Gavin Robinson MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 10 Sept 2025 · Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace · Hansard source

  More

  In November 2022, the hon. Members for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) and for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) and I were in Ukraine with the Defence Committee when there was an onslaught of rockets fired into that country, one of which errantly fell into Poland and killed two Polish nationals. On that day, Poland considered triggering article 4, and today it has clearly done so. In the intervening period of almost three years, there has been a growing reluctance to equip Ukraine to defend its skies and, importantly, to do so from the skies, so while this article 4 meeting of member states will consider how we protect the skies of NATO, will the Minister confirm that he is willing to extend that conversation to how we appropriately and effectively defend the skies of Ukraine?

• 14 Jul 2025 · Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I give thanks to the armed forces of our country: those who came and served with us in Northern Ireland—people from Culloden coming to Coleraine, from Folkestone to Fermanagh, from Birmingham to Belfast and from London to Londonderry. They joined with us in defence of peace and in defence of the values of our nation. A number of figures have already been shared this afternoon. Some 1,441 armed forces personnel died in Northern Ireland during Operation Banner—not 722, not 1,043, but 1,441. They did so in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, GC, of whose members 302 were murdered by terrorists in Northern Ireland. It is right, and we will hear it in this debate, that every party in Northern Ireland opposed the legacy Act, but I remind Members that they did so for incredibly different reasons. I do not share Sinn Féin’s opposition, because I do not defend the IRA; I do not defend those who decided to destroy, or attempt to destroy, our part of this United Kingdom. My colleagues and I spend time in this House asking for our UK Government to protect those who protected us, so when I hear naive platitudes about the legacy Act simply offering an amnesty to soldiers, I have to say this: it was the Labour Government who released 435 prisoners from Maze prison following the Belfast agreement. They included Patrick Magee, who was responsible for blowing up the hotel in Brighton, killing a Member of our House, Sir Anthony Berry, and injuring Norman Tebbit and his wife. A week after Norman Tebbit’s death, can we not reflect that heinous men such as Patrick Magee should not be released from prison? There were others: Sean Kelly, an IRA bomber—a brave man who believed in republican ideals who walked into a fish and chip shop on a Saturday and blew up nine innocent people, and families, on the Shankill road—was released by the Labour Government. After that, republicans did not stop in their pursuit. They asked the Labour Government to encourage their comrades to come home. People who had been engaged in terrorism and evaded justice for years, who hid in the Irish Republic, were not extradited, because the Irish Republic said they could not get a fair trial in this United Kingdom. Or individuals fled to the United States, like Gabriel Megahey, who was the IRA officer commanding in the United States of America during the ’80s and ’90s. He was imprisoned by the FBI for trying to purchase surface-to-air missiles to support the IRA in destroying our country. Didn’t he get a grubby deal with President Clinton, and has he not been allowed to stay in the United States, until President Trump deports him? It was a Labour Government who introduced the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill in 2003, and who asked Parliament to agree a process to allow on-the-runs to come back to this United Kingdom to retire with dignity. Thank God they had the resolve to withdraw that pernicious piece of legislation, but what did they then do? They engaged in a process of signing on-the-runs letters. People will say that they were not an amnesty, but tell that to the families of the four members of the Household Cavalry who were murdered in the Hyde Park bomb, to the seven horses that were put down as a result of the Hyde Park bomb, or to the 50 others who were injured in the Hyde Park bomb, because when John Downey was taken to the High Court in London, he produced his letter—a secret scheme by the Labour Government to allow him to walk out of court with no justice for his victims. That is not all: 365 royal prerogatives of mercy, from both Conservative and Labour Governments, were offered in Northern Ireland to give amnesty to terrorists. Yet, throughout all that time of prison releases, on-the-runs, the 2003 Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill and royal prerogatives of mercy, how many were given to those who defended the rule of law and order? None. So let us be very clear about the danger of going down a line of allowing inquests to recommence. The Clonoe inquest is a classic example of how a judge goes beyond the terms of his brief. An inquest is to determine who died, where they died, when they died and how they died, but not why. A coroner’s court is not there to determine whether there is criminal liability, yet that is exactly what the judge did—a judge who, in his judgment, made no reference to the context, to who was killed that day or to the terrorist campaign of the East Tyrone Brigade, which was the bloodiest of them all. Yet the very same coroner could do so when he did the Coagh inquest a number of months before. Why do people pursue these inquests, which the Secretary of State seems keen to recommence? Because those lawyers who do wish to rewrite history in Northern Ireland are laying the foundations for prosecutions. The reason why closing down those inquests was important was that it stopped this pernicious ability to put the building blocks in place to see our veterans in court. Yet the Secretary of State met with Mairead Kelly, the sister of Patrick Kelly—the officer commanding the East Tyrone Brigade of the IRA—on 24 March this year. Darragh Mackin, a solicitor from Phoenix Law, put out a statement immediately after, salivating at having got a commitment from our Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that inquests would recommence. Their sights are on Loughgall; their sights are on building a pernicious and never-ending pursuit against those who served in Northern Ireland. Our responsibility, as parliamentarians from across this United Kingdom, is to say, “No. We will not assist your quest to rewrite the history of the past, nor will we assist in the IRA’s pursuit to try and attain some level of honour towards their retirement.” They tried to destroy this country through war, and they failed. Let us not create the conditions for them to try to destroy the reputation of this country through peace.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Privilege · Hansard source

  More

  I have had the privilege of sharing time on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), in the names of whom this motion has been laid. It is crucial that the Omagh inquiry gets the information it requires, and we have raised concerns about the Irish Government and their reluctance. It would be useful for the Privileges Committee to hear very clearly from me and, I hope, from the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) that it would be entirely incongruous if in an inquiry set up under the Inquiries Act 2005, which was passed by this Parliament, to seek answers for the Omagh bombing families and construed in their names, information that Norman Baxter gave to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee was available and could assist the inquiry, but was refused because of privilege. That would be an intolerable situation. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that having gone through this process and agreed this motion, the information will be made available.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Spending Review: Northern Ireland Executive · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State knows that the blue book has a flat line for the next five years. Talking of economic growth, let me say he also knows that there is a commitment to an enhanced investment zone in Northern Ireland. When does he believe the businesses of Northern Ireland will benefit from that?

• 2 Jul 2025 · Spending Review: Northern Ireland Executive · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the Secretary of State for at least answering a question yesterday. Despite it being a day when the Labour Government were prepared to take money out of the pockets of the most vulnerable, they at least had the courage to stand forward and say that Gerry Adams would get none, so I thank the Secretary of State for that. I also advise him not to ignore the warnings of the Federation of Small Businesses, which in its report was explicit that the Windsor framework is fracturing the United Kingdom’s internal market. That is a cause for concern. When we were talking of the spending review two weeks ago, he was asked whether the financial transactions capital being made available to Casement Park was additional; he knows that the blue book has a flat line for the next five years, so what is the answer?

• 25 Jun 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  My colleagues and I identify with the comments around de-escalation in the middle east. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will condemn recent disorder on the streets of Northern Ireland, as the Prime Minister and my colleagues have done. Does she accept that the Windsor framework, although sold to this House as a trade issue, is fundamentally impacting the ability of this sovereign Parliament to legislate on a UK-wide basis on matters of immigration? Will she commit to ensuring that the Government continue to challenge robustly the expansionism that is currently before the courts? If not, will she legislate to ensure that we as a country can control our own borders?

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna), though I will reach a slightly different conclusion from him. Although she is not in the Chamber, may I remark on the principled stand taken by the hon. Member for Lewisham North (Vicky Foxcroft), not only today but in her decision last night? I think it will stand her in good political stead. My colleagues and I will vote against Third Reading, and that should come as no surprise to Members in this House. We do not do it from a party political perspective, though we will all act as one party, and we do not do it because of a Whip. We will act as one out of our common but personal faith. We are assured that our beliefs will not be a determining factor today. In parliamentary terms, we understand that just because we hold a view, it does not mean that everyone in this Chamber will hold it, and our votes are equal. The question before us today is not on a principle; it is on this Bill. We heard Members say very clearly and forcefully on Second Reading that they wished to start the parliamentary process to see how the Bill would evolve, how it could be strengthened, and what safeguards could be put in place. We are assured that the Bill is in a worse position today than it was on Second Reading. We heard 61 Members specify that there should be judicial involvement in the process. Another 20 articulated their support for this legislation on the basis of legal safeguards that have now gone. We have been honourable in listening, but honourably we have to reflect that the Bill is not where it should be; that the assurances offered on Second Reading have been removed; that the balance promised in Committee is not there; and that the protections offered and suggested have been stripped away. Just yesterday, a constituent told me that when she was diagnosed with cancer for the first time, she approached the matter with a determination that surprised her, and she survived. When she was diagnosed the second time, she approached it with despair, and had this Bill been available to her, she would have availed herself of its measures. She would have satisfied the conditions on the basis of medical advice at the time. She told me this story yesterday, and that diagnosis was in 2012. The quote I shared on Second Reading is as true today as when it was first said 120 years ago: “Medicine is a science of uncertainty and an art of probability.” There is nothing that can be determined to the point of legal certainty—or, from our perspective, moral certainty. I say to colleagues across the House—not those who, like me, have a defined and determined position, and a principled position from which we will not yield, but those who are actively thinking about what to do today—that the parliamentary process has not served us well. Whatever time it takes, the House of Lords will debate and vote on each and every amendment. We were not allowed to, and did not. To the socialists in this Chamber, I say: you speak proudly of the values of the NHS and the values of welfare, and you want to stand up for those principles, so think about what you do today. To the internationalists, I say: it is not in your tradition to turn the other cheek or walk on the other side of the road. You do not turn your back on the weak and the vulnerable, the oppressed and the burdened, so please do not do it today. This Bill and your say on it will be final, but it will be final in a much more fundamental way for our constituents and our loved ones throughout this United Kingdom. I ask you to approach this Bill and your perspective on it on the basis of your principles alone. To the trade unionists, I say: what do the trade unions say? Royal college after royal college has expressed its concerns, fear and trepidation; they have said that they will not stand over their members when it comes to this Bill, but they have concerns. We do not need to think in the abstract. In this Chamber, we voted for medicinal cannabis. How many medicinal practitioners are prescribing it? They are not, because their trade unions and their governing bodies do not support them or insure them in that endeavour. This Bill is not what has been outlined, not what has been promised, and not as good as this Chamber could make it. I hope that colleagues reflect honourably on what they have said, not only on Second Reading, but to themselves. On the basis of the principles that many colleagues hold dear—principles of socialism, internationalism or trade unionism—I hope that they will do what we will do, and vote for light, hope and life.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Spending Review 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chancellor for engaging productively in the discussions about sustainable budgets for Northern Ireland, for the willingness to negotiate further and for the recognition that our need levels should be met. I thank her for that engagement and for the allocations to Northern Ireland for specific community projects that have been advanced by us. She has chosen through this allocation to make a budget available for the redevelopment of Casement Park. She will know about the political nature of some of the concerns around that redevelopment, and that in all previous agreements in the Executive, these things have been advanced in a balanced and non-partisan way. This Government have chosen to step into this issue in an unbalanced and partisan way. As such, in making financial transactions capital available—£50 million over the course of the next spending period—I ask the Chancellor to ensure that where there is a need for investment in football, as there is, she returns to the Executive’s agreement of 2011 in a balanced and non-partisan way. I hope that she will not be found wanting.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Strategic Defence Review · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State will know that the Democratic Unionist party, and the people we are privileged to represent from Northern Ireland, are hugely supportive of our armed forces. He should know that as a region, we disproportionately provide more personnel than any other part of our country to those armed forces. I was encouraged to hear him talk about every region and nation of the United Kingdom benefiting from the SDR, but although we heard about Derby, Govan and Barrow, there was a slight omission regarding Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State knows how pivotal companies in my constituency were for Ukraine in its initial phase of defence, with the NLAW and latterly with Starstreak, so can he confirm that Northern Ireland will indeed benefit from strategic and significant investment?

• 21 May 2025 · Veterans: Legal Protections · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State will know that, as part of a Northern Ireland Affairs Committee inquiry, we have been engaging with victims across Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom to assist them in their quest for some personal closure, truth and justice on legacy. Veterans, like many other victims, have indicated to us that while they are listened to, they have not been heard. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he intends to announce his proposals on legacy in parallel with the Irish Government before the summer recess?

• 21 May 2025 · Veterans: Legal Protections · Hansard source

  More

  I caution the Secretary of State that he should be adhering to the three-stranded approach, and where it is appropriate to talk to the Irish Government, it should be within that context. He should not be subjugating our responsibilities on legacy, but he should not be letting the Irish Government get away with their obfuscation on this issue either. One of the most startling things the Committee experienced last week was a victim who asked us collectively whether we were aware of Government plans to secure a ceasefire from dissident republicans that, in return, would lead to the release of dissident republican prisoners. Can I ask the Secretary of State, in all good conscience, to recognise that dissident republicans are a cancer in Northern Ireland, and more of them should be in jail? Will he rule out the suggestion that was brought to us as a Committee?

• 20 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  Successive Governments and successive Parliaments have caused unnecessary and at times intolerable damage to our Union. We recognise the reductions in some checks on some issues, but can the Prime Minister explain why, if animals and animal products are now suitable to come to Northern Ireland free of checks, the European Union is still intent on banning the very veterinary medicines that are taken by those animals? If standards are the same in the United Kingdom and the European Union—and this Parliament has already decided that CE markings will be retained—why are products and manufactured goods not part of the arrangement? Will the Prime Minister confirm to this Parliament that it is his intention to rid Northern Ireland of the Windsor framework and to get rid of the barriers within our Union?

• 7 May 2025 · Defence Sector Financing · Hansard source

  More

  The proposal for a multilateral bank is a fascinating, but part of this debate has been to focus on some of the inhibitors on providing private finance and investment in the United Kingdom. The situation is getting worse with large-scale pension funds. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned the parliamentary pension fund, but it pales into insignificance when we consider that Aviva, Royal London and the National Employment Savings Trust are all divesting from defence in our own country. That contrasts with the efforts that this Government and previous Governments have made to invest in this space. Will the Minister consider—perhaps through FCA guidance—strengthening the fiduciary duty that the trustees of these funds have to increase the coffers and increase growth? That would show that Government are prepared to do more than just issue guidance, but that they will challenge and encourage investment in this vital sector in our country.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Irish Republican Alleged Incitement · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent .

• 29 Apr 2025 · Irish Republican Alleged Incitement · Hansard source

  More

  May I thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for making that reference? Although it is natural that we refer to Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, it is important for Members of this House to recognise that there are also four plaques in this Chamber for Ian Gow, Airey Neave, Robert Bradford and Sir Anthony Berry, all of whom were murdered by the Irish republican antecedents to Kneecap. Over the last 24 hours, we have seen crocodile tears and heard confected apologies and whataboutery, but nothing can be said that will mask the naked hatred within those individuals whose balaclavas have slipped. I have heard the Minister speak about his defending democracy taskforce and his aspiration for coherency across this United Kingdom on the glorification of terrorism. For far too long, a blind eye has been turned to the glorification of terrorism in Northern Ireland. When confined to Northern Ireland, it apparently seems to be quite acceptable, yet it keeps the wounds of our past open and frustrates reconciliation. To my mind, there is no coherency on the application of laws to prevent the glorification of terrorism in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister meet my colleagues and me to ensure that there is?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Irish Guards: 125th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the 125th anniversary of the Irish Guards. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and as a Parliament to take the opportunity to celebrate a significant milestone for the Irish Guards. I thank the Minister for being present on this enjoyable occasion. Yesterday evening, in the Royal Military Chapel—the Guards’ Chapel—and in St Mark’s, Dundela, in my constituency of Belfast East, services were held to give thanks for the service and the sacrifice, for the bravery, loyalty and determined strength of the Irish Guards. Today I am privileged to offer the same opportunity to our Parliament. Yesterday, 1 April, marked 125 years since the formation of the Irish Guards. On 28 February 1900—you may remember it well, Mr Pritchard—a letter to The Times read, “Sir, May I venture to suggest, through you, to the authorities within whose province it may come, that now is a most opportune time to recognise the distinguished valour of our Irish soldiers who, in the Inniskilling Fusiliers, the Dublin Fusiliers and the Connaught Rangers, have shown to the world such conspicuous bravery in the many recent battles which they have fought with such brilliant dash and daring throughout our South Africa War. Is there not one mark of distinction and honour that can be conferred upon them and their country which belongs to Scotchmen and Englishmen, but is withheld from them? There are Scotch Guards and English Guards—why not add to the roll of glory a Regiment of Irish Guards?” On 3 March 1900, a letter in response was issued from the Queen’s private secretary, Windsor Castle, in reply to the Secretary of State for War: “My Dear Lord Lansdowne, By a curious coincidence The Queen has during the past week been seriously considering the question of a Regiment of Irish Guards, thinking that the present was opportunity for its creation. Therefore I am glad to be able to tell you the Queen entirely approves of the ideal. Her Majesty asked the Duke of Connaught to speak to the Commander in Chief on the subject and hopes that you will therefore find that Lord Wolseley is already in procession of Her Majesty’s views.” So was issued Army Order 77, on 1 April 1900: “Formation of Regiment of Irish Guards: Her Majesty The Queen, having it deemed it desirable to commemorate the bravery shown by the Irish regiments in the recent operations in South Africa, has been graciously pleased to command that Irish Regiment of Foot Guards be formed. This regiment will be designated the ‘Irish Guards’.” Affectionately now known as the Micks, the Irish Guards were formed in solemn recognition of their antecedents’ bravery, arising from their sterling contribution to our nation. Their formation was a fitting tribute to the bravery of the Inniskilling Fusiliers, the Dublin Fusiliers and the Connaught Rangers during the Boer war. This Unionist is not only grateful, but proud, that the history and heritage of the Irish Guards predates partition and to this day draws personnel from across the island of Ireland; and this Unionist is proud that the regiment’s emblem, motto and blue plumage all draw upon and recognise our patron saint, St Patrick.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Irish Guards: 125th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right to mention the Guards from the Ards, just as it would be right to mention the Mini Micks—the cadets associated with the Irish Guards—and to recognise the affection for those past and present who have served the Irish Guards and our country with distinction, many of whom leave the service and go on to perform duties in support of us. With your permission, Mr Pritchard, I would like to recognise Mr Wayne Jenkins, our Deputy Principal Doorkeeper, who I believe is here this afternoon. He served his country proudly in the Irish Guards; I think it is important that we recognise his service—especially as my hon. Friend mentioned Liverpool. Each St Patrick’s day, the regiment receives shamrock from their Colonel of the Regiment; Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales is admired and highly regarded beyond the regiment, but it was wonderful this year to see her with the regiment, enjoying a customary pint of Guinness. One hundred and twenty-five years is an epoch. That duration of service can be marked in many ways. The regiment was formed in 1900, when the only thing flying in the skies were birds. In the century that has followed, our skies have not been the limit to man’s exploration. When the regiment was formed, mail was sent after putting parchment and quill together. Now mail is sent through the ether in bytes. During the passage of those 125 years, we have endured two world wars, a war on terror and, ongoing today, the invasion of the sovereign nation of Ukraine in our own European continent. In each of those examples, the Irish Guards served with distinction. Forming part of the British Expeditionary Force, the Irish Guards were pivotal during the first world war in France. As a regiment, four Victoria Crosses were earned. Their gallantry was unquestioned in Ypres, as it was elsewhere. During the course of the second world war, the second battalion was raised in 1939 and a third in 1942. Efforts in Normandy, Belgium, Holland and Germany cannot be considered historically without the role of the Irish Guards. Since then, Palestine, Suez, Cyprus, Afghanistan and Iraq have all formed part of the regiment’s illustrious history. It is hard to consider a conflict over the last century without considering the bravery and fortitude of the Irish Guards. More recently, guardsmen have been training, equipping and supporting Ukrainians in the defence of their country through Operation Interflex. Although that is their primary function, as Foot Guards of the Household Division the Irish Guards also have the illustrious privilege of ceremonial duties. At times of national pride and national sorrow, the Irish Guards have played their part with impeccable distinction. I fondly remember being present for Trooping the Colour in 2022. It was a special year, with our nation celebrating the platinum jubilee, marking the enormity of our Queen’s 70 wholesome years of reign. The annual showcase occasion was made all the more special by its historic nature, providing a climax to wonderful jubilee celebrations held throughout our nation and the Commonwealth, and it was suitably led with the colours being trooped by the Irish Guards—an incredible honour that was accentuated some three months later, when we all realised that that Trooping the Colour was Her Majesty’s last. All too often at times of distress, we seek the familiar and the comforting—the warming reassurance of the constant—and yet on this occasion it is right that we recognise that those who serve in the Irish Guards and our armed forces more generally often forgo the constant family life, family support and comfort of home so that we can enjoy ours. As this Parliament wrestles with the legacy of our past, I ask that it is prepared to honour and recognise the service and sacrifice of those who have gone before, to defend those who defended us, and in this week to celebrate 125 years of the Irish Guards. We honour them, we thank them and we wish them continued success. Quis separabit—who shall separate us?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Irish Guards: 125th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Defence Expenditure: Supply Chain · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State might recall that two years ago I launched a report that highlighted that Northern Ireland receives one fifth of the UK average spend on defence. That incorporates the commitment for Harland and Wolff, which I worked on and greatly welcome. I also welcome the announcement of a £1.6 billion contract for Thales. However, does he accept that the previous Government committed to a thorough and thoughtful publication of how they would support continued growth in Northern Ireland’s defence sector? Will he similarly commit to doing so?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Defence Expenditure: Supply Chain · Hansard source

  More

  The House of Commons will this afternoon recognise 125 years of the Irish Guards as a British regiment. When we consider the capacity to arm those who defend us, should we not also continue in our resolve to defend those who stand up for the values of this nation? In terms of legacy, will the Secretary of State commit to defending those who defended us?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister will know that many in the House will be assuaged by his suggestion that he will act in the national interest in relation to tariffs, but most will not have considered that, in acting in the national interest, what occurs in Northern Ireland is no longer solely in his control. He knows that exports from Northern Ireland are UK exports, and rightly so, yet imports to Northern Ireland could be affected as a consequence of EU retaliatory action. In keeping all his options open, now we have to live in a world of the consequences of the last Government with his support. Will he indicate whether he is prepared to take steps either to exempt Northern Ireland from EU action or to take retaliatory action if the EU does not do so?

• 25 Mar 2025 · Horticulture Trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for responding to this important and timely debate, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). The Minister knows that we are working through the consequences of a wholly disproportionate approach, in which the EU tries to control what we do within our own internal market. She has two significant opportunities coming up: Lord Murphy’s review and the negotiations between the Paymaster General and the European Union on SPS, and all the rest. Will she take the contents of this debate, and her experience of the frustrations of Northern Irish businesses and ensure that they form part of those processes?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  First it was the pensioners and their winter fuel allowance, then it was the WASPI women and broken promises, and now it is the sick and the vulnerable. We believe in protecting the taxpayer but also in protecting those who need our support the most, yet there was not a word about abuse or about those who are taking money out of the system when they are not entitled to it. How can the Secretary of State rationalise in her own mind saying in the statement that, on the one hand, she accepts that people’s health and wellbeing can fluctuate but that, on the other hand, she is going to do away with the accumulation of points? To require an applicant to get four points in any one box does away with the ability to recognise that mental ill health in particular manifests itself in many different ways. That accumulation of points has been incredibly important in getting support for those who need it most. If it fluctuates, how come she is doing away with that accumulation?

• 18 Mar 2025 · St Patrick’s Day: UK Bank Holiday · Hansard source

  More

  I did not think I would have to wait so long to be the first to intervene on my hon. Friend. I congratulate him on securing this debate. He is right to highlight the unifying elements of St Patrick, our patron saint. He mentions that he is a Unionist. Of course, it is the St Patrick’s cross that represents us in our national flag. Does he believe that the St Patrick’s cross needs to be given greater official recognition?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Prison Capacity · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will know that the increase in prisoner numbers is often because of the logjam within the Crown court system, and there are too many on remand who are then convicted and released with time served, with no opportunity for rehabilitation or mentoring. Will he confirm that that forms part of the sentencing review or the Leveson review?