Alex Barros-Curtis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Historical Forced Adoption · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and join him wholeheartedly in standing with the victims—those here and those who are not with us. As he said, it is another example of the perpetuation of abuse, because there was not just the initial abuse but the cover-up, the secondary abuse that followed, and the denial and the frustration for victims, their families and friends to get the truth. What more can he say about that and the culture change that can be embedded not just across the state but in every applicable institution, so that not only this stops happening but there is accountability where it does once again happen? I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) said about the Child Migrants Trust, which I worked with before coming to this place. I urge the Education Secretary to look at the work it has done on testimonials, because some of the experience there will be invaluable for victims if they want their stories to be told and recorded.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Youth Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for that brilliant news, and I hope that they will focus on mathematics skills as well—I could do with some of that. Young people were left behind by the previous Conservative Government, with 13.2% in south-east Wales not in employment, education or training. Youth hubs offer personalised wraparound employment, skills and wellbeing support in targeted areas, so does the Secretary of State agree that the new youth facilities in Cardiff football club and Ely in my constituency, with proper consultation, are a clear demonstration of Labour fixing the mess left by the Conservatives and giving young people the best opportunity in life?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister addressed that question when it was put to him in this House a number of times over the following days. He said that he was trying to secure the answers to the questions that he asked on that evening, and the officials were not able to answer, so as he has said, and as colleagues have made clear, including Cabinet colleagues, he came back to this House at the earliest opportunity to update it, as is right. I go back to the timeline of the Opposition’s shapeshifting. On Friday 17 April, the Leader of the Opposition went on national radio and television to say: “It is completely preposterous for us to believe that civil servants would have cleared a political appointee who had failed security vetting.” She also said that the Prime Minister is “taking us for fools,” and she called for him to go. As other colleagues have elaborated—I will not dwell on this—that standard was not consistently applied to the proven liar Boris Johnson, so we see the shapeshifting of the Opposition parties on that point. The motion before us dwells on two aspects: due process and, of course, the question of pressure. On due process, I will explain why I do not think the case is made out. I note that the motion does not criticise the process, which, as this debate has played out over recent weeks, has been shown to be seriously deficient and lacking. That has necessitated reviews and changes, at the Prime Minister’s order, and some of that has been elaborated on in today’s debate. Indeed, the motion makes assertions, without actual evidence, that have not withstood further testimony from key officials to the Foreign Affairs Committee. We know that the Prime Minister was not told about UK Security Vetting’s recommendation not to grant clearance to Peter Mandelson for many weeks, and Sir Chris Wormald has confirmed that due process was followed, so I do not accept that the case has been made out. When we turn to the question of there being no pressure, the Leader of the Opposition made great play of her selective quotes. I have the Hansard before me for Prime Minister’s questions of 22 April, and it is quite clear: “Let me deal with this directly, particularly this question of pressure in relation to the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson and to put him in place.” —[ Official Report , 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 316.] The Prime Minister was clearly referring to the parts of Sir Olly’s evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 21 April on the specific point about whether or not pressure was brought to bear on the outcome of the vetting process. That was also the gist of the Leader of the Opposition’s preceding question to the Prime Minister. It is also notable that just today, Sir Philip Barton substantiated the position that there are two different types of pressure, and while there was pressure to get on with making a decision, which the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton alluded to, Sir Philip went on to say that he was “not aware of any pressure on the substance” of the vetting decision, which is what this motion goes to. I am conscious of time, so I will conclude by expressing solidarity with my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell), who spoke with great power. She and I spoke about some of these issues before I had the privilege of coming to this place, and of course I offer my support. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland said in his excellent speech, it is clear from the tone of some in this debate that this is not about the substance of the issue; it is about trying to exploit the situation for partisan political gain. There is no doubt in my mind that certain political opponents will seek to make the lives of my hon. Friends and others difficult, just as they have on other serious issues, for example by impugning our decisions on grooming gangs and targeting us on social media, which means we become subject to death threats. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said, that makes it much worse for her in her constituency. Indeed, the Tory Front Benchers were nodding when my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland talked about this earlier. As I said, they probably already have their digital media attacks ready, in which they will define us as voting to cover up. [ Interruption. ] They confirm it again; that belies their intent. There is no doubt in my mind that it was a mistake to appoint Peter Mandelson, and the Prime Minister has taken responsibility for that, but as the quality of certain contributions today suggests, and as I explained in setting out my reason for not supporting the motion, it is clear to me that the motion, rather than seeking to uphold standards, risks undermining them. We should get on with the business of Government, and we should get on with tackling the issues that our constituents are most concerned about, as the Leader of the Opposition said. We should focus on the job in hand. For all those reasons, I will not support the motion today.

• 26 Feb 2026 · St David’s Day and Welsh Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker—diolch yn fawr iawn. I thank the hon. Members for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) and for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), for securing this important debate and for their vocal championing of Wales. I particularly thank my hon. Friend for her stewardship of the Welsh Affairs Committee. Let me also take the opportunity to pass on my best wishes to colleagues from north Wales who, through no fault of their own, could not be here today, including the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) and my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins) and for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes). On this day last year, I was proud to speak in my first St David’s day debate, and a lot has taken place since then, including record investment in Wales, both internationally and domestically; record investment in rail for a modern Wales; a pay rise for 150,000 Welsh workers; and Pride in Place funding, to which I shall return shortly. We will lift 450,000 children out of poverty in this Parliament, including 69,000 children in Wales and 3,180 in my constituency of Cardiff West. We also have a new team at the Wales Office: I welcome the Under-Secretaries of State for Wales, my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) and for Bangor Aberconwy, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) for the great work she did in that role. Since the debate last year, I have been proud to introduce my Registration of Birth, Deaths and Marriages (Welsh Language Provision) Bill. In a nutshell, it is about giving people living in Wales and Welsh people living in England the right to have their or a family member’s birth or death certificate issued in Welsh or English, or bilingually, after registration. If no preference is given, such birth or death certificates should be issued bilingually by default. As for marriage certificates issued in Wales, those too should be issued bilingually by default. All that was a policy aim under the previous Labour Government, and it is a policy that still has cross-party support. However, rather than that being the default position, in 2026, Welsh people are left to fight for those rights. That cannot be right in a modern Wales—a Wales proud of its language and a population proud of its country. I am grateful for the conversations I have had with the UK Government about my Bill, and I can assure my constituents that those conversations continue. In so doing, I want to take the opportunity to thank my constituent Afryl Davies for bringing the matter to my attention, and for channelling her grief about the tragic loss of her husband into trying to bring about change for the better on this very important topic. We know that Wales regularly punches above its weight in music, arts, culture and sport—

• 26 Feb 2026 · St David’s Day and Welsh Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  While I will always say that Cardiff Rugby is a brilliant team, I take very seriously the campaign that my hon. Friend and other colleagues have fought on this issue. I too care about the future of our sport, especially when it comes to rugby, so I commend her for her ongoing work in this area. As I was saying, we know that Wales regularly punches above its weight in music, arts and culture and sport, in invaluable contributions to our society such as birthing the NHS, and in the collective defence of all four of our home nations. Last week, as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I was privileged to be able to spend some time with our troops in Norway and the Arctic circle. The strategic defence review highlighted the necessity of our strategic and operational focus in the High North; thousands of our troops are rising to that challenge every day, and I pay tribute to each and every one of them. I spoke with many officers while I was there for the week, including troops from Cardiff—Welsh men and women serving together as part of our collective defence. We have officers from all four home nations, not separated by their nationality but united by our common values—values that Wales evidences every day. We are a modern nation that is diverse and outward-looking. There is no better example of that than in my own constituency, with its variety of cultures, communities and languages; people can walk the streets and, within a couple of metres, hear Welsh, English and Bengali. I was pleased to discuss this point, and how we all have a responsibility to work to emphasise our common humanity over division, recently with the leaders of City Church Cardiff in my constituency. This modern Wales should be celebrated. While we are far from perfect and there are great improvements to be made, we have come a long way from the days, described by our First Minister, when rocks were thrown at school buses on their way to Welsh language schools. Some would like to take us back there, whether by dismissing our language and culture as trivial or by trying to divide our communities with hatred and pitting us against each other. We must never submit to such division and separation. It was the Labour party and Welsh Labour Members of Parliament who drove the debate for devolution. It was the Labour party that established the office of Secretary of State for Wales. It was the Labour party that, at long last, as the party of devolution, brough the then National Assembly into being. The Labour party’s commitment to devolution is rooted in its belief in Wales and the Welsh people and in our confidence as a nation to shape our own path when we choose. We reject the idea of being treated as an afterthought, as some would prefer, or isolating ourselves completely by taking the route of separation, as others would have it. I said that I would return to Pride in Place. When I began campaigning for Pride in Place funding to be invested in Ely and Caerau in my constituency, I did so because I knew that those communities wanted greater investment. I am immensely proud that this UK Labour Government have committed up to £20 million of Pride in Place funding to Ely and Caerau. This is a moment of real significance for our area and a clear signal that the Government are serious about backing communities that have too often been let down by politicians of all stripes. There are those who talk down Ely and Caerau, judging without any real attempt to get to know the communities, but they are wrong. Ely and Caerau are full of good people doing remarkable things for their community, often with limited resources and against significant odds. Time and again, I see residents stepping up, volunteering their time, supporting their neighbours or running sports clubs. It is a privilege to learn from them every day and to represent them in this place. Without a doubt, part of the reason for correcting historical under-investment through this programme lies in the wider funding context that Wales has faced over the past decade. Previous UK Governments reduced funding to Wales, which had a significant knock-on effect on Welsh Government and council budgets, and communities such as Ely and Caerau inevitably felt the impact of those decisions. The UK Labour Government have recognised that and delivered the largest real-terms funding settlement for Wales in its history of devolution. This Pride in Place funding is so important to restore opportunity, rebuild local infrastructure and ensure that communities receive the investment that they deserve. That is why Pride in Place funding matters. I firmly believe that when people feel good about where they live, they feel better about themselves. If we are serious about improving health outcomes, supporting people into work and raising aspirations, investing in the quality of local neighbourhoods is essential. This £20 million investment will help to provide the spaces, confidence and opportunities that people need to thrive. One of the best things about the Pride in Place programme is that it is not politicians, councils or Governments who decide where the money will be spent, but the people themselves. My constituents have my assurance that I will work at speed to collaborate with them so that they can inform us about where and how the money should be spent. Our nation has come so far in 27 years of devolution. In my eyes, devolution has always been, and will always be, a process. This week, a new moment in that history was marked, as Senedd Members returned to the newly renovated Chamber—the Siambr—as our country prepares for its next chapter of devolution following May’s elections. In May, Wales has the opportunity to reject division and separation and support the power in partnership between our UK and Welsh Labour Governments, and I trust that it will do so. To you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to everyone celebrating our nation’s holiday, in Cardiff West and beyond, I wish a dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for the announcement of this consultation. Parents and carers, families, schools and children themselves are looking for help and leadership on the issue of keeping children safe in the digital world. Will she assure me that the consultation will cover two things? First, will it cover the concept of misinformation? Claims about misinformation are levelled at social media providers. Secondly, will it consider all options for dealing with the addictive nature of social media, and algorithmically personalised feeds?