Building Homes and Renewing Communities

Katie Lam Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. It is a pleasure to see her again so soon. I join her in thanking those involved in the response to this summer’s wildfires, and applauding their remarkable courage.

The Secretary of State is right to note that for far too many people across the country the sense of decline runs deep. In far too many places, organised criminals have taken over the high street, and in far too many cases, a place to sleep is something that people cannot take for granted. The stories I have been told by constituents who have experienced rough sleeping or unsafe housing remain some of the most challenging and profound I have heard since coming to this place.

Although the Secretary of State talks about a new political and economic model, I am afraid that what we have heard today is a recipe for more of the same. While her focus on the scourge of organised crime on the high street is welcome, I am concerned that she addresses a symptom of the problem but not the underlying cause. While many bookies, vape shops and high street casinos are clearly legitimate, their cash intensiveness and lower overhead costs make them particularly attractive as fronts for money laundering. However, if those businesses are closed, criminals will simply find other types of high street businesses through which to launder money. What conversations is the Secretary of State having with her Home Office colleagues on dealing with organised crime?

The right hon. Lady talks about the devolution of power and resources to local people, but what she really means is more politicians being given the power to increase the size of the state and raise taxes, but never to let people keep more of their own money or to interfere less in their lives. Will she confirm whether any tax raising powers devolved to mayors will be accompanied by powers to reduce tax—and if not, why not?

Similarly, while the right hon. Lady is right to recognise the vital importance of addressing the housing affordability crisis, the answer cannot be spending ever more taxpayers’ money. Instead, the state must stop making it so difficult and so expensive to get new houses built in the places where people want to live. A greater supply of homes in those places will mean lower costs for everybody, particularly those who are renting and those looking to get on the housing ladder. In London, where our housing crisis is most acute, Labour has been in power for over a decade. Under Sadiq Khan, housing starts fell to their lowest level ever in 2024-25. Construction began on just 4,000 homes across our capital. Can the Secretary of State explain why Labour’s London mayor has failed to get to grips with this problem? Will the changes she proposes actually solve the housing crisis in the capital? If not, it is a little difficult to understand why she is introducing them.

Finally, on homelessness and rough sleeping, we share the Government’s ambition to end rough sleeping, but it is impossible to ignore the fact that the new Prime Minister promised to do exactly that in his 2017 manifesto for the Greater Manchester mayoralty. His pledge was to end rough sleeping within three years. In fact, rough sleeping in Greater Manchester has increased every year since 2021, including in 2024-25 when the Labour party was also in power nationally. Can the Secretary of State therefore explain why the Prime Minister failed to solve rough sleeping in Greater Manchester, bearing in mind that it increased when both the local authority and the national Government were run by the Labour party? Can she explain why anybody should believe that he will be able to do so nationally?

[Angela Rayner]

I welcome the hon. Member to her place, and I look forward to facing her across the Dispatch Box in the months to come. She comes with a good, strong track record: I believe her grandparents met while they were delivering leaflets for the Labour party—so that’s a good start! I welcome her tone, in particular her agreement on supporting those who helped us over the summer with the wildfires. I look forward to working with her constructively, especially as we move towards the summit in the autumn; I will keep her informed.

Some of the challenges we face are of long standing. It would be remiss of me not to gently remind the Conservatives that their austerity measures hollowed out our local services and that the decline in our high streets started on their watch, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the challenges our high streets face—that is why we have a strategy. We have made announcements to make sure that we tackle organised crime, giving the police more powers and more funding, with a £30 million boost to police and Trading Standards activity as well as strengthened closure orders and a new high streets organised crime unit. We are tackling the issues that the Conservative party failed to tackle.

The Prime Minister has been really clear about ensuring that we work with local leaders and that they are able to do the things that will help them in their local communities, so they can really start to tackle some of the issues. On tax-raising powers and the reduction of tax—again, that is an ongoing dialogue. The hon. Lady will have seen the statement from the whole of Cabinet and the work we are doing through the National Economic Council to work with mayors and local leaders so we can take those issues forward.

I was bemused by the hon. Lady saying that the state has made it hard to build. The Conservatives missed every single housing target they set, and they scrapped targets completely after pressure from their own Back Benchers. We have brought in new powers and updated the national planning policy framework. We are giving more powers to mayors, we have brought in mandatory housing targets and mandatory housing plans, and we are working with local areas to deliver the housing we need. We have been very up front about that, but we have also been really clear that infrastructure, wildlife and nature have to be taken into account. I will not take lectures from those in the party opposite, when they created a housing crisis where millions of families were locked out of home ownership.

Specifically on London, the city has built significant amounts of council housing, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the challenges that London faces. When we look at the number of children in temporary accommodation, it is clear that London has an acute need. We recognise that and have provided support through the allocation of money through the social and affordable housing programme. We also recognise the success that the Mayor of London has had in ramping up housing supply where it is needed.

Finally, let me turn to what happened in Greater Manchester under our new Prime Minister. The numbers actually fell originally—as a Greater Manchester MP, I saw that—but because there was not a national programme, the numbers then went up as more people came to Greater Manchester. We want to roll out a programme, working with local leaders and mayors, so we can offer that support. I hope the hon. Member will work with us, because I remember that this used to be a target for the Conservatives: they wanted to end rough sleeping, but then they scrapped the target. I hope they can work with us on this renewed effort, in the spirit of how the Prime Minister wants to work, to ensure that we can roll out a programme nationally where everyone who is rough sleeping has an option of safety and an option to come in.

Representation of the People Bill

Katie Lam Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Florence Eshalomi]

I must make progress.

Government new clause 114 implements recommendation 7 of the Rycroft review by giving the Electoral Commission clear powers to require campaign spending returns to be submitted in a standardised format across the political finance regime. That will make spending returns more consistent and easier to scrutinise, supporting greater transparency and more effective oversight.

The amendments relating to “know your donor” measures make a series of technical and clarification changes to the aggregation powers in the “know your donor” regime. The “know your donor” provisions require recipients, in certain circumstances, to undertake a risk assessment where relevant, or where controlled benefits reach the specified threshold. In determining whether that threshold has been met, the Bill contains provisions that require benefits to be considered together. These technical amendments clarify the operation of aggregation rules, how the rules apply to the connected transactions, and when regulated transactions are entered into, in correcting a drafting error relating to regulated participants. The amendments also remove the requirements of the weekly donation report under section 63 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to include a declaration about carrying out a “know your donor” risk assessment in relation to donations accepted during the reporting period.

Government amendments 138, 139, 143 and 144 are minor and technical amendments that remove powers granted inadvertently in respect of a reserved matter to Ministers of devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales. The Government have been in constant contact with the devolved Governments throughout the development of the Bill, as well as ensuring they are in touch on specific points. Government new clause 113 closes a gap in current legislation whereby if an overseas elector ceases to be British, they could potentially remain on the electoral register, thus remaining eligible for up to three years. The new clause allows such individuals to be removed from the electoral register as soon as they cease to satisfy eligibility criteria, which essentially allowed them to register as overseas electors.

Finally, Government amendments 140, 141 and 147 to 150 extend the maximum duration for postal and proxy postal voting arrangements from three to five years. They also extend the maximum duration for the anonymous election registration to five years to better align with that, and to create a clearly defined reapplication window for postal and proxy postal applications. Together the amendments will make the lives of voters and administrators a lot easier—I speak from experience when returning my postal vote—particularly benefiting vulnerable electors, while maintaining the vital security arrangements that are needed to ensure the integrity of our democratic system.

As my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston said on Second Reading:

“We have a vital opportunity in this Bill to strengthen our institutions and processes and to ensure that they work for the people they serve.” —[Official Report, 2 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 693.]

The Bill delivers a modern, secure and inclusive electoral system that the public rightly deserve, bearing down on those who seek to harm or undermine our elections, protecting those who participate, and opening up our democracy to a generation of new and able voters. This is how we safeguard trust and ensure that every eligible citizen can take part freely and with the safety and confidence that they deserve. I commend the Bill to the House.

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

I begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), for his work in this role. He has left big shoes to fill, and I look forward to following in his footsteps as best I can. I would also like to register my thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), alongside whom I am so fortunate to be working, including on this Bill, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), who has been incredibly helpful in handing over, and who has worked so hard on this Bill.

In the same vein, I thank the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon) for her work on the Bill, and I pass on the thanks of my hon. Friends, too. I welcome the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith to her place, and I congratulate her. I know she is much liked and well regarded across the House, having chaired the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for the past few years. I look forward to working opposite her and her departmental colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince]

The shadow Minister will be pleased to know that I agree with her on this point. I proudly represent my constituency of Harlow, and it is really important that I have that local accountability; that means a great deal to me. Does she agree that we need to take foreign interference in our electoral system really seriously? It is important that the be Bill be—as I believe it is—really solid, detailed and willing to make changes, because we recognise that malign influencers will do anything they can to weave their way into our political system.

[Katie Lam]

It is never anything but a pleasure to allow the hon. Gentleman to put Harlow into Hansard again, and I am happy to repeat his words. He is right: we must be incredibly vigilant. We must not be naive about the extent to which foreign powers are actively pursuing strategies to undermine our democracy, and ultimately, our nation. That must be treated with the utmost seriousness.

While some of the suggested changes are being rushed through in a sweeping way, we feel that the Bill has shockingly little to say about the threats to our democracy that we already know enough about to take decisive action on. This includes the effective disenfranchisement of many British citizens living overseas. Our citizens abroad remain citizens and are often directly affected by decisions taken by this Parliament, but all too often they find it very difficult to register to vote, or to cast their ballot. To that end, we have tabled amendments that require the Secretary of State to make provision for overseas voters to cast their votes in person at British embassies, high commissions and consulates.

Chief among the threats to our democracy today is the rise of coercion, fraud and sectarianism in our democratic process. These are, in turn, most often the result of a poisonous separatism that has taken hold in far too many of our towns and cities. Migration to this country has been far too high for far too long, against the wishes of the British people. Many of those who have come to this country come from cultures with very different norms from ours. At the same time, Britain has been complacent about enforcing our cultural and democratic norms, and far too tolerant of those who weaponise group-based identity politics for their own gain. One consequence has been the rise of explicitly sectarian political campaigning, whereby candidates appeal not to the individual interests of voters, or to the national interest, but to particular ethnic, religious or cultural groups. This is profoundly poisonous, and we must do everything that we can to root it out.

One symptom of this emergent separatism in our society is the rise of so-called family voting, whereby a senior male family member directs other members of their family, particularly women, on how they ought to vote. At the Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this year, volunteers reported

“the highest level of family voting at any election in the past decade.”

Family voting was observed at more than two thirds of polling stations. It may have influenced the votes of more than one in 10 people who turned out to cast their ballot. In Birmingham, at this year’s local elections, polling station staff reported instances of family voting in 50 polling stations. Despite evidence being passed to the police by the council, no further action has been taken

[Emily Thornberry]

The allegations that the hon. Lady makes are extremely serious, and should be based on robust evidence. To be told that “volunteers had reported” is not sufficient, and she must understand the implications of what she is saying, in terms of social coherence and undermining the very status of our democracy. I ask her to be a little more cautious, and to proceed on the basis of evidence.

[Katie Lam]

Polling station volunteers reporting what they have seen in their polling stations is evidence. It is not for us to decide what is appropriate to discuss in this Chamber. It is for us to talk about it, and for the public to decide. They can see this, and it was very well reported at the time.

Family voting is a direct assault on two important principles. The first is that each and every voter must be able to cast their ballot on the basis of their individual beliefs and interests. The second is that those ballots should be cast in secret, without pressure or oversight. These two principles are fundamental to the functioning of British democracy. That we live in a country where we have been able to take these things for granted is no small achievement, but it must be defended vigorously. Any practice that results in husbands instructing their wives how to vote, or allows fathers to instruct their daughters how to vote, is an insult to the liberties enjoyed by women in this country, and it must not be allowed to stand, yet this Labour Government have turned a blind eye. They have rejected Conservative proposals to strengthen enforcement of the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023. Indeed, they are scrapping guidance to local councillors and councils about how to stop family voting. Our proposed new clause 62 would help to tackle this catastrophe.

Another favoured tactic of sectarian candidates is the use of foreign language in their campaign material. To return to the Gorton and Denton by-election, during the campaign, the Green party published leaflets in Urdu telling voters that if they wanted to

“give the Muslims a strong voice, give your vote to the Greens.”

Depressingly, this is far from the only example, although it is one of the most reprehensible.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Katie Lam]

When I have finished this point, I will give way. It should terrify all of us that election material in our country is being produced in a foreign language and designed to drum up support among a particular religious community. Not only does this contribute to a culture of group-based grievance politics, but it makes it impossible for the vast majority of the British public to scrutinise what candidates are saying.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I wonder whether the shadow Secretary of State sees a certain irony in attempting to legislate for linguistic purity in a language that, for over a millennium, has borrowed vocabulary ad hoc from other languages, such as Italian, Latin and French, and in a Bill that talks about elections, referendums, vetoes and manifestos. There is perhaps more than a little hint of irony in what she is proposing.

[Katie Lam]

The fact that English takes words from other languages does not mean that an English voter, or indeed any British voter, would be able to read election material in Latin. The point is that our voters must be able to understand the election literature that is being produced, and if it is not produced in a language of the British Isles, they cannot.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Could the hon. Lady confirm to the House whether the Conservative party has ever published election leaflets in particular constituencies or wards in languages other than English? I have a vague memory of seeing Conservative party election literature in community languages during elections in various parts of the country, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) has memories of that as well.

[Katie Lam]

Our proposal is clearly intended to be one rule for everybody. The Conservative party position is that all election literature should be produced in the languages of this country.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Katie Lam]

I have given way on this point twice.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

[Katie Lam]

I will. [Interruption.]

[Paul Holmes]

Seeing as this is my amendment, I think I am allowed to intervene to speak on it. I welcome the shadow Secretary of State to her position, and I know she will agree that the reason why we tabled this amendment was that the Green party’s leaflet said, “Punish the Labour party for Gaza—vote Green.” It has every right to say that, although I would argue that it is divisive, but can I assist the shadow Secretary of State by saying, in response to the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), that it is Conservative party policy not to produce election literature in a language other than English during the short campaign, and that the Conservative campaign headquarters dismissed some of our candidates for doing so?

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie Lam]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way for a constructive question?

[Katie Lam]

I will give way one final time on this point.

[Luke Taylor]

I thank the hon. Lady for her patience. Does she see the conflict between addressing problems with family voting, which may well be caused by members of a family not having English as their first language, or as a language at all, and therefore needing to be informed in a language that they are comfortable with, and taking steps to restrict information being produced in a language that enables a family member to understand the arguments that are being made in an election? We can all agree that understanding the English language, which the vast majority of us speak, learning it and having access to it is important for integration, but does she not agree that these measures will have two conflicting outcomes? One is to restrict communication with all members of a family; the other is to ban their influence.

[Katie Lam]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I understand his point, but it is a deep, frightening and fundamental problem if we have people in this country who cannot operate in the shared language of our nation. I understand what he is saying, but there are two possible ways to deal with that problem, and I believe that the one he is suggesting will ultimately be deleterious to our nation and our democracy. We must make a choice—I think that is part of the point he is making—and I am making a different choice.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Katie Lam]

I have given way many times on this point, and I would like to make some progress.

The fundamental point about producing election literature in English or another language of the British Isles is that the public must be able to scrutinise what candidates are saying. We must put a stop to election literature in foreign languages once and for all. We have therefore tabled an amendment that would require that campaign material published during the regulated election period is not promoted or published in a foreign language. Instead, campaign material must be published in English or another native language of the British Isles. Those who engage in our democratic process must do so in the common language of public life—that much is the bare minimum.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I begin by welcoming back the Secretary of State to her place. I very much look forward to working opposite her.

As Conservative Members have set out so well throughout the passage of the Bill, this legislation professes to strengthen our democracy, but our democracy is not strengthened by proposals rushed through with too little time for proper scrutiny. Our democracy is not strengthened by allowing candidates to campaign in foreign languages, and to escape accountability as they build campaigns based on group-based grievances.

I was amazed to see on Report the reaction on the Government Benches to the Conservative policy that election campaign materials should be produced only in English or in native languages of the British Isles. An election is a fundamentally important part of our conversation. It should be a matter of universal agreement that that conversation should happen in a language that everybody can understand. Our democracy is also not strengthened by allowing men in particular communities to direct how the women in their families vote, or by making it difficult for our citizens overseas to cast their ballot.

As I said on Report, when we make changes to the way our democracy functions, those changes must always be designed to make sure that the British people can better hold their representatives accountable, that would-be representatives can meaningfully put their case to the British people, and that our democratic process is conducted according to the national norms and practices that have made this country such a successful democracy for so long. Given the importance of those aims, any such changes must be developed and proposed carefully and thoughtfully. The Bill fails those tests.

Conservative Members will always remain open to measures designed to genuinely strengthen the integrity of our democracy, to protect our democratic process from foreign influence and to ensure that our hard-won and dearly held liberties are extended to every citizen of this country, wherever they may be. Those duties are incumbent upon all of us as elected representatives of the people. We do not believe the Bill before us reflects them, and we will oppose it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the hon. Member for prior notice of her point of order. Unfortunately, or fortunately for the Chair, I am not responsible for the content of speeches of Members, Secretaries of States or shadow Secretaries of State. It is up to them to be responsible for the content of their speeches. The shadow Secretary of State may wish to respond as I notice that she is in the Chamber. We do not wish to prolong the debate, but a quick response would suffice.

[Katie Lam]

It is an established fact that observers reported widespread concerns about family voting at the by-election that returned the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) to the House. It is up to every Member, and to the public, to decide what to do with that information. The hon. Lady is within her rights to dismiss it, but I do not.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I do not wish to prolong the debate but both points have been put on the record. I will leave it there.

Legacy of Jo Cox

Katie Lam Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is lovely that she, a fellow Yorkshire MP, is with us today. I absolutely agree with her. We can reflect on that time in 2016—to me, a lot of it is a blur—but to say that Brexit was responsible for Jo’s murder would be simplistic and untrue. There is one individual who committed that heinous crime: a far-right neo-Nazi, whose evil act was his and his alone. However, things do not happen in a vacuum, and we cannot ignore the broader social and political atmosphere that surrounded it. Toxic rhetoric, scapegoating and the dehumanisation of opponents all contributed to a society under immense strain.

Words matter. The language we use in politics matters, because language shapes culture and culture shapes behaviour. When people are constantly told that others are traitors, enemies, invaders or threats to the nation, eventually some individuals begin to believe that hostility and violence are justified. Tragically, we have seen that again in recent weeks and days. We must all call it out. That is why remembering how and why Jo was killed matters so deeply. If we reduce her death to an isolated act, we learn nothing. If we refuse to examine the environment of anger and polarisation that surrounded it, we fail both her memory and our democracy.

Sadly, a decade later, many of the same forces are still with us—perhaps even stronger. Today, polarisation dominates public life. Across politics, media and online platforms, people are increasingly pushed into opposing camps. Nuance disappears, and every issue becomes a battle. Every disagreement becomes moral warfare. We see a growing blame culture in Britain. When the economy struggles, when public services let us down, when communities feel left behind, someone must be blamed— migrants, politicians, the poor, the rich. The young blame the old, the old blame the young, cities blame rural communities, rural communities blame cities, and through all of that we risk losing sight of our shared humanity.

Social media algorithms reward outrage, because outrage keeps people engaged. News cycles thrive on conflict, because conflict generates clicks and views. Politicians can gain more support more easily by telling people who to fear than by offering difficult and complex long-term solutions. This constant division creates loneliness, mistrust, resentment and cynicism. It makes people feel unheard and angry. It encourages us to see one another not as fellow citizens, but as opponents to be defeated. That is dangerous for any democracy. A healthy society cannot survive if its people stop believing in one another.

I also want to pay tribute today to Sir David Amess—another colleague and friend to many in this place—who was murdered by an Islamist extremist in 2021. His family and friends have been very much in my thoughts in recent weeks. We cannot allow ourselves to be divided by the evil actions of ideological extremists, whatever sick views they are peddling. So the question becomes: what do we do about it? How do we honour the memory of Jo, not just with words, but with action?

In the past 10 years, we have seen an abundance of action in Jo’s name. In the face of the worst of humanity, we have seen the very best of it, in so many ways, including of course through the work of the Jo Cox Foundation—the charity set up by Jo’s family and friends in the months after she was killed. It works on issues as diverse as the protection of civilians in conflicts, such as in Syria; the promotion of women in all aspects of public life—it is great to see so many sisters here today; on loneliness and isolation; and on the related work to build closer and stronger communities at home and abroad.

The trailblazing work that Jo started on loneliness resulted in the world’s first ever Minister for loneliness—my good friend and colleague, Tracey Crouch—and the first ever Government strategy on loneliness. The UK is still seen as a world leader on this really important subject, and I strongly urge the Government to update the cross-departmental strategy to ensure that we do not lose that reputation.

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

I am sorry to say that I did not know the hon. Lady’s sister, but she sounds like a remarkable woman. I am one of two sisters, and I recognise very much from growing up the sort of family structure that the hon. Lady describes. What a testament it is to Jo as a person that, having grown up in such a family and known what the opposite of loneliness is—what companionship and family are—she thought first of people who did not enjoy that. That is a real testament to the person she was.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. That is a testament to Jo’s empathy—something that we could all learn from in this House.

I think about what happened in Jo’s constituency of Batley and Spen after she was killed. An amazing group of volunteers came together under the “more in common” banner to ensure that our community was not torn apart by Jo’s murder. It is a non-political group made up of people from a wide variety of backgrounds who, on the surface, may appear to have very little in common. It is a strange and somewhat dysfunctional family, but it works. We have seen groups like it across the country, and they achieve some fantastic things, which Jo would have loved. The Great Get Together is at the heart of this work, and the perfect opportunity to demonstrate the “more in common” ethos in action.

Oral Answers to Questions

Katie Lam Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I am always happy to listen to suggestions from the right hon. Gentleman and ensure that he gets a response. I reassure him that housing targets reflect the baseline of local housing stock, but I will ensure that he gets the letter he has requested.

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

2. What discussions he has had with the Mayor of London on the rate of house building in London.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

The Mayor of London and I discussed the rate of house building in London as soon as I came into office at the beginning of September last year. House building in London is flatlining because the previous Government failed to take action when it was clear that it was happening from 2023 right across the country. Last October, the mayor and I launched a joint stimulus package to increase house building in London, and we and our teams remain in regular contact to ensure that we can get on and build the new housing that Londoners need.

[Katie Lam]

The Secretary of State mentions a countrywide problem, but numbers of housing starts in London are particularly pitiful. There were only about 370 new starts for every month of last year, which is the lowest level for almost any region for any year that I have been alive. There are nearly six times as many starts in the south-east, even though the housing crisis there is exported from London. It would be good to hear a little more about exactly what the plan involves, what number of starts the Secretary of State expects to see this year, and, if that target is missed, what will happen next.

[Steve Reed]

Because of the time it takes between submitting an application and getting spades in the ground, we are seeing the tail-end of what was going on under the previous Government. We have already changed planning legislation and passed the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which will dramatically speed up the planning process to get more housing through the system faster, lowering the cost for developers of getting those homes built. We have made changes to the national planning policy framework to speed up house building in and around London and across the rest of the country, and we expect to see that upturn over coming months.

Property Service Charges

Katie Lam Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on securing this debate in the House. Earlier this year, I wrote to hundreds of residents across the Weald of Kent to get a better understanding of how property management companies operate across our home. What I discovered was very worrying and, as many Members here will recognise, it is an all too common story. To date, I have heard from nearly 100 people across 11 estates all complaining about their property management company FirstPort. The pattern is as depressing as it is predictable: steep and unexplained increases in service charges, slow and inadequate responses to maintenance issues, and a serious lack of accountability and transparency.

Let me share a few examples. Constituents in Yalding and Headcorn have told me that they face a 70% and a 40% rise in their management fees respectively. Those are not minor uplifts, and nobody can tell them clearly what they are paying for. I understand that costs are rising not least for things like insurance, but at the very least, hikes like that should be clearly explained. Constituents in Marden and Kingsnorth have documented cases where no maintenance at all was carried out for months, despite repeated chasing—grass not cut, lights not fixed and rubbish not cleared—and yet the bills keep coming.

Finally, constituents in Tenterden and Coxheath have told me that it is beginning to affect the value of their homes, as my hon. Friend mentioned. Some have said that their properties are becoming unsellable because buyers will not take on the liability of these charges and this management. In one case, two sisters are trying to sell their late father’s flat. He bought it for £150,000 and they now cannot even sell it at £60,000. At auction, the price has fallen below £20,000. They told me that local estate agents refuse to list it because of the fees associated with managing the property.

Much of this is part of a wider pattern. Many residents on these estates pay twice for what most people would regard as the same basic services. They pay full council tax to their local authority, as everyone does, but on a growing number of estates, the council has not taken over the roads, street lighting or green spaces and therefore does not maintain them.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

To that point about councils not having yet adopted such things as the roads or pavements, I have the example of Pebble Beach in Seaton where I represent, where residents have been charged fees and even threatened with legal action before the estate has been handed from the developer to the property management company. Has she come across that, too?

[Katie Lam]

I am afraid so, and fairly regularly in fact. The legal action that the hon. Member mentions is important to reflect on because it can in some cases be deeply distressing and seem very aggressive for people just trying to get what they have already paid for, which in some cases does not even exist yet.

Residents are required to pay a second set of charges on top of the council tax to a private management company, such as FirstPort. They pay council tax for street lighting and then they pay a private company for street lighting. They pay council tax for maintaining the verges, and then they pay again for someone to cut the grass—except of course in many cases the grass is not cut. In these situations, the homeowner has almost no practical leverage. The council says, “It is private land”; the management company says, “You are contractually obliged to pay us anyway”; and the person who lives there, who cannot simply switch provider and who must disclose the charges when they come to sell, is left with little ability to challenge poor value. People are paying more and getting less. There is a continuing lack of transparency, with residents routinely denied a proper breakdown of charges, not given meaningful answers and, in some cases, not even given the dignity of a reply.

FirstPort is one of many property management companies that have been allowed, in some respects, to conduct themselves with impunity, largely because local residents have almost no consumer power or transparency. I have met representatives of FirstPort, and they assure me that the company is changing and improving. I very much hope that this is true. But, in case that does not happen, the last Government took important steps to address this through the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024.

The purpose of the Act is to give residents clear information about what they are being charged and why; to widen access to redress when something goes wrong, which is crucial; and to ensure that disputes with management companies can be resolved fairly. But residents will not see those benefits until all the secondary legislation is brought into force, guidance is published and management companies are given a clear expectation that they will need to comply.

I caution the Government against assuming that the answer might be to layer on fresh regulation or to draft a new Bill. I encourage the Government to accelerate the implementation of those elements of the Act. My constituents do not want to wait, say, another year to see itemised, comprehensible service charge bills and prompt access to redress. They accept that the streetlights must be maintained, the gutters cleared and insurance bought—they know all of that costs money—but what they will not accept, and nor should they, is paying more for less with no answers and no accountability.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Katie Lam Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I believe I am the first member of my party speaking in this place to welcome the Minister to his new place. I look forward to working across from him, socks and all.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), the Petitions Committee and the members of the public who signed the petitions before us today. The hon. Member is right to note that there are many different strands to the issue. This evening, I will speak about the proposed changes to ILR qualification for the skilled worker visa.

Over the past 30 years, millions of people have immigrated to Britain. The level of migration to this country has been too high for decades and remains so. Every election-winning manifesto since 1974 has promised to reduce migration. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has said, the last Government, like the Governments before them, promised to do exactly that. Like the Governments before them, they failed to deliver.

[Peter Swallow]

On that point, will the hon. Lady give way?

[Katie Lam]

I will make a little progress first.

It is particularly concerning that the vast majority who have come to Britain in the last few years, including many of those on the skilled worker route, are unlikely to contribute more in tax than they cost over their lifetimes through their use of public services and state support. As things stand, the lifetime cost of the recent wave of migration is set to be hundreds of billions of pounds. It is one of the biggest scandals in British politics and most people, including the Prime Minister, now acknowledge that the accelerated migration of the last few years was a profound mistake. When we make a mistake and have the power to reverse it, it is right that we do so. We absolutely have the power to reverse this particular mistake, and that would start by changing the rules on indefinite leave to remain.

At the moment, after just five years, most migrants can claim ILR, allowing them to stay here indefinitely, access state support and begin the path to citizenship. My shadow Home Office colleagues and I have repeatedly argued that the qualifying period should be extended from five years to 10, but that alone is not enough. No new visa should be issued to, no new ILR status should be granted to, and existing ILR status should be revoked from, those who have committed a crime, accessed state support, or are unlikely to contribute more than they cost. Those who have no legal way to stay here would then need to leave. That is how immigration works.

Many hon. Members in this debate have commented on the fairness and perceived fairness of retrospective rule changes to those who have come here. That point was made in opening by the hon. Member for South Norfolk and by too many other hon. Members to list. We can feel great personal sympathy for such people, but our primary, indeed our only, fundamental responsibility is not fairness to foreign nationals but fairness to the British people. It is our sacred duty to put them first, and to act in their interests and their interests alone.

[Peter Swallow]

The hon. Member is setting out a powerful argument, but she has not touched on the BNO visa route. As I mentioned earlier, that route was introduced by the previous Government with support from the Labour party. I ask her to be really clear. She talked about mistakes from the previous Government. Is she now saying that that route was a mistake, or will she take this opportunity to recommit her party to the Hong Kong community, to whom, after all, we owe that historic commitment?

[Katie Lam]

Our suggested reforms do not apply to Hong Kong BNO visa holders. That is a specific route set up for extraordinary purposes. We believe it should be viewed and treated differently.

Implementing our policies in full would save the British taxpayer hundreds of billions of pounds. It would relieve pressure on our already stretched public services and lay the foundations for an immigration system that genuinely works in the national interest. More than that, it would give effect to the democratic wishes of the British people by reversing a costly disaster that nobody voted for and that most people now acknowledge was a catastrophic mistake. I urge the Government in the strongest possible terms to commit to implement the changes that we have repeatedly proposed, including by applying any changes to ILR to those who are already here.

A five-year visa does not confer a right to apply to settle here indefinitely. Those who come here must make a genuine and sustained contribution to our country, and unfortunately most of those who have come on the skilled worker route in recent years are unlikely to do so. If, as the Prime Minister says, our “open borders experiment” has been a mistake, why should British taxpayers be saddled with the cost of that mistake for the rest of their lives?

Finally, although I do not agree with the argument made by the petition on skilled worker visas, I believe that that process should be subject to an open and frank public debate.

[Mr Perkins]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Katie Lam]

I am closing; I apologise.

Will the Minister confirm that applying any changed rules to those already here will be within the scope of the Government’s planned consultation on ILR? Will he commit to ensuring that that consultation is open to responses from members of the public?

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister, and congratulate him on his new position.

Oral Answers to Questions

Katie Lam Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am very fond of the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that, characteristically, he has got this one completely wrong. The 1.3—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) give me time to answer? The OBR estimated that our changes to the national planning policy framework alone will increase house building to 1.3 million. That does not take into account the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and the other changes coming forward. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) is simply wrong. We are on course for 1.5 million homes in this Parliament.

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

3. What steps she plans to take to support house building in London.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

15. What steps her Department is taking to increase the supply of housing.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

Our country is in the midst of a housing crisis, decades in the making. As our plan for change set out, the Government are committed to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. We have already taken decisive action to increase the supply of new homes, with bold reforms to the planning system and the launch of the new homes accelerator programme, which will unblock thousands of homes stuck in the planning system. In the spring statement, we announced a £2 billion down payment to deliver up to 18,000 new social and affordable homes, and we are investing £600 million in training for new construction jobs.

[Katie Lam]

Demand for housing is greatest in London, which is where the economy most needs new homes. Building in London means less pressure on commuting infrastructure and house prices in places like rural Kent, but the housing targets for London have been cut. The Government justify that by saying that London has

“the biggest proposed percentage increase against delivery”.—[Official Report, 12 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 1067.]

Why is the right hon. Lady rewarding the London Mayor’s failure to build Britain’s most needed houses with lower targets?

[Angela Rayner]

We are asking London to deliver record levels of house building. Our revised standard method sets the housing need for London at nearly 88,000 homes per year. The previous Government artificially boosted targets for London using an extra 35% urban uplift. That resulted in a target of nearly 100,000 homes—a third of the previous national target—which could not be justified. The London Mayor has started building more new council homes than at any time since the 1970s. He is getting on with building homes while the Tories have failed and are the blockers.

Community Engagement Principles and Extremism Definition

Katie Lam Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

Again, I am afraid I cannot pre-empt what the Home Secretary is about to say, but the hon. Lady will have the chance to put that point to her soon. In our community strategy and our attempts to ensure that communities are resilient ones where people can live together in harmony, we are of course considering what was said in Dame Sara Khan’s review, and one of the underlying causes that she raised concerns about was austerity. We need to make sure that we have well-resourced public services. We also need to ensure that people do not feel that there is any division in the allocation of resources that is in some way targeted against them. We know that that should never be the case and would never be the case, so of course we are considering that as part of our communities work.

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

The independent review of Prevent, the Government programme that tries to stop people being radicalised by extremist views, said on its very first page that

“the facts clearly demonstrate that the most lethal threat in the last 20 years has come from Islamism, and this threat continues.”

The last Government knew this to be true. Do this Government?

[Alex Norris]

This Government have taken on the independent review of Prevent, and 33 of its 34 recommendations have been implemented. We are engaged in the counter-extremism sprint, and our counter-extremism strategy will flow from it. The hon. Lady will have a chance to see that.

Employment Rights Bill

Katie Lam Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for letting me make not just my first contribution to this House, but the first contribution from the newly formed constituency of Weald of Kent. My predecessors are illustrious: William Hart Dyke helped invent tennis, Charles Barnett was a first-class cricketer, and Edward Percy Smith was a scriptwriter like me, penning the Hammer Horror hit “The Brides of Dracula”. We even have a Prime Minister in our history: Benjamin Disraeli began his parliamentary career representing a patch of Kent that includes the village of Linton, which is now in my constituency. However, only one of my predecessors, Ann Widdecombe, can boast Britain’s highest honour: an appearance on “Strictly Come Dancing”. [Laughter.]

Two of my most recent predecessors have left this place. Damian Green and Damian Collins both worked doggedly for the area and for the country in government—Damian Collins especially in the field of digital, culture, media and sport, the Select Committee for which he chaired for many years, and Damian Green with senior roles in government, all the way up to First Secretary of State. Both served my constituents with distinction, and on their behalf, I would like to say thank you.

I am not the first politician in my family. My grandmother came to Britain in 1937 at the age of 13 as a refugee from Germany. Her grandfather, Paul Heide, was a state senator and a fierce critic of the Nazis. When Hitler came to power, the whole family were arrested and stripped of their citizenship. After years in prison, Paul jumped out of the window of his second-floor cell and made it to Czechoslovakia despite his broken ankle. There, the family set up a resistance radio station broadcasting back over the border, until one night they were raided by the SS and one of the operators was shot dead. They managed to escape, and fled to England and freedom. My grandfather’s family were far less fortunate: Jews from Amsterdam, almost all of them were murdered in Sobibor and Auschwitz. One of them was eight years old.

My grandparents’ stories helped make me who I am, so even as a small child, I already knew the power of politics. It is an honour to take my place in Parliament, to serve my constituents and this country—the country that saved my family and saved the free world—but freedom does not come for free: it must be fought for. Every time I come into this Chamber, I see the shields that surround us and think of our country’s sacrifice. Colonel Victor Cazalet, whose shield is on the other side of the Chamber, lived in Cranbrook in my constituency. He had already served with distinction in the first world war, receiving the Military Cross for gallantry in 1917. He was killed in an air crash in world war two, as was Commander Rupert Brabner, whose shield is a few places further down. Commander Brabner was the Member for Hythe, a constituency that borders my own, and an ace Royal Navy pilot awarded the Distinguished Service Cross. We will remember them.

The weald of Kent has played its part in our nation’s sacrifices. Headcorn aerodrome operated in the second world war as RAF Lashenden, at the same time as Benenden school was converted for use as a military hospital, and Coxheath was once the British Army’s largest training ground. The constituency may be new, but the Kentish weald is anything but: Appledore was raided by the Vikings in 893, and the Archbishop of Canterbury had his palace at Charing as far back as the year 900. Enriched by ironmaking in Biddenden and clothmaking in Marden and Staplehurst, today the weald of Kent boasts hundreds of square miles of the most gorgeous countryside, surrounding two delightful towns—Tenterden and Cranbrook—as well as over 100 of Britain’s most charming villages, many 1,000 years old or more. From Aldington to Yalding, every one of the weald of Kent’s 56 civil parishes is a rural jewel. The area is awash with medieval churches, cricket clubs, intricate gardens, and a mosaic of farms growing the nation’s food—and now, vineyards growing the very finest British wine.

Do not take my word for it: the glory of the weald of Kent has been immortalised in films, books and television shows. H.E. Bates was inspired by his home, Little Chart, to write “The Darling Buds of May”, and the TV adaptation was filmed in Pluckley and neighbouring Bethersden. Godmersham Park was the inspiration for Jane Austen’s “Mansfield Park”, while Agatha Christie fans will know Chilham as the backdrop for episodes of “Poirot” and Smarden as a television stand-in for Miss Marple’s home, St Mary Mead. The steam train in the opening shot of “Downton Abbey” is the Kent and East Sussex railway, rolling from Rolvenden to Wittersham Road, and one of my favourite films, “Kind Hearts and Coronets”, shot its countryside scenes in Boughton Monchelsea.

Lastly, I should like to give a few personal thanks. First, I thank hon. Members on the Government Benches, for it was while delivering leaflets for their party that Grandma and Grandpa Lam met in the late 1940s. Had the Mill Hill Labour Club never existed, neither would this Conservative. [Laughter.] Secondly, I thank Alex, my family and my friends for all they have done for me. Thirdly, I thank the best Conservative association in the country. Finally, I thank the people of Weald of Kent who have sent me here to represent them. I will never look at the responsibility of being the Member of Parliament for Weald of Kent as merely a job; I will always treat it as an honour.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We now have another maiden speech. I call Sarah Smith.