Alex Burghart MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 10 Sept 2026 · EU-UK Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister to his post. I very much look forward to him updating the House on his negotiating mandate and his conversations with the European trade commissioner. Earlier this summer, the Prime Minister said that it would be wrong to rerun divisive arguments about rejoining the EU, but, soon after, the Minister refused to rule out rejoin being an option in the next Labour manifesto. Will he tell the House: will Labour rule out rejoin featuring in its next manifesto? [ Interruption. ]

• 10 Sept 2026 · EU-UK Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  It is perfectly reasonable to rule things out. The Minister has had plenty of time to talk to No. 10 since his interview on Sky. I am sure the Labour party would rule out many things at this stage—I am sure it would rule out leaving the European convention on human rights, getting rid of net-zero targets and bringing back the death penalty—so why is it so hard for the Minister and the Government to rule out rejoining the EU?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Lady for her answer, but she did not answer my question. My question was about the income tax receipts that Ben Houchen will be allowed to retain. Over the summer, she said that he would not be allowed to use that to give rebates to local individuals and businesses. At the moment, councils already have the power to levy council tax discounts and business rate discounts. Why can mayors not do the same with income tax receipts?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Over the summer, the Prime Minister announced that mayors will keep a proportion of income tax receipts. Why will mayors like Conservative Mayor Ben Houchen not be allowed to use that money to cut taxes or offer rebates to local residents and businesses?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Rewiring the State · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the deputy Prime Minister for advance sight of her statement. I congratulate her on her appointment—it is a major achievement—and I look forward to working with her. I also congratulate the right hon. Lady on the wording of her statement. The phrase “rewiring the state” was first coined by the Leader of the Opposition in her leadership contest in the summer of 2024, and for a very good reason. The state does need rewiring; we agree on that. It is in urgent need of rewiring. It needs rewiring so that politicians can make decisions, it needs rewiring so that elected Governments can fulfil their mandates speedily, and it needs rewiring so that the state does not continue to grow ad infinitum. I know that the new Administration delight in nothing more than criticising the Blair Government. There were many reasons to criticise the Blair Government, but I wish to talk about just three: the first is quangos, the second is the nature of the Treasury and the third is the issue of legal constraint. Some of the worst of these problems are those of entrenched institutional inertia. We have seen over time how quangos have led to Ministers having less agency over important decisions that affect our constituents’ lives, so it is unfortunate that the deputy Prime Minister has today announced the creation of a massive new quango in the OneGov Delivery Agency. It will be in charge of Government recruitment, the civil service, pensions, shared services, security vetting, and so on. It will oversee the spending of considerable public money. It is a step in the wrong direction, because Ministers will retain responsibility for those services, but they will lose power over them. One of the reasons we have seen a proliferation of arm’s length bodies is that they have become a way of dodging excessive bureaucracy put on by the centre. In this instance, by the centre I really mean the Treasury. In its modern form, the Treasury is the behemoth created by Gordon Brown and designed to control Whitehall and to reduce departmental Ministers’ authority over their spend and their decisions. I was therefore genuinely interested to hear the right hon. Lady say over the summer that the Treasury was an “imperial finance department”. I had rather hoped that she was going to lead the charge to smash the barricades and destroy this terrible imperial power, but instead it appears that the empire has struck back. The briefing we were given initially was that No. 10 North was going to take control of growth. That seems to have been watered down. It is now rumoured that the Chancellor will give the speech on growth next week, and that the real power remains within No. 11 south. Will the right hon. Lady tell the House what powers, levers and budget she will have, as head of No. 10 North, to increase growth across the UK? Legal constraint is obviously a massive problem. Over the Blair years, laws such as the Human Rights Act 1998 and environmental legislation created endless sources of judicial review, which made it increasingly difficult for Government to do things—to build infrastructure and so on. That is a colossal drag on the capabilities of the state. If the right hon. Lady wishes to work on that, the Conservatives would be happy to work with her. In the statement, we heard a further exposition on devolution and the merits of No. 10 North. For that to be credible, the Government need to be able to give three basic guarantees. The first is that this will lead to an overall reduction in the size of the civil service. Despite promises made after the election, the opposite has happened under Labour; since the general election, the headcount of the civil service has risen by over 11,000. Will that be reduced, and by when? The second guarantee is on the nature of devolution—whether it is driven by the interests of local people, or just by those of one party. Over the summer, Labour councillors were allowed to redraw the boundaries of the authorities that they hope to represent, and to do so before any independent review by the Local Government Boundary Commission. Labour set about the biggest reorganisation of local government in 50 years with no mandate to do so, and announced it on the day before recess, with no scrutiny. One wonders how it can be localism if it is imposed—and imposed with constraints. Also over the summer, after the Prime Minister had made his interesting announcement about assigned income tax and retained business rates, the Mayor of the Tees Valley, Lord Houchen, said that he would create “a new rebate scheme to put money back into people’s pockets and let families keep more of the money they earn.” It is an excellent idea—an excellent Conservative idea—so excellent that it was immediately shot down by the deputy Prime Minister. Will she tell us whether combined authority mayors will be able to cut taxes or give rebates, so that working people can keep more of their money—or will this just lead to higher taxes? Otherwise, it appears that local mayors will not have the freedom to cut taxes; they will only have the freedom to increase them. They will only have the freedom to increase the size of the state, not reduce it. It appears that this Government are rewiring the state—but just to grow it. The last point is simply about cost. How much is this reorganisation costing? How much is being spent on No. 10 North? How much will need to be spent in order to power the localisation agenda that this Administration have put forward? Where is that money coming from? Is it coming from other Departments, in which case, from where, or is it coming from tax, and if so, which taxes? If it is coming from borrowing—well, I think the bond markets will have something to say about that. Until the Government can show that they are able to cut taxes and spending, so that we can get real growth across the country, I am afraid that all of this will just be another northern pipe-dream.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Troubles Legacy: Legislation · Hansard source

  More

  If the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill was any of those things, why did the former Armed Forces Minister, when he resigned last month, say that it remains “remains unfit for purpose. It risks failing the very veterans it claims to protect”? Why does the Secretary of State think that the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) said that?

• 8 Jul 2026 · Troubles Legacy: Legislation · Hansard source

  More

  It is clear from the Secretary of State’s answer that the former Armed Forces Minister quit because he could see that the Bill remains unfit for purpose and fails to protect the very veterans that it claims to protect. The Secretary of State must realise that there is no cross-party support in Northern Ireland for his legislation, and nor is there support in the Labour party for his legislation. Will he now accept that the Bill should not progress and that we should return to the legislation that the Conservatives brought forward?

• 2 Jul 2026 · Historical Forced Adoption · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for coming to the House to deliver the statement himself. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, we welcome what he has said and agree that whenever the state makes grave errors, it has a deep responsibility to apologise for what it did to those it has wronged. One hundred and eighty-five thousand children grew up in Britain without their mothers because of bad decisions and fundamentally flawed beliefs that treated unmarried mothers with a shame and stigma that is mercifully alien to us today. Those decisions and beliefs left a permanent mark on each and every one of those lives: on children separated from their mothers, and on the mothers whose children were taken away. As the Prime Minister said, this is a stain on our history. Bonds between mothers and children are the foundation of security and identity; indeed, perhaps the foundation of all we have. While I know from much experience that the act of adopting a child is among the greatest kindness one person can show another, and that many of those children will have gone on to be raised by loving families, there can be no doubt that they will also have carried a great grief across many years. One cannot help but be moved by the powerful testimonies that some have given. I will mention just one mother’s experience: the journey back from the hospital “was the longest I held my daughter—it was two hours—and it was like everything suddenly made sense. I just felt like this was absolutely right, and I wouldn’t let go of her…a woman appeared and said, ‘It’s time’…and she was taken from my arms and handed over. And she howled—I assume I did…and the following week they sent me back to school.” Thousands upon thousands of such experiences happened every day in every corner of our country over many years. Thankfully, in the years since, a huge amount has been done to ensure that such things cannot happen again in our country; change in adoption law and modern courts and legislation make a repeat of these injustices much less likely. We welcome the steps that the Prime Minister has outlined today and the fact that the Education Secretary is writing to local authorities and agencies setting the expectation that requests for records should be swiftly responded to. I am glad that that builds on the steps the previous Government tried to take to improve access to adoption records, offer post-adoption counselling and improve the complaints procedure for agencies. We hope that all these steps will make a difference to some whose experiences lie in the past, and to many in the future. I would like to ask the Prime Minister two questions. The Education Committee called for an assessment of international redress schemes. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether the Government are considering that? I welcome his announcement of support groups for mothers and adopted adults. Who will be responsible for establishing this service and what budget will be set aside for it? I thank the Prime Minister very much for his statement and repeat what he has said to those affected: the shame was never yours.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Northern Ireland Office · Hansard source

  More

  I will also begin by congratulating the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), on making sure that we got this debate. It is clear that without her and the support of her Committee, we would not be discussing this incredibly important issue on the Floor of the House. I repeat the remarks made by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson): the Select Committee in this Parliament has been exemplary and given us high quality analysis, which has benefited debate on both sides of the House. We are here debating the estimate simply because the situation is becoming dire. As was said by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray)—I fear that my pronunciation may be slightly out—this is not an abstract matter; it is having a genuine impact on public services today and on the planning of public services for tomorrow. Uncertainty is building and—I am sorry to say this—there is no suggestion that it will be alleviated any time soon. In fact, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) mentioned, it appears that we are further from agreement now than we were at the start of the year, because there is disagreement within Sinn Féin on the proposals put forward. That begs an important question for the Government: what will happen next? This is a debate about devolved issues, but I know that the Secretary of State and his officials from the Northern Ireland Office have been in talks with the Executive and their representatives. I very much hope that we will get an update on those talks. We must, however, ask what will happen if no agreement is forthcoming. As was said, we are now a quarter of the way through the financial year and there is no solution in sight. We cannot move to a position where overspend continues to be normalised, and it appears that the Executive are effectively saying, “We can’t solve this problem—we need more money.” That is not sustainable, and it cannot give anyone confidence in devolution as it is now. What is the Government’s plan if the current talks break down and we move into the summer without an agreed budget in Northern Ireland? I have a number of points to ask the Secretary of State about while I have the opportunity—most significantly, they are about legacy. He may have detected from some of our previous debates that Opposition Members are not in favour of what the Government are doing. That said, we think strongly that if the Government are to press ahead with their plans, given that it is acknowledged that those plans will create an additional burden on public services in Northern Ireland, on the police and on the legacy institutions, the Government should be prepared to meet that financial cost. It is not enough to say that £250 million is being made available. That £250 million was made available by a Conservative Government some time ago, and since it was granted inflation has probably degraded it to £200 million at most. It is clear that if the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is passed, it will increase the caseload of the ICRIR—the Legacy Commission, as it will become—but not increase the resources it has at its disposal, and it will increase the caseload that the PSNI is dealing with, but not increase the resources of the PSNI. The danger is that we will see a bottleneck in the Legacy Commission and very slow processing of cases, and an additional drain on the resources of the PSNI that will take more people away from frontline policing. We know that frontline policing in Northern Ireland has about 1,000 fewer officers than were expected when New Decade, New Approach was signed. That is a clear and present danger that the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill presents to financing in Northern Ireland, and I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could explain the Government’s position. I would also be interested to hear whether the Secretary of State has had any discussions with the heir presumptive to the Labour party leadership on the future of the troubles Bill, because the legislative timetable has obviously been pushed to the right again and it seems unlikely that we will have the legislation before the summer break. That being so, it will be a consideration for the next Prime Minister. Can the Secretary of State tell us what conversations he has had with the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) about this legislation, and whether the next Prime Minister, if that is what he is, is in favour of it? In the negotiations that any Government have with the Executive in Northern Ireland, I believe there is a duty to make the case that the Northern Ireland Executive should be prepared to raise revenue on top of the budget settlements that the Treasury gives. After the last Budget, I was prepared to say that I thought the Northern Ireland Office had acquired a reasonably good settlement from the Treasury for Northern Ireland. The key now is that that money should be well spent. If the Northern Ireland Executive want to spend more, they should be prepared to raise revenue, but they should also be prepared to deliver their public services more efficiently and effectively. I hope that His Majesty’s Government will work with the institutions in Northern Ireland to help that to happen.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Northern Ireland Office · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased that the Government are looking at some sort of additional support for PSNI. I sense that the Secretary of State is about to move off legacy. I did ask him whether he had discussed the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill with the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) because, obviously, his view of the Bill will be critical for its future.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Northern Ireland Office · Hansard source

  More

  That’s why we funded it.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I was just trying to be nice, Mr Speaker. We will do it privately. Given that we may have a new Prime Minister on 16 July, does the right hon. Gentleman think that that new Prime Minister should take questions in the House before he goes off for the summer break?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  This may be the last time I come up against the right hon. Gentleman during parliamentary questions. When we first faced each other nine months ago, I said that he was one of the most able performers in Government, and I still believe that to be the case. I think there will come a time when his party regrets the fact that he did not stand in this leadership contest. I think he would have lost—

• 25 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am very glad to be the one to break the news that the right hon. Gentleman wants to keep his current job and not move to another role. This is a serious question. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it would be appropriate for the new Prime Minister to answer questions before the summer break? If so, will he make representations to the next Prime Minister?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  Obviously the House does not want to do anything prejudicial to a case, but it appears that the Metropolitan police are saying that some documents could be released without that being prejudicial to the case. I know that things will soon move on, but the Humble Address will remain in force, even if there is a new Prime Minister. If there is a criminal trial—and even if there is not—it is likely that more information will be released. As this has been a particularly novel way of using and responding to a Humble Address, it is likely that there will be a Select Committee inquiry into how the process ran. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a commitment now, at the Dispatch Box, that there is no material that the Government have withheld that the Metropolitan police have not explicitly asked to be withheld?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that danger and excitement await the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister in whatever comes next. The Government have always maintained that they have withheld material from the Mandelson case only at the request of the Metropolitan police, but a fortnight ago, a Daily Mail journalist spoke to the Metropolitan police, who insist that they did not ask for a crucial series of messages to be withheld. Can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister explain why the Metropolitan police and the Government are saying different things?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I will turn to it in a moment.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes an extremely astute observation. I suggest that we perhaps try to find the time to have a full Westminster Hall debate on the Barnett consequentials and formula with particular regard to Northern Ireland, as there are a great many technicalities that we could go into. Returning to the point made by the hon. Member for North Down, I simply mean something along the following lines: if the Treasury was minded to honour its 1998 obligation to provide a new training college, it would only be fair to require, in return, a very solemn undertaking by the Northern Ireland Executive that, within a short and fixed term, we would make up the current deficit of 1,000 officers. I think it would be quite wrong if a new facility were built at considerable cost—a necessary investment, in my opinion—but we were still here another 10 years down the line, with the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and people across the United Kingdom, saying, “Why are the numbers in PSNI much lower than they should be?” If the Treasury chooses to enter into such negotiations, as I very much hope it will, there will need to be some reciprocal element from the Executive to ensure that any new facility is used to its maximum extent for the benefit of people not only in Northern Ireland but across the United Kingdom.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College · Hansard source

  More

  I should say at the outset that I associate myself with the remarks made by other hon. Members about the terrible attack in north Belfast last night. Although there are still many details to emerge from the case, it is very clear that the PSNI responded quickly and very bravely to what was an incredibly dangerous situation. I am proud to say that the people of north Belfast responded very bravely in the face of lethal force. It is very appropriate, then, that we should find ourselves debating this motion tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton). I congratulate him on securing this debate. I echo the remarks about the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s service not just to the people of Northern Ireland, but to the United Kingdom as a whole. PSNI has a national role in policing our land border, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, but it also has a central role in our national security apparatus. It is right that hon. Members from Northern Ireland and Opposition Front Benchers should be able to question Ministers on that national security element. I have some sympathy with the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). It is clear that the devolutionary settlement has been failing the people of Northern Ireland in policing terms, not because of any failure of the PSNI, but because of short-term, misguided decisions by some politicians in Northern Ireland. It is wrong that citizens in NI should see their police service about 1,000 officers short of where it should be, in contravention of agreements that the Conservative party made in government with counterparts in Northern Ireland. It is unsettling to realise, when we see this situation, that there is really no lever at our disposal to right this wrong. As I have said on previous occasions, there is more of a role for central Government in ensuring that the national security and border elements of policing in particular are given appropriate resource in Northern Ireland. I have listened closely to the sensible remarks made by all hon. Members. I believe that there is a deal to be struck here. Part of the benefit will accrue to the people of Northern Ireland, and part of it will accrue to the people of the United Kingdom more widely. It is not in the Minister’s power to make a deal on his own, because it is a Treasury matter, but I am sure that, as a rising star within the Labour party, he has great friends in the Treasury and will use those friendships and connections to mark out what that arrangement might look like.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Replacing the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State will have seen reports in the Belfast Telegraph that prior to 1985, a large part of the gelignite used in IRA bombs was routinely stolen from a single factory in County Meath in the Republic. The supply amounted to many tonnes of explosives, and it took the lives of many hundreds of people. At the time, British intelligence repeatedly raised concerns with Dublin. Nothing was done, despite the factory’s allegedly being in receipt of Irish state subsidy. Following those revelations, will the Secretary of State commit to writing to the Taoiseach to ask him to hold an urgent public inquiry into the Enfield explosives factory?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Replacing the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 · Hansard source

  More

  With all due respect, the Secretary of State did not answer my question. This is an extraordinary missing piece of the puzzle in the story of the troubles—in the story of how the IRA obtained weapons that killed people in our country. The Secretary of State is perfectly within his rights to raise this with his opposite numbers, and to ask them to conduct a full public inquiry on behalf of the victims. Will he do so?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady makes a good point. It may be because it was on a group message and somebody else had retained their phone, so he provided it. We have to assume that Morgan McSweeney’s messages have, in some part, been retained by the police. I suspect that we will not know why for some time. In the case of the Prime Minister’s messages, however, it is hard to understand why the police or the Government would block the publication of simple messages of praise, even though they fall within the scope of the Humble Address. We really do need further reassurances from the Government about their approach to disclosure.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Lady is making an important series of points. Does she not also think that the fact that the vetting was not done before Mandelson arrived in Washington, as we now know, means that somebody was in post in Washington seeing highly classified information which he was not fit to see, because there were no mitigations in place, even though the process subsequently threw up the fact that he would need them? Of course, as she is saying, he probably should not have had the job, given that the mitigations were warranted.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Paymaster General for his remarks and look forward to hearing what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has to say at the end of the debate. As we made clear earlier in the week, we are not entirely happy with the way this has come together. However, just because, in the way that these debates take place, it is not automatic that we will get to ask Ministers questions if they decline to take interventions, I am very encouraged by how the Paymaster General has handled that, although Hansard should know that he said that nobody could follow the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—he shut down everyone else—and I know that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will want to follow his good lead. I hope that the Paymaster General will accept my sympathies on the loss of his mobile phone. I mean that genuinely, and it is very unfortunate that it was stolen five days after the phone of the former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, was stolen. This, I believe, is an indication of how dangerous life is in Labour-run London, and I hope those responsible for looking after the Met police are listening to this. I say that genuinely because a lot of us have friends and colleagues who have experienced the same thing and it is a serious matter. The Paymaster General referred to his resurrection of the Humble Address as a political tool, and I hope that he is still proud of that achievement and that he does not rue it or regret it and that he is enjoying being on the other end of it. I remember this coming up in one of those Brexit years, I forget exactly which one, and I was reminded of it because he spoke about precedent and the Humble Address, and the truth is that his Humble Address breached precedent in a very serious way. It had been the case in “Erskine May” throughout the ages that Humble Addresses would not be used in order to take the opinions of Law Officers of the Crown and present them to the House. That was specifically carved out, yet his Humble Address struck right through it. When we talk about precedent and Humble Addresses, we must be very careful and be very clear that the instruction given by the House to the Government is sacrosanct. It is more important than anything, and it is not for the Government to redefine what the House has asked them to do. It is simply the Government’s job to comply in order to treat the House with respect, but also to avoid falling into contempt. So I will say again that the idea that potentially large classes of document should be retained and kept away from the House because the Metropolitan police are using them may be desirable, but that should not be done automatically without the agreement of the House. If the Government wish to change the terms of the motion that was presented to them, they can come back to the House and do that. A dangerous precedent is set when the Government decide they will reinterpret what the House has said, because maybe this has not been convenient for the Government, but it might be for a future Government, so we must be very careful with precedent and very careful with setting new precedent.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Lady on taking the opportunity to put that on the record. This is information that the House deserves to have. In what cases are we dealing with messages that never existed because no messages were sent, as in the hon. Lady’s case? In what cases was there auto-delete, which we know the Prime Minister had, because it was disclosed in the lobby briefing for journalists yesterday? In what cases have phones gone missing and back-ups were not done? In what cases has information been held by the police? It really ought to be possible to know that. I know that the police and the Government are, to a certain extent, understandably being sensitive about the police investigation. However, it really ought to be possible to say to the House, “X number of messages from the Prime Minister are being held by the police, as well as Y number of emails and Z number of text messages.” There is no way that any of that could possibly interfere with any police investigation, if we know roughly what the police know. We started to move in the right direction on that on Monday, when the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister told us the categories of document that we have, but there must be other ways of giving some guidance to the House on what is being held. We obviously have a huge amount of material that has been justifiably redacted for reasons of national security and international relations, but that does not mean that we do not have the headings. We often have email headings that say, “There was an email sent on this date from this person to that person.” We cannot see the subject, but we know that the email existed. Why can we not have the same thing for the messages that the Prime Minister sent to Peter Mandelson on this date, that date and the other date? We cannot see them, because they are part of a police investigation or subject to national security concerns. We have a discrepancy between different types of approaches to the disclosure of information.