Carla Lockhart MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I rise to support and speak briefly to amendment (a) to amendment 77, tabled by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), and I will speak to new clause 13, amendment 96 and other amendments if time permits. I was rather confused when I looked at the amendment paper a few days ago and noticed that amendments that would directly impact on Northern Ireland had been tabled. When last I checked, the Bill as a whole extended only to England and Wales, so I find amendments 76 and 77 perplexing. To be clear, health and criminal justice are devolved matters. The people of Northern Ireland elect their own Assembly to make precisely these sensitive decisions, including whether to legislate for assisted suicide, which is an issue of profound moral weight and cultural consequence.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Employment: Wales · Hansard source

  More

  Job creation in Wales is vital, so what representations has the Secretary of State made on behalf of businesses in Wales and the rest of Great Britain, which are being forced not to supply businesses in Northern Ireland any more because of the outrageous and unnecessary parcel border in the Irish sea? What is she doing to right the wrongs of the ongoing damage of the protocol and the Windsor framework to our Union and our economy?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Theft of Tools of Trade · Hansard source

  More

  Northern Ireland has been named as one of the top hotspots for tool theft in the United Kingdom, with tools stolen every 12 minutes according to police force data. Does the Minister agree that, although this is primarily a devolved issue, we should be looking at what is being done in Great Britain and replicating it in Northern Ireland, such is the extent of the problem across the United Kingdom? Will he reach out to his counterparts in Northern Ireland to discuss the issue?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Space Industry · Hansard source

  More

  In Upper Bann, I see at first hand the potential of the space industry, with my area having one of the strongest advanced manufacturing bases in Northern Ireland and being home to companies that contribute to aerospace and high-precision engineering, both of which are important to aerospace sector technologies. Does my hon. Friend agree that, to release Northern Ireland’s full potential in aerospace and in the contribution that it can make to the UK-wide air strategy, we need a seat at the table? Any future UK policies on aerospace and the space industry need to have Northern Ireland at the table.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme: Capital Disregard · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his response in relation to Northern Ireland, but I reiterate that the Northern Ireland Executive is just the postman for social benefits. The UK Parliament is sovereign. For something of this nature, given the small number it would impact and the small cost, I would want Northern Ireland to be part of the conversation from a UK-wide perspective, so that we go hand in hand, because constituents in Northern Ireland are as deserving as those here in GB.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme: Capital Disregard · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the remarks made across the Chamber about the travesty and life-changing trauma that so many women and children experienced. Does the hon. Member agree that, if Philomena’s law is applied by the UK Parliament, Northern Ireland should be included as part of the United Kingdom, given that a number of women and children will be living in Northern Ireland and encountering the same problem with benefits?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder · Hansard source

  More

  Following on from the intervention by the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), I know that this is a devolved matter, but the issues are exactly the same in Northern Ireland as in GB, with long waiting lists and a lack of access to services. Does the Minister agree that people with ADHD are being discriminated against right across the United Kingdom because of the lack of access to services? Does she also agree that, in the interim, those who go for a private diagnosis should be able to enter into a shared care arrangement so that they can access the medication that assists them to function day to day, live normal lives and be part of our society?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  This Government appear willing to sanction selected Israeli Ministers, while groups that have openly supported the terrorists who carried out the terrorist atrocity on 7 October are being platformed at events like Glastonbury festival. It certainly screams double standards. Sadly, it is the Jewish people in the UK who are left to face the consequences, and who cannot walk the streets of London without being harassed. How can the UK sanction people who do not live here while those who share their hatred walk freely among us?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Animal Welfare in Farming · Hansard source

  More

  Bovine TB across the UK is not just a farming issue, but an animal welfare one, and is causing a financial crisis. Thousands of healthy cattle are being culled and wildlife remains trapped in a vicious cycle of infection. The cost to the public purse in Northern Ireland is now sitting at £60 million a year. In England, there has been a science-led approach. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Northern Ireland Agriculture Minister needs to engage with England and do exactly as has been done here, with a wildlife intervention project that culls badgers, so that we improve animal health and protect our wildlife?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Animal Welfare in Farming · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will be aware that access to veterinary medicines is key for animal welfare. He will know that Northern Ireland continues to face a cliff edge with regards to access to veterinary medicines. Will he commit to update hon. Members interested in this issue quickly, given its impact on the industry?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Recently, I attended a service marking 40 years since William Heenan was murdered by the IRA for being a Protestant. While we honoured his memory, the self-proclaimed “First Minister for all” in Northern Ireland was visiting the newly erected statue of IRA terrorist Bobby Sands, glorifying the movement responsible for the cold-blooded murder of men such as William. Will the Minister agree to meet me and innocent victims from Northern Ireland regarding the review and improvement of the glorification of terrorism legislation that applies to Northern Ireland?

• 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?