Katie Lam MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I will make a little progress first. It is particularly concerning that the vast majority who have come to Britain in the last few years, including many of those on the skilled worker route, are unlikely to contribute more in tax than they cost over their lifetimes through their use of public services and state support. As things stand, the lifetime cost of the recent wave of migration is set to be hundreds of billions of pounds. It is one of the biggest scandals in British politics and most people, including the Prime Minister, now acknowledge that the accelerated migration of the last few years was a profound mistake. When we make a mistake and have the power to reverse it, it is right that we do so. We absolutely have the power to reverse this particular mistake, and that would start by changing the rules on indefinite leave to remain. At the moment, after just five years, most migrants can claim ILR, allowing them to stay here indefinitely, access state support and begin the path to citizenship. My shadow Home Office colleagues and I have repeatedly argued that the qualifying period should be extended from five years to 10, but that alone is not enough. No new visa should be issued to, no new ILR status should be granted to, and existing ILR status should be revoked from, those who have committed a crime, accessed state support, or are unlikely to contribute more than they cost. Those who have no legal way to stay here would then need to leave. That is how immigration works. Many hon. Members in this debate have commented on the fairness and perceived fairness of retrospective rule changes to those who have come here. That point was made in opening by the hon. Member for South Norfolk and by too many other hon. Members to list. We can feel great personal sympathy for such people, but our primary, indeed our only, fundamental responsibility is not fairness to foreign nationals but fairness to the British people. It is our sacred duty to put them first, and to act in their interests and their interests alone.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  Our suggested reforms do not apply to Hong Kong BNO visa holders. That is a specific route set up for extraordinary purposes. We believe it should be viewed and treated differently. Implementing our policies in full would save the British taxpayer hundreds of billions of pounds. It would relieve pressure on our already stretched public services and lay the foundations for an immigration system that genuinely works in the national interest. More than that, it would give effect to the democratic wishes of the British people by reversing a costly disaster that nobody voted for and that most people now acknowledge was a catastrophic mistake. I urge the Government in the strongest possible terms to commit to implement the changes that we have repeatedly proposed, including by applying any changes to ILR to those who are already here. A five-year visa does not confer a right to apply to settle here indefinitely. Those who come here must make a genuine and sustained contribution to our country, and unfortunately most of those who have come on the skilled worker route in recent years are unlikely to do so. If, as the Prime Minister says, our “open borders experiment” has been a mistake, why should British taxpayers be saddled with the cost of that mistake for the rest of their lives? Finally, although I do not agree with the argument made by the petition on skilled worker visas, I believe that that process should be subject to an open and frank public debate.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I am closing; I apologise. Will the Minister confirm that applying any changed rules to those already here will be within the scope of the Government’s planned consultation on ILR? Will he commit to ensuring that that consultation is open to responses from members of the public?

• 14 Jul 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all Members for their contributions, Members who tabled amendments, and the Minister for his work and approach. As has been set out, the Bill represents an important step towards tightening the existing rules on the deprivation of citizenship, as we discussed on Second Reading. This is a crucial tool that Home Secretaries must be able to exercise as part of their broader efforts to keep our country safe. Membership of a nation does not just imply rights; it also confers responsibilities. When British citizens engage in terrorism, support for terrorism or serious organised crime, they clearly disregard those responsibilities. We cannot deprive such people of citizenship in all cases, but where we can, we should. Put simply, the intent of this Bill is to make sure that the Home Secretary’s use of deprivation powers is effective. More broadly, it also intends to make it clear that, when considering the use of the deprivation powers, politically accountable Ministers must ultimately be responsible for the final decision. The amendments must be viewed in that light.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I start by thanking the Minister for his work on the Bill. It is always a pleasure to work across from him in defence of our great country and its people. Keeping our country safe sometimes requires taking difficult decisions, including the decision to deprive a person of their British citizenship. Working flagrantly against our country’s interests as, say, a terrorist does clearly demonstrates a disregard for the responsibilities of citizenship. Such people should not be able to hide behind a passport, and it is therefore right that the Home Secretary retains the power to deprive them of citizenship where it is possible to do so. It is also right that this power remains effective. We believe that the Bill is an important step towards ensuring that efficacy and clarifying Parliament’s intention on how those powers can be used. Given that we are in agreement on the substance of the Bill itself, I would like to briefly make a broader point about what the legislation represents in terms of our constitution and Parliament’s role within it. As I mentioned on Second Reading, the main role of the judiciary in our system is to interpret and apply Parliament’s will; it is not the highest arbiter of our constitution. In most cases, with the exception of some prerogative powers, its only role in reviewing ministerial powers is to ensure that they are exercised according to the guidelines set out by Parliament. When the judiciary makes a decision that runs contrary to the will of Parliament, Parliament is therefore perfectly entitled to overturn that decision and to clarify its will. This is a living and breathing institution, which should be at the centre of our political system, because Parliament is ultimately answerable to the British people themselves. The Bill before us represents one such clarification. At a time when it can seem that many on the Government Benches are happy to defer to the judiciary as a matter of course, it is heartening to see the Minister take a different approach—one that recognises the fact that Parliament is the cornerstone of our system—and I thank him for that. We must never forget that the supreme authority in this country is Parliament. When the legal process produces a result that is not in the interests of the British people, not only is this House well within its rights to overturn it, but it must do so. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

• 11 Jul 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for bringing the Bill forward. For many in this Chamber, the Euro 2020 final was a rollercoaster of ecstasy and disappointment, though I appreciate that certain Members from other parts of our United Kingdom may have felt a little less devastated at the result. Beyond heartbreak on the pitch, the Euro 2020 final was a day that nearly ended in catastrophe. Thousands of ticketless fans forced their way into Wembley, creating chaotic and dangerous scenes. When disaster is so narrowly avoided, it is reasonable to ask whether anybody made a mistake. Sadly, this was not a one-off incident. Tailgating was reported again at both the 2024 champions league final and the 2025 league cup final. Of the 91 arrests made on that day, 68 were related to fraud—people trying to get in without a ticket. We heard from the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) about a particularly upsetting and fatal day. These incidents put genuine fans at risk and erode the trust that is necessary to police events of this scale properly. For many people in this country, a trip to the football is the highlight of their year. For many families, it is a hard-earned outing or rare treat for their children—something they scrimp and save for. What must they think when they see hooligans jump the barriers and get in for free? They must think that they are the mugs for having paid and followed the rules in the first place. It is therefore right that we give police and organisers the tools they need, not just to remove people in the moment but to prevent repeat offences through banning orders. That builds on steps taken by the previous Government that saw drug-related offences in football stadiums likewise result in stadium bans. I welcome the clear focus on intent. The defences included in the Bill are thorough. I hope that the Minister can confirm that enforcement will be directed firmly at dangerous deliberate entry, and will not affect fans who responsibly pass on spare tickets. Targeted, common-sense enforcement is exactly the right approach to tackling this kind of disorder. Where new powers are necessary, the Opposition will support their introduction. The FA certainly seems to support the introduction of a bespoke offence for tailgating. However, all too often, we do not make enough use of existing powers. If I understood the sentiment expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who is no longer in his place, he was saying that the laws introduced in this place are often improperly enforced. Following the 68 arrests that I mentioned earlier, not a single person has been charged. A bespoke tailgating offence will make little difference unless police and the Crown Prosecution Service are willing and able to secure convictions. We must support them in doing so, as well as in taking other steps, such as co-operating with stadiums to advise on cases in which stadium bans might be appropriate. More broadly, many of us are concerned by the rapid erosion of the social contract. Across our society, we are witnessing a troubling disregard for not only law and order, but standards of behaviour. Whether it is people pushing through ticket barriers on the tube, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch mentioned and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) has highlighted, or migrants working illegally as delivery drivers, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) has highlighted, the principle is the same: laws apply to everyone, or they apply only to those of us who are good enough stick to them, which is deeply unfair. If we do not take action to uphold those standards, particularly when safety is at stake, public confidence inevitably suffers. The starting point must always be the enforcement of our existing laws, and we must give full support to institutions such as the FA as they take steps to improve safety and uphold standards. In the light of all that, I am pleased to reiterate the support expressed in Committee and confirm our continued support for this private Member’s Bill. I again thank the hon. Member for Amber Valley for introducing it.

• 11 Jul 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for bringing the Bill forward and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for his amendments. At this stage, is it correct that you wish us to speak only to the amendment, Mr Speaker? [ Interruption. ] Yes. We the Opposition have nothing further to add to the debate that we have had this morning.

• 7 Jul 2025 · National Inquiry: Grooming Gangs · Hansard source

  More

  The comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) relate to the question of whether it will be a national inquiry, rather than a co-ordination of a few local inquiries. All the victims and survivors deserve justice, so can the Minister please confirm for us today that every town and city with a grooming and rape gang will be part of the inquiry, including and especially where local authorities may not wish to be part of it?

• 3 Jul 2025 · Phone Theft · Hansard source

  More

  It should go without saying that law and order is the bedrock of a healthy society, but laws that we make in this House are only worth anything if they are enforced. In Britain today, this is all too often the story: a widening gulf between our laws and how they are actually applied. I can think of few better examples than mobile phone theft. There is a temptation to think of phone theft as an example of petty crime, but it sounds as though we in this House all agree that there is nothing petty about it. Mobile phones are a link to our friends and family, and for many people they are a necessary tool for work, study and day-to-day life. They often hold sensitive information, both personal and financial, to say nothing of the intimidation and violence experienced by victims, and the corrosive impact that rampant phone theft has on our public realm. So when we think about phone theft, we should not just be thinking about the inconvenience of a missing phone; we should be thinking about the distress to victims and the creeping sense that, increasingly, we are no longer safe in public. To capture the scale of the problem, it is useful to reflect on the data. According to last year’s crime survey for England and Wales, snatch thefts of mobile phones and bags rose by 70% last year, reaching a 20-year high. Overall, theft stands at the highest rate for a decade, according to the Office for National Statistics. At the epicentre of this crime wave is London, where thefts have more than doubled over the past five years. Three quarters of phone thefts take place there, with 116,656 phones stolen last year alone. Those devices have a street value of more than £20 million. Phone theft often contributes to other forms of crime. According to Commander James Conway of the Metropolitan Police, about 70% of London’s knife crime is linked to theft, meaning that the increase in phone theft is likely to be contributing to the city’s rampant knife crime epidemic. Cyber-security experts have also warned that phones stolen in London are being shipped off to countries like China, where they are often used in international organised crime. Perhaps that should not come as a surprise given the approach taken by Sadiq Khan, London’s Labour Mayor. He is focused on cracking down on stop and search, which is clearly proven to cut crime, while his police and crime plan barely mentions phone theft, focusing on introducing new regulations for phone companies, instead of stopping actual crimes. Of course, technology companies should do their bit where they reasonably can, but our focus should be on catching and imprisoning criminals. In the vast majority of the 116,656 cases, the reported crime is not solved, the phone is not retrieved and the offender is not arrested, leaving them to walk free to commit more crime. That is simply not acceptable and we should not accept it. All the while, police forces across the country spend an estimated 60,000 hours per year on non-crime hate incidents, collecting and storing data on speech that might be perceived to be offensive. Is it any wonder that many people are beginning to describe the state of modern Britain as anarcho-tyranny? More rules, applied more strictly for the law-abiding majority, while actual criminals walk free. While many police officers work hard and genuinely wish to make our country a safer place, the systems and incentives that govern their activities are totally broken. It is simply wrong that resources are spent on policing speech, while prolific thieves run rampant through our streets. Phone theft is not the only crime like that. For too many people in Britain, particularly in our larger cities, low-level disorder is now the unpleasant mood music of their day-to-day lives. We all feel the decline in our public realm, and it makes our country a worse place to live. Speak to any member of the British public, and they will be able to tell us exactly what to do: spend less time on policing speech and more time on catching thieves; give police forces the tools they need to tackle these crimes; and when we catch a career criminal, ensure they serve a proper prison sentence. In short, enforce the law.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his work and approach, today and every day. It is a pleasure to work across from him, against our enemies and in defence of our great country and its people. Sometimes, fulfilling our duty to keep our country safe means taking action that we might otherwise wish to avoid, but it is completely right that depriving people of their citizenship under certain circumstances is a tool available to the Home Secretary. Those who hate our country and what it stands for, and work against our interests, should not be able to hide behind a British passport. Membership of a nation does not just imply rights; it also confers responsibilities. When British citizens engage in terrorism, support for terrorism or serious organised crime, they clearly disregard those responsibilities. It is clearly true that we cannot deprive such people of citizenship in all cases, particularly given that a worrying number of extremists are now homegrown, but where we can, we should. If we accept that the deprivation of citizenship is an important tool in keeping our country safe, we should also accept that this power should be exercised pragmatically, with the safety of the British people coming first. Allowing potentially dangerous individuals to retain their citizenship while appeals are ongoing is absurd. This is not a power exercised lightly by any Government, and the idea that dangerous people might escape accountability by exploiting procedure is frightening. The current system also opens up the worrying possibility of dual citizens renouncing their non-UK citizenship during the appeal process, making it subsequently impossible to remove their British citizenship without rendering them stateless, so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) said earlier, we support the Bill, which will ensure that deprivation of citizenship orders will continue to have effect until the entire appeal process is complete. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons) rightly placed the Bill in its wider context, both historically and politically, and I agree with him on the desperate need to restore our broken border and make British citizenship extremely precious. He spoke of the citizenship ceremony. My grandmother swore allegiance to the King when she became a citizen, and talked of it often. I know that it was one of the proudest moments of her life. The hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) said that she considers citizenship a right rather than a privilege. On that, I am afraid that she and I disagree. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) rightly said immediately afterwards, citizenship is to be prized, not abused. My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) was right to point out that there is a balance to be struck. Deprivation has a cost to those who are deprived. I say that the cost in the scenarios in which the Home Secretary may exercise deprivation powers is more than worth paying to protect this country and her people. Similarly, and more specifically to the Bill, the cost of maintaining a deprivation until the conclusion of the process is also a price well worth paying. I say that as a British citizen who, unlike my right hon. Friend, is entitled to several other citizenships. Finally, the Bill is not just a good example of decisive action taken in the interest of national security; it is also a good example of Parliament’s role in our political system. In this country, the main job of the judiciary is to interpret and apply Parliament’s will. Unlike in other countries, judges are not the highest safeguards of our constitution. In Britain, that task is given to, and must remain with, the British people themselves. When the judiciary makes a decision that runs contrary to the will of Parliament, either as it was or as it is today, Parliament is perfectly entitled to overturn that decision; in fact, it must do so if our political system is to work as it should. In, say, the United States, the Supreme Court’s job involves working out the intention of long-dead statesmen. That is not the case here in the United Kingdom, where Parliament is a living, breathing institution, embodying the sovereignty of the British people. It can clarify its will or issue new guidance. That kind of institutional dialogue is healthy; indeed, it is the lifeblood of our politics. We therefore welcome not only the specific measures before us today but the approach taken by the Government on this matter. We have seen Ministers and Government Members behave as if the law is an entity unto itself—an authority above all others, entirely separate from the political process. That could not be further from the truth. We must never forget that the supreme authority in this country is Parliament, and that the job of Parliament is to legislate in the interests of the British people. When the legal process produces a result that is not in the interests of the British people, not only is this House well within its rights to overturn it; it must do so.

• 26 Jun 2025 · Local Bus Services · Hansard source

  More

  As I mentioned to the Minister when he appeared before the Transport Committee, I sent a transport survey to every household in Weald of Kent and received hundreds of comments about our buses. Many are dismayed that villages such as Smarden, Egerton, Frittenden and Pluckley now have no bus service at all, while others observe that small villages are served by massive buses carrying one or two passengers. What further assessment has the Minister made of the role of demand-responsive services in rural areas such as mine?

• 25 Jun 2025 · English Wine Production · Hansard source

  More

  That is a similar point to the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox). It is not uncommon for vineyards and wineries to produce both types of drinks, and so have to operate under two different duty systems, which is also additional bureaucracy. I think that change would make a substantial difference. Our producers represent the future of winemaking. They certainly should not be hindered by rising costs. We need long-term policies that will support their continued growth. WineGB estimates that there are 16 million potential visitors to the UK wine tourism sector: a huge untapped market. In my constituency, the excellent Chapel Down welcomes over 60,000 visitors a year for winery tours. It continues to be a major contributor to our local economy, and that is just the beginning. Producers such as Gusbourne, Westwell, Biddenden, Balfour, Dingleden, Ham Street, Warehorne, Woodchurch, and Domaine Evremond all play a part. We are so fortunate in the Weald that I could not even attempt to name them all in the time I have in this debate. It is, of course, a tremendous chore to visit them all, but my commitment to public service remains unwavering. Many vineyards now make up to 50% of their sales directly to consumers, in so-called “cellar door sales”. That is often the only way for small producers to avoid the razor-thin margins created by intermediaries, excise duties and distributor fees. The potential is enormous. Wine tourism helps to create skilled jobs in rural constituencies like mine. It supports regional identity and allows producers to build a direct relationship with their customers. A targeted duty relief on direct-to-consumer or tourist cellar door sales would help wine producers, in the way that beer and cider receive help from draught relief and small producer relief, as we have heard from hon. Members in this debate. Will the Government consider implementing a wine tourism relief, to recognise this youthful industry’s potential and give small producers the boost they need to truly thrive? More broadly, visits to UK vineyards and wineries were up more than half in just two years. That is extraordinary growth by any measure. What plans does the Minister have to support one of the few industries in the UK that is demonstrably expanding, creating rural jobs, driving tourism and building our export potential from the ground up? If we are serious about backing British agriculture and business, this is exactly the kind of sector that deserves targeted support. Yet, as is too often the case in the UK today, the more businesses grow, the more they seem to be penalised by heavy-handed regulation. Take the extended producer responsibility—EPR—scheme, which affects businesses, including winemakers with a turnover of £1 million or more—a threshold that many of our leading vineyards are proudly surpassing. That success comes at a cost. EPR imposes disproportionately high fees on glass packaging, but glass is the only viable material for sparkling wine. On top of all that, winemakers now face hours of additional paperwork collecting data on the type and weight of materials used, simply to remain compliant with opaque packaging rules. That is not the only example of over-regulation choking the industry. The previously flat wine duty has now been replaced by 30 different rates based on tiny, 0.1% increments of alcohol content. In the context of wine, that makes no practical sense. As has already been pointed out in the House by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), ABV varies naturally by vintage and by vat. It is hugely difficult to predict and the system causes confusion, not clarity. Although I accept that the Minister did not create that system, will he take the opportunity to outline what steps the Government might take to ensure that our wine producers can spend more of their time tending their vines, rather than filling out forms? While the previous Government may have implemented some regulations that caused challenges to wine producers, they recognised the need for active investment in the UK wine industry. I was pleased to see them establish the future winemakers’ scheme, with £1.5 million set aside for training opportunities for the next generation of viticulturists. Will the Minister recommit to the scheme today, ensuring that the UK wine industry secures the future talent it needs to reach its full potential? Though welcome, deregulation and training schemes alone are not enough. If we allow the definition of English wine to be blurred or co-opted, the industry risks dying on the vine. There is serious concern among winemakers that third-country producers could ship foreign-made still wine in bulk to the UK, carbonate or transform the product here, and market it in a way that implies it was locally made. That would be misleading to consumers, would undermine the integrity of the English wine label, and would make a mockery of the investment our producers have made in their land, climate and local communities. I want to press the Minister on a simple point: will he commit to ensuring, particularly as the Government restart their third round of post-Brexit wine industry reforms, that wines sold as British or English must be made exclusively from British-grown grapes? He knows as well as I do that the majority of UK wine is sparkling. I am sure he would agree that English wine deserves the same protected designation of origin—PDO status—that champagne and prosecco receive in their respective markets. There are few products that bring together so many public goods: rural jobs, tourism, export potential, environmental stewardship and national pride. English wine is not a nostalgia project or a romantic curiosity; it is a viable, growing industry—one that sits at the intersection of agriculture, manufacturing, hospitality and culture. To support this fantastic product is to invest in our countryside and our brand as a country. We have the chance, as English Wine Week says, to “Create new traditions.” I ask the Minister to seize that opportunity: let us support wine tourism and, above all, ensure that the label “English wine” means what it says—wine made from English grapes on English soil.

• 25 Jun 2025 · English Wine Production · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is a fantastic champion of our Unionist and one nation principles. The best thing that our friends, brothers and sisters in Northern Ireland can do is to purchase English wine and drink it. That is a win for all concerned. British wines are now exported to 45 different countries. There are healthy markets in Norway, Japan, America, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Hong Kong and South Korea, to name but a few. We now have over 1,100 registered vineyards and more than 240 wineries.

• 25 Jun 2025 · English Wine Production · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered English wine production. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring forward this debate at a timely moment: the middle of English Wine Week. The theme this year is creating new traditions, and I cannot think of a more fitting description for the English wine industry as it stands today. It is a sector that combines modern ambition with rural heritage, and world-class expertise with local entrepreneurial spirit. It is a sector that is growing, not only in economic potential but in the public imagination. As one of my local winemakers puts it, English wines tend to have a steely, citrus backbone. I like to think that this is an apt description of our nation’s character too: resilient, bright and quietly distinctive. English wine is increasingly a source of national pride, and we should be doing everything we can to support and protect it. The industry is growing fast, and the Government should be helping rather than hindering. In 2023, UK vineyards produced over 21 million bottles of wine—a new record—and it is exciting that sales of English wine continue to buck wider market trends. Domestic wine sales were up 10% in 2023. Sales of UK sparkling wine have nearly trebled since 2018, from roughly 2 million bottles to over 6 million. Similarly, sales of still wine have more than doubled over the same period. We should all be toasting that success.

• 25 Jun 2025 · English Wine Production · Hansard source

  More

  I will discuss later in my speech what support I think would be appropriate, so my hon. Friend will hear my thoughts on that in due course. I am incredibly proud that the Weald of Kent boasts some of the best vineyards and wineries in the country. Across the nation, 4,200 hectares of land are under vine—more than double the area just a decade ago. It is no coincidence that even French producers are quickly buying up land in southern England. They recognise the opportunity here, and so should we. Our English vineyards are not centuries-old family estates, handed down through the generations, like on the continent. They are new businesses, built on entrepreneurial risk, with eyewatering start-up costs, and land that is among the most expensive in Europe. The vineyards springing up in Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire and beyond are often founded by families who have risked everything: buying land at a premium, planting vines in an uncertain climate—that we all experience—and investing in years of training, equipment and marketing before even a single bottle is sold. Many vineyards are warning that rising national insurance contributions, and the recent increase to minimum wage payments, have left them unable to reinvest in their businesses.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. The UK is desperately short of doctors, but thousands of applicants will be turned away due to a lack of training places. This is not a situation of the Minister’s making, but he has now been in post for a year. Can he assure us that nobody—no union, no Treasury Minister—will prevent him from doing what needs to be done and lifting the training cap?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Draft Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) (Threshold Amount) (Amendment) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this morning, Mr Twigg. One of the most basic principles of law enforcement is that no one should escape the consequences of committing a crime, but it is right that we target the most serious offenders first so that enforcement efforts have maximum impact. It is also right that when we ask businesses to take steps to prevent crime from taking place, those steps are proportionate. We therefore support the measures in the draft order. Raising the transaction threshold below which businesses are exempted from money laundering offences will mean that more resources can be spent on tackling the most serious examples of money laundering. Given that, as the Minister said, only 0.1% of all transactions between £1,000 and £3,000 were refused in 2024, it is right that we reduce the burden on enforcement agencies at that level. It is also important, though, that we continue to monitor money laundering at every level. With that in mind, will the Minister please tell us what steps his Department is taking to monitor the impact of these changes on money laundering on transactions below £3,000, and when, if at all, the Government intend to review the threshold again?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Draft Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice, Review of Notices and Technical Advisory Board) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. At a time when more of our lives are spent online, the job of keeping our country safe brings law enforcement increasingly into the digital space. Many of the most serious crimes, including terrorist attacks, are now planned, prepared and facilitated online. In order to intercept those crimes before they happen, police officers and intelligence agents need to take action, often at short notice. That can lead them to co-operate with and require co-operation from tech companies, often based thousands of miles away, which have their own data privacy policies and operate across hundreds of different legal environments. Often, those companies are extremely reluctant to provide the kind of data that is needed, but access to that information can be the difference between an attack happening or being stopped in the nick of time. It is absolutely right that we give law enforcement and our intelligence agencies the powers that they need to navigate these situations. That is why the previous Government passed the IPA, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, and the 2024 Act. The measures before us today will give effect to some of the enhanced powers passed by the previous Government in 2024, and we gladly support them. We should welcome and celebrate the strides being made by tech companies. These platforms are something to be embraced, not feared. We must also be cautious about measures that could infringe on individual privacy, which is a long-held and important principle in this country. I think we are all agreed that our age of constant connection must not become an age of constant surveillance. The need to keep the public safe must always be balanced against the importance of privacy and individual liberty. Powers must be accompanied by appropriate guardrails and parameters, as I believe they are. As such, does the Minister believe that the mechanisms for parliamentary oversight strike the right balance? How will the Government review the efficacy of these regulations so that we can remain at the forefront of a fast and ever-changing technological environment?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  On 28 April, the Minister was clear with this House that the framework for local grooming gang inquiries and Baroness Casey’s audit would both be published in May. It is now June. Presumably there is a new timeline for publishing them, so will the Minister share it with us, please?

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  We already have committed to that and will continue to do so. It is a clear amendment both to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill and to the deportation Bill in the name of my right hon. Friend, the shadow Home Secretary. Unless and until politicians of all stripes can deliver the migration system that the British people have voted for time and again, there will be no reason for them to trust in our political system, and they will be right not to. We have seen no indication from this Government since they came to power last year that they are willing to do what needs to be done to give the British people the immigration system that they want and deserve. The debate today, I am afraid, has been no different. The Minister clearly wished only to speak about the record of the previous Government. But they are in charge now—and what do we see? My right hon. Friend, the shadow Home Secretary, points out the facts. He says that Afghans are 20 times more likely to be sex offenders, and Government Members say, “Outrageous!”. Well, it is outrageous; saying so is not. He points out that over 70% of Somalis live in social housing, and they call it race-baiting. That is exactly the attitude that has allowed our political class to ignore the reality of the world that we live in. No party and no Government who continue to treat the British public’s very legitimate concerns with such scorn will ever rise to meet the challenge of securing our border. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) called for more safe and legal routes, but demand to come to Britain will always dramatically outstrip our supply. There is no number of safe and legal routes that will ever stop people making the dangerous channel crossing. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) called for this House—not foreign courts—to decide who can stay in this country. I admire his stance, and I look forward to the launch of his campaign to leave the ECHR. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) made a characteristically insightful speech about the substantial challenges of integration, and rightly connected that to the volume of immigration. No country of our size could ever hope to integrate that many people each year, and he is right to say so.

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  I can only recommend that my hon. Friend does not hold his breath. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) for mentioning what needs to be done on age assessments. The amendments we have tabled to the border security Bill would make much progress on that. Last week the Prime Minister said that mass migration risked turning us into an “island of strangers”. He was absolutely right. He recognised, as we do, that fixing migration is the single most important thing that his Government could do to restore public trust in our politics, yet the plan that he presented—the Government’s migration White Paper—is not a plan to end mass migration or control our borders. It is a plan for more of the same. Instead of a detailed programme, the Government’s White Paper offers more delays, more reviews, more consultations and more half-measures. Their plan to deport foreign criminals is subject to a consultation later this year. Their plan to reform the rules on settlement is subject to another consultation. When given the chance, they have voted against a hard cap on visas, against our plan to disapply the Human Rights Act 1998 from immigration cases, and against our plan to restrict long-term settlement to those who contribute enough to cover their costs. They are just not serious. The Home Secretary estimates that their plan will cut migration by 50,000 people. In the context of hundreds of thousands a year, that is just not enough. The Government have no plan to remove the 1.2 million people here illegally and no real plan to restrict study or family visas, which made up 40% of all migration last year. If we thought that the Government’s plans would genuinely end mass migration and control our borders, we would support them in a heartbeat. The need to do what is right for our country is bigger than any single party, politician or Prime Minister. Unfortunately, this Government have no plan, and they will go down as the latest Government who failed to fix mass migration. This is the most shameful betrayal of public trust in British politics, and it must end, but the Labour Government show no sign that they will do what needs to be done.

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his clarification. I hate to break it to him, but article 8 will not do what he thinks it will, and tightening it will not solve the problem. The article that presents the biggest problems, actually, is article 3, which does not have caveats and cannot be tightened in the way that he suggests. The hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) spoke of border security as national security. She was correct to do so, but just last week when told in this Chamber that terrorists come across the channel in small boats, her colleagues on the Government Benches laughed and jeered. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk made, as ever, a compelling economic and cultural case for control. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White), who is not in her place, set out some of the worst problems with the current immigration system, but she was perhaps not entirely forthcoming in the way she shared the statistics. Far from Labour closing asylum hotels, there are 8,000 more people in asylum hotels than when Labour came to power. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) and I have aired our differing views on this topic over many weeks in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee. I am not sure either of us has done much to persuade the other, but I always enjoy his company.

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  As my right hon. Friend, the shadow Home Secretary, rightly said earlier, migration has been too high for decades and remains so. In every year since 1997, with the unsurprising exception of 2020, net migration was over 100,000 people. Every election-winning manifesto since 1974 has promised to reduce migration. Successive Governments of both parties have promised to end the era of mass migration and control the borders, and successive Governments have failed. In the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), the previous Government, like the Governments before them, also promised to do exactly this, but, again, like the Governments before them, they did not deliver. I am afraid that this Government are just the latest addition to this rogues’ gallery of broken promises. Worse than disregarding the public’s wishes, public servants have told the British people to ignore what they can see and feel around them. The public was told that migration would deliver growth. It has not. Instead, people can feel their wages stagnating because they are being undercut. They can see the pressure of mass migration in their soaring rents, in how hard it is for their children to get on the housing ladder, in the lack of cohesion in their communities, and in the pressure on their GPs, dentists and schools. In the words of my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), immigration is the biggest broken promise in British politics, and probably the biggest single reason that British politics is so broken.

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to make a little progress. Fixing this broken system is the single biggest thing that we can do to restore trust in our politics. That means control of the borders and an end to mass migration; we need a system that works in the interests of this country and its people. Those who have come here legally and not contributed enough should be made to leave. Those who are here illegally, either by crossing the channel or from overstaying their visas, must be removed. The era of taxpayers funding accommodation, education, healthcare and legal challenges against their own Government for those who have no right to be here must end forever.

• 20 May 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am coming to the end of my speech. I am sure that the Lord Chancellor and the Minister want fairness for victims, so will they please amend the Bill, first, to offer the independent national inquiry into grooming and rape gangs that the country and victims need; secondly, to ensure that all such transcripts, appropriately redacted, be made available to the public; and, thirdly, to allow victims greater ability to appeal against the shockingly short sentences that we see all too often?