Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation

Katie Lam Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. I thank the Petitions Committee, my constituency neighbour, the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), for presenting these petitions, and the hundreds of thousands of people who have made their voices heard by signing them. Despite the clear wishes of the British people, successive Governments of different parties have failed to control immigration, both legal and illegal. This is a complete scandal and is probably the single biggest reason for the declining trust in our politics.

It is a particular scandal that, as an island nation, we have failed to stop people from coming to this country illegally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) rightly said. Since the small boats crisis began in 2018, nearly 200,000 people have come to Britain via that route. In 2025 alone, more than 35,000 people have made the crossing. On arrival, more than 95% of those people have claimed asylum, and having done so, they are afforded generous support, including direct cash transfers. Often, they are placed in hotels, where they can pose a risk to local people, particularly men posing a risk to women and girls. We have already heard about one such horrifying case from the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) today, and I am sorry to say that there are many more.

Illegal migrants can stay in the asylum system for years, launching endless appeals. Increasingly, our system is approving asylum claims on the thinnest of grounds. The incentives are clear: come to Britain and be fed, housed and given full healthcare and money to spend, all funded by the British taxpayer. If the Government were really serious about ending the small boats crisis, they would put a stop to asylum support and close the hotels as these petitions request. Those who have arrived here illegally would be sent back to their home country, if it is safe for them to go, or to a third country. Those who make the crossing in future should be detained and swiftly removed. Anybody who arrives here illegally must never be able to apply for asylum.

This is a generous country, as many hon. Members have said this afternoon—remarkably so—but allowing access to Britain to tens and tens of thousands of young men who are willing to break our laws by coming here from the safety of France is not generosity. It is unfair, unaffordable, democratically illegitimate and dangerous. British taxpayers must not foot the bill for a crisis that they have voted to stop and that was created here in Westminster. We can end it, and we must.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) is right to say that Britain deserves better. Many hon. Members have mentioned that the previous Government failed to fix the crisis, which is true, but we have had a Labour Government for well over a year and it is their job to control our borders. Instead of doing any better, the situation has got worse. Will the Minister commit today to preventing those who arrive here illegally from applying for asylum? If not, will he please explain why not? Will he please commit today to a concrete timeline for the closure of asylum hotels, and to fully tracking, including in the welfare system, the lifetime costs of asylum claims?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister, and ask him to allow a moment or two for the mover to sum up at the end.

Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill

Katie Lam Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 11th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for bringing the Bill forward and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for his amendments. At this stage, is it correct that you wish us to speak only to the amendment, Mr Speaker? [Interruption.] Yes. We the Opposition have nothing further to add to the debate that we have had this morning.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie Lam]

I thank the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for bringing the Bill forward. For many in this Chamber, the Euro 2020 final was a rollercoaster of ecstasy and disappointment, though I appreciate that certain Members from other parts of our United Kingdom may have felt a little less devastated at the result. Beyond heartbreak on the pitch, the Euro 2020 final was a day that nearly ended in catastrophe. Thousands of ticketless fans forced their way into Wembley, creating chaotic and dangerous scenes. When disaster is so narrowly avoided, it is reasonable to ask whether anybody made a mistake.

Sadly, this was not a one-off incident. Tailgating was reported again at both the 2024 champions league final and the 2025 league cup final. Of the 91 arrests made on that day, 68 were related to fraud—people trying to get in without a ticket. We heard from the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) about a particularly upsetting and fatal day. These incidents put genuine fans at risk and erode the trust that is necessary to police events of this scale properly.

For many people in this country, a trip to the football is the highlight of their year. For many families, it is a hard-earned outing or rare treat for their children—something they scrimp and save for. What must they think when they see hooligans jump the barriers and get in for free? They must think that they are the mugs for having paid and followed the rules in the first place. It is therefore right that we give police and organisers the tools they need, not just to remove people in the moment but to prevent repeat offences through banning orders. That builds on steps taken by the previous Government that saw drug-related offences in football stadiums likewise result in stadium bans.

I welcome the clear focus on intent. The defences included in the Bill are thorough. I hope that the Minister can confirm that enforcement will be directed firmly at dangerous deliberate entry, and will not affect fans who responsibly pass on spare tickets. Targeted, common-sense enforcement is exactly the right approach to tackling this kind of disorder.

Where new powers are necessary, the Opposition will support their introduction. The FA certainly seems to support the introduction of a bespoke offence for tailgating. However, all too often, we do not make enough use of existing powers. If I understood the sentiment expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who is no longer in his place, he was saying that the laws introduced in this place are often improperly enforced. Following the 68 arrests that I mentioned earlier, not a single person has been charged. A bespoke tailgating offence will make little difference unless police and the Crown Prosecution Service are willing and able to secure convictions. We must support them in doing so, as well as in taking other steps, such as co-operating with stadiums to advise on cases in which stadium bans might be appropriate.

More broadly, many of us are concerned by the rapid erosion of the social contract. Across our society, we are witnessing a troubling disregard for not only law and order, but standards of behaviour. Whether it is people pushing through ticket barriers on the tube, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch mentioned and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) has highlighted, or migrants working illegally as delivery drivers, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) has highlighted, the principle is the same: laws apply to everyone, or they apply only to those of us who are good enough stick to them, which is deeply unfair.

If we do not take action to uphold those standards, particularly when safety is at stake, public confidence inevitably suffers. The starting point must always be the enforcement of our existing laws, and we must give full support to institutions such as the FA as they take steps to improve safety and uphold standards.

In the light of all that, I am pleased to reiterate the support expressed in Committee and confirm our continued support for this private Member’s Bill. I again thank the hon. Member for Amber Valley for introducing it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Katie Lam Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

The comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) relate to the question of whether it will be a national inquiry, rather than a co-ordination of a few local inquiries. All the victims and survivors deserve justice, so can the Minister please confirm for us today that every town and city with a grooming and rape gang will be part of the inquiry, including and especially where local authorities may not wish to be part of it?

[Jess Phillips]

To the hon. Lady’s question, whether a local authority wishes to take part is not up for debate. The inquiry will be decided by the chair of the inquiry, as would happen in a statutory independent inquiry, and that work will go on. When we have inquiries, we have to make sure that we actually live by the recommendations of those inquiries. That is why I ask the hon. Lady why she voted against mandatory reporting and making grooming an aggravated factor—those were recommendations from the last inquiry—when she was asked to vote for them.

Phone Theft

Katie Lam Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

It should go without saying that law and order is the bedrock of a healthy society, but laws that we make in this House are only worth anything if they are enforced. In Britain today, this is all too often the story: a widening gulf between our laws and how they are actually applied. I can think of few better examples than mobile phone theft.

There is a temptation to think of phone theft as an example of petty crime, but it sounds as though we in this House all agree that there is nothing petty about it. Mobile phones are a link to our friends and family, and for many people they are a necessary tool for work, study and day-to-day life. They often hold sensitive information, both personal and financial, to say nothing of the intimidation and violence experienced by victims, and the corrosive impact that rampant phone theft has on our public realm. So when we think about phone theft, we should not just be thinking about the inconvenience of a missing phone; we should be thinking about the distress to victims and the creeping sense that, increasingly, we are no longer safe in public.

To capture the scale of the problem, it is useful to reflect on the data. According to last year’s crime survey for England and Wales, snatch thefts of mobile phones and bags rose by 70% last year, reaching a 20-year high. Overall, theft stands at the highest rate for a decade, according to the Office for National Statistics. At the epicentre of this crime wave is London, where thefts have more than doubled over the past five years. Three quarters of phone thefts take place there, with 116,656 phones stolen last year alone. Those devices have a street value of more than £20 million.

Phone theft often contributes to other forms of crime. According to Commander James Conway of the Metropolitan Police, about 70% of London’s knife crime is linked to theft, meaning that the increase in phone theft is likely to be contributing to the city’s rampant knife crime epidemic. Cyber-security experts have also warned that phones stolen in London are being shipped off to countries like China, where they are often used in international organised crime.

Perhaps that should not come as a surprise given the approach taken by Sadiq Khan, London’s Labour Mayor. He is focused on cracking down on stop and search, which is clearly proven to cut crime, while his police and crime plan barely mentions phone theft, focusing on introducing new regulations for phone companies, instead of stopping actual crimes. Of course, technology companies should do their bit where they reasonably can, but our focus should be on catching and imprisoning criminals.

In the vast majority of the 116,656 cases, the reported crime is not solved, the phone is not retrieved and the offender is not arrested, leaving them to walk free to commit more crime. That is simply not acceptable and we should not accept it. All the while, police forces across the country spend an estimated 60,000 hours per year on non-crime hate incidents, collecting and storing data on speech that might be perceived to be offensive. Is it any wonder that many people are beginning to describe the state of modern Britain as anarcho-tyranny? More rules, applied more strictly for the law-abiding majority, while actual criminals walk free.

While many police officers work hard and genuinely wish to make our country a safer place, the systems and incentives that govern their activities are totally broken. It is simply wrong that resources are spent on policing speech, while prolific thieves run rampant through our streets. Phone theft is not the only crime like that. For too many people in Britain, particularly in our larger cities, low-level disorder is now the unpleasant mood music of their day-to-day lives. We all feel the decline in our public realm, and it makes our country a worse place to live.

Speak to any member of the British public, and they will be able to tell us exactly what to do: spend less time on policing speech and more time on catching thieves; give police forces the tools they need to tackle these crimes; and when we catch a career criminal, ensure they serve a proper prison sentence. In short, enforce the law.

Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill

Katie Lam Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his work and approach, today and every day. It is a pleasure to work across from him, against our enemies and in defence of our great country and its people.

Sometimes, fulfilling our duty to keep our country safe means taking action that we might otherwise wish to avoid, but it is completely right that depriving people of their citizenship under certain circumstances is a tool available to the Home Secretary. Those who hate our country and what it stands for, and work against our interests, should not be able to hide behind a British passport. Membership of a nation does not just imply rights; it also confers responsibilities. When British citizens engage in terrorism, support for terrorism or serious organised crime, they clearly disregard those responsibilities. It is clearly true that we cannot deprive such people of citizenship in all cases, particularly given that a worrying number of extremists are now homegrown, but where we can, we should.

If we accept that the deprivation of citizenship is an important tool in keeping our country safe, we should also accept that this power should be exercised pragmatically, with the safety of the British people coming first. Allowing potentially dangerous individuals to retain their citizenship while appeals are ongoing is absurd. This is not a power exercised lightly by any Government, and the idea that dangerous people might escape accountability by exploiting procedure is frightening. The current system also opens up the worrying possibility of dual citizens renouncing their non-UK citizenship during the appeal process, making it subsequently impossible to remove their British citizenship without rendering them stateless, so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) said earlier, we support the Bill, which will ensure that deprivation of citizenship orders will continue to have effect until the entire appeal process is complete.

The hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons) rightly placed the Bill in its wider context, both historically and politically, and I agree with him on the desperate need to restore our broken border and make British citizenship extremely precious. He spoke of the citizenship ceremony. My grandmother swore allegiance to the King when she became a citizen, and talked of it often. I know that it was one of the proudest moments of her life. The hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) said that she considers citizenship a right rather than a privilege. On that, I am afraid that she and I disagree. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) rightly said immediately afterwards, citizenship is to be prized, not abused.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) was right to point out that there is a balance to be struck. Deprivation has a cost to those who are deprived. I say that the cost in the scenarios in which the Home Secretary may exercise deprivation powers is more than worth paying to protect this country and her people. Similarly, and more specifically to the Bill, the cost of maintaining a deprivation until the conclusion of the process is also a price well worth paying. I say that as a British citizen who, unlike my right hon. Friend, is entitled to several other citizenships.

Finally, the Bill is not just a good example of decisive action taken in the interest of national security; it is also a good example of Parliament’s role in our political system. In this country, the main job of the judiciary is to interpret and apply Parliament’s will. Unlike in other countries, judges are not the highest safeguards of our constitution. In Britain, that task is given to, and must remain with, the British people themselves. When the judiciary makes a decision that runs contrary to the will of Parliament, either as it was or as it is today, Parliament is perfectly entitled to overturn that decision; in fact, it must do so if our political system is to work as it should. In, say, the United States, the Supreme Court’s job involves working out the intention of long-dead statesmen. That is not the case here in the United Kingdom, where Parliament is a living, breathing institution, embodying the sovereignty of the British people. It can clarify its will or issue new guidance.

That kind of institutional dialogue is healthy; indeed, it is the lifeblood of our politics. We therefore welcome not only the specific measures before us today but the approach taken by the Government on this matter. We have seen Ministers and Government Members behave as if the law is an entity unto itself—an authority above all others, entirely separate from the political process. That could not be further from the truth. We must never forget that the supreme authority in this country is Parliament, and that the job of Parliament is to legislate in the interests of the British people. When the legal process produces a result that is not in the interests of the British people, not only is this House well within its rights to overturn it; it must do so.

Draft Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) (Threshold Amount) (Amendment) Order 2025

Katie Lam Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 General Committees

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this morning, Mr Twigg.

One of the most basic principles of law enforcement is that no one should escape the consequences of committing a crime, but it is right that we target the most serious offenders first so that enforcement efforts have maximum impact. It is also right that when we ask businesses to take steps to prevent crime from taking place, those steps are proportionate. We therefore support the measures in the draft order.

Raising the transaction threshold below which businesses are exempted from money laundering offences will mean that more resources can be spent on tackling the most serious examples of money laundering. Given that, as the Minister said, only 0.1% of all transactions between £1,000 and £3,000 were refused in 2024, it is right that we reduce the burden on enforcement agencies at that level.

It is also important, though, that we continue to monitor money laundering at every level. With that in mind, will the Minister please tell us what steps his Department is taking to monitor the impact of these changes on money laundering on transactions below £3,000, and when, if at all, the Government intend to review the threshold again?

Draft Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice, Review of Notices and Technical Advisory Board) Regulations 2025

Katie Lam Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 General Committees

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. At a time when more of our lives are spent online, the job of keeping our country safe brings law enforcement increasingly into the digital space. Many of the most serious crimes, including terrorist attacks, are now planned, prepared and facilitated online. In order to intercept those crimes before they happen, police officers and intelligence agents need to take action, often at short notice. That can lead them to co-operate with and require co-operation from tech companies, often based thousands of miles away, which have their own data privacy policies and operate across hundreds of different legal environments. Often, those companies are extremely reluctant to provide the kind of data that is needed, but access to that information can be the difference between an attack happening or being stopped in the nick of time.

It is absolutely right that we give law enforcement and our intelligence agencies the powers that they need to navigate these situations. That is why the previous Government passed the IPA, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, and the 2024 Act. The measures before us today will give effect to some of the enhanced powers passed by the previous Government in 2024, and we gladly support them.

We should welcome and celebrate the strides being made by tech companies. These platforms are something to be embraced, not feared. We must also be cautious about measures that could infringe on individual privacy, which is a long-held and important principle in this country. I think we are all agreed that our age of constant connection must not become an age of constant surveillance. The need to keep the public safe must always be balanced against the importance of privacy and individual liberty. Powers must be accompanied by appropriate guardrails and parameters, as I believe they are. As such, does the Minister believe that the mechanisms for parliamentary oversight strike the right balance? How will the Government review the efficacy of these regulations so that we can remain at the forefront of a fast and ever-changing technological environment?

Oral Answers to Questions

Katie Lam Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call shadow Minister Katie Lam.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

On 28 April, the Minister was clear with this House that the framework for local grooming gang inquiries and Baroness Casey’s audit would both be published in May. It is now June. Presumably there is a new timeline for publishing them, so will the Minister share it with us, please?

[Jess Phillips]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and I apologise for the month’s wait. I waited 14 years for anyone to do anything. Baroness Casey has requested a short extension to her work from the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary has informed the Home Affairs Committee of this. We expect the report very shortly, and when we have it, the Government will respond to it, and will lay out their plans with all the evidence in hand.

Immigration

Katie Lam Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend, the shadow Home Secretary, rightly said earlier, migration has been too high for decades and remains so. In every year since 1997, with the unsurprising exception of 2020, net migration was over 100,000 people. Every election-winning manifesto since 1974 has promised to reduce migration. Successive Governments of both parties have promised to end the era of mass migration and control the borders, and successive Governments have failed. In the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), the previous Government, like the Governments before them, also promised to do exactly this, but, again, like the Governments before them, they did not deliver. I am afraid that this Government are just the latest addition to this rogues’ gallery of broken promises.

Worse than disregarding the public’s wishes, public servants have told the British people to ignore what they can see and feel around them. The public was told that migration would deliver growth. It has not. Instead, people can feel their wages stagnating because they are being undercut. They can see the pressure of mass migration in their soaring rents, in how hard it is for their children to get on the housing ladder, in the lack of cohesion in their communities, and in the pressure on their GPs, dentists and schools. In the words of my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), immigration is the biggest broken promise in British politics, and probably the biggest single reason that British politics is so broken.

[Oliver Ryan]

rose—

[Mark Ferguson]

rose—

[Katie Lam]

I wish to make a little progress.

Fixing this broken system is the single biggest thing that we can do to restore trust in our politics. That means control of the borders and an end to mass migration; we need a system that works in the interests of this country and its people. Those who have come here legally and not contributed enough should be made to leave. Those who are here illegally, either by crossing the channel or from overstaying their visas, must be removed. The era of taxpayers funding accommodation, education, healthcare and legal challenges against their own Government for those who have no right to be here must end forever.

[Sir John Hayes]

We should deport the approximately 1 million people who are here illegally. We also need, as I hope my hon. Friend will acknowledge, to look at the indefinite right to remain. All kinds of people—with extremely dubious pasts, presents and possibly futures—have been granted that status. Will she commit the Opposition to relook at that, because indefinite does not mean permanent?

[Katie Lam]

We already have committed to that and will continue to do so. It is a clear amendment both to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill and to the deportation Bill in the name of my right hon. Friend, the shadow Home Secretary.

Unless and until politicians of all stripes can deliver the migration system that the British people have voted for time and again, there will be no reason for them to trust in our political system, and they will be right not to. We have seen no indication from this Government since they came to power last year that they are willing to do what needs to be done to give the British people the immigration system that they want and deserve. The debate today, I am afraid, has been no different.

The Minister clearly wished only to speak about the record of the previous Government. But they are in charge now—and what do we see? My right hon. Friend, the shadow Home Secretary, points out the facts. He says that Afghans are 20 times more likely to be sex offenders, and Government Members say, “Outrageous!”. Well, it is outrageous; saying so is not. He points out that over 70% of Somalis live in social housing, and they call it race-baiting. That is exactly the attitude that has allowed our political class to ignore the reality of the world that we live in. No party and no Government who continue to treat the British public’s very legitimate concerns with such scorn will ever rise to meet the challenge of securing our border.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) called for more safe and legal routes, but demand to come to Britain will always dramatically outstrip our supply. There is no number of safe and legal routes that will ever stop people making the dangerous channel crossing. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) called for this House—not foreign courts—to decide who can stay in this country. I admire his stance, and I look forward to the launch of his campaign to leave the ECHR.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) made a characteristically insightful speech about the substantial challenges of integration, and rightly connected that to the volume of immigration. No country of our size could ever hope to integrate that many people each year, and he is right to say so.

[Mr Brash]

It is possibly in order for me to correct the shadow Minister. I was very clear that I believe that the application of article 8 should be tightened so that courts in this country are not sovereign over this place regarding deportations. It should be this place that ensures deportations—not our courts.

[Katie Lam]

I thank the hon. Member for his clarification. I hate to break it to him, but article 8 will not do what he thinks it will, and tightening it will not solve the problem. The article that presents the biggest problems, actually, is article 3, which does not have caveats and cannot be tightened in the way that he suggests.

The hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) spoke of border security as national security. She was correct to do so, but just last week when told in this Chamber that terrorists come across the channel in small boats, her colleagues on the Government Benches laughed and jeered.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk made, as ever, a compelling economic and cultural case for control. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White), who is not in her place, set out some of the worst problems with the current immigration system, but she was perhaps not entirely forthcoming in the way she shared the statistics. Far from Labour closing asylum hotels, there are 8,000 more people in asylum hotels than when Labour came to power.

The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) and I have aired our differing views on this topic over many weeks in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee. I am not sure either of us has done much to persuade the other, but I always enjoy his company.

[Dr Evans]

In 2020 the Prime Minister—then Leader of the Opposition—pledged as point 6 of his “Another future is possible” plan that the Yarl’s Wood detention centre would close. To my knowledge, as of today it is still open. Given my hon. Friend’s experience, is she aware that Yarl’s Wood will be closing? Has she heard the Government commit to closing it, and if so, when will that be?

[Katie Lam]

I can only recommend that my hon. Friend does not hold his breath.

I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) for mentioning what needs to be done on age assessments. The amendments we have tabled to the border security Bill would make much progress on that.

Last week the Prime Minister said that mass migration risked turning us into an “island of strangers”. He was absolutely right. He recognised, as we do, that fixing migration is the single most important thing that his Government could do to restore public trust in our politics, yet the plan that he presented—the Government’s migration White Paper—is not a plan to end mass migration or control our borders. It is a plan for more of the same.

Instead of a detailed programme, the Government’s White Paper offers more delays, more reviews, more consultations and more half-measures. Their plan to deport foreign criminals is subject to a consultation later this year. Their plan to reform the rules on settlement is subject to another consultation. When given the chance, they have voted against a hard cap on visas, against our plan to disapply the Human Rights Act 1998 from immigration cases, and against our plan to restrict long-term settlement to those who contribute enough to cover their costs. They are just not serious.

The Home Secretary estimates that their plan will cut migration by 50,000 people. In the context of hundreds of thousands a year, that is just not enough. The Government have no plan to remove the 1.2 million people here illegally and no real plan to restrict study or family visas, which made up 40% of all migration last year.

If we thought that the Government’s plans would genuinely end mass migration and control our borders, we would support them in a heartbeat. The need to do what is right for our country is bigger than any single party, politician or Prime Minister. Unfortunately, this Government have no plan, and they will go down as the latest Government who failed to fix mass migration. This is the most shameful betrayal of public trust in British politics, and it must end, but the Labour Government show no sign that they will do what needs to be done.

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

Katie Lam Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 General Committees

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Stringer. It is a basic moral requirement of Governments to act in their country’s interest. They do that at home and abroad, overtly and covertly. Unsurprisingly, the interests of different countries are not always the same, so to protect our national security, we must take decisive action against those who engage in covert lobbying on behalf of hostile foreign powers, whether they are acting directly or indirectly, including through other foreign entities. These efforts seek to disrupt our democracy, undermine our national sovereignty and erode the precious freedoms that we have built in this country over so many centuries. Part 4 of the National Security Act was a necessary step towards tackling this malign foreign influence.

We welcome the Government’s draft regulations, which build on the previous Government’s work. It is right that by using the enhanced tier to apply additional scrutiny, we recognise the threat posed by particular foreign states. Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, which has rightly horrified millions of people across this country, underscores the threat that it poses to our way of life. In recent years, Russia and its agents have sought to disrupt our economy and political system; in 2018, for example, they attempted to poison Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury. The Government’s efforts to step up our efforts to target Russian influence in the UK are welcome.

Likewise, Iran rightly belongs on the enhanced tier. The UK security services have responded to more than 20 Iran-backed plots since 2022. The Minister has made multiple statements to the House regarding malign Iranian activity in the UK, including cases that have involved the arrest of Iranian nationals. I know that he is very familiar with the threat; I thank him and our security services for everything that they do to protect us.

However, the Government’s guidance on the Act points to one glaring omission in the draft regulations before the Committee. It states:

“The heads of MI5 and SIS have spoken about the growing threat from states, with the Director General of MI5 previously confirming that the threat predominantly comes from Russia, Iran and China.”

Notwithstanding representations from the Opposition, the Government have chosen not to include China in the enhanced tier, despite having created bespoke regulations for the two other countries identified. Do the Government really believe that the threat posed by China is less severe than that posed by Russia or by Iran?

The Chinese Government continue to impose sanctions on Members of this House. In 2021, Chinese state-affiliated actors targeted the private emails of British MPs. In the same year, agents of the Chinese Government targeted the computer systems of our Electoral Commission. In recent months, we have heard about bounties of up to £100,000 for “information leading to the arrest” of advocates of democracy in Hong Kong who live here in Britain. This is an appalling attempt to extend the jurisdiction of China’s authoritarian national security law to the streets of the UK, violating the most basic principles of national sovereignty.

The charge sheet goes on and on. The Chinese Government are actively involved in interfering with our political system and have not been shy about their intent to target people they consider a threat, even when they are living in this country. Regardless of the UK Government’s efforts to maintain constructive relations with China, we must be absolutely clear that there can be no compromise when it comes to our fundamental national security.

Does the Minister agree with the director general of MI5 about the threat that China poses to our national security? If so, does he feel that China should be included in the enhanced tier? If not, why not?