Alex Barros-Curtis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and I particularly look forward to learning more about the uncrewed systems taskforce. When it comes to the Welsh defence industry, though, can he confirm that today’s defence investment plan will work in tandem with commitments that are already in train—such as the Wales defence growth deal—to nurture and develop the Welsh defence industry?

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I want to begin by acknowledging what many colleagues across this House will believe: when a Government ask Parliament to extend their powers in the name of national security, scrutiny is not obstruction; it is our duty, as has been said already on the Opposition and Government sides. Civil liberties, the right to dissent, and the freedom to campaign, to report and to advocate—these are the very values that distinguish us from the states whose hostile activities this Bill is designed to confront. I know the Government understand that and, equally, I know that colleagues across the House will hold these expectations firmly. The threat facing the United Kingdom from hostile foreign states and their proxies is very real—we have heard some examples already in today’s debate—and it is growing, and our existing legal framework has not kept pace with it. I want to take the opportunity to endorse strongly what my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) said about the need for us to have a public conversation about the very real dangers that our democracy faces. In 2025, the director general of MI5, Sir Ken McCallum, reported a 35% increase in state threat activity from the previous year. Over that same period, MI5 tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots on British soil. We have seen espionage threatening and targeting our Parliament, our universities and our critical national infrastructure. We have seen arson, surveillance and physical violence commissioned by foreign states, and we have seen those states hide behind proxies precisely because our current laws make it easier for them to do so. Following the start of the conflict between Iran and the US and Israel in February, there have been a number of attacks on Iranian and Jewish targets in the UK thought to be linked to Iranian proxy groups. Those include an attempted arson attack at the London premises of Iran International—a Persian language news channel opposed to the regime in Tehran—an arson attack on a synagogue in Finchley, and the stabbing of two Jewish men in Golders Green. In a statement on tackling antisemitism on 5 May this year, the Prime Minister acknowledged that one line of inquiry was whether a foreign state had been behind some of these attacks. He said that such “malign threats” from Iran or other states “will not be tolerated” and that the Government would fast-track legislation to deal with them. The Bill before us today is a result of that commitment and it is something that I fully support. As has been said, the National Security Act 2023 was a significant step forward, but as Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of state threats legislation, concluded in his May 2025 report, there remain gaps, particularly in our ability to disrupt proxy organisations acting on behalf of foreign powers, and the Bill seeks to fill those gaps. At its heart, as has been discussed, is a new designation power for the Home Secretary, equivalent to the proscription power that exists for terrorist organisations under the Terrorism Act 2000, but applied to bodies engaged in state threat activity. Crucially, the Bill also covers the aliases and proxy names through which hostile states so often seek to obscure their operations. These are serious powers and they must come with serious safeguards. The Bill has been drafted to be compatible with the European convention on human rights, and particularly article 10 on freedom of expression, and I welcome that, but compatibility is a floor and not a ceiling. I urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to ensure that the definitions of “support” and “assistance” are applied with precision and proportionality, because the offences created in the Bill can, by their nature, reach into areas of ordinary civic life, including journalism, academic research and political advocacy. I also want to raise a particular Welsh dimension. As well as the security services who work day and night to keep us safe, so too do our armed forces and our police officers. As the Bill progresses, I wish to place on the record my continued support for capital city policing status for Cardiff, with the resources to match the unique security and civic responsibilities that come with being a capital city. I urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to engage seriously with that as the legislation progresses and comes into force. Our constituents ask us to take tough decisions and to ensure that we exercise our judgment responsibly to ensure that our nation is protected. I believe that the measures in the Bill, taken together, will help to keep my constituents safe as it will make the operating environment for foreign intelligence services and their proxies much tougher. I support the Bill because the threats it addresses are real and demand a response. I do so with clear expectations that designation powers are used, as has been said, on solid evidence and building on established legal frameworks, that enforcement is proportionate and that civil liberties are treated as central to the legitimacy of the law, not as an afterthought. My constituents will be reassured to understand that the Bill provides that designation decisions will be agreed by Parliament, that it will be annually reviewed for efficacy by the independent reviewer of state threats legislation, and that individuals will have clear rights of appeal and access to independent review. These are important and welcome safeguards. We can be strong against those who threaten us, but we can also be strong in defence of the democratic values they are trying to undermine. The Bill, properly applied, will do all those things, and it is for those reasons that I am supporting it today.

• 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.

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

  More

  I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Even if his intervention was perhaps slightly askew from the point I am about to make, it goes to the question of consistency on this issue and many others. As I said, the Opposition party leaders have been shapeshifting on this issue. The Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), rather than waiting for the evidence, had already made up their minds two weeks ago. On 17 April, the day after the story broke in The Guardian, the Lib Dems put out a press release stating that “Starmer must be investigated by Privileges Committee over…the decision to overrule Mandelson’s failed security vetting”, but that was found wanting, because the evidence showed otherwise. That was proven when the Prime Minister came to the Chamber at the earliest opportunity, on Monday 20 April, and laid the evidence before this House. Sir Olly Robbins backed that up in his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 21 April.

• 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.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for the elegant way in which he presented his speech, and I thank Members from across the Chamber for their thoughtful and excellent contributions. Confidence in our democracies and our elected officials stands somewhat at a juncture. The ever-increasing deficit in confidence in politics and our politicians runs as far back as the financial crisis, and accelerated after some of the events that colleagues have mentioned. We know that democracy depends on participation, engagement and trust. When that is undermined and attacked, democracy itself is weakened. The people of Ukraine know the brutality of the Russian regime and Russian warfare, but so do the people of this country, what with the Salisbury poisonings and Alexander Litvinenko being assassinated on British soil. As the Intelligence and Security Committee has made clear, Russian interference does not just involve tanks and poisonous chemicals. It also operates seditiously through money, misinformation, cyber-activity and influence. We know that Russia has developed a long-term strategy to interfere in western democracies, including our own. While the goal is not necessarily to support one political party over the rest, it is most definitely to create division, sow distrust and cause harm to our economy, society and national security. Of course, I say that the goal is not necessarily to support one political party over another. However, as others have expanded on, when it comes to Nathan Gill, the former Welsh leader of Reform UK, one might be mistaken for thinking that that is actually the case. The number of Welsh constituents who have signed the petition, including in my constituency of Cardiff West—which, when I last checked, was fourth highest on the league table—shows that the disgust felt by the people of Wales at Nathan Gill’s treachery has struck a chord. Let us quickly remind ourselves of Nathan Gill’s crimes. He committed eight counts of bribery, taking bribes from pro-Russian actors, and is now serving 10 and a half years in prison for his treachery. Specifically, while serving as an MEP for the people of Wales, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk said, he accepted at least £40,000 in payments. He made speeches in the European Parliament that were scripted by the Kremlin, doing its bidding. Shockingly, he was also trying to recruit his mates—his friends, his colleagues—in the European Parliament to do the same, to keep the roubles flowing. At first, some of Reform UK’s leaders claimed they did not know who this person was. Then the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who I have notified, said he was just a “bad apple”. Although their attempts to whitewash Gill from their history have clearly failed—and must fail—it is clear that the only way a political party such as Reform UK can be straight with the British public about the extent of Russia’s links is for it to do two things. No. 1 is that it must launch a full, independent investigation into all its links to Russia, and No. 2 is that it must commit to fully co-operating with Philip Rycroft’s review and to accepting every recommendation Rycroft makes. Of course, Reform is not here to answer that point, and to date it has failed to do so. That is not surprising, but it is shocking. [Dawn Butler in the Chair ] Today, Politico published an article by the excellent Esther Webber entitled “Nigel Farage tries to fix his Russia problem”—and, boy, does he know he has one. A More in Common poll last year showed that despite the fact that every voter group overwhelmingly backs Ukraine over Russia, just 26% of Brits think the hon. Member for Clacton does, and 21% think he sympathises more with Russia. That is astonishing—and incredibly dangerous for our democracy. My constituents in Cardiff West and the Welsh public will not be fooled by any attempt at a makeover, given the overwhelming stench. The only way Reform can seriously fix the stench of Russian interference and conspiracies that surrounds it is to do what I have outlined. For those reasons, and the other excellent reasons that colleagues have expanded on today, the elections Bill is a critical moment in our attempt to curb the extent of Russian and other interference in our elections.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I fully agree. Of course, his point is about the donations that we know about, but when it comes to cryptocurrency, we do not know who the paymasters behind those payments are. Some of what the Government have announced in relation to the elections Bill—and the strategy beforehand —on toughening up the rules on political finance is welcome. However, for the reasons that have been mentioned, we must go further, and I urge the Government to ensure that this opportunity to safeguard our democracy is not missed. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk mentioned, the Kremlin has exploited loopholes in political financing rules for at least 15 years. That must be stopped. The Electoral Commission’s independence, enforcement powers and resources must be strengthened as a matter of urgency. We should ban all crypto donations to political parties and individuals. There is no legitimate rationale for donating via such means unless the donor ultimately wishes to disguise their true identity. The ban should be brought into effect urgently and capture donations made by any means, whether by principal donors or through intermediaries. Improved co-operation between our Electoral Commission, intelligence services, law enforcement and electoral authorities must be a priority. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the new national police service, part of the recently announced reforms to policing, might be a suitable vehicle through which to consider establishing dedicated police capability for electoral crime. We must urgently deal with disinformation and online operations, treating them as the core national security threat they are. The Electoral Commission, Ofcom and the police all need more resources and are underpowered for dealing with the threat of personalised algorithmic feeds and AI-enabled manipulation that feeds misinformation about our elections. This is not specifically about Russia, but when Iran was attacked by Israel and America in targeted strikes last year, it was reported that 20,000 bots advocating for Scottish independence were taken out in Scotland as a result. If that is what Iran could do, imagine what North Korea, Russia and China are doing. That is why we have to take these threats seriously. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) mentioned, the important May elections will be a real test of what we need to do to respond to such foreign narrative-shaping operations. I ask the Minister to urgently consider these measures and take this issue back to the various Departments to ensure we get a robust elections Bill that is ready for 2026 and for everything that is coming, given the way that technology is quickly changing. As part of this strategy, I ask him to join me in recommitting ourselves to the NATO alliance as a bulwark against Russian aggression—something that unserious politicians, such as the leader of the Green party, seem to doubt, thereby doing the Russians’ work for them. Alliances, resources and an elections Bill that seeks to support our democracy, not undermine it, are the critical tools we need to curb Russian interference.

• 2 Feb 2026 · China and Japan · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and for what he said about calling on China to end support for Russia’s illegal war effort. We cannot ignore the threat to our shores from Russia, as we know very well in Wales. Nathan Gill, the former Reform UK leader in Wales, is serving 10 and a half years in prison for taking bribes from Russia. Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning that treacherous activity, and reassure me that he will continue to push China on that important point?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The ongoing threat to our nation’s security from grey zone activity illustrates the importance of international associations and alliances, such as NATO. Does the Minister share my concern at what the leader of the Green party said yesterday? In the same sentence, he said that he would both leave and reform NATO. Does that not show how unserious he is?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his statement, which is of course complex and raises significant issues that are shared on both sides of the House. He has referred to the issue of national security, and I fully appreciate that he is unable to talk about the mitigations that have been put in place. I am grateful that he has re-emphasised that point a number of times. As part of the evergreen nature of assessing the risks that we face, both during the building of the embassy, if it continues, and beyond, is he able to assure the House that, wherever possible, he will keep this place updated about any change in the risk assessments and that, if a more detailed analysis is required, the ISC will be fully apprised of that?

• 25 Nov 2025 · G20 and Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I am very proud to represent Cardiff West in this place. Nathan Gill, the former leader of Reform UK in Wales, was elected to serve the people of Wales in the European Parliament, but as we now know, he served not only himself but the interests of Russia. Having admitted not one, not two, but eight counts of bribery, he is now serving 10 and a half years’ imprisonment. I know the Prime Minister will join me in condemning that treachery, but will he also join me in demanding that the leadership of Reform UK—who, typically, cannot be present here today—launch an independent investigation into this act of treason?

• 3 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. The opening last week by the King of the UK’s first national memorial commemorating LGBT veterans marks an important moment for all LGBT people who have served or continue to serve in our military. Will my hon. Friend confirm that this will not be merely a symbolic moment for those veterans? I put on record my thanks to those LGBT personnel who have served and continue to serve with distinction.