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.

• 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?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Benefit Cap · Hansard source

  More

  Question 4, Mr Speaker.

• 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?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Youth Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  5. What recent progress he has made on the expansion of youth hubs.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Draft Conversion Practices Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate all the campaigners who have brought us to this moment, including my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) and the Minister, who has really spearheaded this work in the few months that she has been in the job. She should be really proud of what she has achieved. I have spoken to the Minister about this Bill extensively. As has been said, the community of victims has been waiting eight years for this legislation since it was first promised by a Conservative Government. People do not need fixing; they are not broken. Abuse is not and should never be permissible, so abusive conversion practices should be outlawed, and that really should not be a controversial topic. Will the Minister tell me about the work she will do on this Bill with the devolved Administrations? It covers England and Wales, so we need to look at Scotland and Northern Ireland and consider what best practice they can follow to ensure that there are no victims. As she said, consent to abuse is not a thing and should never be a thing. We should get this law on to the statute book as quickly as possible.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Steel Trade Measure · Hansard source

  More

  I refer to my membership of GMB and Unite. I thank the Minister for his statement. I understand the trade-offs he referred to and the need to take measures to rebalance the sector. He knows, because we have spoken about it a lot, that the steel strategy refers to 50% of future UK-made steel being Welsh steel. Will he say a bit more about that? It is something that my constituents are particularly passionate about.

• 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.

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

  More

  I take the points, particularly from the Opposition, about the speed at which we are proceeding on the Bill today. However, does my hon. Friend—by the way, he is giving an excellent speech—agree that, as we have 17 more working days in this place before recess, time is of the essence? To go back to the points made earlier, we want to get this through both Houses and on to the statute book before the summer.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for putting on the record this Labour Government’s record on Welsh steel, because it contrasts with the 14 years of ruin under the Tory Government. Their failure to have an industrial strategy caused decisions to be taken in Port Talbot before this Government came into power. The Tories do not like to be reminded of that, but we will remind them about it every time. It is something that Plaid Cymru—I have great respect for the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies)—and Reform would do well to remember when they turn up for their photo op outside Port Talbot. I want to touch on something that my constituents are grateful for, which is this Government’s steel strategy. As the Minister rightly says, that resulted in a £100 million investment by Sev.en in 7 Steel in Cardiff. Does he agree that that is not only a sign of the importance of the steel strategy, but will mean that at least half of future UK steelmaking will be Welsh steel? All Members in the House should welcome that.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Milburn Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to Alan Milburn for this sobering report. The proportion of young people aged 16 to 24 in south-east Wales who were NEET in the year ending June 2025 was 13.2%, and as the report indicates, that is only modelled to increase. Does my hon. Friend agree that tackling the increase in NEETs has to be a central mission of this Labour Government?

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, Sev.en Global Investments announced a £100 million investment into 7 Steel UK in Cardiff, a site that I have recently visited. Do the Government agree that that investment shows our plan to prioritise a modern steel strategy is paying off for jobs and growth while putting working people in Wales and the rest of the UK first?

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  10. What progress he has made on implementing the steel strategy.

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

  More

  Before I explain why I am making that case and that decision, I will happily give way.

• 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.

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

  More

  I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s patronising tone, but I will simply say that I do not need to be told how to vote on this motion, because I do not believe that the case has been made out, as I will explain now, if I can make some progress. I underline my point by reiterating what the Speaker said earlier, and what I said to him when he was in the Chair: of course, the question we are considering is not about the application that was put before him. He has rightly made a decision, as he was required to once the application came before him, but I am clear that those who submitted that application to him were engaged in a nakedly political stunt. That is not just because of the nature of the motion before us, but because of the shapeshifting of the Opposition party leaders on this issue since The Guardian broke the story on 16 April.

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

  More

  If the right hon. Gentleman will wait to hear why I think that, I will happily give way in a moment. As has been said, the motion cuts across existing procedures that everyone in this House unanimously agreed, supported and initiated just a few weeks ago. As I have stated and will go on to explain, it lacks any credibility or evidential basis.

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

  More

  I rise in this debate first and foremost to reiterate, as other colleagues have done, my fullest solidarity with the victims of Epstein. We should always maintain them at the forefront of our minds. Notwithstanding their absence from the motion, I know that many colleagues on both sides of the House have referenced them, and I am sure that we will continue to do so. I want to be clear that I will vote against this motion, not because I have to be told to, but because the case has absolutely not been made. Given some of the contributions made about shaving or putting on make-up in the morning, and considering and reflecting on the vote that will be cast tonight, I will have no compunction whatsoever and absolutely no doubt in my mind when I go through the Lobby that I will have made the right decision. I do not need insinuations to the contrary impugning my integrity.

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

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman is very eager. I will give way.

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

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman can chunter some more, but maybe he should listen to what I say about the basis on which I reached my decision, and then I will happily give way. Before I turn to the lack of evidence to make out this case, I want to mention—as others have—the integrity of the Prime Minister. I have known him for a number of years, and I know that he is a man of integrity. I know that he will act without fear or favour, and will always be the hardest critic of himself. He has rightly apologised for the poor and incorrect decision to appoint Peter Mandelson. He has done it in this House, he has done it to the country, and most importantly, he has done it to the victims of Epstein.

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

  More

  That is an irrelevant point. I have already said that regardless of the position of the party, I do not need to be told how I will vote on this motion, because the case has not been made out. [ Interruption. ] If people will stop chuntering, I will respond to the individuals who have said that we will have to look in the mirror tomorrow. I have no doubt that every decision we make in this place, whether on this motion, on amendments or on legislation, is made with integrity, and with the best interests of our constituents in mind, so reminding me or my colleagues of that today suggests more about the person making the statement than it does about me and the decision I have made. As I have said, I will vote against the motion, because I do not believe that the case has been made out. In my time as a solicitor, I have seen many witness statements and particulars of claim, and the case that the Leader of the Opposition laid out today was one of the most appallingly made-out cases I have seen in my professional lifetime.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Rail Network Improvements · Hansard source

  More

  The UK Labour Government’s generational commitment to a £14 billion pipeline of rail projects in every part of Wales is a clear demonstration of what can be achieved when two Labour Governments work together. The investment from the spending review has resulted in upgrades at Cardiff West junction, which is set to double city line services, benefiting stations in my constituency. Incredibly, Plaid has promised to tear up this much-needed plan and start again. Will the Minister update the House on the impact of Labour’s rail investment in Wales on my constituents and the people of Wales?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Rail Network Improvements · Hansard source

  More

  5. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to improve the rail network in Wales.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Iran: Human Rights · Hansard source

  More

  4. What recent assessment her Department has made of the human rights situation in Iran.