Alex Burghart
MP for Brentwood and Ongar · Conservative · United Kingdom
“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.”
“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.”
“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 penalt…”
“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?”
“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.”
“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 complete record
Every one of 602 lines we hold for Alex Burghart, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 13.
“This morning, unusually, I congratulate the Government on having admitted a terrible mistake. Earlier this year, we on this side of the House voted against Labour’s draft remedial order, which would have allowed Gerry Adams to sue the taxpayer, so we welcome the fact that Labour amended that order yesterday. But the question remains: why did it ever bring forward such a ridiculous policy in the first place?”
“I invite the Secretary of State to look at his own legislation, because clauses 89 and 90 are markedly similar to the sections that we left him. We on this side of the House may have won the battle over this, but we still have not won the war to protect our veterans from vexatious complaints. Is it not the truth that if it had not been for months of campaigning by the Conservatives, the shadow Defence team, the media and reports from Policy Exchange, which may now have saved the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds, Labour would have stuck to its plan and allowed Mr Adams and his comrades to sue anyway?”
“Indeed, there are many instances of possible collusion between the Garda and the Provisional IRA, which have never received the attention they deserve: Kingsmill, the murder of Ian Sproule, Bloody Friday, Teebane, La Mon—the list goes on. I sincerely hope that the Republic will now engage sincerely, deeply and honestly, and I hope the Secretary of State will ensure that it does.”
“However, I was interested to see that the Republic has made commitments to get the Garda to investigate unresolved troubles-related incidents within its jurisdiction, and to legislate to enable the fullest possible co-operation of the relevant Irish authorities with the legacy commission. If that is to happen, it is to be welcomed, because during the troubles the UK repeatedly sought extraditions from the Republic to bring terrorist charges. In the vast majority of cases, they were turned down. Following 1998, the former Irish Justice Minister, Michael McDowell, said that the Irish Government gave a de facto amnesty to the IRA.”
“Fourthly, the Secretary of State listed a number of protections for veterans in court, but it is already the case that anonymity, age-related considerations and remote hearings are available at the discretion of the court. That was apparent to the Tánaiste on 19 September, when he emphasised that no new protections would be available to veterans. Does the Secretary of State agree with Mr Harris? There has also been some confusion about whether these protections will extend to paramilitaries. On 25 September, the Prime Minister claimed that they will not. Can the Secretary of State be definitive for the House? Lastly, there is the question of the involvement of the Republic of Ireland in legacy. This has proved deeply controversial, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will be asked questions about it this afternoon.”
“Policy Exchange has placed the cost on the police at around £90 million, at a time when police numbers in Northern Ireland are at an all-time low. There is a very real prospect that without additional funding from the Secretary of State, frontline policing in Northern Ireland will be further reduced. Can the Secretary of State make a commitment that that will not happen? Thirdly, the Government have today briefed journalists that legislation will ban Gerry Adams from receiving compensation for his detention in the 1970s, but the Secretary of State’s statement made no reference to that. Can he tell the House unequivocally that Mr Adams will not receive one penny of compensation?”
“What is the Northern Ireland Office’s calculation of the number of civil cases that are now likely to proceed? I ask that because there are clear financial consequences to reopening legacy in this way. The Secretary of State referred to the £250 million already committed—indeed, it was committed by the last Government to deal with the legacy as we framed it—but it is now clear that the new legacy commission is to have a much bigger remit than the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. If so, will its budget be increased? If not, how will it be expected to function? Similarly, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has raised very serious concerns about the amount of money that it will need to support reopened inquests and civil cases.”
“Through their actions today this Government are erasing that line, and as they do so, many former servicemen will again feel, with profound unease, that the lawyers are coming. I hope the House will spare a thought for them this afternoon. I know we will have a lot of time to debate the legislation that the Government are laying, but there are a number of specific questions that I would like to ask the Secretary of State. First, on the resumption of inquests, will he tell the House how many inquests will be restored and how many will be referred to the Solicitor General? Can he specifically tell the House whether that list will include the 1987 Loughgall case? Secondly, civil cases are to reopen. It is thought that at the time of prohibition, many hundreds of such cases—affecting perhaps thousands of people—were before the Belfast courts.”
“I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. The last Government legislated to draw a line under troubles-era litigation. That litigation was inevitably weighted against those who sought to protect our country from terrorism. It was inevitably weighted against those who keep records, and whose servicemen are easy to locate and contact. Even today, vexatious claims are being made. Only last week a judicial review of a 1991 case was rightly thrown out by the High Court in Belfast. The judge described the challenge as “utterly divorced from…reality”, but not before the former special forces soldier at the centre of it had had to endure four years of investigation. Mindful of cases such as this, the last Government sought to draw a line.”
“Legal proceedings should not be seeking to prevent the laying of a report before this House, so we strongly support that this House should reassert its ancient right to request and require papers and evidence.”
“It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and I thank him for being so generous in leaving so much time for others to speak. We absolutely support the motion that he has brought before the House. We are deeply concerned that anyone, least of all a public body, should be seeking to prevent the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration from laying reports before this House. As my hon. Friend has set out with admirable clarity, we have a long-standing and absolute right to be able to gather and examine relevant information for our inquiries and our work. The linkage between the ombudsman and the House is well-established and long-standing, and nothing should impede it.”
“There are a lot of excellent peers who are over 80, such as Lord Dubs and, by the end of this Parliament, Lord Blunkett, Lord Clarke, and Lord Heseltine—people who have added to the richness of the House, who bring their experience and who should not be barred on the grounds of age. I congratulate the Labour Government on having admitted their terrible mistake.”
“It would take away from the primacy of this House and often lead to constitutional deadlock. It has taken the Labour party about 100 years to reach that conclusion, but I welcome it joining the side of right. I am also very pleased that Gordon Brown’s disastrous plans for constitutional reform, which were published during the last Parliament, have been done away with. They would have caused utter mayhem had they been pushed through by this Government, so I commend those on the Front Bench for kicking Gordon Brown’s terrible ideas into touch. I was pleased to see that the Government have reneged on their manifesto commitment to kick out peers who are over 80. It was a terrible idea, and I am very pleased that they have seen good sense.”
“I am absolutely delighted that we have been trying to block their terrible legislation, and I am very pleased that the Lords have sent the Bill back with a number of improving amendments that speak of the decent scrutiny that is being done in the other place. I agree with the Paymaster General at the outset that we accept the Government’s concession on powers of attorney. It is a sensible change, and I am glad that there is at least one issue on which we can find agreement. We are pleased that during the course of the debate the Labour party has made a number of significant and historic clarifications to its positions. It seems finally that the Labour party has agreed that an elected upper House would be a bad idea. I personally welcome that; I think an elected upper Chamber would totally disrupt the balance of our constitution.”
“It is a serious issue—one that this Opposition called out at the Budget and will continue to call out. I hope that the Government see sense before disaster strikes. Before I move on to the specifics of the Bill, I want to pay tribute to the quality of debate, first in this Chamber at the outset of the legislation and then the sheer quality of debate in the Lords. It reflects just how significant our upper House is to our constitution in its ability to strengthen legislation through scrutiny. I particularly want to pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord True, who has done so much to hold the Government to account as they have pushed these measures through. The Paymaster General has talked about the Conservatives seeking to block legislation in the Lords.”
“The Paymaster General accused the Conservatives of having been in hibernation, but it must be the Paymaster General who has been in hibernation, for he seems to have forgotten the fact that we are fighting a desperate rearguard action against the disastrous decisions that his Government have made—against the enormous damage that his party has done to our country in the short months it has been in power, and the worst Budget that we have seen in a very long time, which has caused 30-year borrowing to be at a higher rate than it ever was under the previous Government, or indeed the Government before. It is a truly terrible state of affairs, and economic experts say that we are heading towards an economic crash. It is already costing jobs in the constituencies of all the hon. Gentlemen across the Chamber every month.”
“It is a pleasure to debate this historic piece of legislation on an historic day; my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) reminds me that it is the 1,100th anniversary of Athelstan being crowned King at Kingston, and I know there are a great many celebrations going on there today. The monarchy lives on—even if His Majesty’s Government are making changes to our ancient Parliament.”
“I fully accept that the Labour party has changed its mind, but in doing so it has reneged on the deal that it struck in the late ’90s. Let us be clear about what is happening. The Labour Government are now seeking to remove a whole group of public servants who have done nothing wrong—”
“Sit down. Those public servants are in the Lords because the last Labour Government put them there as part of the deal that it struck on long-term constitutional change.”
“The hon. Gentleman will understand that this legislation is not being blocked but improved. That is what Parliament does, and that is how the process of scrutiny works. He will see very clearly that the amendments make significant improvements to the faulty legislation that his party brought forward.”
“Take Viscount Stansgate, who is an excellent Member of the House of Lords and Deputy Speaker. As I am sure hon. Members know, there are 65 hereditary peers who sit on parliamentary Committees, so this change will be enormously and unnecessarily disruptive to the working of the House. It would be much better to leave them in place and let them do their jobs.”
“I do not believe that the Government have Cromwellian intent. They are doing something clumsy and foolish, but—I mean this seriously—what they are doing will set a precedent. I do not believe it is a route that the Paymaster General would follow, but the people who come after him may be much more like Cromwell than he. [ Interruption. ] There is laughter from behind the Paymaster General, but I want us to think seriously about what future Parliaments might look like. If the precedent is set that political opponents can be removed by Act of Parliament, someone in the future, even if maybe not tomorrow, in two years or in 10 years, will point back to this—I guarantee it. It does not need to happen this way. We have a group of people already in the House of Lords and already doing a job.”
“I do not recall us saying that it was a terrible idea. I distinctly remember many Conservative peers speaking in favour of it actually, but that is part of the joy of the independence of the upper House, which, as I will shortly explain, risks being undermined by this legislation. What the Government are now trying to do is remove a group of public servants who have done nothing wrong and who have simply served their country and continue to do so. The reason they are being removed is very clear: the Government cannot rely on their votes. Consequently, they are attempting to take a group of opponents out of Parliament by Act of Parliament. This is simply Cromwellian. I am not suggesting that the Prime Minister is a second Cromwell. Cromwell was a great man—a “brave, bad man” as Clarendon said—while the Prime Minister is just a man.”
“That means simply that many people in the House of Lords can afford to take ministerial jobs only if they are already of considerable means. I just do not think that the Paymaster General, in his heart of hearts, wants to see the perpetuation of that. If he does not agree with the Lords amendment, will he confirm whether the Government intend to bring forward comprehensive plans on that? I will correct the Paymaster General on one small point of fact. He said that if Ministers in the House of Lords were paid, we would need to reduce the number of Ministers in the House of Lords as only a certain number of Ministers can be paid.”
“I was interested by the Paymaster General’s response and listened closely to the detail he set out. There is an important principle here. We ask people to serve as Ministers of the Crown, and I think most of our constituents would agree that those Ministers should be paid. Members of the House of Lords are on no salary. They can collect their £361 a day if they turn up, but let us assume that one such Member is an unpaid Minister in the Home Office. They will find that on many working days they will be expected to travel—perhaps to Northern Ireland, Scotland or the north of England—and they will not be able to collect their allowance. On top of that, for taking on that important, unpaid job, they will also, for understandable reasons, have to give up their outside interests.”
“I am interested in my hon. Friend’s excellent point, and I hope the Minister will respond to that in his closing remarks. What we will see is the removal of a group of public servants to make way for Labour placemen and Labour stooges—a huge act of patronage. I do not think anybody here believes that will improve scrutiny. It is just a numbers game. It is simply an attempt to give the Government a more compliant majority in the House of Lords, which they do not need. The Government will be able to get their business through the House of Lords anyway, so this is an unnecessary change that, despite the comments of the Paymaster General, belittles the contribution of the peers who already sit. It belittles their service, and it does not need to be done. I turn to Lords amendment 2, on pay.”
“With the amendment, what the Government could do is reduce the number of paid Ministers in the Commons and have more paid Ministers in the Lords. That would be possible under the Lords amendment.”
“I am not sure whether his voters would be that impressed by the Ministers in the Commons at the moment, to be honest. The point of principle still stands: if somebody is a Minister of the Crown, it is perfectly reasonable that they should be paid for doing that job. I would be interested to know what the Government’s plans are to right that wrong. Finally, on Lords amendment 3, which covers a new status of peers, it was unfortunate to hear some hon. Members belittle the idea, including the sleepy, dreamy hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) from the Liberal Democrats. [Hon. Members: “Dreamy?”] I appreciate how that came out, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not wish— [ Interruption. ]”
“Well, I don’t know—he looks like he has made an effort today, and he is looking at me in a particular sort of way. There is a suggestion that everyone is busting a gut to create a new status of peerage when it is unnecessary. Let us put it this way. I think a lot of people in our country recognise that getting a peerage is one of the highest recognitions for service to the country, but there are also a good many people whom I came across when I was a Minister dealing with the honours process who are either late in age—in their 80s or 90s—or infirm and would not want to commit to serving on the red Benches because of that. It seems a bit silly that such a small change should deny them the opportunity of recognition, which costs no one anything but enables us to reward good people who have done the right things by their country.”
“The hon. Gentleman makes a good point—there are other types of honour—but we already have peers who have stood down, and they get to keep their titles. They are called Members of the Lords but do not sit in the Lords, so the disjuncture already exists. [ Interruption. ] Would the Paymaster General mind passing me the water? I have got a terrible throat. We already have peerages that work the other way round. We are suggesting that it ought to be possible for somebody who is perhaps in advanced years or not well to accept a peerage without feeling that they are under an obligation to go and sit on the red Benches. That is a perfectly reasonable request.”
“The hon. Gentleman is very well informed, and he is exactly right. This amendment, as was discussed in the Lords, would add clarity to the process and mean that it would become more routine than occasional. In that, however, he is entirely right. I will conclude by saying that good amendments have been sent back by their Lordships; amendments that improve this Bill in more ways than one and which would keep the considerable skill and expertise of the hereditary peers on the red Benches for a little time longer. They would not prevent the Labour Government from bringing in more peers if they wanted to and they also raise important questions about ministerial pay and how we use our titles. I am very pleased that we have reached common ground on the issue of advocate powers, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.”
“If the hon. Gentleman believes that the Labour party has a moral obligation to implement every part of its manifesto, how does he feel about the bits that it has already ditched?”
“The hon. Gentleman is making a good speech. Does he think that, given the policy they have embarked on, the Government should have a duty to protect Cross Benchers who have no party representation in this House? The hereditary peers who are Cross Benchers will otherwise go by the wayside. Would he at least support his Government doing that?”
“I am grateful to the Paymaster General for giving way, as I feel that he is drawing to the end of his comments. One thing he has not discussed in his round-up of the debate is ministerial pay. I appreciate the remarks that he made at the start, and that he does not believe this is the right way or place to do that, but does he accept in principle that in future the Government should find a legal mechanism for ensuring that all Ministers of the Crown, regardless of the House in which they sit, are paid?”
“We have had encouraging signs that it will, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I was reassured to hear the remarks made by the Chair of the Privileges Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa). I look forward to hearing that Committee’s conclusions, but its members should be in no doubt that the Conservative party wishes to see this information handed over to the inquiry for its consideration.”
“Friend Chris Heaton-Harris in 2023 to deal with one of the very worst atrocities of the troubles, in which the Real IRA attempted to derail the peace process and, in doing so, killed many innocent civilians. As my right hon. Friend understood when he set up the inquiry, it was critical to have a process that could compel witnesses and take evidence under oath to get to the bottom of exactly what happened. Consequently, it is of acute importance that that inquiry has access to all available information in reaching its conclusions. As the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made clear in his remarks, anything else would make a mockery of the process. On that note, and on a point that the right hon. Member made, it is essential that the Republic co-operates fully with this inquiry.”
“I put on record my gratitude to the Minister for reaching out to me earlier to explain her position; to the Clerk of the Journals for briefing me this afternoon; and to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for talking me through this issue over the weekend. I will be unusually brief, because I wish to return to the debate in Westminster Hall—a lot of hon. Members who would otherwise be in the Chamber for this debate are currently engaged in another debate on Northern Ireland. The Conservative party strongly supports the motion as worded on the Order Paper. The Omagh bombing inquiry was set up by my former right hon.”
“In their plan for change, the Government pledged to get the country the highest sustained growth in the G7—or back to where the Conservative Government left it. However, it seems that this Government are on course to fail. All respected international analysis—by the OECD, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and so on—suggests that over the next four years, the UK economy will grow nothing like as fast as the United States or Canada. What analysis can the Minister point to that suggests otherwise?”
“It is no surprise that the Minister could not point to any analysis, because no such analysis exists. That is because the Government have no plan for growth. They do have a plan for tax, and they have a plan for borrowing—much more borrowing. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s excoriating report earlier this week highlighted just how dangerous that is. Indeed, under this Government, there is the very real prospect of a sovereign debt crisis. Where is the Government’s plan to avoid that? It is not clear that the markets can wait until November.”
“Well, I will just fill in the House. For those who are not as well informed as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the simple fact is that senior civil servants should not be engaged in public fundraising from public speaking for political parties. It has been reported that on 23 June, Lord Mandelson, who the Government classify as a senior civil servant, spoke at a Labour fundraising event. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster assure the House that this breach will be properly investigated and treated?”
“However, as the Minister will know, different types of pandemic behave in different ways. Which pandemics were tested in Pegasus? Which were tested in Alkarab? It is important that the House understands what the Government are looking at in that regard.”
“Does the Minister intend to bring that back on a wide scale? It would be welcome if that was the case. I am pleased that the Government are pressing ahead with the biothreats radar, which was a Conservative idea, but two years after our announcement there is still no go-live date. This could be a major asset to national resilience, but we need to know when it will come online. The CDL also told the House that a fully operational radar will give us near real-time warning of emerging pathogens, but the World Health Organisation is still reminding China to hand over its basic virological data on covid-19. Can he guarantee that the radar will allow the UK to independently verify when a state actor chooses to withhold or delay information? I was interested to read about Exercise Pegasus, the preparations for pandemic exercise.”
“Are the Government planning for the eventuality of a general strike? The Minister also mentioned the increase in defence spending, which we know is a form of smoke and mirrors. We understand that the 1.5% in addition to the hypothetical 3.5% includes things such as tunnels and roads, but we have not been provided with a baseline for what is currently spent in those areas. How will we know when the Government have got to 1.5%, or indeed whether they are at 1.5% already? As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out, the previous Government took steps to extend our capabilities and published the first UK biological security strategy. I was interested that, in this strategy, there is a reference to exploring the utility of waste water analysis, which had great success during the pandemic.”
“The plan calls on the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to provide guidance on developing cohesion strategies and to monitor tensions. However, that does not sit easily with the fact that the Government are not currently tackling Islamist extremism properly, that they dragged their feet on a national inquiry into grooming gangs, and that they seem to be bringing forward a highly controversial definition of Islamophobia. The Minister referred to “improving core public sector resilience”. That is certainly to be welcomed, particularly on a day on which it has been announced that resident doctors have voted in favour of strikes, which will result in industrial action in January. It was notable that the plan does not mention an ability to deal with widespread industrial action.”
“As the Minister said, the plan published today builds on the work of the previous Government on the roll-out of the national emergency alert system, the expansion of biosecurity preparedness, investment in flood protection and ensuring better cross-departmental collaboration on resilience and emergency preparedness. The Minister said in his statement that he was looking for an assessment “on a continuous basis”. The report sets out the intention for data collection in this area, but it would be useful to hear by when that new data framework will be available for us to scrutinise. He said that he wished to enable “the whole of society to take action”, but I rather wonder how he intends the whole of society to find out about this.”
“I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for advance sight of his statement and the associated documentation. I also thank him for the date on which the UK emergency alert will be tested—he can only have chosen it to notify the country that it is my birthday. I shall very much look forward to the alarm at 3 pm. I understand why the Government want to plan for resilience. It is understandable that the Government would want to come forward with a plan, faced with the collapsing economy, a collapsing Government, capital flight, spiralling borrowing costs and the Office for Budget Responsibility’s warning this morning that the Chancellor’s latest U-turns have left Britain more vulnerable and less able to respond to future crises.”
“The spending review settlement for the Northern Ireland Office explicitly covers the Finucane inquiry, but so far the Government have refused to say how much money has been set aside for that inquiry. Will the Secretary of State please tell the House how much do the Government expect the inquiry to cost?”
“The Government have just had a spending review, so they must know how much they intend to spend. There will be a line in the Treasury accounts set aside for the Finucane inquiry. I do not understand why the Secretary of State finds it so hard to tell the House how much we expect to spend. Similarly, the Government must know how much compensation they expect to pay Gerry Adams, following their inexplicable decision to drop the appeal that we lodged in that case. We have repeatedly pressed the Government to legislate to prevent that compensation from being paid and the Government have dragged their heels. This morning, Policy Exchange has published an excellent new report, “Legislating about Gerry Adams and Carltona”, which sets out a clear legal solution. The Government have nowhere further to hide, so will they finally do the right thing?”
“In addition, can she tell us whether there were any legal challenges to certificates that the DPP issued? Also, I understand that three responses to the consultation suggested that the policy should not be continued. For the benefit of the Committee, will she outline what the objections to the continuance of the policy were? Notwithstanding those small matters, the Opposition are happy to support the draft order.”
“On that subject, will the Minister update the Committee on an announcement that the Secretary of State made in February? The Secretary of State said that he would appoint an independent expert to consider whether there was any merit in talking to paramilitary groups with a view to seeing them disbanded. It has been five months since that announcement, and I think the Committee would be grateful to understand where that thought process has led. Although we fully support the draft order, I am interested in hearing from the Minister about the circumstances in which the certificates have been used in the past year. I think she said that a right to a jury was withdrawn by DPP certificate in only 10 of 1,501 trials, or 0.7% of cases. Were there any instances in which an application was made for a certificate but the DPP refused to give one?”