Nick Timothy MP: speeches

Speeches

• 12 Nov 2025 · Draft Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Is the number of channel crossings up or down in the last year?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Draft Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Turner, and I am pleased to respond to the regulations on behalf of the Opposition. Increasing the immigration skills charge is a welcome move, and my party has no objection to the legislation. Our priority must be to ensure that every British citizen has the opportunity to gain the right skills and find good work. When an employer hires from abroad, it is only fair that they should pay their share towards investing in our own people. That sound principle was established by my party in government. However, the regulations alone will not achieve the transformation that we need in our immigration system. The Home Secretary has said that the Government “will do whatever it takes to secure our borders”, and the Minister said just now that net migration remains too high and must come down, but tough words have not led to a real plan for cutting immigration yet. Ministers have tried to claim some credit for the almost 50% fall in net migration triggered by the visa changes introduced at the end of the last Parliament. I want to be clear that my party believes that even that leaves immigration unacceptably high. The Government’s impact assessment forecast an absurdly tiny reduction—of only 14,000—in net migration through the measures in the immigration White Paper, which the immigration Minister mentioned. Where the Government have acted, they have announced several proposals to make it easier for people—such as Afghan dependants—to come to the country and even to create a new scheme for Gazans and their dependants. The Government said that they would “smash the gangs” and stop the crossings, but the deal with France has already failed. It is not even one in, one out and back again. Ninety-four people have been sent back to France but more than 12,000 have come here since the deal came into effect. On the training of British workers, the Government have defunded level 7 apprenticeships for anybody over the age of 22. Pumping the economy with cheap foreign workers has harmed our productivity, undercut wages and changed the social fabric of our country. We have a short-termist economic model that prioritises consumption over investment and imported labour over British workers. My party’s position is clear: net migration must be brought down drastically, but we must also have a robust and ambitious post-16 education system that gives young people in this country the chance to thrive in the trades and industries of the future.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Support for Dyslexic Pupils · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Conservative party on support for dyslexic pupils at school. I congratulate the hon. Members for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) on securing such an important debate. Probably every family in the country has been touched by dyslexia, and mine is no different. The personal experiences described today have been powerful, and it is right that they should inform our work as MPs, as well any future Government policy. The themes that we have discussed today—diagnosis, the curriculum, training and support for teachers, the life chances of people with dyslexia—were well covered in the contributions from Members on all sides. Those who spoke about their own dyslexia are not only great role models but evidence—as if it were needed—that dyslexia is certainly not at all about intelligence. I thank the hon. Member for Broxtowe for her work with people with dyslexia before she was elected to this place. Reforming SEND is one of the most pressing challenges facing our education system. I can see in my constituency, and it has been proven in this debate, that there is serious strain across the country. The Education Secretary has previously said that she “won’t shy away from what’s difficult and long term” when it comes to SEND reform, and that “there is no responsibility” that she takes more seriously than that task. Those are welcome words, and we await the proposals from the Government. Ministers originally promised a SEND White Paper for this autumn, but it has been broadened into a fuller schools White Paper, and it will not be published until next year. I do not want to overdo it on that matter, because it is obviously a complex issue, and we do not want anybody to rush ahead with the wrong policies, but we would like there to be time for the Government’s proposals to be thoroughly studied. I hope that Members from across the House will have the opportunity to work constructively with Ministers to get the best possible outcomes for children with SEND. It is an issue that has been growing for quite some time. We have seen a massive increase in demand for EHCPs—up 140% since 2015. In January 2024, there were more than half a million children with EHCPs. SEND support in schools is now being given to well over 1.1 million children, which is a 14% rise since 2015. A National Audit Office report shows that there is a significant gap between funding and spending for SEND, growing to around £3.4 billion by 2027-28. Data also shows that two in five councils will be at risk of financial failure by 2028-29 without intervention from central Government. Dyslexia affects people in all our constituencies, and we have heard it said today that it affects one in 10 people across the country. The British Dyslexia Association found that 80% of people believe they are not clever because they have dyslexia, and 70% say it makes them feel bad about themselves. It affects children’s self-confidence and self-worth, as much as what and how they learn, which demonstrates the sensitivity and care that we must take on this issue. We have heard some stories about teachers and those in positions of authority who have got things wrong in the past. As the hon. Member for Yeovil said, there is no relationship between dyslexia and intelligence or behaviour, and people with dyslexia learn resilience and important problem-solving skills. Most worrying are the disparities in how people with dyslexia are diagnosed. Some 90% of dyslexic children in households with an annual income of over £100,000 receive a diagnosis, but as the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) said, the figure is closer to 43% for dyslexic children in households with an annual income below £30,000. Although a diagnosis does not guarantee an EHCP, it can at least help parents and teachers to understand a child’s condition better and find the most effective ways to support them. There is certainly a case to be made for rethinking how we teach the curriculum to children with dyslexia, and how we organise their classrooms and structure their time. We must also explore the best teaching tools available, as many Members have noted. Most of all, we need to get a grip on diagnosis. Clearly, there are parents who can afford to go private to find out whether their child has dyslexia, but that option is just not there for many families, and I encourage the Minister to discuss that problem with her counterparts in the Department of Health and Social Care to help to resolve that inequality. There is no reason why a child with dyslexia should not have the best possible start in life. We are not talking about how smart a child is but about overcoming the obstacles to their learning and development. Going through this journey will shape who they later become as adults. That raises another issue about how education and health cannot be viewed separately or in isolation. As many as 54% of people with a learning disability have a mental health problem, according to the Mental Health Foundation. EHCPs sought to bind education and health together for that reason. There are difficulties and much more progress to be made with EHCPs, but remarks made by the Education Secretary and by Christine Lenehan, who is the Government’s SEND adviser, have sparked some concern among parents. Christine Lenehan has said she is “considering whether EHCPs are the right vehicle to go forward.” We have yet to see what the White Paper will say about the future of EHCPs, so perhaps the Minister can give parents more certainty. This debate has been highly informative and fruitful, and it has helped us all to understand better the challenges faced by children with dyslexia and the broader reform agenda that should best help them in their education. As I have said before about SEND more generally and about children’s social care, some things are far bigger than politics and party politics. When Ministers are ready to put forward their plans for the future of SEND, I hope that serious attention will be given to children with dyslexia, taking on board what has been said today and what parents and teachers across the country believe we need to do to help future generations of children.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Prisoner Releases in Error · Hansard source

  More

  The Justice Secretary said that one of the prisoners accidentally released who is still at large is a foreign national offender. I know that, after PMQs last week, the right hon. Gentleman will be very well briefed this week, so can he say whether the prisoner was inside for aggravated burglary, drug offences or failing to surrender to the police? Can he also say how this foreign national offender entered the country and whether he was an asylum seeker?

• 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?