Alex Burghart MP: speeches

Speeches

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman has married so well. Of course, life peers do a fantastic job of scrutiny—they do so every day, and I enjoy reading their lordships’ Hansard . What we are talking about is a group of 88 hereditary peers, who have done a very good job in scrutinising Government legislation, but who are being removed, through no fault of their own, simply because they do not fit with the Labour’s party’s views. We believe that that is wrong. I turn now to amendment 25 in my name, which concerns the very simple Conservative principle that constitutional change should not be rushed, and should certainly not be proposed for political advantage. We have inherited a constitution that has evolved through the generations and has the distinction of working. The current constitution of the other place has been effective in bringing expertise and a degree of independence to the work of legislative scrutiny. Like much of the uncodified British constitution, one might not have created such a system from scratch, but the tried-and-tested checks and balances of the House of Lords have complemented the work of the elected Commons. The Lords does not claim to be a democratic Chamber, and that is the point: our House has primacy. We can see the dangers of ill-though-through constitutional change. None of us in this place will forget the difficulties caused by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, a foolish measure introduced by the coalition Government that created all manner of unintended consequences. It was rightly repealed by the Conservatives in the last Parliament to reinstate tried and tested long-standing conventions. Let that be a warning to the Government as they meddle, in the name of petty politics, with long-standing conventions that work. Walter Bagehot eloquently described the “dignified” and “efficient” elements of our constitution. In a sense, the hereditary peers represent both thanks to the way in which they diligently scrutinise legislation. Labour must take care that pulling on one thread—in this case, that of the hereditary peers—does not unravel a great deal more. Amendment 25 seeks to ensure that there is proper scrutiny of the changes to the composition of our legislature. It makes the simple request that a Joint Committee of both Houses should be allowed to scrutinise and report on the Government’s so-called “immediate modernisation” plans, and that this place should agree before legislation comes into force. That plan would be led by the Conservative principle that constitutional change should not be rushed but carefully considered, and implemented only if the House is confident that it will work. Amendment 26, which stands in my name, seeks clarity on the issue of disputed peerage claims. However, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, and I understand that existing mechanisms are in place. For that reason, we will not press it. To conclude, we on the Conservative Benches think that this Bill is a sham of reform. It is fundamentally misconceived, focusing on the composition of the other place rather than on how we can ensure that it best performs its vital role of scrutiny. This is a Government and a Prime Minister who do not stand up to scrutiny—a Government led by politics, not by principles. My amendments seek to reinsert some principles into this process: that promises to both Parliament and the electorate should be kept, and that we should legislate only for what works, not for political advantage. I see no reason why the Government cannot accept the amendments today.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, my right hon. Friend is one step ahead of me. It is not that we seek a comprehensive reform of the House of Lords. It is that the Labour party promised that this would come. The Government promised that they would leave the remaining hereditary peers there until they had a plan for comprehensive reform, but that comprehensive plan is missing. Labour is throwing out the stone in the shoe of the accepted hereditary peers and dodging the hard, principled questions about how to ensure that the House of Lords functions most effectively.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  What would you give him?

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He strikes at the critical failure of the legislation, which is that really the Government are seeking to remove Members of the upper House who happen not to take the Labour Whip. What we all agree on—or what I hope we all agree on—is that the role of the Lords is that of a chamber of scrutiny, and we must welcome more expert scrutiny. We have seen from the behaviour, attendance and work of hereditary peers that they are an intrinsic part of that scrutiny, so it is highly suspicious that the Labour party should seek to remove them. Indeed, if we set the precedent that the Government of the day can remove Members of one House because they do not agree with them, where will it end? Those Cross Bencher hereditary peers who will be axed by the measures have, as far as I can see, done an excellent job, yet they are not being given another way out such as that suggested by my right hon. Friend.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to speak to the Bill in Committee. When we last discussed it, on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden)—a very great man—set out why the Opposition do not approve of the way in which the Government are going about this change. We believe that this nervous little Bill is misconceived and perhaps, at its worst, dishonest.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I echo the words of the Paymaster General in thanking everyone who has spoken this afternoon. It has been a good natured and interesting debate. I want to echo some words of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) in praise of the House of Lords. When I first came to this place, I bumped into Lord Young of Cookham, who I had known a few years previously, and I said, “How are you getting on in the upper House as a Minister?” He said, “It’s rather harder there than it is down your end.” When I asked him what he meant, he said, “Well, you see, when I stood up as a Minister in the House of Commons, I normally felt that, with the support of my officials, I was probably the best informed person in the room. But when you get to the Lords, you face five former Secretaries of State, three former heads of the civil service and people with expertise from across the sector, and what you find there is real scrutiny.” I love this place and I do not wish to take anything away from it, but I do not wish to see it replicated; one of us is enough. That is why, despite the fact that the Opposition disagree with many of the things that the Labour Government are doing, we have been pleased to see that they have edged away from their long-standing commitment to an elected upper House. An elected upper House would replicate this place unnecessarily. It would inevitably get in the way of the primacy of the Commons and make the passage of law harder. It was very significant that, on 5 March, Lord Mandelson made an intervention with the Lord Speaker—on his very popular podcast—and said that the proposals of the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, for constitutional reform had “barely been put in the oven…let alone…baked.” I am very pleased that the Labour Government have taken that on board. That said, the Bill in its present form cannot have the support of the Opposition. The Labour party has reneged on the solemn promise it made in 1998 not to get rid of the remaining hereditary peers until it brought forward a comprehensive plan for a reformed upper House. Many Government Members have said that the hereditary peers sit in the House of Lords by duty of right; well, that is not entirely right. The reason the remaining hereditary peers are in the House of Lords is that the Labour Government put them there. That was the agreement that was reached in 1998. The remaining hereditary peers—who already sit in the Lords and scrutinise, night after night, the legislation introduced by this House—should not be treated in this way. Had the Government respected their position and made provision for them in a reformed Chamber, it would be very hard—not impossible, but very hard—to oppose this legislation. However, as it is, the Government are seeking to remove established scrutineers in order to replace them with Labour appointees, and we cannot support that. The Minister’s argument that the Conservatives can nominate replacements is obviously not entirely genuine. Although we can put people forward, we cannot guarantee that they will go into the upper House. The Government could make that commitment tonight, but they have not done so. They have said nothing about the 33 Cross-Bench hereditary peers who will be removed by the legislation. Labour has broken its promise from 1998, and it has broken its promise to bring forward all its reforms immediately. The Conservative party will not support it.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The point that we are making through our amendments is that the Labour party is undermining a key facet of the upper House: scrutiny. We are talking about a body of 88 hereditary peers who have already been performing that job, and have done nothing wrong, but are losing that job because of the measures introduced by the Bill.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is very generous of the hon. Gentleman to say that the Prime Minister will create 40 peers at his command—I had no idea that the hon. Gentleman’s career was progressing at such a rate. We all know that that is not what is happening here; we all know that, in the coded words of the Minister, it is goodbye to the 88 hereditary peers, whose voices will not be heard any more. Our position is that it is time for a constitutional conference to consider these matters, and that the major issue is how to have an upper House that does not challenge the primacy of the Commons in conducting proper scrutiny of Government legislation in order to improve it.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My point is more that the Government are seeking to remove highly experienced people without offering another way out. We would have been happy to debate that, but we are instead seeing an attempt to deliberately cut out a group of peers from the constitution.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way one more time and then I will endeavour to conclude my remarks.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, wisdom from the Deepings. The truth is that this will not make the upper House a better Chamber for scrutiny. All it will do is remove some of the Labour party’s opponents from that House. The Labour party promised in its manifesto that “The next Labour government will…bring about an immediate modernisation” of the Lords. The manifesto promised that that modernisation would consist of a mandatory retirement age of 80, a new participation requirement, a strengthening of “the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed” from that House, reform of the appointments process, and improvement of “the national and regional balance of the second chamber.” Although we on the Conservative Benches might not agree with those proposals, the Labour party promised to introduce them immediately, but the only immediate modernisation being undertaken is to remove a group of hard-working and diligent peers, including 33 Cross Benchers and their Convenor, for the crime of not being Labour party placements.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  It has been a long day, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope you will forgive me. But enough of such pleasantries. This is a bad Budget. It is as bad as bad can be. At its heart is a decision to tax businesses hard—very hard—and through them to tax workers until the pips scream. It is a Budget that sees the total effective tax rate on low-earning roles increase to its highest level since 2010, hitting working people hard, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury admitted on Sky television on Friday. We know that taxing business is a bad idea. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) said earlier, businesses and working people are the dynamo of the economy. If we denude and degrade them, there is nothing for public services to feed on. But we discover, as this Budget unravels, that it is not just businesses that are being taxed. It is GPs, it is care homes, it is hospices—as the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) pointed out—and it is dentists, charities, childcare, higher education and school support staff. I understand that Labour Members will want to support big tax rises in the Budget, but before they vote on them, I ask them to consider whether they want to vote for tax rises on those services. In response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who is sitting behind me, the Health Secretary said that he would listen to GPs, but either the money from the national insurance contributions is in the Budget, or it is not. Either it is in the envelope, or it is not. Has the thinking been done on this? At present, it would seem that all those services are in limbo. Yesterday, during Education questions, the Education Secretary was asked by both the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien), whether school support staff would be affected. She could not answer. These are serious questions, and the Government must know the answers. His Majesty’s Treasury must have the data, and it must publish that data. So let me first ask the Chief Secretary if he will publish figures showing who will be hit by his national insurance contribution tax rises, what the costs will be to the services concerned, and whether they will receive compensation. As I said, the Treasury must have the data, and if the Chief Secretary does not have it at his fingertips, I ask him to put it in the Library of the House of Commons as soon as possible. We all want better public services; the question is, do we think we can get them if the services that I have mentioned are being taxed? As the Chief Secretary said on television the other day, without reform more generally, money will just follow money out of the door. We are told that Labour has a plan for improving the NHS. We know that, because the Prime Minister told us in a speech on 11 September that in the spring he would have a plan. That plan, he said, would contain a transition to a digital NHS, moving more care from hospitals to communities, and focusing efforts on prevention over sickness. Who could argue with those sensible measures? It was good to read in the Red Book at a time of the Budget that His Majesty’s Government intend to: “Invest more than £2 billion in NHS technology and digital to run essential services and drive NHS productivity improvements”, which “will deliver 2% productivity next year.” That is very sensible, but it gives rise to a strange sense of déjà vu—and then one remembers that in the spring Budget this year the then Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), announced £3.4 billion in additional funding for the NHS to deliver 2% annual increases in productivity through new technology and digital across the health service in England. So part 1 of Labour’s three-point plan is not new at all. It is a Conservative initiative, already accounted for by a Conservative Chancellor. Let us proceed to part 2, moving more care to communities. On that, the Red Book says absolutely nothing. As for part 3, prevention, there is a small increase in tobacco duty and a vaping products duty. Not content with taxing us into growth, the Chancellor intends to tax us into health—but it is all right, because apparently the Prime Minister has a plan to have a plan in the spring. I will tell you a funny story about the spring, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I was first working as a parliamentary researcher, there was some long-forgotten report that the Department for Children, Schools and Families was producing. We asked when it would be published, and we were told, “In the spring.” We asked, “When does spring end?” The Department told us, “When summer begins.” In that tale is an insight into the way in which Labour Governments think. It is tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, and never does reform come. That is the plan for the NHS. It is relatively well developed, next to the non-existent plan for welfare reform. My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), who is now the shadow Chancellor, started that work, but silence has now descended. More workers are needed to grow the economy—the OBR was quite clear on that. The Chancellor has chosen tax over employment, which will not deliver growth. The Government’s plan has been to tax, to spend, to think a bit, to set up a website, to get told to serve waffles for every meal, and to think a bit more. Then they will see whether any money is left, they will discover that there is not, and they will need to increase taxes again. What is becoming painfully apparent is that Labour wasted its time in opposition. It had 14 years to come up with a plan for the NHS, but it did not, and now it is scrabbling to find one. By the time we see the Prime Minister’s fabled plan, more than 10% of this Parliament will have passed, and very little will have been done that was not already being done before. The Prime Minister said there would be no extra money without reform, but that is precisely what he has given the country. That is the price of political complacency. It is the price of thinking that governing is easy. It is the price of believing your own hype, and of failing to be honest with yourselves. Some people said that the Labour party was trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes, and I was one of them. I thought that behind the great ambiguities of the Labour manifesto there would be a game plan, but game plan has come there none. We have £140 billion of extra borrowing, and £10 billion more in higher debt repayments. Mortgage payments are up, and there is austerity for employers and workers. A loveless landslide has become a loveless tax rise for the British people, and they will not wear it.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a great pleasure to play a part in bringing today’s interesting debate to a close. I take this opportunity to welcome the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to his post—I know he has been in post for a few months, but we have not had the chance to get to know each other. I must say I have been very impressed him. He is a fluent speaker. He is good on detail. That is not sarcasm—I was once warned by Hansard that sarcasm did not come across well in the written record—but I know what it is to be sent out to defend the indefensible. I can see that he is developing a fine skill and that he is some way on his way to mastering it. I just gently say to your man starting out in his Front Bench career in government not to get too good at it, because you will find your party will give you ample opportunities to defend the indefensible in the years ahead.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister not think that it is important that hon. Members see those figures, to see how much the services I mentioned will be taxed, before they vote on this Budget? Would that not be transparent?

• 23 Oct 2024 · Budget Sustainability Plan · Hansard source

  More

  It is very generous of you to call me again, Mr Speaker. The Executive’s draft programme for government acknowledges that policing numbers in Northern Ireland are at an all-time low, a situation that the chief constable has described as dangerous. The draft programme commits to increasing numbers in line with New Decade, New Approach. Is the Secretary of State convinced that the budget sustainability plan is sufficient to achieve that aim?

• 23 Oct 2024 · Budget Sustainability Plan · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State is of course right that policing in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter, but national security is not. If we look at policing numbers right now, which are at an all-time low, we are reminded that his party’s manifesto made explicit commitments to improving public services in Northern Ireland. Will the Government commit to ensuring that policing in Northern Ireland is sufficient to keep the people of Northern Ireland safe and maintain national security, and to protecting the additional security funding of £32 million a year that comes direct from His Majesty’s Treasury?

• 23 Oct 2024 · Windsor Framework: Travel with Pets · Hansard source

  More

  I was intending to ask a supplementary to Question 4.

• 23 Oct 2024 · Windsor Framework: Travel with Pets · Hansard source

  More

  The Executive’s draft programme for government acknowledges that policing numbers in Northern Ireland are at an all-time low, a situation that Chief Constable Boutcher has described as dangerous. The draft programme commits to increasing numbers in line with New Decade, New Approach. Is the Secretary of State convinced that the budget sustainability plan is sufficient to achieve that aim?

• 9 Oct 2024 · Northern Ireland City Deals · Hansard source

  More

  As the House will know, on the evening of Friday 13 September—the day after we went into recess—the Government took it upon themselves to make a number of announcements affecting Northern Ireland: the cancellation of the Casement Park project; the decision that Sean Brown’s family will not be given a public inquiry into his murder; and the subject of this urgent question, the pausing of four Northern Ireland city deals. It is quite something to instantaneously unite all the political parties in Northern Ireland, but that was the feat achieved by the Government on the evening of Friday the 13th. The House will be aware of how crucial the city deals are, providing significant investment to boost economic growth, create jobs and enhance infrastructure and bringing together Westminster, Belfast, local councils and private investment. We are pleased that the following day, after considerable confusion, the Government U-turned and announced that the Belfast region city deal and the Derry and Strabane city deal would go ahead, but the other two regional growth deals—the Causeway Coast and Glens deal and the Mid South West deal—now sit in limbo. Critically, those deals cover areas that have not had the same levels of investment in recent years as big cities. One need only look at the empty shops in Enniskillen and Armagh to understand that these deals are badly needed. Can the Secretary of State tell the House why was the decision to pause taken at such a time and why was it announced in such a way? Following that announcement, why was there then a U-turn on two of the deals but not the other two? What criteria were used to make that decision? The Secretary of State has referred to money. He knows that the so-called black hole, for which the Government have provided no breakdown, is partially of Labour’s making, given the above-inflation pay rise that it has chosen to award to the unions. He will know that the money involved is, in the world of the Exchequer, not that significant and, crucially, will deliver major returns to Northern Ireland and to the UK. I ask the Secretary of State for two things. The first is an apology for how the matter was handled; I know he would not have wanted it to happen in the way it did, but someone should take responsibility for how the House and the people of Northern Ireland have been treated. The second is that, in negotiating with the Treasury in the run-up to the Budget, he will be the lead advocate for un-pausing those city deals.

• 9 Oct 2024 · Northern Ireland City Deals · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Northern Ireland city deals.

• 11 Sept 2024 · Patrick Finucane Murder · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for advance sight of it and his courtesy call this morning. I am particularly grateful to him for bringing it forward before recess. I know the deadline that the Court gave him was 27 September, so it was important that we had the chance to hear the Government’s position and ask questions before we rose for conference recess. The murder of Patrick Finucane, like so many murders during the troubles, was a dreadful act of violence that must not be forgotten. The Opposition stand by the findings of the 2012 de Silva report that while there was no evidence of an overarching state conspiracy in the case of his murder, there were shocking levels of collusion—something for which the then Prime Minister, now Lord Cameron, rightly apologised to the House in that year. I fully appreciate the Secretary of State’s desire to bring the matter to a close after a very long period, and I know that a full public inquiry will do it, but I wish to ask serious questions about the decision to choose a full public inquiry over one of the alternatives that he mentioned. It is clear that the Finucane family, who have suffered so much, are owed a further and deeper investigation. That much was made clear by the Supreme Court’s finding in February 2019, when it noted that the de Silva report had not been able to compel witnesses or take its evidence in public. In other words, it had not been article 2 compliant. However, as the Secretary of State said, this year the Belfast High Court concluded that the ICRIR was capable of conducting an article 2-compliant investigation and was sufficiently independent to do so. My first question to the Secretary of State is: given that the ICRIR has powers to compel witnesses and take evidence in public, what is it that a full public inquiry will be able to do that the ICRIR cannot? This is important because the ICRIR is already fully staffed and active and could begin work quickly, whereas the establishment of a full public inquiry and the building of that team will inevitably take time. Given the opportunity for further delay, I ask him to set out for the House what steps he is taking to ensure that the public inquiry is conducted as quickly as possible. Can he give an undertaking to have appointed a chair and agreed terms of reference before the end of the year, say? In his statement, he referred to the High Court proceedings, where the judge suggested that an inquiry could “build on the significant investigative foundations which are already in place”. I hope that will mean that we can have terms of reference relatively fast. Similarly, in the Secretary of State’s conversations with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, has the Secretary of State set an expectation of time and costs? We know from previous public inquiries that unless these things are considered early on, the inquiries can take a long time and cost a great deal. On the issue of the ICRIR itself, I am pleased to hear that the commission has the Secretary of State’s confidence. We agree that it is showing itself to be an excellent and effective body with a highly capable chair. I note that it was also the creation of the previous Government. It was created, as he knows, by the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which his Government have committed to repeal. Indeed, the House will appreciate that a large part of that legislation is given over to the creation of the ICRIR. I ask him to reassure us that he has no intention of repealing that part of the Act. Returning to the public inquiry that has just been announced, there is one other issue on which we should seek clarity today. In his statement, the Secretary of State referred to the “unique circumstances” of the case. It is important that we understand exactly what those unique circumstances are, because it is important that the Government do not unwittingly set a precedent for many more public inquiries. As a veteran of the Cabinet Office, I became acutely aware of a danger that public inquiries could cease to be the exception and become the rule. Given that there are thought to be thousands of murders from the troubles still unsolved, there is a risk of setting a precedent that would make inquiries the rule. There will be those who ask that if there is to be a full public inquiry in one murder case, why not in another, or in many others? To avoid that happening if this case is, as the Secretary of State says, genuinely unique, the Government have a responsibility to set out why that is. We must not risk turning the system of public inquiries into a more routine process. I am sure that he will feel the same way, and I ask him to make that commitment. I thank him for his statement.

• 24 Jul 2024 · First Minister and Deputy First Minister · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place. I know he brings considerable qualities to his role, and I look forward to working with him on behalf of all the people in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to his predecessor, the right hon. Chris Heaton-Harris, who did such an excellent job and is much missed on the Conservative Benches. I very much welcome the positive meetings that the Secretary of State has had with all parties since he was appointed. Following those meetings, may I ask him to reassure the House that on his watch, he will be an active supporter of the Union and an advocate for it?

• 24 Jul 2024 · First Minister and Deputy First Minister · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer. The Government’s manifesto states that they are “committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith”. However, that manifesto did not mention the Command Paper, which was vital in getting Stormont back. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that Command Paper contained a number of measures to strengthen the Union—the East-West Council and InterTrade UK, to name but two. Will the Government faithfully implement all those commitments in the Command Paper, which are designed to strengthen the Union?