Robin Swann MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I have met these young people, too. I met people from an organisation called BraveheartsNI, which represents a cohort of young people with congenital heart defects who are at that transitional stage. They told me about the real concerns—they are not just concerns, but fears—among these young people, who have been looking forward to the opportunity to go to university, get on to training courses and seek employment but still require additional support. Mencap has highlighted that child DLA is the main childhood disability benefit for children aged nought to 15. Some 166,000 children with learning disabilities, autism and Asperger’s retained or increased the total monetary value of their child DLA award when transitioning to PIP. Mencap is concerned that this number will decrease because of those young people not being able to achieve the four-point eligibility criteria. For the sake of those young people who have special educational needs, disabilities and life-limiting disabilities, who we all come to this place to support—to give them a future and to give them hope—I implore the Government to withdraw this Bill now, go back, engage and co-produce something that meets the needs of our country and our young people.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support the reasoned amendment and to vote against the Bill, which will produce an abandoned generation: young people with disabilities and life-limiting conditions who are currently on children’s disability living allowance and who would normally transfer to PIP at the age of 16. The Bill completely ignores them and forgets about them. The usual process is that around someone’s 16th birthday, the DWP sends them an invitation to claim PIP, and it is then up to the parent or young person themselves to apply, within a time limit of 28 days. This Bill does nothing to address that. It is a process of mandatory self-application, so there is no automatic conversion for a child with a disability or a life-limiting condition who is already entitled to DLA to move on to PIP. The stricter eligibility criteria in the Bill and the concession actually make it worse, because as of November 2026 new PIP claimants must meet the four-point single activity daily living test. For those young people with a disability or life-limiting condition who are currently in receipt of children’s DLA who would normally have transferred to PIP, come November 2026 their condition must be such that it enables them to reach that four-point eligibility test. Those young people, who this place and the devolved legislatures keep talking about and encouraging to stay in education and be supported with their special educational needs, are now being told that, come 16, if their condition does not meet the four-point criteria, they will not be in receipt of personal independence payment. That payment is a door opener for their families and allows them to access carer’s support. It allows those young people, if they look to further their education or employment, to access mobility and support schemes. It allows those young people with disabilities and life-limiting conditions to hope and to dream, and to be eligible for support to enter the workforce. If a young person who, come November 2026, does not have a condition that allows them to reach that four-point criteria, that payment will be denied to them.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I just want to make a point of clarification. The hon. Lady mentions that her constituents will suffer. The Government have withdrawn clause 5, but under clause 6 the legislation will still apply in Northern Ireland. Are the Government going to put a barrier down the Irish sea with regard to PIP?

• 25 Jun 2025 · Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement · Hansard source

  More

  As a member of the RAF contingent of the armed forces parliamentary scheme under Wing Commander Basco Smith, may I take this opportunity to say that the application window is open for next season? If any Member has not applied to it, they should consider doing so. Recently, we visited Marham, the current home of the F-35s. Can the Minister update us on what steps have been taken to remove the risk of attack on centralised basing, and to continue to invest in alternative dispersal bases for our aircraft? While these additional frames are welcome, will the Minister confirm that they are being matched by concurrent investment in the training of pilots and additional crews in the advanced skillsets that will be required for these operations?

• 24 Jun 2025 · China Audit · Hansard source

  More

  The audit received responses from the devolved Governments. Last month, the Northern Ireland Finance Minister met the Chinese consul general in Belfast. The meeting was described as a formal diplomatic engagement with views exchanged on deepening co-operation. Significantly, there were no press interviews, publicly released minutes or full attendee list; no specific sectors or agreements were referenced. Northern Ireland’s foreign policy is not devolved, so does the Foreign Secretary know what was discussed or agreed? Does he think he should know and will he ask? As a response to the audit, did the Northern Ireland Executive include what was discussed in that meeting or previous meetings between the Chinese Government and the First and Deputy First Ministers?

• 24 Jun 2025 · National Security Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Cyber-security is core and central to our security at home, but a significant weakness is the security of the cabling in the North Atlantic and along the west coast of Ireland. For too long, the Irish Government have freeloaded and taken for granted the United Kingdom providing defence and security. Have the Government approached the Irish Government to see whether they will pay or play their part?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On Friday, many colleagues in this House spoke of compassion, sympathy and understanding. Unfortunately, the same compassion, sympathy and understanding were not extended to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). His father-in-law, my constituent Mr Adrian Lawther, was nearing the end of a very full life, and he rightly wanted to be with his wife and her family at that time. He sought a pair for Third Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill from the promoter of the Bill and the Government Chief Whip, as well as seeking advice and support from the Speaker’s Office. Mr Deputy Speaker, I was with the hon. Member at the departure gate waiting to return to Northern Ireland when his wife called to tell him of her father’s passing. It now appears that other Members were able to avail themselves of proxies in the hands of Government Whips. The hon. Member should not have been forced to travel to this place to have his vote recorded. I seek your advice, Sir, on the best approach to seek a remedy to ensure that we in this place can support each other to the best of our ability and at times of great personal need.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  This House has agreed that Iran must never have a nuclear weapon, but former Russian premier Dmitry Medvedev has said that a number of countries will now be considering supplying nuclear warheads to Iran. What is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of that statement, and what are the Government doing to prevent it?

• 23 Jun 2025 · UK Military Base Protection · Hansard source

  More

  The statement speaks of enhanced security measures across the whole of defence, so will the Minister review the recent decision to downgrade some of the security measures at Northern Ireland bases, including removal from the permanent base? On the strategic defence review, to allow our RAF personnel to respond quickly and effectively, are we looking at further utilisation of Aldergrove in my constituency?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Access to GPs · Hansard source

  More

  This is a debate about GP access across the United Kingdom, but one issue in Northern Ireland is GPs’ ability to access indemnity insurance, whereas in England and Wales there is a Government-provided scheme. Does the hon. Member agree that if the Government worked with the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to allow our GPs to access that indemnity insurance scheme on a national level, it would ease some of the burden on our GPs?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Access to GPs · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) mentioned, there are contracts that have been handed back to the Department. We have people coming forward who want to be GPs, but it is getting harder to find those partners who want to run and manage practices. Does the Minister agree that in any training scheme and any course that comes forward, that side of general practice—how to run a business and how to run a practice—needs to be reinforced in training? There are people who want to be GPs and medics, but we need that skills mix, too.

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

  More

  I rise to speak in support of amendment (a) to amendment 77, which is in my name. I should also refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests about my involvement with the Royal College of Psychiatrists. New clause 13, we are told, is a replacement for clause 34; I hope that Members have taken the time to compare the two. New clause 13 contains even more powers than clause 34. It follows the trend of this Bill: instead of more detail being added, more powers are added. It seems to me that the line is, “There are some issues that we’ll sort out later,” but that this place will not be involved in that “later”. What is particularly concerning is that the powers that the Bill creates contain no explicit limit or guiding principle by which they are to be exercised. Nor do we have the benefit of a policy paper from the Secretary of State saying how he intends to exercise those powers or how his successors will. I believe that the provisions relating to “approved substances”—clause 25 and new clause 13—face a real problem. As Dr Greg Lawton, a barrister and pharmacist, told the Committee in written evidence, the lethal substances intended to end life are not medicinal products within the meaning of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012. That definition is itself derived from EU law, which states that “the term ‘medicinal product’…must be interpreted as not covering substances whose effects merely modify physiological functions and which are not such as to entail immediate or long term beneficial effects for human health.” That creates the real problem: if the substances are not medicinal products, why does the Bill provide that pharmacists are to be involved in their preparation and why would doctors be supplying them? New clause 13(4) seeks to get around the problem by giving the power to the Secretary of State to amend the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 so that the substances fit in. The impact assessment tells us that the Government have no plans to conduct or rely on the sort of scientific studies normally done for drug approvals or for the MHRA to be involved.

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

  More

  I think the hon. Gentleman said in an earlier intervention that those medicines would then be used off licence, to the risk of the prescribing doctor and the person using them. That is where the risk falls back on the individual rather than being covered by anything in the Bill. That is where my regret comes. I understand the need to treat the substances as medicinal products in England and Wales if it is the will of the House to change the law here; what I cannot understand is why the law should change the situation for the rest of the United Kingdom. That is the basis of my amendment to amendment 77. The House is not voting for assisted dying in Northern Ireland, so it has no locus to change the definition of a medicinal product in Northern Ireland in order to accommodate this Bill, which we have been told applies to England and Wales only. Or is it the intention of the Bill’s sponsor or those behind her to extend it to Northern Ireland at a later date, using some of the Henry VIII regulations in it? There is a further issue in Northern Ireland. We are still in part subject to EU law, and I would be interested to know whether the Government have considered that aspect. Can the Minister really change, by ministerial diktat, EU law in Northern Ireland when it comes to the use of these substances? If so, why is he not being granted such power in other areas of significance to Northern Ireland? Why only this? Why has so much Government time previously been spent on medicine regulation and supply for Northern Ireland? Why did the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), as the Minister of State for Health, and I, as the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland, spend so much time on that? To that extent, I ask the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) and the Minister: what engagement has there been with the Department of Health in Northern Ireland or the chief pharmaceutical officer for Northern Ireland? Or is this another part of the Bill that is being put in to meet the promoter’s needs without any background or engagement? In conclusion, the application of those provisions to Northern Ireland also has implications for the conscience protection. If, as a result of regulations made under those provisions, pharmacists in Northern Ireland are required to be involved in the manufacture or preparation of such substances, they will not have the benefit of the conscience clause, as that clause has not been extended to Northern Ireland. I therefore oppose the extension of those provisions to Northern Ireland and Scotland. I will also oppose amendment 77 and ask hon. Members to support amendment (a) to amendment 77 in my name.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Spending Review 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  An NHS fit for the future—I congratulate the Chancellor and the Health Secretary on the investment in the health service in England. Given the money that has been allocated to Northern Ireland, will the Chancellor encourage the Executive to provide the same investment in the health service in Northern Ireland? The Executive have been working with single-year budgets since 2016. Does the Chancellor agree that this SR allows them to set a multi-year, recurrent budget that allows the transformation of health services and other public services in Northern Ireland?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  A two-state solution requires all sides to see it as achievable, desirable and sustainable, so what practical steps have the Government taken with international partners to rebuild and support the Palestinian Authority, and how will they ensure that Hamas have no role in Palestinian governance, as the Minister said in his statement?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Draft Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  What are the Minister’s and the Government’s thoughts on whether a specific office of a sentencing council would be a positive thing to have in Northern Ireland, given that there already is a Sentencing Council in England and Wales? On the bid that the Justice Minister made, does the Minister know whether any of that money was actually to consider the creation of a sentencing council in Northern Ireland?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Draft Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee under your stewardship, Mr Twigg. I have listened to the contributions of people who hold various positions in Northern Ireland, as someone who actually lives there and represents a political party there, the Ulster Unionist party. Our response to this consultation was supportive of the extension of non-jury trials, because normalisation in Northern Ireland is not there yet. As a party that has struggled since 1998 to get us to that position, we still have a long way to go. The extension of these trials is a necessary but unfortunate part of that. I join others in paying tribute to all those who have served in Northern Ireland to bring about security and peace, and all those who sacrificed their lives in obtaining it. We are in a situation in Northern Ireland where Operation Helvetic is still operational; we have armed services personnel on the streets of Northern Ireland. The counter to that—unfortunately and reprehensibly—is that we still have anti-state paramilitary groups, which continue to affect anyone who is considered to be part of the security services or security structure in Northern Ireland. That extends even to those who serve or will serve on juries. I note that there are four conditions listed in paragraph 5.4 of the explanatory memorandum. Condition 1 “is that the defendant is, or is an associate of, a person who is a member of a proscribed organisation”. Condition 2 “is that the offence or any of the offences was committed on behalf of a proscribed organisation”. Condition 3 “is that an attempt has been made to prejudice the investigation or prosecution” regarding a proscribed organisation. Those conditions lay out the differential in Northern Ireland: there is still recognition by Government and our judicial system that proscribed organisations have an adverse influence on not just community and society but our judicial system. That is why we support the extension of these provisions, which are needed at this time. Condition 4 “is that the offence or any of the offences was committed to any extent…as a result of, in connection with or in response to religious or political hostility”. Have the Government or the Secretary of State considered how that may be extended in Northern Ireland? There are other areas that paramilitaries and proscribed organisations are moving into; their hostilities, attacks and abuses are not solely based on religious or political oversight or beliefs. The other point that we raised in our consultation response was the need for an oversight mechanism to review the decisions made by the Director of Public Prosecutions and issue a certificate for a non-jury trial. I think that has the support of the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar. With regard to the work that the Secretary of State is considering, a sentencing council is lacking within Northern Ireland’s justice system, unlike in England and Wales. We believe that a sentencing council must be established for all Crown court cases, but in the interim, it should be in place to support the judge in their deliberations on these decisions. Indeed, that is the basis for a motion that my party is bringing to the Northern Ireland Assembly to be considered tomorrow. I am keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that. My other point is on the differential, which I talked about with regard to the first three conditions, when it comes to proscribed organisations. We firmly believe that anyone who is found guilty and receives a custodial sentence should not be given the automatic right to enter the separated prison regime on request. In Northern Ireland, not only do we have non-jury trials but when a criminal is sentenced they can request to be put in a special wing within a prison, where their paramilitary status can be recognised and honoured, and they can still be given the credence that they held as a member of a proscribed organisation—a criminal organisation—within the prison system. It is my party’s belief that there should be an end to that segregated system within Northern Ireland. We believe that the Northern Ireland Office and the Secretary of State should ensure that the criteria for anyone entering the separated prison regime is open to scrutiny. As we try to normalise Northen Ireland society, it is important that we maintain mechanisms to protect us from those who would seek to undermine our justice system. We must also ensure that our system of justice actually matches the advancements in society. Maintaining limited non-jury trials for another two years while ending the segregated prison regime are important measures that can be taken in the short term.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Developers are now creating facility and management companies, with new homeowners and tenants finding themselves as shareholders without their consent. Will the Minister look at that issue across the country to protect those homeowners?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  The Northern Ireland Executive is to receive a consequential budget adjustment. May I ask the Minister when it will receive that adjustment, so that we can ensure that our Northern Ireland pensioners get a winter fuel payment in the coming winter?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The right of an elected representative to challenge the Executive is a core tenet of our democracy and something we are fortunate to have defended here by Mr Speaker. However, on Tuesday night in Fermanagh and Omagh district council, the Sinn Féin group moved a motion to silence an Ulster Unionist councillor—one of my party colleagues, Mark Ovens—for questioning one of their decisions. He was not just gagged; he was silenced for the entirety of that meeting. Does the Leader of the House agree that such an action was undemocratic and that, despite Labour’s majority and how tempting it may be, she would never contemplate such an action in this place nor think it was appropriate in a democratically elected Chamber?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Police Presence on High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making an important point about funding. The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland wrote to the Prime Minister last August asking for more funding, because His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services had recognised that our police service was 400 neighbourhood police officers short. Does she agree that such issues should not be shrugged off as operational matters but are the result of political decisions over the years that have resulted in less funding for our police service?

• 4 Jun 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the Minister will come back on that point and say, “You can trust us, and you can trust this Government.” Does the shadow Minister agree, however, that this Government may not always be in power, and that the powers they are creating for themselves may be handed down to someone less responsible in future?

• 4 Jun 2025 · Regional Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The statement says that stronger transport links are crucial, and the Department for Transport has already paid, through the Union connectivity fund, for a feasibility study on the reopening of the Lisburn-Antrim rail line, which would connect to Belfast International airport in my constituency. Unfortunately, they have already told me that they cannot allocate funding until the next spending review is announced, so they have beaten the Chief Secretary to that answer. Given that the £15.6 billion that has been allocated today roughly equates to £450 million as a Barnett consequential, would he agree that investment in that Lisburn-Antrim-Belfast International line would be a good investment in Northern Ireland railways?