Points of Order
Debate between Carla Lockhart and Nusrat Ghani
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order, and I understand that she informed the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) of it in advance. The House’s sub judice resolution is a significant self-imposed restriction on freedom of speech in this House. Its purpose is to prevent prejudice to individual cases, and to preserve comity with the courts. As the hon. Member notes, the Clerks in the Table Office are always happy to advise Members on the sub judice rule and its application to proceedings. It is, however, ultimately the Member’s responsibility to avoid infringing the sub judice rule, and to exercise freedom of speech responsibly.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for not giving prior notice of my point of order, but it pertains to the answer given to me by the Minister during the statement. Could she advise on whether the record can be checked to see whether this House discussed the murder of the three little girls in Southport and the case of Sir David Amess before the murderers in those cases were sentenced? I believe that both those cases were brought to the House before the murderers were sentenced.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member did not give me prior notice of her point of order. First of all, the Chair is not responsible for the content of speeches or contributions made by Back Benchers, let alone Front Benchers. I do not have to hand the information that she requires about those two issues, but no doubt the Clerks can provide it in a moment or two. As the hon. Member will know, the Government are responsible for the statements that they bring forward to the House.
Armed Forces Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the Order of 26 January in the last session of Parliament (Armed Forces Bill: Programme) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs 4 to 6 of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House on recommittal, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
Committee of the whole House
(3) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be taken on the first day and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the first day.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken on the second day.
(5) Any proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the second day.
(6) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.—(Deirdre Costigan.)
Question agreed to.
Energy Security
Debate between Carla Lockhart and Nusrat Ghani(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Carla Lockhart
Absolutely. That is a practical step that would make a real difference.
Families are entitled to ask what possible justification there is for support sitting untouched while people struggle. We look at the £81 million given by Westminster to Stormont that is sitting in a Sinn Féin-controlled Department rather than reaching households who desperately need it; I ask the Minister to intervene.
Energy security means affordability and policies grounded in reality. People support protecting the environment, but they also expect realism, and that means recognising the simple truth that energy security begins with producing the energy we need ourselves. The North sea has the ability to help power our economy, support jobs and strengthen our energy resilience for decades, yet instead of backing a strategic national asset, the Government too often appear determined to turn their back on it, with a Secretary of State who is so wedded to a failing, crazy net zero agenda rather than helping those most in need.
At a time of global instability, increasing dependence on imported energy while restricting domestic production raises serious questions. That is not energy security; it is exporting jobs, exporting investment and increasing dependence on others. We should be supporting domestic production, backing strategic industries and ensuring that we are using our own resources wherever possible. We should also stop loading further costs on to households and industry through increasingly unrealistic and punitive carbon taxes, which ultimately make life more expensive for working people and businesses. The cost associated with net zero from 2025 to 2050 is £116 billion—£35 billion per year. Those are eye-watering sums and it is the taxpayer who is paying.
The election results should have been a political earthquake—a warning shot—yet the Government have not listened. Instead, they remain trapped in the Westminster bubble, with a lack of understanding of what life actually looks like outside SW1. Let us look, for example, at illegal immigration. The public were promised stronger borders, tougher action and control; instead, we are seeing expensive failure dressed up as progress. More than 200,000 people have crossed the channel in small boats since records began. In 2025 alone, more than 41,000 crossed, making it the second-highest year on record. I have repeatedly raised concerns around asylum accommodation costs. Rehousing asylum seekers is set to total £15 billion of taxpayers’ money in the next decade, and in Northern Ireland, the figure is set to rise to £400 million. I know that that money would be better spent on our own citizens first.
At a time when pensioners struggle, businesses face pressure and families watch every penny, the Government are more concerned about forcing unwanted and not needed agendas and ideology, such as digital ID and net zero. That money would be better spent on our WASPI women, on our pensioners and on meaningful welfare reforms. Where was the support for businesses and farmers that sustain our rural economy and food security? Where was Northern Ireland? There was no meaningful recognition of the continuing barriers within our own United Kingdom internal market.
What frustrates people most is what was simply not in the King’s Speech: antisemitism, Islamist extremism, and our veterans. And then there is the EU rhetoric. The public sent a message at the ballot box; it is time for the Government to wake up and start listening.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Making or taking interventions will deny another Member the opportunity to make a speech.