Sorcha Eastwood MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Feb 2026 · Minister for Men and Boys · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this debate. My goodness, where do I start? I think this debate is an incredibly good jumping off point. This is something that comes through in all our constituencies on a daily basis, and Lagan Valley is no different. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, Northern Ireland may be a slight outlier, in that we are a post conflict society. People of my generation grew up with a culture centred around strong men, for want of a better phrase. We also had very strong women, and I am one of them, but unfortunately I am here with you all today. There is a societal question about how we grip this issue. I am a very outspoken advocate and champion for women and girls, but I am learning as I go that we cannot exclude men and boys from these conversations. I am heartened to hear a real acknowledgment of that today, right across the political spectrum. It was lovely and refreshing to hear someone say that women are women and men are men. That is actually really heartening, because what that looks like to one individual will be very different from how it looks to another—people have outlined their own situations, which is lovely. That does not exclude people from the LGBT community either. Actually, whenever we look at some of the reporting around sexual violence, domestic violence and abuse, we have uncovered that, particularly in Northern Ireland, there is an issue with same-sex relationships. Gay men and women in particular feel that they have no voice whatsoever and have been really afraid to come forward, because they have felt that no one would believe them and that they did not have a place to go. On this journey, we are learning all the time that what is right for one person will be different for another, but we should never lose sight of the fact that there is a specific issue around men and boys. It is funny that the former right hon. Member for Harlow was mentioned earlier, because, in my previous life, I worked in business, and one of the things I was very passionate about was apprenticeships. Members right across the House have spoken today about the deindustrialisation of Britain and the lack of pathways for care-experienced young people who may potentially come into the justice system. The old phrase, “It costs more to do jail than Yale”, comes to mind. As other Members have said, if we ignore these issues in the early years, we are just saving up problems for later down the line, when it is much more difficult in a person’s life and much more costly to the state—if we want to put it in those blunt terms. The issue of apprenticeships is close to my heart, even now. I know we are still navigating our way through the apprenticeship levy, and what it means in some of the new industries that we are trying to promote to give our young people opportunities, but we have to be honest and ask whether there has been a move away from wanting to discuss the roles that young men and boys may have traditionally gone into. I say that as somebody who worked in manufacturing, and I have spent an awful lot of my time trying to encourage women and girls into manufacturing and science, technology, engineering and maths industries. I think it is okay to say to men and boys, “If you want to do work on the tools, you can do that. We will support you.” No one has mentioned it in this debate, but in my constituency we have a large history of people going into the armed forces. If men and boys want to do that and get a trade—and if women and girls want to do that, because a lot of women close to me have served—that is completely fine. There is nothing wrong in saying that to men and boys. I do not think that is reinforcing an unhealthy gender stereotype; it is simply allowing people permission to do what they want and what they feel is right. Family access and contact is a big issue that is close to my heart—Members have specifically raised that in this debate. I am deeply concerned about some of the issues that our men and boys face in the family court system. I do not know how we resolve that. It will not be done at the stroke of a pen or by legislation, but I am seriously concerned about how we deal with that issue, going forward. At the weekend, in my Lagan Valley constituency, I attended an event through the Resurgam Trust in Lisburn. It was well attended by men from right across the community, but representatives of the trust said to me privately that they struggle to get people there. However, they got people there, which is the most important thing. We cannot let go of those men and boys when they step forward. Is a Ministry for men and boys the answer? I am not sure, but I certainly do not want to dismiss it out of hand. It is worth considering. No matter our views, there is a perception out there: “If we have a Minister for women and girls, why do we not have one for men and boys?” I understand the logic in that argument, and I am not going to dismiss it. Do I think we need to keep having these conversations? Absolutely. I think it would be to everyone’s detriment not to continue having them. I commend the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth for securing this debate, and commend everyone for contributing in really good faith. I look forward to the contributions of the Government and Opposition Front Benchers.

• 24 Feb 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, indeed—I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I remind colleagues that Northern Ireland voted to remain. It is regrettable that Northern Ireland has borne the brunt in all of this. I do not spend my time relitigating Brexit, because it tore my country apart, but for our community and voluntary sector in Northern Ireland, the legacy is that we have never had the European social funds replaced like for like by any Government since we left the EU, and that is a disgraceful legacy.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of reforming Northern Ireland’s political institutions. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Vaz. I was talking briefly to colleagues on the way over here and I said, “This time a year ago, almost, we had the exact same debate.” That was a 30-minute debate on the reform of the institutions of Northern Ireland, and I was absolutely petrified of causing any controversy, so I did not take any interventions. This will be a 60-minute debate and I would much rather we have a conversation—rows, warts, fights and all, in good faith and in good spirit—and try to come together. I am really pleased to see colleagues in the Chamber from across the House; that really means something to me. My motivation for this debate is not based on party politics. I feel that the people of Northern Ireland are looking at us, and they are calling for something better. I am not questioning the bona fides of any representative. I think that every single one of us is here to represent our constituents across Northern Ireland in good faith, and every single one of us does that as best we can. However, where I feel we run into difficulties is that we have a system of government that enables or permits—whatever we want to call it—collapse, and that becomes a difficulty. I do not need to rehearse the reasons why. My colleagues from Northern Ireland understand fully how we arrived at this situation and the system that it is based on. Governing under the constant threat of collapse discourages long-term decision making; it entrenches short-term decision making and paralyses reform. Probably one of the best examples that we can give of that is that we are currently attempting to set a three-year budget for Northern Ireland, for the first time in at least 10 years, and it is extremely difficult to do so. Unfortunately, with the historical muscle memory of what has happened with our governance before, there is a real risk—and a concern and a worry among the public—that we simply cannot have difficult and challenging conversations that really challenge party positions in such a way that there is no fear of collapse. I do not need to tell colleagues around the table today the price of collapse and constant interruption of government. Such a situation would not be acceptable anywhere else in the UK. Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and we should be treated as such. It would not be acceptable in a mayoralty anywhere in the north of England. Likewise, in the Republic of Ireland, this situation simply would not be tolerated, either after an election or during the course of a Government, where, to be fair, there is a real comparator, in that they have to form coalition Governments. We are not exceptional and we are not unique in being asked to govern with people who have completely different views from ours. Many, many Governments around the world do that. I think that nearly 30 years after the Good Friday agreement being signed, the public at large—we all serve at their pleasure—are simply saying that enough is enough. The evidence is now overwhelming. I used to say to people 10 or 15 years ago that reform was a niche Alliance party talking point. I do not think we really reserve that luxury any more. I am not picking on any colleagues, but there are colleagues here from the SDLP and from other political parties who really have gone some way to advancing those arguments about reform of our institutions, and have expounded on those points very well. We are not the only ones making this point. People within Unionism are saying the same thing. When it comes to people living in Northern Ireland, right across nationalism, Unionism and people like me who are neither of those things, there is now a real groundswell of opinion. We have seen constant evidence in polling from various surveys that shows people in Northern Ireland simply do not want to have this system any more. I do not feel that I am better than anybody else because I do not designate as Unionist or nationalist—part of me is Unionist and part of me is nationalist, but all of me is united community. I feel strongly about that point. We need to bear in mind going forward that the desire for reform is not the preserve of any one political tradition or viewpoint in Northern Ireland, or the solution offered by them. It is felt right across the political spectrum. The Assembly has now spoken. Just before Christmas, for the first time, it formally backed Alliance’s call for institutional reform. It is not symbolic; it is a historic milestone, and Members across the Legislative Assembly acknowledge that the ability of any single party to veto decision making is untenable. Misuse of mechanisms such as the petition of concern has damaged trust and stability, and reform is now necessary, not optional. I remember the previous collapses. In December 2019, whenever we were convening all-party talks on how to restore the institutions, there was a viewpoint that it was not the right time to have a discussion about how to reform them. I did not agree with that at the time, but with hindsight I understand why those points were made and why some held those views. I understand that it is simply not good enough for me to say, “I want these changes done tomorrow in this prescriptive way, and that is the end of it.” That is not how we will move forward in any meaningful way, if no one gets what they want. That was what the entire Good Friday agreement was about. To colleagues who might take the position that this pulls at the fabric of the Good Friday agreement to the point where it breaks, I would dispute that completely and utterly. It was not good enough to simply have the agreement signed to enable peace. That was very much hard-won and hard-fought and something that we need to jealously guard, but it is not enough any more to say to people that we can forgo the difficult job of governance. I want this to be a positive and productive conversation. I am willing to hear different viewpoints and to accept that others will disagree about how we do this, but where there is consensus, we owe it to the people of Northern Ireland to say that enough is enough. We need to honour them and their wishes. The reforms remain modest but are essential: removing the ability of any one party to block the formation of an Executive, replacing parallel consent with arrangements that encourage genuine cross-community participation, and restoring the petition of concern to its original purpose of protecting rights, not blocking progress. We have seen, even in recent weeks, how veto mechanisms continue to be abused. That is not safeguarding democracy; it is corroding it. These reforms would not dismantle power sharing. They would make it workable. They are the bare minimum. To Unionist colleagues in particular, I want to make a plea, or at least make my own views known and quite plain. I completely understand why some people in the community, given the different political make-up across Northern Ireland, now see discussions about reform as being couched in some sort of ulterior motive of majoritarianism and exclusion. It would trouble me greatly, to my core, to the extent that I would not participate, if any Government or Administration simply excluded Unionists because they did not feel that there were enough of them to—in a crass way—make up the numbers.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the situation we have, whereby Governments can simply go without being formed, would be anathema anywhere in the home counties, whether it is a local mayoralty or a regional district within GB? Surely to goodness that would not be tolerated in the UK—and Northern Ireland is indeed part of the UK.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak on clause 62 and schedule 12, and my new clause 1. As we have already heard from the Northern Ireland Benches, this is about listening and recognising Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances. I acknowledge from the outset the deep anxiety and distress caused to many farmers across Northern Ireland, including in Lagan Valley, by recent inheritance tax proposals. Farming in Northern Ireland is not just an economic activity; it is a community, a way of life and something that is deeply special and has been rooted in the land across Northern Ireland for generations. As many have said, it is also central to our food security. I cannot for the life of me understand why, at a time of ongoing and increasing geopolitical insecurity, we would take this step. Farmers in Northern Ireland responded with a united, constructive and responsible voice. I pay tribute to the Ulster Farmers Union, the Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster and any farmer who took a stand on this important issue. That unity mattered, and it forced movement from the Government. I will not gainsay that or try to nit-pick: I welcome the U-turn. We should never have been in this position, but I do welcome the change. The original £1 million threshold was never fit for purpose for Northern Ireland. Analysis by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs showed that it could have pulled about 50% of Northern Ireland farms into inheritance tax compared with about 5% of estates generally across the UK. That level of impact was clearly disproportionate. I therefore welcome the increase in the threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million and the decision to make the allowance transferable between spouses. Credit is due to the farming community alone for the united front that secured this long-overdue change. But while many families will feel relief, as other members of the Committee have outlined, real uncertainty remains in particular for older farmers and those who cannot simply plan around sudden policy changes. I place on record my thanks to my colleague Andrew Muir MLA, the Agriculture Minister in Northern Ireland, and his officials. He has been steadfast, evidence-led and relentless in standing up for Northern Ireland’s farmers. That included repeated engagement with the Treasury and a joint letter in November with the First Minister, Deputy First Minister and Finance Minister, which called clearly for a higher threshold and spousal transferability. This is devolution working at its best, no matter what others may say, but it also shows why Westminster must listen when Northern Ireland speaks with one voice. Northern Ireland is different, and one-size-fits-all policy does not work for Northern Ireland. Farms in Northern Ireland are smaller on average, intergenerational and family-run, and often land-rich but cash-poor. Land values, as others have elucidated, continue to rise faster in Northern Ireland. Even with a £5 million transferable threshold, DAERA estimates that the number of impacted farms would fall to about 5%, but those farms account for around 27% of the total area that is farmed. I am clear-eyed about this. Not every farm will be able to avail itself of the £5 million threshold, and poorly calibrated tax policy can force land sales, break succession and undermine the long-term viability of family farms.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I echo many other Members across the House in paying tribute to the Hillsborough families. I represent a constituency in Northern Ireland, but I have to confess that I am a red. We heard of their plight and took that plight on as our own. I cannot see up to the Gallery, but I say to Margaret and everybody else up there: we are thinking of you and hold you in our hearts today. This is your day. What you have managed to do has reverberated not just throughout Liverpool and the whole of the United Kingdom, but throughout the world. You have set the gold standard—a price that we should never have expected you to pay. To lose family members at any time is extremely traumatic, but to lose them in the way that you lost your loved ones, and the subsequent cover-up—as other Members have mentioned today, this is not simply about statutory organisations and their response; it is also about the role of the press. Last summer, whenever this Parliament sat for the first time, the Prime Minister said that this would be a Government of service, and I really do believe that this legislation is the best example of that so far. This Bill is all about service to people and service to community. When I entered Parliament last year, I found a kindred spirit in my friend, the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). This subject is personal to me and my constituents, because many people in Lagan Valley and Northern Ireland were impacted by the infected blood scandal; some of those families are my constituents. This is about a pattern and, as others have referenced—I will say it out loud for the avoidance of doubt—there is also a strong element of class within this. People do not understand. If you have been brought up and raised by the state, for want of a better word—reliant on it for financial and other support—if you are pregnant and someone tells you to take a pill because you have morning sickness, you take the pill and believe that you will be okay. And when people start to ask questions, you don’t ask why. So many women across the UK took that pill: Thalidomide, Primodos, sodium valproate, aggressions against women as they were labouring, the Ockenden report—so many issues littering across our culture and our United Kingdom. And the pattern is always the same: transgressions against people who sometimes do not even know how to raise the alarm. If you were to ask the person on the Clapham omnibus, “Do you know what the Public Interest Disclosure Act is? Do you know how to utilise your rights in regard to that piece of legislation?”, they are going to look at you; they are going to turn around and say, “I’m not gonna tout on the boss.” That is a cultural phenomenon, and it is one that persists because we have such inequality within this country—inequality in housing and in education. We can see a huge social gulf widening every day. Why should we be surprised whenever people who are done wrong by the state feel that they have nowhere to turn? They cannot even see themselves that they have been done wrong. This matter transcends politics, and it has been heartening to hear that echoed across the House today. This is not a matter of party politics; this is about representing our constituents to the best of our ability. This legislation is so important because it represents the UK Government finally recognising that honesty and transparency are not optional virtues; they are the foundations of justice. Today in the Northern Ireland Assembly, my colleagues have spoken about one of the biggest health scandals of our time: the cervical smear scandal in the Southern trust, which includes part of my Lagan Valley constituency. Some 17,000 women had their smear tests read incorrectly. Two of them have already passed away: Erin Harbinson and Lynsey Courtney, both young mothers. We are still waiting for adequate responses as to why that happened, and that is in just one part of the UK. There is another reason that this is legislation is so important and personal to me: the experience of my Lagan Valley constituents, the Conroy family. I am really grateful to my friends and Members from Northern Ireland for mentioning the Chinook crash—the case of flight Zulu Delta 576. Twenty-nine people on board were killed and there were no survivors, but what happened afterwards should be considered, and is, a stain on the corporate body of the UK. It should not be materially relevant, but fact is that all those people on board gave their lives in service to protecting people. And they were repaid by the state denying justice and just saying that the four special forces pilots were wrong—that was it; nothing to see. If were it not for the persistence of the families of Flight Lieutenants Rick Cook and Jonathan Tapper, the families would have walked away by today. It was not until over a year ago that a documentary aired and some of the families found out that, actually, the findings relating to the Chinook crash are sealed for 100 years. I understand that is because of information related to the people on board the craft, but we can get round that with a public immunity certificate. The families deserve answers, and if this Government are serious about this legislation, this should be the first test case.