Tag: Gavin Robinson

  • Gavin Robinson – 2024 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Gavin Robinson – 2024 Speech on the Loyal Address

    The speech made by Gavin Robinson, the DUP MP for Belfast East, in the House of Commons on 17 July 2024.

    May I say what a privilege it is to follow the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) and to stand here not only as a returned representative, elected to continue my representation of my home constituency, but as the leader of Unionism in Northern Ireland—to have the opportunity to speak for the people of Northern Ireland in our national Parliament with the endorsement not only of my constituents, but of colleagues right across the Province? It is a real privilege, and I am pleased to do it during this Loyal Address and response to His Majesty’s Gracious Speech.

    Mr Deputy Speaker, you know that the election brought with it some challenges. We do not have two of our colleagues that I would have liked to have been here with us today—I thank both Ian and Paul for their contribution and service to national politics and to politics more broadly in Northern Ireland—but we are not without hope, and it is very clear that the additions to the parliamentary team, even though not of our party, will make a significant contribution to life in their constituencies in Northern Ireland and to this place.

    In responding to this Loyal Address and Gracious Speech, the first thing to say is that we hold His Majesty responsible for not one bit of it—it is, of course, the agenda of this Government—and if you were to ask someone in rural Ireland for directions, you might find them responding, “I wouldn’t start from here.” As I read through the King’s Speech, I welcome the commitment to repeal the provisions of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023; and I say that as somebody who, over the last nine years and alongside colleagues who have been here for longer, has been consistent in our approach to issues of legacy in Northern Ireland. That is not something that everyone in this Chamber can say.

    Over the last number of years, we appreciated the opposition that those on the Labour Benches offered in the face of the Conservative Government’s pursuit of the legacy Act. We appreciated the response from Labour colleagues, when they recognised that the removal of the pursuit of justice was obnoxious to victims—people who lost the opportunity to pursue answers and outcomes on behalf of their loved ones. But the corruption of justice in Northern Ireland commenced decades ago: the early release of prisoners was a corruption of justice; the on-the-runs legislation, ill-fated though it was, was a corruption of justice; and the letters of comfort, indicating to terrorists that they would not face prosecution, was a corruption of justice.

    I am well aware that this evening the Prime Minister is due to meet the Taoiseach of Ireland, Simon Harris, and that as part of this King’s Speech he has indicated very clearly that he is keen to reset relations. That is important—we should have good relations with our near neighbours—but I want to take this opportunity to say very clearly that the corruption of justice has now been highlighted by the Government, we have a commitment from them that they are going to act upon it, and that should mean that we have an engagement based on honesty with the Government of the Irish Republic, and that there should be gentle and encouraging challenge to say that they have failed in their responsibilities on legacy.

    When the courts have determined that the Irish Government should bring forward inquiries as to what role was played by their state actors, by An Garda Síochána and by others involved within their territory, there has been silence. In fact, all we have had over recent years from the Irish Government was a case against the UK Government on this legislation—so let’s balance it up. If the engagement this evening is to be fruitful—if there is to be a positive outcome on what is a good commitment and a commitment that we welcome—then it must be to ask our near neighbours to play their part in ensuring truth and justice.

    Jim Shannon

    I commend my right hon. Friend and colleague for what he has said. When it comes to responsibility, the Republic of Ireland should be held accountable for the fact that it gives sanctuary to the IRA terrorists who murdered my cousin, in December 1971, and Lexie Cummings, and escaped across the border. There is something wrong with the Government in the Republic of Ireland in particular if they can give sanctuary to IRA murderers and killers—and they think they can get away with it.

    Gavin Robinson

    I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment.

    Moving on to public services, over the last number of years we have been campaigning about the fact that public services in Northern Ireland are constrained because the Barnett formula has not served us well and we have been getting less than what the Independent Fiscal Commission for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council have accepted that we need. Therefore, year on year public services are being reduced in Northern Ireland and year on year we are not getting the sort of uplift required to ensure that our constituents benefit from devolution.

    New Members of this House will probably not have experienced the protracted agony around devolution in Northern Ireland and the importance of getting it restored five months ago, but one part of that restoration was ensuring that sufficient public finances were available. There is a key opportunity—though not mentioned in this King’s Speech, I hope it is something the incoming Government will focus on—to draw upon the lessons of the Holtham commission in Wales and upon the positive uplift there, to provide us with what we need to reform and transform public services.

    At the moment, the challenges are not about how we grow and develop the provisions for our people, irrespective of their community background, in Northern Ireland, but about what special schools we close, what hospitals we close and what services we stop providing. As somebody who speaks for our corner of the United Kingdom in this place, I ask for earnest engagement on public services and public funding in Northern Ireland.

    Devolution was restored on the basis of an agreement that we reached with the previous Government, but that agreement was supported by Labour in February of this year. The “Safeguarding the Union” document, which allowed devolution to be restored, contains within it key and significant commitments and we look forward to the new Labour Government’s honouring them. Their Members supported it at the time in February. They know its importance. While I see reference in the King’s Speech to resetting relations with the European Union—as I said earlier, we should have good relationships and we should build upon those good relationships with near neighbours—we need to carefully nurture the arrangements that were agreed in February and need to be delivered. This is about removing barriers within our own country.

    We can focus on relationships with others outside, and we should, but not to the detriment of that which makes this country work. There are opportunities on regional connectivity and to build on the Union connectivity review. The proposed creation of a council for the regions and borders looks quite like the East-West Council that was agreed back in February as part of the “Safeguarding the Union” document. We will have to study the detail. If it is a rename and a re-badge, that is fine, but we need to talk about how we move people and products from one part of our country to another. Where is the connectivity review work on the A75 moving from Northern Ireland into Scotland and down towards Carlisle? How do we think about this as a national endeavour? There will be newly elected Scottish Members of Parliament on the Labour Benches who will take keen interest in ensuring that the Union works across the United Kingdom, and we want to play our part in that.

    I have spent the last eight years on the Select Committee on Defence. I have spoken many times of the contribution of Thales from my constituency and the next-generation light anti-tank weapons, and how important they were in the initial weeks of the defence of Kyiv particularly and Ukraine more generally. However, the eye has been taken off the ball on support for those industries that are key within my constituency and important for Northern Ireland as a whole in the Defence sphere.

    Hon. Members will have seen negative briefing in the last 24 hours around Harland & Wolff. I want to see a very clear commitment from this Government that they believe in the contracts that have been awarded to Belfast and in the renaissance of shipbuilding in Belfast, that they adhere to the commitments of the national shipbuilding review to building skills and opportunities throughout our United Kingdom and that—irrespective of the ups and downs, highs and lows of any individual company—the aspiration and the economic benefits of retaining shipbuilding and growing the shipbuilding capacity in Belfast are highly important. So, too, is the issue of Boeing wishing to bring Spirit AeroSystems back into its company. Significant issues arise from that for the economy of Belfast and Northern Ireland, as Spirit AeroSystems is the largest private employer, with high-skilled manufacturing jobs, in my constituency, but it services the entirety of the United Kingdom. Like previous Business Secretaries, the Government need to focus on that. I am not suggesting that they are not, but there is a huge opportunity in the next six months, and we need to land it to secure what is important for us.

    Finally—I realise that I am going beyond the suggested time limit, Mr Deputy Speaker—there is a proposal for a football regulator. Good. We will have the debate in the next weeks and months—it will probably come from my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) —about whether that football regulator should be for England or, in this national Parliament, for football within our country.

    If I did not close with this, I would probably have one less vote come the next election. My constituent Davy Warren, who used to serve me in the newsagent’s on my way to school, texted me to say: “Gavin, support England if you like on Sunday. They’re not your team but they’re the only team from our country, so support England if you like, but remind them all that Neil Diamond’s ‘Sweet Caroline’ is a Northern Ireland football team anthem.” The green and white army were very happy to lend that anthem to you all, but we will reclaim it. I gently remind the House that the last time Spain faced a home nation in any significant final or competition—my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford was there, and I was not born—Northern Ireland beat Spain.

  • Gavin Robinson – 2024 Speech in the House of Commons at Start of New Parliament

    Gavin Robinson – 2024 Speech in the House of Commons at Start of New Parliament

    The speech made by Gavin Robinson, the Leader of the DUP, in the House of Commons on 9 July 2024.

    Congratulations, Mr Speaker-Elect. We are thrilled to see you back in the Chair. Some new Members of Parliament who have yet to understand just how this place works will learn through time that my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) needed no further encouragement. While the reference was appreciated, no doubt, by his mother and others, Members will see the consequences.

    We have all survived, and some of us even enjoyed an energetic election campaign. All of us will have experienced the odd one who approached us and said, “I’m not voting for you.” I had my fair share, and there is no surprise in that. But in the Guildhall Square in Londonderry— somewhere I would not expect to get too many votes—this man came up and said, “I’m not voting for you; I’m voting for Lindsay Hoyle.” He was a Chorley man, and he impressed upon me the constituency grounding you have, your commitment to the community, and the length of service you have given him, his neighbours and your neighbours. He impressed upon me how fondly you are thought of within your home constituency.

    I, in turn, was able to reflect to him how you have risen within the office you hold; how over the last number of years we have seen just how important it is to have a true champion of Back-Bench representatives in Parliament. You have given us that. It was a pleasure for me to reflect to him, and to you and the House today, just how fond we are of you. You bring solemnity to the office you hold, but you never lose the steadfast and chirpy nature of your Lancashire roots. Thank you for putting yourself forward and for being prepared to serve us—this House and democracy—in this way. On behalf of my party colleagues and, I trust, those others representing Northern Ireland constituents, I wish you well and thank you for it.

  • Theresa Villiers – 2024 Speech on the United Kingdom Internal Market

    Theresa Villiers – 2024 Speech on the United Kingdom Internal Market

    The speech made by Theresa Villiers, the Conservative MP for Chipping Barnet, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2024.

    The important statutory instruments that we are discussing today are the latest in the process of implementing the result of the 2016 referendum to leave the European Union. They may not have attracted the same volume, attention or emotion as those endless meaningful votes in 2018 and 2019, but they are no less important. This has been a long and difficult process that has divided the nation, but the end goal of restoring our status as an independent, self-governing democracy has been a prize worth fighting for.

    For centuries, Members of this Parliament strived to ensure that we would be governed only by the laws made by our own elected representatives, and that is what Brexit seeks to deliver, but we all know that the job is not yet finished when it comes to Northern Ireland, so I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, the Minister and the DUP for their work and determination to tackle the problems with the Windsor framework and secure Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market. I very much welcome the advances being made towards the restoration of power sharing and devolved government, and I accept that the statutory instruments are an important part of enabling that to happen because of the significant changes they contain.

    Of course, I completely understand the DUP’s concerns regarding the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor framework. We must do all we can to minimise trade frictions between Britain and Northern Ireland. The agreement on the Windsor framework started that process—for example, by making the movement of medicines, food and items for retail sale much less problematic. I believe that further improvements will be delivered by the deal that we are looking at today, which will further reduce checks and inspections. My concern is that the central problem remains that Northern Ireland is subject to single market rules without having a vote on them. The instruments we are considering do not change that, although I welcome the important further clarity and safeguards offered on the Stormont brake.

    Dialogue with the EU has to continue so that ultimately we can move to a situation in which only items destined for export to the south are subject to EU rules and regulations in Northern Ireland. With pragmatism and advancing border technology, that should be possible. It is important that we continue to strive to bring that about, so that we can restore democratic control over making our laws in every part of our United Kingdom and Brexit is fully delivered for Northern Ireland, as it is for Great Britain.

    We also need assurances from Ministers that nothing in regulation 3 of the Windsor Framework (Constitutional Status of Northern Ireland) Regulations will prevent regulatory divergence between Britain and the EU. Of course, any responsible Minister must consider the impact of his or her decisions on the unity of the UK and its single market, but new screening obligations must not be allowed to create a chilling effect, which would stop us charting our own course with regard to how we regulate our economy. Taking back control of making our own laws was a key reason that people voted to leave the EU. We have yet to fully deliver that for Northern Ireland and, as I have said, we must go further on it in the future.

    Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)

    I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for the conversations we have had on this specific point. She is right to highlight her concerns and to seek assurances from the Government, but she does accept that it is right to get assessments; that it is right that Governments should always be going through the process of assessing the impact of their decisions on every part of this United Kingdom; and that there is nothing wrong with transparency, with knowing any possible consequence, nor—if that potential consequence is negative—with all of us determinedly trying to ensure that it does not arise.

    Theresa Villiers

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention; the dialogue that he and I have had over recent days has done a lot to reassure me that this package is about transparency, not a block on divergence. I hope the Minister will confirm that in his closing remarks, because divergence is important. The regulatory reform made possible by exit is, I think, crucial for our future economic success. By making us more competitive, modernising regulation is a key means to boost growth, raise living standards and reduce taxes.

    In conclusion, it took courage and determination from Northern Ireland’s elected leaders to secure peace after three horrific decades of terrorist violence. Asking very different parties to sit in a permanent mandatory coalition was never going to be easy, not least because some of the divisions between them date back decades, or even centuries. That devolved government has worked for so much of the past quarter of a century is a testament to Northern Ireland’s leaders and their determination to make the ’98 settlement work—to make Northern Ireland work. I pay particular tribute to the DUP in that regard: for so often it is they who have found ways to fix problems and keep devolved government going, while always safeguarding Unionist principles.

    We in this House must recognise the significant problems caused by the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor framework—including, of course, what the courts have described as a “subjugation” of article 6 of the Act of Union of 1801—but, as we have heard today, we are making real progress on tackling these issues by setting out in the statutory instruments stronger legal protections for access to the GB market. I also think that the historical perspective, as set out in annexe A of the Command Paper, is something that everyone should read. We are making progress on remedying these problems.

    It was a privilege for me, as Secretary of State for just under four years, to play a part in Northern Ireland’s inspiring story, and I truly hope that a way can now be found for its devolved institutions to resume their work of taking Northern Ireland forward to further success and an even brighter future.

  • Gavin Robinson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Gavin Robinson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gavin Robinson on 2015-11-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, whether he plans to redirect proceeds from the National Lottery away from the Big Lottery Fund to fulfil his Department’s existing commitments to fund the arts, heritage and sport.

    Tracey Crouch

    The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for the regulatory framework for the distribution of National Lottery good causes, which is currently 40% for good causes, 20% for arts, 20% for heritage and 20% for sports.

  • Gavin Robinson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Gavin Robinson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gavin Robinson on 2016-02-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what information his Department holds on whether there is a causal link between a mother suffering from post-natal depression and the number of children aged up to three years old taken into care.

    Alistair Burt

    Neither the Department of Health nor the Department for Education holds the information requested.

    The latest statistics on looked-after children at both national and local authority levels for the financial year 2013 to 2014 can be found at:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/children-looked-after-in-england-including-adoption–2

    Table A1 (National Tables) gives a breakdown of the primary reasons for children becoming looked after.

  • Gavin Robinson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Gavin Robinson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gavin Robinson on 2016-03-22.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether a ban on travelling to the UK still applies to US citizen Mr Robert Spencer.

    Mr John Hayes

    The Government does not routinely comment on individual immigration cases. As certain information on this particular case has been publicly disclosed, however, I can confirm that on 25 June 2013 the Home Secretary personally directed that Robert Spencer should be excluded from the UK on the grounds that his presence here would not be conducive to the public good.

    The Home Secretary considered that Mr Spencer brought himself within scope of the unacceptable behaviours policy by making statements that may foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.

  • Gavin Robinson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Gavin Robinson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gavin Robinson on 2015-11-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, in what instances special or additional pension provision has been made for part-time military personnel in the last 20 years.

    Mark Lancaster

    Since the mid 1990s Reserves have had a variety of pension options to choose from when mobilised, including access to an Armed Forces pension scheme for the period of their mobilisation. However, there has been no special or additional pension provision made for part-time military personnel beyond the following statutory arrangements.

    Since 1 April 2015 all members of the UK part-time Volunteer Reserves have been enrolled in the Armed Forces Pension Scheme 2015 and for the first time all their attendance-based paid service now counts as pensionable. Prior to that, from 6 April 2005 to 31 March 2015, personnel serving on an Additional Duties Commitment (ADC) were eligible to join the Reserve Forces Pension Scheme 2005 (RFPS 05). Those members of the RFPS 05 still serving on an ADC on 1 April 2015 transferred to the new scheme unless they met the criteria for transitional protection.

  • Gavin Robinson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Gavin Robinson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gavin Robinson on 2016-02-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many children aged up to three years old were taken into care in the last five years; and what assessment she has made of the reasons why those children were taken into care.

    Edward Timpson

    The number of children aged 0-3 years, that started to be looked after in the last five years ending 31 March, and the main reason why they entered care, is shown in the table below. This information is for England only.

    Category of need

    2011

    2012

    2013

    2014

    2015

    Abuse or neglect

    6,880

    7,350

    7,430

    7,380

    7,270

    Child’s disability

    50

    50

    60

    50

    50

    Parents illness or disability

    520

    550

    480

    500

    460

    Family in acute stress

    690

    710

    740

    740

    670

    Family dysfunction

    1,460

    1,560

    1,710

    1,840

    1,730

    Socially unacceptable behaviour

    50

    40

    70

    70

    60

    Low income

    20

    20

    10

    20

    20

    Absent parenting

    260

    210

    190

    150

    160

    Total number of looked after children aged 0-3 years, in England

    9,910

    10,500

    10,690

    10,740

    10,420

    Source: SSDA903

    1. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10.
    2. Only the first occasion on which a child was taken into care in the year has been counted.
  • Gavin Robinson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Gavin Robinson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gavin Robinson on 2016-04-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will bring forward legislative proposals to amend the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 2007 to ensure that customers can use discount vouchers to purchase formula in supermarkets.

    Jane Ellison

    The restrictions on promotional sales of infant formula are an important aspect of the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 2007 which implement the World Health Organization International Code on the Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes. There are no plans to amend this part of the Regulations. While the Department encourages exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life because of the significant health benefits to both mothers and babies, we recognise that infant feeding choices are complex and based on individual and family circumstances, and therefore, low income households have access to the Healthy Start Scheme and may use the vouchers to purchase infant formula.

  • Gavin Robinson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Gavin Robinson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gavin Robinson on 2015-11-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether a pension was provided to (a) full and (b) part-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment who latterly served in the Home Battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment.

    Mark Lancaster

    Full time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) had an automatic entitlement to become members of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. Part-time members of the UDR were engaged under different terms to the full time regular members of the Regiment. These terms were similar to those of the Territorial Army and reflected that part-time engagements were often on an irregular, intermittent and short-term basis.Part-time membersof the UDR were not members of an Armed Forces Pension Scheme.

    There are no plans to review the pension entitlement for former members of the Ulster Defence Regiment.