Northern Ireland Office

Robin Swann Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this timely debate on the spending of the Northern Ireland Office. As I stand here today, it remains the case that Northern Ireland has no agreed budget, despite it being a quarter of the way through the financial year. Executive Ministers have failed to agree a budget, which has left Departments and civil servants forced to rely on emergency contingency powers, with spending limited to 95% of last year’s opening budget. Most concerningly, this leaves the people of Northern Ireland uncertain about the public services they will be able to access in the coming year.

Although the Finance Minister published a draft multi-year budget in January, it was not supported by the other parties in the Executive and, frustratingly, that deadlock is still unresolved.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Will the hon. Member also acknowledge that even Members of the Finance Minister’s party are now opposed to the budget he produced?

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I recognise that we do find ourselves in a rather ridiculous situation, which impacts directly on the lives of people in Northern Ireland.

This precarious financial situation has serious implications beyond Northern Ireland, and the consequences for the Northern Ireland Office and the Treasury should be of concern to Members across the House. The vast majority of Northern Ireland’s funding comes from the UK Government through the block grant. Executive Ministers have raised concerns about the adequacy of the settlement and are calling for further funding. They cite the current financial year as being particularly challenging for Departments, with the block grant set to drop by 2.7%, before only modest increases in the following years.

We know that the Secretary of State has met the Finance Minister on a number of occasions in recent weeks, and I would be most grateful if he updated us on his discussions with Executive Ministers on urgently finding a resolution to agree a budget, and on the support the Government are providing to enable such a resolution to be found.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I agree that our Committee has seen that the need is greater, and we are working to represent Northern Ireland and the people who live there as best we can.

My Committee has recently conducted inquiries on policing and security and on legacy, which the Government directly fund. The Police Service of Northern Ireland currently receives £37.8 million a year directly from the Government as additional security funding. This ringfenced funding was introduced in 2011, and until last year it was specifically used to address the threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism, but this ASF has now been broadened to cover all national security threats. The increase we have seen over the current spending review period may be to cover the broadened remit, but no information is publicly available about how the level of funding is determined by the Government. While we know that publishing some information may not be possible due to security considerations, my Committee has called for greater transparency, and I would be grateful for the Secretary of State’s response to our recommendations.

The recent riots in Northern Ireland are of great concern, and they will be of serious concern to Members across this House. I take this opportunity to commend the PSNI and the emergency services for their response to the disorder. The PSNI was already facing a constrained financial position, so I welcome the additional £4 million provided by the NIO to meet some of the costs it incurred. Could the Secretary of State provide more detail on, and has he had any correspondence about, the funding that I have heard has been provided by the Irish Government for community cohesion following the riots.

Finally, I turn to the issue of legacy and the work of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, which I will refer to as the ICRIR. This body was set up under the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. It is responsible for investigations of legacy cases to provide information to victims, survivors and their families about troubles-related deaths and serious injury. For the present financial year, the ICRIR is receiving £232 million over the whole spending review period. However, Peter May’s recent review of the ICRIR raises some serious concerns about its capacity and governance. According to the review, cases are being paused due to a lack of resource which, in a recent Committee session, the ICRIR disputes. It says that the current funding levels “are not sufficient” to support its view of what is required under the legislation, with

“real concern that they will not have the means to deliver case outcomes within any reasonable timeframe”.

The ICRIR has also seen three finance directors in the past year, with the review describing

“a low level of maturity in terms of its financial and corporate governance.”

The review notes that the ICRIR is submitting to the Treasury a new business case seeking additional funding. Will the Secretary of State update us on the status of that? The Secretary of State told us that confidence in the ICRIR will be gained

“if it provides answers to families who have been looking for them for so long”.

Does he share my fears about the impact that pausing cases will have on victims and families who have already been made to wait decades for answers about their loved ones? Can he also assure the House that confidence in the commission’s financial management and governance arrangements has improved since the review?

[Robin Swann]

I congratulate the Chair on how she is raising the issue in this debate and how she has handled the legacy inquiry. Does she agree that there must be an answer to the concerns raised by the PSNI that it does not have any additional moneys to provide that information to the ICRIR with regard to legacy? There is also a funding issue there. Both the PSNI and the ICRIR have raised the issue of funding, saying that they are not being given the money to enable them to give the evidence they hold and manage to help the people who are waiting on those cases.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank the hon. Member for that contribution. It has been very clear from the Committee’s evidence sessions that, to cover the legacy issues it is still dealing with and will have to deal with, the PSNI is taking resource of time and money that it cannot afford, which impacts on what it can provide on the street, so I too would like to highlight that point.

We want to see a stable Executive, backed up by fair and sustainable public finances, reflecting the needs of the people of Northern Ireland. I am concerned that the Executive’s financial constraint and the funding pressures facing the PSNI and the ICRIR are having a very real impact on people’s lives today.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)]

I join others in congratulating the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), on having secured this extremely important, timely and useful estimates debate and on the work she does to scrutinise what happens in Northern Ireland and the work of the Northern Ireland Office. The Committee is exceedingly energetic and will be getting full value for money from the small ministerial team, as it did today and will do over the next couple of weeks.

I shall begin by addressing the most important question that has been highlighted, to which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) just referred: the lack of an agreed budget. He has just reminded us that he thought the spending review was a pretty good settlement. The Chancellor set out that Northern Ireland would receive £19.3 billion per year on average over the course of the spending review period—the largest settlement since devolution in 1998. In addition, the Chancellor confirmed that the Government would be providing almost £750 million in additional funding through the Barnett formula over the spending review period as a result of decisions made at the autumn Budget and the spring statement. That includes an extra £373 million in the current financial year, 2026-27, and that money is available to the Executive.

To pick up on one point, I am aware of the arguments about the funding in comparison to Scotland and Wales. I simply want to make the point that funding settlements for all the nations of the United Kingdom are underpinned by the Barnett formula, and it is important to remember that, for example, compared with Wales, Northern Ireland has benefited from generous funding from the Barnett formula in previous years. The UK Government—the last Government and this one—have also committed around £16 billion in funding packages and agreed financial flexibilities from 2014-15 right up to 2029-30 for the Executive to support public services and long-term investment. The Treasury has given a commitment to discuss a fiscal framework for Northern Ireland, where, of course, funding under the Barnett formula can be discussed.

On the level of need, the fact is that this was independently assessed by the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council. The figure that it came up with was 124%, and that is indeed the level of funding that the Northern Ireland Executive are getting. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) recognises that fact. She rightly points out that, however much money is allocated, someone will always say, “Give us more.” How the money is spent has also been an important part of this debate, and I shall come to the remarks of the former Finance Minister, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), in a moment.

Let us look at what is achieved in Northern Ireland for the expenditure, with 124% of the funding in England. In England, about 4% of people are waiting more than a year to see a hospital consultant. In Northern Ireland, it is nearly 50%, with more funding.

[Robin Swann]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Hilary Benn]

Of course I will give way to the former Health Minister.

[Robin Swann]

The right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that, as there has not been a repetitive budget since 2016, any transformation or investment in health is always more challenging, and that is where the waiting lists are. Does he also acknowledge that that transformation funding is now there, and that the work being done by my party colleague, the present Minister of Health, Mike Nesbitt, is bringing those waiting lists down?

[Hilary Benn]

I absolutely acknowledge the work that Mike Nesbitt has been doing in health, and it shows what can be achieved if minds are put to it. It is a difficult balance between, on the one hand, running the services today and keeping them going and, on the other hand, investing in transformation. In the end, however, investing in the transformation is the way in which we will be able to deliver better public services for the people of Northern Ireland.

I share the concern that has been expressed right across the House at the absence of an agreed multi-year budget, which is creating, above all, significant uncertainty for the funding of public services. I have been talking regularly with the Minister for Finance, who clearly faces a huge challenge in trying to get an agreement, and those conversations will continue this week, because we need to get to a multi-year budget as quickly as possible. I said about a month ago that the Executive needed to come towards the Government and meet us halfway, and there are two essential requirements.

The first relates to the fact that the amount of money currently being forecast as the overspend for this year is going up, beyond the level that we saw in the last financial year. The word “pressures” is heard frequently in Northern Ireland. People say that they have budget pressures. Well, everyone has budget pressures. Quite reasonably, the Government have asked what the nature of those pressures is. Are they absolutely unavoidable legal commitments, are they things we would like to do or are they things in between? Trying to interrogate and understand the nature of those pressures and to see what the Executive tell the Government about that is the first requirement.

The second requirement is a plan for how we will move from this year-to-year crisis—which was very clearly articulated by the right hon. Member for East Antrim in his contribution—because we need to see something that will address this in the longer term. I am much struck by what the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council said in its report on the sustainability of the finances, published on 16 June. It said that

“these immediate issues facing NI’s public finances reflect an unsustainable trajectory resulting from the underlying structural problems in the Budget. These structural issues are visible in the relatively high public sector pay bill, limited revenue-raising”—

a point just referred to—

“and persistent overspends.”

Whatever the size of the budget that anyone has, we have, in the end, a responsibility to find a way of living within that and to raise more revenue if that is open to us. That is what all Governments must do. The current Government have done it in relation to the public finances, and the same is true for the Northern Ireland Executive. In addition to the funding I have already described, there is the £617 million from the UK Government that is going into the city and growth deals, as well as the defence growth deal, which the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), has spoken about in the House; the enhanced investment zone; and the local growth fund.

A point was raised about the local growth fund. I recognise and accept that the change in the profile from revenue to capital has created a difficulty for the voluntary sector. That is why I met representatives of the voluntary sector and said to them, “There is unspent money in the PEACEPLUS programme; you can make a bid to that.” I think about £12 million is available in revenue. The Exec came to the Government and said, “We would like to keep £3 million of that for Go Succeed; we think it is a great programme, and we’d like you to carry on backing it.” We said, “Fine.” That left £9 million available in revenue for the economic inactivity programmes that the voluntary sector has been running. I said to the Executive, “How about putting the extra Barnett consequentials that you now have, including £373 million in the current year that you were not expecting, together with the £9 million? We could then enable those projects to continue.” That is an example of what can be done if we put our minds to it.

The extra capital allocation in the local growth fund may in part be the answer to the question asked about the ports fund. A number of commitments were made in the “Safeguarding the Union” document. I remember a large commitment that Casement Park would be fully funded so that the Euros could be hosted. Well, no money was allocated for it at all. The previous Government were very free with the promises, but they did not do the work to find the money. No funding has been identified for the ports fund, but there is money in the local growth fund. I also point out that Belfast harbour has a masterplan, which I understand it is looking to self-fund, and that the Government have made available an increase in capital funding to the Northern Ireland Executive. If the Executive wish to put money into port infrastructure, they are entirely able to do so.

Let me turn to PSNI funding. I once again pay tribute to the officers of the PSNI who, every time there is disorder in Northern Ireland, show extraordinary courage in protecting the public from those who are setting fire to buses, throwing bricks and burning people out of their houses. I had the chance to thank some of those officers when I returned to Northern Ireland the week before last, following the disorder. They are very brave. From memory, I think some 42 officers were injured in the recent disorder.

I appreciate the financial pressures faced, but this is a devolved matter. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim said that he thought it was a profound mistake to have devolved responsibility for policing and justice. I respectfully disagree with him. The trouble with the call for ringfencing, which we have heard from other sources this evening, is this: we either believe in devolved Government—the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland taking decisions about how the money is spent—or begin to move back towards a ringfence; once we have a ringfence for the PSNI, it will not be long before someone says, “Can I have a ringfence over here?” In the end, we have a choice to make. I believe in devolved Government in Northern Ireland, and the Government believe in devolved Government in Northern Ireland. There is a matter of principle here: the funding is available to the Executive; it is for them to decide how much they allocate to policing as opposed to other priorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I would indeed accept that point, if it was not for the fact that a decision had been made to leave the European Union when there is an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That was the fundamental problem that had to be solved, and none of the alternative suggestions would enable us to do this.

I want to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) about the Muckamore hospital report. I think that every single Member of the House was deeply shocked by what we read in that report, and our hearts go out to all those who have been affected by the mistreatment that has been revealed. I think the answer to the very reasonable question that she put is that we all hope to see all the many recommendations in that report implemented.

[Robin Swann]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Hilary Benn]

I think the hon. Gentleman was responsible for establishing the inquiry, and I pay credit to him for doing so. The real way to honour those who have suffered is to ensure that the recommendations of the report are fully implemented.

[Robin Swann]

I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for raising the matter. I was the Minister who commissioned the inquiry, and listening to the families and the individuals who were in Muckamore at that time was a harrowing experience. I want to put on the record my thanks to Tom Kark KC, who chaired the inquiry, for handling the inquiry and bringing forward the recommendations in an engaging and compassionate way. The health service, the trusts and the entire health family in Northern Ireland need to pay careful tribute to a number of those recommendations, and the hon. Lady made a good point that they contain learnings for health bodies, trusts and Departments across the United Kingdom.

[Hilary Benn]

I congratulate the hon. Member on having established the inquiry, because when things go catastrophically wrong, it is what we do about it that counts, and that requires an independent look and for the truth to be told.

In conclusion, it is of course for the Executive to agree a budget—above all, for the citizens they serve. That is the fundamental principle of devolved government in Northern Ireland. I repeat what I said earlier: both myself and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury are ready and willing to try to assist the Executive in doing that, but we need to see the things that I described earlier to be able to do so.

Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I also congratulate the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) on bringing forward this motion. I also join him in his comments on the horrific attack in north Belfast. Comments were also made in the House earlier today, and I reinforce the call for calm. This debate is about the PSNI training facility at Kinnegar, but it should not be forgotten that in the past, our police were the frontline and suffered many attacks and many threats. That should not be the fallout of yesterday’s attack.

As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, there are many current police training facilities around Northern Ireland. I recently visited PSNI Steeple in my constituency, which looks after canine handling. It was fantastic to visit and see at first hand the dedication in that unit—from the dog handlers to the trainers, those who look after the dogs in the kennels and the entire welfare section. They noted that Kinnegar, or PSNI Redburn as it will be known, will result in the closure of many such facilities across Northern Ireland. I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from when he talks of centralisation. It also puts pressure on those people who will not work in remote training facilities. They will have to relocate, or their jobs will be in jeopardy. That should not take away, however, from the hope of a new training facility at PSNI Redburn.

We always look back in Northern Ireland and reflect. Many years ago, there was an opportunity of a joint police and fire service college at Desertcreat. Many of my colleagues present know that that was well put forward when they were Members of the Legislative Assembly. At that stage, the police service withdrew due to capital and financial pressures, but the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service went on and developed Desertcreat into a fantastic training facility, with many of the facilities that the hon. Member for North Down talks about. It could have been bigger, and it could have delivered cross-blue-lights services, but unfortunately that did not go ahead.

The police service has purchased the land at the former barracks in Kinnegar to develop its own training site. This place should be seeking to support the development of that site at an early stage. The proposal for a new police college at Kinnegar seeks to deliver a vision first identified during the Patten reforms: a modern, purpose-built centre for police training and professional development. The acquisition of the former Kinnegar barracks site represents what we believe is the most significant step in a generation towards a new police training campus, and the development of our police officers that has been mentioned by the two previous speakers.

When we see the dedication of our current police force, which the hon. Member for Strangford also mentioned, it would be remiss of me not to comment on the current TV series in Northern Ireland, “Peelers: The PSNI for Real”. It was developed by Stephen Nolan, and I think it has brought forward the real challenges as it follows the day-to-day experiences of our police officers. If you have not viewed it yet, Sir Roger, I would recommend it to you—and to other Members and the House. When we look at the development and the challenge, they need that training. It is vital to make sure that they are properly equipped for every scenario, and that is what a centralised training college will provide.

The site will provide a substantial footprint, capable of supporting not only recruit training, but a wider range of specialist policing functions. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee heard recently from the Chief Constable and previous Chief Constables that the PSNI is unique as a police force because it has to supply most of those specialist officers itself; geographically, it does not have the ability to call in mutual aid from other forces. The proposal has evolved beyond a traditional training school and now includes plans for a broader policing and crime training campus. The PSNI sees the project as an opportunity to bring training, leadership development and specialist capabilities together in a single, modern location. As I said, the Chief Constable, Jon Boutcher, has linked the proposal directly to the long-standing ambition for a world-class police college in Northern Ireland, but the challenge is always around the financing and capital spend, where the police have always been under pressure.

The new campus, intended to support increased recruitment and help to prepare future officers for the increasingly complex demands of modern policing, would be welcome. The PSNI has incorporated the project into its long-term estates strategy and has established dedicated planning and consultation work to develop the site—it is already putting in the background work. While questions remain about funding and delivery, it is notable that the PSNI’s stated position is that Kinnegar offers a strategic opportunity to strengthen policing capability, professional standards and workforce development for decades to come. In that instance, I support the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Patrick]

If it is okay with the hon. Member, I will come to that point later. I will definitely address it, and I invite him to intervene on me if I do not—I may live to regret that.

The PSNI was previously provided with £32 million a year in additional security funding. That had been static for almost 10 years, since the 2015-16 financial year. Upon coming into government, we increased that to £37.8 million. The UK Government are also investing £235 million in the transformation of public services in Northern Ireland.

[Robin Swann]

On the transformation funding, could the Minister clarify just how much the PSNI has got out of the pot he mentioned? I know that it has put in several bids.

[Matthew Patrick]

From the direct amount funded by the UK Government—there are separate bids that are being considered by the Executive—Justice is receiving £22.6 million. That is transforming the justice system, and I understand that it has already saved 4,000 hours of police time in the first year it has been introduced.

I will address some of the points made in the debate.

[Robin Swann]

I appreciate that it was Justice that received the money, but could the Minister clarify how much the PSNI actually received? When members of the Policing Board were in front of the Northern Affairs Committee, they informed us that they had made a number of specific bids through that pot.

[Matthew Patrick]

That is funding to the Department of Justice rather than directly to the PSNI but, as I stated, given the hours of police time saved, that investment will clearly have a benefit.

On the matter of funding for the PSNI, many Members rightly raised resources, and a few raised some specifics. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the serious issue of rural crime, which I know that he, the Ulster Farmers Union, the PSNI and many other Members take very seriously. It is not the only factor at play; as he also mentioned, the land border brings with it complexity, and makes the relationship between the PSNI and the Garda Síochána very important. That positive relationship is crucial.

I have mentioned the record settlement and the fact that the Executive must make the decision to allocate their resources. Although the PSNI is devolved and operationally independent, as we would expect, the Government remain in close contact with it and the Department of Justice. Powerful points were made. I note that Northern Ireland continues to have the highest number of police officers per head of all nations in the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned funding for legacy, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane). The previous Government put £250 million into funding legacy institutions. In addition, as announced in the joint framework, the Irish Government will contribute €25 million to support legacy mechanisms.

I mentioned the record settlement given by this Government and the increase to the additional security funding. Of course there is a requirement on the PSNI, as there is on many other UK Government Departments and agencies, to disclose information. The PSNI is no longer dealing with the caseload it had before the establishment of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.

Let me add that the Chief Constable has raised the matter directly with the Government. The Government are engaging with him and the PSNI about the resource concerns in relation to disclosure.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) and others discussed the numbers and composition of our police; the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar may have rung the death knell for my career given his kind words, but I will try to address his concerns. As of 1 June this year, the PSNI has 6,341 full-time-equivalent officers. The Northern Ireland Executive’s programme for government recognises that PSNI officer numbers are low. The Executive’s commitment to grow police officer numbers to 7,500, in line with the 2020 “New Decade, New Approach” agreement, is very welcome.

A well-staffed, well-resourced and well-trained PSNI is vital to the success and stability of Northern Ireland. I am aware that the PSNI restarted recruitment in December last year; the Department of Justice got an additional £7 million in Executive funding to meet the full cost of year one of the PSNI’s workforce recovery plan. Apart from national security, policing in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter and police numbers are a matter for the Department of Justice and the Chief Constable.

I move on to parading, which was mentioned by a number of hon. Members. Determinations are rightly a matter for the independent Parades Commission, which acts independently of Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no role in that process. Determinations are legally binding, and it is important that all involved in parades and protests adhere to the rule of law and abide by any determinations made by the commission.

As others have said today, we all have a responsibility to respect the rule of law and use temperate language to reduce tensions around sensitive parades and protests. The commission continues to have the full support of the Government in its challenging role in relation to parades in Northern Ireland.

North Belfast: Violent Attack

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

Until I am in a position, by talking the—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question; will he do me the courtesy of allowing me to answer it? Until I am in a position to have that information confirmed, I cannot confirm it to the House. As soon as I can, I will, but, as I have already explained, the PSNI is leading on answering the very legitimate question that the hon. Gentleman has asked.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) described the incident as “medieval”. It was not just medieval: what we saw happen on the streets of the United Kingdom was pure evil. While tribute has been paid to those members of the general public who stepped in and the emergency services that responded, may I seek reassurance from the Secretary of State that those members of the general public who stepped in will be recognised and will not be persecuted or prosecuted for the actions they took in regard to attacking that individual? I encourage the Secretary of State to come forward and fill the vacuum of information, because he knows more than he is telling the House at this minute about this incident.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Patrick]

Those conversations are ongoing. We had a recent Westminster Hall debate about those issues, and we will have further conversations with party leaders. I will gently say, however, that those conservations cannot be a substitute for improving services now. Improvements can be made. The hon. Member and I have talked about cancer waiting times; we can do those things now, and they do not have to wait for conversations about reform.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Transformation needs to be embedded through a recurrent budget. We are three months into this financial year, at Northern Ireland political speed, and we still do not have a recurrent budget. What steps is the Northern Ireland Office taking to bring about such a financial budget in Northern Ireland?

[Matthew Patrick]

Not only have we given a record settlement—more than ever before in the Executive’s history since devolution—but we are supporting the Executive, having discussions with them and encouraging them to set a budget, so that the people of Northern Ireland can see the improvement in public services that they really need.

Dunmurry Police Station Attack

Robin Swann Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I do not accept the hon. Member’s characterisation of what is in the troubles Bill that we will be discussing later, because the threshold consideration for prosecutions remains absolutely unchanged in the legislation currently before the House. However, I recognise that veterans are concerned about the impact that any changes may have on them. That is why the Government have put protections in the Bill and will bring forward further such proposals in Committee.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

What price does the Secretary of State put on a Northern Ireland life? What price does he put on the lives of PSNI officers, whom we have praised in this House today for saving so many lives at the weekend? The majority of his answers at the start of this session referred to Barnett consequentials and budgets, not the people who went out of their way to save lives. Why do he and this Government believe that if terrorists in Northern Ireland are attacking Northern Ireland people, it is only a Northern Ireland problem?

[Hilary Benn]

Well, I do not accept that I said that it is only a Northern Ireland problem. The reason I answered questions relating to the funding is because I was asked by hon. and right hon. Members about the funding that the Government make available to the Executive in Northern Ireland, out of which the Executive take decisions about the funding of the PSNI. That is their responsibility. I simply say to the hon. Member that the lives of everyone in Northern Ireland—be they police officer or ordinary citizen—are beyond price.

Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past

Robin Swann Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on bringing forward the report, and the Chair, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), on the way she has stewarded the debate and taken evidence from so many groups. Bringing forward a unanimous report on such a delicate issue in Northern Ireland is testament to all those who were involved and to those who gave evidence. It is a very difficult issue, because it is still very raw in Northern Ireland.

On this day in 1988, two British Army corporals, Derek Wood and David Howes, were attacked, beaten, abused and then shot because they happened to drive into the middle of a Provisional IRA funeral in Belfast. I was a teenager at the time, and I remember watching the reports on television and the brutality of the attack—the seemingly unwarranted deaths of two serving officers in Northern Ireland. That is where the troubles Bill does a disservice to some of our veterans with regard to how they served in Northern Ireland and how they are now being treated.

The concerns of veterans have been touched on many times and are referenced in the report, especially in the six promised protections for Northern Ireland veterans. The Secretary of State knows well that we have had many debates in which those specific protections have been highlighted and exposed as being there for all, not specifically for veterans, as detailed in the wording of the Bill. Words are fine, but unless they are on the face of the legislation, they can be lost, misinterpreted, repealed or even weakened in the interpretation as the Bill goes forward, and even through the judiciary.

I thank the House for allowing this debate on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee’s reflections on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, because we have not yet had the opportunity to do so in the main Chamber. When the remedial order came before the House earlier this year, we were given the impression that the troubles Bill was only days or weeks away. Yet the Leader of the House today gave indications of next week’s business, and we still have no sight of when the Bill will reach Committee stage, so that the Committee of the whole House can delve into what it will mean for victims, veterans and Northern Ireland society alike. That is why this debate is important. In that regard, I am disappointed by the absence of some Northern Ireland MPs, because we asked for this opportunity to debate the detail of the Bill and they have not taken the opportunity to be here today. I understand that others have other commitments.

A remedial order—I think the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) said it is an unusual type of legislation, seldom used—was brought forward in January.

[Alex Ballinger]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so sensitive in his speech. He mentions the remedial order that does away with the immunity scheme set up by the last Government; does he accept that that scheme was never actually in place, because it was struck down by the courts in Northern Ireland? The remedial order is really just a tidying-up exercise, rather than changing anything while the new Bill goes through Parliament.

[Robin Swann]

I do accept that point. If the hon. Gentleman looks back to my contribution in that debate at the end of January, he will see that I made that same point, because I could not understand why the Government were in such a rush to bring forward a piece of legislation that was not actually necessary, as he indicated.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am not an expert on the more recent developments, but I think I remember correctly that the previous Government were appealing that particular court decision, and this Government took a deliberate decision to discontinue the appeal.

[Robin Swann]

The right hon. Member is correct. That appeal was being heard at the time, and I remember those issues being raised.

I am conscious that this debate is on the Select Committee report, and I want to congratulate the work that has been done, and its sensitivity in balancing victims and veterans. Over the past number of weeks and months, concerns have been raised that the debate over here has focused on veterans and is doing a disservice to victims of the troubles. I think that is an inaccurate portrayal of the work done by members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and by those who take an active interest what the Bill is about.

I want to concentrate on one recommendation for the Bill that my party introduced, on the inclusion of sexual crimes in the types of crimes and incidents that can be looked at. It has been mentioned that the biggest objection to the previous Government’s legacy Act was that no Northern Ireland Executive party supported it. The Northern Ireland Assembly has debated the issue of sexual crimes, and there was cross-party support for a motion that said that the Assembly

“accepts that crimes of a sexual nature, including child sexual abuse, have a particularly insidious effect on society and have a long-lasting physical and psychological impact on the victim and their wider family”.

The motion called on the UK Government

“to ensure that victims of Troubles-related sexual violence can seek a legacy investigation as part of the proposed Legacy Commission and that crimes of a sexual nature, including rape and child sexual abuse, are included as a separate qualifying criteria alongside serious injury and death”.

I mention that because have tabled an amendment on the issue, and I am thankful to other Members for their support for it, but the Secretary of State’s response to date has been lacking. He said that the legacy commission can

“investigate Troubles-related sexual offences which are connected to a death or serious injury or that cause such injury”,

but that leaves out some cases.

Máiría Cahill, a young woman from a prominent republican family who was raped by a senior member of the IRA in west Belfast, has asked that such cases be included. Paudie McGahon, who was 17 at the time, was raped by an IRA man who had been moved to safehouse in the Irish Republic, but instead of facing justice for rape, the rapist was exiled. The Secretary of State has said in correspondence that these cases can now be investigated by the police. The reason why they were not brought to the police at the time was the threat of paramilitary reaction to the individuals and their families.

Yesterday, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee heard from the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls. I encourage anyone who does not serve on that Committee to listen to her evidence, because it relates to the type of abuse that happened during the troubles. That coercion, power and control is seen in abuse elsewhere, so I wanted to highlight that recommendation put forward by my party in its response to the inquiry.

A number of Members have raised the issue of trust and confidence in the Government and the new process. What worries me, as the Government move on with their changes and what they see as adaptations to the previous institutions, is a loss of trust and confidence. A lot of work has been done by key members of the ICRIR to engage with all sections of the community to make sure that those who in the past never came forward to seek justice are now engaging.

What concerns me about the new commission is that we begin to lose some of the credibility and trust that has been built up by the likes of Sir Declan Morgan and Peter Sheridan, who have put a lot of time, energy, sweat and personal commitment into driving forward the work of the ICRIR. It is the small things, such as the creation of two directors of investigation rather than one, which could take away from the work that has already been done.

The Select Committee Chair raised the influence of the Irish Government, and the Secretary of State has heard me say many times that I think the Irish Government are missing in this process. They have not stepped up. They have used words of favour and encouragement about what they will do and what they will bring tomorrow, but they have not produced anything in relation to what the UK Government are currently doing. If they had been honest actors, the two pieces of legislation would have run concurrently and been delivered at the same time.

The Secretary of Secretary of State referred to legislation around the Omagh investigation; that is completely separate legislation. The two should not be equated. The Omagh legislation is a specific response to the Omagh inquiry, not to anything that is currently being done. I do have concerns about what the Irish will do. There has been talk of them producing legislation in April or May. The Irish Government, I think, and the Teachtaí Dála we engaged with at Committee level, talked about the publication of a heads of a Bill, which is completely different from what we do.

I put on the record again my and my party’s concerns that the Irish Government will not be honest actors in this matter. We have experienced that in the past. We experienced it when they promised the release of documentation and records in respect of Kingsmill. What they actually produced was a folder of newspaper cuttings, which left the families deeply disappointed.

I congratulate the Committee on the publication of the report and I thank those who have come to take part in the debate. I look forward to continual engagement with all those involved, so that we can see the outworkings of the Government’s proposed legislation.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

I am not doubting that the Committee examined all the evidence available to it; I am disputing what evidence it had available to it.

We are faced with a situation in which the Government do not really have a legal basis or a moral basis for what they are doing, and there are real-life consequences to their decisions.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Would the hon. Gentleman consider that there is a political reason for the Northern Ireland Office to bring this measure forward: to placate the Irish Government and their timeline rather than the timeline of this place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Can I ask the House to pay tribute to and acknowledge the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That emotion, that story and that heartfelt contribution to today’s debate are replicated across many houses across Northern Ireland, and indeed across this United Kingdom, in regard to those who have lost loved ones, both at the hands of terrorism and in other circumstances in Northern Ireland. That emotion is also felt by our veterans.

It is only when I came into this place that I realised, as a Northern Ireland politician, that when we speak of a Northern Ireland veteran, we speak of the RUC, the UDR, the home regiments and those who served, as well as the family and relatives of my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford and all those who contributed, including all those who went home at night not knowing if their colleague walking beside them was actually the individual who was passing information to the person who was planning their murder. But when I came here, I realised that the conversation is also about the Northern Ireland veterans from England, Scotland and Wales who came to Northern Ireland to serve and to defend and protect what we believed was a democratic system in regard to our rights and our beliefs.

Let us remember that context in regard to that emotion and that service, and then look at what is being brought forward to this House and what is being asked of Members of this House and of members of the Government.

I have respect for many of them, but throughout this three-hour debate—no harm to the Government—their Benches were empty. When the bells ring, Government Members will come and do what they have been bid to do. That is in complete contrast with Monday evening. The question has been raised: why are we rushing this remedial order while there is no troubles Bill to replace it? Why the rush? On Monday evening, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), said on the Public Office (Accountability) Bill that

“we must think about all the possible scenarios and unintended consequences”.—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 103.]

It is right to acknowledge that that is not a simple issue. The Government remain resolutely committed to finding a way forward, which is why they took the decision to delay. If it was right for the Government to do that on Monday evening, it is right for this Secretary of State to delay this remedial order until the judge and the courts have had their opportunity to complete their processes in regard to what is right and just, and then this House can have that legal, informed debate on why we should be moving forward.

I want to refer to two contributions from Government Members. The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who I have a lot of respect for from when she served in the Northern Ireland Office, referred to how rare it is to use a remedial order, so why use it in haste? Why not take the time to actually reflect on what it is? In regard to those parts of the legislation that are being removed, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) said that they have actually never taken effect, so why the rush to bring this remedial order?

Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I confess that I have not been in Westminster Hall for a while; I was watching the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) to see exactly when I should stand up. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing the debate, which is an important part of the conversation as the case for modest Assembly reform builds.

The Social Democratic and Labour party has been working quite intensively to find common ground and take this conversation beyond campaigning and graphics and into the realm of the possible. I welcome the indications from the Prime Minister last week, when I asked him at Prime Minister’s questions, that the UK Government are freshly open to engagement. There had been a fairly hands-off approach.

I restate the SDLP’s frustration that the Executive parties have made not a single step towards reform. In spite of election campaigning, there is nothing in the programme for government. I welcome the Assembly’s acceptance of an SDLP proposal to take some of this issue on through the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, but if anybody wants to see an example of an issue being slow-walked, it is that committee’s discussion and inquiry over the past year.

As with the agreement that created the institutions, we accept that parties are approaching this issue from different places and at different paces. As with that agreement, it is also clear that we will not come to a conclusion without some sort of facilitation. I will not spend much time on the need for reform: the periodic collapses, the quagmire and stalemate on public policy, the daily draining away of public confidence, this week’s failure to agree a multi-year budget and the feedback from Baroness Hallett in the covid inquiry last week all ably make the case, as did the hon. Member for Lagan Valley.

The flaws are by culture and by design. There is much recrimination about some of what is in the agreement, but hon. Members need to be reminded that we were trying to end a hot war and resolve a centuries-old conflict, which the agreement very largely did, in spite of what my colleague Mark Durkan memorably called the “ugly scaffolding”.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that much of the work that was achieved in the Belfast agreement was undermined in St Andrews in 2007, when there was a change to how the First and Deputy First Ministers were elected? Rather than being a co-post, it became a divided office.

[Claire Hanna]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. Those subsequent changes, particularly at St Andrews, have distorted the institutions away from a place of consensus and towards veto, brinkmanship and power struggle. There is a lot in the agreement that the SDLP would like to revisit—not least strand 2, which has shockingly underperformed—but the immediacy and urgency of this issue means that we have to focus on where common ground can be found.

I agree with a lot of what the Alliance party has suggested but, bluntly, I do not think it is achievable. I do not think that it is possible to get there from where we are now, although we were very open to a lot of those conversations, not least on mandatory coalition and designation. As a party that is anti-sectarian, centre-left and for a new Ireland, we have never fitted neatly into any binary, but it is important to recognise both where we are as a society and where we want to get to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Patrick]

I agree that those parties did not come with a consensus already, and about the importance of their working together and finding consensus between them. In the vein of what I have just said, I welcome the work of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which is considering reform of the institutions.

[Robin Swann]

I heard the Prime Minister refer to the work of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee in the Chamber last week. Does the Minister realise that that has met only 12 times since 2024? It is not a Committee that is doing a lot of work or delivering a lot.

[Matthew Patrick]

The work of the Committee could be quite important. It could provide an opportunity for agreement on these important issues in the future, and I welcome its work. I have met the Executive Ministers in Northern Ireland and there is consensus on the need to improve public services that people rely on. I know it is a priority for them, and indeed it is for this Government.

[Matthew Patrick]

The hon. and learned Gentleman raises a point about cross-community consent in the Windsor framework. The democratic consent vote is premised on cross-community support, and if the vote does not obtain cross-community support, that will require an independent review, and it will mean that the next vote is in four years rather than eight years. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, this happened in December 2024. Ultimately, I would say that it is right that such a change to trading arrangements that addresses the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland should rely on a majority in the Assembly.

I turn to public service transformation. I am immensely proud that, through the last spending review, the Government secured a £19.3 billion settlement for Northern Ireland, which is the largest settlement in the history of devolution. The funding was secured so that the Northern Ireland Executive can deliver the public services that the people of Northern Ireland deserve. If that was not enough, a further £370 million was secured through Barnett consequentials just before the new year. I believe that that funding provides the basis—the very foundation —through which the Executive can transform public services in the months ahead.

[Robin Swann]

The Minister knows that I have challenged the Secretary of State about the transformation fund that was set up when the Executive came back two years ago. Does he agree that it is lamentable that that money is still not completely spent and not completely allocated? A committee has been formed to assess the best projects, rather than actually getting on with supporting the Ministers who want to make transformation a real thing.

[Matthew Patrick]

I will briefly come to the hon. Member’s point in a moment, but I wanted to touch on some of the improvements that we are seeing. I pay tribute to the Health Minister, Mike Nesbitt, and his commitment to transformation, under which we are seeing waiting lists to start to fall. My hope is that we can go further.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the transformation fund. We have reaffirmed our commitment to the £235 million fund, £129 million of which has been allocated to six projects that I believe can transform public services. The £61 million for the primary care multi-disciplinary teams will enable a crucial shift from hospital treatment to preventive care. There are other things that I wanted to mention, but in the interests of time I will skip forward.

I once again thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley for securing this debate. I recognise and entirely respect the strength of feeling on this issue and the views that people in the Chamber hold. It is a conversation that rightly continues. Any reforms must command the widest possible support, and the people of Northern Ireland must be at the heart of any proposed changes.

The Good Friday agreement showed us that when people put their differences aside, and put the public interest first, we can achieve great things. I am committed to helping the Executive to realise their ambitions for a stronger Northern Ireland. As we look forward to the future and the hope of improved public services, I take a short moment to step back and reflect on how far we have come. When the agreement was reached 30 years ago, people could never have dreamed of having a debate on such a topic. Such a sea change is remarkable—I pay tribute to all who played a part in it—and 30 years on, I, too, believe that a further shore is reachable from here.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the Government’s decision to lift the two-child benefit cap was widely welcomed in Northern Ireland. I would also point out that Northern Ireland is being funded slightly above its level of need; it gets 24% more than equivalent spending in England, meaning that the Executive have more money to make their decisions with.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

When the Executive were restored two years ago, a fund was set up for the transformation of public services. As of yet, that money has not been fully allocated. Will the Secretary of State use his offices to encourage the Executive to deploy that transformation fund to transform Northern Ireland’s public services?

Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

On Monday night I met the families who had come over for the unveiling of the quilts. I would urge all Members who have not yet had a chance to go up to the Upper Waiting Hall and have a look to do so, because the story that the quilts tell is profoundly moving and a reminder of the continuing search for justice that so many people in Northern Ireland are going through. I would say that those quilts are an argument for what we are trying to do to secure legislation that can help find those answers for all the people who are remembered on the quilts.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Regarding the accusation that the Secretary of State is rushing this through, he will be conscious of an Irish Government who are not rushing anything through with regard to support. Yesterday the Justice Minister in the Republic of Ireland received permission from the Government to draft priority legislation to enable state bodies to give oral evidence to the Omagh inquiry. That was only because the Omagh families are taking legal action. What engagement has the Secretary of State had with the Irish Government about bringing forward legislation that matches what he is bringing forward in this place? Can I also ask him who he is dealing with at the minute? It used to be the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, who has now been promoted. Is it the Justice Minister, who is bringing this forward, or is it the new Foreign Affairs Minister?

[Hilary Benn]

I have many meetings with Irish Ministers and discussions with the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach. My most recent meeting was with Helen McEntee, who has just taken over from Simon Harris at the Foreign Affairs Ministry. I very much welcome the fact that the Irish Government have announced that they are preparing to draft the legislation, as Simon Harris had committed to do while standing next to me, in time for the next hearings of the Omagh bombing inquiry. That is evidence that the Irish Government intend to fulfil the commitments they made in the joint framework.