Gavin Robinson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Feb 2026 · Army Reservists: Employment Rights · Hansard source

  More

  As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I will return to the issue of scope, but I appreciate the hon. Member’s point. I lament the fact that someone who has been campaigning on this issue for six years, personally and with colleagues, has lost three comrades in the process who were never to attain their legal entitlement. I imagine that the legal decision set by Lord Fairley, president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal across England, Scotland and Wales and someone of legal standing, is engaging not only individuals in the Ministry of Defence but those who are engaged in finance. There is a scope issue here. I understand entirely, and I will always champion those who served in Northern Ireland, whether in the Royal Irish Regiment most recently, in the Home Service Battalions until their disbandment in 2007, or indeed in the Ulster Defence Regiment. However, we cannot assert legal positions that did not exist at the time. The Ulster Defence Regiment was disbanded in 1992, some eight years before this legislation was introduced in the United Kingdom. We can look, in particular, at those who served as reservists from 2000 or 1997 until 2015. We can look at the scale of that. We know that in 1997 there were 130,000 reserve personnel in the United Kingdom, that in 2000 there were 110,000, and that in 2015 there were 85,000. We know that in 1997, for example, when this legislation was introduced on a European basis, there were 1,870 reserve or part-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment. But we also know this: that is not the case before the MOD today. The case before the MOD today is one of principle, in Major Milroy and those of his co-claimants who are already in the system. The Minister should also know well that there will be impediments through a statute of limitations to further and future claims. There is an opportunity for the Minister to consider this case and that of those who have travelled alongside Major Milroy, rather than worry about a scope that could be exponential but, sadly, for which time has already passed.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Army Reservists: Employment Rights · Hansard source

  More

  I think the time is coming, though we might not hear it this evening, for the Ministry of Defence to engage in the reality of what has been asserted in the courts. The Ministry of Defence is going to have to accept that, at a time when I, my colleagues and others throughout this Chamber are raising issues around support for veterans, particularly in the light of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and the challenges that the Minister knows well and on which she has engaged in debate with me in the past. The Minister will know that when I challenged this Labour Government and said they were not bringing forward safeguards for veterans, I was told that they were. I was then told that I was right and that the Prime Minister would bring forward amendments to the Government’s Bill, which they had already said included protections. We have not seen those amendments or the nature of them. We stand here tonight with yet another opportunity for the Government to demonstrate recognition for the service of reservists and veterans, and to demonstrate that, though they recognise that there will be a financial implication, there is a moral imperative to honour a legal commitment that a previous Labour Government brought through and applied in this country. We hear from the Labour Government all the time about the need to adhere to international laws. What about adhering to the ones that they brought in themselves in our own country, and honouring and recognising the sacrifice and service of so many—I know that includes the Minister—who have served our nation? That is one of the challenges. The second challenge is clearer: the Minister will need to provide an outcome for this process. If that is not today, then she needs to indicate that the Ministry of Defence is interested in a particular analysis and the implications of this case, and that Ministers have a fair understanding of how they are going to deal with it and that they will work towards a resolution. The last thing this Labour Government want to do is appeal to the Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court, not only giving the impression but establishing the actual fact that they will exhaust every opportunity to deny a legal right that is there and that has been asserted on behalf of our veteran reservist community. It would be an indictment of this Labour Government if they were to exhaust ad nauseam every appeal mechanism and opportunity to frustrate the legal entitlements of our service veterans. I do not think that they can stand here today and honourably say that that is the position they wish to adopt, or stand here in three weeks’ time and talk about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and how much protection they afford to veterans, when they cannot get the basics right. I know the Minister is not responsible for what has gone before, but she has the opportunity to address not only the perception but the reality that has been faced by Major Milroy, his co-claimants and those who have a legal entitlement, which they are asserting. It is an opportunity to redress the harm that has been caused over the last six years, and an opportunity to ensure that this Labour Government do not endlessly pursue appeals to thwart entitlement. It is similarly true of the McCloud judgment, which applies to the Ministry of Defence. That judgment is still being worked through unsatisfactorily and unsuccessfully. I raise this matter this evening in the earnest hope but limited expectation that the Ministry of Defence will, through the Minister, give at least some certainty that this process will not be dragged out endlessly through each and every subsequent court possible—the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. I understand that it is under consideration and that there will have to be an assessment of what to do, but that should not happen until there is a full understanding and analysis of the implications of the judgments thus far and the real prospect of any successful appeal. There will not be one. The entitlement is there; it has been asserted in so many other spheres and sectors and asserted here in these cases. I can say clearly, as I heard earlier from colleagues across this House, that these guys did not serve for a pension. No—they served under the leadership and guidance of the Ministry of Defence and their senior command. This is an example of where they are saying, “Well, hang on a second. Maybe in service I took the orders I was given, but in retirement I am at least going to ask, ‘Were they lawful? Do the laws apply to us, too? Do we have legal entitlement and protections that we can avail ourselves of?’” I think this is the opportunity for Government to say, “We recognise your service and all you did for us. We will not, by hook or by crook, deny you the legal entitlements and the recognition of your service that you so richly deserve.”

• 24 Feb 2026 · Army Reservists: Employment Rights · Hansard source

  More

  I want to come on to the scope of this in a moment, but I do not disagree with the points that my hon. Friend has made. As I mentioned earlier, I had a brief conversation with Mr Milroy this afternoon. From the way in which he engaged with me and the way in which he outlined his experience in this regard, I recognised him to be a true gentleman. I recognised him as someone who, for the last six years, has fought to assert what is now a legal entitlement accepted by two courts in this land. I also recognised him to be a gentleman who, having served as a senior military leader, was more interested in those who lay beneath him, those whom he led, those for whom he still holds a pastoral and benevolent support. He told me that over the last six years of his quest—he won two years ago and won again in January—three of his colleagues, comrades, individuals whom he had led, had died.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Army Reservists: Employment Rights · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Public Services · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister, the Secretary of State and his officials for their constructive engagement in preparation for a reserve claim for the Executive. Through that work, I know that the figure has doubled and rightly so. May I also highlight the Northern Ireland Audit Office’s report on the frailty within our Northern Ireland civil service? In the past six years, out of 23 recommendations, only five have been progressed. We have 5,000 vacancies, 3,000 temporary promotions and a rising sickness level. Does he believe that it is sustainable for the Northern Ireland civil service to ignore such changes for reform if we want to see the delivery of good public services?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Public Services · Hansard source

  More

  One constraint, as the Minister knows because I raised it at the last Northern Ireland questions, is the potential requirement, as a result of EU legislative change, of an additional 60,000 GP appointments for antimicrobial-resistant drugs. That would decimate the delivery of health services in Northern Ireland. I ask that he and the Secretary of State engage with this to ensure that Northern Ireland is not a casualty as a result of the imposition of EU regulation. Can he update the House on that?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Standards in Public Life · Hansard source

  More

  The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will know that there are too many Members on both sides of this House who enjoy situations like this, and it belies the seriousness of the situation. Does he recognise that an integrity and ethics adviser would not be able to solve the appointment of somebody removed from Government twice if the Prime Minister wished to appoint them; would not be able to assist a former director of the public prosecution service whose professionalism should have been able to discern the truth in accepting lies; and would not be able to inject honour in a situation where a Prime Minister accepted the advice of an individual, and then accepted his resignation but received the advice?

• 22 Jan 2026 · UK-EU Relations · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for travelling to Belfast later today for the East-West Council. As he knows, the council was created to strengthen ties within the United Kingdom, and one of the impediments to those economic ties is the Windsor framework. Knowing that punitive measures are still to be implemented, including customs required on parcels moving from one part of our country to another for ordinary consumers, does the Minister recognise that in building a better relationship with the European Union more pragmatism is required when it comes to Northern Ireland?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I mentioned this briefly in my opening remarks, but I place on record my appreciation for the agreement that this evening’s motion could be extended for double-time. Having praised the usual channels, the Government and Opposition Chief Whips and the Leader of the House, may I also pay tribute to you, Madam Deputy Speaker? Thank you for trying to ensure that everyone was accommodated. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It is appreciated. As the Secretary of State knows, I do not appreciate the outcome, but I do appreciate that all Members were included.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent .

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of agreement and positivity, may I thank the Leader of the House and the usual channels for agreeing that this motion should have three hours of debate? Had it arrested at 90 minutes, no Northern Ireland voice would have been heard in this debate at all, which would be shameful. Thank you for the indication that you will bring in a time limit, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to take advantage of my opportunity to speak without a time limit, because I will not be discourteous to Northern Ireland colleagues or any others who wish to participate. The Secretary of State knows my position on this matter. I believe that he is bringing in this remedial order wrongly, and he is attaching a level of undue haste to these issues. I said to him on 17 December in this Chamber that, given that he knows that issues are still before the Supreme Court, he should at least wait. Although he has abandoned the appeal, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement has not. This Government have tried to indicate their support for and understanding of the concerns of veterans—the previous speaker made a valiant effort—yet we have veterans waiting on the challenge that they lodged in the Supreme Court, and the Government cannot wait until these issues have been determined. I say again to the Secretary of State that remedial orders are there to deal with an incompatibility with human rights law, not his policy objectives, yet that is exactly what I believe he is doing in this regard. If I am wrong, surely it is incumbent on him to use this mechanism to deal with all the incompatibilities that were highlighted by the courts. The High Court in Belfast highlighted a number, yet he left one out. The Court of Appeal added three more, yet he only added one to this remedial order. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has indicated that the remedial order should be approved, but has offered absolutely no view whatsoever on the issues that have been left out of the order. But I am going to raise them. Civil cases were mentioned earlier. The Secretary of State has not explained why the High Court in Belfast and the Court of Appeal were in two fundamentally different places on civil cases, nor did he take the opportunity to pursue that differential and get a determined outcome in the Supreme Court. He has not indicated why he believes the High Court in Belfast thought that retrospective application was wrong and yet the Court of Appeal allowed civil cases to be lodged indefinitely and in perpetuity. When I intervened on him, he posed a question to me about the principle of bringing civil cases. I agree with that principle, but it is not uncommon for the law to understand limitations, including through our limitations legislation. We need to understand that it is part of the sovereignty of this Parliament to be able to say, “Enough is enough. Time has moved on. You have exhausted your opportunity for a claim.” We know, as do veterans, the security services and the PSNI, about the unlimited quest through legal aid and lawfare to rewrite the past—to rewrite the history of Northern Ireland and to turn that which was bad into good—and we will always speak out against that. The Secretary of State has chosen to leave the interim custody order issue out of his remedial order and attempt to deal with that issue in the troubles Bill, but clauses 89 and 90 of that Bill will not deal with Gerry Adams. Lord Kerr’s judgment—probably his final judgment before he retired from the Supreme Court and before his sad demise—indicates that that which the Secretary of State intends to introduce through clause 89 does not stand legally. Clause 90 deals with convictions that were quashed and remain quashed, but for which there can be no compensation. It is silent on whether Gerry Adams would be able to obtain compensation, not for the quashed conviction, but from the fact that he was detained without trial under an interim custody order in the first place. The Secretary of State has been deficient in what he has provided this House with. He has not chosen to deal with the incompatibility through this remedial order, nor do I believe he has dealt with it sufficiently through the path he has taken on primary legislation. Returning to the issue of civil cases, the Secretary of State lectures Northern Ireland continually about living within our budget—within our means—but he is expanding the scope of legacy investigations and the legacy commission exponentially through this remedial order and the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Has he suggested for one moment that he is going to increase the budget available to the legacy commission? No. It has been given £250 million over five years. Almost £100 million has already been spent. Is he going to pick up the tab for this raft of work that is going to befall us in Northern Ireland? No. The decisions being made in this Chamber now, and those that will be made in future regarding the troubles Bill, have a material impact on our ability to move on to the future rather than deal with the past, yet I hear no concern for that. I see that 800-odd civil claims will now be accompanied by an additional 200 claims. Who is to pick up the bill, Secretary of State? If it is the people of Northern Ireland—the people who were troubled for 30 years by terrorists—and the fledgling Executive, who are struggling to make public services deliver for their people because of these issues, then that is something I have a responsibility to raise, and it is something the Secretary of State needs to wrestle with and deal with. Most fundamentally of all, it has been suggested that this process was to provide a quick resolution to an issue raised by the courts. We are now some 18 months on from a manifesto commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, yet what do we hear? We hear that this Government are locked in a logjam between the Northern Ireland Office and the Ministry of Defence about the substance of amendments that may or may not be tabled. Two weeks ago, the Government were maintaining the position that the safeguards in the Bill, which they call protections, were sufficient. Only two weeks ago, the Prime Minister accepted with me that those were insufficient and that he was going to have to bring forward amendments. That was shut down by a representative of the Irish Government some two hours later, who said that the Secretary of State has no power to bring forward any amendments unless he attains their agreement. Shame, I say. [ Interruption. ] It is a matter of fact that that was said by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Parliament Buildings, Belfast, and the Secretary of State well knows it. We will attest, and we will see the amendments that he brings forward. I seriously and personally regret that we are in a position that we cannot offer our support to this remedial order. I asked the Secretary of State on 17 December to wait, as the hearings concluded in October and the Supreme Court will issue a determination. He would be in a much stronger space to build credibility and confidence on these issues, if he at least allowed the judicial process to conclude, but he chose not to—and with that, he loses our support.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  I understand why the Secretary of State focuses on amnesty, because it means that he does not have to focus on the things he did not include, which are also incompatible, or on other things that are included. Can he indicate to the House what he will do if the Supreme Court says that he is wrong, and therefore this remedial order was wholly inappropriate?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  I intend to return to this matter in my contribution later on, but the issue of civil cases highlights most starkly the discord even between the courts. The High Court in Belfast focused only on the retrospective application of the provisions on civil cases, but the Court of Appeal then said that not only should it not be retrospective, but it should have no application in the future. There was a disagreement between the High Court and the Court of Appeal about the import of the measure, yet the Secretary of State, more determined to pursue his policy objective than the law, decided not to appeal that issue in the Supreme Court. That is why there are questions about the appropriate nature of this remedial order—does he accept that?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and place on record my thanks and gratitude to Rosalind McClean and Charlotte Carson from a local campaign group on smartphone-free childhoods. She is right to bring forward a consultation and engage with young people, but my parliamentary colleagues in the other place will tomorrow, if proceedings allow, support an amendment that would lead to a ban for under-16s. In the consultation, is she proposing a social media ban for under-16s, simply asking for views on the age at which a ban should be set, or giving options?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Arctic Security · Hansard source

  More

  The Foreign Secretary is right to say that NATO allies should not threaten one another, and she is also right to highlight the threat and potential harm caused by trade wars and the imposition of tariffs, but does she understand the bemusement of Northern Ireland Members? She talks strongly about sovereignty, but it was this House that diminished the sovereignty of Northern Ireland and placed us in the European Union customs code, and I hope she recognises that there is a double-edged sword when it comes to tariffs for Northern Ireland. The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, who will address Parliament tomorrow, said very clearly at the weekend that while he has heard what President Trump has said, he does not know what his aspirations are in relation to Greenland. Does the Foreign Secretary?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Science and Discovery Centres · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member on leading this debate and on finding a Government Department to respond to it; until now, a number have eschewed any responsibility. He is right about the world of opportunity that is open to our young people. I am privileged to have in my constituency Northern Ireland’s only SDC, the Odyssey, and particularly W5 within it. He is right to credit the last Labour Government for bringing those forward as part of their millennium investments. Does he recognise that, 25 years on, there is a challenge around capital investment, and that it would be wonderful if this Labour Government could invest again in SDCs?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister will be aware of the grave concerns that abound around the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, particularly among veterans and those who stand up and speak out for the interests of those who defend our nation. They have read the six protections in the Bill and they do not see them as such: they offer no protection, they are procedural, and they apply to terrorists, too. Will the Prime Minister confirm that what we have heard is true—that the Ministry of Defence and the Northern Ireland Office intend to bring forward Government amendments that will specifically and particularly protect veterans, and that they will offer protection?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Public Services · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will be aware that the Finance Minister yesterday, in an ill-considered way, published his budget—not an agreed budget—for consultation. The Minister will know the pressures associated with that decision and he will know the challenges that brings for politics in Northern Ireland. One thing that has been absent from the lexicon of politics in Northern Ireland over a number of years is the fiscal framework. Can he update us on where his Government are on negotiations with the Treasury and the Northern Ireland Executive?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Public Services · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will also know of the pressures that affect our health service in Northern Ireland. Alarmingly, we understand that the European Union is going to ban the sale of antimicrobial drugs without prescription. Although that should not apply in Northern Ireland, it will. Some 60,000 products are sold over the counter. Our health service could not facilitate 60,000 additional GP appointments. This is an alarming development and I would like to hear the Minister indicate that he not only understands the severity and impact of it, but is going to take steps to address it.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Venezuela · Hansard source

  More

  I think it is clear that the Foreign Secretary supports the end, if not the means. I think it is also clear that she accepts the outcome, though she cannot bring herself—nor can the Government—to condone the actions of President Trump. But today we learned that the Chinese have warned against touching Venezuela’s oil resources and demanded the return of President Maduro. Does she see that as sabre rattling, or is she concerned?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State is perfectly entitled to pursue a policy desire of removing immunity. Indeed, he knows that my colleagues and I support that position and we found it quite difficult that yet another Government were prepared to offer a different variation of immunity for the perpetrators of terror in Northern Ireland. We found that repugnant, so we support the notion that immunity should not stand. But that is not the question before the Secretary of State today. The question is whether the Secretary of State should misappropriate a remedial order process, which is about dealing with the incompatibility of human rights law—not incompatibility with his policy objectives. For as long as the question still remains before the Supreme Court—which it does, though it is not his appeal but that of the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement—given that he has acknowledged that there is an issue of trust on this issue, does he not think it would be better if he at least just waited?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Modern Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State will know that in my constituency we have an advanced manufacturing cluster and proudly boast over 5,000 high-skilled jobs in defence, maritime and aerospace. She will understand that last week Boeing concluded its deal to become the successor owner of Short Brothers. Will she confirm that the Government will continue to support advanced manufacturing in my constituency, whether it be with Boeing, Airbus, Thales or Harland & Wolff?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Kenova · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I thank the Secretary of State for his response, and for being in the Chamber this afternoon to discuss Operation Kenova. I know that since he was appointed, he has spent an inordinate amount of time on legacy, and I know he is committed to the principles of not rewriting the past and of ensuring that issues can be explored to the fullest degree. He knows that in Northern Ireland, peace was only secured because of the actions of our intelligence services, our armed forces and brave members of the RUC. He knows that the IRA were brought to their knees by the activities of our intelligence services, and he also knows that the IRA were riven by agents of the state—both Denis Donaldson, director of operations for Sinn Féin, and Freddie Scappaticci, head of the internal investigations unit, also known as Stakeknife. Does the Secretary of State welcome the finding of Operation Kenova that there was no high-level state collusion between loyalist paramilitaries and members of the Army or the security forces? Does he recognise the important role that our intelligence services played in securing peace in Northern Ireland? Does he recognise that the IRA were riven by informers? Does he realise the absurdity of maintaining the position that Operation Kenova could not name Freddie Scappaticci as Stakeknife? Does he recognise that the findings relating to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings were that the UK state authorities had no information or intelligence that could have prevented those bombings? Finally, in the context of the debate we are having about legacy, does the Secretary of State recognise that he is letting too many inquiries pass by without highlighting the lack of accountability of the Dublin Government— of the Republic of Ireland—for their role in supporting the IRA? We cannot wait until his legislative process concludes, or for inquiry after inquiry, for the Dublin Government to open their books, share their stories and, on the basis of truth and justice, indicate the role they played in our troubled past.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Kenova · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest publication from Operation Kenova and the Government’s response to its findings.