Jim Allister: Why is the Government hiding the Irish Sea border report?

Jim Allister KC MP explains why he believes the Government’s ‘Internal Market Guarantee’ is being breached, and why it was never a guarantee of an internal market in the first place. And what needs to happen to remedy the situation.

There were three proclaimed innovations in the ‘Safeguarding the Union’ deal which foolishly persuaded the DUP that the Irish Sea Border problems had been resolved, such that they could return to Stormont in February 2024: the formation of Inter-Trade UK, the formation of the East West Council and the Internal Market Guarantee verified by the Independent Monitoring Committee.

In a context where rather than pretending to remove the Irish Sea Border, i) Inter-Trade UK existed to promote trade between NI and GB despite the border and ii) the East West Council provided a new platform from which Northern Ireland could express its views within the UK, despite the border, the only provision which suggested any change was being made to the border was the Internal Market Guarantee.

The impression given by the commitment was that under Safeguarding the Union at least 80% of goods movements between GB and NI would be Internal Market movements. Although on other occasions the DUP and Rishi Sunak implied that the Irish Sea Border had effectively been removed, this gave grounds for the assertion that it had been removed with respect to at least 80% of its effect.

The commitment was deemed to be of such importance that it should be verified by a specially created body that would be independent of government, ‘the Independent Monitoring Panel (IMP)’. It would report every 6 months on whether the Internal Market Guarantee had been met. Later that year the Government announced that the IMP would start work with the first six month reporting period of 1 January 2025 until 30 June 2025.

Two major problems have since emerged which mean that the Safeguarding the Union deal is now being breached by the Government.

1. No IMP Reports

While it was disappointing that the Government did not publish the first IMP Report until 5 November 2025, more than four months after the conclusion of the first reporting period, the report was published. Allowing for the same time gap, one would have expected the IMP report on the second reporting period (July to Dec ‘25) to be published in May 2026. However, May passed and no report was published.

On 1 July 2026 we then moved into a completely new 6 monthly reporting period, without having received a report for the second reporting period or the third reporting period (Jan – June 2026). As things currently stand more than 16 months have passed in relation to which no IMP report has been published on whether or not the Internal Market Guarantee has been met. In this context the Safeguarding the Union deal, on the strength of which the DUP returned to Stormont, is now being breached.

1. A Different IMP Report

In truth, however, Safeguarding the Union was actually breached in the publishing of the first IMP report on the period Jan – June 2025, because it did not do what Safeguarding the Union committed to do, namely demonstrating ‘that more than 80% of all freight movements from Great Britain to Northern Ireland take place under the UK internal market system.’ (Safeguarding the Union page 18). Instead of measuring the proportion of goods by volume moving from GB to NI under the UK Internal Market System, it instead measured the proportion of goods by value moving from GB to NI in relation to which duties were paid.

Quite apart from the fact that this approach ignores all aspects of the border and border frictions that defy the reality of an internal market beyond the payment of duties, e.g. the burden of having to complete customs and SPS forms and being subject to documentary and identity checks etc, this was in any event an absurd thing to do given that the UK has a Free Trade Agreement with the EU. In this context when goods move duty free subject to rules of origin, the production of such a report not only breached the Safeguarding the Union agreement; it was also completely pointless.

Given that today Stormont’s position has never been so fragile since its restoration in February 2024, it is extraordinary that the Government should be so brazen in withdrawing the assurances that were made in order to get a First and Deputy First Minister. Why? What is the problem with the Government publishing the IMP reports for the second and third reporting periods?

In truth, however, in looking at the Internal Market Guarantee we are confronted by a far more serious breach, a breach not simply of Safeguarding the Union, but a breach of faith with the people of the United Kingdom through Safeguarding the Union, because the Internal Market Guarantee is not and never has been an Internal Market Guarantee.

Goods moved under the ‘Internal Market Guarantee’ are goods moved under the so-called ‘UK Internal Market System’ which necessitates their having an export number and having to complete a customs declaration, subject to 100% documentary checks. Moreover, SPS goods must also be subject to international SPS forms, subject to 100% documentary checks, and 8% identity checks at Border Control Posts.

Some of the forms may be shorter than those applying to goods moving outside the so-called ‘UK Internal Market Scheme’ but you don’t need an export number or to complete any customs or international SPS paperwork to move goods within an Internal Market. This is not an internal market arrangement but an alternative trade border arrangement. Moreover, people are not simply offered shorter customs forms under what is really the Alternative GB-EU/NI Trade Border System.

They are only given this in return for accepting other additional border frictions, including legal liability if goods inadvertently end up in the Republic, which is one of the reasons why so many GB small businesses have ceased trading with NI. Calling the current arrangement the ‘Internal Market Guarantee’, does not amount to a slight massaging of terminology for political convenience but a full-frontal Government attempt at deception that rather than treating UK citizens with respect treats us with complete contempt.

In response to the above some might conclude that my recommendation is that the IMP is simply abandoned. Its provision certainly provided no basis for suggesting that the DUP had sorted the Irish Sea Border, such that claiming a win and returning to Stormont was appropriate. There is no great virtue to move goods from GB to NI via one trade border arrangement rather than another.

Both present us with the division of the UK by the EU and the fact that far from removing the Irish Sea border for 80% of movements, these arrangements mean that 100% of goods moving from GB to NI encounter the border and must have an export number, complete customs and, where necessary, SPS forms and be subject to at least 8% identity checks at border control posts.

Going forward the answer must be to remove the Irish Sea border and to create a genuine Internal Market Guarantee that all goods moving within the UK move without encountering any trade borders. To this end the EU Withdrawal Arrangements Bill which has its Second Reading in the Lords on 20^th November is the answer.

In the short term, however, if the Government wants to show us that the vast majority of goods are moving by means of the alternative rather than the standard border arrangement it should start being honest with UK citizens.

First, the Internal Market Guarantee must be redesignated the GB-NI/EU Alternative Trade Border Guarantee and the UK Internal Market System/Scheme must be redesignated the GB-NI/EU Alternative Trade Border System.

Second, IMP reports must measure what proportion of goods by volume move under the UK Internal Market Scheme, (redesignated the GB-NI/EU Alternative Trade Border System) as promised by Safeguarding the Union.

Third that the report must be produced every 6 months.