Alex Easton MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 17 Dec 2025 · Torture of Animals: Online Content · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Government do more to ensure proactive detection of this vile material, such as by using artificial intelligence tools and human moderators with specialist training in animal cruelty, so that such content is swiftly identified and removed, and put robust measures in place to prevent it from reappearing online?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise. Has the Secretary of State sought any legal advice on the issue, and can he share it with the House? Will he also update us on making sure that the Irish Government produce all legal papers on their role, on the IRA and on the involvement of the Garda Síochána?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  Secretary of State, the official Opposition are saying to hold off the remedial order until the Supreme Court judgment. Have you sought any legal advice on that? Can you share it with the House?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Budget 2025: Impact on Graduates · Hansard source

  More

  With research indicating that up to three quarters of higher education providers could be in deficit by 2025-26, and with plans being drawn up for course closures and staff cuts, does the hon. Member agree that there is an onus on the Government to act so that we secure a richly educated generation of UK graduates, and not simply the educated rich?

• 11 Dec 2025 · e-Bike Batteries · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister consider introducing minimum design and safety standards for e-bike batteries to reduce the risk of overcharging, overheating and short-circuiting?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Women’s Economic Empowerment · Hansard source

  More

  Has the Minister considered using all the Government’s levers in female-dominated low-paid sectors, including uprating the minimum wage and strengthening fair work standards in social care, early years and the cleaning industry?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Illegal Migrants: Unknown Whereabouts · Hansard source

  More

  Given that 53,000 illegal immigrants have absconded with no address, and 736 who have committed crimes have absconded, does the hon. Member agree that this Government have lost control of their borders and their immigration policies, and they have lost all credibility when it comes to immigration issues?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Veterinary Medicines: Northern Ireland · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. Given that the National Office of Animal Health has warned that, in a worst-case scenario, up to 50% of veterinary medicines could be withdrawn from Northern Ireland, with serious consequences for animal health and agrifood, should the UK Government commit to urgent, targeted support for farmers and vets, who are heavily reliant on those products?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Catapults and Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source

  More

  The Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime Northern Ireland has helpfully drawn attention to the growing misuse of catapults. Does the hon. Member agree that there must be robust enforcement of existing law, particularly article 12 of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 in respect of wild animals and the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 in respect of domestic animals?

• 26 Nov 2025 · 1994 RAF Chinook Crash · Hansard source

  More

  To 2001.

• 26 Nov 2025 · 1994 RAF Chinook Crash · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all Members for their speeches and interventions. On behalf of the families, we appreciate the interest and the real reason: trying to get to the truth. Will the Minister to confirm something the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) mentioned about FOIs? Am I correct in saying that if somebody submits an FOI request for the documents that were sealed for 100 years, they can all be obtained, with redactions? I am willing to take an intervention.

• 26 Nov 2025 · 1994 RAF Chinook Crash · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the 1994 RAF Chinook helicopter crash. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. The date of 2 June 1994 was a dark day in the history of our United Kingdom. On that day, on the Mull of Kintyre, Chinook ZD576 crashed, killing everybody on board: nine senior military officers, 10 Royal Ulster Constabulary special branch officers, five MI5 officers, a senior civil servant and four highly skilled members of the RAF. They were not only servants of the state, but husbands, fathers, sons, brothers and friends. They carried on their shoulders some of the most sensitive responsibilities in the defence and security of our country, and lost their lives in the course of that service. More than three decades on, the quest for truth and justice in relation to that crash remains as relevant, urgent and morally compelling as ever. Sadly, the investigations and inquiries to date have not met the standards that those families or this country are entitled to expect. We have seen gaps in the chains of evidence, missing or incomplete documentation, the then Secretary of State for Defence being given an incomplete briefing, key information withheld or redacted, and manuals produced with missing pages.

• 26 Nov 2025 · 1994 RAF Chinook Crash · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her answer. We will certainly look at an FOI on that, just to see. For too long, questions have remained unanswered. Why have the Ministry of Defence documents been sealed for 100 years? Why were repeated warnings ignored time and again? Where was the due diligence on the Chinook Airworthiness Review Team reports, which identified systematic failings? Where was the due diligence in response to the September 1993 report that described the FADEC software as “positively dangerous”? Where was the due diligence on the October 1993 findings of MOD test authorities that were unable to recommend the aircraft for flying? These are not just abstract questions; they go to the very heart of accountability, trust in our institutions, and justice for the families, who have waited far too long. A 100-year blanket ban of secrecy cannot be allowed to smother the quest for truth, so we will test that with an FOI request. Light must be shone into the darkness. Today we have a choice to continue to hide behind delays and smokescreens, or to honour that long-held principle that justice delayed is indeed justice denied, and finally deliver the truth that is owed to the families through a judge-led public inquiry. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the 1994 RAF Chinook helicopter crash.

• 26 Nov 2025 · 1994 RAF Chinook Crash · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree—we need to get the truth, and there are mechanisms for that truth to come out. To put it bluntly, all that has gone on before has been weighed in the balance of justice and found to be severely wanting. It is now undoubtedly clear that we must give a proper final opportunity for the truth to be told in full, in public and under oath, with the power to compel witnesses and require the production of documents. Those on board Chinook ZD576 gave their lives in the service of our country. In all conscience, the minimum we can give in return is a process worthy of their sacrifice and the trust that their families once placed in the institutions of the state.

• 26 Nov 2025 · 1994 RAF Chinook Crash · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member makes some very poignant points, and makes them well. I appreciate that they have been made. I will tell you what I do have confidence in, Mr Dowd: I have confidence in the words of Niven Phoenix, a bereaved son who lost a heroic father. He said that if he were choosing the aircrew again, he would choose exactly the same ones. That is the measure of the men we are talking about. The clearing of the pilots did not close the book on the story; it reopened it, raising further fundamental questions. If not pilot error, then what? What combination of factors—technical, procedural and organisational—contributed to this disaster? Why were certain lines of inquiry seemingly resisted or, at best, left under-examined? Why were experts put under a direct order to cease their investigation? For many of the families, and for many observers, those questions remain profoundly unresolved. Let me turn to why a judge-led inquiry is not only desirable but necessary. To the cynics who say, “This has been looked at before; it is time to move on,” let me be absolutely clear that that argument fails on three levels—moral, constitutional and practical. First, I will set out the moral case. There is a clear and unavoidable duty owed to the dead and to their families. The men and women on board ZD576 were in the service of their country; they were doing their duty, often in the most sensitive areas of national security. The very least they deserve in return is something fundamental: if they are killed in the line of duty, the state will move heaven and earth to discover how and why. Instead, for 30 years, the families have had to fight again and again for answers that should have been offered willingly. They have had to endure conflicting official narratives, piecemeal disclosures and technical complexities sometimes being used as a shield and barrier against proper lay scrutiny, as well as long periods of silence, delay and dismissal. All this has unfolded while families have grown older waiting for justice, and some parents have died without ever seeing their child fully cleared, or having received a clear and honest account of what happened to them. We cannot change the past or undo this terrible crash, but we can decide how we face it; we can choose either candour or continued evasion. Make no mistake—that is the moral choice that Members of this House are making today. Secondly, there is the constitutional case, which is a question of trust in the state itself. Our democracy fully functions only if our citizens can believe with confidence that when something goes terribly wrong, the state will not close ranks to protect itself. When tragedies such as this aircraft crash occur, in which decisions at the highest level may have played a part, the very minimum that the British public are entitled to expect is that evidence is not buried, mistakes are not quietly airbrushed away, and those in authority are not shielded simply because of their rank or department. A full judge-led public inquiry with powers to compel witnesses and take evidence under oath is the gold standard in our constitutional toolkit for restoring truth and trust—for examining major disasters, exposing state failings in policing, health, security and transport, and confronting painful truths about institutional abuse and misconduct. If the deaths of 29 people, including senior security and intelligence figures, on a military aircraft in the service of their country do not meet the bar for such an inquiry, it is very hard to see what ever would. It would be a profound constitutional error for this House to imply that there are areas of state activity that can never be fully examined, regardless of how serious the consequences are. I do not believe that any Member of this House would be content with that. Thirdly, let me turn to the practical realities. We insist on a judge-led inquiry with powers to compel witnesses and take evidence under oath because it is the only form of inquiry that has tools equal to the task. This House knows that only a full public inquiry can compel serving and former officials to give evidence; require the disclosure of all relevant material across departments and agencies; hear expert and technical testimony with the rigour needed to weigh competing interpretations; test accounts against each other in a structured and forensic way; and place everything within a publicly accessible framework in a clear, reasoned report. Let us be honest: without the power to compel, we rely on voluntary co-operation, which is by its nature selective. Without evidence given under oath, we cannot properly test credibility or consistency, and without judicial leadership, we cannot guarantee the independence, discipline and authority needed to command public confidence. Let me tackle the objections to a public inquiry head on. Some people say, “This happened a long time ago.” Indeed, the crash was in 1994. Time has passed, but it has not healed; it has fomented doubt, leaving a growing sense of injustice. Memories may fade, but documentation does not. Technical records can be scrutinised. Policies, processes and decision making can be examined. Many witnesses are still alive and capable of giving evidence. The delays we have seen to date are not an excuse to fail to act now; they are, in truth, a reason to act. Some people say, “There have already been investigations” —well, yes, of sorts. There have been fragmented processes, internal reviews and limited inquiries, but we have never had the single, judge-led public inquiry that the gravity of this tragedy demands. Those piecemeal processes cannot substitute for a full public reckoning. If previous procedures had been adequate, we would not be standing here now three decades on. The fact that this question remains unsettled is deeply telling in itself. Some people say an inquiry will cost money—of course it will: truth, justice and confidence in democratic processes have a cost, but what is the cost of failing to act? It is the cost to the families in prolonged anguish and uncertainty. It is the reputational cost to the RAF and our democratic institutions, given the inadequacies of past investigations. It is the cost to the wider public’s confidence when it appears that some tragedies receive full scrutiny, while others are expected to be quietly managed and forgotten. When heroic lives have been lost in the service of the Crown, the cost of an inquiry is not a luxury or an optional extra; it is part of the debt we owe. Some people say that an inquiry might endanger national security. We have heard that before in other contexts, yet time and again it has been shown to be possible to balance transparency with legitimate secrecy— inquiries can take sensitive evidence in closed session, for example. Highly classified material can be handled through carefully controlled procedures. Redactions can be made, subject to independent oversight. National security must never be used as a blanket to smother legitimate questions. The families are not seeking operational secrets; they are seeking an honest account of why their loved ones died and whether the actions or omissions of the state played a part. I contend that it is not only possible, but now entirely normal for a public inquiry to both protect the safety of our nation and respect the rights of citizens to the truth. The issue is about far more than one crash, one aircraft and one dark day in 1994; it goes to the heart of how we treat those who serve, and how we respond when they are lost. Failure is not an option because if we continue to fail the families of those who died on Chinook ZD576, we send a chilling message to every current and future member of the armed forces and security services: “We value your service, but if the worst happens the truth about your death may not always be negotiable.” I do not believe that a single member of this House finds that acceptable, let alone tolerable. A proper judge-led public inquiry is not simply about revisiting the past; it is about learning lessons for the future. It is about airworthiness, risk and how we respond to concerns over equipment. Behind each of the 29 lost lives was a unique and irreplaceable story: a pilot who trained for years and took deep pride in his aircraft and his crew; specialist officers who sacrificed family life and health to confront some of the most brutal terrorism western Europe has ever known, placing their own lives between the innocent and those who would harm them. Parents, wives, husbands and children have been left with an empty chair at the table, birthdays never celebrated, and milestones never reached. Children have grown up with treasured photographs and cherished memories instead of a living parent. Then there was a knock on the door, the formal words of condolence and the long, grinding aftermath of unanswered questions. For so many of the families, the search for truth has required them to become unwilling experts in aviation, procedure and bureaucracy, simply so they could argue their case on something approaching equal terms. They have pored over reports, examined technical data and followed every thread of the investigation to date. They have written to Members of the House again and again in the hope that somewhere in authority there might be a listening ear with the courage to act. We should hang our heads in shame that three decades on the families are still having to ask. Their position is not radical or unreasonable; it is, in fact, an appeal to simple integrity. They want a judge-led full public inquiry, with the power to compel witnesses—past and present—to attend, with the ability to take evidence under oath and with access to all the relevant documentation, to produce a public report that clearly sets out what is known, what is not known and what must change. That is not some dramatic departure from constitutional norms; it is entirely in line with the very best of our tradition of providing accountability when things go badly wrong. We face a stark choice today. When the victims’ families knocked on our doors, did we listen politely and then quietly turn our backs or did we take their pain seriously? Did we recognise the limitations and shortcomings of the earlier processes? Did we accept that in a mature democracy the state must submit itself to the discipline of searching, independent scrutiny? What is being sought is a fair route to the truth and to justice: an honest account of what happened and why. It should not be feared. Indeed, it should be embraced if we truly believe in the rule of law, accountability and the dignity of those who served and died. Today, we choose between courage and convenience. I urge Members to choose courage.

• 26 Nov 2025 · 1994 RAF Chinook Crash · Hansard source

  More

  I totally agree with everything the hon. and learned Member says. The families deserve better; they deserve the truth, and we in Parliament deserve the opportunity to get them that truth. Today, with the clear backing of tens of thousands of British citizens—as evidenced by the Change.org petition—I rise to demand a full public inquiry, because nothing less will provide justice for the dead or restore faith among the living. At the very least, any functioning democracy must be able to answer three basic questions in circumstances such as these: what happened; why did it happen; and what have we done—or what are we going to do—to ensure that it can never happen again? To put it in the terms set out by 24 of the 29 bereaved families, the bare minimum requirement is a fully independent, judge-led public inquiry with statutory powers to compel witnesses and to take evidence under oath; access to all relevant material, including currently sealed documentation; and clear, robust recommendations for systemic reform, so that nothing like this can ever happen again. The integrity, clarity and reasonableness of what is being sought could not be more evident. This is not a radical demand; it is the basic standard of accountability that a mature democracy owes to its citizens and, above all, to those who lost their lives and the families. Having identified the gaps, as well as the remedy—a judge-led public inquiry—the question before us is whether we have the will to act. We are here not simply to catalogue injustice, but to confront and correct it. That is ultimately the purpose of this House: to ensure that when wrong has been done, justice is not just spoken of, but delivered. Let me turn to the doubts and divisions that have marred this process. The record shows that from the very outset, the handling of this tragedy has in many ways been a second tragedy. It has been marked by profound and enduring concerns, including the initial findings of gross negligence against the pilots; the long and painful campaign by the pilots’ families—I pay tribute to them all—to overturn that verdict; serious concerns about the airworthiness and software of the Chinook fleet at the time; questions about pressures on crews, training, procedures and decision making; and deep unease, to put it mildly, about conflicts of evidence and missing, incomplete or constrained documentation. Years later, the pilots were posthumously cleared of gross negligence. When I look at what evidence ever existed for such a grave accusation, I find it inexplicable that the original conclusion was reached. That should make every Member of this House stop and think. Let me be absolutely clear: if the state can wrongly pin gross negligence on two dead airmen—men who could not speak in their own defence—what confidence can we possibly have that the whole truth has been properly and fully explored?

• 19 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 · Hansard source

  More

  Is it not the reality that this legislation has failed to win the confidence of many who served, and that we now need clear, robust protections against repeated investigations so that we honour our veterans in practice and not just in rhetoric?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Energy Efficiency Schemes: Consumer Confidence · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to oppose the Bill in the strongest possible terms. The Bill has been weighed in the balance of justice and found gravely wanting. It fails the test of fairness, it fails the test of common sense and it fails the test of our duty to protect innocent victims and our veterans. No one should underestimate the pain, the grief and the enduring trauma that the evil of terrorism has left in its wake. Some 3,500 people were murdered and countless others were maimed, physically and psychologically, condemned to lifelong suffering. It is the duty of everyone in this House to address that—not casually, not evasively, but seriously, honestly and above all with moral clarity.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is perfectly right; the Bill will not give justice to innocent victims. Moral clarity is grievously lacking in the Bill. Far from delivering justice, the legislation seeks in effect to rewrite history. We are shamefully witnessing those who stood between the innocent and the most evil terrorism western Europe has ever known being hounded to their graves. There are no letters of comfort for them. There is no opaque, invisible process quietly smoothing their path. Instead, rather than naming and confronting terrorism, the Bill constructs a grotesque false equivalence between those who wore the uniform of the Crown and those who sought to bomb and murder them into submission. Those who upheld the rule of law are being treated as morally indistinguishable from those who waged war against it. This is an affront to justice, to truth and to the memory of the victims. Those who stood between us and terror deserve better than to be hounded in the autumn of their lives by legislation that blurs right and wrong, truth and falsehood. This Bill fails that moral test. It fails our veterans, it fails the innocent and it fails the cause of genuine reconciliation. Justice demands that history never forgets those who chose the path of murderous terrorism and those who stood in their path and defeated them. This House has a duty not to pass legislation simply to make us feel better about the past, or for reasons of political expediency, but to pass legislation that is fair, honest and just. I am also deeply concerned about the legacy procedures operating outside the framework even of the ICRIR, such as public inquiries into nationalist and republican cases such as Pat Finucane, when victims of the IRA get no such inquiries. Operation Denton, which operates without any statutory framework or safeguards at all, has reportedly been travelling to Dublin and disclosing UK intelligence material to campaign groups, as reported in the media last month. Specifically on the Bill, I too have serious concerns about clause 5. The requirement to have policing experience in Northern Ireland could mean experience of being part of an external investigation team such as Kenova, rather than having served in the RUC or the PSNI. It is a back-door way of ushering out former members of the RUC and PSNI officers, again to placate those who would rewrite history. The Bill also provides for the chief executive to be part of the oversight board. How can somebody charged with discharging operational functions simultaneously have oversight of the discharge of those functions? Finally, is the proposal to have an advisory group to which the Secretary of State shall be required to have due regard not simply a way of again loading up such an advisory group with nationalist legacy activist groups? Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that, for example, such advisory groups will be required to give an undertaking and commitment to the definition of an innocent victim? Or are we going to be left with a panel, some of whose participants believe that, for example, the Shankill bomber is as much a victim as those who were murdered? That is just not right. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that no terrorists will sit on the legacy board? That assurance is not in the Bill, and he needs to clarify that. I want it in the Bill. Will the Irish Government give up their secrets? I very much doubt it. Let us draw a clear moral line between those who upheld the law and those who violated it. Let us protect veterans from endless vexatious complaints. Let us be honest with real victims about what can genuinely be achieved. Let us preserve the historical record so that further generations know the truth about what happened. This is not just another piece of legislation. In our desire to make progress, we must not betray the very people who—

• 17 Nov 2025 · Parkinson’s Disease · Hansard source

  More

  In terms of treating those suffering from Parkinson’s, does the hon. Member agree that best practice should be shared across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland so that everybody gets the best treatment right across our United Kingdom?

• 11 Nov 2025 · Imprisonment for Public Protection · Hansard source

  More

  What is the Government’s assessment of the current protocols regarding the comprehensive risk assessments, and can the public be assured that the existing policies on IPP sentences are safeguarding the community effectively?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Lasting Power of Attorney · Hansard source

  More

  In the light of the projection that 1.4 million people will be living with dementia in the UK in 2040, does the hon. Member agree that we need sufficient safeguards to protect vulnerable people?

• 28 Oct 2025 · World Stroke Day · Hansard source

  More

  Unfortunately, Northern Ireland, where the hon. Member and I live, has the second highest rate of stroke across the UK, with something like 4,700 strokes each year. Does he agree that we need to share best practice and research, which is emerging from certain parts of the UK, right across the board?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Mandatory Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that the vast majority of the population across the UK, including in Northern Ireland, clearly see this for what it is—as a breach of their data, as spying on them—and that the mass of the population are now opposed to it?