Belfast: Violent Disorder

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I listened carefully to the points that the hon. Gentleman made, but there were a number of them. Let me reflect on them, and then I shall be happy to discuss them with him further.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Having seen violence in my constituency last night, I want to say clearly that violence is never the answer, that it is wrong, and that those engaged in it should face the full force of the law. Despite what Sinn Féin tells us, there is always an alternative to violence. We do not want attacks on people—including the police—on homes or on businesses. We do not want families to feel unsafe. We do not want little children from different ethnic backgrounds to feel afraid or fearful even to go to school.

However, the many people who are angry and scared because of uncontrolled immigration, and because of the barbaric act just two nights ago and the footage of the incident that has been displayed, want to see politics and democracy fill the space. There is significant concern in Northern Ireland about open borders. Will the Minister release the numbers on those who have crossed into the United Kingdom via the border with the Republic of Ireland, and will he commit himself to at least starting to replicate the Republic of Ireland’s system of checking people who travel from the United Kingdom—from Northern Ireland—to the Republic of Ireland? People need to see this Government take action.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her condemnation of the violence. The Government absolutely understand the concerns and are working to address the underlying issues that underpin those concerns. It is important to make the point that, on top of increased deportations and removals, we are seeking to remove the pull factors that bring people here in the first place. Illegal work arrests are up by 60%, hotel use is down by 63% since its peak, and asylum claims are down by 12%. Much has been done, and there is much more to do, but we absolutely understand the concerns.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend is right: follow the money. I am highly aware of that, and we are determined to act. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Digital Government and Data is chairing the digital advertising taskforce, which is a joint effort between this Department and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to look at precisely these issues, because we want to ensure that illegal and harmful content is not rewarded.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

When a child views an inappropriate image online, they cannot unsee it. I have been horrified recently by the number of parents coming to me about inappropriate ads popping up on kids’ digital games. Some of the images are horrendous, and children are viewing them at a very early age. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss this ongoing issue?

[Liz Kendall]

I or one of my Ministers will meet the hon. Member. She is right to say that once you have seen something, you cannot unsee it. That is especially true for young minds. We all know that young children will wake up in the night and talk to us about things that they remember seeing, but do not understand because they are too young. Either one of my Ministers or I will be more than happy to meet her, see those images for ourselves, and speak to Ofcom and others about what we can do to try to stop that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am delighted to hear about the new businesses in my hon. Friend’s area. Our high streets strategy, backed by £301 million, will set out further plans to rejuvenate high streets across the country. We are putting power into the hands of local communities through our Pride in Place scheme, including £20 million for Stanley South in my hon. Friend’s constituency. That is only possible because his community has a hard-working Labour MP and a Labour Government.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Some six months ago in this House, I mentioned a little boy called Teddy Johnson. Sadly, Teddy will be forever seven, because he died last week from metachromatic leukodystrophy. MLD is a horrendous condition that stole Teddy’s ability to walk, talk and even smile. What makes this tragedy more profound is that here in the UK, we have a treatment—we have a cure—but it is only effective if the condition is identified by a simple heel prick at birth and treated immediately, because when symptoms appear, it is too late. Just a few weeks ago, the UK National Screening Committee recommended the condition remain excluded from the heel prick. We have a treatment and we have a commissioned service in the Royal Manchester children’s hospital, yet children like Teddy are still dying prematurely. Despite all that is going on in the world, I know that the Prime Minister is in politics to make a change. Prime Minister, in Teddy’s memory and in the memory of all those who have died prematurely: make the change and add MLD to the simple heel prick test.

[The Prime Minister]

I remember the hon. Lady raising Teddy’s case very well. I am very saddened to hear of his passing, and my thoughts—and, I am sure, those of the whole House—are with his family and his loved ones. I will do precisely as she asks: I will make sure that we look at this again in the light of the information that she has given to me in the course of this session.

Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

This morning’s Foreign Affairs Committee session lasted for two-and-a-half hours. It was certainly one of the more remarkable sessions that I have attended, and I have been involved in a number of quite controversial Select Committee hearings over the years. It showed the Select Committee system at its best, and Members across the House worked together.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), a fellow member of the Committee who spoke earlier. I share his view that Sir Olly Robbins, who gave us evidence, put in an impressive performance. He is clearly angry at the way in which he is being treated; he has a distinguished career that has been brought to a premature end, and he is clearly very upset by that. In his evidence, he made some extraordinary revelations. He had given evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee in November last year, when, as the Chair of the Committee suggested in her introduction, we may have heard the truth and nothing but the truth, but probably not the whole truth.

This morning, we heard a lot more of the whole truth. What became absolutely clear, which had already been suggested in the previous hearing, was that No. 10 Downing Street was absolutely determined that Lord Mandelson should become the ambassador of his country to the United States. Sir Olly told us that his predecessor, Philip Barton, had strongly advised that that should not happen until after the developed vetting process had been completed. Despite that advice from the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, he was ignored—indeed, we are told that the Cabinet Office went on to suggest that developed vetting might not even be necessary.

This was not just a routine appointment, and it was not routine for two reasons. First, it was the appointment of probably the most important ambassadorial post that this country has. Secondly, and very unusually, it was a direct ministerial appointment. Most of the time, ambassadorial appointments are made from within the civil service, and people have already had the vetting procedure. This was somebody being brought in from the outside who had not been vetted and already had a track record of having had to resign from Government twice.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The role of Prime Minister is the highest honour in UK politics and demands sound judgment. The reality is that there was no sound judgment when the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson—a disgraced individual who had two resignations and well-documented associations with a sex offender. What we are hearing from Members on the Labour Benches today is like hearing lambs to the slaughter. They are defending the indefensible, and the general public are hearing that and hearing how disgraced this place is by the decision of the Prime Minister to appoint Peter Mandelson.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. It is somehow being suggested by Labour Members that this was about people advising the Prime Minister—I think one speaker earlier said that the Prime Minister had been persuaded to appoint Peter Mandelson. Well, I worked for a Prime Minister, and she coined a phrase: “Advisers advise; Ministers decide.” In this case, as the hon. Lady says, it was the decision of the Prime Minister.

Sir Olly Robbins also pointed out that by the time he took up his position, he was essentially presented with a fait accompli. He set that out to us—he said that

“I took over as PUS on 20 January”,

and that due diligence had already been completed. We know that that process, which included an interview with Morgan McSweeney, had revealed the ongoing relationship between Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, but that it was ignored. We were told that approval of the appointment had already been given by the King, it had been announced publicly to the press, and agrément had been given by the United States. Sir Olly Robbins made clear that agrément is not just a formality; it was a very significant development. Lord Mandelson had also been given access to the FCDO building and IT access, and finally, he was being granted access to highly classified briefings on a case-by-case basis. I asked Sir Olly Robbins whether, given that all that was already in place, it would damage our relationship with the United States of America if he were to have the appointment withdrawn. He replied very clearly, “Yes, it would.”

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) set out, we already had a very good ambassador in Washington, but Downing Street had nevertheless said to the US Administration that it wanted Lord Mandelson to be appointed, and the White House had given its agreement through the agrément procedure. For Sir Olly Robbins to then withdraw the appointment would have caused real damage to our foreign policy. One can argue that if Sir Olly Robbins were told that the UKSV process had resulted in a clear recommendation of denial, he might—or perhaps even should—still have done so, but he also told us this morning that he was not told that. We were told that he did not see the UKSV report, and that he did not even know that the report has a red box saying “deny” with a tick in it. He said that he had never seen those documents before, and that that would be normal, because access is very restricted for the reasons that the hon. Member for Halesowen set out.

All that Sir Olly Robbins was told was that there had been a leaning towards refusal, and that it was a borderline case. Whether or not that was an accurate reflection of what the report actually said is another matter, and we can perhaps debate at what stage, or how far, the message from Downing Street—“We want this person to be appointed”—had been transmitted, to try to make that appointment as possible as it was. However, we are told that after Sir Olly Robbins had arrived as permanent secretary, he was subjected to regular calls from No. 10 saying, “Get it done.” He also told us that the message was not, “Get it done subject to security clearance,” which in his view, it should have been. The press release announcing the appointment of Lord Mandelson did not say “subject to security clearance”—that was never mentioned. This was announced as a decision that had already been taken.

Why was the decision taken? That is a matter that is open to conjecture. There is a view among some Labour Members that it was somehow a reward for services given in getting the Prime Minister his job. The leader of the Liberal Democrats said that it might have been an attempt to cosy up to President Trump, although as my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington pointed out, our previous ambassador had done a really good job in representing this country to President Trump. We may never know, but what we do know is that the Prime Minister was absolutely determined that that appointment should be made.

Even after the appointment was made, when all of these things began to be revealed—in particular, the ongoing relationship between Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, which the Prime Minister said he was unaware of the closeness of and he was very angry when he was told about—inquiries had already been made. Journalists had been ringing up No. 10 and saying, “We have been told that Lord Mandelson failed his security vetting,” and No. 10 put out a denial. With journalists calling up and asking, “Is it true that he did not pass the UKSV assessment, and it recommended denial of security vetting?” one would expect that before saying, “No, that’s complete rubbish,” No. 10 might actually begin to ask questions. People in No. 10 might say to the Prime Minister, “You should be aware that we’ve had an inquiry about this.” Apparently none of that happened, or if it did, it was simply swept under the carpet. The end result of this process is that for more than a year we had someone representing this country at the most senior level in America, which is our closest ally, who the security agencies had concluded was a security risk. We do not know the full extent of the damage that may have been done during that time.

Antisemitic Attacks

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I have described the actions that we will take, but it is also important to recognise the work that the police do, often in difficult and challenging circumstances. There has been an impressive response from the Met over the past few days; we need to ensure that it has the support to continue that. If the hon. Member has any particular issues with regard to his local synagogue or local community, I would be happy to meet him to discuss them.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Government recently introduced specific legislation to protect the Islamic community, ignoring the very real and greater threat to Jews in the UK. When will we see specific legislation to protect Jews, and indeed Christian preachers, across the United Kingdom?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am sorry to say that the hon. Lady’s characterisation is not fair. I have been incredibly clear about the work and the support that we are providing to Jewish communities. We take that incredibly seriously. Where there is a requirement to do more, and to do things differently, we will not hesitate to do so. Where we need to introduce new legislation, we will not hesitate to do so. The Government will ensure that all communities are kept safe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kanishka Narayan]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s engagement in her constituency and on this debate nationally. She has been a strong champion for the voices of victims, particularly in relation to this question. I entirely agree with her demands for parity, and that is exactly the commitment we have made as a Government. We have set up a cross-Government unit to make sure that we deliver on that plan within six months.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Some 50% of boys aged 11 to 13 have already viewed online pornography. Clearly, frequent exposure to violent sexual content is damaging young people’s minds and their understanding of relationships. Does the Minister agree that, alongside engagement with platforms, the criminal law must be modernised to ban online extreme pornography?

[Kanishka Narayan]

I thank the hon. Member for that incredibly important point. That is exactly why we have already made a series of legal changes, not least to ensure that cyber-flashing and intimate image abuse are priority offences under the Online Safety Act 2023. We have mandated highly effective age assurance on pornography sites and sites with content that is harmful to children. We want to go further still where there is clear evidence to do so, and we will do that through the national consultation that we have launched.

Digital ID: Public Consultation

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I can confirm that the Government will not be doing any such thing.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

My constituency led the way on this issue, with more than 7,000 people signing the e-petition against digital ID cards. The public see this scheme for what it is—a gateway to unprecedented state surveillance—and they do not want to be part of it. They see it as a waste of money and effort to create a 100-strong citizens assembly that is not even democratically accountable. Will the Chief Secretary be honest with the public and admit that if this digital ID plan is implemented, the slippery slope is greased with expansion tracking and repurposing?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Lady is wrong. I look forward to bringing provisions in the Bill later this year to prove that case.

China: Foreign Interference Arrests

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Just to reassure the hon. Gentleman, the answer is no.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Minister has said numerous times that the Government always prioritise UK national security, but those words ring hollow whenever we think of the Chinese embassy, and the fact that this Government have granted a mega-embassy close to underground cables carrying highly sensitive data. In the light of these highly concerning developments, surely the Government should show courage, strength and leadership, and with immediate effect revoke that decision in the interest of national security.

[Dan Jarvis]

With great respect to the hon. Lady—I always listen carefully to what she has to say, because she represents a part of the United Kingdom that I have a long-standing interest in—she is not right in what she says about the embassy. I refer her to comments made by the Intelligence and Security Committee and the director generals of our security services. The arrangement that underpins the Chinese embassy involves the reduction of the diplomatic estate in London from seven sites down to one. I hope that when she looks at it in those terms, she will understand that there are national security advantages from that proposal.

EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mike Wood]

No, I only have five minutes.

For that £90 billion to be credible, one would have to imagine that we would have vastly exceeded the growth of every large European country if only we had stuck to what we were already doing, closer to the framework that those countries with lower growth are still in.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mike Wood]

I will very quickly.

[Hon. Members]

Oh!

[Carla Lockhart]

I think the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) has had his say, quite significantly.

The EU is a failing entity and we got out at the right time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is the continued capitulation of this Government and other UK parties, and a failure to accept the democratic outcome, that has led us to this point—especially the problems we are experiencing in Northern Ireland? Joining the EU is not the solution; it is about a strong Government leading this United Kingdom as a whole.

[Mike Wood]

The hon. Lady raises an important issue. Last summer, the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland said that two thirds of the SMEs in Northern Ireland that moved goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland had ceased to do so because of the way EU checks were being conducted. The Northern Ireland protocol says that if the UK experiences diversion of trade, we can take unilateral action. If two thirds of small businesses does not count as diversion of trade, what does? As the record shows, exports to the EU grew more in the five years since we left in 2021 than they did in the six years before the referendum.

The Opposition have set five clear tests for any renegotiation with the European Union: no return to free movement; no new payments to the EU; no loss of fishing rights; no dynamic alignment with EU rules; and no compromise on NATO’s primacy in European defence. Those tests are not ideological; they are the minimum requirement for respecting the 2016 mandate. Dynamic alignment may sound technical, but it means accepting rules that we no longer shape. Budgetary contributions may be dressed as programmes, but they mean sending money back without membership—often far more than can be fairly attributed to the costs caused by our participation. A customs arrangement that restricts our trade autonomy undermines the very sovereignty that voters endorsed.

Brexit was never about isolation: it was about independence. It was about being outward looking on British terms. We now have the ability to strike trade agreements globally. We have joined the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, helping to open access to markets in 11 high-growth economies, from Canada to South Korea and Australia. Many of the bilateral trade deals that we have signed go far beyond the proceeding EU trade agreements, with deeper digital trade and data chapters that are important to so many of the sectors in which Britain is strongest.

Financial market reform has reduced the risk margin for life insurers, meaning that we can promote long-term growth and divert more to long-term infrastructure and green technologies. In agriculture, the UK has moved to environmental land management schemes, based on the principle of public money for public good, to support environmental outcomes instead of just paying landowners to own land. Our duty is clear: to honour the mandate, to defend the sovereignty the people voted for, to work with our allies as equal sovereign partners where we can, and to protect our country’s ability to take its own decisions in our nation’s interest.

Lord Mandelson

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

We are having this debate today solely because of the women and girls who found the courage to come forward and speak about the abuse they had endured over years at the hands of rich and powerful men. Without these women’s bravery in speaking up about their experiences at the hands of a paedophile sex trafficker and his friends, none of these shocking revelations would have come out. We owe these women justice, and we owe it to them to make changes to create a system that works.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The hon. Member is right: victims should be at the heart of this process. The allegations against someone who the Prime Minister and Ministers put full trust in are also absolutely shocking.

Jeffrey Epstein was a sick child predator and a sex offender. He visited Hillsborough castle on at least one occasion. Does the hon. Member agree that this House and the Government should have a full review of his activities while there, and an audit of his visitors during that time? The victims deserve answers.

[Lisa Smart]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation of some of the individuals we are talking about today. We will be supporting the Leader of the Opposition’s motion to request the information that is sought. The Liberal Democrats would go further, looking to a public inquiry in order to get to the detail that the victims deserve.

The revelations about Peter Mandelson’s conduct raise profoundly serious questions about judgment, national security and accountability. The leaked emails suggest that while serving as a Cabinet Minister, he shared sensitive Government information, sharing details about the 2008 financial crisis, market-sensitive bail-out measures and potential asset sales. These allegations point to potential misconduct in public office, aimed at helping those involved to enrich themselves. They certainly warrant the police investigation that was announced yesterday, but also reveal catastrophic failures in the systems meant to protect our national interest.

The emails highlight a fundamental lack of accountability that exists within our current system. The Prime Minister has rightly called Peter Mandelson’s conduct a betrayal, and has submitted material to the police and requested draft legislation on removing peerages. These responses are necessary, but it has taken the Government far too long to get to this position. Mandelson was appointed ambassador to the United States by this Government and this Prime Minister even after his links to Epstein had been extensively reported by the Financial Times and “Channel 4 News”.