Carla Lockhart MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Robert Hamill Inquiry Report · Hansard source

  More

  This relates directly to my constituency, so I welcome the opportunity to speak to it today. Robert Hamill’s murder was a brutal and appalling crime, and my thoughts are first and foremost with his family, who have many questions, as do many families right across Northern Ireland. But the truth matters, and the truth today is clear. Paragraph 21 finds that four RUC officers “were not aware of the assault until they got out and they did not in any way condone or collude with attackers.” Paragraph 75 concludes that “we have found no wrongful act or omission which facilitated Robert Hamill’s death.” Put simply, they did not sit idly by, they did not collude, they did not facilitate murder—something that has been hurled at them for the past 30 years. The complaint, advanced by Rosemary Nelson, has been demolished by the inquiry, which also found that she failed to “co-operate fully” with the RUC and “did not improve the situation.” This goes to the heart of the nationalist republican legacy activism, whereby truth and the rule of law are subjective terms to be weaponised to seek to arrive at a predetermined political outcome. More than 300 RUC officers were murdered while protecting the entire community. Will the Secretary of State now end this decades-long smear, defend these four officers and reject any attempt to rewrite history or attach collective guilt to the RUC?

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) for making one of the most powerful speeches we have heard in this place today. The words we use in this debate matter, and if I have learned anything in my 20 years in politics, it is to be honest with people and the public we represent. The soft language of “assisted dying” is misleading the public, because it obscures the stark and very dark reality of what is actually being proposed. We should always have the courage to call things what they are. Of course, we all want assistance when we are dying, but that is not what this Bill provides. It is not about an extra shot of morphine to ease someone on their way; it is a Bill that allows doctors to provide lethal drugs for a patient to end their life. Let the reality of that sink in: our great NHS, the principles of which are to protect and to save lives, would be responsible for state-sponsored suicide. That is what it is. Yesterday was World Suicide Prevention Day; the irony should not be lost on any Member of this House. Healthcare professionals and charities work tirelessly to prevent suicide. They seek to reassure people in despair that their life has value, that help is available and that hope remains, but what would this Bill do? It would weaken the principles that underpin our suicide prevention strategies. I ask supporters of the Bill: what message does a system of state-sanctioned death send to those already wrestling with suicidal thoughts? How can we genuinely regard suicide as a tragedy to be prevented while allowing it to become a medical intervention to be facilitated by the state? One of the deepest concerns is that the Bill does not require a proper exploration of why a patient wishes to end their life. What if their wish is driven by financial worries, poor access to care or the fear of being a burden on family members? Sometimes a desire to die is actually a cry for help, yet under this legislation, death will be presented as an acceptable response to hardship. The lines get particularly blurry when it comes to certain manageable conditions, such as type 1 diabetes. If a person decides to refuse treatment, such conditions could end up meeting the Bill’s definition of terminal illness. When the definition is this broad, it is easy to see how the law will expand over time. Those who oppose my view will hate the words “slippery slope”, but that is the reality in every country where this legislation has been approved: Oregon’s similar legislation now covers diabetes and arthritis; in Belgium, it covers children and people with autism; and in Spain, a lady who was gang raped ultimately went on to end her own life. I also have grave concerns about those who may be quietly pressured into choosing assisted suicide. The Bill allows doctors to discuss assisted suicide with patients, but it makes no exception for those who may be especially vulnerable.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will not. The Bill would fundamentally alter the patient-doctor relationship. For generations, people have looked to healthcare professionals for treatment and care. That trust is precious, and should never be diluted. The Bill drives a coach and horses through that relationship. The role of our health service should be to do no harm and to stand alongside patients in their darkest moments. I am not wearing rose-tinted glasses; I know that too many people struggle to access the end-of-life care that they deserve, but the answer to that failure cannot be to make death more available. The answer is to make care more available instead. We should be focusing our energy and resources on strengthening palliative care services and ensuring that nobody faces their final days without proper support. My opposition to this Bill is not only practical but moral. Life is precious, and it deserves protection from its beginning to its natural end. That is what my Christian faith teaches me, and that belief is shared by many of my constituents, and by countless people across this great United Kingdom. This House was founded on Christian principles, and this legislation is so far removed from those Christian principles. The true measure of a compassionate society is not how easily it facilitates death, but how faithfully it cares for those who are suffering. As I watched my dad take his last breath on this earth, tears rolled down his face. His pain had often been unbearable, but our NHS stepped up. His consultants, pain nurse and those caring for him rallied around him, because he wanted and deserved to live. He did not need help to die; he needed help to live, and when death came naturally, he needed care, compassion and dignity. That is what every vulnerable person deserves. I cannot support a law that would allow the state to be involved in ending human life, and that is why I and my Democratic Unionist party colleagues will vote against this Bill today.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more with the hon. Member. Especially vulnerable people include those with learning difficulties, those with a history of suicidal feelings or those detained for their own safety under the Mental Health Act 1983. To give just one example, people with Down’s syndrome rely heavily on parents and carers to navigate complex decisions. They are deserving of every possible safeguard, and the Bill does not provide it. Instead, according to the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, “The Bill presumes the best, rather than legislates for the worst.” That is not good legislation. As one member of the group said, “I worry that I and others with Down syndrome, and our families and supporters, might be pressured to consider ending our lives when we face the effects of aging. Haven’t we enough stigma to deal with already?”

• 8 Sept 2026 · Safety of the Jewish Community · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing this important debate. I want to make it absolutely clear that I stand with Jewish communities right across the United Kingdom. We cannot speak about the safety of Jewish people in Britain without remembering the appalling events of 7 October. The slaughter carried out by Hamas was an act of barbaric terrorism and violent antisemitism. Men, women and children were murdered simply because they were Jewish. I have said before that those who value democracy must stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel in the face of such terrorism, and I make no apology for repeating it today. I am increasingly concerned not only by what we have seen, but by what we have failed to hear. There have been occasions when some in this House who are vocal on many international issues have struggled to offer the most basic condemnation of the murder of Jewish people or of the hatred that motivated it. That silence matters. It matters because Jewish people in this country should not have to wonder whether the institutions that are supposed to protect them will stand with them when antisemitism becomes uncomfortable or politically inconvenient. We have seen antisemitism manifest in the streets, at demonstrations on university campuses and, tragically, in attacks on Jewish people and institutions. We saw it over the weekend in Northern Ireland, when athletes were prevented from taking part in a triathlon not because they had committed any offences, had been racist or had provoked hatred; no, it was simply because they were from Israel. People of all faiths and none represent Israel in international sport. We have seen the consequences of the normalisation of hatred. Indeed, the slogan “From the river to the sea” is used by those in this House. Just consider its meaning: the obliteration of the state of Israel and all who live within it. We must be absolutely clear that antisemitism is not a legitimate political position or acceptable criticism. It is hatred directed at people because they are Jewish, and it must be confronted wherever it appears. This debate is fundamentally about equality. There are no second-class citizens in the United Kingdom. Every citizen should be able to walk down their street, attend their place of worship, send their children to school and express their faith without fear of intimidation or attack. It is therefore deeply troubling that Jewish people feel that they have to conceal their identity or alter their behaviour simply to feel safe. If a Jewish person is advised not to walk down a particular street, or feels unsafe wearing a kippah openly, we should not simply accept that as the unfortunate reality in modern Britain. We should not settle for that standard. Generations before us fought and made sacrifices so that people in this country could live freely, practise their faith and express their identity without fear. The Jewish community must be entitled to the same freedoms. We must remember that antisemitism did not begin with 7 October and will not disappear simply because the headlines move on. We have a responsibility to learn the lessons of history and ensure that Jewish people in Britain today do not remember the promise of “never again” as something that belongs only in the past. They must be able to live it, walk our streets freely, wear the symbols of their faith openly, attend synagogues without fear, send their children to school without worrying about whether they will face hatred because they are Jewish, and know that when antisemitism raises its ugly head, this Parliament, this Government and the wider British public will stand with them.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Private Investment: Local Leaders · Hansard source

  More

  Private investment in the steel industry in Northern Ireland is being curtailed by the Windsor framework, because it is forcing businesses in Upper Bann to pay 50% EU tariffs on category 4 and category 7 steel. How many jobs must be lost across Northern Ireland’s manufacturing sector before the Chancellor takes action on this crazy steel tariff situation?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Online Safety · Hansard source

  More

  A child cannot unsee a sexualised image online. I raised with the former Secretary of State parents’ concerns regarding highly sexualised images popping up in children’s games online. Will today’s announcement cover in-game adverts, or is that a loophole that the new Secretary of State can commit to looking at?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Draft Plant Health, Seeds, Seed Potatoes and Plant Propagating Material (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I concur with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. This instrument has been presented as a technical one, but there is nothing insignificant about creating new criminal liability under laws imposed on Northern Ireland by the European Union. The regulations amend six separate areas of Northern Ireland law, covering vegetable plants, ornamental plants, forestry material, seed potatoes, fruit plants and official plant health controls. As the Committee has heard, the constitutional language is extraordinary. The instrument states that Northern Ireland is to be read as if it were a member state of the European Union. It replaces references to UK standards with references to European Union standards. In relation to forest reproductive material, Great Britain is classified as an “EU-approved third country”. That is certainly not a tidying up of legislation; it writes Northern Ireland out of its own country and into the regulatory territory of the European Union. Most seriously, regulation 7 inserts a new list of EU instruments into Northern Ireland law and makes non-compliance with them an offence. The instrument expressly states that references to those EU laws include those laws “as amended from time to time.” In other words, future changes made in Brussels can alter the rules with which Northern Ireland businesses must comply, without any vote in this House or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Those rules cover matters including pet passports, the movement of seed potatoes, the destruction of infected plants and even the cleaning or destruction of machinery, vehicles, stores and packaging, yet there was no public consultation, and not one Northern Ireland farmer, grower, nursery seed producer or forestry business was formally asked for their view. That is outrageous, given that it impacts them the most. Nor has a full impact assessment been produced, because the Government claim that there will be no significant financial impact. That is simply not good enough when Parliament is being asked to approve new offences. DAERA already has powers to detain, reject, re-export or destroy consignments, and those powers were used 43 times in 2025. DEFRA has confirmed that the enforcement gap caused no negative effect on compliance or biosecurity. The Minister must therefore explain what failure requires these new offences, who could be prosecuted and why Northern Ireland businesses were denied a consultation. This instrument exposes the reality of the Windsor framework: EU law, EU standards and EU enforcement imposed on one part of the United Kingdom without any democratic consent. I simply ask Committee members to search their hearts. If this was happening to their constituency, their constituents and businesses in their part of this great United Kingdom, they would not like it and they would vote against it. I ask the Committee to do the right thing by Northern Ireland and our place in this United Kingdom.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, the High Court delivered a killer blow to the Parades Commission in Northern Ireland, uncovering unlawful decision making. For 28 years, the commission has denied Portadown District the right to return home from its annual church parade. All Unionists and grassroots loyalists have said that they have no confidence in the Parades Commission, but today, staggeringly, the Prime Minister’s Government have said that it has their full backing. The belligerence and arrogance of these commissioners is staggering. May I ask the Prime Minister to intervene and give them their P45s?

• 8 Jul 2026 · European Entry and Exit System · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday, in a session of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Mr Eddy Montgomery—a senior Home Office official—revealed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) that this Government are focusing purely on the ports. A senior official has confirmed that this Government are concerned only about the ports and about who is coming into Great Britain, not Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree with that, given all that has happened in Northern Ireland with regard to illegal immigration?

• 8 Jul 2026 · Recent Disorder · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Secretary of State accept that while there can never be any excuse for criminal disorder, there is equally no excuse for a border policy that leaves Northern Ireland exposed? How many more incidents will it take before he and this Government deal with the open border with the Republic of Ireland, which is being exploited daily? When will they put in place measures to protect our citizens from illegal immigrants?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Early Release of Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for giving way; he is speaking very eloquently. The British people believe in a simple principle: if you do the crime, you should do the time. We in Northern Ireland, unfortunately, have witnessed the early release of prisoners under the Good Friday agreement, the impact that it has on victims and the retraumatisation of victims. I agree with his point totally. When we speak about prison capacity, would we not all agree that the airport is where foreign nationals should be, not the high street, which will retraumatise victims?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Early Release of Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Member give way?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Energy Prices: Household Support · Hansard source

  More

  Last year, a Government-funded agency approved more than £50 million of taxpayers’ money for solar geoengineering projects, one of which endeavours to dim the sun. At a time when families are struggling with energy costs and domestic production is being constrained, why are Ministers backing speculative climate manipulation, instead of fully using North sea oil and gas to deliver affordable, stronger and more secure energy, and lower bills?