Debate contribution: EU Customs Fee on Small Parcels

Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on 13 January 2026.

MLA

Mr Phillip Brett

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

13 January 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

EU Customs Fee on Small Parcels

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5316041

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important motion, and I thank my colleagues for tabling it. This is a test of which side Members of the House stand. Over the weekend, I read and listened with interest to statements and interviews given by political parties from across the House, in which they said that, when this place returned, they wanted to ensure that politicians are on the side of businesses and consumers. Today, they have an opportunity to do that. Do they stand with consumers in Northern Ireland who, as a result of EU overreach, could have an additional charge of €3 imposed on every single thing that they order from GB that is under €150? Do they stand on the side of businesses that will have their supply chain reduced and their costs increased while the cost of doing business continues to rise?

I will not, Eóin. You had five minutes to speak, but you only took three of them. You have had your opportunity to speak. Today will be that test. Going by the remarks that have been made to date, it is clear on which side the party opposite stands. The Sinn Féin Members who made contributions had an opportunity to speak for 10 minutes in the House. Between them, however, their combined speeches lasted fewer than four minutes. In that time, they could not find it within themselves to criticise the proposals put forward by the European Union. I do not expect the parties opposite to share my objections to the Windsor framework, the constitutional outrage that laws here are made by the European Union, which is not accountable to the people of Northern Ireland, and the fact that this part of the United Kingdom is subject to laws that other parts of the UK are not. However, what I expect them to do is share my concern for consumers and business owners, many of whom are not unionists and do not vote DUP but who see us standing up for them on such important issues. It will come as no surprise that the Alliance Party Member opened by saying that his remarks would be similar to those of the Sinn Féin Member who had just spoken. Well, surprise, surprise; shock, shock. In Mr Tennyson's three-minute contribution on the issue of parcel charges, he could not bring himself to criticise the proposals by the European Union. Instead, he tried to rehash and relive the debate that took place here in 2016. I pay tribute to the Member from the official Opposition, who has a totally different view from me on the constitutional position and the position of the European Union here in Northern Ireland, because she was the only person who was able to articulate the difficulties that the proposals will have for consumers and businesses. She does not share my view that this is a constitutional outrage, but she spoke about the real and tangible impact that it will have on her constituents and businesses in Foyle. That is why I hope that she will join us in the Lobby to support the motion, providing a clear example that we want to stand up for our businesses and consumers. I agree with one of the remarks made by Mr Tennyson: the United Kingdom Government, under Keir Starmer, have failed the people of Northern Ireland. He made promises to the people of Northern Ireland and my party that he would fully restore Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom, and he has failed to do that. I am very happy to stand here and criticise him for his failure to do that. That is why we, like other unionist parties, do not support handing over all the power of this place to that very man. I will use my voice and my vote in the Assembly to stand up for businesses and consumers across Northern Ireland while I, as a unionist, yes, continue to highlight that absolute constitutional outrage. Today, the people of Northern Ireland will see how their politicians voted. Did they vote to be on their side? Did they vote to put money in the pockets of the European Union or to protect the hard-working people of Northern Ireland?

Today's record will reflect that. I will give way.

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Parties have opportunities to table motions. The contents of the motion are the beliefs of the Democratic Unionist Party, and Members have the opportunity to table amendments. When the Assembly returned for its first day back yesterday, the opportunity was taken to debate a motion not about the cost-of-living crisis or other issues facing our people but about opening a European Union office in Belfast, and you happily trooped through the Lobbies to support Sinn Féin. Today, a message will be sent to the people of Northern Ireland. Where does the Alliance Party stand? Where does the SDLP stand? Where does Sinn Féin stand? It is clear: you own this

You voted for the continuation of the fees, and you have the opportunity to reject them. You can laugh all you want, Mr Tennyson, but, ultimately, the people of Northern Ireland and Upper Bann will have their say very shortly. I am not sure that you will be laughing then.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Not flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mainly advances the public interest

Against the published rubric

The contribution's main thrust is a practical one: the cost of a proposed €3 charge on parcels from GB under €150 and the effect on supply chains and business costs. The speaker does voice a constitutional objection to the Windsor Framework, calling it an "absolute constitutional outrage", but presents it as a stated position alongside the practical case rather than as the point of the speech. The speaker also stresses that affected consumers include many who "are not unionists" and praises an opposition member with "a totally different view" for addressing the impact on constituents. The attacks on other parties concern how they speak and vote on the policy, not accusations of bigotry or hostility towards a community, so the rubric's tests for communal antagonism, cultural grievance or coded language are not met.

Public interest or divisiveness

This is sharp party-political point-scoring, framed as "a test of which side Members of the House stand" and ending with electoral jibes. However, the sides drawn are about supporting consumers and businesses against a trade charge, not one community against another. The constitutional grievance is real but is a mainstream position on governance and accountability, raised in a debate whose substance is cost and trade. The activity mainly concerns a policy affecting people's pockets, even if it is delivered combatively.

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