Alex Burghart MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

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

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention; I remember that he made a similar intervention in 2017, and again in 2023, on just that point, based on the work his Committee had done. The Secretary of State has now introduced a draft remedial order to eliminate those parts of the Bill that are deemed to be incompatible. As he knows—I have written to him twice on this subject—the official Opposition do not believe that that remedial order is appropriate, and certainly not yet. That is because earlier this year the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene in the case of Dillon before the Supreme Court, specifically on the issue of compatibility. On 15 October that intervention was heard, and if those arguments are accepted, the Supreme Court has the power to quash the declarations of incompatibility. That means that the Secretary of State has no legal basis at this time for that remedial order. He has acted—or rather, if he pushes it to a vote, he will be acting—ultra vires, because under section 10 of the Human Rights Act the Government can only issue such an order unless and until all appeals in relation to the declarations of incompatibility have been “determined or abandoned”. In this case, they have not been, and the Government must not call a vote on the order unless and until they have been. I hope that the Minister will offer some clarity on the next steps during his closing remarks. The Conservative party has been clear: the European convention on human rights should no longer be considered an obstacle to doing the right thing. It is not a holy text, and its jurisprudence is forcing Governments to do unholy things. Since legal advice of the highest order has now twice shown that the United Kingdom can leave the convention without breaking the 1998 agreement, this is what the next Conservative Government will do. The current Government have previously said that they have to legislate because the legacy Act did not have cross-community consent, but where is that cross-community consent today? It does not exist. If there had been a cross-community solution on legacy, Stormont would have found it. I suspect that no solution is to be found, which means it is the responsibility of this House to protect those now abused by the system. The Bill will fail to do that. It will not help victims to find out the truth. It will not give comfort to our veterans. It will reopen old wounds and allow infection to come in.

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

  More

  I think the hon. Lady is misunderstanding my point. The point that I am making is that when it is clear that vexatious complaints and vexatious investigations can begin, then everyone who served feels under threat— [ Interruption . ] For the benefit of Hansard , the hon. Lady said from a sedentary position, “Are they vexatious?” It is very clear that the case that was heard in Belfast last month was a vexatious complaint. The judge said it was “ludicrous” and that it should never have come anywhere near the court, but for four years a member of the special forces was pursued, and all his comrades and colleagues thought that if such a thing could happen, they might have the same legal action brought against them in future.

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

  More

  I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add: “this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill because, by removing the conditional immunity scheme introduced by the last Government in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, and reintroducing inquests and restoring civil claims for Troubles-related incidents halted by that Act, the Bill will lead to veterans once again being dragged before the courts facing potential prosecution for incidents that happened decades ago, while former paramilitaries are largely untouched; because the Government’s published list of so-called protections for veterans remains unclear and not fulfilled by this Bill; because the Government has not confirmed which of these protections will also apply to former paramilitaries; because the Bill does not prevent former paramilitaries holding key roles associated with the Legacy Commission; and because the Bill risks undermining the morale of, as well as both recruitment to and retention within, the armed forces at a time of significantly heightened international tensions and threats to the national security of the UK.” I would like to start by paying tribute to those brave souls who served in Operation Banner—the longest and, surely, one of the most difficult operations that our military forces ever undertook. I know that some of them are in the Gallery today, and some of them are sitting behind me. I would like to thank them with my whole heart for the service they gave and extend that same thanks to the brave men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The generations who have come after cannot fully understand what they went through, what they saw and what they did for peace. The last Government chose to draw a line under the litigation of the troubles, and today that line is being erased. Our legacy Act was a response to the emerging legal reality—no less true than it was three years ago—that the legal system was ceasing to provide meaningful answers to victims, while dragging veterans through the courts in clearly vexatious cases. The process itself had become a means of punishment, and time is reducing the chances of convictions. We created a new means of providing victims and their families with information—one that offered the opportunity to claim conditional immunity in return for information retrieval. That process is now up and running, and thanks to the excellent work of Sir Declan Morgan, to whom I pay tribute, I understand the ICRIR is currently considering about 250 cases and is taking on more every month. Confidence is growing; it is working. But the Bill before us today strips out the conditional immunity introduced by the legacy Act and reopens the door to vexatious litigation against veterans, while leaving it very unlikely that terrorists will be prosecuted. The Secretary of State himself has confirmed that there have been only five terrorist convictions in the past 13 years, and as time passes, the chance of successful prosecutions will reduce further and further. In the past year alone, we have debated the manifest failings of the current system in this House: the terrible decision in the Clonoe inquest; the 1991 incident in court in Belfast last month, where a special forces soldier was acquitted by a judge, who said the case was “ludicrous”, but not before the man in question had been investigated for four years; and, of course, the case of soldier F, where no conviction was possible, despite one of the longest inquiries in British political history. The legislation before us today will perpetuate disappointment for victims and despair for veterans. The Government are claiming that they have no choice but to legislate. They are making that claim for three reasons. The first is that they object to conditional immunity. The second is their belief that the legacy Act is incompatible with the European convention on human rights, and the third is the fact that the legacy Act lacked cross-party support.

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

  More

  rose—

• 3 Nov 2025 · “Soldier F” Trial Verdict · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I, too, begin with a thought for the families left bereft by the events of that day in 1972. It was a Conservative Prime Minister who, 15 years ago, said to the House that what happened on Bloody Sunday was both “unjustified” and “wrong”, and “on behalf of our country—I am deeply sorry.”— —[ Official Report , 15 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 740.] He did so, of course, after the publication of the Saville inquiry, which took 12 years and cost in today’s money about £325 million. Even after such an extensive inquiry, there has been no conviction. Indeed, Judge Patrick Lynch told Belfast Crown court that the evidence fell well short of the standard required. He said: “A 53-year-old statement cannot be cross-examined, nor can I assess the demeanour of a sheet of A4 paper”. That goes to the heart of what my party argued when passing our legacy Act. As time goes by, it becomes vanishingly difficult to obtain convictions. The 1998 agreement was 27 years ago, and the ceasefires were 31 years ago. That of course has implications for the Government’s troubles Bill, which will reopen many cases where there is no prospect of resolution, only a prospect of ongoing legal process. Under the Bill, there is almost no possibility of bringing terrorists to court, but it ultimately leaves open the likelihood of ever more vexatious complaints against our veterans. We are talking about claims like that thrown out by the High Court in Belfast last month; the judge described the challenge as “utterly divorced from reality”, although not before a former special forces soldier had to endure four years of investigation. Last week, it was reported that a similar case, from 53 years ago, may soon go to trial. No wonder that on Friday, Special Air Service veterans published a letter in the Financial Times , in which they said that “‘legacy’ has become an industry that keeps wounds open while rewriting history.” We ask the Secretary of State to think again.

• 3 Nov 2025 · “Soldier F” Trial Verdict · Hansard source

  More

  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the verdict in the trial of Soldier F.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way one more time, and then I will make some progress.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  That is the million-dollar question. Why were the Government not prepared to say something that was manifestly evidentially true to all and sundry? The third example is that on 15 October, the Prime Minister said that the deputy National Security Adviser acted entirely independently, without consultation with Ministers or special advisers, and without political involvement. However, the CPS has now made it clear that there were multiple discussions about what the DNSA would and would not say, starting with one such discussion on 3 July 2025. Moreover, the DNSA’s first witness statement was sighted by “the then National Security Adviser and the…Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary”, and “sent to the…Prime Minister through No.10 private office”, including special advisers.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House calls on the Government to release the minutes of the meeting chaired by the National Security Adviser on 1 September 2025, at which the prosecution of the two alleged Chinese spies, since dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service, was discussed, including all actions arising from that meeting; and further calls on the Government to publish the minutes of all other meetings where the case was discussed, whether by officials or with Ministers, all relevant correspondence between the Crown Prosecution Service and the Government and between Departments, including correspondence between the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Cabinet Office, Attorney General’s Office, and the Treasury, and advice provided to the Prime Minister relating to the China spy case. The purpose of this Opposition day debate and of our motion is very simple: transparency—that is all that we ask for. The basic facts are that two men were arrested on suspicion of having spied on hon. Members of this House for China, and the Director of Public Prosecutions has acknowledged that this appears to have been a “gross breach of trust” against hon. Members, yet the case against the two men collapsed because, in the words of the senior Treasury counsel, Tom Little KC, the case was “effectively unsustainable”; it was brought to “a crashing halt” because the Government’s own witness, the deputy National Security Adviser, refused to provide the fatal piece of evidence. Mr Little had what he called a million-dollar question: was China an active threat to national security? The deputy National Security Adviser repeatedly refused to say yes. The Government effectively refused to say what was patently apparent to anyone remotely alive to the facts of the case. This House has every reason to be told why they refused, and why, for example, the Prime Minister did not intervene to prevent the case collapsing, when we know he was warned that it was unlikely to proceed. It is also reported that the Home Secretary tried to intervene. We do not call for the publication of this material lightly. We know it is an extraordinary measure to call for the Government to publish documents relating to the formation of policy, but this is an extraordinary event. We have reached this point because the Government have been unable or unwilling to answer basic questions about what they knew when, and why they acted as they did. They have hidden behind civil servants and advisers, when it is Ministers who are supposed to make decisions, and in doing so, they have brought the actions and decisions of those advisers and officials into the spotlight in a way that is most irregular. Just as worryingly, there has been a persistent inaccuracy and inconsistency in the Government’s statements, to the point where this House can no longer trust a word of theirs. There are a number of examples. First, on 13 October, the Security Minister denied in this House that the mega-mandarin meeting on 1 September, which is the subject of our motion, took place. Last week, the Solicitor General admitted that the meeting did take place. We now know that it was led by the National Security Adviser and attended by the Cabinet Secretary, the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, senior representation from the Home Office and the Attorney General’s office, and the chief of MI5, but we still do not know what was said there, what was agreed or why the Government tried to deny its existence.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and the Director of Public Prosecutions has been very clear and consistent on that point.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes a very pertinent point and is personally very experienced in such things. It has been reported that the National Security Adviser chaired that meeting. That is to say that he was taking a very active role in what was going on. That is why it is incredibly important that the Government come clean with us about what happened in that meeting, who attended and what was decided there.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  You didn’t know that!

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  I think there are basically two possible answers to my hon. Friend’s question. The first is that the Government cannot tell their elbow from their posterior; the second is that they do not want this House to know the truth. Either way, on a matter as serious as this, it is incredibly important that we get to the truth. Tonight’s motion presents the Government with an opportunity to be entirely transparent with us and set out the facts of the case as they were at the time—particularly on 1 October, when this all-important meeting took place.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  I think we all find it difficult to believe that the deputy National Security Adviser was left entirely to his own devices. A fourth example is that on 20 October, the Minister for Security, who is in his place, told the House: “Final evidence went in in August, and I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that there is nothing the Prime Minister or any Minister could have done thereafter.” —[ Official Report , 20 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 640.] We now know that there were meetings between the CPS and the Government on 3 and 9 September to attempt to rescue the case. Why did the Security Minister tell the House something that was not correct?

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is right: the National Security Adviser showed a great reluctance to attend. I understand that he has now agreed to attend, although the report I read said that he was going to attend in camera. If that report is correct—the Minister has the opportunity to say it is not true—I am not sure that that is the best level of transparency that this House might expect. The second instance of inconsistency and inaccuracy that we draw attention to is from 7 October, when the Prime Minister told journalists that what mattered in this case was the designation of China as it had been in 2023, when the offences were alleged to have occurred. However, last week, on 24 October, the Director of Public Prosecutions said that that was categorically not the case. He said: “The test was…positively not what the then Government was prepared to, or did, say in public about China…but rather whether China was—as a matter of fact—an active threat to national security.” This is a most important point, and one that was revisited yesterday. There is a very serious question about why the deputy National Security Adviser believed that he would “need to be in line with government policy at the time”, when the Crown Prosecution Service said that it did not need to know about policy, but about the facts. The Minister should explain to the House why the deputy National Security Adviser chose to ignore the CPS in this case. He should also tell us whether he thinks the deputy National Security Adviser complied with civil procedure rule 35, which requires him to assist the court and overrides any other obligation.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  I have always admired the shine on the Minister’s brass neck, and never so much as at this moment. I remember the Brexit debates, when he and many of the other gentlemen and ladies on the Labour Benches overrode legal privilege and asked for classified documents week after week. Members of this House may have been spied on, and the Government have a duty to be transparent. They cannot hide behind anything, given that they have previously asked for similar documents. Make them available!

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  The previous Government were clear on a number of occasions that China was a threat, but if the hon. Gentleman had been listening to what I just said, he would have heard that the Director of Public Prosecutions said last week that it was categorically not a question of what the last Government said. Now that I have the hon. Gentleman’s attention, I will repeat for his benefit what the DPP said: that the question was “whether China was—as a matter of fact—an active threat to national security.” It was not a question of policy; it was a matter of fact. [ Interruption. ] I am not going to go through it a third time.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  Ministers do get involved; it is their job to be involved. Ministers represent the Government. Ministers represent all of us. It is not good enough for the Government to say that they are entirely powerless in this instance—they are not. A fifth example is that yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary said that he did not believe that the chief of MI5 had described China as a threat. On 16 October 2025, Ken McCallum said: “Do Chinese state actors present a UK national security threat? And the answer is, of course, yes they do every day.” How on earth did the Cabinet Secretary not know that? This issue is of paramount importance. There are many other such examples. The Government have an opportunity to be clear with us today, not just about the meetings and the dealings of the past six months, but on their position as it stands. Will the Minister tell us what the material difference is between “a range of threats” and “an active security threat”? The deputy National Security Adviser was keen to make that point yesterday. Perhaps most importantly of all, do the Government believe that China is an active security threat? If not, what would it take to cross that threshold? It is time for the Government to publish all the details so that we can see what really happened here. I know that the Government will protest their innocence and claim that it is all the fault of the CPS, or the last Government, or the legislation, just as they have tried to do for weeks, but such pleas and protests are no good reason for them to refuse to publish the material we are requesting today. This House may have been spied upon. This House has a right to straight answers. This House has a right to see under the bonnet when the safety and privacy of its Members may have been compromised. This House has a right to know the Government’s real position and the Government’s real agenda. If this Government have nothing to hide, they should hide nothing from this House.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman will have a perfectly good opportunity to question the people responsible in a few moments’ time. The point is that the Government have been unclear, inconsistent and inaccurate, and we are giving them an opportunity to clear this up right now.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for giving us a degree more clarity. Perhaps he will give us a degree more clarity again. Was he told that the alleged case of spying against Members of Parliament was due to collapse before the information became public and, if so, who told him?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I believe the right hon. Gentleman, but I find that answer extraordinary, and I think he should find it extraordinary, too. As we have already said, the right hon. Gentleman chairs the National Security Council. He oversees the Cabinet Office’s national security secretariat. The Prime Minister knew, the Home Secretary knew, the Cabinet Secretary knew, the chief of MI5 knew, the Attorney General’s Office knew, but the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister did not. Has he asked why he was not told, and what answer was he given?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Strengthening National Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the new Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to his post. I know that he is one of the most able performers in the Government, and he is now in one of the most important and under- appreciated roles in Government. For the good of the country, I wish him well. He is also the first Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. We Conservatives congratulate him on how well Downing Street has been run since he took over—we have enjoyed it greatly. Phase 2 is proving to be a real belter. On the alleged spying on Members of this House, Downing Street has revealed that the Prime Minister became aware on 13 September that the case was about to collapse. When was the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister first told that the trial was unlikely to proceed, and who told him?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Strengthening National Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  Okay, I will repeat the question for the Security Minister, because either he did not hear it or he chose not to answer it. My question was very specific. We know that the Prime Minister was told on 13 September that the trial was unlikely to proceed—Downing Street has told us that. My question is: when was the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told, and who told him? He oversees the Cabinet Office’s National Security Secretariat, and he chairs the National Security Council. When was he told?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023: Replacement · Hansard source

  More

  I invite the Secretary of State to look at his own legislation, because clauses 89 and 90 are markedly similar to the sections that we left him. We on this side of the House may have won the battle over this, but we still have not won the war to protect our veterans from vexatious complaints. Is it not the truth that if it had not been for months of campaigning by the Conservatives, the shadow Defence team, the media and reports from Policy Exchange, which may now have saved the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds, Labour would have stuck to its plan and allowed Mr Adams and his comrades to sue anyway?