Theft of Tools of Trade

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

Let me start by paying tribute to the chairman of the Sentencing Council, Lord Justice William Davis, after the sad news that he passed away at the weekend. I met Bill on a number of occasions and was always impressed by his courtesy, kindness and sharpness of mind. He made a significant contribution to criminal justice. I would particularly like to recognise his work serving on the Sentencing Council, first as a judicial member between 2012 and 2015 and then as its chairman from 2022. On behalf of the House, I extend our deep condolences to Lady Davis, his children and all those who knew him.

I thank my wonderful hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for securing this important debate. She is a doughty campaigner on the subject, as we have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and has championed it inside and outside Parliament. As she said, such crime has a real impact on people’s lives and businesses. I thank her for continuing to bring it to the Government’s attention.

The small businesses affected and damaged by tool theft are anchored in their local communities, give life to their local economies and make a positive difference to people’s lives. They are truly the lifeblood of our country. I acknowledge the very real and often devastating impact that the theft of tools has on individuals, families and businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) illustrated very effectively the devastation and personal impact in the tragic case of his constituent. For many tradespeople—plumbers, electricians, carpenters, builders and countless others, including the tradesperson that he referred to—their tools are essential for their livelihoods. When those tools are stolen, the consequences are not just financial loss; as hon. Members have said, it disrupts work, delays income and impacts professional reputation and confidence.

For those reasons, the Government take the theft of tools of trade extremely seriously. We understand the frustration and anger felt by victims and the calls for tougher action. That is why we are addressing the issue with a comprehensive, multi-pronged approach that focuses on prevention and enforcement.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

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?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I certainly agree with the hon. Lady that, sadly, this problem is not restricted to only some parts of the United Kingdom, and all parts of the UK need to learn from each other. I will certainly reach out to the Northern Ireland Executive on this matter.

Let me talk about prevention. We know that many tool thefts occur from vehicles, particularly vans used by tradespeople. That is why we have strengthened our response to vehicle-related crime through the national vehicle crime working group, which involves an established network of vehicle crime specialists across every police force in England and Wales. Those specialists are working together to share intelligence, identify emerging trends and co-ordinate regional responses to tackle this issue more effectively.

This is not just about reactive policing. It is about proactive and intelligence-led operations that disrupt criminal activity before it escalates, and about ensuring that police forces are equipped with the resources and information they need to respond swiftly and effectively to reports of tool theft. We are working closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for vehicle crime to take forward a programme of work to drive down these crimes. That includes training police officers on the methods used to steal vehicles and working with industry to address vulnerabilities in vehicle design and security.

We are supporting law enforcement in disrupting organised criminal networks that profit from tool theft. That includes targeted operations, collaboration with regional organised crime units, and investment in training and resources for police officers to improve their ability to investigate and prosecute tool theft cases effectively.

Enforcement is the other critical pillar of our approach. The maximum penalty for theft is seven years, which is substantial, and that is available to the courts for the most serious and persistent offenders. We must ensure that our judicial system continues to respond appropriately to offences involving the theft of tools and recognises the serious impact of those crimes. It is absolutely right that sentencing decisions remain the responsibility of our independent judiciary.

Our courts are best placed to assess the full circumstances of each individual case, drawing on the evidence presented. That includes careful consideration of the harm caused to victims—so ably highlighted by hon. Members in this debate—the culpability of the offender and any aggravating or mitigating factors that may influence the seriousness of the offence. Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our justice system and ensures that decisions are made impartially, free from political influence.

Courts are required by law to follow sentencing guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council. Those guidelines are designed to promote consistency, transparency and fairness in sentencing across England and Wales. The current sentencing guidelines for theft already provide a robust framework that enables courts to take full account of the seriousness of offences involving the theft of tools of trade.

Specifically, the guidelines identify a range of aggravating factors that may warrant a more severe sentence. Those include offences that are of a sophisticated nature, that involve significant planning or that are committed over a sustained period. Where such factors are present, the court is expected to treat them as indicators of higher culpability or greater harm, which can lead to an uplift in the sentence. That should ensure that the most serious and disruptive forms of theft—such as those targeting tradespeople’s essential tools—are dealt with appropriately within the existing framework.

The sentencing guidelines for theft explicitly require courts to consider the broader consequences of the offence when determining the appropriate sentence. That includes the consequential financial harms suffered by victims, which, as has been highlighted, may involve not only the cost of replacing stolen goods, but, sadly, lost income and significant business disruption.

Hon. Members have also drawn attention to the wider impacts on mental health and general wellbeing. I hope the courts bear those in mind and hear that clear message. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North highlighted those issues very well in her speech, but other hon. Members also amplified them in their comments.

The guidelines also direct courts to take into account the wider impact on businesses, particularly where the offence affects the ability of a tradesperson or small enterprise to operate effectively. In addition, emotional distress caused by the offence, such as anxiety, stress or a loss of confidence in personal safety, is recognised as a significant factor in assessing harm. That should ensure that the impact of this type of crime is properly reflected in the court’s decision.

With regard to compensation, it is important to note that courts are required by law to consider making compensation orders in all cases involving injury, loss or damage. Compensation orders require offenders to make financial reparation to their victims, ensuring that offenders are held accountable through not just punishment, but restitution.

As an independent body, the Sentencing Council decides its own priorities and work plan for producing or editing its guidelines. It is of course open to individuals to approach the council to ask that it does so, and I encourage my hon. Friend—as well as hon. Members who have spoken in the debate and others who are concerned about the issue—to share their concerns with the council. I encourage it to look at the matter closely. Knowing my hon. Friend, I am sure that she is ahead of me on this journey and that that is already in hand.

On improving the sentencing framework, the Government launched an independent sentencing review in October to comprehensively examine the sentencing framework in its entirety. The sentencing review published its recommendations in May, most of which the Government have accepted. We will bring forward legislation in due course to give effect to these important reforms. As my hon. Friend indicated in her remarks, there is a need for tough, visible and effective punishments, which is what the Government are committed to delivering.

We recognise the growing public and parliamentary concern about tool theft. My hon. Friend has carried out a real public service by shining a light on the issue, which resonates with people across the country, and she has rightly built cross-party support, as we have seen. As she said, she has been energised by the campaign, but the campaign has also energised others, including the Government, so I thank her for that. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken to support her, and campaign groups have been raising awareness and calling for action.

I reaffirm the Government’s unwavering commitment to tackling this type of crime. We fully recognise the vital role that tradespeople and small business owners play in our economy and communities, of which they are the lifeblood. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) said, they are the “grafters of this country”. We are determined to ensure that they are protected from the disruptive and damaging effects of tool theft.

Tool theft is not a minor inconvenience; it is a serious crime that undermines livelihoods, causes financial hardship and erodes public confidence. That is why we are taking robust action to prevent these offences and ensure that those who steal the tools of someone’s trade are held accountable and brought to justice through the full force of the law. Tool theft will not be tolerated. I look forward to discussing this important matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North as she continues her campaign, part of which will be meeting with me next week.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

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?

[Shabana Mahmood]

As I think the hon. Lady will be aware, that is primarily a policy area for our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, but I will make sure that we raise those issues with them.

Decriminalising Abortion

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tony Vaughan]

I am not aware that following the decriminalisation of abortion in Northern Ireland there has been a strong current to re-criminalise it, which might be expected had a situation such as the right hon. Gentleman referred to actually occurred. It is not my understanding that that has happened.

For each of the two offences I described, sentences of up to life imprisonment apply. A person is guilty of the offence of child destruction when the pregnancy is of at least 28 weeks and they commit a wilful act to cause the child’s death; it is a defence if the act was done to preserve the mother’s life. The offence of procuring miscarriage can be committed at any stage of gestation when a person uses a poison or instrument to induce miscarriage. As the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, there are defences, variously, under the Abortion Act when two registered medical practitioners authorise abortion in an approved clinic in broadly four situations. The first is when there is a risk of injury to the mother’s physical or mental health up to 24 weeks—that was the exception expanded during covid, so that women could access pills for medical abortions at home, following a consultation, for pregnancy of up to 10 weeks.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

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.

[Tony Vaughan]

I note the hon. Member’s point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Vaughan]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, which is noted.

[Carla Lockhart]

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?

[Tony Vaughan]

I am not aware of that statistic. It may be that I can look into it and say more about it in closing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is not often that I come to Westminster Hall and find myself the first person to be called after the Member in charge, in this case of the petition. I am pleased to be able to comment on where we are on the petition. In this world, I try to be respectful to everyone—that is the nature of who I am and what I do. I probably have a very different opinion from the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), who spoke on behalf of the petition, and other Members who will speak afterwards.

It is one of the quirks of this place and our procedures that we find ourselves debating this petition today, when in all likelihood we will have a similar debate in the next few weeks on new clauses tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill in the main Chamber. Our debate today is almost a rehearsal for what will come in a few weeks’ time. You will be pleased to hear, Mr Vickers, that I will not digress too much into discussion of the specifics of the new clauses, but it is safe to say that they are deeply concerning to me and many thousands of my constituents. I referred to where we are and our position in Northern Ireland. My constituents have made me aware of their position, so in speaking today I will represent that and the position of many other constituents across Northern Ireland.

I should say at the outset that I find it tragically ironic that proposals have been made to further liberalise a law here in part on the premise that the law is more liberal, more permissive, and supposedly more progressive in Northern Ireland. That suggestion has been made today. Of course, the change to the law on abortion in Northern Ireland was only brought about as a result of overreach—I use that word on purpose—by Westminster, undermining the constitutional value of Northern Ireland and its elected representatives, who should have been allowed to make decisions on this matter. On a personal level and on behalf of my constituents, it is important to place that on record in this Westminster Hall debate.

Hon. Members know my position on abortion; it is a matter of public record. In coming up to 15 years here, there has not been a question or a debate on this subject that I have not participated in or had a question on in the Chamber. That is for the record. I will not go into much detail, save to say that in my view every abortion is a tragedy for both the woman and the unborn child whose life is cut short. I hope that my view will be respected in this debate, as I respect those who hold a very different view from my own. This is a very sensitive subject and deserves to be considered in that light, but it is also important that we consider this debate in the round.

There is no right to abortion in international law. It is worth noting at the outset that, contrary to what seems to be a popular belief both in the media and among some hon. Members, even academics who take an opposing view to mine on abortion acknowledge that there is no right to abortion directly enshrined in any key international human rights instrument. That is their opinion. I put that on the record as well, because it is important to discuss these matters in full. Although this is often cited as the impetus and imperative for change in the UK, the recommendations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women are not binding on the United Kingdom. We can and should determine our own laws on this subject. It is neither required nor determined that we should go down the path of further liberalisation.

Abortion is not simply medical treatment. This is not a simple matter—it certainly is not for me and my constituents and those of us who represent this point of view.

[Carla Lockhart]

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?

[Jim Shannon]

That is exactly the point. I thank my hon. Friend and colleague for that intervention. Her mind is the same as my mind and that of the people we represent across the Province and in our constituencies.

Abortion is not simply a medical treatment. It is not a simple matter. One of the underlying rationales behind the push for decriminalisation of abortion is worth addressing. Abortion is not a mere medical treatment that should be treated akin to other matters of healthcare. However uncomfortable this may be to confront, my view and the biological reality is that there is more than one life involved in any abortion. It is essential that that is reflected in the law and in the penalties that result from breaking that law. Of course, laws send messages and shape culture.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Brewer]

I absolutely agree; that is a fear that I share.

Nicola went to hospital to seek care, but was instead passed to the police. She was charged with carrying out an illegal abortion, a nightmare that lasted four and half years before she was acquitted unanimously by a jury. These incidents reflect a system that increasingly criminalises women for seeking healthcare, and we cannot let it continue.

[Carla Lockhart]

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?

[Alex Brewer]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, but I do not agree.

To overcome the fear and anxiety that many women face when seeking medical support, we must instead build a society rooted in compassion and centred on safe, supportive healthcare, where such healthcare is treated as part of women’s services, and not treated with suspicion or stigma.

One route to decriminalising abortion is through new clause 1, which has been tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill. New clause 1 would bring England and Wales in line with Northern Ireland and countries such as France, Ireland, Canada and Australia, where women are not criminalised for abortion. The new clause is backed by End Violence Against Women, Refuge, Rape Crisis England & Wales, and many others. It would not change time limits or legal safeguards, but would simply remove the threat of prosecution for women.

As 88% of abortions in England and Wales occur before 10 weeks, the idea that decriminalisation would lead to many more late-term abortions is simply not supported by evidence. At a time when reproductive rights are under threat globally, we must act. Decriminalising abortion is a necessary step towards equality, compassion and justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Creasy]

The hon. Gentleman asks me about the view of people in Northern Ireland. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe pointed out, in the six years since that law was passed there has been no call to reverse it. I believe that human rights are universal, which is why I thought it was right for us in the United Kingdom Parliament to act for all those women in Northern Ireland whose rights were being denied by the previous status quo. There has been resistance, and we can learn from it; that is why we tabled new clause 20 to the Crime and Policing Bill.

I want to be very clear: anybody who claims that they are supporting decriminalisation by supporting new clause 1 is not telling us what decriminalisation really looks like. Decriminalisation must involve repeal, and that is why new clause 20 would repeal the legislation around abortion. That matters because, under the existing framework here, the police have already issued guidance that talks about prosecuting women. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) that we do not want to see prosecutions. Many of us have been concerned for some years about the increase in investigations and prosecutions of women for abortion. We have not been able to get to the bottom of why there has been such a surge or why the police felt the need to produce that guidance.

New clause 1 would not stop subsequent guidance targeting the partners of people who had an abortion or the medics who provided the abortions, and it would not prevent demands for women to give evidence as part of that process. If we are to finally put to bed the notion that abortion is treated in the same way in this country as endangering the safety of railway workers or the possession of explosives—which it is under the Offences against the Person Act 1861—we must remove these offences from legislation. New clause 20 would do that: it explicitly says that there can be no investigation or prosecution under those offences. Therefore, it offers protection to all those involved in ensuring that women can access safe and legal abortions. That is why we took the approach that we did in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, there was no abortion service at all, but we wanted to fight for what an abortion service should be.

Those of us who consider ourselves pro-choice absolutely want to stop the investigations and prosecutions. Opposition Members have set out many of the arguments that are made to attack abortion access in this country, and that is where the human rights legislation came in. It is not true that when we passed the Northern Ireland legislation in 2019, there was immediately access to abortion. We had to fight tooth and nail against those who used their positions to thwart that legislation. The reason we were able to do that was that we had written into law a human rights lock, which meant that whenever people in the civil service, the police or the healthcare service did not approve of abortion and sought to resist the legislation, the Secretary of State had to stand up for the right of women in Northern Ireland to access a safe and legal abortion. I sat with the Secretaries of State at that point, who were not themselves particularly supportive of abortion access, as they admitted to me that they had to push through that legislation and ensure that provision.

I have read the judgments from the cases where the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission intervened directly and used the powers that we wrote into law to defend access to abortion. Why does that matter? It matters because we know that abortion is already under attack in this country. I know that many are concerned about the Americanisation of our debate here—I want to come on to that—but we have already seen millions of pounds being spent on anti-abortion activism in this country. We do not need to import those people from America; we already have people like Lord Michael Hintze and Lord Michael Farmer, who are more than happy to fund anti-abortion activism.

I pay tribute to the work of Dr Pam Lowe in identifying and tracking that. We can see from that work that there has been better co-ordination of anti-abortion campaigning, against decriminalisation, as well as the arguments made about the time limit and telemedicine—and, ultimately, in favour of the argument that we should be demanding to know why women wish to have an abortion. For no other healthcare provision do we demand that women explain and justify themselves before we provide it. Whether it is the March for Life, the activities on our campuses or indeed the lobbying of MPs, anybody who was complacent about access to abortion in this country before we saw the Trump playbook being brought into British politics needs to look more closely at what has been happening.

When we legislate on abortion, we do not just need to properly decriminalise; we need to properly protect. That is why we tabled new clause 20, which has cross-party support. The anti-abortion movement never asks for abolition; it asks for more safeguards. It asks for more visits to doctors to delay the process of accessing an abortion. It makes a claim about medical technology. Of course, it is amazing when doctors are able to do wonderful things to save the lives of children born prematurely, but this is apples and pears. The people who have to make that horrible choice to have a late-term abortion are not doing so with the best of news in their hearts, but with hearts that are broken, because they have been told that their child will not live past birth. Who are we as a society, here in England and Wales, to compel those women to keep carrying a child to term that they know will die in a way that we do not do in Northern Ireland?

[Carla Lockhart]

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.

[Ms Creasy]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady feels like that. I hope she heard my words to her colleague, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I have always—it is on the record—defended the right of people who disagree with abortion to make their argument. I have always—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady is chuntering from a sedentary position. I have always defended the right of people to disagree. What I do not do is defend the right of people who disagree to harass.

Let me talk about another example of where abortion access is under threat. We fought tooth and nail in the previous Parliament to put safe access zones to abortion clinics in place. We absolutely uphold people’s religious liberties, but no one has a religious right to pray anywhere they like that trumps the human right of privacy that a woman has when she has made the choice to have an abortion to go to a clinic. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) set out the consequences of that.

Nothing in new clause 1 would protect buffer zones. New clause 20 would explicitly protect buffer zones, because the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has intervened to protect buffer zones as part of human rights legislation. Some may argue, “Don’t worry: because she made that ruling and fought that case for us in Northern Ireland, we can apply it to England and Wales.” New clause 20 would put that beyond doubt. It is therefore not some untried and untested mechanism for defending abortion; it is about recognising that, if we want to protect abortion access, we have to repeal the relevant legislation and then say what happens next.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

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.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is right. The business of government is difficult and requires lots of effort. The contrast between this Government’s approach and the approach taken by the Tory party over its 14 years in government is stark. We are getting on with the job.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

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?

[Shabana Mahmood]

In Wales, these are reserved matters, and the guidelines would impact only on England and Wales. There are devolved arrangements here as well, which I do not propose to upend in any way, but I am always happy to have constructive conversations with colleagues in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales on any such matters. In the end, we are a UK system, even where some matters are devolved, and I really appreciate and value that collaboration.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The vast majority of transgender prisoners are in men’s prisons. We have continued the policy of the previous Government, but all policies are always under review.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Across the UK we face the bizarre and worrying reality that common-sense protections for women are being dismissed. For example, in Northern Ireland a motion to ensure that biologically male prisoners who identify as women are held in male prisons has been opposed by many elected representatives in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and it is an issue that extends across the UK. What assurances—we do want assurances—can the Minister give that women’s safety is taken seriously, and that they are guaranteed single-sex spaces in prisons, and other settings, free from biological males who identify as women?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Safe spaces for women are crucial and a No. 1 priority in everything we do.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Like many others across the House I come to this debate with personal experience. Many of us have been at the bedside of a loved one as they have neared the end of their life. For me that was on 11 June 2023, when my dad’s earthly journey ended. Terminally ill for five years with a painful, aggressive cancer, he had a faith that sustained him and a health service that sought to support, care, comfort and preserve his life. Consultants and medical staff went over and above to ensure that he got every opportunity to see his family, and particularly his grandchildren, grow up. Did I want to see my dad suffer? Absolutely not. Equally, though, those difficult times provided us with an opportunity to care for and express love for a person whose life we valued.

The root of my conviction is this: life in all its forms is of inherent worth and value. While I have come to that conclusion partly because of my faith, like all Members across the House I have listened carefully to the evidence in coming to my conclusion on the danger that this Bill represents. Each individual person is of extraordinary value, not because of their capacity, intelligence or appearance, or for any reason other than that they are human.

It is right that we should rage against death, with its suffering and pain, as it is not natural, but the Bill takes that rational fear to an irrational and dangerous conclusion. The answer to a fear of death or of dying badly, or even a desire for a good death, is not logically to legalise a means of bringing about death in a more efficient or sanitised state-sponsored fashion. We are having the wrong debate today. We should be debating how as a society we can improve an individual’s end-of-life experience through improved investment in end-of-life and palliative care, and the very best medical or hospice facilities. I strongly support efforts to that end, to improve how we provide for those who are suffering in their final months of life rather than seeking to end their life more quickly than is necessary, as this Bill does.

Tragically, at the moment one in four people do not have access to the care they need at the end of life. Many are unable to see their GP and get the pain medication they need as they face their last few months. It is a broken system, and one that the Government have pledged to fix. Surely that should be the priority, rather than introducing a state service that ends life. We need to debate how to properly fund the healthcare system we have, but the Bill would halt that debate and divert much-needed funding for better palliative care into ending life, not preserving it.

The Bill undermines the foundation on which our NHS is built—to preserve and protect life. It is not about individual pain; it is about a societal change that would end and devalue lives. It puts at risk the lives of vulnerable and marginalised people across our communities, with wholly inadequate safeguards against coercion. As has been the case in every country where such legislation has been introduced, it would see the rapid expansion of eligibility criteria, and it cannot protect against the unreliability of a terminal diagnosis. When we look at the complications of the drugs used in places such as Oregon, we see that it would not guarantee a good death.

Death is final. Today I have stood up for what is right, told the truth and warned of the dangers of this rushed and ill thought out Bill. I urge the same honesty from those who support it. This Bill is not the answer to end-of-life care, and that is why I and my Democratic Unionist party colleagues will vote against it.