Alex Burghart
MP for Brentwood and Ongar · Conservative · United Kingdom
“As this is the Secretary of State’s first Northern Ireland questions, may I welcome him to his place? Victims and survivors of the troubles will, as the hon.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is for context. The document revealed that the Secretary of State was told by the police, “it is possible that dissident republicans have already accessed the firearms in the Garvaghy Road area, and it is possible that in the event of police removing protesters, firearms may be used to attack police.” It would not interfere with the…”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State twice refused to answer questions about documents referred to in judicial review proceedings in the High Court in Belfast that refer to the ongoing existence of the IRA.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“With all due respect, I was not asking the Secretary of State to comment on the case; I know that he cannot. I was asking him to tell us what the Government’s considered opinion is on whether the IRA is still active. That is important, because one of the documents produced on Monday revealed—”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“While I have the opportunity, I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his time as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We disagreed on many things, but he always conducted himself with great dignity and great respect, and I am grateful to him for the briefings that he gave me while we were opposite numbers.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The right hon. Gentleman says no from a sedentary position, but that is not the case. We have received legal advice that “essential” is no bar at all. For the reasons I have already set out, it will be very easily stepped over, whereas “new and compelling”, as we know from the overseas operations Act, is a more significant legal test.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
2,601 lines on record for Alex Burghart, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, without an account. Most recent 500 lines shown. Search to find more. Page 7 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“My right hon. Friend, who was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and who knows more about national security than almost anyone in this House, is right. The Government’s judgment and their behaviour are under investigation here. It cannot be the case that the Government can then decide what is disclosed. Fortunately for the House, there are mechanisms available to us, not least the ISC, which would do a very good job on behalf of the Government, working with them to decide what information could and could not be released. Built into the Humble Address mechanism itself is an understanding that national security is protected. There is no need—”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I promised to give way to my old adversary the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) first. Then, I will happily give way to the hon. Lady.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The right hon. Gentleman appears to be correct in that there is certainly an indication that serious corruption may have taken place. In the light of that, the House must consider closely what the best means of getting to the bottom of all these relationships and influences will be.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Without wishing to be distracted from the motion at play, I have seen Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland of all parties in successive Governments try hard to ensure that there is maximum disclosure for the people of Northern Ireland, while ensuring that national security is not compromised. I am afraid that I see things through a slightly different prism from the hon. Lady.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am glad that the hon. Lady agrees with us that the ISC should be used in this context. I am glad that there is agreement between her and me that those on the Government Front Bench should use the ISC to act in this way. I hope that other Labour Members will take the same view as that extremely experienced parliamentarian.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It will then be the duty of the Government to disclose who swept them away, and why. Ultimate responsibility must rest with the Prime Minister. It is time for him to take responsibility.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Prime Minister knew that Peter Mandelson had maintained an unhealthy relationship with a man who was a convicted paedophile, and he appointed him to the role of ambassador anyway. Everybody in this House should be shocked by that. It must be concluded that had the Prime Minister been pressed on that point at the time, the appointment would not have been made, because the Prime Minister knew, his aides knew—but the appointment was made anyway. What else did he know? Only after this Humble Address, and only if the Government treat it in good faith, will we know that. I very much hope that we do not find that there are gaps in our security and vetting process. If there are, the Government will be able to fix them. I think it also likely that we will see reports that consistently raised concerns which were swept away.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Palantir, we should remind ourselves, was a client of Global Counsel, the company in which Peter Mandelson had a commanding share. Later that year, Palantir received from this Government a £240 million deal. That deal was granted by direct award. Given the allegations now coming to light about Mandelson’s conduct, will the Minister assure the House that the Cabinet Secretary will review the circumstances around the award of that contract, and assure himself that there are no other such contracts, no other undisclosed meetings, and that the Government will go through all communications and messages that Mandelson sent out while he was ambassador, some of which we must assume, were sent to old business contacts, a potential few business contacts, and so on?”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Before I hand over to other Members, let me move briefly on to the conduct of Lord Mandelson while he was our ambassador in Washington, which I think is relevant to our debate because it again exposes the Prime Minister’s lack of judgment in appointing him. There is obviously strong evidence to suggest that Mandelson behaved entirely inappropriately when he was Secretary of State under the last Labour Government, but equally big questions are now outstanding about what was happening in 2025 in Washington—as I said, this is relevant now. On 27 February 2025, the Prime Minister, while in Washington, visited the American data and AI company Palantir at its headquarters. The meeting did not appear in the Prime Minister’s register of visits; it only came to light later.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. and learned Friend speaks from a position of experience. He is entirely right; the House is fortunate to have the ISC and that is one of the functions that it can perform. The Government can have reassurance on national security and the House can have reassurance that no material is being kept from it that the Government might find embarrassing. In his remarks, will the Paymaster General, who I know will have had nothing to do with this and who I know is a man of integrity, think seriously about the options of gisting and the role that the ISC can play in that and make sure that the Government are not marking their own homework? It is important that our constituents and this House have confidence in what the Government provide us with.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. The Humble Address is obviously about Lord Mandelson’s appointment. However, the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) was about two contracts, at least one of which, by direct award, went to a business that was a client of Global Counsel. The Prime Minister met that company while in Washington and it did not appear on his register of interests. Will the Minister assure the House that the Cabinet Secretary will look into the process that led to that direct award?”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It has caused very great embarrassment to this country and it is time that someone took responsibility.”
House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“So the Government knew that Mandelson had a long-maintained and unhealthy relationship with Epstein, yet they continued with their appointment anyway. The question is: who in No. 10 knew what and when? The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has a duty to tell this House precisely what the Prime Minister knew when he made the appointment, and to disclose the documents that the Prime Minister saw. If the Prime Minister genuinely did not know, somebody must have done. Who was it? Was it his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who is reported to have personally pushed the appointment? Was it the now Deputy Prime Minister, who was then the Foreign Secretary and who would have been party to some of the information? It is time for the Government to be open and clear with us all. Something went very badly wrong with this appointment.”
House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It seems very unlikely that the Government’s vetting system broke down entirely. Indeed, on 10 September, the Prime Minister told the House that “full due process was followed during this appointment”. —[ Official Report , 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859.] Can it really be the case that this “full due process” did not pick up the extent of the relationship? On 3 November, Olly Robbins, the then permanent secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, told the Foreign Affairs Committee: “Back before Lord Mandelson was announced as the appointee, there was a process...within the Cabinet Office to make sure that the Prime Minister was aware of Lord Mandelson and the issues around his appointment...we can confidently say that the relationship with Epstein was indeed surfaced”.”
House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Given that he abused his previous position, it is entirely conceivable that he abused his most recent one. For example, I understand that on 27 February last year, Mandelson arranged for the Prime Minister to meet Palantir, a client of Mandelson’s company, Global Counsel. How many more such meetings were there, and what other information was shared? We all have a right to know. Likewise, the Government cannot hide from their responsibility in having made Mandelson their ambassador in the first place. This was a political appointment, and it happened only because of political pressure. So one of two things must be true: either there was the most terrible failure of the vetting system, or the Government chose to brush that vetting information away. Both are very serious, but the Government must now be honest with us about which it was.”
House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“So we of course welcome the belated announcement that there will be an investigation into Mandelson’s conduct while he was a Minister, but this should have happened long ago. I say that because we know that, in February last year, Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, wrote to the Cabinet Secretary explicitly asking for an investigation into the “veracity of information contained in the Epstein papers about the sale of assets arising from the banking collapse and communications about them between Lord Mandelson and Mr Epstein.” That investigation never happened. In any case, I am afraid that the investigation announced today alone will not do. It is not enough to consider Mandelson’s historical conduct; there also needs to be an investigation into his behaviour while he was our ambassador in Washington.”
House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The crimes of Jeffrey Epstein were truly terrible—paedophilia, sex trafficking, child prostitution. It was an awful abuse of power, and it is of course a great embarrassment to our country that its most senior ambassador should have been caught up with a man like him. In this latest set of releases from the US Department of Justice, it is clearer than ever that theirs was a relationship built not just on affection, but on the transfer of money from Epstein to Mandelson’s family and the transfer of information from Mandelson to Epstein. In some cases, this was apparently market-sensitive information that Mandelson received only by dint of being a member of the Labour Government.”
House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will he tell the House why he thinks all the other members of the Labour party are so wrong?”
House of Commons22 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will the Paymaster General confirm to the House that that is his understanding?”
House of Commons22 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Since the Paymaster General was last in the Commons, the Health Secretary has said that Britain should rejoin the customs union, the Deputy Prime Minister has suggested rejoining the customs union, 13 Labour MPs have gone against the Whip and voted with the Liberal Democrats in favour of a customs union, 80% of Labour voters at the last election have said they want to rejoin the customs union, and the Business and Trade Secretary has said that it would be “crazy” not to join the customs union. It would seem that the only people in Labour opposed to the customs union are the Prime Minister and the Paymaster General. The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that in this one regard, I do not think he is crazy at all—I think he is doing the right thing.”
House of Commons22 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I certainly support the right hon. Gentleman in telling the rest of the Labour party that they are wrong, although, given the success of the Labour Back Benchers in forcing U-turns on the Prime Minister recently, I wonder how long that position will hold. Earlier this month, the Prime Minister told the BBC that he wants “closer alignment” with the single market—a serious policy development on which we have had no statement in the Commons. I hope that will be addressed very soon. Closer alignment will, of course, mean dynamic alignment, which will mean Britain following rules over which we have had no say. The Opposition will respectfully oppose such a move. In November, Downing Street sources told journalists that it was accepted that the UK would have to pay billions of pounds for closer alignment and market access.”
House of Commons22 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At the risk of overworking the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I would like to ask him a question. It is boring but important; my last boring question was to the Paymaster General. The Opposition have found that his Department often refuses to release information to Members in response to parliamentary questions, but then releases it in response to freedom of information requests. Does he agree that, in principle, that is wrong?”
House of Commons22 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In his role as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, will he please write to all other Government Departments to make sure that the good example that will now be set by the Cabinet Office is followed by other Departments?”
House of Commons22 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In reality, I am not sure that he does—but he has that option.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I say that respectfully, because the now Secretary of State was in the Cabinet at the time and would have been bound by collective responsibility on this issue.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have already discussed the letters of comfort. There can be no doubt that John Downey effectively received immunity for the Hyde Park bombing case by dint of his letter of comfort, and so with the royal prerogative of mercy and so, most significantly of all, with the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which Peter Hain—now Lord Hain, then Secretary of State—brought to this House in 2005. That Bill explicitly created—or would have, had it been passed—immunity for terrorists. That was immunity for terrorists, not for everyone. It was only when, under pressure from families and the Conservative party, the Government agreed to bring veterans into that legislation that it was dropped, because Sinn Féin ceased to support it.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On the idea that immunity is a moral outrage, I fear that the Labour party is being at best disingenuous. I say that because the Secretary of State and other Labour Members often refer to the immunity in our 2023 Act. There was immunity under that Act, but it was conditional on people giving up information to ICRIR. That was not a novel concept. Indeed, that concept was a cornerstone of the legislation introduced after 1998. There are plenty of examples, such as the legislation around decommissioning of weapons, which actively allowed for the destruction of forensic evidence that could have led to prosecutions. The victims’ remains legislation allowed people to come forward and tell the authorities where victims were buried without fear of prosecution. We might call that immunity in return for information.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Indeed, many legal experts outside of this House, in think-tanks such as Policy Exchange, set out why that might be the case. The Government have implied two reasons why they dropped their appeal. The Secretary of State said in the House today, I think, and also on 17 December, that he believed that there was a moral outrage at the idea of immunity and a need to respect human rights law. On their own grounds, those are respectable positions, but they are also clearly not quite true. In the first instance, the human rights argument cannot stand on its own merits, because there were grounds to appeal, and the Government chose not to. The Government never found out what the actual position on human rights might have been, had they gone to the highest court in the land.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We will obviously have a chance to go through what we are debating today in greater detail when the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill returns to the House for consideration in Committee of the whole House. With the legislation that we are debating, which seeks to delete parts of the 2023 legacy Act following the ruling of the Belfast Court of Appeal last year, the Government are saying that they have no choice but to act as they have and no choice but to try to change the legislation by means of remedial order. We do not believe that is the whole story. When they came to power, they had the option of appealing that decision by the Court of Appeal in Belfast. We know that, because the previous Conservative Administration had received legal advice saying that not only was a legal challenge possible, but had a high chance of success.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We think that the Government have options that they are not taking, and that they are both compromising veterans’ peace of mind and endangering our military capability into the future. I noticed in The Telegraph today an important letter from some retired Special Air Service officers, who said that “peace requires compromise, restraint, and the decision to stop refighting the past”. The legislation that the previous Government brought in was specifically designed to try to draw a line under all of the events that had happened—not so that information would not be provided to families and victims, because the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery enabled that to happen, but so that we could move on from a new phase of the troubles conflict that was being fought in the courts.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is an honour and a privilege to speak in this important debate. It is particularly important because there are some people watching this afternoon who themselves were on the line of action in what was surely one of the most difficult operations that British armed forces have ever had to deploy in. I know that some veterans are with us today in the House, and some are sitting on these green Benches. One of the things that all Members have a duty to keep in mind throughout this debate is our responsibility to them, the people who ultimately enabled peace to happen in Northern Ireland. As we have discussed at a number of parliamentary events, we are opposed to the Government’s approach.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, I hate to break it to the Secretary of State, but there is not party support for his legislation in Northern Ireland either—and if this is really the case, I am not sure that the Secretary of State should be proceeding with what he is doing.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“He reminded me last night that the IRA bombed a major forensic laboratory in Belfast in 1992. A 3,000 lb bomb, one of the largest ever planted, damaged about 1,000 houses, and obliterated an enormous amount of forensic evidence that had been kept on the IRA. To that extent, the IRA gave itself a form of immunity by destroying evidence in a way that the British state never would have done. We have to ask ourselves this: why did the Government really drop their appeal? The Secretary of State says that it was because of immunity, but I am afraid I cannot believe that, because the Labour party supported immunity in the past. He also says that it was because of a lack of support for our legislation in Northern Ireland, and that is true. There was certainly not cross-party support for our legislation in Northern Ireland.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. Friend could not be more correct. It has always been one-way traffic, and whenever the Conservative party has tried to create equivalence for veterans, the Labour party has backed down. We saw that with the 2005 legislation, and I am afraid that it is what we are seeing now. When we introduced conditional immunity for veterans in the same way that conditional immunity had been used time and again after 1998, the Labour party opposed us. There is an incredibly selective memory over the issue of conditional immunity. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made a point about the unlevel playing field. I was discussing that with my noble Friend Lord Caine, who served with a Northern Ireland brief for very many years.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. Friend has always had a very good head for what is popular. I will check his figures, but I am sure they are correct, and he has made an important point. We cannot pretend that there was no support for what we were doing in Northern Ireland, because there are plenty of people in Northern Ireland who would like to move on. There are plenty of people who respect the decision to draw a line and move on.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, I do not acknowledge that. I have met victims, and people whose families were heavily affected by terrorism, who supported our legislation.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This means that the chances of any prosecution reaching a conclusion are very limited. That does not matter, because for many veterans it is the process that is the punishment. We saw that in October last year, when a former SAS veteran, who was accused of having behaved wrongly in 1991, was dragged through the courts. Eventually, the judge in Belfast said the case was “ludicrous” and should never have come anywhere near him, but that individual had been pursued for four years. There are many such cases. If the process is the punishment, the fear of the process is a punishment for so many people.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. Friend has very succinctly summarised the central argument behind the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023: drawing a line does not mean covering up the past; drawing a line was an opportunity to open the past in a way that the adversarial system was never going to allow. Incidentally, I do not believe that the adversarial system will bring justice for very many people. We must remember that the peace process concluded in 1998, which is 28 years ago, and the troubles, by most reckonings, are deemed to have started in 1966, which is 60 years ago. We have recently seen the case of soldier F, in which one of the longest public inquiries in British legal history presented the most forensic evidence that could be imagined, but the court was unable to reach a conclusion.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Again, I agree with my right hon. Friend. In some quarters, there is an industry that I fear is allowing victims to believe that their chances of success are far greater than they are in practice. That is not pleasant, so we have to ask ourselves why the Government dropped their appeal.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who has great experience of these matters. The truth is that, for some people, this is the continuation of the troubles by other means. It is time to draw a line. If the Government did not withdraw their appeal because of conditional immunity, which they supported in the past, and if they did not refuse to appeal because of views in Northern Ireland on their own legislation, it must be for another reason. I do not know what that reason is, and I suspect that we will never know, but I wonder whether it is connected with the desire of this Government to have a close relationship with the Irish Government as part of the European reset.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On 15 October last year, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement, represented pro bono by Lord Wolfson KC, was heard by the Court, and allowed to give oral and written evidence, which the Court is now considering. It is perfectly in scope for the UK Supreme Court to find that elements of the legacy Act are not actually incompatible with the European convention on human rights. However, if the Secretary of State’s remedial order has gone through both Houses by that time, we will be presented with legal chaos, because the Government will have used an order that they had no authority to use in order to remove primary legislation that should still be in place. The Government can avoid this: all they need do is wait and see what the Supreme Court says. In fairness, the Secretary of State thinks he knows what the Supreme Court will say.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I believe that we almost got a scintilla of insight into how my right hon. Friend feels about the latest Joint Committee on Human Rights report. I am grateful to him for pre-empting some of what I am about to say. I do worry that there is a bigger game going on in Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) said that veterans are being used as pawns in lawfare, but I wonder whether the case against veterans is a pawn in a bigger game that the Government are playing with the European Union. The Secretary of State says he has no choice, but of course His Majesty’s Government do have a choice. They have options. The first option the Government had was to appeal, but they did not. The second option they have is to wait.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Once again, my hon. Friend is quite right, because if the remedial order goes through both Houses and the Supreme Court has not opined, from the next day civil cases will reopen and military veterans will be involved in such actions.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yes, my right hon. and very learned Friend. The truth is that, if one looks back at the debates on the Human Rights Act, one can see that the purpose of section 10 is to make sure that the Government cannot use a remedial order—an incredibly powerful tool, a statutory instrument that can strike down primary legislation—unless the case is fully decided. In this case, it clearly is not; it is open. That is why the Government are acting ultra vires. Let me return briefly to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who represents the best part of the New Forest.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I meant to say, “the joint first best part of the New Forest”. The Secretary of State has invoked the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but it is my understanding that when it wrote its report, it was unaware that the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was being heard in the Supreme Court, and I rather think that that may have had a profound effect on what it wrote.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am not doubting that the Committee examined all the evidence available to it; I am disputing what evidence it had available to it. We are faced with a situation in which the Government do not really have a legal basis or a moral basis for what they are doing, and there are real-life consequences to their decisions.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At the time, it was recommended to the British Government that we should have our own full inquiry, but it was deemed to be pretty much a necessity for a similar inquiry to be conducted on the other side of the border, so that there was the opportunity to compel witnesses to give evidence under oath about what was known and about what, if any, collusion took place. I am very sorry that that opportunity was missed.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I suspect very strongly that the hon. Gentleman is right. I suspect that this is bound up in the agreement that the Secretary of State made with the Irish Government. He can correct that later if he wishes to. There were some things in that agreement that I welcomed at the time and which I welcome again now. If it leads to the Irish Government opening their books and being clear about collusion between the Garda and the Provisional IRA, I would welcome that. What I cannot welcome, thought, is the fact that there was an opportunity in that agreement to ask the Republic of Ireland to open its own inquiry into the Omagh bombing.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would have been very open to that idea, but I believe that the previous Administration did not feel that there was the opportunity to proceed in that way. If we are thinking about the future, I think what the hon. Lady proposes is a perfectly sensible idea.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If my right hon. Friend will allow me, I will respond to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) briefly and then allow my right hon. Friend to supplement my answer. The hon. Member for Strangford has very deep personal and professional experience of this matter. Of course, he is right that, just as the inquiry into the truth has been one-sided within the United Kingdom, it has also I think, for large periods, been unequal without it as well.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗