UK-France Nuclear Partnership

Robin Swann Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I call Jim Shannon.

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman is usually last, but never least, and he is not even last on this occasion.

I agree that it is important that we strengthen the credibility of our deterrence, which is why we are committed to building the four replacement boats that will carry our continuous at-sea deterrent and up to 12 SSNs through SSN-AUKUS. We are doubling the drumbeat of our construction of submarines over time, which I think sends a pretty powerful signal to potential adversaries that our CASD, and our capacity to defend and to use it, is going to be significantly strengthened over the coming period. I am glad to say that I have found general support for that in this House, which I welcome.

[Robin Swann]

The Minister referenced the political steering group that will be set up between the two nations. Are there any concerns—either within Government or within the Ministry of Defence—about sharing intelligence with a separate political steering group that will sit outside of, or adjacent to, NATO?

[Maria Eagle]

The steering group is about political policymaking rather than intelligence. I am sure that appropriate arrangements will be established if there is any such issue, but I do not anticipate that there will be a problem.

Defence

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

My right hon. Friend chaired the Select Committee on which I served some years ago, when it produced a very good report on this issue, so he is an expert on this. All I will say is that when it comes to legacy issues, Labour often provides legal support, but not necessarily always to veterans.

If the Minister wishes to maintain morale in the armed forces past and present—this order is clearly necessary for doing that—perhaps he will take this opportunity to clarify the Government’s position. Do they still intend to table a remedial order, or to move straight to what the Labour manifesto describes as new legislation in the field of legacy matters? Which is it?

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I seek clarification and support from shadow Front Benchers on this. Do they recognise that there may be a bit of disagreement in the Government between Ministers in the Ministry of Defence and those in the Northern Ireland Office on how to proceed?

[Mr Francois]

I certainly hope there is. I very much hope that MOD Ministers are fighting tenaciously in private, even if they cannot say so in public, to have this mad order scrapped, and to defend the Northern Ireland veterans, just as the Northern Ireland veterans defended all of us. The Minister understands exactly what I mean by that, and I think that he and some of his ministerial colleagues may have been working on this. If they have, then we in good faith wish them Godspeed.

I have one more question on this matter, and then I will move on. If it is the Government’s intention to still go ahead with the remedial order—again, the House would really welcome clarity on this—despite the fact that it would have disastrous consequences for recruitment and retention, which the Minister mentioned a few minutes ago, can he confirm exactly what the Government’s policy is? Is it to go down the remedial order route, or down the route of introducing new primary legislation, and if it is the latter, what are the timings for that new Bill?

Fourthly and finally, the Minister for the Armed Forces has signed a formal statement to the effect that, in his view, the provisions of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025 are compatible with the European convention on human rights. However, there is a question: were British troops to be deployed to Ukraine as part of some coalition of the willing—perhaps following a ceasefire in Ukraine—what would happen to those British troops if they were to be involved in combat with Russian forces, or Russian acolytes? What guarantee could the Ministry give that if soldiers fired their weapons in anger, they would not subsequently be subject to lawfare under the Human Rights Act 1998, even decades after the event, as is the case in Northern Ireland? This is not an idle point. I understand that the issue of lawfare and its effect on recruitment and retention in the British Army has been raised at the most senior levels in the Army, including in recent meetings with the Chief of the General Staff. This is very much a live issue that deserves to be raised in Parliament, not least for the soldiers who might have to take these actions for real.

Given all this, would it not be helpful—as suggested a number of times by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), the shadow Defence Secretary—for the Minister to issue a formal declaration that we would derogate from the European convention on human rights in relation to any British military operations related to Ukraine, so that soldiers who served in that conflict would be excluded from any lawfare prosecutions, even decades later? The Minister will know that the issue is materially affecting morale in the armed forces, and especially in the special forces community, so any reassurance he can give regarding a derogation would no doubt be gratefully received.

To summarise, we obviously support this order to continue the operation of the Armed Forces Act 2006 until December 2026. It would be helpful to have some idea of timings, and even of the content of the prospective Armed Forces Act 2026, as it is likely to be, to allow interested parties to plan. To maintain morale and discipline in our armed forces, perhaps the Minister could also confirm whether the Government would countenance derogation from the ECHR during future military operations, potentially including those in defence of Ukraine. Moreover, perhaps he could update the House on where we are on the Government’s proposed new legislation on legacy matters, and on the fate of the proposed remedial order under the Human Rights Act 1998. Are the Government contemplating removing clauses from that remedial order, or are they abandoning it altogether, and instead relying on new primary legislation to achieve their aim?

The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), gave us all very wise advice: we should increase defence spending. We certainly should, in this increasingly dangerous world; we can argue about by how much and how quickly. We Conservative Members want to work constructively with the Government and the Ministry of Defence, for the defence of the realm—but do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I thank the Minister for bringing forward this order. I have just a few questions for him in regard to contributions made by other hon. Members.

Many Members have talked about the value of our cadet services in promoting young people, the value that they provide and the additional skills training that is given. It was concerning when I met some cadets in Northern Ireland that their senior officers reported that there was a fall in the core financial support—the core grant—that they receive from the Ministry of Defence. May I have clarity from the Minister, under this order, that if that is true, he will take the opportunity to reverse it? It is not a large sum of money in relation to the Ministry of Defence’s overall spend or, indeed, in relation to the projections talked about today. The cadets provide a valuable service and the financial support that is given to them should recognise that.

On continued support, the Minister and I have had, and will continue to have, many exchanges on the investment not just in our service personnel, but in the facilities and the bases. I refer specifically to Northern Ireland. The Minister knows about Aldergrove and the facility that it can be for all our armed forces as a strategic location in our national defence. I would like to hear, even if it is under the SDR, that there is the possibility of further investment there.

I pay tribute and give thanks to all current and former service personnel. The shadow Minister made reference to the debate in this place on 14 July. I encourage all Members of the House to participate so that our veterans can see their support. Finally, I will turn to the local, as other Members have done. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Royal British Legion branches in Ballyclare and Randalstown? This year, they have celebrated the 100th anniversary of the support they provide to service personnel who have been through wars, and they continue to support service personnel today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We now come to the Front Benchers. I call the shadow Minister.

Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

No, our continuous at-sea deterrent has been the policy of both governing parties for many years and that has not changed. The announcement today is about our joining the NATO nuclear mission, which carries US weapons that are already accounted for under the non-proliferation treaty. This is not about increasing the number of nuclear weapons that we hold, so it is not, therefore, a breach of the non-proliferation treaty.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

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?

UK Military Base Protection

Robin Swann Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that airfield in question. Civil-military co-operation—using civilian infrastructure for military purposes—is a model that we may look to develop further, especially as we look to increase our warfighting readiness in the future, so the lessons about security need to be applied. Luckily, many of our European allies operate civil-military airfields, so there are good models that we can look to on how to do that.

On the accusation that the hon. Gentleman raises on behalf of a Member of the Scottish Parliament, let me say clearly that the UK military operates only in compliance with international humanitarian law. That is absolutely vital. If an order is given that is contrary to international humanitarian law, our armed forces are not required to follow it. It is that high standard that means our armed forces are respected worldwide.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

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?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the security changes that we have introduced at bases and reserve centres in Northern Ireland. It is certainly true that we had reservists guarding largely empty buildings, which is something we have addressed with increasing physical security measures to ensure that they are safe. We are looking across the defence estate as part of the review the Defence Secretary has commissioned, but I would be happy to have a further conversation with the hon. Gentleman about Northern Ireland, should he want to.

Points of Order

Robin Swann Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

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.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. May I first express my sympathy to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and his family? I take it that the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) notified the hon. Member that he intended to raise the matter in the Chamber today.

[Robin Swann]

indicated assent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you.

As the hon. Member will know, pairing is not a matter for the Chair; it is an arrangement between hon. Members individually and their Whips—and of course I could not possibly comment any further on that. However, the circumstances under which a Member is eligible for a proxy vote do not at present include family bereavement. If it wished to do so, the House could change that, but I am not able to do so on my own account. I understand, however, that the Procedure Committee has been conducting a review of these arrangements, which might include matters such as pairing.

Blair Mayne: Posthumous Victoria Cross

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I rise to support the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his call for a posthumous VC for Blair Mayne. We are speaking about a man whose courage and leadership helped shape one of the best fighting forces in the world. Although the name of Lieutenant Colonel Blair “Paddy” Mayne of the SAS is etched into military history, one honour that he did not get is the Victoria Cross, and today’s debate is an opportunity to look at the circumstances and potentially correct that.

Mayne, as the hon. Member said, was a soldier of rare calibre. As one of the founding members of the SAS, he led countless raids deep behind enemy lines in north Africa and Europe, often at great personal risk. He led from the front, destroying enemy aircraft, supply lines and infrastructure, often with nothing more than a small group of men and his sheer willpower. His character and courage are legendary, but those have, as has already been mentioned, been coloured and to an extent misrepresented in the recent BBC series through use of artistic licence.

While we consider the merits of awarding Blair Mayne a posthumous VC, I want the House to reflect on the citations from his Distinguished Service Order awards. He was first awarded it on 24 February 1942 for his leadership during a raid on the Tamet airfield in Libya. The citation said:

“The task set was of the most hazardous nature, and it was due to this officer’s courage and leadership that success was achieved.”

The first bar to the DSO was awarded on 21 October 1943, in recognition of his actions during Operation Husky in Sicily. The citation said:

“In both these operations it was Major Mayne’s courage, determination and superb leadership which proved the key to success.”

The second bar to his DSO was awarded on 29 March 1945 for his command of the 1st SAS Regiment in France, which co-ordinated operations with the French Resistance. The citation said:

“It was entirely due to Lt. Col. Mayne’s fine leadership and example, and due to his utter disregard of danger that the unit was able to achieve such striking success.”

As was vividly recounted by the hon. Member for Strangford, Mayne was recommended for the Victoria Cross for his actions in Germany in April 1945, where he rescued wounded men and eliminated enemy positions under heavy fire. Although the recommendation was downgraded—the subject of this debate—it did result in the third bar to his DSO. That citation said that

“Lt. Col. Mayne was in full view of the enemy and exposed to fire from small arms, machine guns, sniper rifles and Panzerfausts…He then seized a Bren gun and magazines and single handedly fired burst after burst into a second house, killing or wounding the enemy there”.

If that does not meet the standard for the Victoria Cross, we need to seriously ask what does.

Some say that it is too late and we cannot rewrite history. This is not about rewriting history, but righting a wrong. Awarding Blair Mayne the VC posthumously is not just about a medal. It is about honouring a man whose valour was undeniable, whose actions inspired those around him, and whose legacy lives on. Let us act today, not for glory, but for justice, and for Paddy Mayne.

Irish Guards: 125th Anniversary

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Al Carns]

I would be really interested to follow that four and two-wheeled rally. I will see what they are up to next year, and whether we can visit or take part.

As I previously mentioned, the Irish Guards have a fantastic operational role but have also played a visible role in British life, pulling society and defence back together, primarily through ceremonial duties in the London region. They have supported countless important political and royal events, including both the state birthday and the funeral of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

Today, 125 years and one day after Queen Victoria formed the Irish Guards in recognition of the bravery and service of Irish soldiers during the second Boer war, it is right that we reflect on their collective past achievements.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for securing this debate. The Minister speaks of the contribution of the Irish Guards. It would be remiss of me not to mention Sir John Gorman, former Ulster Unionist Member of the Legislative Assembly, and former Deputy Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly. He was titled Sir John Gorman CVO CBE MC because of the actions he took during Operation Market Garden, when he got across the length of Nijmegen bridge before that operation was called off.

I acknowledge the contribution made to our society in general by all those who have been part of the Irish Guards, or been trained by Irish Guards, and still recognise and salute the Irish Guards, in whatever walk of life they finish up in.

Royal British Legion

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for bringing forward this debate. It is an honour to speak about the invaluable contributions of the Royal British Legion—an organisation that has tirelessly supported veterans, serving personnel and their families for more than a century.

I want to highlight three specific areas where the Legion's impact has been profound. First, in Northern Ireland, the Royal British Legion has played a critical role in supporting veterans and their families, particularly those affected by the troubles. Our region’s unique history means that many veterans have faced significant challenges, including post-service adjustment, mental health struggles and financial hardship. Today’s date is a poignant one: it is the anniversary of the formation of the Ulster Defence Regiment, on 1 April 1970, and of the Irish Guards, on 1 April 1900.

Secondly, the Royal British Legion Republic of Ireland, holds a special place in the history of the British Legion, despite historical complexities. Originally established in 1925 by Irish world war one veterans, it provides crucial assistance to Irish citizens who have served in our British armed forces. Its presence in the Republic ensures that veterans receive access to support and also to remembrance services. Indeed, the late Group Captain John “Paddy” Hemingway DFC, who passed away on St Patrick’s day and was the last of “the few”, was born in Dublin in 1919 and returned to live there in 1969. He was fondly remembered by his comrades in the Royal British Legion Republic of Ireland.

Finally, I pay tribute to, and highlight, the contribution of those branches in my constituency of South Antrim—the Antrim, Ballyclare, Carnmoney/Glengormley and Randalstown branches, and the Crumlin branch, which unfortunately closed recently. Those branches have not only provided welfare support to veterans and their families, but been instrumental in fostering that community spirit through remembrance events and fundraising activities. Their dedication to preserving the memory of those who have served, and ensuring that today’s veterans receive the support that they deserve, is truly commendable. Those local branches continue to be a pillar of strength and unity, and our local Randalstown branch is due to celebrate its 100th anniversary on Sunday 22 June with a drumhead service.

The Royal British Legion’s contribution extends far beyond financial aid. It offers dignity, recognition and unwavering support to those who have served, whether in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland, or within their local branches across this country. Its work remains vital and I believe it is our duty to support and champion its efforts, ensuring that the sacrifices of our servicemen and women are never forgotten.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Russian Maritime Activity and UK Response

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I do not expect the new Administration to require any coaching on the threats from Russia or other parts of the world. I expect that Administration to be one who take defence and security seriously, and who recognise that a secure, free and openly trading Europe is in America’s very best interests.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The Secretary of State said in his statement that we are strengthening our response to ensure that Russian ships cannot operate in secrecy near UK territory. He will be aware of an occasion just over a year ago when a Russian submarine was chased from the harbour in Cork by the British Navy, because the Irish navy does not have the sonar equipment to detect potential underwater threats. Those threats affect about 97% of the world’s communication and internet traffic. What communication or interaction has the Secretary of State had with the Irish Government and the Irish armed forces to strengthen our co-operation with them and ensure that the west coast of these British Isles is protected?

[John Healey]

We do not and will not comment on specific operational details like that. Needless to say, however, we work very closely with the Irish Government on such matters. Recently, our Chief of the Defence Staff met his counterpart from Ireland.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Robin Swann Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is good to see the Armed Forces Commissioner put on a statutory basis, and to see the functions set out and see how the staff, though perhaps not directly recruited, can be provided for the commissioner. All that is good, but it causes me to ask why, if we are making that provision for the serving members of our armed forces, are we not making a parallel statutory provision for our veterans? Why is it right to have a statutory basis for the Armed Forces Commissioner, but not for the various veterans commissioners? Surely, if it is right for serving members, it must equally be right to have a statutory basis setting out the functions and ensuring staff provision for the veterans commissioners. I take the case of the part of the United Kingdom that I know best: in Northern Ireland, we have a part-time, term-appointed veterans commissioner for two days a week, effectively, with two staff seconded from the Northern Ireland Office, who is charged with looking after all the interests of the very many thousands of veterans that we unsurprisingly have in Northern Ireland.

I ask again, if it is right to have a commissioner on a statutory basis for serving soldiers, why is that not the case for veterans? It would be not only a significant step forward in itself, but a significant nod to how we value our veterans community if we were to give them equality of treatment on this issue. I think that is very important. Without the role being on a statutory basis, a part-time, term-appointed veterans commissioner with seconded staff has his hands tied behind his back, frankly.

In Northern Ireland, because this Government are going to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, we are moving back into a phase where we may see many veterans from incidents 50 years ago dragged through our courts. We have a veterans commissioner with no standing to intervene in the multiple judicial reviews that take place on those issues and no standing to take any official line on any of that. If we were to put the veterans commissioner on a statutory basis, with the available funding, there would be a role to be performed—and not just on that specific issue, but perhaps if there was a challenging judicial that touched on veterans’ issues. Why should the veterans commissioner not be a notified and intervening party in such proceedings? I think he should.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman share the concern that the staff of the Northern Ireland veterans commissioner are appointed by the Northern Ireland Office, as is the commissioner? Does he agree that the commissioner having the freedom, independence and ability to challenge the Government with force and vigour, and without having to continually look over their shoulder at what may be perceived as oversight from the NIO, would actually strengthen that role?

[Jim Allister]

I absolutely agree. It is one of the strengths of the Bill that it purports to give independence to the Armed Forces Commissioner, but that means there is all the more need for the veterans commissioner to have the same independence. All the veterans commissioner has is two staff, whom he does not choose—not that there is anything wrong with those staff; they are very good. However, they are not appointed by his office; they are hand-picked by the NIO and seconded to him. If all he has is two staff he has not chosen, it creates the wrong perception, and very often that is enough to do damage to an office.

I therefore take the opportunity of this debate to say that what we are doing for the Armed Forces Commissioner is good, but let us mirror it in what we do for our veterans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister]

That is true. However, they failed to take the step I am now advocating of putting the veterans commissioner on a statutory footing. This Government can go one better and do the right thing for veterans, and I trust that they will. I do support new clause 2; I think it is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough. We need to offer our retired servicemen the facilities we are offering our serving servicemen.

[Robin Swann]

The Ulster Unionist party would support new clause 2. I, too, pay tribute to my predecessor as Ulster Unionist MP for South Antrim, Mr Kinahan, for the work that he did in this place and continued to do for veterans. I also wish David Johnstone well.

The right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) made a point about the position of Veterans Minister. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is an opportunity for the Veterans Minister to be responsible for appointing the veterans commissioner for Northern Ireland, rather than the NIO, and that there may be a segregation of perception with regard to some of the concerns that our veterans community would have?

[Jim Allister]

That is a fair point. In truth, our veterans community, as they see some of their brethren facing historic investigation, align the genesis and support for that investigation with the NIO. Therefore, it certainly would be better, both in presentation and in reality, if there was that distance between the veterans commissioner and the NIO.