Debate contribution: EU Customs Fee on Small Parcels

Debate contribution by Mr Jonathan Buckley on 13 January 2026.

MLA

Mr Jonathan Buckley

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 5316111

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker, and thank you to the Members who contributed to the debate. I want to say this at the very outset: the motion is fundamentally about protecting Northern Ireland businesses and consumers from the unintended consequences of a new EU fee on small parcels. Why does that matter to Northern Ireland and to our businesses? Parcels moving from GB to Northern Ireland, which should be entirely UK internal trade, will face new costs, bureaucracy and uncertainty. This will undermine consumer choice and competitiveness. We are often accused of debating matters in the House that have no relevance to the outside world. Well, I argue that there is no more pressing concern for our consumers. I may be the only one, but, since I got married three years ago, I have felt like I have shares in Amazon, because there is a regular parcel delivery at my house. That is replicated right across Northern Ireland. Our parcel delivery system with e-commerce is totally different from that of just 10 years ago. The imposition of the charges will increase the cost of goods sourced from GB. As Dr Steve Aiken, my colleague on the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, pointed out, it relates to millions of parcels right across Northern Ireland. Those parcels affect business: business-to-business trade and that of business to consumers. What are the impacts likely to look like? We have already seen evidence that shows a reduction in consumer choice, with 85 to 96 GB retailers no longer delivering to Northern Ireland. That is becoming a common, everyday occurrence. Businesses already face many problems in relation to the complexities and bureaucracy placed on them by the Windsor framework and their trading position, but consumers are also acutely facing the challenge. We already know about the reduction in choice for the consumer. When Mr Kearney spoke, for a split second, in his first line, I thought that he was reading from one of my scripts, but then came the "but", and Mr Kearney, who is the chief architect of political posturing, reverted to type and wanted to reassure us that it is not about constitutional issues or sovereignty, when every motion that he has brought to the House has been about exactly that — EU offices, EU observer status. Mr Kearney has never come to the House with a clean, clear desire to address the issues that affect our consumers and businesses. That gets us to the second part of the motion, which most Members from across the House have taken issue with: how did we get here? Previously at Committee, I used a CS Lewis quote, and I will use it again today because it is very relevant. CS Lewis talked about "chronological snobbery", and we see it every day in the House, particularly when we discuss the issue of Brexit. It may come as a shock to some Members, but Brexit was not a vote by the DUP. I know that that is a constant accusation. It was not a vote by the TUV or the Conservatives. It was a democratic vote by the British people. It was one of the largest democratic exercises in our sovereign history. That delivered a result that some Members may not have agreed with, and they are totally entitled to argue against it. However, in looking at that chronological history, and to ensure that we do not inject the snobbery as we often do in this place, let us look at what we have today, because every vote since the Brexit referendum — the vote by the people — has the imprint of political decision makers. Therefore, when Alliance comes to the House to chastise and say, "Come on, lads, you got what you voted for", I say right back, "Look in the mirror", because, come on, lads and ladies, you got exactly what you voted for; whether it was shouting for the rigorous implementation of agreements such as the protocol, which, we knew, would hammer our businesses, you called for it. You went to Dublin to call for its imposition. You deliberately undermined your sovereign Government to ensure that a deal with the European Union hammered businesses and consumer choice in Northern Ireland. That was a choice made by you. So right back at you. Come on, lads, you got what you voted for.

I absolutely will, because I hope that I do not have to say, "Come on, lads, you got what you voted for" to Mr Kearney.

I thank the Member. I will say, "Come on, big fella", because here is the point: the DUP has been consistent in its position. The DUP has always believed in the concept of Brexit; perhaps you have not been so clear and consistent, Mr Kearney. I look at statements that Mr Kearney has made in the past — they stretch from Venezuela to the other side of the world — and there are plenty of statements about his approach to the European Union. The sucker punch is right back on you, Mr Kearney, because the arrangements that you supported have ensured that businesses and consumers have reduced choice and increased bureaucracy and continue to suffer. We will therefore take no lectures from a chief architect of that. Moving on to the chronological order of events, there was a vote in this place on 10 December 2024 on whether to hand over democratic scrutiny and decision-making over more than 300 areas of law to a foreign entity. That vote was passed at the behest of Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. Not one single unionist put their name to such arrangements.

I will, if I have time. I want to develop this point. It was warned in that debate that the Irish Sea border that existed on 10 December 2024 would harden and that consumers and businesses would continue to face challenges. Let us look at some of them: issues with veterinary medicine supplies; a cliff edge for new car registrations; and a reduction in over-the-counter medicines. We could go on and on. Many of the issues on the list that I read out on 10 December 2024 remain unresolved. A constitutional debate can be had because Members — I include the Alliance Party Members in that — have constitutional preferences and opinions, but the debate today is purely about the challenges that businesses and consumers continue to face. That vote handed over power on the customs code, so cost that is associated with the new arrangement is on Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. You cannot shout about the challenges that businesses face. There is some attempt to do that by the SDLP, and it is welcome that it recognises the challenges. On the other hand, your actions are how you will know them. You voted for those very arrangements over which there is no democratic scrutiny. I will move on to the points that were made by Mr Gaston. In the Chamber, he and I agree on many points, and I have outlined some of them in regard to the arrangements that exist. He talked about the leverage that was lost with the return of the institutions. I have often pondered that very question. However, no sane unionist would forfeit the right of Mr Gaston to eloquently put forward his point in the Chamber and of the Ulster Unionist Party, the DUP or others to challenge, fight for change and ensure that we can prosper. I can tell you with categorical assurance that no such challenge would happen under Keir Starmer and the Labour Party. The presence of five, six or seven unionists at Westminster has not changed that very opinion.

1,284 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