Katie Lam
MP for Weald of Kent · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I spent a day last week with the palliative care team at William Harvey hospital in Ashford, which serves a large chunk of my constituency, and I was amazed by how much time they spent gathering and sharing information.”
“Tomorrow, the Conservatives were going to ask for Parliament to sit for one more working day, so that the new Prime Minister could come here and set out his agenda for the country, which we could then scrutinise on behalf of all the people we represent.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Twiggy Roberts, who is a veteran himself and runs HX Motors in my constituency, training other veterans to maintain and customise Land Rovers, says that he hears a lot from veterans of his generation about their frustrations as they try to gain access to the mental health services that they need and deserve, especially when dealing with p…”
The complete record
Every one of 602 lines we hold for Katie Lam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 13.
“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?”
“I know that the Minister is acutely aware of the terrible problems we have had with South East Water; we have discussed it recently. It cannot supply water in the winter because it is too cold. It cannot supply water in the summer because it is too hot. The chair and the chief executive have both stood down, but that is a necessary condition for the company to be transformed, not the transformation itself. Can the Minister give us any update she is aware of on how the recruitment process is going to appoint their successors and what role the regulator and the Department will play in that process?”
“I welcome the Minister to her place. Almost the first thing the Prime Minister’s new adviser on women and girls did after she was appointed was to say on social media that Arooj Shah, the recently defeated leader of Oldham council, should be given a peerage. She did so despite the fact that Shah spent years trying to block a full inquiry into rape and grooming gangs in Oldham. What does the Minister think that says to victims and survivors, and how can they and the public trust the new adviser now? I would also be interested to know whether the Minister agrees that Shah should be made a life peer.”
“If we produced more gas domestically, it would be cheaper to buy gas, meaning that heating bills would, in fact, come down.”
“Ministers say that there is no point in using our vast oil and gas reserves; they say that energy prices are set entirely on the international market, which means that increasing our domestic supply would have little to no impact on the overall prices. But that is not true. Gas is a highly localised market, specifically in the case of liquefied natural gas, which is gas that is turned into liquid, loaded on to ships and transported globally. The further those ships have to travel, the more expensive it becomes to deliver. If we rely on gas imports from the rest of the world, we will need to spend more money to bring that gas to Britain. The vast majority of homes in the UK—87%—use gas for heating. We currently import half of the gas that we consume.”
“Time and again over the past few months, and, indeed, in this debate, we have heard Ministers talk about the importance of energy independence, and they are right to do so. No country has ever succeeded without cheap and abundant energy. For energy to be cheap and abundant, its supply must be reliable. If we are dependent on energy imports from overseas, the supply of energy will necessarily be unreliable, as the disruption caused by recent events in the Persian gulf has made abundantly clear. But it is profoundly dishonest to talk of energy independence while making us more dependent on energy imports from abroad. That is exactly what the Government’s plans to ban new North sea oil and gas would do. They should, at the very least, be brave enough to admit that to the public.”
“If the Government genuinely want to advance our energy independence, we welcome that, but they will not do so by wrecking domestic production and leaving us reliant on imports from abroad.”
“If this action is being taken in the name of climate change, it is proving to be a catastrophic failure. In the eight years between 2013 and 2020, China pumped out more carbon emissions than Britain has produced over the past 250 years. That is not just because China is a bigger country—per-person emissions from China are more than double those in Britain. We are sending our emissions abroad to countries such as China without making a dent in addressing global climate change, and British families and businesses are left to pick up the tab. The Government’s plans on energy policy will leave us more dependent on overseas imports and will leave the British people worse off financially, without making any noticeable impact on global climate change.”
“For industrial businesses in particular, the situation is even worse. These are businesses in sectors such as AI and high-skilled manufacturing that can provide some of the best paid and most durable jobs, revitalising whole communities and enabling people to build successful lives for themselves. While China and India fuel their industrial expansion with new coal-fired power plants, British industry faces some of the highest energy prices in the developed world—they are the highest in Europe, and they are more than double the price paid by industrial businesses in the United States. We cannot hope to sustain an industrial base in this country, let alone grow it, while the price of energy is so vulnerable to global shocks. Why would anybody start a new industrial business in Britain under these conditions?”
“Even if British homes move away from gas in the long term, it is absurd to impose higher bills on them in the short term in the name of ideology. Those on the Government Benches often talk of sustainability, but there is nothing sustainable about this situation. Families across the country are facing higher bills and extra taxes to fund this Government’s ideological commitment to intermittent energy sources. Many will be forced to do things such as postpone holidays or delay moving house to be able to afford the increasing costs imposed on them by this Government. Meanwhile, businesses are being forced to cut back on staff or shut their doors altogether, because the cost of doing business is now simply too high. That means local pubs, family farms and nursing homes all being forced to shut up shop.”
“As I just said, 80% of houses use gas for heating. We cannot simply substitute that for renewables—it is impossible. Returning to the issue of energy independence, producing more gas domestically would also make us more resistant to global shocks. We would be far better served if companies that provide energy in Britain were bidding on gas produced in this country, rather than gas produced halfway around the world. Not only would bills come down, but we would mitigate the risk of sudden cost increases as a result of supply restrictions elsewhere. Yet the Government are proposing a policy that would achieve exactly the opposite. The demand for gas is not going away, much as the Government might wish that it were.”
“As the Secretary of State has laid out, the Supreme Court in its Dillon judgment was not able to rule on whether the immunity provisions of the legacy Act were compatible with the European convention, because the Government withdrew that appeal when they came to power. But the right hon. Gentleman must recognise the fear and anger of our soldiers and veterans in response to the changes that the Government have proposed. If the Government felt it was at all possible that these protections for our soldiers and veterans might be compatible with the ECHR, why not test that in the courts? If the Government are convinced that it is not, what better case could there be for leaving?”
“We can all agree that the public should be protected from anybody who is willing to use violence against innocents and the police to get what they want, but I wonder how the right hon. Gentleman intends to enforce that. What message does he think it sends to those who have had the courage to protect the public, including British soldiers during the troubles, when this Government are making it easier for them to be dragged through the courts decades later?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“Since this Government came to power, we have repeatedly seen the Department for Education take steps that undermine the progress made by the last Government in this area, including by making it harder to turn failing schools into academies. Time and again, we have seen this Government put their ideological instincts ahead of what works in practice. Regardless of whether their proposals are motivated by ideology or convenience, the result will be the same: fewer children able to attend good schools, depriving them of the strongest start in life.”
“Wherever possible, surely we should be enabling the growth of good schools so that they have the capacity to take on more pupils, if and when schools that are performing less well need to reduce their numbers. If parents make decisions that they believe are best for their children, who are bureaucrats to tell them otherwise? In practice, limiting the growth of good schools will keep more children trapped in failed schools for longer, deny them the opportunity to flourish and deprive them of the firm foundations for life that a good education can provide. Even if this was being done in the name of bureaucratic convenience, it would be grotesque, but I fear that the reality may be even worse.”
“As the number of pupils entering the school system falls, it is true that local authorities will need to make decisions about which schools remain open and where. The Government Minister responsible for defending this legislation in the other place said that the proposals are “very much a function of the time, in terms of demography, that we find ourselves in.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 20 April 2026; Vol. 855, c. 541.] Even if that was the case, it would be completely absurd to tackle this problem by limiting the growth of good schools in order to make life easier for bureaucrats in local government, and for headteachers at schools that are not performing well.”
“A good education should not be the preserve of only those children who have parents who can afford to pay for one. Enabling more pupils to attend the best schools in the state sector means that that kind of education can be offered to more children, yet, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) has set out, the powers that this Bill will create on pupil admissions will achieve precisely the opposite. They allow the Government and regulators to limit the growth of good schools, or even force them to shrink, in order to make sure that schools that are performing less well can stay open. The most generous interpretation of the Government’s intentions is that this change is being made in the name of bureaucratic convenience.”
“I was very sorry to hear the story that the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) shared. I will speak about a different aspect of the Bill: schools and admissions. Good schools, and the good teachers who run them, are exceptionally precious. At its best, a good school truly can transform the lives of its pupils by fostering their natural talents, by helping equip them to tackle challenges and by expanding their intellectual horizons. When good schools are working well, they should be able to grow, so that more parents can choose to send their children to a school where their talents can be cultivated and their interests encouraged. That is a simple principle—one that Members from across the House, and indeed everyone everywhere, should be able to agree to.”
“If he did, why did he not consider it sufficiently concerning to abandon, or at the very least pause to reconsider, the appointment of Peter Mandelson to arguably our most important and security-sensitive ambassadorial role? The Prime Minister has spoken extensively about what he did not know, but we and the British public are incredulous that he did not ask. We know that the Prime Minister knew about the Russian links, so what questions did he ask about those facts? What questions did he ask officials? What questions did he ask Mandelson, or did he simply not want to know?”
“The advice included the following quote: “Mandelson served as a non-executive director of the Russian conglomerate Sistema, which is itself the majority shareholder of RTI, a defence technology company…Mandelson remained on the board until June 2017, long after Putin’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.” Either the Prime Minister is still reluctant to share with us all the information that we deserve, or he did not read the advice he was given—despite insisting repeatedly that his decision to appoint Mandelson was based on that advice. In light of this, can the Minister tell us definitively this afternoon whether the Prime Minister considered these facts about Peter Mandelson’s role at Sistema when appointing him—yes or no? If he did not, why did he not read his brief?”
“In December 2024, the Prime Minister ignored that guidance and appointed Peter Mandelson anyway. In January 2025, the Prime Minister repeatedly insisted before the press and the public that Peter Mandelson had passed security vetting, despite the fact that that was not the case. When asked yesterday, he twice refused to confirm that he knew about Peter Mandelson’s links to Sistema, despite the fact that the advice that he received in December 2024 explicitly pointed it out.”
“It also means that he would have maintained close contacts with figures linked to the Russian Government, including Sistema’s former chairman Vladimir Yevtushenkov, who is currently subject to sanctions as a result of his links to Vladimir Putin. Any sensible Prime Minister would want to consider the facts carefully before appointing somebody to a sensitive diplomatic post and would give proper consideration to whether those relationships would leave that person exposed to Russian influence. This is particularly true in the case of Peter Mandelson, who has a long history of improper financial conduct. In November 2024, the Cabinet Secretary advised the Prime Minister to conduct security vetting on prospective candidates before appointing anybody to the ambassador’s post in Washington.”
“Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I both asked the Prime Minister whether he knew about Peter Mandelson’s role as a director at Sistema when he appointed him to be the ambassador to the United States. Given that the Prime Minister did not answer our question then, I will repeat the facts of the case and ask the Minister for clarification. From 2013 until at least 2017, Peter Mandelson served as a director for Sistema, a Russian conglomerate that invests heavily in Russia’s military industrial complex. This means that Mandelson remained a director at Sistema after Russia’s annexation of Crimea.”
“My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked this question, but I do not believe that she received a response. Was the Prime Minister aware that Peter Mandelson was a director of Sistema before he was appointed?”
“It is a complete farce to suggest that, by limiting the extent to which Ministers can mandate how people’s money is invested, the Government have addressed concerns about this mandation power. These so-called guardrails will be cold comfort to people across the country who are worried about whether they will have enough money to retire comfortably, and who are worried that their efforts will be frustrated by Ministers pursuing ideological aims. I hope that Members across the House will reject this power grab altogether. It cannot be right to punish those who work hard and save what they can.”
“You can work hard for a lifetime and save a little at the end of every month, but at the stroke of a pen, Ministers will be able to decide where that money goes, even if that means that you will end up with less. The Government are right to identify that British assets are not always the most attractive investments, but the solution is not to force people to invest in them anyway; it is to make the British economy a better place to operate and grow, to allow people to take risks and to allow businesses to do what they are good at, so that people choose of their own free will to invest here. The money that people earn belongs to them, and it is theirs to do with as they wish. It is not simply a tool that this Government or any Government can use to achieve their ideological aims, and that should be true of every pound that people earn.”
“When people put aside money for their retirement and entrust it to a company to manage, they very reasonably expect their savings to be invested by whatever company they have chosen, and in line with whatever instructions they have given about their preferences and risk tolerance. Shockingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, this Government do not agree. Instead, they think that Government Ministers should have the power to direct pension investments. They want to give themselves the right to direct private pension providers to make decisions that are not in the best interests of their clients. If Ministers think that people’s money should be invested in British assets, even if doing so will leave them with less money in their retirement, this Bill will give them the right to force private companies to invest accordingly.”
“As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately)—my constituency neighbour—has repeatedly and effectively highlighted, the mandation power in this Bill is a shocking power grab. She is also right to say that, regardless of the apparent guardrails that the Government have now introduced, it is still totally indefensible. Those in the other place are absolutely right to return the Bill to us to reconsider, and it is in support of Lords amendment 15 that I will speak today. The power to direct investments is not just flawed in its implementation; it is wrong in principle.”
“T9. The changes that the Government made in January to prioritise British graduates for NHS training places were very welcome indeed, but the current system of random allocation demoralises and disincentivises our brightest graduates, and it causes profound uncertainty for people at the start of their career. Will the Secretary of State consider changing the process, so that those places are instead allocated on merit?”
“My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech as usual. Is she aware of analysis from the Taxpayers’ Alliance that says the average household will pay £40,000 in fuel duty over a lifetime under the Chancellor’s plans? That is several thousand pounds more than the median disposable income for a household. Does she feel, as I do, that this is an unsustainable burden on people who are already struggling to get by?”
“It’s the only place in the world I’ve been where the roads are worse than here.” I sent a survey to every household in the Weald of Kent last year. Of the 1,500 responses I received, street works were mentioned more than 500 times. I do not have time today to talk about all the challenges that they pose, but the Transport Committee, of which I and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) are both members, published a report on that last year. I would love to hear an update from the Minister on the Government’s response to that report.”
“It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) for securing the debate. The condition of rural roads is an ever-present issue for those of us who represent rural constituencies. In the Weald of Kent, where we have mile after mile of country lane used by massive lorries that have crossed the channel and are hoping to avoid traffic on the main routes, the situation is especially dire. I visited the Falkland Islands on a parliamentary trip last year, where many of the roads have not even been fully laid. When I explained to the officer driving the car where I lived, he said, “Ah! I know your constituency.”
“In February, the Government ordered Courtsdesk to delete the largest archive of court records in the country—an essential tool for transparency in the justice system. The Government changed their minds about that, which was incredibly welcome, but we do not yet have a clear sense of what they intend to do with that archive or how they intend to move forward. Could the Minister assure us today that Courtsdesk will not be compelled to delete its archive in the future and confirm whether it will be allowed to continue operating its services?”
“Again, I thank the Minister for his statement and for his work on tackling criminality towards elected officials. Can he assure us that his colleagues in Government are as committed to dealing with this problem at its root as he seems to be?”
“The strategy will make it harder to have open, public discussions about subjects like female genital mutilation, grooming and rape gangs, and extremism, including any threats that it may pose to our democracy. We have already seen that creating conditions in which people fear being branded as racist for keeping the public safe can create horrific outcomes. We must never again allow guidance like this to create a culture of fear, which breeds inaction, cover-up and denial. The cohesion strategy is a recipe for further suppression of discussion of the threats that face us today and their root causes. We will not make the truth disappear by discouraging people from talking about it. That has never worked, and it will not work now.”
“The strategy openly acknowledged the existence of “communities in the UK living segregated or parallel lives”, but rather than dealing with that problem directly, the Government have proposed a package that may only make this problem worse: more diversity, equity and inclusion in the public sector and an attempt to smuggle in so-called social engineering under the guise of social cohesion; advisory boards designed to manage tensions, when it was exactly that focus on managing community tensions that allowed rape and grooming gangs to operate unchecked for so long in towns and cities across our country; and a new, rebranded Islamophobia definition to be issued as guidance to public servants, which will have a chilling effect on their behaviour.”
“We must be honest about the fact that, while violence against elected politicians can come from a wide variety of groups, the single biggest extremist threat to our country remains the threat of extremist Islamist violence. That threat is intimately tied up with a growing tendency towards sectarian politics in some parts of our country. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said recently, separatism is on the rise in our country, because “for too long, Britain has been complacent about our culture and too tolerant of those weaponising identity politics for their own gain”. Yet, in their cohesion strategy published earlier this week, the Government seemed unwilling to deal with the threat head-on.”
“Targeted and serious intimidation of democratically elected politicians, particularly where that intimidation escalates into credible physical threats, is a serious impediment to the functioning of our democracy. It is of course right that criminal behaviour is prosecuted and punished. At the same time, we have a duty to ensure that the policing of genuinely criminal behaviour does not stray into the policing of free speech or free expression. In individual cases, that can be a challenging balance to strike, and I trust that the Minister will approach those cases with the appropriate caution and sensitivity. While many aspects of the Minister’s statement are encouraging, I am concerned that other members of this Government have failed to approach this issue with the necessary caution or candour.”
“There is much to welcome in the Security Minister’s statement. I thank him for advance sight of it and, more broadly, for his update on the work of the defending democracy taskforce, and I join him in remembering our colleagues who lost their lives in service of the public. As the Minister rightly notes, all of us in this place have a sacred duty to protect and uphold the democracy that has made this country so great for so long. Mr Speaker, I know that few understand that as well as those in the Speaker’s Office, yourself and all three Madam Deputy Speakers, so let me take this opportunity to thank them on behalf of all Members here for everything that they do in public and in private to keep us all safe.”
“A farm is not simply another asset like a share portfolio where we can sell a little today and buy a little tomorrow. The assets of a farm—primarily its land, its crops or livestock, and its equipment—are huge long-term investments, completely inseparable from the ability to produce whatever it makes. There is often little relationship between the value of the land held by a farmer and the profitability of that farm. That is particularly true at a time when, to sell their produce at all, farmers must abide by a seemingly endless list of regulations, all of which drive up costs and reduce profit margins. Farmers tolerate a rock-bottom level of return on investment that most businesses would never consider.”
“Since the Government announced their tax raid on family farms, they have made numerous false claims about the policy and what it will mean for farmers. Raising the threshold, as the Government propose today, does not fix the fundamental wrongs at the heart of this awful policy. I will speak in favour of amendment 6, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), which would remove those problems altogether by doing away with this pernicious tax. What are the claims? The Government have claimed that farmers are rich and so can afford to bear the cost of tax increases. To the surprise of nobody who actually works on a farm, that myth is born of a fundamental misunderstanding of how agriculture works.”
“The result of this Government’s plans will be to further alienate the public, and to drag the justice system further away from the views of the British people. If that is what they want, they should at least be straightforward about it.”
“They are designed to ensure that the judiciary can never stray too far from the public’s conception of justice and fairness. At a time when public trust in the judiciary is low, can it really be sensible to take away this crucial backstop? I will take just a single example of the divergence between public morality and judicial opinion. According to research conducted by the Free Speech Union, there is a huge gap between the successes of defences based on the right to free speech in judge-led cases and in cases heard by a jury. In judge-only cases at magistrates courts, just 16% of free-speech defences succeeded; in Crown court cases, where juries very often sit, 28% of free-speech defences succeeded. There is a clear divergence between the public’s appreciation of justice and the views of the judicial establishment.”
“The Government want to curb jury trials because they do not trust the public. They think that judges know best, and would rather the justice system was run entirely by them. We know this to be the case because whenever the Government have a choice to make between the British people and their friends in the legal profession, they are on the side of the lawyers, every single time. We saw this “judges know best” approach in the Prime Minister’s disastrous Chagos giveaway; we see it on asylum, immigration and the European convention on human rights; we see it in the Government’s plans to allow prosecutions of veterans who fought in Northern Ireland; and now, we see it in their plans to curb jury trials. However, jury trials exist for a reason.”
“We have heard a great deal from Government Members about the necessity of these court reforms. They say that in order to tackle the backlog in our courts, we need to curb jury trials, but previous statements from Ministers betray the Government’s true intentions. On 7 January, standing at the Dispatch Box, the Minister for Courts and Legal Services said, “People ask me, ‘Sarah, would you be doing this if there was not a crisis in our courts?’ I say yes” —[ Official Report , 7 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 284.] It would be bad enough to attack the time-honoured right to a jury trial in the name of administrative efficiency; to do so for ideological reasons, without candidly making that ideological case to the public, is a disgrace. The British people can see what is really going on.”