Katie Lam MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 18 Dec 2025 · Agricultural and Business Property Relief: Food Prices · Hansard source

  More

  11. What assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of agricultural property relief and business property relief on food prices.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Agricultural and Business Property Relief: Food Prices · Hansard source

  More

  Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. The cost of food in this country increased by 4.2% year on year last month, yet farming profitability is on the floor and has been hit repeatedly by this Government, whether that is in national insurance contribution increases, the family farm tax or energy taxes. Will the Government consider easing their terrible tax burden on farmers to solve both the cost of living crisis for food and the farming profitability crisis at the same time?

• 18 Dec 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I wish you a very merry Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to start by thanking the Minister and the colleagues she has worked with for bringing forward this strategy today. Tackling violence against women and girls is a deeply noble aim, and one that the Opposition very much share. Women and girls face particular threats, both in the home and at the hands of strangers. Previous Conservative Governments fully understood that, which is why we took steps such as setting up the grooming gangs taskforce, introducing measures to make it easier for victims to pre-record evidence in rape cases, and rolling out 700 more independent sexual violence advisers to support and work with victims through the police and court process. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friends the Members for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) and for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) for their work in leading the efforts of previous Governments on this issue, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who I know is looking forward to working collaboratively with the Government on next steps after she returns from maternity leave. The work of keeping us all safe is never done, so I further welcome the steps taken in this strategy to continue and enforce a lot of that work—particularly those steps to ensure national coverage of specialist rape and sexual offence police teams, to apply new forensic technology to cold cases and to roll out domestic abuse protection orders. Truly protecting women and girls demands that we have difficult and sometimes awkward conversations—conversations about sex and consent, about private lives and criminality in the home, and about who is committing these crimes and why. Relationships between men and women and relationships between parents and children are delicate, particular and shaped by long-standing norms and beliefs. Not every country and culture in the world believes, as we do, that women are equal to men, with personal, bodily and sexual autonomy. When people from those countries and cultures come here, this can be dangerous. Do not just take my word for it. The defence counsel for Israr Niazal, an Afghan asylum seeker convicted of raping a 15-year-old girl, argued that Niazal did not understand the age of consent or the concept of consent more broadly, because no such concept exists in Afghanistan. If we cannot be honest about this, we will fail to achieve the first of this strategy’s goals: preventing men and boys from becoming abusers. Despite repeated attempts by my Conservative colleagues to secure the release of comprehensive data on migrant crime, the Government still refuse to publish the full breakdown. The indicative data that we have suggests shocking variations in crime rates by nationality and immigration status. According to data from the Ministry of Justice, foreign nationals make up a third of all convictions for sexual assaults against women, despite making up between 11% and 12% of the population. Afghans and Eritreans—the nationalities that made up the largest number of those on small boat crossings this year—are more than 20 times more likely to be convicted of sexual offences than British nationals. Each and every case of sexual assault is wrong. Perpetrators must face the full force of the law, regardless of nationality, and it remains the case that, statistically, the most dangerous place for a woman to be is in her own home. But we must be able to have an informed and honest debate about whether mass migration is making this problem worse, particularly when a large number of recent migrants come here from countries where attitudes to women are very different from our own. The Minister spoke rightly of the importance of a data-driven approach, so will she work with her ministerial colleagues to release the full data on crime by nationality, including as it relates to violence against women and girls, so that we can fully understand this problem in order to tackle it? This is relevant not only for the sort of violence and sexual violence against women and girls that has sadly always existed in this country, but for specific cultural practices that are imported and new to this country. Just this week, an article published in the British Medical Association’s academic journal highlighted how differing cultural attitudes towards women can influence behaviour. That piece, on the apparent “harms” of the global campaign against female genital mutilation, argued that in many cultures, women’s bodies “may be perceived as belonging to a larger group…rather than being subject to individual choices and preferences.” It went on to argue that an emphasis on women’s bodily autonomy can therefore be “traumatic” to those of other cultures. This is wrong. Individual autonomy is the bedrock of our laws, our culture and our country, as I am sure all of us in this House will agree. So finally, will the Minister please join me in affirming that whoever you are, wherever you may have come from, wherever your family may have come from, and whatever may have happened to you, if you are a woman in Britain, your body belongs to no one but yourself?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Data Publication and Quality (Immigration, Nationality and Country of Birth) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the collection and publication of data on immigration status, nationality and country of birth of certain persons, including relating to users of certain public services, claimants of certain benefits, the prison population, and arrests; to require that such data is published at least once per calendar year; to require the Secretary of State to review the quality and consistency of any such data collected and published; and for connected purposes. I firmly believe that for nearly three decades, migration to this country has been too high, and it remains so. Every election-winning manifesto since 1974 has promised to reduce migration, yet since 1997, with the unsurprising exception of 2020, net migration has run at more than 100,000 people per year. Like Governments before them, the last Government promised to reduce migration; as my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has said, they failed to do so. To paraphrase my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), mass migration is the single biggest broken promise in British politics, and the single biggest reason that trust in our politics is in such short supply. Whatever we believe, though, it is an objective fact that our national conversation about immigration is often hampered by shockingly poor data—when that data even exists at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) has worked for years to highlight this problem. As the Migration Observatory, a group of academics at the University of Oxford, noted just last week, migration data is plagued by “gaps and quality issues which reflect structural and long-term problems with data siloes, disorganised databases and failures to keep complete records”. All in all, the Migration Observatory identified 10 areas of public policy that are being undermined by a lack of high-quality migration data. All of this starts with the fundamental question: how many people are in this country, and who are they? The truth is that we do not know. Remarkably, the United Kingdom does not have a proper system of entry and exit checks; we do not record the number of people arriving in the country, or the number of people leaving it. The migration figures that are published every year are just best guesses. When people do arrive here, we do not have comprehensive data on exactly where they have come from, or where in the country they might be moving to. Our best guess comes once a decade, at the census, but given the scale and pace of migration since the last census in 2021, that information will now almost certainly be hopelessly out of date. Recently, the Office for National Statistics issued new figures on net migration for 2024. Using those new methods, the ONS now thinks that emigration of British nationals had been underestimated by two thirds of a million people between 2021 and 2024. For years, policy in this country was made on the basis of the old guess, which showed British national emigration running at below average. The new figures invite serious questions about why so many British nationals—the vast majority of them young—are leaving this country, yet for years the official data showed that there was no such problem, so the conversation in this place never proceeded beyond the level of anecdote. When people do arrive here, we know far too little about them. We do not know the number of foreign criminals who have been awarded visas since 2021, or where they have come from. We do not have the full information on how many people move between the asylum system and the formal legal migration system. In the case of EU migrants, we do not know why these people are coming here, or how many of them already have EU settled status. All of this concerns the flow of migrants coming to this country, not those who are already here. When it comes to assessing the contribution of migrants who are already here, our understanding is even worse. In 2020, data about income tax and national insurance contributions broken down by nationality was discontinued. We have no such data by visa type, and following the collapse of the labour force survey, we have little data on the earnings or employment rate of migrants by immigration status, visa type or nationality. We do not know the immigration status of benefits claimants for benefits other than universal credit, which makes up about half of our working-age benefit spend, and when it comes to universal credit, we do not have detailed nationality data on claimants. We do not know how much migrants are costing this country in legal aid or in translation services, and we do not know what proportion of eligible foreign nationals are receiving pension benefits. We do not know the total cost, in any given year, to the NHS or to state education of migrants, pre and post having been given indefinite leave to remain. We do not have full official figures on the total number of foreign nationals in social housing, or where those in social housing were born. Without data on what migrants are contributing to the public purse, and what they might be costing, we cannot possibly have a full and informed conversation about the relative impact of migration on the taxpayer, and we cannot, in turn, make fully informed decisions about who should come here, from where, and under what conditions. Fiscal contributions are not the only important measure. When it comes to data on migrant crime, the picture is just as patchy, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) has repeatedly highlighted. While we do have figures, albeit outdated, on the prison population by nationality, we still do not have full official data on the number of people arrested by nationality, the immigration status of prisoners or the number of people by nationality sentenced, but not imprisoned. The indicative data that we do have about migrant crime has been obtained via freedom of information requests, and it is often incomplete or disputed. It is also hard to assess over time, because it is not released on a consistent basis. In the absence of any alternative, however, it is the basis on which we must conduct the debate. We have no information at all on the nationality or immigration status of those referred to Prevent, which is a glaring gap in our ability to combat extremism. All this—everything I have said—relates only to the UK’s legal population. We do not have, and have not had for some time, a credible estimate of the number of people who are in this country illegally. There has been no official attempt to combine datasets that we could use—such as utility usage, health registrations, census data and grocery purchases—to establish the number, so we cannot know what pressure this might be putting on public services and infrastructure, and we cannot properly assess how much money needs to be invested in our Border Force and immigration enforcement. We do not have any information about internal deportation targets in immigration enforcement and Border Force, or what proportion of those targets are being met. We do not know what happens to asylum seekers who have been refused asylum, but who have not been returned to their home country. We do not know how often, and in what context, human rights-based claims are made to thwart removal, and how often those claims are successful, particularly as we do not yet have access to the judgments of the first-tier immigration tribunal. How can we possibly have a well informed conversation about illegal migration without a full understanding of the facts? Those of us who wish to end the era of mass migration are often the loudest voices calling for more data, yet those who believe that this period of mass migration has been a good thing for our country should be the biggest supporters of more comprehensive and accurate data on the impact of migration. We are often told, including in this House, that the British people have been misled, or misinformed, about the true impact of immigration on our country, and that mass migration has in fact been better for this country than many believe. If that is the case, let us see it in the data. If, as many Members of other parties claim, the majority of migrants are a net fiscal positive, let us see it in the data. If, in fact, migrants are no more likely to commit crime than British nationals, let us see it in the data. Based on the indicative data that we do have, I believe that to be exceedingly unlikely, but until we have access to the full facts, the conversation about migration in this place and across our country will necessarily fall short. There is no good reason to oppose a better-informed national conversation around immigration. More data and evidence would allow us to make better decisions about who should be allowed to come to and stay in our country, and in what numbers. It would allow us to truthfully assess the impact of different migrant groups, moving us on from generalisations about the whole of migration, towards a more productive conversation about the relative contributions of specific migrant groups by nationality and visa type. Most importantly, it would provide transparency for the British people and enable more detailed scrutiny of any Government’s policy on migration. In countries such as Denmark, where migrant contribution data is published regularly, the Government trust their citizens to consider the data, consider their policies and, in turn, to make up their own mind about whether they support the action being taken. After decades of broken promises, the very least the British people deserve is the right and ability to scrutinise, in full, the migration policy of their elected Government. I sincerely hope that Ministers in the Home Office and across Government will recognise that and work with the Office for National Statistics to produce a more comprehensive and accurate dataset in the years ahead. Immigration policy cannot be set in isolation. The people living in this country are this country, so the flow of people coming here necessarily has an impact on every area of our lives. Governments do not exist independently of the nations that they govern, and nations do not exist independently of the people who constitute them. They are, wholly and entirely, a result of those people, their collective contributions and their collective failings. Immigration policy, therefore, is upstream of our public finances, the health of our public services, the cost of housing, the quality of our schools, the population of our prisons, the cohesion of our communities, and the strength of our democracy. The very least that we can do, when discussing an issue of such enormous importance, is ensure that public policy is properly informed by the full facts. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Katie Lam, Neil O’Brien, Chris Philp, Claire Coutinho, Matt Vickers, Sarah Bool, Lewis Cocking, Jack Rankin, Harriet Cross, Mr Peter Bedford, Mr Andrew Snowden and Bradley Thomas bring in the Bill. Katie Lam accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January 2026, and to be printed (Bill 348).

• 2 Dec 2025 · Catapults and Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source

  More

  It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on arranging this debate. He is a tireless champion for his constituents. I can testify to his enthusiasm for Spelthorne Gymnastics, as he shared with us all some videos of his visit, of which my only criticism was that he was not in formation in them, which is something I expect to be corrected at the earliest opportunity. Law and order is the bedrock of a strong society, but the laws we make in this House are meaningful only when they are enforced. In too many areas, there is a troubling gap between the rules on paper and the reality of people’s lives. When it comes to catapults, we have the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 and the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, all of which authorise meaningful powers for police officers to stop this sort of behaviour, but many people feel that those powers are not being used effectively, and too often they are right. We have heard this afternoon too many examples from my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne and for Windsor (Jack Rankin), and from my county neighbours, the hon. Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) and for Dartford (Jim Dickson). If they would like us, as a cross-party group, to discuss this issue with Kent police, I would be very keen to join them. I know the issue too well from reports of catapult-related crimes in my own constituency. In Marden, criminals have killed wildlife. In Staplehurst, bus windows have been smashed and passengers injured by flying glass. In Tenterden, a kitchen window was shattered by a catapulted marble. In Cranbrook, Woodpeckers Preschool suffered three smashed windows overnight. This sort of behaviour is horrible for those subjected to it, and it must not go unchallenged. It erodes trust in the state and contributes to a sense that our country is becoming more lawless and disorderly. Early responses to my ongoing constituency crime survey show that of those who say they have been a victim of crime, roughly two in three did not report it, because they felt that would not lead to any action. Our constituents do not want to live in a society in which someone can smash a pre-school window or kill a theoretically protected animal with a catapult and simply get away with it. Catapults themselves are not new, but as we have heard this afternoon, the scale and brazenness of their misuse are. In Kent, for example, police believe that slingshot usage has risen by more than 40% in just two years. For too many people, antisocial behaviour is becoming the background noise of everyday life, creating a creeping sense that our public spaces are not safe or respected. We must be honest about what this behaviour means in practice. It is criminal damage, intimidation and harassment, and, far too often, cruelty to wildlife. As several hon. Members have said, it could easily also become assault or bodily harm. On paper, these offences carry serious penalties, but our legislation is only as strong as our willingness and ability to enforce it. At the very least, the Government must ensure that our current laws are being properly enforced before looking to make new ones. Sadly, under this Government, police numbers have been falling. There has been a decline of more than 1,300 officers in a single year. Recruitment is down by 17%. Rising costs from recent Budgets, particularly changes to employer’s national insurance contributions, have created millions in unplanned pressure for policing. What is the Minister’s plan to increase recruitment and retention of police officers? Will she set out the assessment the Home Office has made of the impact of the national insurance changes on policing capacity? This October, the Opposition put forward a plan to tackle those sorts of crimes. We would recruit 10,000 additional police officers, backed by £800 million of funding, and would triple the use of stop and search, returning it to 2008 levels and giving officers the backing they need to take weapons and dangerous items off our streets. Will the Minister adopt our plan for 10,000 new officers and 2,000 in hotspot patrol areas? Will she confirm that the Government will give the police the powers and political backing they need to enforce the laws Parliament has passed, including through greater use of stop and search? Our public safety depends not only on the passing of Bills in this House, but on our ability to enforce our laws consistently and effectively.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  That is not the immediate problem. The energy prices currently being baked in by the prices the Government are agreeing at the moment will see energy prices sky high for years and years regardless of what happens to the price of gas. The Conservatives’ cheap energy plan will save households hundreds of pounds and offers a much-needed lifeline to British industry. I very much hope that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero will adopt at least some of its measures.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  The gas is already stored in the North sea. The problem with the industry, and what is making it unprofitable, is the Government’s determination to hammer the oil and gas industry. The Chancellor gave no clear verdict on the nuclear regulatory review. Instead, she promised that the Government would set out their plans in three months’ time. That means more delay and uncertainty for companies that might want to invest in British nuclear, and ultimately more delay in reducing the bills of British families and British businesses. This is not a Budget that will make any improvement to the lives of ordinary, hard-working people. It is a Budget that bakes in net zero, which means more taxes on the British people, more businesses forced to close their doors, more reliance on other countries to keep the lights on, and more emissions exported to countries like China. No country has ever succeeded without cheap, abundant energy. For businesses, high energy costs can be the difference between success and bankruptcy. For people working hard to make ends meet, high energy costs can be the difference between having money to set aside at the end of the month or needing to dip into savings. Punishing those businesses and those people even more in pursuit of arbitrary net zero targets is profoundly cruel. The immense damage wrought by the cost of living crisis cannot be overstated. High energy bills mean families forced to cut back on after-school clubs for their children, businesses forced to cut back on staff, and young people forced to delay buying their first home even further.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a particular pleasure to speak with you in the Chair this afternoon, inspiring envy, I am sure, from your new legions of fans. On Wednesday, the Chancellor said that energy prices were one of the greatest drivers of the rising cost of living. She accepted that the cause of high energy bills must be tackled at source—in other words, at the supply side—and she recognised that the rush towards net zero is driving up energy bills for the British people. Thus far, the Chancellor and I are in agreement—stranger things have happened—but none of that seems to inform the Budget she actually served up. She promised to cut energy bills by shifting certain so-called green levies from bills on to general taxation, but that does not change the fact that the British people will still bear the costs of this Government’s net zero delusions. It is an attempt to hoodwink the public by shifting the costs from energy bills on to general tax bills. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) has repeatedly made clear, the answer is not to rearrange how those costs fall, but to stop imposing those costs altogether. The pursuit of net zero is sadly leaving this country worse off and is making almost no impact on global emissions, as countries such as China and India race ahead to open more coal-fired factories. Even those who have supposedly done everything right are still being crushed. One business in my constituency has invested £1 million in renewables, but it has still seen its energy bills triple. For far too many businesses, those sorts of rises in their energy bills will be the final nail in the coffin. And rises are coming. Largely thanks to the Government’s policy on energy, Ofgem is again set to raise the energy price cap in January, meaning higher bills for the British public. Any short-term cost savings will quickly be eaten up as a result. The savings the Budget claims to offer are a mirage. Does the Chancellor believe that the British people are not smart enough to notice that, or does she simply not understand how it will play out? The long-term picture is no better. Last week, our energy system operator officially warned that, thanks to the Government’s plans to cripple our North sea oil and gas industry, we will be at serious risk of running out of gas. Yet the Chancellor’s Budget maintains the windfall tax regime, which is destroying domestic production. They continue to spend vast sums of taxpayers’ money on schemes designed to cripple that industry in the long term.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls: London · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for bringing forward this vitally important debate. She spoke bravely of her own experiences. It is foundationally important that everyone in this country is able to go about their lives in the knowledge that they will be kept safe. That includes being kept safe from the powerful—be that crooked and despicable police officers, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), or wealthy and successful businessmen such as Mohamed Al-Fayed, protected by a network of expensive lawyers. I am proud to join the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) as an officer of the newly launched all-party parliamentary group for survivors of Fayed and Harrods. Given the particular physical threats that women and girls can face, both in the home and at the hands of strangers, we must pay particular attention to the threats posed specifically to that group. The previous Government took steps towards recognising those unique threats, including by, for example, launching the grooming gangs taskforce. In its first year alone, that taskforce arrested more than 550 suspects, and it extended protection to more than 4,000 victims and survivors of grooming and rape gangs, the vast majority of whom are women and girls. In their manifesto, this Government promised to take further action, with a view to halving violence against women and girls over the next decade. In March this year, the then permanent secretary of the Home Office promised that the strategy would be published before Parliament’s summer recess. In July, the Minister promised that the Government intended to publish the strategy in September. In October, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) wrote to the Minster for an update. Last week, as I am sure the Minister will remember, I asked her again in the House of Commons Chamber. Today, we are still waiting for the Government’s strategy to be published. It is complex, cross-departmental work, but victims, survivors and their advocates are concerned at the delay. When the strategy does arrive, the Government must be absolutely sure that it covers the full breadth of risks to women and girls. We must not shy away if identifying those risks might create uncomfortable conversations, including around subjects such as immigration. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse and the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) shared their views on the relevance of migration to victims and survivors. It is also relevant to conversations about perpetrators. The Government refuse to publish full information, but the indicative data that we have suggests significant variations in crime rates by nationality and immigration status. According to data obtained from the Ministry of Justice, foreign nationals made up a third of all convictions for sexual assaults against women. For context, foreign nationals make up between 11% and 12% of the population. In London, where foreign nationals account for roughly a quarter of the population, foreign nationals were responsible for up to 47% of sexual offence charges last year. That suggests that foreign nationals are disproportionately likely to be the perpetrators of sexual assaults against women. Each and every case of sexual assault is wrong. Perpetrators must face the full force of the law, regardless of their nationality, and it remains the case that statistically, the most dangerous place for a woman is her own home. However, we should be able to have an informed debate about whether mass migration is making the problem worse, particularly when a large number of recent migrants come from countries where attitudes to women are very different from our own. That means publishing the full official data on criminals’ nationalities, including for offences that disproportionately affect women and girls. It also means fully engaging with the impact of mass migration as part of any strategy designed to tackle the problem. Over the past few decades, we have seen, in the starkest terms, the results of failing to address difficult questions head on. It is exactly that aversion to uncomfortable truths that led so many in the British state to cover up the rape and grooming gangs that have devastated thousands of victims, mostly young girls, across the country. In London alone, we have heard in recent months that many historical cases of sexual abuse across the capital feature the tell-tale red flags of grooming gang abuse. Will the Minister please assure us that the Government’s proposed national inquiry into grooming gangs will properly investigate historical cases in London? Will the Minister also please tell us whether the Government collect data on the nationality and immigration status of those who commit violent crimes against women and girls? If so, will the Government make it available to the public, and if not, why not? Will the Minister also tell us whether the Government’s strategy to tackle violence against women and girls will address any potential implications of mass migration for the safety of women and girls, no matter how uncomfortable those discussions might be? The aim to halve violence against women and girls in a decade is laudable. What metric will be used to determine whether the Government have succeeded in halving violence against women and girls, and what are the start and end dates? Did the decade start on the date of the last general election? If not, when did it start? Will the Minister tell us when the Government’s strategy will be published? I know that many people in London and across the country would appreciate the certainty and clarity that a concrete date would provide.

• 20 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Cross-channel rail was already mentioned this morning. Specifically, trains from Ashford to Paris were a massive boost for my constituents in the Weald of Kent and are much missed. It is fantastic news that Virgin would like to run trains again from Ashford and also from Ebbsfleet, but I know that there are some open questions about how the stations will be updated. It would be great to hear about any conversations that the right hon. Lady might have had with Virgin regarding what might need to happen next to move this forward.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  In March this year, the then permanent secretary of the Home Office said that the strategy to tackle violence against women and girls would be published before the summer recess. In July, the Minister committed to September. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) wrote to the Minister six weeks ago to ask for an update and has yet to receive a response. We would all like to see progress in halving violence against women and girls. Commenting on the delay, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Dame Nicole Jacobs, has said: “I fail to see where the momentum within government is coming from to ensure this commitment succeeds.” What does the Minister make of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s words, and can she please reiterate her commitment to publish the strategy before the end of the year?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Illegal Waste: Organised Crime · Hansard source

  More

  Hoad’s Wood, which was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), is a patch of semi-ancient bluebell woodland in my constituency where criminal gangs have dumped 30,000 tonnes of waste. It took about six months for them to fell ancient trees and bring in lorry after lorry. My constituents are really concerned that something like this might happen again. Over that whole period, the criminals were not stopped or apprehended. Have the Minister and the Secretary of State come to an understanding on who is responsible in such scenarios for stopping it from happening, and have they met the Environment Agency, police and local authorities to make sure that criminals will be stopped in the act if they do this in future?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Energy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Member for his intervention, but we should still be investing in storage from the North sea; that is still the best storage that we have. The real human cost of Labour’s plans on energy is that the cost of living crisis is being made even worse. And all the while, countries such as China and India continue to open new coal-fired factories. UK emissions are the lowest they have been since the 1850s, while China pumped out more carbon between 2013 and 2020 than Britain has produced over the past 220 years. That is not just because it is a bigger country; China’s per-person emissions are more than double the UK’s, and are rising.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Energy · Hansard source

  More

  No industrialised country has ever been able to succeed without cheap, abundant energy. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) so rightly says, the Government must prioritise delivering cheap, abundant energy for households across the country. The plan that she laid out last month would knock nearly 20% off the average household energy bill by cutting the disastrous taxes that this Government continue to defend. Not only do this Government plan to keep hitting families with extra taxes to fund their ideological commitment to unreliable and expensive energy sources, but they plan to make the situation even worse by shutting down energy production in this country and making us even more reliant on imports from abroad. Businesses can feel it: far too many are being forced to cut back or close their doors altogether, because the cost of doing business is simply too high. That means that pubs, nursing homes and family farms are all forced to make painful decisions because of this Government. For industrial businesses, it is even worse. Some of the best well-paid jobs of the 21st century—in high-skilled manufacturing or in AI—rely on access to cheap energy. Those are jobs that can revitalise communities and enable people to build successful lives for themselves. Our competitors around the world understand that, but this Government do not. We need people to start new industrial businesses here, but why would anybody do so when the Government are only going to make their lives harder through their commitment to sky-high bills and intermittent, unreliable forms of energy? Those on the Government Benches often talk of sustainability, but there is nothing sustainable about this situation. People across the country can feel it in their energy bills each and every month. Thanks to rising bills, many families simply do not have enough money left at the end of the month to save for a home, plan a holiday, or even send their children on a school trip.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Energy · Hansard source

  More

  It is, unfortunately, a mystery to me. I do not understand why we would be making this trade. It is clearly a bad one. No matter how much we might wish it were otherwise, this Government cannot and will not make a dent in addressing global climate change. We are simply sending our emissions abroad while British businesses and families pay the price. People across the country are being forced to make hard choices because this Government will not face the facts and deliver the cheap, abundant energy that we so clearly and dearly need.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Alcohol Duty: UK Wine Sector · Hansard source

  More

  It is not for me to speak for them, but it is reasonable to say that the system we have does not work very well. It would not be right to pretend otherwise on behalf of my constituents who have to deal with it every day. The Minister’s predecessor also said that the new system benefits lower strength wines, including many British wines. Since February, overall rates have risen. Might the Minister be able to tell us what share of English wines are paying less or more duty now than under the previous system? Finally, the previous Minister said that reforms would strengthen the tax base, yet as far as I can see, between April and September, alcohol duty receipts were almost £300 million lower than in the same period last year, despite the rates rise. It would be useful if the Minister could explain that. Duty on 14.5% ABV wine is now almost half as much more again as it was in August 2023. As my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon rightly pointed out, well more than half the shelf price of a bottle of wine is now tax. In France, the equivalent duty is a few euro cents, and in Spain, it is nothing at all. This duty system, combined with the general tax rises in the last Budget, is putting businesses at risk. Could the Minister please rule out any further duty increases in the upcoming Budget? Countless small producers in the Weald of Kent, and about 1,000 independent merchants across England, are already struggling under the weight of new bureaucracy and tax pressures. Winemaking is not an exact science. As I mentioned, alcohol strength fluctuates from year to year, and small differences can double a producer’s duty bill. Large multi-national producers may be able to absorb that; small family wineries cannot. They cannot dial down their ABV without changing the taste or quality of the product. They cannot dilute wine without destroying it. These are new entrepreneurial businesses built on enormous risk and long-term investment. Many vineyards in the Weald have put everything they have into buying land, planting vines and waiting years before their first sale. In my constituency, we are proud to host many of Britain’s leading wineries, including Chapel Down, Gusbourne, Balfour, Biddenden, Westwell, Woodchurch and Domaine Evremond—the list goes on. They bring visitors, jobs and pride to the Weald, and it is an utter pleasure to visit them all. We are also home to small start-ups, such as the husband and wife team I met last month in Hamstreet taking a leap of faith into the sector. It if is tough for the big names, it is tougher still for the small ones. Now, they face not just duty increases but rising national insurance costs, higher minimum wages, an end to flexible employment contracts, changes to inheritance tax relief, and packaging fees that penalise glass, which is the only viable material for quality sparkling wine. When I last raised the broader issue of wine in England, I asked the Minister’s colleague in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether he would support the sector’s call for targeted help, and he said it was a matter for the Treasury. I say to the Minister today, “Please look again.” I know that he did not create the duty framework, but my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon is right that we seem to have reached the tipping point at which our taxation system is so complex and onerous that it is collecting less money than a simpler lower-rate system would. It would be great to hear what plans the Minister has to support such an exciting and dynamic industry creating jobs and amazing export opportunities in rural parts of the country such as my home, the Weald of Kent.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Alcohol Duty: UK Wine Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on giving us an opportunity to discuss this very important topic that affects so many people and businesses in the Weald of Kent, which proudly produces some of the finest wines in the country. The principle of taxing alcohol by strength may make sense in theory, but wine is an agricultural product. Its strength cannot be engineered to order; instead, it varies naturally with climate and vintage. A system designed for factory production simply does not work for vineyards rooted in the soil. Sadly, our wine businesses have faced steep duty increases, ever more paperwork and, as a result, mounting costs across the board. In the Weald of Kent, small vineyards—often family-run and started from scratch—are grappling not just with higher duties but with higher label costs, greater packaging charges and yet more red tape. In May, I wrote to the Minister’s predecessor to raise my concerns about the impact of alcohol duty on the wine industry. In his reply, he said that producers below 8.5% ABV could claim draught relief and small producer relief. That is true, but almost no wine sits below 8.5% strength. Might the Minister be able to tell us how many UK wineries actually claimed either relief last year?

• 30 Oct 2025 · Property Service Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on securing this debate in the House. Earlier this year, I wrote to hundreds of residents across the Weald of Kent to get a better understanding of how property management companies operate across our home. What I discovered was very worrying and, as many Members here will recognise, it is an all too common story. To date, I have heard from nearly 100 people across 11 estates all complaining about their property management company FirstPort. The pattern is as depressing as it is predictable: steep and unexplained increases in service charges, slow and inadequate responses to maintenance issues, and a serious lack of accountability and transparency. Let me share a few examples. Constituents in Yalding and Headcorn have told me that they face a 70% and a 40% rise in their management fees respectively. Those are not minor uplifts, and nobody can tell them clearly what they are paying for. I understand that costs are rising not least for things like insurance, but at the very least, hikes like that should be clearly explained. Constituents in Marden and Kingsnorth have documented cases where no maintenance at all was carried out for months, despite repeated chasing—grass not cut, lights not fixed and rubbish not cleared—and yet the bills keep coming. Finally, constituents in Tenterden and Coxheath have told me that it is beginning to affect the value of their homes, as my hon. Friend mentioned. Some have said that their properties are becoming unsellable because buyers will not take on the liability of these charges and this management. In one case, two sisters are trying to sell their late father’s flat. He bought it for £150,000 and they now cannot even sell it at £60,000. At auction, the price has fallen below £20,000. They told me that local estate agents refuse to list it because of the fees associated with managing the property. Much of this is part of a wider pattern. Many residents on these estates pay twice for what most people would regard as the same basic services. They pay full council tax to their local authority, as everyone does, but on a growing number of estates, the council has not taken over the roads, street lighting or green spaces and therefore does not maintain them.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Property Service Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid so, and fairly regularly in fact. The legal action that the hon. Member mentions is important to reflect on because it can in some cases be deeply distressing and seem very aggressive for people just trying to get what they have already paid for, which in some cases does not even exist yet. Residents are required to pay a second set of charges on top of the council tax to a private management company, such as FirstPort. They pay council tax for street lighting and then they pay a private company for street lighting. They pay council tax for maintaining the verges, and then they pay again for someone to cut the grass—except of course in many cases the grass is not cut. In these situations, the homeowner has almost no practical leverage. The council says, “It is private land”; the management company says, “You are contractually obliged to pay us anyway”; and the person who lives there, who cannot simply switch provider and who must disclose the charges when they come to sell, is left with little ability to challenge poor value. People are paying more and getting less. There is a continuing lack of transparency, with residents routinely denied a proper breakdown of charges, not given meaningful answers and, in some cases, not even given the dignity of a reply. FirstPort is one of many property management companies that have been allowed, in some respects, to conduct themselves with impunity, largely because local residents have almost no consumer power or transparency. I have met representatives of FirstPort, and they assure me that the company is changing and improving. I very much hope that this is true. But, in case that does not happen, the last Government took important steps to address this through the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. The purpose of the Act is to give residents clear information about what they are being charged and why; to widen access to redress when something goes wrong, which is crucial; and to ensure that disputes with management companies can be resolved fairly. But residents will not see those benefits until all the secondary legislation is brought into force, guidance is published and management companies are given a clear expectation that they will need to comply. I caution the Government against assuming that the answer might be to layer on fresh regulation or to draft a new Bill. I encourage the Government to accelerate the implementation of those elements of the Act. My constituents do not want to wait, say, another year to see itemised, comprehensible service charge bills and prompt access to redress. They accept that the streetlights must be maintained, the gutters cleared and insurance bought—they know all of that costs money—but what they will not accept, and nor should they, is paying more for less with no answers and no accountability.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  I regret that I cannot; I promised to speak briefly. Whatever the facts may be, this is not how serious countries behave. Regardless of our politics, we should all want our country to be respected by our friends and our adversaries. Under this Government, our friends see us as unreliable and our adversaries see us as a pushover. It is time for the Government to tell the truth and undo some of the harm that they have done to this country’s standing in the world.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. and right hon. Friends have set out well how the Government’s account of how the case collapsed simply does not add up, so in the interests of time I will make just this one point. If, as many on the Opposition Benches and I suspect to be the case, the Prime Minister’s account of this situation is not factually correct, he has allowed this case to collapse to win favour in Beijing. That is a profound state of weakness. Even if the Prime Minister’s account of the situation is true, that means he does not have control over his officials. Serious national security decisions are being made without his knowledge. That, too, is a profound state of weakness. It is important to establish the facts.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Employer’s National Insurance: GPs · Hansard source

  More

  GPs surgeries across the Weald of Kent, including in Woodchurch and Charing, tell me how much they struggle with rising staff costs, and the national insurance increases in last year’s Budget put huge pressure on them. Alongside the investment that the hon. Gentleman just mentioned, what discussions have he or his colleagues from the Department of Health and Social Care had with Treasury colleagues about protecting GP partnerships from further NI burdens in the upcoming Budget?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Employer’s National Insurance: GPs · Hansard source

  More

  9. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the increase in employer’s national insurance contributions on general practices.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. I thank the Petitions Committee, my constituency neighbour, the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), for presenting these petitions, and the hundreds of thousands of people who have made their voices heard by signing them. Despite the clear wishes of the British people, successive Governments of different parties have failed to control immigration, both legal and illegal. This is a complete scandal and is probably the single biggest reason for the declining trust in our politics. It is a particular scandal that, as an island nation, we have failed to stop people from coming to this country illegally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) rightly said. Since the small boats crisis began in 2018, nearly 200,000 people have come to Britain via that route. In 2025 alone, more than 35,000 people have made the crossing. On arrival, more than 95% of those people have claimed asylum, and having done so, they are afforded generous support, including direct cash transfers. Often, they are placed in hotels, where they can pose a risk to local people, particularly men posing a risk to women and girls. We have already heard about one such horrifying case from the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) today, and I am sorry to say that there are many more. Illegal migrants can stay in the asylum system for years, launching endless appeals. Increasingly, our system is approving asylum claims on the thinnest of grounds. The incentives are clear: come to Britain and be fed, housed and given full healthcare and money to spend, all funded by the British taxpayer. If the Government were really serious about ending the small boats crisis, they would put a stop to asylum support and close the hotels as these petitions request. Those who have arrived here illegally would be sent back to their home country, if it is safe for them to go, or to a third country. Those who make the crossing in future should be detained and swiftly removed. Anybody who arrives here illegally must never be able to apply for asylum. This is a generous country, as many hon. Members have said this afternoon—remarkably so—but allowing access to Britain to tens and tens of thousands of young men who are willing to break our laws by coming here from the safety of France is not generosity. It is unfair, unaffordable, democratically illegitimate and dangerous. British taxpayers must not foot the bill for a crisis that they have voted to stop and that was created here in Westminster. We can end it, and we must. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) is right to say that Britain deserves better. Many hon. Members have mentioned that the previous Government failed to fix the crisis, which is true, but we have had a Labour Government for well over a year and it is their job to control our borders. Instead of doing any better, the situation has got worse. Will the Minister commit today to preventing those who arrive here illegally from applying for asylum? If not, will he please explain why not? Will he please commit today to a concrete timeline for the closure of asylum hotels, and to fully tracking, including in the welfare system, the lifetime costs of asylum claims?

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

  More

  It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I believe I am the first member of my party speaking in this place to welcome the Minister to his new place. I look forward to working across from him, socks and all. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), the Petitions Committee and the members of the public who signed the petitions before us today. The hon. Member is right to note that there are many different strands to the issue. This evening, I will speak about the proposed changes to ILR qualification for the skilled worker visa. Over the past 30 years, millions of people have immigrated to Britain. The level of migration to this country has been too high for decades and remains so. Every election-winning manifesto since 1974 has promised to reduce migration. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has said, the last Government, like the Governments before them, promised to do exactly that. Like the Governments before them, they failed to deliver.