Gavin Robinson
MP for Belfast East · Democratic Unionist Party · United Kingdom
“I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. She mentions that the Government have a responsibility to ensure this legislation is lawful and workable, yet she is the Bill’s sponsor—that responsibility rests on her, too.”
“That is an answer to a question, but it is not really the answer to my question. I want to hear from our Secretary of State a full-throated recognition that there is a deficit, that Sir Declan needs access to the unredacted material, and that the Secretary of State will secure agreement from the Irish Government for such a change.”
“Is the Secretary of State further concerned that the chief operating officer of the Northern Ireland Office said that day that she would take that point back—to whom we do not know, because she is the chief operating officer—but today has written to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to confirm that nothing in the Secretary of State’s…”
“The Secretary of State will know that, given the legacy of our past, two Governments are involved. Was he concerned, as we were, that Sir Declan Morgan shared with the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee two weeks ago his concern that he will not have access to unredacted intelligence material from the Irish Government?”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on securing this debate. Does the Minister understand that when he speaks of co-operation between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, it rings hollow when immigration officials in Dublin airport indicate where the bus to Belfast is?”
“Does the Minister understand that any agreement around data sharing rings hollow when the Home Office will not tell us how many people enter the UK from the Republic of Ireland, how many apply in Drumkeen House in Belfast or how many are removed not just from Northern Ireland, but the United Kingdom as a whole, and even more so when the H…”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Gavin Robinson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 13.
“Is the Secretary of State further concerned that the chief operating officer of the Northern Ireland Office said that day that she would take that point back—to whom we do not know, because she is the chief operating officer—but today has written to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to confirm that nothing in the Secretary of State’s amendments or the Irish Government’s legislation would satisfy Sir Declan’s requirement for access to unredacted material from the Irish?”
“The Secretary of State will know that, given the legacy of our past, two Governments are involved. Was he concerned, as we were, that Sir Declan Morgan shared with the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee two weeks ago his concern that he will not have access to unredacted intelligence material from the Irish Government? There is nothing in the Government’s draft legislation or the amendments due to come before this House that would change that around.”
“That is an answer to a question, but it is not really the answer to my question. I want to hear from our Secretary of State a full-throated recognition that there is a deficit, that Sir Declan needs access to the unredacted material, and that the Secretary of State will secure agreement from the Irish Government for such a change. Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that, as we stand here today in July, no remedial order was put before the Lords by the end of June? That deadline has passed. With no progress before the Irish assume the European presidency, which apparently was another deadline that needed to be met and has passed, and with no summit on 22 July, there is no chance that the Secretary of State’s troubles Bill will become law in 2026.”
“Does the Minister understand that any agreement around data sharing rings hollow when the Home Office will not tell us how many people enter the UK from the Republic of Ireland, how many apply in Drumkeen House in Belfast or how many are removed not just from Northern Ireland, but the United Kingdom as a whole, and even more so when the Home Secretary says that is because of the Belfast agreement? That is not right and there needs to be some openness.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on securing this debate. Does the Minister understand that when he speaks of co-operation between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, it rings hollow when immigration officials in Dublin airport indicate where the bus to Belfast is? They proactively indicate to individuals how they can access the United Kingdom. Does the Minister understand that I could give him a litany of cases of individuals who have been removed from the United Kingdom and returned to Dublin—the country in which they arrived—only for them to return on the Ulsterbus? One individual flouted the system in that way on three separate occasions.”
“He passed through two safe countries and attained asylum in record time. Will the Prime Minister meet me urgently to discuss the steps that he and his Government will take to ensure that our values are enforced, that the rule of law in this country sustains, and that he protects and closes the open, porous border between our country and the Irish Republic?”
“May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister in relation to the tragic helicopter crash last week? Yesterday I shared my concern that community cohesion stood on a precipice. The north Belfast attack on Monday was medieval and sadistic, and it has sadly been viewed by millions in this country. As reprehensible as it was, the outrageous violence, intimidation and community damage carried out last night in my constituency and other parts of Northern Ireland require the strongest condemnation. It is impossible to share concerns about damage to our British values and then act in a way that tarnishes the very thing we should want to protect. The Government’s job—our collective job—is to act to protect our country and defend our borders. The Prime Minister knows that the man who has been charged entered our country illegally.”
“I understand that the individual in question regarding what happened on Monday was most likely not even interviewed as part of the asylum process, given the constrained timescales. I also understand that individuals just give a name and a date of birth, and that there is no database to confirm whether that name and date of birth are true. Without making any comment on the individual in question, that is a huge loophole in the security of our nation. There is a need to engage with the Government of the Republic of Ireland and ensure we have uniformity, including in the protection of our borders, and I ask the Minister to commit to doing so.”
“I am extremely grateful to Mr Speaker, to the Minister for his condemnation, and to the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for securing another opportunity to raise these important issues. The condemnation has been strong, and the condemnation from the Minister has been appropriate. He is also right to highlight that you cannot protect British values while tarnishing them and trampling on them, destroying the rule of law, and intimidating members of our community—putting them out of their homes and destroying their lives. That is not British, and that is not what we need in our country. As Security Minister, he has a number of responsibilities, and I urge him to look at the swift processes for asylum applications that were deployed three years ago.”
“As they kept the legacy of the Royal Ulster Constabulary going on Sunday in Armagh, and do so every day of the week, it is incumbent on us, if we are interested in securing a legacy, to ensure the future of the police service in Northern Ireland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I thank you, Sir Roger, for giving me the opportunity to make that short contribution. I am full of acknowledgment and praise for the hon. Member for North Down for securing the debate.”
“In fact, the PSNI is accountable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board and not the Minister of Justice. The PSNI has been failed. It has been failed by a Minister who has been ill-prepared to prioritise policing and has prioritised those aspects of her Department for which she is wholly accountable. That is wrong. That has been an injustice and a disservice to the brave members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. On Sunday, I gathered with hundreds of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross Foundation at their 24th anniversary service in Armagh. They are proud, determined people—people who sacrifice. Widows were present, as were others who have sacrificed so much of their own lives to ensure peace and stability in Northern Ireland.”
“colleagues have mentioned the recent programme “Peelers” as a visual demonstration of the pressure that our police service is under and the frailty of the funding model that they face. Devolution of policing and justice in Northern Ireland is not the primary concern. The primary concern is a police service that the Minister of Justice, although accountable for it, strips of resource. She then puts that resource into those direct parts of her Department, including the prison service, legal aid, court service and the Northern Ireland judiciary. No other part of our criminal justice system has faced the same cuts that the PSNI has. Why? Because the PSNI, rightly and politically, is non-departmental. It does not have the same accounting mechanism, and the Minister of Justice does not have the same responsibility for it.”
“That is very kind of you, Sir. Roger. I had not planned on such a courtesy being extended. I place on record my appreciation to the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing this debate. Important debate though it is, it would have had much more importance had the Boundary Commission not taken Garnerville out of my constituency and placed it in his. Indeed, had Garnerville remained in Belfast East, I would have been championing its restoration and renewal rather than the creation of PSNI Redburn in Kinnegar. As Northern Ireland parliamentarians and Members of this Parliament, this is an important opportunity for us to consider the right way we should invest in policing. Hon.”
“Does she acknowledge that, sadly, far too many people today, particularly in senior positions of public leadership, will not engage with the police, encourage their community to participate with the police, or see policing as the great career of public service that it truly is?”
“I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, because she is making a good speech with important information. She mentioned Patten recommendation 131 not being prioritised. People sometimes forget, but we should praise the fact that 1,000 members of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland wished to apply for 400 vacancies—that is a good and positive thing. However, paragraphs 15.1 and 15.2 of the Patten report, which call on political leaders, community leaders, priests, Ministers and all with positions of influence to encourage engagement with, support for and recruitment to the PSNI, have not been honoured.”
“I have listened carefully to what the Minister has to say. The NIO rarely ever exercises its powers when it comes to the Parades Commission—it can intervene, but it refuses to do so. The fundamental problem that arose on the weekend was that protesters could not adhere to the Parades Commission’s determination because somebody within the police decided, in their policing plan, to ensure that they blocked the very place where the commission said the protest should occur. That is the fundamental problem. If the Minister is to address this issue, as he is doing, he must give some consideration to the inability of lawful protesters to adhere to a lawful determination because of the actions of the PSNI.”
“(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on reports of a serious violent attack in north Belfast involving a foreign national, and the implications for public safety, immigration enforcement and community cohesion.”
“Will he confirm that the Government need to reassure and protect our population, who for too long have had their concerns ignored? Knowing that the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable and I share a concern that there could be violence, I express my wish and our collective desire for calm, but community cohesion lies on the precipice. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the actions last night in no way reflect or represent the values of our nation, and that the victim belongs in Belfast but the attacker does not? Having abused the privilege of our nation, the perpetrator—living in the UK under a five-year visa—needs to be convicted and deported on the first flight out with a one-way ticket.”
“Mr Speaker, may I first thank you for granting this urgent question? The attempted murder in Belfast last night was chilling. What has been seen by thousands already across the country cannot be unseen. It was medieval—the systematic mutilation and attempted slaughter of a citizen of Belfast on our streets. My prayers are with the victim. I praise the brave man who, with a hurl in his hand, intervened to save his neighbour’s life, and this House should praise him too. What occurred last night will have profound implications for community cohesion in this country. This needs to be a time for honesty, openness and truth. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he and his Government recognise that uncontrolled immigration needs to end?”
“The Secretary of State will know that the howls of outrage from the article 2 expansionists have been proven to be wrong, yet those same howls of outrage have been repeated ad nauseum by the Irish Government. They continue with their state case against this country and they continue to assert that there is an incompatibility with the ICRIR. In doing so, they refuse to respond to the requests of victims; they have not responded once to the ICRIR’s requests for information from the Guards; and, as the Secretary of State heard with the victim in our presence just last week, the much-fêted Garda unit does not even answer the phone. Will he now challenge the Irish Republican Government to withdraw their case and to recognise compatibility with article 2?”
“The Secretary of State must know that victims in Northern Ireland would like him to stand up for them, to challenge the excess and the eccentricities of the Republic of Ireland Government, and to ensure, when they promise that they will provide information, that they do, and that their reluctance to do so has now been proven hollow. Gender has already been mentioned and he knows that the Dillon case was silent on some of the other expansionist parts of the quest on article 2. He has indicated his support for the Supreme Court’s view, but will he ensure that he defends that view in court?”
“The Secretary of State was kind enough to mention Harland & Wolff. Successive Governments have introduced a number of support measures, and have ensured that that company can thrive by itself. However, in taking at face value what the Secretary of State has said, does he recognise that if this Government continue to refuse to designate Programme Euston a defence project and open it to international tender, not only will they not support British business and yards like Harland & Wolff, but the project will be delayed by three years? If the Secretary of State wants to inject business growth and economic growth, he should designate it a UK defence project, and keep the work and the investment in the UK.”
“Well, thus far, what I hear from people in Northern Ireland and right across the country is families asking a very simple question: “Why are we now paying more and getting less?” They are working harder, they are taxed more heavily, and yet public services are under strain, businesses are being squeezed, and opportunity feels further out of reach. While all this is happening, the Government appear to be more focused on internal drama and ideological priorities than on delivering. The people of this country are not interested in Labour personality contests—they want Government policies that address the pressures they are under. For four days last week, we engaged with thousands of people at the Balmoral show, all of them wondering, “Where’s the hope?” Where is the aspiration that Labour promised them over the last number of years?”
“It is mildly eccentric that this is now the third day of a five-day debate on the King’s Speech when this Government are in crisis, but it is absurd to believe that this Government will be able to back business to create economic growth at all if their intention is to build on the legislative achievements—the stranglehold on our British economy—over the past two years. We were told just last week that incrementalism will not cut it, yet time after time, we have heard contributions from Labour Members suggesting that they are going to build on what has been achieved thus far.”
“All are still content that laws for Northern Ireland, applying in Northern Ireland, are set in Brussels; for two years, this Labour Government have dishonoured their own position and dishonoured the pledges they made to the people of Northern Ireland to fix it. Talk about a closer relationship with the European Union: in the coming months, customs duties on parcels to customers in Northern Ireland—”
“We are now two months into a financial year with no budget. Where is the clamour? Where is the concern? Where is the effort to ensure that our politics can work and we can stimulate business and growth? That has not been mentioned, and it is not a concern. Labour’s big idea is the relationship with the EU. It is a big idea that seems to ignore a referendum that took place in 2016—its Members do not want it mentioned. Forget about betraying the people of this country and a referendum that decided our fate 10 years ago; the bigger concern among Labour Members is betraying the aspirations of their candidates, with one candidate letting slip their view so that the king of the north is left with no clothes. And yet, on a closer relationship with the European Union, what do we hear for Northern Ireland? Nothing.”
“Do Labour Members know that the average spend per head of population is £300, but in Northern Ireland, it has been a fifth of that? I asked whether this Government recognise that Programme Euston, which could see investment in both Scotland and Northern Ireland, could be designated as a defence project. Again, officialdom is reticent. When I served on the Defence Committee with Labour Members for eight years, we fought those campaigns together and secured investment, but now that they are in government, they buy the same official line. There are things we can do to encourage investment, business and economic growth, but I am sorry to say that I do not see them. We have heard colleagues talk about stability in the economy. I want to see stability in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was in the Chamber earlier.”
“The agricultural sector does need help, as do many other sectors besides. Just this day, I had a conversation with a lovely young gentleman—a 14-year-old student from Broxbourne in England. He is a secondary school student, and he told me about his school and his classmates. They live in a Conservative constituency, but last year in a mock election, the majority of pupils his age were not interested in this Government; they were putting their store in the Greens. I wonder just how often Members in this Chamber engage with real people and understand their concerns. [ Interruption. ] Labour Members laugh, but they were not laughing two weeks ago, and I suspect they will not continue laughing. Earlier in this debate, I raised the issue of defence spending in Northern Ireland.”
“I do not have time to give to the hon. Gentleman; as I do not get an extra minute, I am not giving way. I am too close to the end of my speech. In three months’ time, we will see customs duties on parcels from one part of our United Kingdom to another; by the end of this year, general product and safety regulations that were dealt with last year will be back on the agenda again. Do we hear anything about it? Is there concern? No, sadly not. I said earlier that it is mildly eccentric, but in fact it is a farce that we are going to have to hear more from a Government which needs nothing more than change itself.”
“The Leader of the Opposition is right to highlight the cross-party nature of this motion, and to question why a Whip has been put in place on the motion that is before the House. Does she not agree, and should Labour MPs not consider, that if there is nothing to hide, there is nothing to fear?”
“Yet today, the Secretary of State says that he will bring forward amendments, and we are asked to support a carry-over motion on a process that has lost the confidence of the people it is meant to bring with it. That is a shame.”
“Time after time after time, we heard him and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is sat beside him, indicate that those safeguards would protect veterans in the United Kingdom, yet here we have it—the Secretary of State has had to open up. He has had to tell us, as the Prime Minister confirmed to me, that he is going to bring forward further amendments to do what he said was already done. He has lost the confidence of veterans and victims. We have talked about and asked the Secretary of State about equivalence. How can there be equivalence between somebody who donned a uniform, did service and made sacrifices legally and lawfully in this country and others who donned a balaclava, took an oath of allegiance to evil and sought to destroy our nation and all those in it? Can there be equivalence? No.”
“I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate on the carry-over motion. We are here this evening as a direct consequence of the failure of this Government to honour their commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, to deliver on a manifesto commitment through a two-year Session of Parliament, and to bring with them the victims from Northern Ireland and veterans right throughout the United Kingdom. This is not a failure of our making. The Secretary of State talks about and laments the fact that the Tories lost the support of all parties in Northern Ireland, but I see little support for the process that the people of Northern Ireland and veterans right across the United Kingdom have had to endure over the last two years. Time after time after time, we heard the Secretary of State talk of safeguards for veterans.”
“She will remember that one of the most startling experiences we had as a Committee was talking to victims who asked us this question: “Is the Secretary of State going to agree to early release for dissident republican prisoners?” On 21 May last year, he said to me that “there are no such plans” —[ Official Report , 21 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 1011.] yet that engagement continues. Worse, the Northern Ireland Office has now appointed a lady called Fleur Ravensbergen, who is engaging with the New IRA, who attacked Dunmurry police station just yesterday. Through their interlocutors and the International Red Cross, they are asking the Secretary of State to offer them early release. I say: shame!”
“Tonight, we are asked to support a carry-over motion. The amendment paper for this Bill, containing 49 pages of amendments from myself, my hon. Friends and hon. Members throughout this House. Although the Secretary of State was confident about this Bill, he now indicates that he is going to bring forward a substantial number of amendments. He would be better off scrapping the Bill and bringing back a Bill that can command the confidence of victims and veterans. I listened to the powerful contribution of the Chair of the Northern Ireland Committee, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who is no longer in her place.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Secretary of State dismisses the allegation that this is all about Dublin, but what was the clarion call over the last week? There was a British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference this week, and he knows that he is under pressure from Dublin to show progress, but what have we got from them? Nothing more than hollow words. The Dublin Government said that they committed to information retrieval. How many requests have they accepted from the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery? None. They have given no answers to any victims in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government have more secrets locked away in their drawers than lectures that they choose to give to this House. They still have an interstate case against this country. They promise lots; they deliver nothing.”
“I will not. When we talk of amnesty, I think of Martin Quinn, the brother of Glenn Quinn, and of Mrs Quinn, his mother —an 82-year-old woman who lost her son in January 2020. He was beaten to death by a loyalist paramilitary; he was terminally ill, and he was killed in his own home. An 82-year-old mother is sitting at home today with death threats from loyalists because of Colin Simms and the murder he committed in Carrickfergus. He does not have the support of his community or his comrades. If the Secretary of State can achieve anything tonight, it should be to inform Mrs Quinn that neither Colin Simms nor anyone like him will receive any sort of immunity or early release, for the sake of justice that is yet to be delivered.”
“If the Prime Minister is ordering a review by Sir Adrian Fulford, will he ensure it includes within its terms of reference or separately a deep dive into the appointment of Marie Anderson, the Northern Ireland police ombudsman: why she was appointed, why the security information was ignored, and how that can be the case?”
“The Prime Minister knows he is the main character in an ongoing national scandal. Given all the blame apportioned in his statement, it is incredible that only one person has lost their position. Does the Prime Minister also recognise that it is incredible to learn that in Northern Ireland a political appointment was made following the refusal to clear an individual for security access; that they have continued in their post and engaged on issues connected with the legacy of our troubled past with full security clearance, despite security service concerns; and that they continue to this day?”
“I will support the hon. Gentleman’s request for us to back the amendment and not disagree with it, as the Government have asked, although I could easily be convinced that Governments should be making these decisions themselves, rather than Parliament making decisions on proscription or otherwise. Does he think that in the past two years, since the election in July 2024, there has been any indication that this Government will take action on the IRGC?”
“The Secretary of State and the Labour Government promised the people of Northern Ireland that they would repeal and replace the legacy Act. They have not. They promised through this two-year extended parliamentary Session that they would deliver legislation that attained support across the community. They have not. The Bill is delayed at the moment because of discord among those on the Government’s own Benches. What does he say to the victims in Northern Ireland who want to see progress?”
“The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has just heard from the chief constable of the PSNI, Jon Boutcher, who indicated that the Secretary of State has put in a claim to the Treasury for additional hundreds of millions of pounds to fund the legacy commission, yet the PSNI has nothing. It has £200 million of civil liability cases with it and no resources to progress. Even if it was asked for information, it could not provide it. Does the Secretary of State recognise that there is a legacy funding deficit within the PSNI, and will he similarly seek money for that?”
“The Chancellor has made a commitment not to restore the 5p duty on fuel, but could she also look at the rebate for red diesel to help support construction, transport, haulage and energy regeneration in our country to stimulate the parts of our economy that have a disproportionate reliance on it and have lost the support that they gravely need?”
“I thank the Chancellor for recognising the disproportionate reliance on home heating oil in Northern Ireland, but the £17 million made available for half a million homes reliant on oil equates to £34 per household, and there is no data to target that support. There is £81 million available from the renewables obligation for electricity. We were told by the Prime Minister and the Northern Ireland Secretary that that could be targeted, yet Treasury officials are blocking that, so I ask her to look at that again.”
“He needs to go faster where others before him did not, and he needs to take these steps not just for the protection of our values across the world, but for the protection of our consumers who are impacted by this conflict today.”
“I associate myself and my colleagues with the Prime Minister’s remarks about Sarah Everard and about Iran. My colleagues and I support our armed forces, but we lament how diminished the UK has appears over the past week among our allies and within the middle east. The Prime Minister is not responsible for our armed forces being able to squeeze into Wembley Park and Ibrox, but he is responsible for our posture. He is responsible for ignoring the request to deploy a Type 45 destroyer to the region two weeks ago, and we now learn that HMS Dragon will not leave, has not left and will not be in place to defend Cyprus for over a week. Will the Prime Minister understand that I welcome the commitment for increased defence spending, but if we are planning only to get to 2.5% by 2027, it is not enough? It needs to be reconsidered.”
“Let me explain why I am raising this matter, and why I think it important for it to be raised. I served on the Defence Committee for eight years over the course of a number of Parliaments, and have taken an interest in defence issues and raised and championed cases not just for an individual, but for the collective endeavour placed in service in this country. I raise this matter because of the fundamental, important principles that lie behind this singular case.”
“But Mr Milroy was not entitled, he was told, to a pension. For almost six years now, he has been highlighting the legal entitlement that he has and pursuing that legal entitlement through the courts. As the Minister and colleagues will know, the law that lies behind that is the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, introduced into our domestic law by the previous Labour Government —an entitlement that assesses whether a part-time worker is being treated less favourably than their full-time counterparts. On two occasions, the employment tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal, through the judgment of Lord Fairley on 29 January this year, have ruled that yes, Mr Milroy was being treated less favourably than his full-time counterparts.”
“Mr Charles Milroy”, and ask, “What has this got to do with a Northern Ireland MP?” or with the colleagues of mine who have kindly stayed in the Chamber this evening. I do not know Charles Milroy, though I know of his service. This afternoon I had the opportunity to speak with him for the first time, and I can recognise him as somebody who has served our country well over more than three decades. Charles Milroy joined the Territorial Army in 1982, was commissioned in 1983 and retired in 2015, having served his time as a reservist, as a commissioned officer and major. When he retired, he sought to attain what his co-workers successfully already had: a pension. This House will remember that the former Minister for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), introduced a pension for reservists in 2015.”
“Madam Deputy Speaker, through you, may I thank Mr Speaker for selecting this topic for our Adjournment debate? I am very grateful to the Minister for Veterans and People, who is in her place. It is the first time that we have been able to engage in this way since she has been in her role, so I look forward to that exchange. I truly hope that we will not get a 15-minute elongation of the answer I got to my parliamentary question, which is that the Government do not wish to engage in this discussion at this time, but we shall see—there is plenty of time for it to develop. I know that some will look at the title of the debate on the Order Paper, “Potential implications of the judgment in the case of Advocate General for Scotland v.”