paperwork and uncertainty that they simply do not have the capacity to absorb, and new customs fees for small parcels will put additional pressure on those small businesses. Those concerns are real. They are legitimate, and they must be addressed. Small businesses are not interested in constitutional point-scoring. They want predictability, clarity and workable solutions that allow them to trade, grow and provide goods in their local communities. That is why I have consistently said that the issue is not black and white. Yes, the Windsor framework has created real difficulties for traders, particularly, as I said, for small firms moving goods from GB to Northern Ireland, and we need to be honest about that. However, it is also true that the framework plays a critical role in avoiding a hard border on this island and in protecting the peace and stability on which our economy depends. The challenge before us is to deal with both realities at the same time. We need to dismantle the barriers that are making it harder for businesses here to trade with GB while maximising the opportunities that come from our unique dual market access. The dual market access has the potential to be a genuine economic advantage but only if it is supported by serious policy choices and meaningful engagement. What concerns me about the motion is that it does not meaningfully engage with that complexity. Instead, it reduces a deeply complicated issue to a political dividing line. Motions such as it are rarely genuine attempts to work across parties to chart a better way forward. Too often, they rehearse the old arguments — I am as guilty of that as anybody else — while offering little in the way of practical solutions for the businesses that are struggling now. That brings me to multiple questions that the DUP needs to answer. If the DUP is genuinely concerned about Northern Ireland being subject to decisions that are taken elsewhere, is it now calling for closer alignment with the European Union? Does it support the Prime Minister's call to reset the EU-UK relationship? Does it support the re-establishment of youth mobility? If not, why not? What we see time and time again is a party that stands in the Chamber lamenting a lack of influence whilst rejecting every serious proposal that could deepen engagement —

If you just let me finish this, I will let you in. — rebuild trust or give Northern Ireland a stronger voice, whether that is for an EU Commission office in Belfast or observer status in the European Parliament. The DUP cannot argue for influence whilst refusing engagement. You cannot claim to stand up for businesses while you oppose the very steps that would reduce that friction and rebuild confidence.

Thank you for your intervention, Jonny, but this is a classic case of the DUP of cutting off its nose to spite its face. If we are serious about addressing the ongoing damage caused by Brexit, we must also be serious about the solutions. One such solution is for the UK Government to seek negotiations on a UK-EU customs union, which would eliminate much of the duplication, paperwork and uncertainty that our small businesses face whilst boosting economic growth across these islands. That is not about relitigating the past; it is about dealing responsibly with the realities that our business sector faces. The motion calls for the UK Government to restore:

"sovereignty and democratic decision-making over all aspects of UK trade".

It does not, however, acknowledge the central truth: we are in this position because of Brexit, which fundamentally reshaped our trading relationships and left Northern Ireland uniquely exposed. Those consequences were foreseeable. They were warned about repeatedly, and they cannot now be disowned. That does not absolve the UK Government of responsibility. The Secretary of State must recognise the unique circumstances that we find ourselves in and act accordingly, particularly when it comes to protecting small businesses from disproportionate costs and disruption. Anything less would be a failure of leadership, but leadership also means honesty —

— and I want the DUP to remember that.

762 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:17 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