Debate contribution: EU Customs Fee on Small Parcels
Debate contribution by Ms Kate Nicholl on .
- MLA
- Ms Kate Nicholl
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 13 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- EU Customs Fee on Small Parcels
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5316063
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will do my best, but I need to address some things. The primary issue is that there are question marks about the motivation behind the motion. I agree that it was a deliberate tactic to make it a constitutional question. If a business were to tune in to listen to the debate because it wanted to know the Assembly's view on the new EU customs fee on small parcels, would it feel as if the DUP was standing up for them? I do not know, because most of the contributions have been on the Windsor framework and the impact on democracy. I am sorry, but I do not think that sovereignty is the primary concern when it comes to how you keep your business going, get food on the table and pay your staff. Incidentally, the UK Parliament voted for this; it had its say as a sovereign Parliament. As an Assembly, we need to talk about practical solutions and to be pragmatic. There are, of course, complexities to the issue. As was said in the opening speech, e-commerce and how we deal with such things is changing. It is something that we will monitor closely. Of course, we care deeply about businesses, how they are impacted and costs to consumers, but I also care deeply about fast fashion, its impact on the environment and on local producers and about how it is a risk to our producers. Those things are complex, and they require considered thought. They do not require politicking, and they do not require us to come back to this conversation. It has been 10 years of saying, "It was Brexit", "It was the Windsor framework" and, again, "It was Brexit". Let us stop having that conversation.
I will give way. Go ahead.
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Here is my issue. Brexit happened. We are on an island, and Brexit forced a border into existence that was going to be either in the sea or on the land. That created friction and change, and there needed to be solutions. We have worked hard to find the best solutions possible. We now have the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, on which I sit. We look at legislation that is coming forward that will impact on Northern Ireland. We look at it at the very end of the process. I support having an office here, having EU status and having whatever influence we can have, because I care about people in Northern Ireland and about how we make things simpler for them. The problem is that, whenever we try to have the conversations, it seems as though the DUP's primary concern is how to stave off TUV voters. Its concern is not how to find pragmatic solutions but how to make sure that we are not aligned with the EU in any way and stand against anything that has a tint of EU to it. Let us not do that. We know that you voted for Brexit. We did not want it — we wanted to remain in the EU — but that is how it is. We now need to come up with practical solutions, and we need to look at the issue through that lens. The Chair of the Economy Committee said that businesses from across the political spectrum and with different identities care about this and will be watching, so let us have a conversation about how we can make things simpler for them. Let us stop the politicking. Let us stop blaming one another.
There are certainly examples of negative impacts; I do not deny that. I can also see, however, that there has been growth in Northern Ireland. Where we deal with so much of this is with the UK Government. My issue is that there are solutions, as my colleague said. In the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) survey, 50% of businesses said that customs bureaucracy was the biggest problem. A UK EU customs border would bring £25 billion into the Exchequer. There are things that we can do that the DUP just will not consider, and that is because they are to do with the EU. It feels so deeply political. I understand that you have to speak for your base and the people who vote for you, but, ultimately, this place has to deliver for everyone in our society.
Go ahead.
A border would then be on the island, and it would be even bigger. We just need to work together on solutions.
761 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: 0.38 (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 (0.62).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.71).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.16 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.19 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.15 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.62 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.38 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.71 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.07 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.17 |
| Adopts it | 0.05 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.99 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
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.