Alex Easton MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Intertrade UK · Hansard source

  More

  What indicators is the Secretary of State using to measure growth in trade within the UK internal market? Will he commit to publicising an independent assessment of the barriers that the Northern Ireland protocol is having on trade within the UK and Northern Ireland, which I believe affects the ability of Intertrade UK to fully promote trade within the UK and operate independently?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Intertrade UK · Hansard source

  More

  2. What steps he is taking to ensure that Intertrade UK operates independently and transparently.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles · Hansard source

  More

  I personally do not have a great deal of faith in this Government or previous Governments on issues to do with legacy. Can the Secretary of State give assurances that in addressing the legacy of the Northern Ireland troubles, terrorists will not be allowed to rewrite history and that our history will be recorded truthfully, with the focus on innocent victims rather than on those who committed acts of terrorism? Can he further reassure me that veterans will not be chased for prosecutions vexatiously? Can he also reassure me—given that Irish Governments for 56 years of my life have failed to give information to our Government about acts of terrorism from their side of the country? Can he tell us what inquests will actually go ahead now? If he could name them all, I would really appreciate that.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Windsor Framework: Internal Market Guarantee · Hansard source

  More

  Northern Ireland remains subject to over 300 areas of EU law, meaning that our businesses face checks, paperwork and ongoing diversions that no other firms or businesses in England, Scotland or Wales have to contend with. Even recently, there have been numerous lorries turned back at the ports for transporting food, which we were told was sorted out. Is this not a clear breach of the principles of unfettered access, and a fundamental weakening of our place within the Union?

• 22 Jul 2025 · UK Internal Market · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dr Huq. This matter is crucial because it deeply affects British livelihoods, communities and the unity that we hold dear in the United Kingdom. To those who prematurely claimed or exaggerated that the Irish sea border was removed, I say, “You’re overlooking the harsh realities faced by many businesses in Northern Ireland.” The numerous cases speak for themselves, and I will share several today. Only last week, four loads of food supplies were sent back in a 48-hour period from a port in Northern Ireland because of these regulations, affecting chilled and frozen foods. Recently, a lorry driver who owns a lorry-driving business mentioned that one sixth of his business is being negatively affected by the Windsor framework. The Secretary of State claimed that food supply and veterinary issues were resolved—that is clearly not the case. Why are food lorries being turned back from Northern Ireland ports? I go shopping in a local supermarket in my constituency. In the last 10 days, I have been into that supermarket about half a dozen times. I have not even been able to get corned beef or doggy treats for my dog—my dog loves his doggy treats, and we have not been able to get them. Those are just basic items that face problems getting into Northern Ireland. That is why I stand firmly against any trade barriers between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It was unacceptable then and remains unacceptable now. This debate transcends commerce; it is about the integrity and unity of the United Kingdom. First and foremost, these barriers disrupt a legacy of seamless trade, which we have enjoyed for decades. They place additional costs and burdens on businesses in Northern Ireland. We take pride in our small, family-run businesses, which form the backbone of our economy. I implore the Minister to empathise with these businesses as they face challenges in sourcing or sending products across the Irish sea and become entangled in complex regulations that hinder rather than help. He should see it from the perspective of these businesses and ask, “Is this truly fair to fellow citizens in Northern Ireland?” We are not just discussing inconveniences; these barriers are a chokehold on progress, strangling the local businesses that drive our economic growth. Moreover, these trade barriers threaten consumer welfare. Market constraints lead to limited choices, empty shelves and rising prices. British families in Northern Ireland face restricted access to diverse goods and are suffering unnecessarily. That is not the future that we envisioned for UK citizens. We cannot accept a future market that is marked by economic hardship due to artificial barriers within our United Kingdom. These trade barriers challenge the essence of what it means to be united. They drive a wedge between regions that throughout our rich history have stood shoulder to shoulder. The resulting divide contradicts the very principle upon which the UK was built. It must not fracture our shared identity and values. While the intentions behind the protocol may have been good, the reality necessitates a reassessment of its impacts. I am reminded of the saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Solutions exist and we must pursue them. The bottom line for any resolution must be the integrity of the UK and its internal market. Let us not be passive in the face of these trade barriers; instead, we must be diligent in restoring seamless trade throughout the United Kingdom. Finally, Minister, given that these trade barriers are part of some 300 EU laws with zero democratic accountability in Northern Ireland, what is the timescale for their removal? We were told that we would get the best of both worlds; that is just not the case. When will this get sorted out?

• 22 Jul 2025 · 10-Year Health Plan: Perinatal Mental Health · Hansard source

  More

  In assessing the impact of the 10-year plan on perinatal health for England, can the Minister assure us that the lessons learned will be shared across the rest of the United Kingdom, to enhance care quality and reduce regional disparities, especially in Northern Ireland?

• 8 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In the light of the tragic loss of young mother Sarah Montgomery, who was seven months pregnant, due to violence, which has left two young girls without a mother and impacted the entire community of Donaghadee in my constituency, do the Government agree that early interventions, particularly through early education, are essential? Furthermore, can we look at intensifying our efforts to prevent domestic violence against women and young girls and at increasing sentences to deter that type of crime?