Draft Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2025

Robin Swann Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 General Committees

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee under your stewardship, Mr Twigg. I have listened to the contributions of people who hold various positions in Northern Ireland, as someone who actually lives there and represents a political party there, the Ulster Unionist party. Our response to this consultation was supportive of the extension of non-jury trials, because normalisation in Northern Ireland is not there yet. As a party that has struggled since 1998 to get us to that position, we still have a long way to go. The extension of these trials is a necessary but unfortunate part of that.

I join others in paying tribute to all those who have served in Northern Ireland to bring about security and peace, and all those who sacrificed their lives in obtaining it. We are in a situation in Northern Ireland where Operation Helvetic is still operational; we have armed services personnel on the streets of Northern Ireland. The counter to that—unfortunately and reprehensibly—is that we still have anti-state paramilitary groups, which continue to affect anyone who is considered to be part of the security services or security structure in Northern Ireland. That extends even to those who serve or will serve on juries.

I note that there are four conditions listed in paragraph 5.4 of the explanatory memorandum. Condition 1

“is that the defendant is, or is an associate of, a person who is a member of a proscribed organisation”.

Condition 2

“is that the offence or any of the offences was committed on behalf of a proscribed organisation”.

Condition 3

“is that an attempt has been made to prejudice the investigation or prosecution”

regarding a proscribed organisation. Those conditions lay out the differential in Northern Ireland: there is still recognition by Government and our judicial system that proscribed organisations have an adverse influence on not just community and society but our judicial system. That is why we support the extension of these provisions, which are needed at this time.

Condition 4

“is that the offence or any of the offences was committed to any extent…as a result of, in connection with or in response to religious or political hostility”.

Have the Government or the Secretary of State considered how that may be extended in Northern Ireland? There are other areas that paramilitaries and proscribed organisations are moving into; their hostilities, attacks and abuses are not solely based on religious or political oversight or beliefs.

The other point that we raised in our consultation response was the need for an oversight mechanism to review the decisions made by the Director of Public Prosecutions and issue a certificate for a non-jury trial. I think that has the support of the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar.

With regard to the work that the Secretary of State is considering, a sentencing council is lacking within Northern Ireland’s justice system, unlike in England and Wales. We believe that a sentencing council must be established for all Crown court cases, but in the interim, it should be in place to support the judge in their deliberations on these decisions. Indeed, that is the basis for a motion that my party is bringing to the Northern Ireland Assembly to be considered tomorrow. I am keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.

My other point is on the differential, which I talked about with regard to the first three conditions, when it comes to proscribed organisations. We firmly believe that anyone who is found guilty and receives a custodial sentence should not be given the automatic right to enter the separated prison regime on request. In Northern Ireland, not only do we have non-jury trials but when a criminal is sentenced they can request to be put in a special wing within a prison, where their paramilitary status can be recognised and honoured, and they can still be given the credence that they held as a member of a proscribed organisation—a criminal organisation—within the prison system. It is my party’s belief that there should be an end to that segregated system within Northern Ireland. We believe that the Northern Ireland Office and the Secretary of State should ensure that the criteria for anyone entering the separated prison regime is open to scrutiny.

As we try to normalise Northen Ireland society, it is important that we maintain mechanisms to protect us from those who would seek to undermine our justice system. We must also ensure that our system of justice actually matches the advancements in society. Maintaining limited non-jury trials for another two years while ending the segregated prison regime are important measures that can be taken in the short term.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robin Swann]

What are the Minister’s and the Government’s thoughts on whether a specific office of a sentencing council would be a positive thing to have in Northern Ireland, given that there already is a Sentencing Council in England and Wales? On the bid that the Justice Minister made, does the Minister know whether any of that money was actually to consider the creation of a sentencing council in Northern Ireland?

[Fleur Anderson]

I am not privy to all the deliberations and projects that were considered but then not put through to the public sector transformation board, so I do not know; that would be a question for the Executive, as would the proposal of a sentencing council. I will not give any opinions on that because it is a devolved matter, but I know the hon. Member and others will raise it with the Executive directly.

In terms of a separated prison regime, a person found guilty following a non-jury trial is not automatically entitled to entry to the separated regime. A prisoner may be granted entry to separated accommodation only if they meet a set of six criteria. Matters related to the operation and resourcing of prisons in Northern Ireland are devolved and therefore the responsibility of the Department of Justice. The Secretary of State is responsible only for setting the criteria for entry into separated accommodation. In practice, the Secretary of State’s functions, including decisions on entry into separated accommodation, are carried out by the Department of Justice, which is authorised to do so under the prisons direction, an agreement between the Secretary of State and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland that is reviewed on an annual basis.

Let us keep talking about this provision, and let us all keep hoping that in two years’ time we will see a different situation in Northern Ireland, and the continuation of the work towards peace and reconciliation there that I see in my work across Northern Ireland all the time. This morning, I was at London Tech Week, meeting with Irish and Northern Irish companies and businesses, and others who want to invest in Northern Ireland as a special hub of tech. Those kinds of conversations are a good counter, and show the progress being made across Northern Ireland. Once again, I thank all those who contribute towards peace and security in Northern Ireland, as we have all done today.

Question put and agreed to.

EU Tariffs: United States and Northern Ireland Economy

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I have done my level best to set out the situation. We all understand the reasons. Northern Ireland gains from the Windsor framework because of its access—[Interruption.] Well, it does gain from access to the EU market that other parts of the United Kingdom do not enjoy. But there is a consequence, which is what we are discussing in relation to the imposition of tariffs by the United States of America. That is a decision that the US Administration have taken, and we all have to deal with the consequences. HMRC has of course already been talking to businesses that might be affected to ensure that they understand how the tariff reimbursement scheme and the customs duty waiver scheme work.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The Government’s advice to Northern Ireland businesses seems to be, “Keep calm and carry on.” Well, that creates an awful lot of uncertainty for small and medium-sized enterprises in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State put a little more meat on the bone in relation to what the Government are doing? As he said, the EU will take action in its interests, but that action may not be in the interests of Northern Ireland businesses or consumers. What will the Government do?

[Hilary Benn]

In the circumstances in which this country and many countries around the world find themselves, we are having this discussion because of a decision that the United States Administration have taken. We do not control that. What we do have to seek to control is our response to it. I have tried to lay out for the House today what the position is and what is available to support businesses that may be affected by the EU tariffs, once we understand what those are. We will see how extensive they may or may not be, and then businesses will start to work out for themselves what is the consequence and how we can use the mechanism of the reimbursement scheme in the Windsor framework to get back the money that they have to pay in a tariff.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The Windsor framework is a necessity arising from our departure from the European Union, because we have got two trading entities with different rules and an open border, and some arrangement had to be put in place to manage that. But the goods are continuing to flow both ways across the Irish sea. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the growth rate in Northern Ireland is higher than in the UK as a whole. Northern Ireland also has the lowest unemployment in the UK.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

With regard to international trade, as mentioned by the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), what assessment has made been made of the UK industrial strategy and the impact of US tariffs that may come on goods manufactured in Northern Ireland?

[Hilary Benn]

We will discover more later today about the decision that we are told the US Administration are about to make. Tariffs are not good for any country, and they are not good for the global trading system, but we will have to see what the consequences are. Any tariffs that the United States of America puts on the United Kingdom will be felt equally in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. We will not hesitate to take the action that is necessary to respond, but we are not going to make snap decisions, because we are also trying to negotiate an economic agreement with the United States of America.

Horticulture Trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and yes, indeed. We have come a small number of steps, but there is an exceptionally long road to reach the finishing line.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this debate. As he knows, I have raised this in relation to Colemans Garden Centre in my constituency. It has said about one of its suppliers based in Scotland, which got a new contract in Japan, that it is easier for that Scottish supplier to send plants to Japan than to send them 14 miles across the water to Northern Ireland. Richard Fry, the manager of Colemans, has said that when it engaged with that supplier it just came up against a wall of bureaucracy, in having to name everything on a pallet and in the trailer with the trailer’s registration number. The bureaucracy and the paperwork have actually stolen that easier trade.

[Mr Campbell]

I thank the hon. Member for that. He itemises a problem that is faced on multiple occasions by many of the companies in our constituencies. How that wall, or that restriction, came about was summed up by the then Chief Constable six years ago, who said:

“There are 300 crossing points between our two countries, how on earth are my officers supposed to police that effectively?”

He was of course talking about the security implications, but similarly it applies to the consumer border that exists.

European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At a summit last week, not one word on these issues emerged, save the Irish Government saying they are not yet quite ready to withdraw their challenge against the British Government for the legacy Act. They ruled against an amnesty being provided, just as we did, but they decided to challenge their near neighbours in the British Government through the European courts. They decided to do that without trying to address these issues, yet when the onus is on them—when the shoe is on the other foot—they offer nothing.

Just this evening, the Northern Ireland Assembly passed a motion to say that the Irish Government should hold an inquiry into Omagh, and I agree. It was amended by the DUP and unanimously supported by every party in Stormont. That is a message that I hope that the Minister will take to the Irish Government about the strength of feeling on this issue. We looked a lot of victims in the eye last week, but we cannot continue, year after year, to look victims in the eyes and say nice things, but offer no hope, offer no truth and offer no justice.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Let me briefly mention that motion that has just taken been debated in the Assembly, which was secured by the Ulster Unionist party and amended by the DUP. We often hear in this place that when all parties stand together in the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Government will react. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in asking the Minister to respond to that debate?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Mr Robinson, there are nine minutes remaining of this Adjournment debate.

Trade Diversion and Windsor Framework

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister]

Perhaps in a moment.

We also see that in the purchase of goods figures that NISRA reports. It has given us figures from 2020, contrasting them in a table with those for 2023. The year 2023 was only the beginning of things getting difficult, as the Irish sea border did not in effect come into place until October 2023 because of the grace periods. However, those NISRA figures show that Northern Ireland’s purchases of goods increased from 2020 to 2023—of course, it was a period of inflation—by 24% from GB, but by 50% from the Republic of Ireland, meaning twice the growth rate in the buying of goods into Northern Ireland that would previously have come from our integrated United Kingdom economy.

The Office for National Statistics business insights and conditions survey states that 13.1% of currently trading manufacturers based in GB had sent goods to Northern Ireland in the past 12 months. That was at the end of 2024. But in January 2021, 20% of manufacturers in GB were sending goods to Northern Ireland. So, in just those four years there has been a dramatic fall in the number of manufacturers supplying goods to Northern Ireland. It has nearly halved in four years. The ONS data for 2024 tells us more: 11.7% of companies tell us they have stopped trading with Northern Ireland. Why? Because of the bureaucracy, because they have to make customs declarations, because they have to have them checked, and because they have to employ extra staff to do all that. Many companies, particularly in smaller sectors, have simply said that they are not going to do it.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Jim Allister]

In a moment, perhaps. I need to make sure I get through what I need to say.

It is beyond doubt, I would respectfully say, that there has been trade diversion. Back in September, the Road Haulage Association gave evidence to a parliamentary Committee of this House. It told the Committee that 30% of haulage lorries that take goods to GB are returning empty. Why? Because GB companies have stopped supplying. Now, that is an incredible thing to contemplate. Trade works on the basis that you take goods out, and then you fill your lorry and bring goods back. That is how you make it viable and how the economy works. That 30% of lorries now returning to Northern Ireland are returning empty is an incredible indictment of the operation of the protocol.

And things are getting worse. The EU regulation on general product safety now puts more burdens on companies selling into Northern Ireland, because they have to meet enhanced EU product safety regulations. I have mentioned the craft sector in this House before. Recently, 11 suppliers in that niche market stopped supplying Northern Ireland. It will get worse, because the partial border is coming and they will have to do more paperwork and make more declarations about sending simple parcels from GB to Northern Ireland. Tesco has slides that it shows to its own suppliers stating that they should now buy from the Republic of Ireland because it is easier to supply from there than from GB. The same is happening in veterinary medicines and in every sector.

Why does that matter? It matters for a very pertinent political reason. The whole idea of trade diversion and the whole purpose of the protocol was and is to build an all-Ireland economy: to dismantle the economic links between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and enhance links with the Irish Republic, thereby creating stepping stones out of the United Kingdom into an all-Ireland for Northern Ireland. That was the determination that lay behind the protocol.

We do not need a protocol to govern trade. It is demonstrable that if we can organise trade through Northern Ireland to GB without border checks in the Irish sea, and if, as the Government now say is possible, we can do it with checks away from the border, then equally we could do it in the other direction, through mutual enforcement. That would mean recognising that if we are going to export from one territory to another, our manufacturers must produce goods to the standards of the other, and we would enforce that by making it a criminal offence to do otherwise. That is the essence of mutual enforcement. It would work, but it is not allowed to work, because the political agenda of the protocol is to ensure this reorientation and realignment.

We are told that we now have Intertrade UK, but it has no staff and no budget, in comparison with InterTradeIreland, which has more than 50 staff and a budget of £6.5 million a year and is active across the whole area. Intertrade UK has been set up as a shadow, but it is not able to compete in any sense.

This Government have allowed the economy of Northern Ireland to drift out of the United Kingdom. I believe those who are protocol enthusiasts want that to happen. Now it is happening, the onus is back on the Government to do something about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Business is like water: it follows the easiest course. When we were an integrated part of the UK economy, the easiest and cheapest course was to do the greater bulk of our trade with GB. That, historically, has been our basic supply market for our raw materials and everything else. However, when a fettering of trade is imposed, naturally, business will follow the easiest route. The easiest route now, sadly, is to cease trading from GB and accentuate trading with the EU, and most particularly the Republic of Ireland.

The United Kingdom was built on two pillars, according to the Acts of Union. The first was a political union, with article 3 establishing this House as one sovereign Parliament for the whole United Kingdom; the second was an economic union, through article 6, which established unfettered trade between and within all parts of the United Kingdom. That was what article 6 said—that there should be unfettered trade. But along came the protocol, which fettered trade, leaving the Supreme Court with no choice but to accept that the protocol had therefore subjugated article 6. The very foundation of our economic union, article 6, which says that there shall be unfettered trade, is in suspension. It is no wonder that the consequence of that fettering of trade is a diversion of trade.

[Robin Swann]

I thank the hon. and learned Member for giving way. It is on that diversion of trade that I wish to speak. He and most Northern Ireland MPs will know of the fantastic Colemans Garden Centre in my constituency of South Antrim. It supplies quite a number of people across Northern Ireland who have had difficulty in getting plants and fruit brought across from their main supplier, McIntyre Fruit, in Scotland. Just before this debate, the manager of Colemans Garden Centre told me that he had been in contact with Stuart McIntyre who said that he had just picked up a contract to supply a firm in Japan. He said that, bureaucracy-wise and administration-wise, it is easier for a supplier in Scotland to supply into Japan than it is to supply across the 14-mile stretch of water into Northern Ireland.

[Jim Allister]

That is the absurdity of where we have got to, and it has been accentuated by our subjection to the EU’s general product safety regulations. Those regulations provide that if a company is supplying into Northern Ireland from outside the EU—in other words, from GB—it must have an agent resident within the EU. The company must complete the paperwork on the origin of its goods and on the customs declarations, and it cannot do so without employing an agent within the EU. Anyone who knows anything about business will know that that is added cost that will cause many businesses to say, “Northern Ireland is not a huge market to start with, so I shall just not bother with it.” That is what all our businesses in Northern Ireland are suffering from.

Clonoe Inquest

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

There is no equivalence at all—none whatsoever—for the reasons that have been set out by Members in this exchange, following the question asked by the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington. There is nothing in the European convention on human rights that says there must be equivalence. Our armed services personnel, the RUC, security services and others were doing their best to protect the citizens of Northern Ireland from the murderous onslaught that they were subjected to over the years of the troubles. That is why there is no equivalence between them and those who chose in those circumstances to use violence to try to advance their cause. In the end, the terrible violence that we are discussing was brought to an end by the Good Friday agreement—by people finally recognising that that is not the way to proceed.

Going back to the question asked about the cost by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), there was an alternative cost, which is what we would have faced if the Good Friday agreement had not been successful in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. We should recognise what a significant moment it was, but we should stand with our soldiers.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Much has been made in recognising the service of our armed forces, including the members of the RUC and the PSNI, because not only did they defend our communities, they lived among them. Does the Secretary of State agree that the soldiers acted inside the rules of engagement in that they believed their lives were in danger from heavily armed terrorists, who were intent on murder, and that decisions taken in a split second by the military commander were, in his view, justified?

[Hilary Benn]

In all honesty, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that, of course, I was not present at the time; I am not the coroner; I have not looked into the circumstances of the case; and therefore I am not in any position to answer the question that he has put to me. But I have read the summary of the coroner’s findings. They of course raise serious matters, which is why the Ministry of Defence is considering them.

Northern Ireland’s Political Institutions

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I will not; I will make some progress.

It is in the spirit of the Good Friday agreement that I campaign for reform of our governance. The Good Friday agreement must be understood as it was intended, as a foundation for future progress, integration and normalisation, rather than a permanent solution to the divided society that we had in 1998.

As far back as 1999, my Alliance party wrote of the inherent risks in embedding rigid consociationalism within our political structures. We have always been pragmatic about the need for our political structures to evolve. More than 25 years later, the political structures born out of the Good Friday agreement, and the subsequent agreements, no longer reflect the diversity and progress of our society.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I will make some progress.

Today, close to 40% of the population hold a national identity that is not exclusively British or Irish, while the proportion of Members of the Legislative Assembly designated as neither Unionist nor nationalist has more than doubled since 2011. The days of defining Northern Ireland’s politics in purely binary terms is over—I am proof of that—yet our power-sharing arrangements continue to do so, at the expense of stability and progress.

There is also a misconception that reform of the Good Friday agreement would be an unprecedented departure from our peace agreements. Again, that is untrue. For example, the changes made during the St Andrews agreement in 2006 on how the Executive operated were a significant departure from the Good Friday agreement, and increased instability and the unfettered power of the two largest parties to the detriment of good government.

The proposals that I will outline would move us closer to the original purpose of the Good Friday agreement’s provisions. Although we will have had an Executive in place for the past year, the truth is that our institutions are no more stable today than on the day they collapsed. It is my firm view that it is not a matter of if Stormont collapses, but when. Over the past 12 months, any number of the political events that have unfolded could have triggered a collapse. That risk is never far from my mind or those of my Lagan Valley constituents.

Most of all, that constant looming threat prevents the transformative, bold action necessary to get Northern Ireland’s public services and finances in order. That will remain the case for as long as our power-sharing structures grant individual parties the ability to veto the functioning of government. Who bears the brunt of ransom politics and those perpetual cycles? It is the people of Northern Ireland, whether they are Unionist, nationalist or neither, such as myself.

For decades, our communities have yearned and fought for progress only to be shackled by a system that is fundamentally flawed. It is a system that allows one party to veto progress as and when it pleases, leaving the people and public services of Northern Ireland in limbo and decay. The outworkings of this system have been immensely damaging. As many hon. Members will be aware, Northern Ireland has by far the highest health waiting lists in the UK. Our schools are underfunded, our roads in disrepair, and our public services stretched to breaking point. At the same time, our talented young people are leaving for opportunities elsewhere because they see no future in a system that continually fails them.

I asked myself whether I would mention that we have some of the longest waiting lists and that our public services are under pressure, because hon. Members across the UK—and we in Northern Ireland are part of the UK—have the same issues. The outlier is that we have the biggest spend per head in the UK on health, yet we have the worst outcomes.

[Robin Swann]

On Northern Ireland having the biggest health spend, will the hon. Lady reflect on the fact that that in its recent publication, the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council equated the spend in Northern Ireland to that of north-east and north-west England? It is therefore incorrect to say that we have the highest spend. What we have are the challenges resulting from dysfunctional single-year budgets since 2016 to support our health service, which does not allow for the transformation it needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I will make progress.

That tool has been used not to protect but to prevent. It is time to reclaim it for its intended purpose. Those proposals are modest and should not be controversial; they do not alter the fundamental principles of the Good Friday agreement. The reforms are not about party politics, but about people. I am sure that every single Member of this House who represents Northern Ireland, and every single Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, wants to put their constituents first and does not want a system in which they go without Government. How in all good conscience could they support such action?

Finally, I turn to why Westminster must act. Some may argue that reforming Northern Ireland’s institutions should be left to the local parties, but let us be honest: that ship has sailed. The Secretary of State’s reliance on consensus has stalled progress and it is the people of Northern Ireland who are paying the price. Indeed, it is the people of Northern Ireland—whether they are Unionist, nationalist or other—who constantly say, regardless of their dearly held political beliefs, that they do not believe it is fair for one player to walk off the pitch and thereby, at a very basic level, deny people government.

The UK Government are the co-guarantor of the Good Friday agreement. They have both a legal and moral duty to ensure effective governance in Northern Ireland, and there is a precedent for that. In the past, when consensus has been unachievable because of our institutional framework, the UK Government have stepped in. On Irish language rights, marriage equality, organ donation and reproductive rights, consecutive UK Governments have stepped up to the plate to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland, which is a constituent part of the UK, are not held back by our institutional failure. Westminster acted because it was simply the right thing to do to implement what I would regard as long-held and settled policies across the rest of the United Kingdom.

The reform that I am discussing today is in not just Northern Ireland’s interests, but all our interests. A stable Northern Ireland reduces Treasury costs and boosts economic growth across the UK. Many MPs have rightly questioned—indeed, the hon. Member for North Antrim mentioned—

[Robin Swann]

South Antrim.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Sorry, I mean the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann)—North Antrim was his old life; the new hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) is here in Westminster Hall. What do we have to show for those Treasury costs? The outcome is directly related to our inability to plan and budget long term, and to take the brave action necessary to reform our public services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

No; I will make some progress.

Our partnership approach enables us to work together to overcome joint challenges and to strengthen the institutions through delivery.

[Robin Swann]

Will the Minister give way?

[Fleur Anderson]

No; I will make some progress.

One of the most important contributions that we, as the UK Government, can make is to provide that long-term certainty and stability to Northern Ireland after the tumult of recent years. It is the focus of the UK Government and, I am sure, of all the Members here present. We do not want Stormont to fall into a pattern of collapse, as we have seen previously.

I know that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley feels strongly about the political evolution of those institutions, as do many in Northern Ireland. I remain committed to listening to those conversations going forward and to listening to all the views of MPs and Members of the Legislative Assembly, but the priority must be to support the Executive to deliver on those most pressing public service issues—health, jobs, the cost of living and education.

The third measure of effectiveness is delivery. Although the strand 1 institutions have been a significant success, more remains to be done to ensure that Northern Ireland is the thriving, successful place we know it can be. Northern Ireland has much to be proud of, benefiting from increasing economic prosperity and investment since 1998, both from the UK Government and the private sector. Northern Ireland has thriving tourism, film, TV production and cyber-security sectors, which are a leading dimension of Northern Ireland’s diverse economy.

However, from my conversations with many people in Northern Ireland, I know that palpable frustration remains at the state of the public services, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley outlined. I am very aware that receiving medical treatment in a corridor or waiting more than 12 hours in one of the hospitals across Northern Ireland has become normal, that some children with special educational needs wait for more than a year for the educational support they are entitled to, that social housing waiting lists are increasing, and that court delays remain a challenge, with a significant difference between court delays in the rest of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. I do not highlight these examples to be critical, and I know from my many conversations with Northern Ireland Ministers that they are fully aware of these challenges and serious about addressing them.

Improving public services is, rightly, the responsibility of the Executive, so the key question is whether the institutions, in their current form, can deliver on public services. The answer is yes, they can. The Executive now have the political will and stability, as well as a record funding settlement of £18 billion for Northern Ireland in 2025-26, which is an increase of £1.5 billion. Funding for the Northern Ireland Executive in the autumn Budget exceeds 124% of comparable UK Government funding per person in the rest of the UK, and the Executive have all the levers they need to tackle these challenges. The UK Government are focused on delivering our five missions across the UK, are a willing partner with the Executive in this and want to help the Executive to seize this opportunity. We are committed to working collaboratively and ensuring that Northern Ireland’s institutions can work effectively to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.

[Robin Swann]

I raised the issue of the £235 million transformation fund that the Government have given with the Minister in Northern Ireland questions. I know the Minister and I agree that it is crucial that we get that transformation money released to the Executive and spent in Northern Ireland to transform those services as soon as possible.

[Fleur Anderson]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised that issue. There is a £235 million part of the restoration package focused on transformation, and it is transformation that can demonstrate the effectiveness of the institutions. This is a demonstration of the UK Government’s willingness to work together in partnership for genuine transformation. I know that these projects will be agreed by the Finance Minister shortly, and I agree that this needs to be done quickly. As the hon. Gentleman knows, transformation takes time. There needs to be collaboration, willingness and political will, and we have that with the Executive right now.

In conclusion, Northern Ireland’s political institutions, arising from the Good Friday agreement, have been extremely effective in embedding and upholding peace. They have enabled locally accountable decision making and brought increasing prosperity to Northern Ireland since the signing of the agreement in 1998. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley has outlined the challenges and frustrations felt by many in Northern Ireland, and we are politicians in challenging times. The focus of Government policy in Northern Ireland remains the securing of a brighter future for generations to come.

The UK Government remain committed to working with the Executive—in a spirit of collaboration and partnership that was not seen with the previous Government—to support the transformation of public services and ensure the institutions’ long-term effectiveness to deliver on those issues that every Member in Westminster Hall today will agree matter most to people in northern Ireland—economic growth, the cost of living, safety, jobs, education and health.

I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley for her contribution to this debate; an ongoing debate needs to happen all the time on the reform of Northern Ireland’s institutions.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson]

Yes, I do. Integrated education is a devolved matter for the Executive, but this Government are unapologetically supportive of integrated education. I have spoken to the headteachers of Bangor academy and Rathmore primary school this week, and they, as well as parents and pupils at the schools, are shocked by the decision. I hope that the Education Minister will work with them to resolve his concerns and listen to parents, who overwhelmingly want their children to benefit from integrated education.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The Minister talks of transformation. When the Executive were restored at this time last year, the Government put a pot of £235 million into transformation. A senior Northern Ireland Office official sits on the board. To date, not one penny has been spent on supporting the transformation of either the health service or the education service. Can the Minister update the House on what the hold-up is in regard to spending that money?

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for raising the issue of the Public Service Transformation Board. As he says, the interim board has a £235 million budget for transformation. Several major projects—on health, special educational needs and justice—are now being sent to the Northern Ireland Minister of Finance for agreement, and I have pushed for the full board to be set up by the end of this financial year. I agree that it needs to move ahead and get those projects done.

Draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 General Committees

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I have a couple of queries for the Minister. The chief electoral officer says that 87,700 retained electors are due to be removed on 1 February. The explanatory memorandum suggests that almost all of them live at the address on the register and

“are therefore eligible to be registered to vote at this address.”

That would suggest that those 87,700 electors are real, live people who are able and eligible to vote in Northern Ireland, so I assume that they had the opportunity to do so in the general election only six months ago. In my opinion, that is an exceptionally high number. I wonder whether the Government, although perhaps not at this stage, could ask the chief electoral officer to provide a breakdown of those 87,700 retained electors by constituency so that we can see whether there is any trend or specific registration issue in Northern Ireland of which we need to be aware.

I turn to a more specific question. Proposed new regulation 46C of the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2008, which is entitled “Retained register entries: residence audit”, provides an opportunity to

“conduct a residence audit in respect of any retained elector”.

That indicates that there will be opportunities to do an individual residence audit. Is that the intention of the draft regulations? If so, who would instigate such an audit of an individual’s residence to see whether a retained elector is eligible to vote before a removal warning is issued? Could a residence audit be instigated only by the chief electoral officer and his staff, or could a member of the general public query the eligibility of an elector or their residence at an address?

Further to the point that the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, made about voter ID, may I encourage the Government to look at how voter ID is used in Northern Ireland? Perhaps I might encourage them to extend that approach to the rest of the United Kingdom.