Oral Answers to Questions

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Patrick]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm words. He is right that we need to work across Northern Ireland to ensure that the life-changing investment he mentions is felt throughout, and I will make sure that happens.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

May I welcome the Minister to his place as well? Will he ensure that there is that co-working across the Northern Ireland Executive and the Ministry of Defence with regard to the Executive’s investment strategy, which is also integral to the defence industrial strategy, and that the NIE will work to remove any blockages that would prevent the two being merged?

[Matthew Patrick]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm words. I will meet Executive Ministers in Northern Ireland next week to discuss this and other matters. I will ensure that we remove any blockages that we can, and that we do so by working together.

Northern Ireland Troubles

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. We have made these commitments because we want them to work, and the Government are determined to ensure that that is the case.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

On that assurance from the Secretary of State about the protections for veterans, on 19 September he stood beside the Irish Government when he made this announcement, and later that evening the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, went on Irish media and clearly said that there were no added protections for veterans in the legacy deal. Will the Secretary of State give assurance to the House: are there protections for veterans in this legacy deal, or not?

[Hilary Benn]

When the hon. Gentleman sees the legislation, he will see that the protections that we have said will be backed by legislation are in the legislation. In addition to that, there are the provisions relating to cold calling and on not requiring veterans to rehearse the historical context when it is possible for someone from the Ministry of Defence, for example, to do that to assist both inquests and the commission.

Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution

Robin Swann Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I thank the Petitions Committee for allowing this debate, as well as the 176,000 petitioners.

The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) finished with a poem. Thinking about today’s debate and how to set the scene for other hon. Members in this place, I thought I would start with a poem:

“As poppy petals gently fall,

Remember us who gave our all,

Not in the mud of foreign lands,

Not buried in the desert sands.

In Ulster field and farm and town,

Fermanagh’s lanes and drumlin’d Down,

We died that violent death should cease,

And Ulstermen should live in peace.

We did not serve because we hate,

Nor bitterness our hearts dictate,

But we were they who must aspire,

To quench the flame of terror’s fire.

As buglers sound and pipers play

The proud Battalions march away.

Now may the weary violence cease,

And let our country live in peace.”

That poem will be remembered by many sitting behind me, because it is “The UDR Soldier”, by Major John Potter. However, it could reflect all those who served in Northern Ireland, no matter what cap badge they wore, as has been mentioned by many in this debate.

As we speak of those brave servicemen from across this United Kingdom who came to Northern Ireland to protect democracy and our citizens—the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) spoke of the honour and the thanks we owe to them—we must never forget that special corps of veterans who served in Northern Ireland: namely, those members of the Ulster Defence Regiment, the home battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment, and the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Some servicemen who proudly served did not return home, but many others returned to their barracks and homes across the country after their tour of duty. But members of the UDR, and the men and women of the RUC and home battalions, went home every night and day to their own homes and workplaces. As hon. Members have rightly said, they never knew who might be around the corner or what the drive-by backfire of a car might have meant. So many of those proud servicemen fell victim to workmates who passed along information about their service and the duty they had carried out.

When it comes to that defence and protection—regardless of the Government in power, whether red, blue or any other colour; and the point scoring has been a disservice to the veterans who are listening and to all who served—there is now a duty to get this right, and to ensure that those who served are not dragged through the courts.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

On that point, would the hon. Gentleman agree that what we must avoid at all costs is equating those who went out meticulously planning—over days, weeks or even months—to take innocent life with the split-second decisions, as he alluded to, made by the forces of law and order, which may have resulted in death? We must avoid that equation across society at all costs in the future.

[Robin Swann]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, because there can be no equivalence between someone who went out with murder and mayhem in mind and those who put on a uniform to stand in front of society, showing that they were there to defend law and order and protect, not take, innocent life.

The concern for those who served in Northern Ireland and across the UK, as has been mentioned, is that the knock at the door, the entry into the yard or the car coming up the lane in the past, which may have meant someone was coming to end their lives, now has been replaced by the fear that someone is coming to summon them to court because of an action they may or may not have done 50 years ago. I think that was the point the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was making.

I am conscious of time and could say so much more but, in conclusion, much has been said about what can be done to this piece of legislation and how it can be replaced. I am sure that the Secretary of State, in his closing remarks as in many other debates, will make much of the contribution of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. The lawfare against that body has already commenced. Already, today, the chief commissioner to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is on the front page of one of the Irish newspapers denigrating, and calling into question the positions of, Sir Declan Morgan, the chief commissioner of ICRIR and Peter Sheridan, its commissioner for investigations. There is already a movement to have those commissioners dismissed to undermine ICRIR. In the past, I have heard the Secretary of State say that ICRIR will be the answer and the solution to all legacy problems in Northern Ireland. Will he make a commitment today that, no matter what solution comes forward from the Government, he will not let the lawfare from republicanism and those organisations, displace what should be legally and rightfully done to support our veterans? I leave the Secretary of State with that line of Major John Potter’s poem:

“Remember us who gave our all,”

and do not see them unnecessarily prosecuted.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

On the agricultural machinery point that the hon. Member raises, if the machinery is coming into and staying in Northern Ireland, it can be brought in, subject to cleaning, with a plant health label that is relatively straightforward. Only if it might move into Ireland would it need to go through the red lane. I will make this general point: in 2023 Northern Ireland purchases of goods from the rest of the United Kingdom rose by 16.2%, and Northern Ireland is the fastest growing region in the UK.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

With regards to agricultural machinery, I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of a Northern Ireland farmer who took agricultural machinery from Northern Ireland to participate in a Scottish agricultural show. On bringing it back, it was rejected in Northern Ireland and sent back to Scotland because there may have been soil on the underside of a piece of agricultural equipment. Does the Secretary of State really think that that makes common sense?

[Hilary Benn]

It is the requirement of the Windsor framework, which the last Government negotiated, to address the basic problem of having two different systems and an open border. Everybody knows that agricultural machinery needs to be properly cleaned. If that is the case and the appropriate label, which is straightforward, is applied, there is nothing to stop the machinery moving back to Northern Ireland.

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.