Oral Answers to Questions
Katie Lam Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to echo your tribute to a predecessor of mine, Ann Widdecombe. She was an exceptionally effective Member of Parliament, has been a really tough act to follow, and is very fondly remembered in the Weald. On behalf of my constituents, whom she served for decades—a role that she fulfilled with outstanding dedication—I would just like to say thank you. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Last week I met a group of victims and survivors of the most appalling sexual violence, like Angela. It is not her real name, but Angela was first raped by her stepfather at the age of eight. He then sold her to men for sex to pay off his gambling debts. He was sentenced to just 10 years in prison and, having served only six, is now being let out early by the Government. My question to the Home Secretary is one that those women were asking: why did they endure the years of pain and danger that it took to have their abusers put in prison, only for this Government to let them out again after such a short time?
Shabana Mahmood
I recognise the strength of feeling and the experiences of all these victims and survivors of the most appalling abuse. I am pleased that justice was sought through the criminal justice system in this case, because too often victims do not come forward at all. The hon. Lady will know that the Ministry of Justice is focused on ensuring that we do not run out of prison places in this country. Over the 14 years of the Conservative Government, only 500 places were added to the whole of the prison estate. It is a crisis that I directly inherited when I came into government, and I know how precarious the number of prison places in this country has been. I hope she will agree that, for all victims and survivors, the most important thing is to make sure that we never run out of prison places in this country again.
Rochdale Grooming Gang: Offender Deportation
Katie Lam Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on whether the Government are planning to change the law to deport Rochdale grooming gang leader, Shabir Ahmed.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
I will start where any discussion of this nature must always start: with the victims. Over the years, they were subjected to unspeakable crimes, exploited and abused by vile predators and woefully let down by the agencies charged with protecting them. I know that the House will join me in saying that they are in our thoughts today and always.
The grooming gangs scandal was and will forever be one of the darkest moments in our nation’s history. I know that for those affected, it will have been unbelievably painful to learn that one of the perpetrators was due for release from prison. Having been convicted in 2012, Shabir Ahmed has served the custodial element of his sentence. He is on the sex offenders register for life, ordered to stay away from his victims, and banned from contacting any child or young person. As well as strict curfews and restriction zones on him, his every movement will be tracked, and he will be required to wear an electronic tag. Should he breach those conditions, he can be immediately returned to prison.
Shabir Ahmed held British citizenship at the time of these offences, and action was taken to deprive him of that right, reflecting the seriousness of his offences. Having arrived in the UK before 1971, he is exempt from deportation due to section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971, which preserved the rights of Commonwealth and Irish citizens who were already in the UK when the Act took effect on 1 January 1973. That is not a loophole; the provisions of section 7 were put in place to protect the existing rights of an identified cadre of Commonwealth citizens, most notably the Windrush generation. However, when a foreign national breaks the laws of this land, our first priority will always be to get them out of the UK.
Under this Government, removals of foreign national offenders are up 36%, with nearly 10,000 returned since we entered office. The fact that that has not so far been possible for an individual responsible for such heinous crimes as Shabir Ahmed’s is unacceptable. I can assure the House that we have not given up, and we will not. While the original intentions of the legislation in question mean that we ought to proceed with care, the nature of the offending in this case demands that we explore all options, and that is what we are doing. In the meantime, we will of course do everything in our power to keep the public safe.
Katie Lam
Shabir Ahmed has committed some of the most despicable crimes imaginable. As the ringleader of the Rochdale grooming gang, he was responsible for grooming, trafficking and raping children as young as 12 years old. He was jailed in 2012 for 30 counts of child rape. His victims were promised that when he got out of prison, he would be deported back to Pakistan. He has been released from prison, but now we are told that he will not be deported because of a provision in the 1971 Immigration Act. The idea that he might be allowed to stay in this country because of a clause in a decades-old law designed for a completely different time and context is not just absurd, but sickening. As recently as 2023, parole officers concluded that Ahmed posed a
“very high risk of serious harm”
to children. How can he possibly be allowed to walk the streets again?
When the law produces an outcome that is clearly so wrong, the law must be changed. The Government must now change this law to make sure that we can remove Ahmed. Conservative Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, have made it clear that, if the Home Secretary puts forward changes to the law that would allow us to deport Shabir Ahmed, we will support them. The shadow Home Secretary has already drafted an amendment that the Government could adopt. The argument for deporting Ahmed is clear, and the mechanism has already been created. All that remains in question is whether the Government have the will to act. If so, we will be happy to support them. If they do not, people across this country will rightly ask, as they are already asking, whether this is a Government that can really keep the British people safe.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question and subsequent follow-up. I share her anger, and I share her concern at the anger of the British people, who rightly expect that, when foreign offenders break our laws, they should be removed from our country. That is why we have made removals to the degree that we have. I will look closely, as we always do, at all amendments and new clauses to legislation put forward by the Opposition and by all hon. and right hon. colleagues, or at other ideas as they come forward. As I say, in this context I could not be clearer that all options are on the table at this stage.
I might gently say that there was a significant period of time between that conviction and the change of Government in which those changes were not brought forward, including by some individuals I expect to be co-signatories to the amendment. Nevertheless, we are where we are, and the spirit in which the hon. Lady offers support is welcome. The public will want to see Parliament come together to ensure that, in cases where people commit really serious crimes, we are able to remove them from the country.
Asylum Accommodation
Katie Lam Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, which confirms what we have suspected since last week: this Government are planning to put more illegal migrants into sites across the country.
Some of those sites are due to host illegal migrants until 2030, yet the Government did not think that it was worth alerting the hon. Members who represent those communities and live nearby ahead of the announcement in the press. Rather than subjecting the plans to proper scrutiny here in Parliament, the Government tried to sneak the news out quietly before the weekend, without discussion here in this place by those people’s democratically elected representatives. That is exactly the same playbook that the Government have tried to use in places like Inverness where, thanks to the work of the Conservative group on the Highland council, the Home Office’s plans to house illegal migrants at Cameron barracks were blocked.
We have seen in far too many cases the risk that illegal migrants, most of them young men, pose to the public, particularly to women and children. If the Government are planning to force communities to live alongside people who have shown complete contempt for our laws and norms by the very act of coming here illegally, the least that they can do is to allow those plans to be subject to proper scrutiny.
Now that we finally have an opportunity to scrutinise the plans, we can perhaps see why the Government were so keen to hide them. For all the talk of smashing the gangs, they reveal that this Government do not have any faith in their own ability to fix the problem. If they are so sure that they are ending illegal channel crossings, why are the Government making plans to host illegal migrants in this country until 2030? What does that tell us about their confidence in their own approach?
The truth is that this Government have no intention of fixing the problem: they care only about managing people’s perceptions of it. While they talk up the reduction in illegal migrants living in hotels, they conveniently leave out the fact that thousands more migrants are being housed in so-called dispersal accommodation: homes in the middle of our towns and cities where illegal migrants pose an even greater risk to the public.
Since the last election, 75,000 people have crossed the channel. In the past few weeks alone, 3,000 have made the crossing. For all the Government’s talk of removals, nearly all of them—some 93%—are being allowed to stay. The Minister boasts about a reduction in outstanding decisions, but they have achieved that reduction by granting asylum to thousands upon thousands of illegal migrants.
The Minister said in his statement that to stop the use of asylum hotels for good
“we must go further, and that means scaling up our use of larger, more basic facilities.”
He is right that the Government must go further to stop the use of asylum hotels for good, but he is utterly wrong that the problem is solved by instead spending huge resources to create other places to live for those who arrive here illegally.
As Conversative Members have made clear time and again, the only real solution to the crisis at our border is to remove illegal migrants as soon as they arrive. People must know that if they try to break our laws, they cannot stay. For it to be possible to remove people as soon as they arrive, we must leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights that prevents us from doing so, but the Government refuse to recognise that. They are in hock to activist lawyers in this country and unaccountable judges in Strasbourg, and keeping those people happy takes precedence over keeping the British people safe and delivering on their democratic will.
The plans before us are another sorry example of that. More illegal migrants will enter the endless cycle of appeals and legal challenges, allowing them to stay here for years at the taxpayer’s expense. More people will be put at risk because of these plans and because of the Government’s unwillingness truly to solve this problem for good.
Alex Norris
We see the contrast there clearly. While the Government have a serious plan on how to accommodate a significant number of people and change that reality, the hon. Lady offers just “Hail Marys” and long shots. Her colleagues had 14 years, but sat through them and did not make any of those decisions. It is hard to believe.
The hon. Lady started by asking why, and that is a very important point, because these sites are part of our theory of change. At the moment, the traffickers say, “Come to the UK. Live in a hotel. You will be able to work illegally, dead easily.” We have to change that reality if we want to reduce pull factors. This plan does so; it says, “You will not live in a hotel. You may well live on a military site.” That is about reducing numbers and reducing the impact on the British taxpayer, and that is the right thing to do.
The hon. Lady mentioned dispersal accommodation. The previous statistics release in May shows a 32% reduction in the number of people in hotels, but there was a reduction of less than 1% in the number of people in dispersal accommodation, so the reality is not quite as she put it. On decision making, she knows that the grant rate has not changed significantly at all, so I simply cannot accept her case that by making more decisions we are letting more people through.
The reality is that we have a choice between another hopeful attempt at culture war by an Opposition who have no ideas, and a serious plan to reduce numbers. Let us face it: asylum applications are three times what they would have been 10 years ago. From us, it is serious action; from the Opposition, it is empty calories.
High Street Shops: Illicit Activity
Katie Lam Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on securing this important debate.
For far too many people and in far too many places, the high street has become a visible sign of where the British state has lost control. People suspect that the cash-only takeaways, barber’s shops and vape shops that they see springing up on their high streets are symptomatic of a deeper rot. As the hon. Gentleman and many others set out, in many cases they are right. All too often, such high street shops are linked to organised crime, including through the sale of illicit or counterfeit goods, money laundering, immigration crime and people smuggling.
Last month, the BBC uncovered that people smugglers are directing migrants to pay for illegal channel crossings using a network of high street businesses, including mobile phone shops. In 2024 alone, trading standards seized more than 1 million illegal vapes and 19 million illegal cigarettes. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) mentioned, the National Crime Agency estimates that £1 billion of crime-linked cash is laundered through high street businesses every year. It is clearly difficult to produce reliable estimates of things such as money laundering, so the real figure may be even higher. The money laundered by such businesses often fuels human trafficking or the drug trade.
The problem is only getting worse. According to one survey, 99% of trading standards professionals have seen an increase in the number of cash-intensive businesses opening on their local high streets in recent years. Cash-intensive businesses often provide the best fronts for money laundering and the trade in illicit and counterfeit goods.
While businesses that do the right thing are struggling with ever more regulation and ever higher taxes, businesses with links to organised crime are thriving. To combat the rise in illicit activity on our high streets, we must understand the criminal networks that sustain that activity and the link in many cases between those networks and immigration.
Let us imagine, for example, an organised crime gang involved in the drugs trade. When that gang sells drugs to people, payment will most often be made in cash, because cash is harder to trace. However, if that business wants to bring its cash into the normal financial system, it will need to launder the money so as not to provoke suspicion. If a person suddenly deposits tens of thousands of pounds with no clear income source, a bank will register that as suspicious, but not so if the money is deposited by a high street business.
The gang might therefore set up a high street shop—something cash-intensive and with low overhead costs, such as a vape shop. The shop records its transactions but adds to those real purchases a series of phantom cash sales used to disguise the illicit cash raised by the sale of drugs. The deposit appears legitimate and can be backed up with paperwork. Once that cash is deposited, it can be paid out as profit to those involved in running the organisation, for example as a fake invoice to an overseas supplier that is paid out to a shell company registered abroad.
The criminal gangs involved in the drug trade operate across borders both financially and physically. They will have overseas suppliers who provide them with the drugs that they sell. These supply networks are often sustained by links between people of the same nationality, ethnicity or even extended family. Often, these drug gangs are also involved in other kinds of cross-border smuggling—of counterfeit goods, illegal tobacco and, indeed, people.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this to the attention of the Chamber today. One of the issues, which I know the Minister is well across, is the cross-border trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. We are the only part of the United Kingdom that has a land border. A better working relationship with the Garda Síochána is critical. Can the Minister confirm that the Garda Síochána, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the police forces here on the mainland can work together to better defeat paramilitary and organised crime groups?
Katie Lam
The hon. Member is right that the common travel area presents particular challenges. It is crucial to maintain the sorts of relationships he is talking about in a way that keeps the public safe in Northern Ireland and the whole country.
If high street shops are already laundering money on behalf of these gangs, they might also sell the things that the gang illegally imports. They might serve as points of contact for people who are looking to smuggle people into Britain illegally, as was highlighted by the BBC’s most recent investigation.
Those shops might also help criminal gangs to bring people into this country by sponsoring their visas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) has previously highlighted, many cash-intensive high street businesses sponsor an absurd number of visas. On paper, these people work for a legitimate high street business, but in practice many of them will be using that apparently legitimate employment as cover for their work as part of a criminal gang. Others may be working, or forced to work, for dramatically less than the minimum wage, which both exploits them and distorts the labour market. That happens everywhere in the country. In the stunning town of Tenterden in my constituency, Indian restaurant Badsha was recently found to have been employing illegal migrants for a fourth time, racking up £120,000 in fines and not paying a single penny.
I would appreciate it if the Minister set out how the Home Office thinks about and plans to tackle the links between illicit activity on the high street, organised crime, immigration and people smuggling, and how the Department’s plans for tackling illicit activity on the high street take account of those links. Does it keep a record of how many businesses raided under high street organised crime operations were also registered visa sponsors? Does it keep a record of the visa status and visa type of those employed by these businesses?
What proportion of high street businesses employing people illegally are repeat offenders like the one in my constituency? Will the Minister share what proportion of Operation Machinize targets in cases related to counterfeit goods, illegal tobacco or vapes, money laundering or the sale of drugs were also involved in illegal working, visa fraud or organised immigration crime and people smuggling?
Abuse of Customer-facing Workers
Katie Lam Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) on securing the debate.
As others have noted, the abuse faced by many people working in customer-facing roles is deeply distressing. We should all be concerned by the rise in abuse, threats and physical assault against people just trying to do their jobs. The trend cannot be divorced from the rise in so-called petty crime, including shoplifting, as several hon. Members have highlighted. According to a survey conducted by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, in cases where retail staff faced abuse, 70% of incidents had been triggered by shoplifting. Of those incidents, two thirds were related to drug addiction or suspected drug addiction.
Failing to clamp down on crimes such as shoplifting is not cost-free. It does not just make life terrible for the businesses that are the direct victims of the theft; it puts retail workers and the public at risk. The kind of people who are engaged in habitual shoplifting are often involved in other types of crime, and they represent a very real danger to us all. Unfortunately, under this Government’s Sentencing Act 2026, up to 12,000 of this country’s most prolific shoplifters will avoid jail altogether, leaving them free to not just continue stealing but abuse and harass retail workers.
While prolific offenders walk free, law-abiding people face ever more rules and restrictions, and ever greater suspicion from the authorities. Instead of going after the hyper-prolific offenders who drive such a disproportionate amount of crime in this country, the state responds by making life harder for ordinary people. Is it any wonder that so many people now feel that they are living under something called anarcho-tyranny? In such circumstances, the state is either unable or unwilling to control violent crime, theft and genuine disorder. While failing to enforce the law against genuine criminals, the state vigorously and inflexibly enforces a mountain of complex, often seemingly arbitrary rules on ordinary people who work hard, pay their taxes and do the right thing.
That can produce infuriating and ludicrous outcomes. Shop Around the Clock, a fabulous store in St Michaels in my constituency, is plagued by shoplifting. Suki, who manages the business, very kindly had me in for a morning shift last Friday. He told me that, despite years of reporting regular shoplifting to the police, the only time they had visited was to let him know that the pictures he had put up of regular thieves violated GDPR. He also walked me through his report to the police of the latest shoplifting incident he had suffered that Tuesday. The process was slow and repetitive—easily 10 times as long as it needed to be. For small business owners like Suki, who are already doing a million things at once, it is often hard to justify that wasted time. Especially given advances in technology, this seems a crazy way to insist that people record crimes.
This is the experience of far too many people in Britain today. They feel their own behaviour is restricted, and they meet with resistance and hassle when they engage with the authorities, yet they see crime and disorder go unpunished. If they try to do something to stop the crime themselves, they are crushed. The rise in attacks against retail workers is one terrible manifestation of this, but there are many.
This is clearly completely unfair but, fortunately, there is a solution. Speak to any member of the British public and they will be able to tell you exactly what to do: spend less time on policing speech and filling out paperwork and more time on catching thieves; give police forces the tools they need to tackle these crimes; and, when we catch a career criminal, make sure that they serve a proper prison sentence. Put simply, we can fix this problem by pursuing criminals, enforcing the law and letting law-abiding people get on with their lives. Given that so much of this abuse is triggered by shoplifting, and given how onerous the process of reporting it is, my main, specific question to the Minister is this: what kind of conversations has she had about changing the online reporting system, particularly in the light of technology innovations that could make it so much simpler and faster?
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
I call the Minister. You have until about 5.30 pm; please leave a little time for the Member in charge to wind up.
Oral Answers to Questions
Katie Lam Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
The latest estimates indicate that 627,000 non-EU migrants, mostly from low-income countries, came to the UK between December 2024 and December 2025. Meanwhile, 61,000 Brits aged 16 to 24 left the UK, as did another 65,000 aged 25 to 34. In recent years, for every young Briton who has been employed, 27 young migrants from outside the EU have also joined the workforce. Does the Home Secretary accept that mass migration has wrecked economic opportunity for young people? How will that inform any changes that she makes to the immigration rules, given that almost two thirds of a million non-EU migrants came to this country last year?
Draft Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Draft Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Katie Lam Excerpts(3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
It is, as ever, a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. The power given to the Home Secretary by these regulations to suspend or discontinue asylum support in cases where asylum seekers are working illegally is welcome. It is also right to remove the existing duty on the Home Secretary to offer asylum support in all cases. Those are both improvements on the existing system. Clearly, if people come to this country to seek asylum, they should at the very least be expected to abide by the rules that govern that process.
Although the changes are welcome in principle, criticisms raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee highlight a broader problem. The changes that the Government are proposing today will not, without changes to the wider legal regime, change the incentives for people who come to this country illegally or under false pretences to seek asylum. The Committee noted that illegal working cases—the ones we know about, that is—accounted for just 0.3%, or one in every 333, of asylum seekers receiving support. The number of asylum seekers working illegally is likely to be far higher in reality, and it is absolutely right that we deal with those cases, but these regulations alone will not create a meaningful deterrent for people who plan to come here illegally to seek asylum.
Government Ministers say that they are developing a policy to address the problem, yet the indications so far suggest that we can expect to see tweaks at the edges of the system; what we need, and what the British people deserve, is a total overhaul. That would include preventing illegal migrants from ever seeking asylum in this country—a position legislated for by the previous Government but repealed by the current one. It would include being willing to remove people who come here illegally and return them to their home country or a safe third country—a position impossible under the current system, which the Government have committed to maintaining.
We cannot seriously hope to remove people who come here illegally while remaining a signatory of the European convention on human rights and while the broken immigration tribunal system still has the final say on who can stay in our country. Yet the Government have committed to maintaining both.
The changes I have mentioned would create a real deterrent for people who might otherwise be tempted to break into our country and abuse our good will. The measures before us today are positive, but they will not address the broader problem. The Government should focus first and foremost on the greater steps that we can take to secure our borders and end this problem for good.
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman has occupied his second position in about three minutes, so perhaps he needs a little more time. But I cannot get with the argument that because the numbers may be small—of course that is a good thing—the situation is in some way tolerable. The numbers who commit crime across the population are, mercifully, small, but we still seek to prosecute; we still seek punishment. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that unimportant. If something happened in his constituency—despite that very small number of people, a significant crime could take place or illegal working could have an impact on the local economy—the people of Dundee might feel strongly about that. I think that they would.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent, talked about this measure not being enough to provide discouragement. She also talked about scale and suggested that what we know is only a small part of the issue. Through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, the extra powers, particularly on the gig economy, to ensure that those substituting their labour are doing so to people who have a genuine right to work, are a step change in the regulatory regime in this country. They will help us to close the gap and make it very hard indeed to work illegally here.
The hon. Member also said that meaningful change is impossible without leaving the ECHR. I always caution colleagues about being quick to discount things that provide a really important underpinning of rights, because they are our rights too. “Restoring Order and Control”, our document published in November, is the biggest reform of our asylum system certainly in my adult lifetime—probably in my whole lifetime, to be fair. That is all doable within our international obligations. The reality is that the alternative to doing those serious things is just ripping up our international obligations and then spending years trying to work out how to get back return agreements with other countries, never mind our own freedoms.
Katie Lam
Could the Minister give us a quantitative way in which we can judge whether that has been a success, so that we can decide whether further steps need to be taken? How many people coming here illegally would he be able to tolerate—would enable him to decide that actually that is okay?
Alex Norris
I gently say that I do not think it is my test. The public are very clear about what they think about the system: the system lacks order and control. The test by which we judge our efforts is whether we bring order and control to the system, and that is what we are doing.
That allows me to segue nicely to what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking, said about a credible plan; that is the plan, as he well knows, given that he was part of those deliberations and has been on many occasions. He talked about the appeals backlog—a very important point. I gently say that that is a sign of a system that we are getting to grips with. He will know—indeed, I think I have heard him talk about this before—that the original sin, particularly in relation to hotel capacity, comes from the backlog in initial decision making from when the previous Government just stopped making decisions. As a result, a huge backlog built up. I am very pleased that, as a Government, we have been able to get through that backlog.
The hon. Member has talked about this before, and I listened carefully to what he said about Nightingale-style decision making. I gently say that we do not need to do that, because of the decisions that have been made at a quicker rate, without affecting the grant rate but with better and improving quality. That of course creates pressures on the appeal system while that cohort of people move through it. That is not a forever thing, although I recognise it. He talks about a plan; he will have seen what we have said about appeals reform. I hope that he and his colleagues will feel able to support that in due course.
The hon. Member also talked about knock-on effects on others. I am particularly mindful of local government; he knows my passion for local government. The intention of this measure is not to shift the burden from the Home Office to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government or to councils. Indeed, he will have seen our plans to reduce homelessness, in respect of which we are a significant stakeholder. Of course we are mindful of those effects. I argue that the article 3 backstop in relation to destitution should give him—I hope it does—a degree of confidence that that is not going to happen.
The point about a right to work is one of principled disagreement between us. My strong view is that, if we know that traffickers are saying, “Come to the UK—you will be housed in a hotel and allowed to work illegally”, simply changing the reality so that the people can work legally would be an intolerable pull factor. However, to help close that gap there is the right to work at 12 months, so the gap is not so big. The hon. Gentleman suggested around six months. I do not know if he would go any further, but he certainly mentioned six in his contribution.
With regards to important questions around slavery, the hon. Member mentioned that he does not quite understand the definition of “deliberate”. I do not think people will be accidentally working illegally, but I accept they could be compelled to. That is why we have modern slavery protections through the Modern Slavery Act 2015. We of course take that exceptionally seriously. That vulnerable group of people will not be affected by these provisions.
The hon. Member gave me a slightly impossible challenge by asking me what I will do to make sure that a future Government who do not currently exist do not do something that he and I would not want. I kind of get that, but, as many people have said in this room over the centuries, one Government cannot bind the hands of a future Government. There is a reality there. That is why we have elections and we seek to continue in Government. However, at least in most cases, we have a backstop—we have an article 3 backstop and a refugee convention backstop—that gives universal protections irrespective of the Government of the day. Those principles are of course contested, although not by us, but I hope the hon. Member is reassured that the backstop exists.
The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Dundee Central, spoke at great length about a world that I did not quite recognise, and which I have to say is not in anything we are preparing here. I say gently to him that there is nothing progressive about defending a status quo where human traffickers have the most agency and people routinely lose their lives in the channel, and that is before any sort of transit effects—never mind the impact on the women and children in that transit. If that was a challenge about where I sit on the political spectrum, there was language in what he said I would not recognise.
This is a hopelessly broken system; there is nothing progressive about defending it, which is why we are seeking to change it. The hon. Member set out quite a dystopian vision, but I gently say that for around six years of our nation’s history, between 1999 and 2005, we relied on the power rather than the duty. I was at school at the time and remember those days only tangentially, but it was not exactly a dystopian past, so I do not recognise what he said.
The hon. Member said that the support we have today should be a floor, not a ceiling. I have not heard from Scottish nationalist colleagues—even, I suspect, as a feature of the current election in Scotland—a suggestion of what services or public investments they would cut in order to top this up, and in what way. I hope that he will be out making the case for that on the doorstep as soon as possible, and at least quantify what we should stop doing, so that we can do more on this.
The hon. Member also mentioned destitution. Again, I would rely on the article 3 backstop on that. He talked about a “straw man”, but that is not in the nature of my politics. I reassure him that this is a genuine attempt to grip a system that does not work. We have had lots of debates in the Chamber on the other things we are doing; this is a serious attempt to grasp a serious problem. It is a good thing that the level of offending is mercifully low, but we want that level to be nil, as that is a fair balance with the taxpayer. That is why we are doing what we are doing.
The hon. Member for Fylde asked what side we are on—left or right? I am on the side of the British people. That is the reason why I am here. It is why I stood for my council. It is why I stood for Parliament and why I wanted to be a Government Minister.
Oral Answers to Questions
Katie Lam Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
When the violence against women and girls strategy was announced, I asked the Safeguarding Minister whether she had considered the impact that mass migration is having on the safety of women and girls and why it was not mentioned. I was not sure from her response then what the answer is. Can she please explain whether the Government will address that issue specifically as the strategy is implemented? If not, why not?
Jess Phillips
What I would say to the shadow Minister and to everybody is this: I do not care who you are or where you come from; if you abuse women in our country, we will come for you. There is no lever in the Home Office that I can pull to get reliable data on this issue. That is why under this Government, unlike the previous one, we will start collecting it.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Last week, The Times reported that companies and company directors who have previously abused the work visa system have been allowed to continue sponsoring visas, despite the Government’s promise of a clampdown. One social care business has been able to sponsor 116 visas, despite being caught hiring illegally. As the Home Secretary just said herself, being able to work here illegally is one of the greatest pull factors, so what message does she think this sends to companies that break the rules?
Shabana Mahmood
What the shadow Minister should have done first is apologise for being part of an Administration who opened the social care route, which was open to such horrifying levels of abuse. That route was closed by this Government, which was the right action to take. Since we have been in government, 1,000 sponsor licences have been revoked, and we will continue to take action. We are already following up on the newspaper investigation that the hon. Lady refers to, and we will keep revoking licences, so that only legitimate businesses with proper jobs are able to sponsor workers to come to our country.
Oral Answers to Questions
Katie Lam Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
It is becoming increasingly apparent that West Midlands police retrospectively created a rationale and, according to remarkable investigative work by The Sunday Times, false evidence to justify their predetermined decision to ban fans from the world’s only Jewish state from going to a football match in Britain’s second city. Does the Minister think that the chief constable of such a force can possibly be overseeing effective community policing? How can he continue in his role?
Sarah Jones
The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the whole Government have been clear that we believe the wrong decision was made. We have asked the inspector to look at what happened in two parts: first, what happened around the match itself; and secondly, a wider look at the police role in relation to safety advisory groups and how decisions are made. We had been expecting that information before the end of the year, but it will be slightly delayed to take into account the recall of the West Midlands chief constable to appear before the Home Affairs Committee tomorrow. We need to wait and see what the inspector says, and that is what we will do. That is the right thing to do, because these things will be considered in the round.
Violence against Women and Girls Strategy
Katie Lam Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
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?
Jess Phillips
In the list of people who have put in effort over the years in this regard, I would like to make special mention of Baroness May, who I worked with for many years on many of these issues.
In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, let me give her a really specific answer about data. She is absolutely right that data collection on a variety of different issues has been neglected for some years and is not good enough. Issues relating to how we collect data, whether it is ethnicity data or other forms of data that will inform this strategy, are vital. Having been a pro-choice Member of Parliament and a pro-choice advocate my entire life, I am more than happy to stand here and say, on a woman’s right to make any decision, that, “It is nobody else’s business what I do with my body.” I hope the hon. Lady and anyone else would always join me in telling that to anyone from anywhere, including when they are of our own ranks and communities. I am more than happy to say that.
I say to the hon. Lady that this Government have deported an increased number of foreign national offenders—a 12% increase since her Government’s period in office—and have passed much stronger laws limiting the ability of asylum seekers to claim asylum in our country, and I believe that Conservative Members voted against that Bill. I also say to her that if the only crime that I had to concern myself with halving was that committed by people who arrive in our country, my job would be considerably easier. The vast majority of the data that I am talking about is about people who were born in our country abusing other people who were born in our country, from every culture and every creed. I have yet to come across any community where violence against women and girls does not happen.