Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

Robin Swann Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

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.

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. The Secretary of State says that the powers will increase skills in Northern Ireland, but they will not initially apply in Northern Ireland—in fact, they may never apply there because of the European partnership Bill.

At this minute in time in the EU, the Commission will be looking at who it is going to be negotiating with. Is it going to be negotiating with the current Prime Minister or, in a few months’ time, will it be negotiating with a British Prime Minister who is probably more pro-EU than some on the European Commission themselves? Why would the Commission move now on the regulations that the European partnership Bill would bring about?

Let us look at the implications for energy independence and strengthening our energy security. I was at a recent evidence session of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, where John French, the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation, made it clear that if Northern Ireland was fully integrated with the GB energy market, we would see a 20% reduction in our electricity bills.

[George Freeman]

The hon. Member makes an important point about regulation in Northern Ireland. When in government, I championed the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, which gives this country the ability to grow disease-resistant and drought-resistant crops—the potato that typically requires 14 applications of high-carbon toxic fungicide can, with technology developed in Norwich, be grown without. Does the hon. Member agree that the Act is a big opportunity for Northern Ireland? It could be growing those potatoes without the fungicide, with huge environmental benefits, but under the European partnership Bill, it will be denied that opportunity.

[Robin Swann]

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. 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. 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. 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Coleman]

It will come as no surprise to anybody that what the previous Prime Minister said and the truth perhaps did not have the closest of relationships.

It is absolutely no surprise, looking at what has happened, that the London School of Economics found that new border checks and paperwork pushed up UK prices by more than 7% between 2019 and 2023, adding around £250 to our grocery bills. It is also no wonder that 20,000 small businesses, all with fewer than 10 employees, have simply stopped exporting to Europe—not by choice but because the costs got too high.

The war with Iran is making things even worse. It is pushing up energy and food costs around the globe. Our country’s economic security demands that we do all we can to reduce business costs and limit price increases, working with our European allies. That is where the European partnership Bill comes in. For months now, the Government have been negotiating a new sanitary and phytosanitary—food and drink—agreement with the EU. This would sweep away the certificates, checks and fees that have added so many costs to food and agricultural trade with Europe. The aim is to wrap that up by the next EU summit, but to bring it into force we need the European partnership Bill.

Under the SPS deal, multi-page export health certificates, phytosanitary certificates, port health authority costs and sampling costs would all go. The Bill will support that. It will also provide the framework to implement an emissions trading agreement, which will link the UK’s emissions trading scheme with that of the EU. That will give us a larger, more stable carbon market, support investments in new technologies and help us to decarbonise more efficiently. Together, the food and drink deal and the emissions trading agreement could add nearly £9 billion to the UK economy by 2040.

[Robin Swann]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Ben Coleman]

I am afraid I will not; I have given way twice, and I do not think I will get any more time.

The European partnership Bill will also give Ministers the essential power to keep UK regulations in step with EU rules more broadly, without needing an Act of Parliament every time. The jargon phrase that we have heard is “dynamic alignment”—keeping our rules compatible with those of our largest trading partner, rather than constantly playing catch-up.

Crucially, this is not a one-way street. Unlike the situation we have now, this will give the UK a seat at the table in Brussels where food standards are being developed. Parliament will also retain its say before any EU rules are applied here. We will be replacing the patchwork of ad hoc fixes that we have now with a clear and stable framework that businesses can plan around. Importantly, if we pass the Bill, which I expect we will, that will be a sovereign decision, freely made—not because we have to but because the prize is too great to walk away from.

The European partnership Bill will deliver real relief and real advantages for food and drink businesses now. It will pave the way to bringing down costs in other areas such as chemicals, pharmaceuticals and automotive. It is a patriotic and hopeful Bill. It will boost British business and strengthen our country’s economic and energy security. I look forward to it building our country’s growth and future in Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robin Swann Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is no use the Secretary State looking at me with a grin as though I am out of order. We are still only on the second question and I have to get some other Members in—that is all I am bothered about. It will get worse shortly—I have got Jim to come! I call Robin Swann.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I will not take the dig about being short personally, Mr Speaker.

The industrial strategy and the strategic defence review both offer great opportunities to the entire United Kingdom. Can I seek reassurances from the Minister that he will work with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland businesses get benefit out of both?

[Blair McDougall]

I can absolutely give the hon. Member that reassurance. I have already met with my opposite number in the Northern Ireland Executive. The hon. Member mentions defence industries in particular, and it feels like every single month there is a significant defence order as part of the industrial strategy. It shows that these are not just words on paper, but that we are delivering within the real economy.

UK Internal Market

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) for securing this debate.

I am sure that we will hear in the Minister’s response what the Government have done to alleviate some of these issues, but it is the practicalities that Members from Northern Ireland are actually asking about. I am sure that we will hear about Lord Paul Murphy’s report. He was commissioned to conduct an independent review of the Windsor framework. I am now aware that his report was handed to the Government on 9 July, so we have to ask, “When will we see it? When will businesses see it? When will trade and industry actually see what Lord Murphy has said?” I am sure that the answer we will get is that under domestic law the Minister has up to six months to publish the report and its recommendations. Why not publish it now? Why not let businesses and politicians see the challenges that lie ahead?

Two bodies were created at the time: the independent monitoring panel and Intertrade UK. Those organisations were launched with much noise and furore, and good people—genuine people—were appointed to them, but we have seen no product. We have seen nothing come from them with regard to the challenges, and the opportunities that people keep talking about but that nobody is prepared to put in writing.

With regard to the challenge that we currently face, the introduction of “Not for EU” labelling on 1 July, which has been touched upon, applies even to goods that will never leave the UK’s internal market, and adds yet another layer of complexity and cost. Businesses have been told that these labels will eventually be phased out, but the requirement to have them now still stands. For a large retailer, that may be a frustration, but for a small supplier or producer it could be the final straw.

That was evident in the FSB’s independent report. As the right hon. Member for East Antrim pointed out, this is an independent report commissioned by the FSB from GB suppliers providing goods to Northern Ireland. Those suppliers said that trade disruption is widespread, with 58% of those trading between GB and NI reporting “moderate” to “significant” challenges. Over a third of respondents—34%—have already ceased trading rather than deal with these new compliance issues.

Even major retailers are pushing back. We will hear about all those businesses and companies that make it work, but in June Stuart Machin, the chief executive of Marks & Spencer, called the implementation of these labels

“bureaucratic madness, confusing for customers, and completely unnecessary given the UK has some of the highest food standards in the world.”

If the chief executive officer of one of the UK’s most established food retailers finds the system hugely bureaucratic, says it is

“adding yet another layer of unnecessary costs and red tape”,

how can we expect small firms, often with just a handful of staff, to cope?

I am sure that the Minister will talk about the coming SPS deal, which has been mentioned, but the real challenge that the Government have to answer is: why are they continuing to introduce further bureaucracy and further checks? If this promised deal—this new relationship with the EU—is so positive, so genuine, and if we are so much in partnership, why do we have to introduce this? Why can we not put in place the extended grace periods we have often seen in the past for those businesses and organisations?

The FSB’s work on the framework was undertaken before there were further restrictions—before the restrictions on business-to-business parcels came into force on 1 May, and before the phase 3 labelling requirements on SPS products came into force on 1 July and from 1 September. Small businesses are asking us to establish something that actually helps. A back office, knowledgeable and with expertise, should be made available through an accessible, business-friendly route, rather than this bureaucracy. Dr Huq, I respect your time limits and will allow another hon. Member to speak.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Robin Swann Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for his efforts in this area, and indeed for highlighting the excellent work that some businesses are already doing, going further than the statutory minimum. As we know, when it comes to supporting working parents, every little helps. This review will be evidence based. It will reflect and consider the views and experiences of those who engage with the parental leave and pay system. I encourage all businesses to contribute to the call for evidence, which was launched earlier this month. I can assure my hon. Friend that I plan to engage constructively with businesses, including Tesco and business representatives, throughout the period of the review.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Hugh’s law would have brought in job protection and financial support for parents of children aged between 29 days and 16 years and guaranteed parental leave while those children were receiving palliative care. The Government voted down an amendment last night to the Employment Rights Bill that would have brought that in. This campaign has been fought by Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis, and many Government Back-Bench MPs have stood side by side with them through that campaign. Why has the Minister turned his back on those parents and those children?

[Justin Madders]

We are not turning our back on parents or children. We are actually having the biggest expansion in workers’ rights and family-friendly policies that we have seen in a generation. Clearly, we will not be able to satisfy every issue in this area, but that is the point of the review. We are looking at the system in the round. It needs improving and modernising and that is what we intend to do.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Robin Swann Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I agree. We all know the types of people being let of prison by this Government. It is a total scandal that suddenly a person can be imprisoned for perhaps inadvertently having products in stock that have not followed a dynamic alignment process that has not been very visible to Parliament. That is why I hope that the whole House will support amendment 24 in the Lobby.

Amendments 21, 22 and 23 seek clarification of the functions that may be conferred on a relevant authority, and the powers that may be granted to inspectors. The phrase “relevant authority” is used throughout the Bill, and it is not entirely clear what all such authorities might be.

In clause 13, we once again see Henry VIII powers being used, despite the concerns raised in the other place. Amendment 18 would therefore add to clause 13(6), and require that any regulations made under the legislation that amend or replace primary legislation be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I am sure all parliamentarians will want to support that amendment.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

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?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I wholeheartedly endorse that. It is the principle; we do not know what Executive we will hand this power to in future. The current Executive is asking for the power, but we are a democracy, and the Executive can change at every single election. It would be wrong for Parliament to give away its powers in the way that is proposed in this legislation. That is why I hope that everyone will support our amendments.

US-UK Trade Deal: Northern Ireland

Robin Swann Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I understand the reasonable point the right hon. Gentleman is making—that perhaps large parts of the global trading system did not anticipate the position we find ourselves in today—but I believe it was drafted recognising that there would likely be divergence in trade policy between the United Kingdom and the European Union, and that is what we are seeking to manage. He mentions—I understand this, because it is the feedback we receive in the Department as well—things like the complexity and the functioning of the duty reimbursement scheme, and how it needs to work better. I hear that from businesses in Northern Ireland and I am hearing it very clearly in the Chamber today. Obviously, that relates to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and a Treasury responsibility, but I give him an absolute assurance that we are listening and we are committed to doing this. But it is incumbent on all of us to make it work.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his extended answers. In his original answer, he said that he had spoken with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister twice. Were they supportive of the Government’s approach? Did they raise any concerns? How were those concerns mitigated? Did they agree to the final deal? With regard to the EU re-set negotiations of 19 May, are the Government engaging with the Northern Ireland Executive parties?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I regularly meet all colleagues across the United Kingdom to keep them updated on matters of trade. Those were specific meetings in relation to what was being negotiated with the US. The final decision on any trade agreement is with myself and the Prime Minister. We do not seek formal agreement per se from colleagues in the devolved Governments, but we keep them informed as to what we are negotiating, the kinds of issues coming up on the other side and how we deal with that. It is not for me to reveal the content of those conversations, but the kind of reasonable concerns being aired in the Chamber today, about how things like the reimbursement system works and the feedback from Northern Ireland businesses, were of course a part of that conversation. We committed again, as I have done here at the Dispatch Box, to work with them on effective solutions to those problems.

St Patrick’s Day: UK Bank Holiday

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. We have already heard the Scottish claim St Patrick—I say that in response to the last intervention—we have heard, I believe, the Welsh try to claim him as well, and we know he is our patron saint. Perhaps that is why the hon. Gentleman is proposing that St Patrick should be the symbolic head for the whole of the United Kingdom.

[Jim Shannon]

I could not have put it better. That was brilliant; well done.

It is my firm belief that much good for the self-esteem of our young people comes from instilling in them national pride and identity, but for the benefit of our local economy I would also highlight the good that can come from establishing saints’ days as national bank holidays. St Patrick’s day is celebrated in England, Scotland and Wales, as the beauty of this collection of nations is the strong bond of our shared history. If we travel to Liverpool or Edinburgh we clearly see that there is an appetite to celebrate St Patrick, as there is all over the world and in other parts of Scotland, Wales and England.

Some of my Democratic Unionist party colleagues took the opportunity to head to Washington to meet with the President of the United States recently and enjoyed building that bond that can only be beneficial to our wee nation based on the shared heritage of the US with the UK, and Northern Ireland in particular— we in Northern Ireland use the word “wee” all the time; it is one of those words that we always use. With the US President having Scots roots and Vice-President J.D. Vance having Ulster Scots heritage, what better time for those who care for Northern Ireland and want to see a prosperous relationship built with the Americans, which will be mutually beneficial?

I am aware of US companies that enjoy our skilled workforce, along with our low business rates, good connectivity and high quality of life for staff. The fact that the famous Chick-fil-A’s first UK restaurants are in Northern Ireland speaks volumes about what could be accomplished between our nations. I love chicken, I have to say; I think it is okay to eat that as a diabetic—at least, I think it is.

I thank our Deputy First Minister and the Economy Minister for their visit to the US to solidify that beneficial relationship. They, more than others, understand the value of relationships, rather than pointless grandstanding or point scoring. While the Americans will have no idea or care for those who believe that they are above the US-Northern Ireland trade links, they will have a clear picture of who came and what they have to offer. To me, that is again reminiscent of the message of St Patrick: the hand of friendship to all. That is the hand of friendship that I hand out to everyone in this Chamber, and who in turn hand it back to me.

High Street Retailers

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Campbell]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that; I was just coming on to the business of independent shops.

In Northern Ireland, independent retailers have an effective representational body. They are manfully and womanfully struggling to present their case in the face of huge multinationals that exist, particularly on the edge of town and out of town, where there have been a number of out-of-town developments, which tend to swamp town centres. They take advantage of what is, by and large, free car parking, and town centres are choking in some respects because of commuters and people having to pay for charging.

We must be more innovative, particularly in the prime months—in the run-up to Christmas, for example—when we must try to convince various Government Ministers to introduce a charging structure that would benefit local independent retailers on the high street to ensure that some benefit is accrued to local people.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. Does he agree that we can also look at other initiatives to support independent retailers? For example, there is the “Living Over The Shops” scheme that Antrim and Newtownabbey borough council brought in, which just launched its second phase in Ballyclare and Randalstown close to the end of last month. There is also the work that the council was able to do with the levelling-up moneys; it was able to redevelop a space scheme in the middle of Antrim town, where it has opened office facilities just above my constituency office.

[Mr Campbell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. Those two or three options are starting to develop. Those that are in vogue at the moment are reasonably successful, and they need to be built on.

Career Breaks: Parents of Seriously Ill Children

Robin Swann Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing the debate and pay tribute to Christina for starting the petition that allowed the issue to be brought to this Chamber. I also wish Skye continuing good health.

No parent should have to choose between work and supporting a sick child through a terminal illness, life-limiting illness or serious illness that leads to an extended stay within a hospital facility. As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, the charity It’s Never You, founded by Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis, has petitioned for Hugh’s law. From its research, it has estimated that this issue affects up to 4,000 children per year across the UK who are spending 60 days or more in hospital. That is a rough estimate, but although 4,000 sick children may seem small compared to what our health service supports, that is 4,000 families who experience the likes of the challenge faced by Christina and Skye’s family.

I will deviate slightly now, because it is personal experience that so often shapes debate around here and how we bring forward progress. Our youngest son, Evan, was diagnosed pre-birth with a congenital heart defect. He had a single kidney and atresia of the bowel. We were told before Evan’s birth that we could expect an extended stay in hospital to support him through his initial stages of life. He celebrated his first birthday in hospital; he spent the first 13 months of his life in the Barbour ward of the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children. I pay tribute, as I am sure many parents would, to the workers on children’s wards who take on additional caring responsibility given the additional strains put on family life.

Although today’s petition looks at the financial implications of having a child in hospital over an extended period, many families also face emotional challenges in how they try to find not just a work-life balance, but a family-life balance as well. Many have other children at home who need support. I value the strength of today’s petition, because it is what this place should be about. We need to support families and individuals on a very local, specific, individual basis. Surely, if we have been elected to this place, that is what we should be about. I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for encouraging this debate and the petition, because subsequent surveys have indicated just how crucial this issue is.

I look forward to the Minister’s response. There is an expectation on Government that surely we could do something for the families and children who find themselves in these circumstances. Unfortunately, as a Government, as politicians and as a health service, we leave the work to be carried out by charities and families. I speak from experience. When I was Health Minister in Northern Ireland dealing with these circumstances, we had the Northern Ireland Children’s Health Coalition, which was 13 local charities that came together to look for a young patients fund to support parents in this situation financially. If the best we can really do is to look to charities to carry that work forward, there is a failing in what we and this Government want to be about.

It was estimated that the financial cost to a family was £351 per day. There is a suggestion that even unpaid leave would be welcome, but we also have to look to what the call is from Hugh’s law in regard to supplying financial support. In response to the petition, we surely have to consider how we can support families and children so that we take part of the financial stress away. That would also alleviate the emotional stress put on the parents and families who support the children who have extended stays in hospital.

In closing, I thank the Petitions Committee for granting this debate. I thank the contributors and I especially thank Christina for starting this initiative and getting the debate to this place.

Draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 General Committees

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

In regard to the specifics of how the regulations affect Northern Ireland, I seek some clarity from the Minister about part two of the explanatory memorandum. He said that he had engaged with the Northern Ireland Department of Justice, but I note that there is an impact on the public sector because the enforcing authorities are Northern Ireland district councils. What engagement has there been those with councils on regulation that is due to be implemented on 28 December? To follow on from the point made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, if this legislation had been adopted in this place or through the Northern Ireland Assembly, that engagement would already have happened.

I welcome the commonality that the law will introduce, and the inference that the Government are putting out a call for evidence to ensure that we have continuity of type of charger across the United Kingdom. Have the Government considered stalling the implementation of the regulation in Northern Ireland, so that it can be implemented at the same time across the entirety of the United Kingdom, rather than being delivered in two different parts?