Robin Swann
MP for South Antrim · Ulster Unionist Party · United Kingdom
“More importantly, it is practical and evidence-based and deserves to be tested rather than dismissed. The incoming Prime Minister talks of more devolution. Here is an opportunity for the Minister to put such a case in front of him.”
“Hospitality is one of the largest employers of our young people, and it provides opportunities for people entering the workforce, developing skills or returning to employment. Protecting hospitality means protecting livelihoods in every constituency across our country. Thirdly, it would strengthen tourism.”
“Indeed, article 8 of the Northern Ireland protocol specifically envisages a situation where VAT arrangements may diverge to address competitive imbalances with the Republic of Ireland, which is the case here. The legal route, the economic case and the practical mechanism exist. What is required now is the political will to act.”
“It is especially striking that the United Kingdom’s 20% VAT rate for hospitality is increasingly an outlier across Europe. France applies 10%, Italy 10%, Croatia 13% and Germany is moving towards a reduced hospitality rate.”
“This is a request not for special treatment but for fairness, economic common sense and the opportunity to test a policy that could strengthen businesses, protect jobs and support communities across every part of Northern Ireland while providing valuable evidence for policymakers across the United Kingdom.”
“I agreed with the hon. Member until his last point. The McKeever group owns the hotel in which he was married. I had my wedding reception at the group’s Dunsilly hotel, and it is just celebrating the 40th anniversary— [ Interruption. ] Of the hotel, not my marriage, just to be clear to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).”
The complete record
Every one of 525 lines we hold for Robin Swann, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 11.
“Reading through the King’s Speech, there is a section that covers the territorial extent and application of the Bills. When I listen to what Government MPs say is good about these Bills, they say that this extent will cover the whole of the United Kingdom, but the reality is that it will not—it does not—because so much will depend on the European partnership Bill. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) has already explained some of those challenges. I have listened to discussion of the regulation for growth Bill. So many of those regulations in Northern Ireland are still countermanded and managed by European Union regulations. I listened to how sandbox powers will be brought forward, and how they will lessen legal powers and release from bureaucracy people who want to create employment.”
“A King’s Speech allows a Government to provide a reset—a signal to the general populace that they want to do something different and are going to build on the last Session. The Prime Minister said that the purpose of the Bills contained in this King’s Speech was to strengthen our economic security. In opening the debate, the Secretary of State said that it was about building national resilience. I have listened for nearly four hours to Members on the Government Benches tell this Chamber and the country about all the positives contained in the Bills that will be brought forward within the next Session. I have looked at how the Bills proposed by this Government will affect the people of South Antrim—the businesses, employers and employees—and the people of Northern Ireland.”
“There is an opportunity for this Government to come into Northern Ireland and make a real difference in car insurance, if they were to take the powers proposed in the Bill to regulate claims management companies in Northern Ireland in the same way as they do across the rest of the United Kingdom.”
“That plethora of additional costs on raw material coming into Northern Ireland is not balanced out when we hear that this Government want to invest in our small businesses, especially our defence SMEs in Northern Ireland; they promised a £50 million investment coming into those small industries, while at the same time adding costs to their power and raw materials. The implications of the Bills in the King’s Speech have the potential to be truly life-changing. For example, there would be opportunities for my constituency if the powerhouse rail Bill and the railways and passenger benefits Bill could be brought to Northern Ireland, opening up the Knockmore line and Belfast International airport. The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) mentioned the enhancing financial services Bill.”
“The Windsor framework necessitates the application of the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism on at-risk goods from Great Britain, which effectively creates a carbon border in the Irish sea that could add up to £200 million in annual trade costs and increase major project expenses by 5%. Our steel importers will also face a triple jeopardy of global levies, including US tariffs of up to 50%, an incoming UK regime that slashes tariff-free quotas by 60% this July, and ongoing EU safeguarding duties of 25% on goods that are deemed as at risk under the Windsor framework.”
“I agree with the hon. Member. The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) mentioned earlier that every Northern Ireland politician who is worth their salt was at the Balmoral show last week, along with members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. The continual message was that agriculture in Northern Ireland is being strangled by some of the regulations coming from the European Union, preventing us from bringing forward a truly world-leading agricultural industry. On energy, the cost of fuel is impacting heavily on Northern Ireland, and that has a knock-on impact on our steel industry. There is a fantastic manufacturing base across Northern Ireland, but our businesses now face a dual burden.”
“Q15. In a parliamentary Session that started out with a degree of anticipation, a level of expectation and a promise of change, in what could be the Prime Minister’s last Prime Minister’s question time, may I ask him why does he think it went so wrong? Was it his failure to support our WASPI women, his failure to support our farmers, or his failure to support our Northern Ireland veterans and victims of the Northern Ireland troubles? Or was it those around him, who seem more interested in themselves than in the country?”
“What price does the Secretary of State put on a Northern Ireland life? What price does he put on the lives of PSNI officers, whom we have praised in this House today for saving so many lives at the weekend? The majority of his answers at the start of this session referred to Barnett consequentials and budgets, not the people who went out of their way to save lives. Why do he and this Government believe that if terrorists in Northern Ireland are attacking Northern Ireland people, it is only a Northern Ireland problem?”
“T2. The Foreign Secretary has paid tribute to Sir Olly Robbins on a number of occasions. In that case, can I ask what the grounds were for his dismissal and what was contained in his dismissal letter? Was he allowed to state a case against his sacking?”
“The Northern Ireland Office and the Treasury are doing an open book exercise on how all the Departments of the Northern Ireland Executive are spending their block grant allocations. Will the Secretary of State commit to publishing their findings?”
“3. What guidance her Department has provided to police forces on the application of public order legislation in relation to the expression of religious beliefs.”
“May I start by condemning the attack on the ambulances of the Hatzola community ambulance service over the weekend? A core tenet of our system and beliefs is that of civil and religious liberty for all. Does the Minister agree that we all have a role to play in upholding that core British tenet?”
“She was receiving the same advice as I was from chief medical officers across the nation about how the cessation of smoking across generations would dramatically change not just health, but the income of many families. In respect of that four-nation approach, I seek reassurance again from the Government—I have received reassurance on this from the last Government and this Government—that the Bill will apply equally in Northern Ireland and all parts of the nation.”
“I welcome the Minister to her place. I worked with her predecessors when I was Health Minister in Northern Ireland, when this Bill first came about. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Members for Windsor (Jack Rankin) and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), because this legislation started its iterations under the previous Government. Very little has changed between what was debated then and what is before us now, because it is the right thing to do. It is the common-sense thing to do for the health of the entirety of our nation. I remember having those conversations with the then MP for South Northamptonshire, Dame Andrea Leadsom, who was passionate about what the Bill would bring about.”
“That is the concern, but I point out that the Windsor framework was negotiated and implemented by the previous Government, who left Northern Ireland in this current situation. When I was in post, I received reassurances from the previous Government and from this Government. I would like to be in a place that I can take both at their word that they have done their due diligence about the applicability of this legislation, and the Minister responded to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on that.”
“Well, it was Democratic Unionist party MPs who were prepared to oppose the Bill in this House while their MLAs supported it back in the Northern Ireland Assembly. That was a strange mixture, but that is where we are and that is where they are at this minute. I am assured that DUP MLAs support this legislation applying equally to Northern Ireland, and I think that was part of the debate in the other place with their peers. I finish by seeking reassurances from the Minister about the application of this Bill, because it is a good piece of legislation.”
“That is why this debate is important. In that regard, I am disappointed by the absence of some Northern Ireland MPs, because we asked for this opportunity to debate the detail of the Bill and they have not taken the opportunity to be here today. I understand that others have other commitments. A remedial order—I think the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) said it is an unusual type of legislation, seldom used—was brought forward in January.”
“Words are fine, but unless they are on the face of the legislation, they can be lost, misinterpreted, repealed or even weakened in the interpretation as the Bill goes forward, and even through the judiciary. I thank the House for allowing this debate on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee’s reflections on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, because we have not yet had the opportunity to do so in the main Chamber. When the remedial order came before the House earlier this year, we were given the impression that the troubles Bill was only days or weeks away. Yet the Leader of the House today gave indications of next week’s business, and we still have no sight of when the Bill will reach Committee stage, so that the Committee of the whole House can delve into what it will mean for victims, veterans and Northern Ireland society alike.”
“I was a teenager at the time, and I remember watching the reports on television and the brutality of the attack—the seemingly unwarranted deaths of two serving officers in Northern Ireland. That is where the troubles Bill does a disservice to some of our veterans with regard to how they served in Northern Ireland and how they are now being treated. The concerns of veterans have been touched on many times and are referenced in the report, especially in the six promised protections for Northern Ireland veterans. The Secretary of State knows well that we have had many debates in which those specific protections have been highlighted and exposed as being there for all, not specifically for veterans, as detailed in the wording of the Bill.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on bringing forward the report, and the Chair, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), on the way she has stewarded the debate and taken evidence from so many groups. Bringing forward a unanimous report on such a delicate issue in Northern Ireland is testament to all those who were involved and to those who gave evidence. It is a very difficult issue, because it is still very raw in Northern Ireland. On this day in 1988, two British Army corporals, Derek Wood and David Howes, were attacked, beaten, abused and then shot because they happened to drive into the middle of a Provisional IRA funeral in Belfast.”
“I do accept that point. If the hon. Gentleman looks back to my contribution in that debate at the end of January, he will see that I made that same point, because I could not understand why the Government were in such a rush to bring forward a piece of legislation that was not actually necessary, as he indicated.”
“I look forward to continual engagement with all those involved, so that we can see the outworkings of the Government’s proposed legislation.”
“I do have concerns about what the Irish will do. There has been talk of them producing legislation in April or May. The Irish Government, I think, and the Teachtaí Dála we engaged with at Committee level, talked about the publication of a heads of a Bill, which is completely different from what we do. I put on the record again my and my party’s concerns that the Irish Government will not be honest actors in this matter. We have experienced that in the past. We experienced it when they promised the release of documentation and records in respect of Kingsmill. What they actually produced was a folder of newspaper cuttings, which left the families deeply disappointed. I congratulate the Committee on the publication of the report and I thank those who have come to take part in the debate.”
“The Select Committee Chair raised the influence of the Irish Government, and the Secretary of State has heard me say many times that I think the Irish Government are missing in this process. They have not stepped up. They have used words of favour and encouragement about what they will do and what they will bring tomorrow, but they have not produced anything in relation to what the UK Government are currently doing. If they had been honest actors, the two pieces of legislation would have run concurrently and been delivered at the same time. The Secretary of Secretary of State referred to legislation around the Omagh investigation; that is completely separate legislation. The two should not be equated. The Omagh legislation is a specific response to the Omagh inquiry, not to anything that is currently being done.”
“What worries me, as the Government move on with their changes and what they see as adaptations to the previous institutions, is a loss of trust and confidence. A lot of work has been done by key members of the ICRIR to engage with all sections of the community to make sure that those who in the past never came forward to seek justice are now engaging. What concerns me about the new commission is that we begin to lose some of the credibility and trust that has been built up by the likes of Sir Declan Morgan and Peter Sheridan, who have put a lot of time, energy, sweat and personal commitment into driving forward the work of the ICRIR. It is the small things, such as the creation of two directors of investigation rather than one, which could take away from the work that has already been done.”
“The reason why they were not brought to the police at the time was the threat of paramilitary reaction to the individuals and their families. Yesterday, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee heard from the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls. I encourage anyone who does not serve on that Committee to listen to her evidence, because it relates to the type of abuse that happened during the troubles. That coercion, power and control is seen in abuse elsewhere, so I wanted to highlight that recommendation put forward by my party in its response to the inquiry. A number of Members have raised the issue of trust and confidence in the Government and the new process.”
“I mention that because have tabled an amendment on the issue, and I am thankful to other Members for their support for it, but the Secretary of State’s response to date has been lacking. He said that the legacy commission can “investigate Troubles-related sexual offences which are connected to a death or serious injury or that cause such injury”, but that leaves out some cases. Máiría Cahill, a young woman from a prominent republican family who was raped by a senior member of the IRA in west Belfast, has asked that such cases be included. Paudie McGahon, who was 17 at the time, was raped by an IRA man who had been moved to safehouse in the Irish Republic, but instead of facing justice for rape, the rapist was exiled. The Secretary of State has said in correspondence that these cases can now be investigated by the police.”
“It has been mentioned that the biggest objection to the previous Government’s legacy Act was that no Northern Ireland Executive party supported it. The Northern Ireland Assembly has debated the issue of sexual crimes, and there was cross-party support for a motion that said that the Assembly “accepts that crimes of a sexual nature, including child sexual abuse, have a particularly insidious effect on society and have a long-lasting physical and psychological impact on the victim and their wider family”. The motion called on the UK Government “to ensure that victims of Troubles-related sexual violence can seek a legacy investigation as part of the proposed Legacy Commission and that crimes of a sexual nature, including rape and child sexual abuse, are included as a separate qualifying criteria alongside serious injury and death”.”
“The right hon. Member is correct. That appeal was being heard at the time, and I remember those issues being raised. I am conscious that this debate is on the Select Committee report, and I want to congratulate the work that has been done, and its sensitivity in balancing victims and veterans. Over the past number of weeks and months, concerns have been raised that the debate over here has focused on veterans and is doing a disservice to victims of the troubles. I think that is an inaccurate portrayal of the work done by members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and by those who take an active interest what the Bill is about. I want to concentrate on one recommendation for the Bill that my party introduced, on the inclusion of sexual crimes in the types of crimes and incidents that can be looked at.”
“The Solicitor General will know that 29 women have been murdered since 2020 in Northern Ireland—we have seen a significant increase in femicide. Will she give me an assurance that she will continue to engage with Northern Ireland’s Attorney General and Justice Minister to ensure that prosecution rates are also increased in Northern Ireland?”
“Lough Neagh Fishermen’s Co-operative Society relies on a supply of glass eels to meet its regulatory commitment to be a sustainable eel fishery, but the supply from GB rivers is now being blocked because of EU wildlife trade regulations. That issue has been raised with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem MPs. My concern is the sustainability of eel stocks in Lough Neagh, and our eel fishermen. Will the Leader of the House advise me on how best to get a common-sense, positive resolution to this issue from DEFRA?”
“The right hon. Lady says that the system is unfair. Does she agree that charging interest rates during maternity and paternity leave is also unfair? It disadvantages people in the workplace, especially women, who have worked hard to get into progressive careers through university education, and they are penalised at that point.”
“On that point, does the Minister agree that there is another way? The Open University also allows people to earn and learn at the same time. The situation is not as simple as university or apprenticeship. There is a middle way and, as a former graduate of the Open University, I encourage the Government to support it.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He will be aware that a good friend of ours, Frank Feighan, the TD for Sligo-Leitrim, is in Westminster today. Frank has often championed the idea that the Republic of Ireland should return to the Commonwealth and expand that greater familiar connectivity that we have across the old empire. Does the Member agree that Frank should be encouraged to forward that argument?”
“First, may I join the commemoration of Jeane Freeman, having served with her during her period as Scottish Health Secretary? The question I asked was actually about whether the Secretary of State for Scotland had met the Scottish Veterans Commissioner in respect of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. That legislation will have a dramatic effect on veterans across the United Kingdom, no matter where they served, and it would be best if the Scotland Office also knew about its impact.”
“I thank the Minister for meeting me to discuss the concerns raised by the voluntary community sector in Northern Ireland about how the fund will be split between capital and revenue. We are now looking at a fund that is more capital-heavy than revenue-heavy, and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People has said that the shift towards capital-heavy investment fails to recognise the reality that youth and community work is relational, intensive and people-driven, not infrastructure-driven. Will the Minister continue to work to shift the balance between capital and revenue, so that the funding supports the people who use it?”
“I welcome the Secretary of State’s approach to the Bill, and how he has worked across all devolved Administrations. May I seek his assurance that medical students who reside in Northern Ireland, who identify as Irish and who study in an Irish institution in the Republic of Ireland will not be excluded from coming back to work in the national health service in Northern Ireland, where we very much need all the talent we can get?”
“It is the timely thing to do in order to tackle the issue of workforce recruitment, and it should not be used in any negotiations with the British Medical Association to resolve another issue out there. I seek an assurance from the Secretary of State, as other speakers have done, that the Bill will be introduced in the right manner, because it is the right thing to do.”
“I hope that nothing in the Bill will hinder their progression into the workforce. I am sure that the Minister has engaged with the Northern Ireland Health Minister on ensuring that there are no impediments to that progression. Ultimately, the Bill supports locally trained doctors and maintains the integrity of national recruitment systems. I therefore fully support it, along with its extension to Northern Ireland through the legislative consent motion process. I genuinely wish the Minister well, and commend her on the constructive approach taken to recognising Northern Ireland’s devolved competences while ensuring alignment across the entirety of the United Kingdom. However, I will support the Opposition amendment regarding the timing. In my view, this legislation is not just the right thing to do.”
“The latter would place a significant administrative and financial burden on local bodies, particularly the Northern Ireland Medical and Dental Training Agency, and could risk undermining long-established recruitment structures. I welcome the fact that the Bill does not impose additional costs on health services in Northern Ireland, given that the system is under unprecedented financial strain. Instead, it simply changes the order in which applications are considered for existing programmes, and by doing so, it helps to protect the investment made in medical education. However, I seek an assurance from the Minister in connection with a graduate-entry medical school that was created at Magee College back in 2021. The first cohort of graduates came through in June 2025—69 second-degree doctors and surgeons.”
“For too long, we have seen increasing pressures on training pathways, with locally trained graduates facing uncertainties and bottlenecks when moving from undergraduate education into foundation and specialty training. I hope very much that the Bill will ensure that those who trained in UK and Republic of Ireland systems have a clear and reliable route into employment in those same systems. I welcome clause 4, which refers to the terms “UK medical graduate” and “the priority group”, but am concerned about the drafting of amendment 9, which was tabled by members of His Majesty’s official Opposition. If Northern Ireland were excluded from these arrangements in any way, by default, it would face an invidious choice between accepting increased competition for limited training places and withdrawing from national recruitment altogether.”
“As I said earlier, I will be supporting the Bill. I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for their engagement with the devolved institutions on the Bill’s intentions, and on expediting its progress. Its implications for Northern Ireland, and for the medical workforce spanning the islands, are crucial. As has been discussed, the Bill introduces a UK-wide duty on providers of medical training to prioritise applicants who have graduated from medical schools in the UK or the Republic of Ireland. While health is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, I entirely recognise that this legislation is essential to preserving a joined-up and UK-wide approach to medical training and recruitment.”
“The Police Service of Northern Ireland is currently excluded from the counter-terrorism policing grant of about £1 billion a year, which is accessible to GB forces. Now that counter-terrorism is being looked after by the National Police Service, will the Police Service of Northern Ireland be able to access some of that funding?”
“The Secretary of State talks about a patchwork quilt and a postcode lottery. Operation Restore supports military veterans with their physical and mental health, but Northern Ireland-resident veterans do not have the same access in devolved institutions—the likes of the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic hospital. Will the legislation enable Northern Ireland-resident veterans to access the services that are accessible to English veterans?”
“Q7. Challenging economic inactivity and supporting the vulnerable across the country is something that we all want, so would the Prime Minister be surprised to learn that, in Northern Ireland, around 11,000 people previously supported by UK shared prosperity funding will see those programmes cut dramatically, compounded by 400 job losses? Does he support the cuts to those vital programmes, and will he arrange an urgent meeting for me, and the organisations that have been impacted, with the relevant decision maker in Government so that these changes and challenges can be resolved?”
“Would the hon. Gentleman consider that there is a political reason for the Northern Ireland Office to bring this measure forward: to placate the Irish Government and their timeline rather than the timeline of this place?”
“In regard to those parts of the legislation that are being removed, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) said that they have actually never taken effect, so why the rush to bring this remedial order?”
“The Government remain resolutely committed to finding a way forward, which is why they took the decision to delay. If it was right for the Government to do that on Monday evening, it is right for this Secretary of State to delay this remedial order until the judge and the courts have had their opportunity to complete their processes in regard to what is right and just, and then this House can have that legal, informed debate on why we should be moving forward. I want to refer to two contributions from Government Members. The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who I have a lot of respect for from when she served in the Northern Ireland Office, referred to how rare it is to use a remedial order, so why use it in haste? Why not take the time to actually reflect on what it is?”
“I have respect for many of them, but throughout this three-hour debate—no harm to the Government—their Benches were empty. When the bells ring, Government Members will come and do what they have been bid to do. That is in complete contrast with Monday evening. The question has been raised: why are we rushing this remedial order while there is no troubles Bill to replace it? Why the rush? On Monday evening, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), said on the Public Office (Accountability) Bill that “we must think about all the possible scenarios and unintended consequences”. —[ Official Report , 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 103.] It is right to acknowledge that that is not a simple issue.”
“Friend the Member for Strangford and all those who contributed, including all those who went home at night not knowing if their colleague walking beside them was actually the individual who was passing information to the person who was planning their murder. But when I came here, I realised that the conversation is also about the Northern Ireland veterans from England, Scotland and Wales who came to Northern Ireland to serve and to defend and protect what we believed was a democratic system in regard to our rights and our beliefs. Let us remember that context in regard to that emotion and that service, and then look at what is being brought forward to this House and what is being asked of Members of this House and of members of the Government.”