Alex Barros-Curtis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 19 Mar 2026 · National Security Strategy, Political Finance and Foreign Influence · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent statement. I fully welcome the report and its recommendations, which I will read very carefully. I share his concerns about cryptocurrencies. The first recommendation is about the need for a single centralised unit. Does he agree that the Government might consider the new National Police Service, announced as part of the policing reforms, a suitable vehicle to deal with the issues of electoral crime?

• 4 Mar 2026 · China: Foreign Interference Arrests · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement and for all the work he does on the defending democracy taskforce. I also put on record my thanks to the law enforcement authorities and national security agencies. From what I have read online, I understand that one of today’s arrests took place in my constituency. My constituents will obviously be concerned to hear that, and I wonder what the Security Minister can say to reassure me and my constituents that the police and all the relevant authorities have the resources needed to keep us safe and to keep our democracy safe. If I am right to assume that what I have read online is correct, will he meet me at the earliest opportunity to discuss this further?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As a solicitor who previously advised in this area, I am grateful to be able to contribute to tonight’s Second Reading debate. I welcome much in this Bill, including automatic voter registration; honouring our manifesto commitment to extend the vote in UK-wide elections to 16 and 17-year-olds, following in the footsteps of Wales; and rectifying some of the discriminatory impacts of the Conservatives’ Elections Act 2022, a piece of legislation that in many respects was a solution in search of a problem. In the short time I have tonight, I want to focus on a theme that I have regularly spoken about: the threat to our democracy from foreign interference by both state and non-state actors, and the steps that we must take to cement our democracy from those malign forces. As has been said, these are not theoretical risks. We need only look at the former leader of Reform UK in Wales, who was previously in the UK Independence party and the Brexit party: Nathan Gill, who is now serving 10 and a half years in prison for eight counts of bribery. It is shameful that he took a minimum of £40,000 in bribes to make speeches in the European Parliament. He was meant to be representing Wales but instead did the Kremlin’s bidding. I welcome the Government’s setting up of the Philip Rycroft review, and I trust that the resulting recommendations will be included in the Bill as it progresses through this place. In particular, I am clear that we should ban all crypto donations to political parties and individuals. To my mind, there is no legitimate rationale for donating via such means, unless the donor ultimately wishes to disguise their true identity. I welcome the independence of the Electoral Commission, which was elaborated on by the Secretary of State, and the enhancing of its powers to provide clear deterrents against lawbreaking. I would be grateful if the Minister could reassure me that the Government will ensure that the Electoral Commission has all the necessary resources it needs to do its job effectively and efficiently. Improved co-operation between the Electoral Commission, the intelligence services, law enforcement and electoral authorities must be a priority. I have previously suggested to the Security Minister and I suggest again to the Minister that the Government should consider whether the recently announced policing reforms, most notably in setting up a national police service, may be a suitable vehicle through which to consider establishing dedicated police capability for electoral crime. Finally, we must urgently deal with disinformation and online operations, as has been mentioned, and treat them as the core national security threat that they are. The Electoral Commission, Ofcom and the police need the resources to deal with the threat of personalised algorithmic feeds and AI-enabled manipulation that feeds misinformation about our elections. I would be grateful if the Government synchronised that with other ongoing Government reviews to ensure that this Bill is as robust as it needs to be to cement our democracy.

• 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—

• 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.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Electoral Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for announcing this review, which I fully welcome. Does he agree that every political party should welcome it, unless they have something to hide? Will he tell me whether the terms of reference of Philip Rycroft’s independent investigation will require every political party to co-operate? If they do not, will he name and shame them so that the public can render their judgment accordingly?

• 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?

• 18 Nov 2025 · China Espionage: Government Security Response · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement and put on record my tribute to the missing crew member, those searching for them and all those who keep us safe. I welcome the package of measures that the Minister has set out today. With the news about the networking sites, while not new, it is important to keep the risk elevated and to remind those potentially affected of that. He knows, because we have conversed about this regularly, that I take an interest in the defending democracy taskforce. Will he therefore say a little bit more about the series of protective security campaigns that will be co-ordinated through it? I suggest that as part of the outreach to all the different stakeholders that he has mentioned, the taskforce gives thought to some sort of centralised toolkit that pulls together all the guidance and information, which is evergreen and constantly updated, to ensure that all affected stakeholders, in and outside this place, have it at their fingertips so we can keep ourselves safe from people who are a threat to us.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Welsh Language Provision) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require that any birth, death or marriage certificate issued in Wales be issued bilingually in English and Welsh; to make provision for the issuance in England of birth certificates bilingually in English and Welsh where either parent named on the certificate is a Welsh speaker; to make provision for the issuance in England of death certificates bilingually in English and Welsh where the deceased person lived in Wales or was a Welsh speaker; and for connected purposes. I extend my thanks to the Clerks and the team in the Public Bill Office for their invaluable and diligent assistance, and to the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp), for his support and for being in the Chamber today. There is an old saying in Cymraeg—in Welsh: “Mae’r tegell yn berwi a dwi’n barod.” It means, “The kettle is boiling and I am ready.” The kettle has been on the boil for a long time in Wales, and Welsh people have been ready for decades to ensure they receive birth, marriage and death certificates in the Welsh language. This Bill aims to give Welsh people, after registration, the right to receive such certificates in Welsh only, English only or bilingually. It is not the first Bill on this subject to come before this House or the other place—politicians from both Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru have presented Bills on this matter. The late Dafydd Elis-Thomas presented a Bill in the House of Lords as far back as 1999. As a proud Clwyd boy, I am pleased to say that next was a Bill by the then Clwyd West MP, Gareth Thomas, who presented the first Bill in the Commons. In 2009, he was followed by Hywel Williams, who presented another Bill to the Commons. While Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru have led on this subject, there has also been notable support from politicians of other parties, including Lembit Öpik for the Liberal Democrats and Michael Fabricant for the Conservatives—the cheeky boys of the noughties. This exceptionally broad support across the political spectrum shows that this is not a party political subject, nor should something as important and treasured as the Welsh language ever be party political. On that note, I acknowledge the work of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), who has shared many discussions with me on this issue, and I look forward to continuing to work with her. People who have lived in Wales may well have received their child’s birth certificate or a parent’s death certificate in both English and Welsh and be thinking, “What is the problem? What is the purpose of this Bill?” Sadly, there are many circumstances where people might not receive a Welsh or bilingual certificate and instead receive an English-only one. There are no rules or laws that say if someone lives in Wales, or is Welsh and lives in England, they can or must receive such a certificate in Welsh or bilingually. That is what happened to a constituent of mine, Afryl Davies. I am delighted that Afryl is in the Gallery today, and I pay tribute to her and her family for their fortitude in the light of the tragedy they faced. Sadly, Afryl’s husband, Aled, passed away. Aled was a proud Welshman and a proud Welsh speaker, but his family did not receive a copy of his death certificate bilingually. They received only an English-language version. They wrote many letters, including to the coroner, the registrar and the General Register Office, requesting that his death certificate be reissued bilingually, but sadly they were turned down at every opportunity because of how the law currently operates. Worse still, my constituent was told that their only option was to turn to the courts to attempt to secure a reissued certificate in Welsh. Afryl came to one of my regular advice surgeries to see if I could help, and I have got to admit that I was dumbfounded that this situation was somehow still possible in 2025. The Welsh Language Act 1993 and the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 were put in place to ensure that the Welsh language has parity and equal legal status with English and must not be treated less favourably, yet here we are, with a proud Welsh person who lived and sadly died in our capital city, and his family are as yet unable to receive his death certificate bilingually. I think we can all agree that people living in Wales and Welsh people living in England should be able to receive their birth, death and marriage certificates in Cymraeg—in Welsh—or in English or bilingually, if they so choose. The previous Labour Government agreed with that and were in the process of making that law. That started in 2002, when there was a UK Government White Paper and a consultation exercise on the future of civil registrations. The “Birth, Marriage and Death Registration in the 21st Century” White Paper stated: “The Government will extend the facility for bilingual (English/Welsh) birth registration to include events occurring in England to Welsh speaking parents. Presently, only births that occur in Wales can be registered bi-lingually in English and Welsh. This can cause a problem, for example, if a Welsh mother gives birth in a hospital over the border in England and cannot then obtain a birth registration in bi-lingual format. After the registration it will be possible for documents to be issued in Welsh only, English only or both languages…In line with birth registration, the Government will extend the facility to register a death in English and Welsh to include deaths which take place in England. After the registration it will be possible for documents to be issued in Welsh only, English only or both languages.” Following the subsequent consultation period, the General Register Office was instructed by the then UK Labour Government to start looking into plans to make that provision possible. In 2009, the then Wales Office Minister Wayne David, stated that “the Government remain firmly committed to producing Welsh language certificates, and the General Register Office is exploring the best way to do that.” —[ Official Report , 11 March 2009; Vol. 489, c. 283.] Unfortunately, the UK Labour Government of the day were not able to get that through the House of Commons before the 2010 general election, and the succeeding Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government would go on to abandon the plans, despite support from some of their own MPs, as I have already mentioned. My constituents were told that they could not receive their beloved family member’s death certificate bilingually, because following the inquest the certificate was first sent to the registrar in English only, before then being sent bilingually. However, because the certificate had first been received in English, the death was accordingly registered in English only. As I have said, because of the way in which the law currently works, my constituent has been left with no option other than to turn to the courts to attempt to secure a reissued death certificate. Afryl should have been afforded the dignity of receiving Aled’s death certificate bilingually, but she is instead faced with the indignity of having to consider recourse to the courts to try and secure it. That cannot be right. It is inhumane and it is unfair, and in 2025 it should not stand. If the last Labour Government’s proposals had become law, my constituents would have received that death certificate bilingually, because death certificates would be translated after the registration of death. This a key part of my Bill. The 2002 White Paper states: “After the registration it will be possible for documents to be issued in Welsh only, English only or both languages.” That, in a nutshell, is what my Bill is about: giving people living in Wales, and Welsh people in England, the right to have their or a family member’s birth or death certificate issued in Welsh, 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 of that was a policy aim under the last Labour Government, and it is a policy that still has cross-party support. This is a long-overdue process, and I am determined to make it happen. We know that the last Labour Government asked the General Register Office to look into making it happen. A feasibility study must have taken place, so we know that a lot of work has already been done. We also know that with the law as it currently stands, there appear to be shortcomings in the procedural guidance for registrars, specifically in circumstances in which they are not Welsh speakers and a bilingual certificate has been requested. These issues raise broader questions about equity of service for Welsh-speaking citizens. I urge the General Register Office and others to look at them now and while, hopefully, my Bill is making progress. After all, the Bill does not need to begin from the starting line; we are picking up the baton in a race that we have already begun, so let’s get it to the finishing line. I was born in Llanelwy—St Asaph, the “city of music”. I will not give my age away, but my parents wanted their children’s birth certificates to be in English and Welsh. Today, my constituents want their relative’s death certificate to be in Welsh or bilingual, but they have not been given that option by default. Instead, they are left to fight for it. This cannot be right in a modern Wales—a Wales proud of its language, a population proud of its country. I ask the Government to consider my Bill, and let us in Wales be proud of our country and proud of our language. “Cenedl heb iaith, cenedl heb galon”—a nation without a language is a nation without a heart. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Mr Alex Barros-Curtis, Tonia Antoniazzi, Gill German, Andrew Ranger, Carolyn Harris, Dame Nia Griffith, Liz Saville Roberts, Ben Lake, Ann Davies and Henry Tufnell present the Bill. Mr Alex Barros-Curtis accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 31 October, and to be printed (Bill 309).