Katie Lam MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. There are several points that I would like to make in response. First, five local inquiries is nothing like enough. These events took place in 50 towns and all the victims deserve justice. Secondly, there are trends across the country and only a national inquiry can get to the bottom of those. Thirdly, she mentions the Jay inquiry. Inquiries are very often specific. The Hillsborough inquiry did not investigate every football match. The infected blood inquiry did not look at the whole of the NHS. The Manchester Arena inquiry did not address every terrorist attack. There has been an inquiry into child sex abuse, but that is not a specific inquiry into the specific phenomenon of groups of mostly Asian Muslim men grooming and sexually torturing mainly white children, facilitated and covered up by those in the British state whose job it was to look after them. That is a specific phenomenon, a particular stain on our country, and it deserves a dedicated inquiry.

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

  More

  It is a privilege, as a Member of Parliament, to support our constituents in their hour of greatest need. All too often, that is when they are a victim of an appalling crime. Many of the constituents I speak to are at their wits’ end; they are desperate to be heard, helped and protected. They rightly want their tormentors to be made to stop, and they want justice. Many of the steps taken in the Bill will be welcomed on both sides of the House and by victims across our country. It is right, for example, that we restrict convicted sex offenders’ access to their children, and it is right that we give victims more information about their offenders’ release. However, the calls for justice for the victims of grooming and rape gangs grow only louder. Across this country, people are rightly horrified by these crimes and the subsequent cover-up, which represents the biggest national scandal in our history, yet the Government have failed to use this opportunity to deliver real justice for those victims and survivors. Last month, I spoke in this place of the details of just some of these disgusting crimes. I was able to so because of the organisation Open Justice for All, which has purchased, redacted and published transcripts from some of these court cases. However, it has been refused permission to do that in several instances, because a judge has claimed that there “no public interest” in doing so. This is wrong. Of course we must make sure that the anonymity of victims is protected, but nobody is suggesting doing anything to compromise that. These were public trials held in open court, and at the moment the transcripts represent the only way to get to the truth of these revolting crimes that have been carried out across Britain for far too long.

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

  More

  I can only agree with my right hon. Friend. It is appalling that such transcripts are currently the only way to understand what has happened in these cases. Relatedly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) has previously said: “These aren’t just legal documents, they’re historical documents that tell the story in detail of some of the worst crimes in our recent history”. This Bill acknowledges that transparent information about our justice system is in the interests of victims, but it does nothing to address the problem. What is more, due to the current limits on appeals against unduly lenient sentences, many victims of these horrific grooming and rape gangs will be denied a vital opportunity to seek real justice. In far too many of these cases, we have seen courts hand down lenient sentences. For far too many victims, there will be no redress and their abusers will walk free. Often after just a few short years, these monsters are back in the communities they came from, walking among us and walking among their victims. Just last week, the Court of Appeal revisited the case of three men who were convicted of raping a teenage girl in Yorkshire. Ibrar Hussain and brothers Imtiaz and Fayaz Ahmed were convicted in January for committing unspeakably evil crimes against a 13-year-old girl. In the first instance, they each received sentences of less than 10 years. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark mentioned, he and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) referred this case to the Attorney General. In this instance, the court rightly ruled that these sentences were far too short. This Bill should have made it easier for victims to seek such redress. It does not.

• 13 May 2025 · Draft National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Exemptions for Certain Foreign Power Investment Funds, Education, Government Administration and Public Bodies) Regulations 2025 Draft National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Publication) Regulations 2025 Draft National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Specified Persons) (Iran) Regulations 2025 Draft National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Specified Persons) (Russia) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Stringer. It is a basic moral requirement of Governments to act in their country’s interest. They do that at home and abroad, overtly and covertly. Unsurprisingly, the interests of different countries are not always the same, so to protect our national security, we must take decisive action against those who engage in covert lobbying on behalf of hostile foreign powers, whether they are acting directly or indirectly, including through other foreign entities. These efforts seek to disrupt our democracy, undermine our national sovereignty and erode the precious freedoms that we have built in this country over so many centuries. Part 4 of the National Security Act was a necessary step towards tackling this malign foreign influence. We welcome the Government’s draft regulations, which build on the previous Government’s work. It is right that by using the enhanced tier to apply additional scrutiny, we recognise the threat posed by particular foreign states. Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, which has rightly horrified millions of people across this country, underscores the threat that it poses to our way of life. In recent years, Russia and its agents have sought to disrupt our economy and political system; in 2018, for example, they attempted to poison Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury. The Government’s efforts to step up our efforts to target Russian influence in the UK are welcome. Likewise, Iran rightly belongs on the enhanced tier. The UK security services have responded to more than 20 Iran-backed plots since 2022. The Minister has made multiple statements to the House regarding malign Iranian activity in the UK, including cases that have involved the arrest of Iranian nationals. I know that he is very familiar with the threat; I thank him and our security services for everything that they do to protect us. However, the Government’s guidance on the Act points to one glaring omission in the draft regulations before the Committee. It states: “The heads of MI5 and SIS have spoken about the growing threat from states, with the Director General of MI5 previously confirming that the threat predominantly comes from Russia, Iran and China.” Notwithstanding representations from the Opposition, the Government have chosen not to include China in the enhanced tier, despite having created bespoke regulations for the two other countries identified. Do the Government really believe that the threat posed by China is less severe than that posed by Russia or by Iran? The Chinese Government continue to impose sanctions on Members of this House. In 2021, Chinese state-affiliated actors targeted the private emails of British MPs. In the same year, agents of the Chinese Government targeted the computer systems of our Electoral Commission. In recent months, we have heard about bounties of up to £100,000 for “information leading to the arrest” of advocates of democracy in Hong Kong who live here in Britain. This is an appalling attempt to extend the jurisdiction of China’s authoritarian national security law to the streets of the UK, violating the most basic principles of national sovereignty. The charge sheet goes on and on. The Chinese Government are actively involved in interfering with our political system and have not been shy about their intent to target people they consider a threat, even when they are living in this country. Regardless of the UK Government’s efforts to maintain constructive relations with China, we must be absolutely clear that there can be no compromise when it comes to our fundamental national security. Does the Minister agree with the director general of MI5 about the threat that China poses to our national security? If so, does he feel that China should be included in the enhanced tier? If not, why not?

• 8 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Many members of the grooming and rape gangs that systematically abused white working class girls have never faced justice, and neither have the councillors, officials and police officers suspected of collusion and cover-up. Can we have a debate on the need for a national inquiry into these disgusting crimes? Will the Leader of the House tell us please who exactly it is she believes is using these horrors as a “dog whistle”?

• 8 May 2025 · Small Abattoirs · Hansard source

  More

  Over the past 50 years, abattoirs have rapidly vanished. More than 90% of them have closed. Across the country, family farms that once relied on local slaughterhouses now face round trips of over 100 miles just to kill a handful of animals to provide the meat for our tables. That drives up costs and, ironically, increases the stress on livestock that our welfare laws seek to mitigate. Alongside Labour’s family farm tax, the closure of the sustainable farming incentive and the end of the fruit and vegetables aid scheme, this additional burden is pushing many of our farmers to the financial and mental brink. Small abattoirs are essential to our regional supply chain. They enable the sale of high-welfare local meat. They underpin farmers’ ability to add value and differentiate themselves in the market. They are also vital to preserving native rare breeds, small-scale mixed farming and the rural way of life that defines my constituency, Weald of Kent. Let us consider for a moment what a small farmer in the Weald—someone rearing Romney sheep, say—actually has to do simply to sell meat from the animals they breed and raise. First, they must register their land with the Rural Payments Agency for a county parish holding number, and then register their animals with the Animal and Plant Health Agency. Every animal must be marked with official identification tags, and all livestock movements must be recorded and reported using approved forms. If animals are moved for sale or slaughter, or even between farms, it triggers further paperwork. Transporting them over 65 km, as many farms must as more abattoirs close, is another special authorisation and haulier certification. If the animal is to be slaughtered for sale, the rules multiply. The farmer must log all medicine use and vaccines as per the Veterinary Medicines Directorate standards, complete food chain information forms for the Food Standards Agency, and potentially have the animal inspected in advance by an authorised vet. Slaughter itself can be carried out only by someone holding a certificate of competence under the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015, and the carcase must then be health-marked after inspection by an FSA official vet, for which the processor is charged by the hour. Even after all that, offal, hides and other by-products are regulated separately under animal by-product rules, often with disposal costs that exceed their market value. That is the regulatory burden on a small-scale producer: multiple agencies, overlapping rules and no distinction between a local farm shop and a multinational meat processor. This is not proportionate regulation; it is bureaucracy for bureaucracy’s sake. It is not only putting small farmers and small abattoirs out of business, but putting our rural culture and heritage at risk of extinction. Small abattoirs do not need favours; they need fairness. Given all the pain that the Government have inflicted upon the agricultural community, it is time our farmers were finally given a chance to succeed. I beg the Minister to ease these regulations before the final small abattoirs close and it is too late.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) (England and Wales) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. In 2024 alone, across England and Wales, more than 50,000 recorded crimes involved a knife or a sharp instrument, and more than 200 of those crimes resulted in a death, representing more than half of homicides over the same period. Such crimes are devastating: they steal the lives of friends, family and people we love, leaving grief and loss in their wake. They also frighten and distress the general public, contributing to a sense that our streets are unsafe. It is therefore right that we take appropriate, proportionate action to reduce knife crime and crime more broadly. That is why, when the Conservatives were in government, they passed legislation to ban zombie knives and machetes—dangerous weapons that are often used to carry out deplorable acts. The Minister at the time committed to keeping that legislation under review and to considering further action if police evidence showed that swords were increasingly being used in crime. Figures from 2024 show four homicides in which the weapon was a sword. I join the Minister in paying tribute to Ronan Kanda, who was so appallingly murdered so young, and his loving family. It is right that we take further action to define these weapons precisely and to restrict their use. Let me set the draft order in the broader context. The rate of knife crime continues to grow. Restricting this category of weapon may be a worthwhile step, but we should be honest about the fact that it will not address the root causes of knife crime. Criminals will always find other weapons to use. While we support order before us, we must acknowledge that to truly tackle knife crime at all levels, we must take far more ambitious steps. We must give police forces the powers and resources they need to combat criminality of all kinds. The Government have spoken repeatedly about the need to restore public trust in our institutions. That must involve funding the police properly and giving them the powers they need to tackle these offences. Blanket bans alone will make no difference if they cannot be enforced before it is too late. However, we have received, at best, mixed messages from the Government and the Labour party in London on whether they intend to give police those powers and that support. On stop and search, for example, the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), has previously said that police forces cannot afford to “tiptoe around using these powers in an aim to appease.” By contrast, before becoming Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan promised to do everything in his power to cut the use of stop and search in the capital, where knife crime is most prevalent. A recent study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology analysed London-wide stop and search patterns and concluded that, if searches had been maintained at the 2008 to 2011 level, about 30 fewer knife murders might have occurred each year. That is 30 lives cut short each year, unnecessarily, because the Metropolitan police are restricted from using the powers they need to tackle knife crime. The current Home Secretary previously called for stricter rules around when stop and search can be authorised, suggesting in 2021 that its use was often “disproportionate”. Without clear backing from the Government, police forces will be reluctant to use these powers—powers that are genuinely necessary to reduce knife crime and save lives. Stop and search is just one example of the powers that police forces need, but it tells a broader story about our approach to crime. We should not allow ourselves to think that banning particular categories of weapon is enough to tackle knife crime. We must think about this problem holistically and give police the powers and resources they need to intervene before it is too late. Blanket weapon bans are also not without complications. Can the Minister confirm that she—or perhaps her ministerial colleague, the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention—is confident that the definition in the draft order is sufficiently precise to avoid inadvertently banning sentimental or historical items, such as ceremonial swords used by former military personnel? Can the Minister outline what other steps the Government are taking to tackle knife crime at its root, and whether the Government will commit to backing police forces in their use of stop and search powers?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Tackling Child Sexual Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. In January, the Home Secretary said that the Government would conduct five local inquiries into the rape gangs who have terrorised so many innocent children. More than three months since the Government announced those local inquiries, Tom Crowther KC, a barrister invited by the Home Office to help establish them, knows almost nothing about their progress, and neither do we. Why is the framework for local inquiries now being led by Ministers, rather than by independent voices such as Tom Crowther? Why is the £5 million set aside for inquiries no longer being allocated, but instead delivered on an “opt-in” basis? What do the Government intend to do about local leaders who say there is no need for an independent inquiry, as they do in Bradford and in Wales? The girls we are talking about are predominantly white. The men who preyed on them were predominantly Muslim, generally either from Pakistan or of Pakistani heritage. One of the victims from Dewsbury was told by her rapist: “We’re here to fuck all the white girls and fuck the Government.” Does the Minister accept that in many cases these crimes were racially and religiously aggravated? How, without a national inquiry, can we understand what part those factors played? There is no question but that the state has failed these children time and again. Take the case of “Anna” from Bradford. Vulnerable and in residential care, at the age of 14 she made repeated reports of rape and abuse to social workers who were responsible for her. Just the following year, aged 15, she “married” her abuser in a traditional Islamic wedding ceremony. Far from stepping in to stop it, her social worker was a guest. The authorities then arranged for her to be fostered by her abuser’s parents. The ringleader of the Rochdale rape gang, Shabir Ahmed, was employed as a welfare rights officer by Oldham council. Yet not one person—not one—has been convicted for covering up these institutionalised rapes. Why have Ministers refused to establish a dedicated unit in the National Crime Agency to investigate councillors and officials accused of collusion and corruption? I am sorry to say that that unit must also investigate police officers. In one case, the father of an abuse victim in Rotherham was arrested by South Yorkshire police when he attempted to rescue his daughter from her abusers. He was detained twice in one night, while on the very same evening, his daughter was repeatedly assaulted and abused by a gang of men. It is clear that these criminals were unafraid of law enforcement. In Kirklees, Judge Marson said: “You were seen with your victim on at least three occasions by the police…none of that deterred you, and you continued to rape her.” How, without a national inquiry, can we know how and why these monsters enjoyed effective immunity for so long, and how can we be sure that it will not happen again? Conservative Members have voted for a national inquiry, and tabled amendments that would guarantee the publication of ethnicity data on a quarterly basis, terminate the parental rights of convicted sex offenders, and make membership of a grooming gang an aggravating factor during sentencing, so that offenders get the longer, harsher sentences that they deserve. Will the Minister commit to accepting those amendments to protect our children? Finally, I would like to read to the House one particular ordeal—just one example of what these children have suffered. I must warn colleagues, and especially those in the Gallery, that this is extremely graphic, but we must not look away or sanitise this evil. Sentencing Mohammed Karrar of Oxford to life in prison, Judge Peter Rook said: “You prepared her”—that is his victim, a 13-year-old girl— “for gang anal rape by using a pump to expand her anal passage. You subjected her to gang rape by five or six men. At one point she had four men inside her. A red ball was placed in her mouth to keep her quiet… When she was 12, after raping her, she threatened you with your lock knife. Your reaction was to pick up a baseball bat with a silver metal handle, strike her on the head with it, and then insert the baseball bat inside her vagina.” This is not about me, the Minister, the Home Secretary or any hon. Members in the Chamber; it is about the little girls, up and down our country, whose brutal and repeated rapes were permitted and hidden by those in the British state whose jobs were to protect them. They deserve justice. In five towns, those children and their families may get partial answers, but I have mentioned five towns in the past few minutes alone, and there are at least 45 more. In those places, children and their families will get no answers at all, so what does the Minister have to say to them? The British people deserve to know the truth. What darker truths does the suffering of those girls reveal about this country—and why will the Government not find out?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Housing Supply · Hansard source

  More

  3. What steps she plans to take to support house building in London.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Housing Supply · Hansard source

  More

  Demand for housing is greatest in London, which is where the economy most needs new homes. Building in London means less pressure on commuting infrastructure and house prices in places like rural Kent, but the housing targets for London have been cut. The Government justify that by saying that London has “the biggest proposed percentage increase against delivery”. —[ Official Report , 12 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 1067.] Why is the right hon. Lady rewarding the London Mayor’s failure to build Britain’s most needed houses with lower targets?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Project Spire · Hansard source

  More

  The funds that have been committed to projects via the Church of England’s reparations project are in fact for the upkeep of parish churches and the provision of salaries for the clergy. I know that the Second Church Estates Commissioner is dedicated to our parish churches and would not support anything unlawful, so will the hon. Lady please provide the grounds on which the Church Commissioners are authorised to allocate this money to aims for which it was not intended? What details can she share of the conversations that she has had with the Charity Commission to determine whether they can do this, as it seems to be unlawful?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Project Spire · Hansard source

  More

  1. What recent discussions the Church Commissioners have had with the Charity Commission on Project Spire.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. Fifty-nine Israeli hostages are being held by Hamas in Gaza, having been kidnapped in the Hamas terrorist attack of 7 October 2023. Only 24 are thought to be still alive, and we know from released hostages that they have been starved and tortured, chained in tunnels. They have not seen sunlight for 543 days. What are the UK Government doing to bring them home?

• 31 Mar 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  In at least 50 of our towns, gangs of men have groomed and then sexually tortured little girls, with astonishing depravity. Still, not one person has been convicted for covering up these institutionalised rapes. Local inquiries cannot summon witnesses, are being refused by local authorities, and cannot address national policies like deportation. Fundamentally, the Government’s plan will not cover even one in 10 of these towns. Will the Home Secretary explain how she will choose which towns get a local inquiry and what she will say to the victims whose towns will not be included?

• 27 Mar 2025 · Modern Slavery Act 2015: 10th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  On Tuesday 8 July 2014, the then Home Secretary and later Prime Minister, and now the right honourable Baroness May of Maidenhead, stood at the Dispatch Box to present the Modern Slavery Bill, as it was then, on its Second Reading. She spoke powerfully of those “tricked and coerced into a horrendous life of servitude and abuse: women forced into prostitution, raped repeatedly, and denied their liberty; children groomed and sexually exploited for profit; vulnerable men conned into brutal and inhumane work in fields, in factories and on fishing vessels; people forced into a life of crime;”. She talked of sexual violence, beatings, humiliation, hunger and mental torture. As she rightly said that day, modern slavery “is an affront not just to those it affects, but to the collective human dignity of all of us.” —[ Official Report , 8 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 166.] The way that some people treat and exploit their fellow human beings is, sadly, nothing short of disgusting, and such behaviour has no place in Britain. Those were not just words. She acted, too, bringing forward this legislation—the first of its kind in Europe—which received Royal Assent a decade and a day ago today. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) on securing this debate today. She has a long and proud history of campaigning on this issue. Indeed, she was the Home Office Minister for preventing abuse, exploitation and crime at the time of the passage of this Bill and has done considerable work, including with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, on stamping out this revolting practice. Now, of course, she continues to put her expertise and dedication to protecting the vulnerable to excellent use as the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. My right hon. Friend makes some powerful points about the need to keep this legislation world-leading, as she has done repeatedly in this House and elsewhere. She speaks, for example, of orphanage trafficking and the work that has been done in Australia to tackle it. It is horrifying that an estimated 80% of children living in the world’s orphanages have at least one living parent but have been separated from their families, sometimes forcibly, to be exploited and used to raise money for corrupt orphanage directors. I imagine the Minister, who is also known for her commitment to the victims of these appalling crimes, will want to work with her to ensure that our laws protect the vulnerable as well as they possibly can. I would like to pay tribute to Baroness May, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands, and to former members of this House who campaigned on this issue, including, but not limited to, Anthony Steen, Baron Randall and the late Frank Field. I thank everyone who has contributed to today’s debate. The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) spoke authoritatively and movingly about the deeply upsetting plight of the Uyghur people and the role that slavery shamefully plays in that. I am happy to take this opportunity to reassure him that he is neither tired nor showing his age, but his points about the need to keep our laws up to date were well made. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) does great credit to the proud history of his constituency in fighting the evil of slavery. He was right to speak of the complexities of the British state and the challenges that they pose in tackling modern slavery. In the same vein, the hon. Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) was right to mention the need for co-ordination across Government and the role that local authority empowerment and responsibility can play in that. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns)—I hope she will not mind if I take a moment to admire her jacket—asked about decision reviews and visa flexibility. She and I have somewhat different views on those subjects, but I am sure that the Minister will address her questions. The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) spoke of the shocking role that the vile drugs trade can have in trapping our young people into cycles of vicious exploitation, and the horrors of forced prostitution—a form of institutionalised rape. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) was gracious in his acknowledgement of the hard work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands and the previous Government. He should be proud of his work to prevent human, including child, trafficking. Finally, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) touched on several of the points that we have heard this afternoon, including the exploitation of young boys, and rightly reminded us again of our long history of kindness as a country. As we reflect on the Modern Slavery Act and its impact, we must ensure that our national compassion and generosity is not exploited by the cynical and the sinister. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) has said, the Modern Slavery Act’s noble intentions are sometimes sadly abused by foreign criminals, who rely on suspect claims under the Act to avoid deportation. He has talked of cases that he witnessed at the Home Office of immigration lawyers submitting “copy-and-paste claims for different clients” with no attempts made to change the details. He has discussed how, in many instances, very little proof is needed, allowing illegal migrants and foreign criminals to offer plausible-sounding stories in lieu of real evidence. That applies even in cases where migrants have previously explicitly denied that they were victims of modern slavery. The number of modern slavery claims has gone from around 3,000 in 2015 to over 19,000 in 2025. Three quarters of those making claims are not UK citizens. The most frequent referral route for modern slavery claims is now through the immigration system. By the end of 2022, of those migrants who arrived illegally in the UK by small boat each year and were subsequently detained for return, between half and three quarters were claiming to be victims of modern slavery. In 2023, it was reported that 1,068 Albanian convicts living in Britain were awaiting deportation, among them sexual predators, violent thugs and drug dealers. Of the group, nearly a third—345—actively claimed to be modern slaves, hoping to escape removal. The abuse of the Modern Slavery Act, where it does happen, is not just a perversion of the Act’s noble intentions but an insult to this country’s compassion and a deplorable diversion of vital resources from real victims. We must set an appropriate threshold for supporting evidence to ensure that the system rightly prioritises the true victims, rather than struggling under the weight of claims designed to frustrate immigration proceedings. Many of the claims made under the Modern Slavery Act are genuine pleas for help from those in the most frightening and shocking situations of abuse. We must ensure that the Act is kept up to date to protect them.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Spring Statement · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Lady talks of financial responsibility, but will she please tell us when Government bond yields hit their highest levels since the global financial crisis, and who was the Chancellor of the Exchequer then? If she needs a clue, we can bring her a mirror.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On 22 May 2017, Islamist extremist Salman Abedi carried out a sickening attack on the Manchester arena following a concert. This barbaric act of terrorism killed 22 people and injured more than 1,000 others, many of them children. It was the deadliest act of terrorism in this country since the 7/7 bombings in 2005. What was taken from the victims and those who love them can never be given back. That of course includes Figen Murray, whose determination and fortitude we honour this afternoon and whose son Martyn Hett we remember, along with all the others who were killed or injured on that horrible day. This Bill, inherited from the previous Government, is an attempt to address an insufficiency in our anti-terror framework by ensuring that our public spaces and public events are better prepared for any future attacks. This is a noble goal and one that colleagues on both sides of the House undoubtedly support. When the Bill was last in this place, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), spoke of the concern we all share to get the balance right. Our safeguards against potential future terror attacks must be robust but also proportionate and pragmatic. He spoke of the spirit of support, co-operation and openness in which we suggested small amendments to the Bill, and I believe amendments were tabled in the other place in that same spirit. We particularly welcome the change from invitations to tickets and the clarity that provides on private events being out of scope of this legislation. We are sorry not to see more of those amendments in this place for debate. I urge the Minister, who I know is very conscious of the different pressures and the need for balance, to keep the thresholds under review, which clause 32 provides for, and to continue to assess the impact of this legislation on community institutions. We continue to have concerns that in its current form the legislation risks adding to the already enormous burden of regulation and paperwork that small hospitality and community venues such as pubs, churches and village halls must navigate on a daily basis, so we welcome amendment 8 on consultation. It is right that people of this country should be able to go about their daily lives and go to events in the knowledge that they are safe. It is also right that we take action to ensure that horrific attacks like the one carried out in Manchester in May 2017 do not happen again. As we pursue this noble goal, we should remain aware of and sensitive to the potential negative impacts of our good intentions. Small venues across the country are already struggling, and we must be cautious about adding to that burden, but we are happy to support the Lords amendments today.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Chancel Repair (Church Commissioners' Liability) Measure (HC 773) Church Funds Investment Measure (HC 772) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. The Church of England has been at the heart of our national life for centuries. It is our national Church and it plays an important role in many of the great ceremonies and occasions that bring our country together. Even in an age of increasing secularisation, parish churches are a central organising pillar of many of our communities. For many, especially for people who live in villages like those in my constituency, the Weald of Kent, the parish church is where we meet, celebrate, marry and grieve. The Church of England is also arguably Britain’s largest heritage organisation. It is responsible for the upkeep of more than 16,000 church buildings, more than 12,500 of which are listed by Historic England in recognition of their enormous historical and architectural value. Given the Church’s continued significance in our national life, the financial decisions taken by and on behalf of the Church are a matter of significant public interest. I am therefore heartened that we have an opportunity to debate the Measures before us today, which provide some transparency for the public around the Church of England’s finances and the legal liability for chancel repair. It is right that there should be clear, accountable structures providing oversight of how and why the Church of England spends its money. It is for that reason that rule 2 paragraph (6) of the National Institutions Measure 1998 stipulates that after the end of each year, the Archbishops’ Council “shall cause a certificate to be issued to the Church Commissioners to the effect that the application and distribution of the sums made available by them as aforesaid has been in accordance with subsection (3) above.” Could the Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners, please disclose the amount certified under the Measure for each year since the provision came into force, and place copies of the relevant certificates in the House of Commons Library? Last year, the Church Commissioners for England launched a programme, dubbed Project Spire, to provide reparations in relation to historical transatlantic slavery. The commissioners have committed £100 million to the fund, which is intended to be distributed through: “initiatives led by and for people of African descent, through a reparative and intersectional lens” These are thought to be impact investments, which by their nature are suboptimal commercially, and grants and research projects, which produce no financial return. Any money that is given in grants, used to pay for research, or forgone as the result of commercially suboptimal investments, is money that is not available for hard-pressed parishes. The project seems to be a departure by the Church Commissioners from their core duties. The funds are intended for the upkeep of parish churches, the management of historical records and the provision of salaries for members of the clergy. A commitment to wide-ranging historical reparations clearly falls outside the scope of the commissioners’ charitable duties, yet little information about the funds’ structure or management has been made public. We simply do not know how the Church Commissioners are attempting to justify the use of these funds according to their charitable aims, nor do we know the details of conversations between the Church Commissioners and the Charity Commission about how the fund will be structured and administered lawfully—or whether it can be. We do not know whether the idea of a separate fund was considered, or perhaps is still being considered. As the figures relating to the chancel repair Measure show, the new fund could not come at a worse time. According to the National Churches Trust, nearly 1,000 historic cathedrals, churches and chapels across England are at risk of falling into disrepair. However, rather than providing the funding needed for those crucial repairs, the Church Commissioners are choosing to allocate £100 million to an ill-conceived, opaque fund for reparations. That seems to be a dereliction of their primary duty, and directly undermines the Church Commissioners’ role as stewards of our national history. The horrors of slavery and slave trading are as old as organised human society. Shamefully, Britain was no exception from participation, but we were exceptional in being among the first people in the history of the world to abolish both. We went on, rightly and proudly, to do penance for slavery by spending resources, ships, money, political capital and the lives of Royal Navy sailors in fighting slavery across the globe for 150 years. It is certainly not feasible to demand financial reparations from every institution with a tangential relationship to that awful trade. In the Church of England’s case, its involvement is said to stem from its connection with Queen Anne’s Bounty—a charity created by statute to support poorer members of the clergy—which invested in wide variety of companies over its 243-year history, and in turn, that charity’s involvement in the South Sea Company. Queen Anne’s Bounty acquired South Sea Company annuities, and later shares in its trading activities, at a point when it was not involved in the slave trade, although it subsequently became so in 1722. Those shares were all disposed of by 1730 and, overall, the result was a substantial loss. The Church as an institution did not endorse the slave trade—indeed, many Church of England ministers were at the forefront of the fight against this evil practice, and as far as anyone is able to tell, Queen Anne’s Bounty did not make money from it at all. It is therefore wrong of the Church Commissioners, with the apparent approval of Church leaders, to allocate millions of pounds that they hold on behalf of others to reparations, at a time when so many parishes desperately need support. It is particularly wrong to do so in this manner, which is opaque, unaccountable, and evasive. In the light of the direct involvement of the archbishops, bishops, and clergy in the Church Commissioners’ governance, and in order to get the full picture of the Church’s financial position, which is necessary to debate the Measures properly, I ask the Second Church Estates Commissioner the following questions. What information can she provide on when discussions about Project Spire began between the Charity Commission and the Church Commissioners? What legal advice, if any, has been obtained to ensure that the proposals for Project Spire are within the statutory powers of the Church Commissioners, and can it be published? Which grant-making power will be used to make any relevant grants? What other statutory powers do the Church Commissioners intend to use to facilitate Project Spire, bearing in mind that, as a statutory corporation, they can act only in accordance with powers granted by statute? Are the commissioners proposing to set up a new charity to administer Project Spire, the Bishop of Salisbury’s remarks at last month’s General Synod meeting suggest? The Bishop of Salisbury also specified that it is necessary to seek approval from the Charity Commission for the project. If the project is already within the rules, why is that necessary? If the Church Commissioners are confident that this activity is permitted by law, under what section of which statute? If Project Spire will instead be ultra vires—which is to say, unlawful—have the Church Commissioners spoken to the Charity Commission about this? If so, what problems were identified—

• 24 Mar 2025 · Chancel Repair (Church Commissioners' Liability) Measure (HC 773) Church Funds Investment Measure (HC 772) · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Sir Jeremy. I would add, though, that the very funds that the Church Commissioners might supply, for example, for chancel repairs, may be the same funds that have been allocated to Project Spire. The underlying money that we are talking about for these Measures is all the same, and therefore I do believe that these questions are relevant. I would like to ask two final questions specifically regarding the chancel repair Measure. What is the position of third-party landowners against whom a claim for 100% of the liability has been made by a parochial church council under the Chancel Repairs Act 1932, for which the Church Commissioners would formerly have been regarded as jointly liable under that Act? Finally, will a PCC now have to make two claims, one under the Chancel Repairs Act 1932, and one under this Measure, where the Church Commissioners do not hold 100% of the liability?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister might be anticipating what I am about to say: we would very much appreciate, in that case, if she could instead provide an evidential basis from the Government on which we could make some of these decisions.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s response. Might she please commit today to a date by which the Home Office at least aims for all migrant hotels to be closed, as per her party’s manifesto commitments? I also welcome what she had to say about bringing down costs. She is right to say that the best way to minimise the Home Office’s bill for asylum accommodation is to process applications as quickly as possible. Where asylum applications are approved, though, most of those costs transfer to the welfare system, so I would be interested to hear her response on who in Government is currently responsible for tracking and understanding that cost.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As I have set out already, there was never what we are talking about here, which is a formal cap set by Parliament in legislation. However, a number of aims and promises were given to the electorate over the years, and those promises were not kept. Selective, limited and tailored to our needs—that is the immigration system that the British public have voted for time and again. If we are serious about delivering it, we must take steps to ensure that future Governments do not renege on their promises as previous Governments have. But this is not just about delivering the immigration system that the British people have voted for repeatedly; fundamentally, it is about public trust and accountability. Put simply, a hard numerical cap on the number of visas issued each year would force Government and Parliament to have accountability for their immigration decisions. If we believe that the overall level of immigration is too high, we should set the cap accordingly, to ensure that technical mistakes do not produce the kind of migration wave that we have seen over the past few years. If we believe that the overall level of immigration is too low, we should be willing to say that publicly, to explain our reasons and to defend our record. Either way, we must be transparent. That will not rebuild public trust in our political system overnight, but it will represent a significant step in the right direction.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I think and hope that it has been clear from everything I have said that I make no defence of the previous Government’s activity. It is incredibly important that Conservative Members are able—as is our duty and our responsibility to the public—to talk about the many things that went wrong and, I hope, to help this Government to avoid making the same mistakes.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I hope it was clear in my remarks, but for the avoidance of doubt or ambiguity I want to say that the Opposition do not criticise our judges. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West said, they are doing the best they can with the rules and precedents under which they operate. That is why the new clause seeks to change those rules—

• 18 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s response, particularly her words about the importance of settlement and citizenship being earned. The Opposition are excited to see the immigration White Paper, and particularly any data and fiscal impact analyses that it may contain. I apologise if this information is already publicly available and I am not aware of it, but can the Minister tell us when the White Paper is due to be published? Can she also set out a scenario in which it would be preferable for a foreign criminal to remain in this country after having been convicted of a crime, and why she considers the new clause to be unworkable?