Meeting of the Parliament 11 February 2026 [Draft]
I thank Fergus Ewing both for the advance notice of his intention to air the matter that he did and for the accompanying detail that he provided.
The Government notes the terms of the court judgment, but we also note—as I hope Mr Ewing recognises—that the period of time in which an appeal can be lodged runs until February 2026 and, accordingly, it would at this stage be premature to comment publicly on the matter. Self-evidently, if an appeal were to be lodged, it would be appropriate and proper to defer any decision on specific action pending the final decision on the case.
I acknowledge that it is entirely reasonable for Parliament to ask the Government what it intends to do to remedy an ECHR incompatibility if that is the final position of the court after any appeal proceedings have been concluded or if no appeal is lodged. Given that we are in the period during which an appeal can be considered, I note the need to afford the proper respect to the judiciary and to the litigants, and to be mindful of the later potential application of the Parliament’s sub judice rules.
However, I note that, if the terms of the judgment broadly remain, careful consideration will be needed—as with any court judgment—regarding the judgment and what action may be necessary to address the incompatibility. With just six weeks left in the current session of Parliament, as Fergus Ewing acknowledged, that would, therefore, be a decision for the next Government and Parliament to take when the process is complete.