Alex Burghart MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 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—