Alex Burghart MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 17 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, which I have asked because I think there is a very real danger that the Government may be about to break the law. It is very important that the House is aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights was not in possession of all the facts when it wrote its report. [ Interruption. ] Last year, the High Court in Belfast found parts of the legacy Act to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights. At the time of the election, the Conservative Government were appealing that highly disputable decision. The incoming Labour Government, for reasons they have never disclosed, chose to drop that appeal, and have subsequently laid a draft remedial order to amend the legislation. The problem is that earlier this year the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene in the case before the Supreme Court. On 15 October, Lord Wolfson KC, acting for the movement, did just that and made written and oral submissions that the Court is now considering. Consequently, it is entirely possible that the declarations of incompatibility relied on by the Secretary of State to lay the remedial order will be quashed. The case is very much live. That is very important, because under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 a Government have the authority to use a remedial order only unless and until all appeals in relation to declarations of incompatibility have been “determined or abandoned”. That test is not met. If the Government decide to push ahead with their remedial order, not only will they be acting ultra vires, but they will be setting a terrible precedent that will mean that future Governments may use remedial orders in ways they were never intended to be used. To avoid that, all the Government need to do is commit to not pushing their remedial order to a vote until the Supreme Court has finally ruled. Will the Secretary of State make that commitment?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on the draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Kenova · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) on asking it, and on his excellent contribution. This is a very significant and highly detailed report, which I know hon. Members will want to take some time to digest, but on behalf of the Conservative party, I thank all those who have contributed to it. I also want to remember all those who suffered during that very difficult time. The last Conservative Government apologised for collusion following the de Silva review of the murder of Patrick Finucane, and while it is sobering to read further accounts of collusion between a small number of agents of the British state and paramilitaries, it is important to set this alongside a number of findings in the Kenova report. First, as the Secretary of State mentioned, there is an understanding that legislation has changed dramatically since the time in question, under both the last Labour Government and the last Conservative Government. Secondly, it is important to highlight that although the review found that there were a small number of rogue actors, it did not find “any evidence” that collusion occurred “at a political or strategic level”, and there was “no evidence which indicates that the RUC at an organisational level was involved or complicit with the activities of extremists or terrorists.” It is very important that those findings are not lost. Thirdly, as the right hon. Member for Belfast East said, the review found that there was no specific intelligence that, if acted upon, could have prevented the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings, and it did not manage to find any evidence indicating that British security forces colluded with the UVF in those attacks—again, these are historic findings. I would be very interested to hear from the Secretary of State whether he would be prepared to come back at a later date and tell us more about the Government’s future position on “neither confirm nor deny”. I understand that there is a case going on at the moment, but I believe that once that is done, it will be important for the Government to be clear with the House about how they see that policy going forward. As has already been mentioned, there have been a number of detailed and necessary reviews of collusion between agents of the British state and paramilitaries, but as yet there have been no such reviews on the Irish side. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether the Irish Government have told him by when they intend to present their own legislation?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  A few weeks ago I wrote to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about Chinese ownership of critical national infrastructure, including the possible acquisition of Thames Water. I have not had a reply, but since then The Telegraph has been briefed by the Government that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would block such an acquisition. Can he confirm to the House that he will use his powers under the National Security and Investment Act 2021 to launch an investigation before any Chinese acquisition of Thames Water is allowed to proceed?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Well, someone was briefing in the right hon. Gentleman’s name. I thank him for his answer, but on the same theme, the electricity distribution network for London and much of the south-east, as well as the gas distribution network for about 5 million people in our country and the water supply for about another 3 million, are currently under Chinese ownership. That includes the power supply for the Palace of Westminster, Whitehall and many security capabilities. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster tell us whether he has reviewed the national security implications of these legacy acquisitions? If not, will he commit to doing so?

• 4 Dec 2025 · EU Relations · Hansard source

  More

  I admire the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s chutzpah in answering. He pretends that this was in some way not a defeat, but a victory—many more such victories, and we are lost. The House will remember that in May, No. 10 trumpeted a new agreement with the EU, which gave the EU privileged access to our fishing waters for 12 years—12 years—to “pave the way for the UK defence industry to participate in the EU’s proposed new…defence fund”. Now that the EU has killed off that deal with what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster rightly describes as an unreasonable demand for £5 billion, are we going to get our fish back?

• 4 Dec 2025 · EU Relations · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure people will be pleased to hear that the Labour party is going to honour some of its manifesto commitments. Last week, it was announced that the Government’s attempt to join the new EU defence fund had failed. This is a major setback for our relationship with the EU, and it is a major embarrassment for the Government. Since that time, no Minister has come to the House to explain what on earth has gone so horribly wrong, so perhaps the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster can tell us: what has gone so horribly wrong?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Official Secrets Act and Espionage · Hansard source

  More

  You never answered.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Official Secrets Act and Espionage · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Joint Committee for its work. Its report is a damning indictment of the Government’s handling of the China spy case. The investigation not only found “serious systemic failures and deficiencies”, but calls the Government’s handling of the matter “shambolic”, as the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) just said. It also found—surprise, surprise—that there was enough evidence to prosecute the alleged spies. The Committee writes that “China posed a range of threats to the United Kingdom’s national security. In our view, it is plain that, taken together, these amounted to a more general active threat to the United Kingdom’s national security.” The Labour party tried to blame the last Government for the collapse of the case, but this investigation has exposed the fact that that is plainly untrue. I was surprised to hear the Security Minister refer to the deficiencies of the 1911 Act. I draw his attention to paragraph 40 of the report; I think he probably should have read it before he came to the House. It was this Government’s incompetence that ultimately led to these two men not standing trial, and, most worryingly, the report reminds us that there may be many more such cases. Indeed, why should there not be, if foreign spies believe that they can act against this House with impunity and effective immunity? It is obvious that this Government are not prepared to stand firm. Over the past few days we have heard from the press—not from reports to the House—that the Prime Minister is about to sign off the Chinese mega-embassy in London, despite major security concerns, and that he is preparing to travel to Beijing. Will he, I wonder, have the backbone to stand up for our interests while he is there? I will ask the Security Minister three very simple and straightforward questions. First, did the Government provide the Joint Committee with the minutes of the 1 September meeting chaired by the National Security Adviser, and if not, why not? Secondly, during the many debates that we have had in the House on this matter, a number of Ministers appear to have made inaccurate and misleading statements on at least six occasions. Will the Minister ensure that corrections are made to Hansard , so that the record is straight? Thirdly, the Joint Committee has concluded, from the evidence it received, that China is a general threat to the United Kingdom’s national security; do the Government agree, and if they do, how can they justify supporting the mega-embassy?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Ministerial Code · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister to make a statement on the ministerial code.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Ministerial Code · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I mean no offence to the Parliamentary Secretary, because I have been in his shoes, but when the Government send out a junior Minister to answer a very serious question, it is normally because they have something to hide. In this case, it is clear that the Government have a great deal to hide. We have had a whole series of scandals since the summer break, and there have recently been a number of apparent breaches of the ministerial code, in addition to the one that you just raised, Mr Speaker, referring to paragraph 9.1 of the ministerial code about ensuring that this House hears about serious announcements first. We have seen pre-Budget briefing become entirely endemic—to the point where the Government have successfully spooked the markets in advance of the Chancellor’s speech. Goodness knows how they will react when they actually hear the Chancellor’s speech. Will the Minister at least condemn these briefings? Even more serious is the case relating to paragraph 1.6.f of the ministerial code, which states that Ministers must ensure that no conflict of interest arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise. In the case of David Kogan and the Prime Minister, it is clear that a perceived conflict has arisen. Mr Kogan told the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on 7 May that he donated money to the Prime Minister’s leadership campaign. That was before the Prime Minister appointed him as football regulator. Surely given the circumstances, full transparency is required. How much money did the Prime Minister receive from Mr Kogan? We also had the absurd situation of the Prime Minister clearing the Culture Secretary of wrongdoing in this case, despite the fact that the Prime Minister should have recused himself. How did this happen? Over the weekend the Prime Minister said that Ministers know that if there is any issue they must refer themselves to the independent adviser. Has the Prime Minister referred himself, and if not, why not? Surely the House will see that this is pure hypocrisy otherwise. Lastly, the Information Commissioner’s Office has today said that Ministers’ criminal convictions do not have to be disclosed to the public. This seems odd. Will the Minister reassure the House that this Government will reveal any criminal convictions that Ministers have, and is he able to confirm that no current Minister has a criminal conviction?

• 19 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 · Hansard source

  More

  On 15 August 1998 in Omagh, the Real IRA murdered 29 people, including a woman who was pregnant with twins. It was the deadliest attack of the troubles, and the most wicked. Following the 2021 recommendation of Mr Justice Horner, the last Conservative Government launched the Omagh inquiry into whether UK state authorities could have done anything to prevent the bombing. However, the bombers planned and launched their attack from the Republic of Ireland, which is why Mr Justice Horner also said that an independent inquiry was needed in the Republic to ask whether Irish state authorities could have done anything. Given that the UK inquiry was announced three years ago, did the Secretary of State raise the question of an inquiry in the south with his counterparts on his recent trip to Dublin?

• 19 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, and I am aware that the Republic is sharing the information with our inquiry, but he will be aware that the Omagh inquiry is only capable of answering questions about what UK state authorities did and did not do. Four years ago, Mr Justice Horner said that there needed to be a parallel inquiry in the south. The victims and families recognise that; does the Secretary of State recognise it?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Labour party is in power in Northern Ireland—it has formed the Government of the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) said, it would be good to get legal guarantees about who will be able to serve on the legacy commission and the victims and survivors advisory group. Lastly, veterans have been asking publicly for the inclusion of the word “veteran” in the Bill. They do not consider themselves victims or survivors; they consider themselves veterans, and they hope that the Government will recognise them as such in legislation.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  With all due respect to the hon. Lady, who I enjoyed working opposite, the last Government did not offer delay and dithering; we offered firm legislation. What she outlines, I am afraid, is an unrealistic view of the future. We have seen many cases come forward and very few convictions, and the people who suffer in that process are veterans. They are veterans like the gentleman I referred to a moment ago, from a case in 1991—four years of investigation, with a ludicrous case at the end. What is happening today is that victims are being promised something that will never be delivered, and veterans are being told that they do not matter.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the Minister give way?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, my right hon. Friend is entirely correct. The courts have no power to strike down statute; they can advise this House to remove legislation.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to make some progress. We will have plenty of time in Committee to discuss our particular concerns with this legislation, but I will raise a small number of them today. First, the Bill deliberately shifts the focus towards criminal prosecutions. Clause 36 states that investigations are “to be carried as a criminal investigation unless…there is no realistic prospect of information obtained…being provided to a prosecutor.” I suspect that those most likely to be prosecuted will be veterans. Secondly, the Bill creates a five-year time limit for family members and victims to request an investigation, but there is no such time limit for public authorities. Can the Minister tell us why not? This could rumble on forever. Thirdly, the Bill pays lip service to not repeating previous investigations, as the Secretary of State said, by saying that the Legacy Commission will do so only when repetition is “necessary”—that is in clauses 30, 31, 36, 51 and 84—or when “duplication is essential”, as in clause 36. I imagine and I fear that some lawyers will have a great deal of fun with those words. How long before every attempted reinvestigation becomes “necessary” or every attempted investigation becomes “essential”? I believe and I fear that this is no protection at all. Fourthly, the protections for our veterans here are a mirage, not just because they are largely available already, but because they clearly apply to terrorists as well as veterans. Fifthly, in the past few days I have received a lot of communications from veterans about the role that Ireland will play in the new commission. I am sure that they will be reassured by the Secretary of State’s remarks in his opening speech that Ireland will have no formal process within the Legacy Commission. But what is clear that the Bill makes provision for the involvement of international figures. Will those international figures be given access to national security information? Will the Minister please be clear about that in his closing remarks?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman raises interesting and important points. We are concerned about the question of who will have access to sensitive national security information within the legacy commission’s framework? It would be good to have clarity on that from the Minister later. Sixthly, there was some confusion on the Labour Front Bench recently about whether former IRA personnel would be able to serve as a legacy commission officer or as a member of the victims and survivors advisory group. Perhaps when we get to Committee the Minister could clear that up and provide legal guarantees that that will not be the case.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, my right hon. Friend is a bastion of good sense. He reminds us that there is no moral equivalence between the people who were sent to try to keep the people and services of Northern Ireland safe, and the people who were terrorists. Finally, we note that, under the terms of the agreement, the Republic of Ireland has committed to legislate to enable the fullest possible co-operation of the relevant Irish authorities with the Legacy Commission. We sincerely hope that this is true, as there are many secrets of the troubles that are yet to be disclosed from sources south of the border. From the huge number of extradition requests that Dublin refused between 1973 and 1999 to the long, long list of cases of collusion between the Garda and the Provisional IRA that have not been properly dealt with, it is clear that the south has never taken full responsibility for the blind eyes turned and the bad acts abetted. The test of this Government’s approach will be whether Dublin delivers, or whether this—as one representative of victims has said to me in the past few days—turns out to be another case of “tea and sympathy” with no action to follow. For the record, it is my party’s strong view that if this Bill receives Royal Assent, the Secretary of State should not commence the legislation until this House has at least seen the Irish legislation. In conclusion, this Bill contains no meaningful protections, it has no cross-party support, and there are no legal barriers to continuing what the last Government began. We find ourselves in a situation where retired generals, SAS veterans and the like are all telling this House not to proceed. They are telling us that there will be consequences—for recruitment, for retention and for national security. This morning in a statement, Soldier Z said that “the damage being done to the morale and fibre of UK special forces and armed forces…must be understood by the public, because it’s very well understood by the SAS.” When such people speak, this House has an obligation to listen.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I concur greatly with my hon. Friend’s remarks, and I will return to them in a few moments.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I hate to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but if he goes back and looks at the news stories from the time, he will discover very clearly that Sinn Féin withdrew their support for the Bill once the Labour Government decided they would extend the scope of the Bill to cover security forces and police officers. The republicans never wanted equity; they wanted a one-sided agreement that would privilege only the terrorists and not the Army. I say all that to highlight the absurdity of Labour’s opposition to our legislation, and to remind the House that the proposals presented to us today are the opposite of what Labour believed was necessary, in the words of Peter Hain, to complete the peace process 20 years ago. No doubt the Government will say, as the Secretary of State already has, that they have no choice but to change our legislation because it was found to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights. But that is only partially true. While it is the case that the High Court in Belfast found that conditional immunity was incompatible with the ECHR, I am sure that the Secretary of State knows that that court, despite its considerable strengths, is not the summit of the UK legal system. The last Conservative Government were appealing the court’s finding, but when the Labour Government came into power in July 2024, they dropped that appeal and they have never explained why. They had every opportunity to take it to the highest court in the land, and they declined to do so. In legal circles, the finding of the High Court in Belfast is considered highly disputable. Why? Because the law strongly suggests that if the same logic was applied to the peace process legislation that I have already mentioned—the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, and the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims’ Remains) Act 1999—then all of that legislation would be deemed incompatible with the European convention and would have to be struck down.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) and then to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson).

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No. Let me start with conditional immunity. The legacy Act provided immunity to individuals in return for their providing an account to the commission that was true to the best of their “knowledge and belief”. That is the immunity to which the Government are now opposed, but I am afraid that that objection is born of acute political amnesia. This House will know that the Blair Government accepted that the price of ending the conflict was a departure from the norms of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. They gave us the early release of 483 prisoners, 143 of whom were serving life sentences, including, it must be said, the man who in 1984 tried to kill the entire British Cabinet; the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), which limits prison terms to two years; the decommissioning of weapons legislation, which allowed for the destruction of forensic evidence that would have led to convictions; and an effective amnesty for all those who provided information to the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains—in short, immunity in return for information. We also had the controversial letters of comfort—156 of them. One was received by John Downey, thought to have been the Hyde Park bomber, the case against whom collapsed on the production of his letter. It had apparently been issued in error, but nevertheless that letter effectively granted him immunity from prosecution. Even if, as Labour now claims, the on-the-runs were not intended to grant immunity, the use of the royal prerogative of mercy on at least 13 occasions certainly was. Even if that was not enough, it was very much the intention of the last Labour Government to create a scheme for immunity. We know that because in November 2005, Peter Hain, now Lord Hain—the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—brought legislation to this House in the form of the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which was explicitly intended to create immunity from prosecution for terrorists. That was on the face of the Bill. The now Secretary of State was in the Cabinet at the time; he will have been supportive of that legislation—legislation that he now refers to as a moral outrage. That Government eventually dropped the legislation, not because of opposition in this House, but because of the opposition of Sinn Féin, who withdrew their support once they discovered that the scope was being extended to cover the security forces and the police.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It was never given a chance because this Government dropped their appeal—something I will return to shortly.