Carla Lockhart MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for giving way and for his engagement on this issue. I wrote to him at the beginning of the year, asking him to come to hear directly from businesses in Upper Bann. The offer was declined, but he kindly sent officials along. The impact was laid bare at the meeting with those officials last week by used agricultural machinery folks, by small retailers who are impacted by the parcels border, and by agrifood businesses. Each business around the table noted the diversion of trade. Today, we are alerting the Minister to the diversion of trade. What is he doing about it? There is anecdotal evidence from each of those businesses, but there is also evidence from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency that the proportion of GB manufacturing selling to Northern Ireland has reduced from 20.1% to 12.9%. We need action, and we need it now.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Jaguar Land Rover Cyber-attack · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent .

• 9 Sept 2025 · Jaguar Land Rover Cyber-attack · Hansard source

  More

  Cyber-security costs are rarely taken into account by any company, but for a company such as JLR, such costs should be easily absorbed because of its profit margins. SMEs do not have that luxury. Their profit margins will not necessarily cover the costs, and often they hold just as much personal and financial data. The Government should be coming alongside those businesses and assisting them to ensure that their security is industry-standard and that they are secure. Can the Minister give me an update on that?

• 22 Jul 2025 · UK Internal Market · Hansard source

  More

  The protocol and Windsor framework continue on a daily basis to fail the people of Northern Ireland. The failure is not anecdotal; it is measurable, documented and deeply felt. I say this with sincerity: it is a bureaucratic burden, a constitutional compromise, and for many of our people and businesses, an economic noose. The Secretary of State and the Government cannot continue to keep their heads in the sand, thinking that the problems that we highlight are all exaggerated and unimportant. Businesses, farmers, hauliers and animal health professionals are affected. Every sector is engaging more and more in highlighting the daily struggles associated with the framework and calling for help from the Government they pay their taxes to. The reality remains that Northern Ireland is subject to EU laws in more than 300 areas—laws that we have no democratic say over, no way of changing, and that are creating burdensome and costly checks that no other part of the UK endures. The Windsor framework was sold as a solution. It was never a solution. It was a glossed-up version of the protocol with a new name, but it was the same poison. It raised hope among businesses in Northern Ireland, but has delivered dismay, frustration and additional costly trading barriers. I have always been critical of the Government’s approach to Northern Ireland when it comes to Brexit, be it under the previous or the current Government. I never believed the spin and promises, because at every turn promises have been broken and there has been no desire to resolve even the most simple problems created by the Windsor framework. I commend the FSB for its courage in producing an exceptional report. Many so-called industry leaders are all too often caught up in the spin and do not actually reflect their membership’s concerns. Yet the FSB’s latest report lays bare the truth: 58% of businesses face moderate to significant challenges, and more than one third have stopped trading with GB altogether, rather than deal with the mountain of paperwork. This is not frictionless trade. It is not the “best of both worlds”. It is best only for the EU. Let me spell that out with real examples. A forestry business in my constituency urgently needed machine parts. They were delayed coming from Scotland via next-day delivery, leaving workers idle and costly machines unused. A children’s boutique was hit with a £205 duty and VAT invoice for delivery of goods from GB. We have also seen used agricultural machinery, visually clean and only road driven —immaculate—being turned away at our ports unless scrubbed to EU standards and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate. One dealer has had to comply with four separate pieces of paperwork just to move a single tractor. Meanwhile, GB and Republic of Ireland dealers face none of that. An engineering firm supporting major Northern Ireland manufacturers said that its key selling point was rapid response. It is now impossible to say that, because of the delays and trade barriers. In addition, we now have the blow to animal health. From January 2026, the Government are prepared to implement EU law in full on veterinary medicines, shutting out GB-based suppliers unless they jump through impossible hoops. Pet shops, farmers and even charities are now in the firing line. This is death by a thousand cuts, and the Government are not even pretending to stop the bleeding. GB firms now say that it is easier to export to Japan than to Northern Ireland. The reality is that we have farmers who cannot move livestock; horticulturists who cannot bring in trees and seed potatoes; and families who no longer get parcels from GB retailers, because more than 90 major suppliers no longer deliver to Northern Ireland. There is every reason to act, the two main ones being that there are now economic implications, as per the FSB report, and there is clear diversion of trade. It is time for the Government to step up and act on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland and the businesses that are impacted.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Metachromatic Leukodystrophy Screening · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, there is a little boy called Teddy, who was diagnosed with MLD—one of the most cruel and degenerative diseases, which is now treatable if diagnosed at birth. Teddy was diagnosed too late because there was no screening. He has lost his ability to walk and talk, and he even fights to smile—a battle that no child should ever have to face. The Minister knows that the treatment is now available, yet MLD has not been added to the simple heel-prick screening tests. Will she also agree to meet Teddy’s family when she meets the family mentioned by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) to discuss this issue? It is too late for Teddy, but for so many other children it is not.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Gene Editing · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. No one should underestimate the importance of gene editing and its advancement. Does he agree that there is a problem in the devolved regions? Because of the EU law that is applicable to Northern Ireland, we will be behind the curve and could see England advance with gene editing while the rest of the devolved nations lag behind, because of Europe.

• 16 Jul 2025 · Credit Unions · Hansard source

  More

  It was good to hear the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) mention Northern Ireland. I, too, am a member of the credit union, and I have a savings account for my little boy as well. Does my hon. Friend agree that in Northern Ireland, where so many people bank with the credit union, the numbers could grow if the credit union were able to do more? The legislation in Northern Ireland is quite antiquated, and we are only able to bank with loans and savings. Does he agree that we should learn from what happens in GB and address it from there?

• 15 Jul 2025 · British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Act 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  The timeline that my hon. Friend has outlined certainly highlights the number of years that he has been in this place. However, the Act must strengthen and not complicate the process. Does he agree that, currently, the practical outworking of the Act is complicating the process, particularly on the financial side?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister accept that changes to fundamental rights, such as trial by jury, in one part of the United Kingdom could create serious divergence across jurisdictions and raise questions about equal access to justice for citizens in Northern Ireland?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions · Hansard source

  More

  Appropriate and adequate housing is key to the growth of any area. A lack of housing is a very real problem in Northern Ireland, particularly in my constituency. While we have a different planning system, our issues are the same. The hon. Member mentioned the lack of investment in water and sewerage infrastructure. Does he agree that, in the round of this planning discussion, we need to get the water services at the table to ensure that they are investing in areas so that the housing can be built when it is approved?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member is right to bring his speech back to the vulnerable people who will be impacted. He will know the devastating impact of cancer on many families. One in two face the reality of a cancer diagnosis. Young Lives vs Cancer has said that, on average, the disease costs £700 a month and £6,000 in annual income. Does he agree that the Bill, by ensuring that those people do not get the high rate universal credit health element, will be devastating for many cancer patients right across the country?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Early Years Providers: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a powerful point with regard to the interventions that have been made. However, returning to SEND growth, in Northern Ireland it is outpacing the growth of the general school population, and I believe that late identification of SEND and delayed support for it is one of the biggest failures right across the United Kingdom. So often, children are not identified as having SEND until they reach school age, by which point their language, social skills and cognitive delays are often entrenched. Therefore, does he agree that there needs to be more investment into funding specialist training for pre-school educators, because often early years is the poor cousin of the education system, despite the fact that, as we have already heard, zero to five is the most important time in a child’s life?

• 2 Jul 2025 · EU Trade Agreement: Economic Impact · Hansard source

  More

  The Windsor framework is causing untold damage to businesses in Northern Ireland. It cost one of my local businesses £86 to bring a box of simple ties from GB to Northern Ireland because of the parcels border, and used farm machinery is now subject to EU import procedures, with some having been turned back from the ports to Scotland in recent days. The latest FSB report confirms that small businesses are being hardest hit with red tape costs and uncertainty. Will the Secretary of State accept that the reset is not helping the here and now? Will he commit to meeting these industries and helping to sort out practical solutions?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Parental Leave Review · Hansard source

  More

  Everyone will know that I want to see life-affirming laws restored to the United Kingdom. Therefore, underpinning the birth of a child with adequate parental leave is of the utmost importance, given the important needs before and after birth. Will the Minister confirm that the review will look at the issue of premature births and at ensuring that mums and dads who are blessed to have a premmie baby are not disadvantaged? Will he also ensure that learning here is related to Northern Ireland and the devolved Assembly, so that it too can make progress in that regard?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right that the hospitality sector is important to Northern Ireland. It is probably one of the most difficult sectors, with long hours, high costs and low margins. Does he agree that one of the most challenging things is the VAT disparity with the Republic of Ireland? Does he therefore agree that, if the UK Government were to do something about VAT for the hospitality sector, it would be a silver bullet?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Business Energy Supply Billing: Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  Many businesses in Northern Ireland query their bills and recognise that they have been overcharged. It is dispute resolution access that is the problem: that is why many businesses come to us, as elected representatives, to resolve it. Does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be better, clearer dispute resolution access? Does he also agree that the regulator in Northern Ireland needs greater power to force suppliers to resolve the issue when it is brought to them in a timely fashion?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State has claimed that she is listening. Does the hon. Member agree that she is certainly not listening to many of her Back Benchers, nor the 86 disability charities that have said this Bill will harm disabled people? We all know that reform is needed, but when we talk about reform, there is no mention of the fraud that goes on within the system that is costing our country billions. Surely we should start with that and not impact on and affect the most vulnerable in our society. We will be voting against this Bill today for that reason.

• 1 Jul 2025 · ADHD: Impact on Prison Rehabilitation and Reoffending · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that there is also a real problem with data collection, which means that the extent of the problem in our prison service is not known? We experience that problem in Northern Ireland, and I am sure it is the same across the United Kingdom.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Endometriosis · Hansard source

  More

  One in 10 women in Northern Ireland is thought to have endometriosis, and the average wait time for diagnosis is an unacceptable nine and a half years. Does the Minister agree that there needs to be a UK-wide strategy that equips our NHS with endo-experienced surgeons, fertility experts, mental health support and pain specialists in order to aid those women, who are on the most horrifically painful journey?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I believe that both lives matter in every pregnancy—both the mum’s life and the child’s life. Abortion is often framed as a choice between the rights of the mother and of the child. I reject that framing, but today we are considering two amendments, new clause 1 and new clause 20, that would be bad for both women and unborn children; and one amendment, new clause 106, that would protect both women and unborn babies who are old enough to survive outside the womb. In the last Parliament, I, along with a number of colleagues, warned that the pills-by-post scheme for at-home abortions would cause an increase in medical complications, dangerous late abortions and coerced abortions. Sadly, those warnings have become reality. A study based on a freedom of information request to NHS trusts found that more than 10,000 women who took at least one abortion pill at home, provided by the NHS, in 2020, needed hospital treatment for complications; that is the equivalent of more than one in 17 women or 20 per day. Last December, Stuart Worby was jailed after using abortion pills, obtained by a third party through the pills-by-post scheme, to induce an abortion in a pregnant woman against her knowledge or will. Such cases could have been prevented if abortion providers had not pushed, in the face of warnings about precisely such incidents, for the removal of in-person appointments where a woman’s identity and gestational age could be accurately verified, and any health risks assessed. The issue of inaccurate gestational age has led indirectly to the amendments before us today. Abortion providers have themselves conceded, and I quote Jonathan Lord, former medical director for Marie Stopes, that, until recently, “only three women have ever been on trial over the past 160 years” for illegal abortions. Since then, there has been an increase in investigations and prosecutions, albeit a small number compared to the quarter of a million abortions we now have every year in the United Kingdom. This small rise in prosecutions has been caused by the pills-by-post scheme, which has enabled women, either because they miscalculate their own gestational age or through dishonesty, to obtain abortion pills beyond the 10-week limit, when at-home abortions are legal and considered safe for women, and even beyond our 24-week time limit for abortions. Tragically, this has led to viable babies’ lives being ended. What is the answer? I suggest it cannot be to make things worse by decriminalising abortion. That would be bad for women and unborn lives, removing the legal deterrent against dangerous late-term, unsupervised abortions that would put women at risk as well as babies, even long after they are viable in the womb. This would render our already very late time limit redundant in a context where pills can be obtained without any reliable in-person gestational age check. The alternative solution is to end the pills-by-post scheme and reinstate in-person consultation. That is why I support new clause 106, and the public support it too. New polling has found that just 4% of women support the current pills-by-post arrangement and two thirds want a return to in-person appointments. Decriminalisation may allow the problems with the pills-by-post scheme to be covered up, but it will not stop the problems happening. In fact, it will incentivise more dangerous late-term abortions of viable babies. Let me close by turning to Northern Ireland. When the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) hijacked the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc.) Act to impose abortion on Northern Ireland, she argued that women in Northern Ireland faced discrimination because they did not have access to the same abortion provision as women in Great Britain. Let me very clear: Northern Ireland is very different. Northern Ireland does not have the pills-by-post scheme, so a direct correlation with GB cannot be made. I ask hon. Members to support new clause 106.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If criminal law does not work as a deterrent, why did late-term abortions increase in the State of Victoria and in New Zealand after decriminalisation? If we look at New Zealand in 2020, there was a 43% increase in late-term abortions between 20 weeks’ gestation and birth compared with 2019. Therefore, criminal law does act as a deterrent, and when it is removed we see an increase. We need to learn from different jurisdictions in that regard.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Prostate Cancer Treatment · Hansard source

  More

  The effects of prostate cancer have been well noted tonight, as has the number of men who are affected. About 12,000 die from it each year, more than 300 of them in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that Northern Ireland should be included in the commissioning, and will she undertake to speak to the Health Minister in Northern Ireland about the issue? Does she also agree that this needs to sit alongside a UK-wide prostate cancer screening programme, targeting in particular people with a family history of the disease?

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. On a constitutional basis alone, amendment (a) to amendment 77 is necessary, and I hope that hon. Members will feel they can support it. Moving on to factors beyond the constitution, I am concerned that there is a dangerous absence of an adequate regulatory framework for lethal drugs under the Bill. At present, clause 25 gives the Secretary of State powers to approve lethal drugs, while clause 34 mandates the Secretary of State to make provision for prescribing, dispensing, transportation, storage, handling, disposal and record keeping, as well as enforcement and civil penalties. However, the fundamental issue of how these approved substances are actually approved remains alarmingly weak. The Bill defines “approved substances” simply as “a drug or other substance specified” by the Secretary of State in regulations. There is no explicit requirement for those substances to undergo specific, rigorous testing for their use in assisted dying. When this issue was debated in Committee, I was disappointed to see good-faith amendments to engage, such as amendment 443, being dismissed.

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will not. Amendment 443 sought to mandate that those substances be approved through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and either the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence or the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group processes. I therefore strongly support amendment 96, tabled by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), which “ensures that drugs can only be approved if the Secretary of State is reasonably of the opinion that there is a scientific consensus that the drug is effective at ending someone’s life without causing pain or other significant adverse side effects.” That is a common-sense approach that should attract support from across the House. This week, more than 1,000 doctors wrote a powerful letter to all MPs to outline their deep concerns about this Bill, calling it a “real threat to both patients and the medical workforce”. I strongly urge this House and colleagues to read that letter before Third Reading. The Government’s own impact assessment does not provide any comfort with regard to the use of lethal drugs under the terms of the Bill, which the doctors’ letter picks up on, saying that “there is no requirement for…[the drugs]…to undergo rigorous testing and approval that would be required of any other prescribed medication, nor indeed for them to be regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency”. They go on to say that that is “contrary to all good medical practice”. This matters not just for regulation, but with regard to patient safety and complications. There is no requirement in the Bill to inform patients about how risks—including a prolonged death, rather than the promised peaceful and dignified death—will be managed. Complications do occur, and this is not scaremongering. In Oregon, when complications have been recorded, patients have experienced difficulty swallowing, drug regurgitation and seizures, and they have even regained consciousness. In Canada, a Canadian association has noted that patients have experienced regurgitation, burning and vomiting. I draw Members’ attention to the written evidence submitted to the Bill Committee by a group of expert senior pharmacists and pharmacologists. In their submission, they warn that the approach of the Bill puts the cart before the horse. Specifically, they caution against proceeding without “a comprehensive review of the evidence for efficacy and safety”, and note that that review “should be scrutinised by MPs before…consideration of legalising assisted suicide”. These are not small details or incidental matters, yet, even at this late stage in the Bill’s passage through the Commons, we are still being asked to pass legislation without satisfactory answers to basic questions from experts in the field. That is simply not good enough. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to speak, and I will close by saying simply that whatever mitigating amendments may be passed, this Bill remains morally and ethically wrong. It is flawed and should not be passed.