Nick Timothy MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 4 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  From her CV to her tax promises, would the Chancellor know the truth if it stood right in front of her?

• 3 Nov 2025 · Drone Procurement · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his answer. The biggest drone manufacturer in Ukraine, Ukrspecsystems, is investing £200 million in Britain, opening a factory in Mildenhall in the west of my county and creating 500 jobs directly and through the supply chain. However, like all manufacturers, it is facing rising energy costs and a tax bill that is likely to go up. If the Minister wants greater drone capacity in Britain, what conversations is he having with his colleagues in the Energy Department and the Business Department to ensure that the whole Government are pulling in the same direction?

• 3 Nov 2025 · Drone Procurement · Hansard source

  More

  7. What steps he is taking to reduce the time taken to procure drones for the armed forces.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Investment in Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Every Labour Government in history have ended their time in office with unemployment higher than when they started, and this Government have made a record-breaking start. Businesses large and small in West Suffolk are putting off investment decisions, freezing recruitment and laying off staff because of the burdens already imposed on them by this Government—business property relief, the family farms tax, national insurance contributions, and the employment rights legislation. After the last Budget, the Chancellor told the Confederation of British Industry that she was not going to “come back for more”, so will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to end the uncertainty and tell business very clearly that there are going to be no more tax rises on business in the Budget?

• 30 Oct 2025 · Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Do you even know what the question was?

• 30 Oct 2025 · Children’s Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  I hope my voice manages to survive this speech. I am pleased to respond to this important debate on behalf of the Opposition. I welcome the Minister to his new role. I know how knowledgeable and committed he is to the welfare of the children we are discussing today. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on an important Select Committee report. She gave an excellent speech. The hon. Members for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) spoke with experience of their roles in local authorities. The personal experiences of the hon. Members for Southampton Itchen and for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) make them especially important voices on these matters, and I thank both of them. The report sets out a sobering context. The need for children’s social care has risen significantly over the past decade, with the number of looked-after children reaching 83,630 in 2024—an increase of over 20% compared with 10 years earlier. This increase has caused pressures on the provision of care for the children involved, and growing numbers of children are now placed far from where they live. We heard a bit about this in the debate, but last year 45% of looked-after children were placed outside their local authority area and 22% were placed more than 20 miles away from home. The report found that there are serious shortages of foster carers, with an additional 6,500 foster parents needed to fill the gaps. I am pleased by the report’s emphasis on the importance of kinship care. A bugbear of mine, and not a proper criticism of the Committee, is that the report refers to kinship carers being “an essential part of the care system”. I always find the language of “systems” quite dehumanising, when kinship carers are vital, loving family members. A responsible member of the family is always a better option than the inhumanity of a bureaucratic system. As the report says, it is vital that kinship carers have the support they need and deserve. If we can get children’s social care right, the rewards could not be greater: difficult starts giving way to new beginnings; great potential given the promise of a fair chance; and, as the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood said, a reduction in some of the social problems that we contend with in other parts of Government. The report makes clear the consequences when we do not get it right. Children in care often experience trauma, abuse and neglect. They are more than four times more likely to suffer emotional or mental health problems than other children of their age. The Committee reported on the poor outcomes for too many care leavers—the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood mentioned this in her speech. Some 39% of care leavers between the ages of 19 and 21 are not in education, employment or training; one third of care leavers become homeless within two years of leaving care; and almost a quarter of the prison population has spent time in care. Many fantastic organisations, such as Cangle Foyer in Haverhill in my constituency, do so much for vulnerable young people who find themselves with no place to live and little hope of getting the skills they need or a job they would like without professional help to get themselves established. Demand for such help would obviously be less necessary and less urgent if we were successful in improving the social care system for children. I know, after a recent Ofsted report into children’s services in Suffolk, how much work there is still to be done. The Conservative party agrees with the Committee’s recommendations for a national sufficiency strategy for children’s social care and a reduction in the number of out-of-area placements; the development of a national care offer to harmonise support for care leavers; a new national fostering strategy and a register of foster carers; better financial support for kinship carers in line with support for foster carers; and permanent funding for the adoption and special guardianship support fund. We broadly welcomed the measures relating to children’s social care in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and the policy paper, “Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive”. Much of that is a welcome continuation of some of the policies that we pursued in office, including powers to regulate the children’s social care provider market, to cap profits, if necessary, and to regulate the use of agency workers in children’s social care. The Conservative party has argued that there are some ways in which the Government might be able to go further. For example, we proposed amendments to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to require the Education Secretary to report annually on the work and impact of multi-agency child protection teams, which would have included their effectiveness in improving information sharing, risk identification and service co-ordination. There are also important questions about the relationship between social care and special educational needs. I know from our experiences in Suffolk that demand for special educational needs and disabilities places outstrips supply. Parents are waiting and waiting for education, health and care plans, and the system is buckling under the pressure. I look forward to hearing very soon what the Government intend to do in relation to SEND. Vulnerable children are often not getting the care they need. They are falling out of the education system, sometimes altogether, or travelling great distances—often more than 75 minutes—at great expense, and sometimes leaving them more exposed to harm, to get to schools that can meet their needs. I know that the plan for the White Paper has been delayed into next year, but I would be grateful if the Minister told us more about the Government’s broad intentions and how he sees the interaction between special educational needs and the social care system. We also have to raise some questions to which the Government have to date been reluctant to give answers. The Casey report into the rape gangs did not focus specifically on the systemic failings in social care, but it showed how children’s services departments repeatedly failed to protect and support victims—vulnerable children who were in the care of the state. In Rochdale, for example, Baroness Casey said that health services “repeatedly shared their significant concerns with the police and children’s social care about the organised sexual exploitation of children in the area”, but nothing happened. Anwar Meah, who was a social worker in Bradford, notoriously attended the so-called wedding of an under-age girl in his care to her abuser. I find that absolutely extraordinary and am surprised there was no prosecution in that case. Will the Minister tell us what the Government will do to earn the trust of the victims involved with the inquiry? Finally, when will the national inquiry into the rape gangs get under way? Every child deserves the best possible start in life. That is why this Select Committee report is a welcome contribution. This debate has been so important. Members across the House, regardless of party politics, have an important duty to be constructive, to work together and to do everything we can for every young person in our country. It is a duty, and we cannot let them down.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Asylum Seekers: MOD Housing · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has given us the usual Government lines on returns under this Government, when the majority of them are obviously voluntary returns. When it comes to enforced returns, the numbers are lower than in nine of the 14 years of Conservative Government, and 15% lower than the Tory average. I want to raise the case of Hadush Kebatu. The Home Secretary said that she had “pulled every lever” to deport him, but when it emerged that he was paid £500 after threatening to disrupt his departure, we were told that was actually an operational decision. Can the Minister confirm that Kebatu withdrew his asylum claim and forfeited appeal rights, and admit that we will not be able to deport foreign criminals in sufficient numbers unless we cut off the endless routes for human rights claims and legal appeals?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Strengthening National Security · Hansard source

  More

  There are reports that Jonathan Powell wrote a box note to the Prime Minister on the China spy trial. When No. 10 was asked about this, the official spokesman said that it was for the Cabinet Office to answer, and as Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Gentleman is uniquely placed to tell us. Did Powell write a box note to the Prime Minister —yes or no?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Alleged Spying Case: Role of Attorney General’s Office · Hansard source

  More

  To be perfectly honest, I do not know what the point is in me asking this question, because we have had two weeks of statements and urgent questions, and Ministers keep attacking straw men and answering questions that are not actually being asked. It is pathetic. On Monday, the Security Minister came to the House and was asked several times when the Home Secretary knew that the case was going to collapse and what representations she made to ensure that the case was as strong as possible. He did not answer that several times. When did the Home Secretary know? What representations did she make and to whom did she make them? Surely among them was the National Security Adviser, the Prime Minister and the Attorney General.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Higher-level Learning Target · Hansard source

  More

  On higher-level learning, universities have spent at least £2.5 million since the attacks of 7 October on additional security for anti-Israel protests and the clean-up operations that follow, yet many of the disciplinary cases against those disrupting study have been dropped. Will the Secretary of State confirm how many students have been expelled or disciplined for causing criminal damage, inciting violence and chanting antisemitic abuse?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Free Schools: Application Decisions · Hansard source

  More

  One year ago, the Education Secretary paused plans to open 44 approved free schools. In January, she said that she was “working rapidly” to make a decision. That was nine months ago—enough time to make a baby, but not enough time for her to make up her mind. When will our Ministers tell those free school founders—among whom are some of the best education leaders in the country—if they can open great new schools?

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  I am slightly baffled by the answer that it is not the job of Ministers to vet witness statements when they are made on behalf of the Government. That is exactly the point; they are accountable. The Prime Minister said that the evidence that was relevant to the case was the previous Government’s China policy, but the statements published last night showed that they were changed to reflect this Government’s China policy. That is not the only way in which the Prime Minister’s story has fallen apart, but on that specific point, what he told the House was not correct, was it?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Pride in Place · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister to her new position. I enjoyed shadowing her on the energy brief. I really welcome the inclusion of Lakenheath in this announcement, and I look forward to working with her, and with residents and councillors, on making sure that the funds are well spent. I want to ask the Minister how we build pride in place by improving local economies. Her Department is contemplating its plans for the development of Cambridge. My constituency is very affected by that development, and there is rising demand for new housing. I would appreciate it if I could meet her, or one of her colleagues, to discuss how we integrate new housing with transport connections. In particular, I am thinking of connections from Cambridge to Haverhill in West Suffolk.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has comprehensively taken on several strawman arguments, answered questions that have not been asked, and stuck to his carefully constructed sentences. One example was: “Ministers and special advisers did not take decisions about that evidence, and they were not sighted on the contents.” But was any Minister, the National Security Adviser, any other special adviser or any senior official other than the deputy National Security Adviser, such as the Cabinet Secretary, sighted on the decision regarding the evidence sent to the CPS?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Manchester Terrorism Attack · Hansard source

  More

  Section 12 of the Public Order Act already allows a senior police officer to place conditions on a protest march, for instance by rerouting it if the march will be noisy, disruptive or intimidating, so can the Home Secretary clarify her comments about section 12? When she talks about addressing the cumulative impact of the marches, is she still talking about allowing the rolling anti-Israel marches to go ahead, just using different routes, or does she want to give herself the power to stop them altogether?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. The 2018 definition of Islamophobia by the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims said that the debate about rape gangs was a form of “anti-Muslim racism”. Among other alarming things, it said that raising concerns about entryism into government by extremists, which is an established tactic of the Muslim Brotherhood, was Islamophobic. The Home Secretary endorsed that definition. Does she still believe that addressing the religion of rape-gang members or identifying Muslim Brotherhood entryism is Islamophobic, or does she now disown that definition?

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Government talk about devolution, but that is not what is going on with the Bill, or with local government reform. Power is not being handed down by central Government, but being sucked up from district councils to unitaries and from councils to mayoralties, governing enormous and very diverse territories from distant towns and cities. In West Suffolk, we face a Suffolk and Norfolk mayoralty —probably run from Norwich—and a new unitary council structure, with either one council run from Ipswich or three different councils. Given our place on the map, Cambridge is more important to us than Norwich or Ipswich, yet there is little in these proposals to help us to exploit the economic opportunities presented by better transport connections and business opportunities coming out of one of the most dynamic cities in the country. Of course, questions about the tax burden and distribution of revenues are fundamental. Given the state of the public finances, any savings made through local government reform might be snaffled by the Treasury. Services provided by district councils might be cut to subsidise services funded by the county council, such as adult social care. Council debt across Suffolk stands at £1.1 billion, but there is huge variation between the councils; in Ipswich, debt per person is nearly £1,800, while in West Suffolk, it is less than £50. There is a similar story with tax. Ipswich charges the highest council tax of any shire district in the country. To equalise tax across a single Suffolk unitary council would mean massive tax rises for people living in West Suffolk, tax cuts for people in Ipswich, which would retain services unavailable to my constituents, or a worst-of-both-worlds combination. Suffolk’s councils have their different proposals, but ultimately it will be Whitehall that decides. I am pressing Ministers and those advocating a particular model for us locally for the clear answers that we in West Suffolk need and deserve. First, will all the money saved stay in Suffolk? Secondly, will people in West Suffolk pay more in council tax as a result of this change? Will we end up funding services for Ipswich that we do not get? Thirdly, will town and parish councils be given a greater say in the planning process? Fourthly, will town and parish councils have greater powers over things such as road safety and speed limits? Fifthly, will we get an absolute guarantee that there will be no merger between Suffolk and Norfolk police forces? This whole process is too rushed and completely unsatisfactory. It was wrong to postpone our local elections this year. The proposed reforms have not been thought through and the consequences are not clear. There may be some upsides to reform and there may even be some upsides in principle to unitary councils, but unless we get convincing answers, I will oppose not just this Bill, but the changes to local government in Suffolk.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity · Hansard source

  More

  I have been fobbed off with ridiculous non-answers to my written questions on this subject and an insulting letter from the Immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), so I do not want to be promised yet another evasive letter that ignores the question. Will the Minister tell me what the legal reasons are that the Immigration Minister cited as justification for the Government and Serco refusing to tell MPs and local people when they move migrants into our constituencies and where?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Global Plastics Treaty · Hansard source

  More

  On this important point about the capacity of different countries to hit certain standards, the hon. Gentleman may have reprocessors—companies that take plastic waste and repurpose it—in his constituency. An important part of this debate has to be about packaging recovery notes and packaging export recovery notes, which provide an equivalence, but waste is often taken to countries such as Turkey that have much lower standards than in this country, which is bad not only for British businesses, but for the global environment. I think the Government are working on that, and I would love to hear a bit more about that from the Minister, but what does the hon. Gentleman have to say about it?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Strategy for Elections · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister has previously talked about extending the franchise to include additional foreign nationals. Will the Government take this opportunity to rule out ever extending the franchise to foreign nationals beyond existing rules?

• 17 Jul 2025 · High Street Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Labour-led West Suffolk district council now charges cafés and restaurants £500 for pavement licences for tables and chairs in front of their premises. Their justification for the cost is that the process for granting a pavement licence is more complex than it may initially appear as it involves a number of checks with highways authorities, the police and counter-terrorism advisers. Will the Minister look at pavement licences as an example of where we can deregulate?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Energy Costs: Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  When the price cap fell last month, the Labour party boasted, “£129 off your bills, delivered by Labour”. The Minister knows that energy bills fell as wholesale gas prices fell, and she knows that her policy is to take the country off gas and keep increasing policy costs on bills. That is why she refuses to repeat the claim. Will she take this opportunity to apologise for her party saying something that she knows is untrue?

• 14 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Deputy Prime Minister guarantee that no Muslim Brotherhood affiliates will participate in the consultation on the definition of Islamophobia?

• 14 Jul 2025 · Draft Warm Home Discount (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am pleased to respond to the draft regulations on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. Let me start by saying that if the Minister thinks that progress stalled under the last Government, this Government’s abolishing and then reinstating the winter fuel payment has been a funny way of getting around that. By expanding the warm home discount scheme, the Government are broadening its reach to 6 million households across the UK, up from the 3.4 million households that currently receive the annual £150 energy bill rebate. We should do everything that we can to tackle fuel poverty, but we must ask ourselves what the best way is to resolve the root causes of the energy bills crisis. Under the warm home discount scheme, the Government are funding support for people who cannot afford their bills by pushing up green levies on everyone’s bills. The impact assessment for this legislation clearly states that the scheme expansion will increase everyone’s bills by £15. The Minister did not mention that when the expansion was announced, but the Government should be honest with the public that they have deliberately take a decision that will increase everyone’s bills. Higher green levies will pay for an increase in the overall cost of the scheme from £600 million to £1 billion. It is hard to see how this expansion will achieve the Government’s solemn manifesto pledge to cut energy bills by £300 before the end of this Parliament. We are seeing this approach play out across energy policy: the Government raise the cost of energy with their unrealistic decarbonisation policies; energy-intensive industries then suffer under the highest industrial energy prices in Europe; and the Government step in with subsidies to help them cover the cost that they created to begin with. It is madness, and we are now seeing the same thing done for families. In public policy, the simplest solution is often the best. In the case of fuel poverty, the Government can help everyone afford their bills by delivering abundant and cheap energy, but they are piling on costs through their Clean Power 2030 plan. That will increase the price of carbon to £147 per tonne, which will, in turn, increase bills for every family in the country. We have already paid £700 million so far just this year to turn off wind farms when there has been too much wind. We now hear that we are going to pay solar farms just the same to turn off in certain circumstances. The National Energy System Operator forecasts that these constraint costs will hit £8 billion in 2030 because of Labour’s plans to build more renewables than ever before. Instead of rushing ahead to build a system entirely dependent on unreliable and expensive renewables such as wind and solar, we should be going further and faster with nuclear and expanding oil and gas exploration in the North sea. Instead, we are importing fossil fuels from Norway, drilled from the very same seabed that we could exploit, while insisting that we are too good and too green to do that for ourselves. All of this is a choice. The Labour party chooses to increase energy costs, including for people on low incomes, with reckless targets and arbitrary mandates. We will abstain on these regulations, but the unavoidable fact remains that this Government are increasing energy bills for the poorest when we ought to be making energy as cheap as possible for everyone.