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 9 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.
“I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention; I remember that he made a similar intervention in 2017, and again in 2023, on just that point, based on the work his Committee had done. The Secretary of State has now introduced a draft remedial order to eliminate those parts of the Bill that are deemed to be incompatible. As he knows—I have written to him twice on this subject—the official Opposition do not believe that that remedial order is appropriate, and certainly not yet. That is because earlier this year the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene in the case of Dillon before the Supreme Court, specifically on the issue of compatibility. On 15 October that intervention was heard, and if those arguments are accepted, the Supreme Court has the power to quash the declarations of incompatibility.”
House of Commons18 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“With all due respect to the hon. Lady, who I enjoyed working opposite, the last Government did not offer delay and dithering; we offered firm legislation. What she outlines, I am afraid, is an unrealistic view of the future. We have seen many cases come forward and very few convictions, and the people who suffer in that process are veterans. They are veterans like the gentleman I referred to a moment ago, from a case in 1991—four years of investigation, with a ludicrous case at the end. What is happening today is that victims are being promised something that will never be delivered, and veterans are being told that they do not matter.”
House of Commons18 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Fifthly, in the past few days I have received a lot of communications from veterans about the role that Ireland will play in the new commission. I am sure that they will be reassured by the Secretary of State’s remarks in his opening speech that Ireland will have no formal process within the Legacy Commission. But what is clear that the Bill makes provision for the involvement of international figures. Will those international figures be given access to national security information? Will the Minister please be clear about that in his closing remarks?”
House of Commons18 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thirdly, the Bill pays lip service to not repeating previous investigations, as the Secretary of State said, by saying that the Legacy Commission will do so only when repetition is “necessary”—that is in clauses 30, 31, 36, 51 and 84—or when “duplication is essential”, as in clause 36. I imagine and I fear that some lawyers will have a great deal of fun with those words. How long before every attempted reinvestigation becomes “necessary” or every attempted investigation becomes “essential”? I believe and I fear that this is no protection at all. Fourthly, the protections for our veterans here are a mirage, not just because they are largely available already, but because they clearly apply to terrorists as well as veterans.”
House of Commons18 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am going to make some progress. We will have plenty of time in Committee to discuss our particular concerns with this legislation, but I will raise a small number of them today. First, the Bill deliberately shifts the focus towards criminal prosecutions. Clause 36 states that investigations are “to be carried as a criminal investigation unless…there is no realistic prospect of information obtained…being provided to a prosecutor.” I suspect that those most likely to be prosecuted will be veterans. Secondly, the Bill creates a five-year time limit for family members and victims to request an investigation, but there is no such time limit for public authorities. Can the Minister tell us why not? This could rumble on forever.”
House of Commons18 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) and then to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson).”
House of Commons18 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The right hon. Gentleman raises interesting and important points. We are concerned about the question of who will have access to sensitive national security information within the legacy commission’s framework? It would be good to have clarity on that from the Minister later. Sixthly, there was some confusion on the Labour Front Bench recently about whether former IRA personnel would be able to serve as a legacy commission officer or as a member of the victims and survivors advisory group. Perhaps when we get to Committee the Minister could clear that up and provide legal guarantees that that will not be the case.”
House of Commons18 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Labour party is in power in Northern Ireland—it has formed the Government of the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) said, it would be good to get legal guarantees about who will be able to serve on the legacy commission and the victims and survivors advisory group. Lastly, veterans have been asking publicly for the inclusion of the word “veteran” in the Bill. They do not consider themselves victims or survivors; they consider themselves veterans, and they hope that the Government will recognise them as such in legislation.”
House of Commons18 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think the hon. Lady is misunderstanding my point. The point that I am making is that when it is clear that vexatious complaints and vexatious investigations can begin, then everyone who served feels under threat— [ Interruption . ] For the benefit of Hansard , the hon. Lady said from a sedentary position, “Are they vexatious?” It is very clear that the case that was heard in Belfast last month was a vexatious complaint. The judge said it was “ludicrous” and that it should never have come anywhere near the court, but for four years a member of the special forces was pursued, and all his comrades and colleagues thought that if such a thing could happen, they might have the same legal action brought against them in future.”
House of Commons18 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In conclusion, this Bill contains no meaningful protections, it has no cross-party support, and there are no legal barriers to continuing what the last Government began. We find ourselves in a situation where retired generals, SAS veterans and the like are all telling this House not to proceed. They are telling us that there will be consequences—for recruitment, for retention and for national security. This morning in a statement, Soldier Z said that “the damage being done to the morale and fibre of UK special forces and armed forces…must be understood by the public, because it’s very well understood by the SAS.” When such people speak, this House has an obligation to listen.”
House of Commons18 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“From the huge number of extradition requests that Dublin refused between 1973 and 1999 to the long, long list of cases of collusion between the Garda and the Provisional IRA that have not been properly dealt with, it is clear that the south has never taken full responsibility for the blind eyes turned and the bad acts abetted. The test of this Government’s approach will be whether Dublin delivers, or whether this—as one representative of victims has said to me in the past few days—turns out to be another case of “tea and sympathy” with no action to follow. For the record, it is my party’s strong view that if this Bill receives Royal Assent, the Secretary of State should not commence the legislation until this House has at least seen the Irish legislation.”
House of Commons18 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As ever, my right hon. Friend is a bastion of good sense. He reminds us that there is no moral equivalence between the people who were sent to try to keep the people and services of Northern Ireland safe, and the people who were terrorists. Finally, we note that, under the terms of the agreement, the Republic of Ireland has committed to legislate to enable the fullest possible co-operation of the relevant Irish authorities with the Legacy Commission. We sincerely hope that this is true, as there are many secrets of the troubles that are yet to be disclosed from sources south of the border.”
House of Commons18 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Last week, it was reported that a similar case, from 53 years ago, may soon go to trial. No wonder that on Friday, Special Air Service veterans published a letter in the Financial Times , in which they said that “‘legacy’ has become an industry that keeps wounds open while rewriting history.” We ask the Secretary of State to think again.”
House of Commons3 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That goes to the heart of what my party argued when passing our legacy Act. As time goes by, it becomes vanishingly difficult to obtain convictions. The 1998 agreement was 27 years ago, and the ceasefires were 31 years ago. That of course has implications for the Government’s troubles Bill, which will reopen many cases where there is no prospect of resolution, only a prospect of ongoing legal process. Under the Bill, there is almost no possibility of bringing terrorists to court, but it ultimately leaves open the likelihood of ever more vexatious complaints against our veterans. We are talking about claims like that thrown out by the High Court in Belfast last month; the judge described the challenge as “utterly divorced from reality”, although not before a former special forces soldier had to endure four years of investigation.”
House of Commons3 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I, too, begin with a thought for the families left bereft by the events of that day in 1972. It was a Conservative Prime Minister who, 15 years ago, said to the House that what happened on Bloody Sunday was both “unjustified” and “wrong”, and “on behalf of our country—I am deeply sorry.”— —[ Official Report , 15 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 740.] He did so, of course, after the publication of the Saville inquiry, which took 12 years and cost in today’s money about £325 million. Even after such an extensive inquiry, there has been no conviction. Indeed, Judge Patrick Lynch told Belfast Crown court that the evidence fell well short of the standard required. He said: “A 53-year-old statement cannot be cross-examined, nor can I assess the demeanour of a sheet of A4 paper”.”
House of Commons3 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We now know that it was led by the National Security Adviser and attended by the Cabinet Secretary, the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, senior representation from the Home Office and the Attorney General’s office, and the chief of MI5, but we still do not know what was said there, what was agreed or why the Government tried to deny its existence.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They have hidden behind civil servants and advisers, when it is Ministers who are supposed to make decisions, and in doing so, they have brought the actions and decisions of those advisers and officials into the spotlight in a way that is most irregular. Just as worryingly, there has been a persistent inaccuracy and inconsistency in the Government’s statements, to the point where this House can no longer trust a word of theirs. There are a number of examples. First, on 13 October, the Security Minister denied in this House that the mega-mandarin meeting on 1 September, which is the subject of our motion, took place. Last week, the Solicitor General admitted that the meeting did take place.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The deputy National Security Adviser repeatedly refused to say yes. The Government effectively refused to say what was patently apparent to anyone remotely alive to the facts of the case. This House has every reason to be told why they refused, and why, for example, the Prime Minister did not intervene to prevent the case collapsing, when we know he was warned that it was unlikely to proceed. It is also reported that the Home Secretary tried to intervene. We do not call for the publication of this material lightly. We know it is an extraordinary measure to call for the Government to publish documents relating to the formation of policy, but this is an extraordinary event. We have reached this point because the Government have been unable or unwilling to answer basic questions about what they knew when, and why they acted as they did.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The purpose of this Opposition day debate and of our motion is very simple: transparency—that is all that we ask for. The basic facts are that two men were arrested on suspicion of having spied on hon. Members of this House for China, and the Director of Public Prosecutions has acknowledged that this appears to have been a “gross breach of trust” against hon. Members, yet the case against the two men collapsed because, in the words of the senior Treasury counsel, Tom Little KC, the case was “effectively unsustainable”; it was brought to “a crashing halt” because the Government’s own witness, the deputy National Security Adviser, refused to provide the fatal piece of evidence. Mr Little had what he called a million-dollar question: was China an active threat to national security?”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That this House calls on the Government to release the minutes of the meeting chaired by the National Security Adviser on 1 September 2025, at which the prosecution of the two alleged Chinese spies, since dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service, was discussed, including all actions arising from that meeting; and further calls on the Government to publish the minutes of all other meetings where the case was discussed, whether by officials or with Ministers, all relevant correspondence between the Crown Prosecution Service and the Government and between Departments, including correspondence between the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Cabinet Office, Attorney General’s Office, and the Treasury, and advice provided to the Prime Minister relating to the China spy case.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. Friend makes a very pertinent point and is personally very experienced in such things. It has been reported that the National Security Adviser chaired that meeting. That is to say that he was taking a very active role in what was going on. That is why it is incredibly important that the Government come clean with us about what happened in that meeting, who attended and what was decided there.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“He said: “The test was…positively not what the then Government was prepared to, or did, say in public about China…but rather whether China was—as a matter of fact—an active threat to national security.” This is a most important point, and one that was revisited yesterday. There is a very serious question about why the deputy National Security Adviser believed that he would “need to be in line with government policy at the time”, when the Crown Prosecution Service said that it did not need to know about policy, but about the facts. The Minister should explain to the House why the deputy National Security Adviser chose to ignore the CPS in this case. He should also tell us whether he thinks the deputy National Security Adviser complied with civil procedure rule 35, which requires him to assist the court and overrides any other obligation.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. Friend is right: the National Security Adviser showed a great reluctance to attend. I understand that he has now agreed to attend, although the report I read said that he was going to attend in camera. If that report is correct—the Minister has the opportunity to say it is not true—I am not sure that that is the best level of transparency that this House might expect. The second instance of inconsistency and inaccuracy that we draw attention to is from 7 October, when the Prime Minister told journalists that what mattered in this case was the designation of China as it had been in 2023, when the offences were alleged to have occurred. However, last week, on 24 October, the Director of Public Prosecutions said that that was categorically not the case.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman will have a perfectly good opportunity to question the people responsible in a few moments’ time. The point is that the Government have been unclear, inconsistent and inaccurate, and we are giving them an opportunity to clear this up right now.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The previous Government were clear on a number of occasions that China was a threat, but if the hon. Gentleman had been listening to what I just said, he would have heard that the Director of Public Prosecutions said last week that it was categorically not a question of what the last Government said. Now that I have the hon. Gentleman’s attention, I will repeat for his benefit what the DPP said: that the question was “whether China was—as a matter of fact—an active threat to national security.” It was not a question of policy; it was a matter of fact. [ Interruption. ] I am not going to go through it a third time.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think there are basically two possible answers to my hon. Friend’s question. The first is that the Government cannot tell their elbow from their posterior; the second is that they do not want this House to know the truth. Either way, on a matter as serious as this, it is incredibly important that we get to the truth. Tonight’s motion presents the Government with an opportunity to be entirely transparent with us and set out the facts of the case as they were at the time—particularly on 1 October, when this all-important meeting took place.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is the million-dollar question. Why were the Government not prepared to say something that was manifestly evidentially true to all and sundry? The third example is that on 15 October, the Prime Minister said that the deputy National Security Adviser acted entirely independently, without consultation with Ministers or special advisers, and without political involvement. However, the CPS has now made it clear that there were multiple discussions about what the DNSA would and would not say, starting with one such discussion on 3 July 2025. Moreover, the DNSA’s first witness statement was sighted by “the then National Security Adviser and the…Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary”, and “sent to the…Prime Minister through No.10 private office”, including special advisers.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think we all find it difficult to believe that the deputy National Security Adviser was left entirely to his own devices. A fourth example is that on 20 October, the Minister for Security, who is in his place, told the House: “Final evidence went in in August, and I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that there is nothing the Prime Minister or any Minister could have done thereafter.” —[ Official Report , 20 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 640.] We now know that there were meetings between the CPS and the Government on 3 and 9 September to attempt to rescue the case. Why did the Security Minister tell the House something that was not correct?”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This House has a right to see under the bonnet when the safety and privacy of its Members may have been compromised. This House has a right to know the Government’s real position and the Government’s real agenda. If this Government have nothing to hide, they should hide nothing from this House.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will the Minister tell us what the material difference is between “a range of threats” and “an active security threat”? The deputy National Security Adviser was keen to make that point yesterday. Perhaps most importantly of all, do the Government believe that China is an active security threat? If not, what would it take to cross that threshold? It is time for the Government to publish all the details so that we can see what really happened here. I know that the Government will protest their innocence and claim that it is all the fault of the CPS, or the last Government, or the legislation, just as they have tried to do for weeks, but such pleas and protests are no good reason for them to refuse to publish the material we are requesting today. This House may have been spied upon. This House has a right to straight answers.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Ministers do get involved; it is their job to be involved. Ministers represent the Government. Ministers represent all of us. It is not good enough for the Government to say that they are entirely powerless in this instance—they are not. A fifth example is that yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary said that he did not believe that the chief of MI5 had described China as a threat. On 16 October 2025, Ken McCallum said: “Do Chinese state actors present a UK national security threat? And the answer is, of course, yes they do every day.” How on earth did the Cabinet Secretary not know that? This issue is of paramount importance. There are many other such examples. The Government have an opportunity to be clear with us today, not just about the meetings and the dealings of the past six months, but on their position as it stands.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have always admired the shine on the Minister’s brass neck, and never so much as at this moment. I remember the Brexit debates, when he and many of the other gentlemen and ladies on the Labour Benches overrode legal privilege and asked for classified documents week after week. Members of this House may have been spied on, and the Government have a duty to be transparent. They cannot hide behind anything, given that they have previously asked for similar documents. Make them available!”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the new Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to his post. I know that he is one of the most able performers in the Government, and he is now in one of the most important and under- appreciated roles in Government. For the good of the country, I wish him well. He is also the first Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. We Conservatives congratulate him on how well Downing Street has been run since he took over—we have enjoyed it greatly. Phase 2 is proving to be a real belter. On the alleged spying on Members of this House, Downing Street has revealed that the Prime Minister became aware on 13 September that the case was about to collapse. When was the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister first told that the trial was unlikely to proceed, and who told him?”
House of Commons23 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Okay, I will repeat the question for the Security Minister, because either he did not hear it or he chose not to answer it. My question was very specific. We know that the Prime Minister was told on 13 September that the trial was unlikely to proceed—Downing Street has told us that. My question is: when was the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told, and who told him? He oversees the Cabinet Office’s National Security Secretariat, and he chairs the National Security Council. When was he told?”
House of Commons23 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for giving us a degree more clarity. Perhaps he will give us a degree more clarity again. Was he told that the alleged case of spying against Members of Parliament was due to collapse before the information became public and, if so, who told him?”
House of Commons23 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I believe the right hon. Gentleman, but I find that answer extraordinary, and I think he should find it extraordinary, too. As we have already said, the right hon. Gentleman chairs the National Security Council. He oversees the Cabinet Office’s national security secretariat. The Prime Minister knew, the Home Secretary knew, the Cabinet Secretary knew, the chief of MI5 knew, the Attorney General’s Office knew, but the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister did not. Has he asked why he was not told, and what answer was he given?”
House of Commons23 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons15 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons15 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons14 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗