Carla Lockhart MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 3 Jun 2025 · Inheritance Tax: Family-owned Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making a very powerful speech. Before she closes, it is important for us just to home in on the figures. A Family Business UK report shows that in my constituency the changes to business property relief and agricultural property relief will result in a £23.63 million reduction in gross value added and the loss of 381 full-time equivalent jobs, as well as being the end of many family farms. Multiplying those figures out across the United Kingdom means the loss of 208,000 jobs, a £14.8 billion reduction in GVA and a net fiscal loss to the Government of £1.9 billion. Does she agree that the death tax is immoral and should be scrapped?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Groceries Code Adjudicator · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend will know that farmers in Northern Ireland feed more than 10 million people across the United Kingdom every year. Does he agree that our farmers are treated as shock absorbers? They carry all the risk and receive the least reward. They are still being relentlessly squeezed by powerful retailers and processors. Does he therefore agree that the GCA’s role needs to go further in protecting our farmers from unjust and unbalanced practices?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Decriminalising Abortion · Hansard source

  More

  I think the mask is slipping today. This is an attack on those who seek to lobby for the protection of life in this United Kingdom, and I for one want to stand up for those people in this debate. That is such an insult towards the many groups and organisations who value life, and who value both lives in every pregnancy. It is outrageous that those people have been demonised.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Decriminalising Abortion · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. In contrast, human rights laws grant protection to the unborn. The preamble to the UN convention on the rights of the child, to which the UK is a signatory, states that the child “needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”. Does he agree with me that in every case both lives matter?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Decriminalising Abortion · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all those who have contributed to the debate today. My views differ from many who have spoken, and I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who outlined our case extremely well. For me, this is a debate on life. I believe that both lives matter in every pregnancy. The most basic human right is the right to life. I speak today with deep conviction on this issue, and a desire to restore life-affirming laws to this entire United Kingdom—laws that protect the most vulnerable in our society. It is important to outline that since the 1967 Act was brought into force in the United Kingdom, 10 million abortions have taken place. One baby is lost to abortion every two and a half minutes; that is 26 lives every hour—and this debate will last three hours. That is stark. I come at this issue from the perspective of life and the protection of life. In every pregnancy, both lives matter. There are times in politics when one does not enjoy being right. Back in 2021, I wrote in The House magazine of my fears that the pills-by-post scheme for at-home abortions was leading to an increase in medical complications, dangerous late abortions and coerced abortions. Plenty of others expressed similar fears. Sadly, those fears have all proven to be true. A study based on freedom of information requests to NHS trusts found that more than 10,000 women who took at least one abortion pill, provided by the NHS, at home in 2020 needed hospital treatment for side effects—equivalent to more than one in 17 women, or 20 women per day. Late last year, Stuart Worby was convicted of using abortion pills obtained by a third party through the pills-by-post scheme to induce an abortion of a woman against her knowledge or will. All those cases could have been prevented if abortion providers had not lobbied, in the face of warnings about precisely those kinds of incidents occurring, for the removal of in-person appointments where health risks could be assessed and the woman’s identity and gestational age accurately verified. It is that last point about ensuring that a woman’s gestational age is accurately verified that has indirectly led to the debate we are having today. The abortion lobby has acknowledged—I quote Jonathan Lord, former medical director for abortion provider Marie Stopes—that until recently, “only three women” had “ever been on trial over the past 160 years” for illegal abortions. Since then, there has been an increase in investigations and prosecutions, albeit still a very small number in the light of the more than a quarter of a million abortions we now have every year in the United Kingdom—a national tragedy. Why has there been a small rise in prosecutions? It is surely not because the CPS or police have suddenly decided to handle the issue in a more draconian way; rather, the pills-by-post scheme has enabled women, either dishonestly or because they have miscalculated their gestational age, to obtain abortion pills beyond the 10-week limit when at-home abortions are legal and considered safe for women—they are, of course, never safe for the baby—and even beyond the 24-week upper time limit for abortions in this country. Tragically, that has led to viable babies’ lives being ended. The responsibility for that surely lies with those who lobbied for the pills-by-post scheme. What is the solution? Well, it cannot be to make matters worse by decriminalising abortion. That would be highly irresponsible, creating conditions where a woman could perform her own abortion, unsupervised, without any legal deterrent, away from a clinical setting, at a stage in pregnancy when doing so would carry great risks and when her baby would be viable. We would be de facto introducing abortion up to birth and reintroducing dangerous backstreet abortions. That is not pro-women, and it renders the time limit redundant in a context where pills can be obtained without any reliable in-person gestational age check. There is a clear alternative solution: end the pills-by-post scheme and reinstate in-person consultations. Polling published by The Telegraph last year found that more than half of the public agreed that it should remain the case that a woman is breaking the law if she has an abortion of a healthy baby between the current 24-week legal time limit and birth; only 16% disagreed. The public does not support decriminalisation. Only 1% support abortion up to birth, which such proposals would introduce by the removal of offences prohibiting women from performing their own abortion at any stage. Polling has found that 71% of women support a return to in-person appointments, with only 9% in favour of continuing with the scheme. Decriminalisation is a convenient way to cover up the disastrous consequences of the pills-by-post scheme. I greatly fear that, just as my earlier warnings about the scheme have sadly proven true, if decriminalisation were introduced my warnings today would also come true and more women would take abortion pills away from a clinical context late in pregnancy, endangering their lives and leading to the tragic deaths of viable unborn babies. Permitting that would be profoundly irresponsible. Ideology would be trumping women’s safety. One final comment: I have rarely witnessed anything as cynical and disingenuous as the argument, put forward by its supporters, that decriminalisation would allow women in England and Wales to have the same so-called rights as women in Northern Ireland. When the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) hijacked the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Act 2019 to impose abortion on Northern Ireland without democratic consent, she seemed to have no problem at all with the law in England and Wales, bemoaning how women in Northern Ireland were being discriminated against because they did not have access to the same law. She then, however, helped to introduce an even more extreme law for Northern Ireland than what we have here in England and Wales, and now cynically uses that more extreme law to argue that it is women in England and Wales who are now being discriminated against, despite the fact they can access abortions up to almost six months of pregnancy, essentially on demand. In my mind, that is politics of the lowest kind. What is not often recognised is that introducing decriminalisation here would not bring abortion practice in England and Wales into line with Northern Ireland, because of this key difference: there is no pills-by-post scheme in Northern Ireland. It is the combination of the pills-by-post scheme, whereby women can obtain abortion pills without reliable checks for gestational age, health risks or coercion, while also removing any deterrent against women performing their own abortions right up to birth, that would make decriminalisation so dangerous and so irresponsible for the Government. I hope my warnings will not go unheeded this time.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Decriminalising Abortion · Hansard source

  More

  In reference to other countries, the hon. and learned Gentleman says that there is no evidence that decriminalisation will increase abortions. What is his response to the example of New Zealand, where abortion was decriminalised in March 2020, and in that year there was a 43% increase in late-term abortions, between 20 weeks gestation and birth, compared with 2019?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Decriminalising Abortion · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady referenced Nicola Packer. Would she not say that the solution in that case is not decriminalisation, but to reinstate the gestational age checks for pills by post?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Decriminalising Abortion · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. and learned Member made a point about Northern Ireland. It is important to note that Northern Ireland does not have at-home abortions—pills by post—and much of the discussion about decriminalisation of abortion in England, or here in the mainland, is focused on at-home abortions. Northern Ireland has a very different context, which should not be used in the same train of thought.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will not give way because of time. The new clause would not affect any duty relating to a requirement to provide information. That concern over conscience was raised earlier this week by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in its press release, which announced its opposition to the Bill and set out its concerns that clinicians are still required to signpost patients to information on assisted suicide. It noted: “For some psychiatrists who wish to conscientiously object, this would constitute being involved” in the assisted suicide process. New clause 10 will not allay such concerns. When those representing clinicians express such concerns, we ought to listen to them—listen to the professionals. I encourage Members to listen to the royal college and the 250 GPs opposed to the Bill. Turning to amendment 101, I have a word for our Down’s syndrome community. In a statement published on 9 May, the Down’s Syndrome Research Foundation said: “We are deeply concerned about the risks of coercion and undue influence. In particular, people with Down’s syndrome and intellectual disabilities are at significant risk of coercion and undue influence, in part because of their need to trust and rely upon caregivers and medical professionals.” I cannot comprehend why the hon. Member for Spen Valley declined to accept an amendment in Committee that would have provided explicit protections for people with Down’s syndrome. Again, that highlights the flaws and the risk of coercion. The reality is that vulnerable people who are more prone to coercion—for example, people with learning difficulties or a history of depression—have not been explicitly protected in the Bill. This Bill is not safe and cannot be fixed. It is weaker than it was before the Committee began, and I encourage all concerned Members to recognise that it is flawed and that no amendments or tightening up will ever make it right to legislate to end one’s life with a legal drug.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As I thought about today’s debate, I asked myself, “What more can I say than I said in the previous debate?” Yet there is much more, because as the Bill made progress through Committee, its intentions were exposed over and over again. Commitments, safeguards and kind words championed in this place have been set aside. On Second Reading, we were told that the Committee considering the Bill would be balanced and representative, yet its make-up did not reflect that intention: 55% of MPs voted for the Bill on Second Reading, but 61% of the Committee supported it. The mask has slipped time and again. One of the biggest blows to the Bill, which the public listening today need to know about, relates to the need for approval via High Court judges. On Second Reading, that was laboured as the strongest safeguard, but that safeguard has been removed at a stroke. What is now being legislated for is a panel of psychiatrists—and a voluntary panel, at that. Impartial judges have been replaced by a voluntary panel, which could well be made up of enthusiasts for assisted dying, and the Royal College of Psychiatrists has now said that there are not even sufficient psychiatrists for such panels. I want to be absolutely clear: this Bill is immoral. If it is passed at a future date, it will create a publicly funded, gold-plated assisted suicide service. That means that the state will have the ability to give a legal drug to end a life. It is immoral, and it goes against my strong Christian faith, and that of many of my constituents in Upper Bann and people across the United Kingdom.

• 13 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Today we welcome the release of Edan Alexander, the latest hostage freed by Hamas, after over 500 days in captivity. The fact that they still have people in captivity is disgraceful and barbaric and puts into perspective the fact that the group Kneecap are being platformed in Croydon, after they shouted support for Hamas from a stage. What pressure are the Government putting on the Palestinian authorities to ensure that the remaining hostages are returned to their families as they should be? They should never have been taken in the first place.

• 7 May 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is doing sterling work on this issue. She will know that my passion is for Northern Ireland to be utterly in step with the rest of the UK when it comes to protecting women and girls against violence. Does she agree that Northern Ireland, its authorities, organisations and employers should implement the recent Supreme Court ruling, and will she join me in calling on the Irish Football Association to be in step with the English and Scottish Football Associations when it comes to the protection of women, on and off the pitch?

• 6 May 2025 · Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  One of the most moving accounts that I read this week was that of 101-year-old Ruth Klauber, a Jewish refugee and a mechanic on the Lancaster bombers. She spoke not of celebration but of sacrifice. When asked for her opinion of yesterday’s celebrations, she said: “Well, yes, we won the war. It’s good to celebrate that we won the war and what that means for democracy. But for me when I think of VE Day, I think of the pilot with whom I fell in love, the only man I ever loved. And he flew many successful missions but his last was his last. He never came home. For me I think of the cost of war. War is not something you celebrate. It is something you remember. It is something that you look back on and reflect on how it was a failure of man. It was a failure to reach an outcome that didn’t involve hundreds of thousands of young men being killed.” She went on: “We must never stop always working to ensure we don’t end up in a scenario again where more people are slaughtered. And that means you always have to stand up for democracy.” Those words should weigh heavy on all our shoulders in this significant week. I also want to take the opportunity to commend the community across my constituency whose efforts have been immense during this significant week. Across our towns, villages and housing estates, the atmosphere is one of pride and remembrance. Lamp posts and walls are proudly decorated with our national flag and with banners and bunting—all of it part of a collective effort to both celebrate and commemorate the great allied victory. There is no greater source of pride than seeing our communities come together, not only to mark this historic triumph but to remember those who secured the civil and religious liberties that we enjoy today. I am free to hold and express my views because of the bravery, the willingness to serve, and the ultimate sacrifice made by those who stood against fascism, tyranny, genocide and racism, aggression and suppression. I note the exemplary effort of Upper Bann. Portadown was a key industrial centre and played a significant role through its engineering, textile and transport industries. Lurgan played a critical role. Brownlow House, a grand 19th-century building that I have spoken of—I thank the Minister for her visit—was the headquarters for the US army, and General Eisenhower himself visited it. The D-day landings were planned from Brownlow House. Banbridge was not found wanting; it was central to the agricultural supply chain when people participated in the dig for victory. Young men from Banbridge served with distinction in our armed forces. That is only the tip of the iceberg as to how Northern Ireland contributed to the overall victory. Northern Ireland stepped up, and I want it clearly noted in this House today how thankful we are for the united effort from every corner of our United Kingdom.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Irish Republican Alleged Incitement · Hansard source

  More

  In Northern Ireland, the term “kneecap” is related to a violent criminal act. When a grouping take that as their name, express a desire for MPs to be murdered and support proscribed organisations like Hezbollah and Hamas, we have to question why they have been awarded so much UK taxpayers’ money. Yesterday, I took the opportunity to write to the US and Canadian authorities asking them to refuse any visa applications from these hatemongers ahead of their publicised tour of North America to prevent them from spreading their violent message across the world. Will the Minister join me in lobbying for that?

• 24 Apr 2025 · Co-operation with Devolved Governments · Hansard source

  More

  Further to the question from the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson), given last week’s UK Supreme Court ruling, which I welcome as a return to common sense and biological reality, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that Government messaging reflects this clarity and that it is implemented consistently both across the devolved regions and here in Westminster?

• 24 Apr 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The UK Government have a legal and moral duty to ensure that the Union succeeds. It is therefore imperative that Ministers do not go on solo runs and make unhelpful comments in the context of Northern Ireland’s place in the Union, given that support for Northern Ireland remaining part of the UK has remained unchanged in generations. Will the Leader of the House therefore consider providing time for a debate on the Government’s responsibility to speak with one voice and their commitment to upholding Northern Ireland’s place in this Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

• 24 Apr 2025 · London Sudan Conference · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that religious freedom must remain a key pillar of the UK’s foreign aid policy? That said, with Sudan now ranked as one of the worst countries in the world for Christian persecution according to Open Doors, will he confirm whether the protection of religious minorities will be a condition—indeed, a priority—of the distribution of foreign aid to Sudan?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Blair Mayne: Posthumous Victoria Cross · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak about a man whose name is etched into the very DNA of the British special forces—a man of exceptional courage, legendary leadership and unrelenting service to this country: Lieutenant Colonel Robert Blair Mayne, affectionately known as Paddy Mayne. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate. There is no better man to take this issue forward and to try to right the wrong that was done to Paddy Blair Mayne. Mighty men have come from Newtownards, in the form of Paddy Blair Mayne and my hon. Friend. In Northern Ireland, we talk about rough-cut diamonds, and Paddy Blair Mayne was just that. He was certainly not perfect—none of us are—but when it comes to his service, he certainly led from the front and was a mighty man. He was one of the founding members of the Special Air Service, and helped to build it into the elite force that we know and revere today. His leadership during world war two changed the course of modern warfare. He was a warrior in the truest sense: fearless, inventive and utterly devoted to his men. Mayne was awarded the Distinguished Service Order not once, but four times—an honour that is almost unheard of. He was a man who led from the front, and who raided behind enemy lines with such ferocity and tactical genius that even his enemies respected him. He destroyed over 100 aircraft in daring missions across north Africa. He risked everything time and again—not for medals or recognition, but because it was his duty. However, despite the eyewitness accounts of unimaginable bravery under fire, and the legacy that he left behind in the SAS and British military history, he was denied the Victoria Cross, and this wrong has never been made right. It is a lingering and grave injustice. The Victoria Cross is the highest award for gallantry in the face of the enemy. It is meant to honour “the most conspicuous bravery” or “a daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice”. Paddy Mayne was the very embodiment of those words. However, this is not just about righting a wrong from the past; it is about recognising what he gave and what he gave up. He led from the front while others hesitated. He put his own life on the line so that his men could return home, and his example has inspired generations of servicemen and women. This is a matter not of sentiment, but of principle. It is time that this country honoured Paddy Mayne not just with words, statues or stories, but with the medal that he so clearly earned. I urge the Minister to reconsider this case with the seriousness and urgency it deserves. Lieutenant Colonel Paddy Mayne is a national hero. He gave his all, and now his country must give him the long-overdue recognition he deserves: the Victoria Cross.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  On 30 October, the Chancellor upended our economy through tax rises and punitive death taxes. She has delivered a devastating blow to family farms and small family businesses—the very backbone of our economy. When will the Chancellor recognise that she is elected by the people, for the people? Every day that she avoids engaging with the farming community is another day of wilful neglect. Our farmers are being driven out, not by market forces but by a Government blind to their struggles and deaf to their voices. When will she listen and speak with them?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Tackling Child Sexual Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  I know the Minister is passionate about this issue and I commend her for her efforts. Would she not agree that the sentencing for these most abhorrent crimes needs to truly reflect the seriousness of the offence? I do not think anyone can sit in this House today and not be broken or feel sick to the pit of their stomach when we hear accounts from the Front Benchers. Anyone who takes away the innocence of a child must serve the toughest of sentences. After all, these children have been subjected to a lifetime of trauma as a result of these horrific acts.

• 8 Apr 2025 · EU Tariffs: United States and Northern Ireland Economy · Hansard source

  More

  Sadly, I have heard nothing today that will give businesses in my constituency any reassurance that the UK Government are prepared to protect them. I recognise that it is not good practice to comment on speculation, but it is and would be good practice to leave businesses in no doubt that the Government—their Government, to whom they pay hefty taxes—will protect them from EU tariffs. We cannot be left in a scenario where businesses are reliant on a duty reimbursement scheme that does not work—it takes months to get repayments. Will the Secretary of State give more clarity to businesses in Upper Bann that he will protect them?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Persecution of Christians · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones ) for securing this debate. Freedom of religion or belief is not a western ideal. It is a universal human right, enshrined in article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights. Yet millions of our Christian brothers and sisters, especially women and girls, are denied that right every single day. For many of us in the UK, faith is a core part of our lives and identity. However, too often Government policy has treated faith as an optional extra. This debate is not about abstract policy, it is about people—men, women and children—who suffer for nothing more than professing faith in Jesus Christ. I am thankful every day for my ability to profess my Christian faith, and to live in a society where we have civil and religious liberties, and I am thankful for those who have fought for those liberties. Today, I focus my comments on how persecution disproportionately affects women and girls. These women face a double vulnerability; persecuted for their faith and gender, and often suffering in silence and invisibility. I want to commend Open Doors for its fantastic work in Parliament and across the globe. If we think of gender-specific persecution, we only have to think of forced marriages, domestic and sexual violence, psychological abuse and isolation, and abduction and disappearance. Many voices go unheard, and unfortunately, because of time, we are unable to hear those voices today. In Nigeria, in 2024 alone, more than 4,100 Christians were killed for their faith; over 80% of all reported Christian deaths worldwide. Church leaders, worshippers and entire villages were kidnapped and killed for no reason other than their faith. Given the huge changes in international relations in the last few months, can the Minister assure me that the freedom of religious belief remains a foreign policy priority for this Government?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her clarity. She will know only too well the distress that this has caused to many children and young adults, particularly those from vulnerable households and families. Will she confirm that Northern Ireland kinship children and adoptees who have been adopted to England will benefit from the fund? Will she also clarify whether any ongoing conversations about best practice and learning on the issue are being shared with the Northern Ireland Executive?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Council Guidelines · Hansard source

  More

  While the Sentencing Council guidelines do not apply in Northern Ireland, does the Lord Chancellor accept that controversial changes in England, such as a reduced likelihood of custodial sentences for certain groups, risk undermining confidence in the justice system across the entire UK? Can she outline what steps she is taking to ensure fairness and consistency in sentencing across all jurisdictions, regardless of ethnicity, culture or faith?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Relationship Education in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for bringing this debate forward, although she and I will differ on some of the gender ideology. I believe that when the Government introduce the RSHE regulations they need to be Cass-compliant. Dr Hilary Cass pointed out in her review that the importance of what happens in schools cannot be overestimated. Some schools have been guilty of engaging in the potentially dangerous process of socially transitioning children. They go along with the child’s wish to identify as a sex other than their birth sex. I encourage the Government, when introducing the regulations, to take up the helpful recommendation that schools should not teach about the broader concept of gender identity. Above all, they should take on board parental input and also school ethos; schools with a Christian ethos should be able to uphold that ethos when teaching relationship education.