Ayoub Khan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Jun 2026 · West Midlands Police: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for West Midlands Police. It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. As elected representatives we hold various obligations to our constituents, but I suspect that few are of greater importance than giving residents the right to feel safe in the places they call home. For that reason, we must do all we can to support the brave men and women of our police forces. This debate is more than about visible patrols that reassure parents taking their children to school, or swift responses to reports of crime. It is also about giving people the confidence that when something goes wrong, the police will deliver justice in a fair and proportionate way. In the west midlands, that basic promise has been undermined by years of budget cuts and neglect. Across the communities of Birmingham Perry Barr, where knife crime, antisocial behaviour and gang violence are constant concerns, residents are not seeing enough police on their streets. The figures tell a grim story: compared with 2010, West Midlands police has 520 fewer officers on duty, on top of the 520 fewer police community support officers.

• 16 Jun 2026 · West Midlands Police: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is far more learned than I am in this House, and he makes a very important point. Community policing is of course the optimum type of policing, and I will deal with that point later in my speech. To make matters worse, when we adjust for population growth, as we must, our area actually needs 640 additional officers compared with 2010. In real terms, then, we are not just 520 police officers and 520 police community support officers down; we are down by about 1,700 officers.

• 16 Jun 2026 · West Midlands Police: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is an amazing advocate for her constituency. She mentioned Operation Fearless, which produced amazing results in her constituency, and, as she rightly points out, I am fortunate that it is now being conducted in my Perry Barr constituency, where it has already had an amazing impact. But this should not be a postcode lottery; it should be spread across the whole region and across the country. I want to give some figures, because it is very important for the Minister to understand the level of deprivation and decline. In real terms, the west midlands region is short of 1,700 officers: 1,200 police officers and 500 police and community support officers. I suppose one could ask for additional police and community support officers, because we have not adjusted that figure for population growth. For far too long, the West Midlands police has been set up for failure by the Government’s funding allocation, which leaves the force around £43 million short every year. That shortfall risks a further loss of another 80 police officers, with the situation becoming so dire that the residents of Birmingham are being asked for an additional contribution through their council tax. They have already seen their council tax increase by 24% over the last three years, and now they are being invited to make good the shortfall by paying more, which simply is not acceptable. What makes this failure all the more disappointing is that few areas are seeing their police presence eroded at the same scale as ours. While the vast majority of forces have as many personnel, if not more, West Midlands police continues to be left far behind. For years, successive Governments have known the challenge we face. They know that the system needs reforming, and to date they have done nothing about it. The Public Accounts Committee, the Home Affairs Committee, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the chief inspector and even the previous Government all recognised that the formula is outdated and no longer fit for purpose, yet it remains in place. The Government’s new police reform White Paper was an opportunity to address the injustice; instead, it has become another missed opportunity. Although we welcome the steps to fix local government funding, the White Paper puts police funding reform—the single biggest obstacle to tackling crime in our area—on the back burner, with reports that change will not start until 2034. Police funding needs to be fixed, and it needs to be fixed now. Because many forms of crime, including violence against women and girls, are on the rise, the need for visible policing is becoming ever clearer. Since day one of being elected, I have been campaigning to put more police officers on our streets and make our communities safer. I am proud to say that after almost two years of hard work with West Midlands police, local organisations and residents, we have finally brought Operation Fearless to the Soho Road and Handsworth triangle area. That means more police officers on patrol, more arrests and a restored sense of safety for residents. Operation Fearless is about more than just numbers. It matters because it puts officers where people can see them. It shows what can be achieved when the police work with communities, listen to local concerns and act on the priorities that residents themselves identify. Most of all, it works because people notice the difference. If we want to know how well we are tackling crime, we need to know whether people feel safe. I am afraid that if people have become so desensitised to seeing antisocial behaviour, fly-tipping and any other crime that they no longer feel reporting achieves a result, that leaves them feeling vulnerable. That is not acceptable, and we must not let that happen. Operation Fearless must not be the exception. It needs to be part of a wider approach across the constituency in places such as Aston, Lozells, Kingstanding and Perry Barr, and, in fact, across the west midlands. People should not have to campaign for more than a year to secure the basic police presence that every community deserves. But we can have that only when the people of the west midlands finally receive their fair share, and it is on the Government to deliver change. At the same time, we must be clear that support for visible policing is not the same as support for prejudice in policing. The majority of my constituents have welcomed Operation Fearless, but that does not mean they accept draconian stop-and-search powers, racial profiling or predictive policing. I am glad to say that we have had discussions with our police officers about such issues, and they are very alert and receptive to our history, including the Handsworth riots. Our communities know what happens when policing is done to people rather than with them. Public safety depends on public trust, and if that trust is broken, everyone stands to lose. The Government must not only help the police to reduce crime, but tackle corruption in the force and prevent any miscarriage of justice. Many of my constituents have expressed concerns about the case of the Birmingham Four. In 2017, Ali, Hussain, Rahman and Aziz were convicted of terrorism-related charges after an operation conducted by the police. The police created a courier business and enticed the four men into working as drivers, using vans supplied by the police that were pre-fitted with surveillance equipment. I understand that even though little evidence of criminal activity was found after months of surveillance, the four men were nevertheless convicted and sentenced to life in prison. One concern raised by a member of one of the men’s families was that the entire case hinged on a bag containing incriminating items that was mysteriously found in Ali’s car on the first day he went to work, just an hour after he had given undercover officers access to the vehicle, and it is said that several more concerning revelations emerged during the trial. The undercover officers openly admitted to being accused of planting evidence in other cases, and later bragged about their “Oscar performance” while delivering evidence in court. Despite it being readily available, we understand that CCTV footage taken while an undercover officer was left alone with Ali’s car was withheld from the jury. There was no conclusive DNA evidence, no proof that the men had bought the items in the bag, and no sighting of the men ever having had the bag, yet each of them was sentenced to between 15 and 20 years—

• 16 Jun 2026 · West Midlands Police: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  Before the suspension, I was referring to the injustice felt in respect of the Birmingham Four. I did not do that lightly, but because of the demands of vigilance required. We all know about the Birmingham Six, who were wrongly convicted on the basis of police lies and spent 16 years in prison before being exonerated. The families of the victims and the wrongly accused are still demanding an inquiry into police failings and evidence suppression that occurred; to this day, that wait continues. Of course we need more police on our streets, but we also need policing that is accountable, transparent and significantly worthy of public trust. The people of Birmingham Perry Barr are not asking for any special treatment; rather, they are asking for fairness and the police officers they were promised when Labour came to power. As I have said before, delivering on promises of safer streets, faster responses and support for victims must not become a postcode lottery. In practice, the message from my constituents is very simple: fix the funding formula, restore the officers we have lost, expand visible community policing, confront corruption, and rebuild the public trust on which all effective policing depends. The west midlands must not be treated as an afterthought. My constituents deserve so much more, and I urge the Government to deliver now. Before I finish, I will just say this: we have an amazing West Midlands police and crime commissioner, who works with grassroots communities. I know that the Government have plans to get rid of police and crime commissioners, but I am certain that, in my area, the Mayor of the West Midlands cannot simply do two jobs. I encourage the Government to reflect on whether PCCs being left in post should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Belfast: Violent Disorder · Hansard source

  More

  May I wish you a happy birthday, Mr Speaker? I forgot to do that during Prime Minister’s Question Time. Let me also thank the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for her very balanced question. Of course we recognise and commend the efforts of the individuals who intervened on Monday to help the victim and of those in the emergency services, who were no doubt confronted with very challenging scenes last night. My question is very simple: will the Minister be considering the use of special courts to expedite matters by giving rioters harsh sentences to act as a deterrent?

• 9 Jun 2026 · North Belfast: Violent Attack · Hansard source

  More

  I echo the sentiments of other Members and send my thoughts and prayers to the victim of this horrific attack. May I also extend my gratitude to those in the local community who bravely intervened? We must all encourage calm at this most troubling time and prevent tensions from being further inflamed. To that end, does the Secretary of State agree that we must not let the heinous actions of one person be taken as an opportunity to taint an entire community? We should not and must not attempt to fill the gaps in the story while the police investigation continues to deliver justice to the victim and their family.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  I begin where every debate on this subject must: with the victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, like the brave women here in the Public Gallery. There are few crimes more devastating, and there are few duties more important for this House than ensuring that every perpetrator is identified, convicted and punished with the full force of the law. Let me be clear at the outset: I support the proper collection and publication of data that helps us to understand patterns of offending, to close gaps in safeguarding, to improve prosecution and to protect children. As a barrister, I believe in evidence. I believe in facts. I believe that the criminal justice system must follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of whether those facts are convenient or uncomfortable. However, I also believe that we must be honest about what some people are doing with this issue, because there is a difference between using data to protect children and using children as a shield for prejudice. There is a difference between seeking transparency and seeking a radicalised political weapon. I am afraid that around this petition and the wider debate, there are some who appear far less interested in victims than in validating their own hatred of ethnic minorities, Muslims, migrants and foreign nationals. That is not safeguarding. That is not justice. That is exploitation of another kind. We have to be incredibly careful here, because the facts simply do not support the narrative that some would like to peddle. The data currently collected by the police is undoubtedly incomplete, and I welcome serious efforts to rectify that, but it is simply not true to suggest that we are operating in an evidential vacuum. The Ministry of Justice already records ethnicity and nationality data for those convicted and held within the prison estate. Although more up-to-date figures would of course be welcome, the available data show that as of 2020, more than 88% of prisoners serving sentences for sexual offences with an associated child sexual abuse offence were white. Fewer than 6% were Asian and fewer than 0.5% had no stated ethnicity. That is a relatively complete dataset. On those figures, white men are significantly represented, yet no serious person in this House would argue that white people are inherently more likely to commit child sexual abuse because of their ethnicity, culture or background, and rightly so, because it would be obscene policy and an obscene politics to draw sweeping conclusions about communities of millions from the crimes of 16,000 of the most depraved individuals in our society. When people insist on doing exactly that to Pakistani, Muslim, Asian or migrant communities, they are not following the evidence; they are revealing a prejudice. They are not interested in protecting children; they are interested in blaming communities. That does not mean we ignore cases involving Asian men, Muslims, foreign nationals or anyone else; it means the opposite. It means we investigate all of it. It means we should prosecute all of it. It means we do not allow any community to hide behind discomfort, political embarrassment or fear of reputational damage. However, it also means that we reject the grotesque idea that rape, abuse or grooming are the product of select or even inferior ethnicities, religions or nationalities. These are crimes committed by human beings. They are rooted in power, misogyny, coercion and the exploitation of vulnerability. They are not committed only by Muslims, migrants and minorities—far from it. If we are going to talk about consistency, let us talk about consistency. When John Ashby raped a Sikh woman in Walsall, he did so while directing Islamophobic abuse at her because he believed she was Muslim. That was not incidental; it was part of the terror inflicted on the victim. Yet many of the very people who are usually desperate to talk about ethnicity and religion suddenly changed their view. They said rape is rape. They criticised media outlets for making it about religion. Suddenly, the victim’s identity and the hate-driven nature of the attack was cleansed and downplayed. But when the perpetrator is Asian, Muslim or foreign, those same people insist that identity is everything. That is not concern for victims. That is selective outrage. When the victim is from a minority community, they tell us not to mention her race or religion. When the perpetrator is from a minority community, they tell us that his race or religion explains the crime. That double standard should shame anyone who claims to care about justice. I say this plainly: celebrating or minimising the rape of a woman because she is Sikh or because she is presumed to be a Muslim, is vile. Denying the religiously or racially aggravated nature of such a crime is vile. It is not British. It is not patriotic. It is not about protecting women and girls. I support better data collection, but unlike some, I do so because I am consistent and because facts matter. I support it because bad data creates a vacuum, and that vacuum is filled by either denial or hatred. We should not tolerate either. The Government must ensure that ethnicity and nationality data is collected accurately, consistently and nationally. They must ensure that safeguarding agencies share intelligence properly. They must ensure that victims and survivors are believed, supported and protected. They must ensure that local authorities, police forces, schools, health services and prosecutors cannot fail children because they are afraid of asking difficult questions. The victims of child sexual abuse deserve better than to be turned into ammunition in a culture war. They deserve justice and, above all, they deserve honesty. They deserve a system that is brave enough to collect the facts and decent enough not to twist those facts into bigotry. Let us have transparency. Let us collect the data and let us publish what can properly and safely be published, but we must do it for the right reason—to support survivors and bring offenders to justice, not to feed hatred or attribute those crimes to certain communities. This is a problem that everyone in our society shares and one that we all bear. It belongs to all of us to prevent it, and it belongs to Members to confront it with facts, consistency and compassion.

• 18 May 2026 · Youth Justice · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome these fairly comprehensive proposals, which I hope will seek to help young people who are either in the criminal fraternity or on the cusp of entering it. We all know that prevention is better than a cure—the old adage, “idle hands become a devil’s workshop” comes to mind. In Birmingham, where a third of our population are under the age of 20, we have lost a significant number of youth centres. In 2011, there were 59; that number has reduced to 16. What will the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State do to address this, and will he join me in commending voluntary organisations such as Real Aston football club and the parents who are coming together to fill that vacuum and support our young children?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics · Hansard source

  More

  A former high-ranking member of Reform UK was convicted and sentenced to 10 and a half years in prison for accepting bribes to promote pro-Russian narratives, while some Members across the House have had direct foreign interference in their work in Parliament. Given that the Rycroft report highlights the fact that foreign interference in our politics is real and persistent, what additional steps can be taken to strengthen our democracy against foreign interference in political parties?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source

  More

  May I join Members in condemning the attacks last night on the four ambulances? In my constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr, antisocial crime is on the rise, yet since 2010, West Midlands police has had 520 fewer officers to tackle it. Now, thanks to this Government leaving a funding shortfall of £41 million, residents must either pay more council tax to fill the gap or lose another 80 police officers. Labour promised more police officers on our streets, and now they are pedalling backwards on their word. Why should the people of Birmingham, who have seen their council tax rise by 24% over three years, be squeezed even more to keep what little police presence they have?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Supported Exempt Accommodation: Birmingham · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. Often this comes down to adequate resourcing. As I described, we have a situation in which individuals who need intensive support are not being provided that support. They are being placed in neighbourhoods, which in itself is very challenging; someone might have an addiction to alcohol and be placed in a community where there is very little infrastructural support. It is vital not only that there is suitable accommodation but, more fundamentally, that we have the right level of support in and around particular areas. When we have large saturation without the support, the problems faced by many of my constituents and people in Birmingham more broadly are inevitable. That brings me nicely to the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, which was passed to resolve some of the issues that we are facing in Birmingham. It promised to introduce compulsory national minimum standards for exempt accommodation, including on referrals, care and support, and quality of housing. It promised to grant local councils the powers and resources needed to enforce such standards, and greater control over the licensing and planning permission given to providers. Since the Act received Royal Assent, however, it has been stuck in the consultation stage, with disagreements over how to implement it on the ground. While the Act shows no sign of taking effect, the expansion of exempt accommodation in Birmingham continues unabated. The Government seem intent on painting the situation in Birmingham as simply a local matter that is nothing of their making, and the council’s call for powers to regulate the concentration of these properties as some kind of nimbyism, and yet the city’s importing vulnerable individuals from other local authorities against the council’s will is what caused the explosion in the first place. While supported exempt accommodation plays an important role in housing vulnerable people, the concentration and volume of provision in Birmingham far exceeds local need. This is not something that the Government have not known about; in written evidence it submitted to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee in 2022, Birmingham city council confirmed that only 42% of properties were needed to meet local need, with much of the remaining 58% being used to house people referred through local authorities or national bodies outside the Birmingham area. In all too many cases, people are being put in exempt accommodation in Birmingham simply because it is available, with no afterthought for the relative level of support that tenants can be provided or for the impact on the local area. Worst of all, Birmingham city council knows that is happening, but the Government still have not given it the licensing powers to stop it. Inaction on the Government’s part has been glaring, but I am pleased that the same cannot be said of activists in my constituency. During my time as Member of Parliament for Birmingham Perry Barr, I have been encouraged by the tireless efforts of local groups to raise the issue, including the HMO Action Group, the Handsworth Triangle Action Group, the Soho Road business improvement district and Handsworth Helping Hands. I must also thank Birmingham city council and West Midlands police for mobilising in the way they have to try to tackle the crisis. A particular bright spot has been the council’s in-house SEA pilot, which we can safely say has punched well above its weight and made Birmingham better for it. With minimal Government funding, the pilot has recovered £8.8 million in overpaid housing benefit, while also completing 2,600 antisocial behaviour investigations. That is with only 21 people covering the entire Birmingham city area. We must think of what more can be done to reduce fraud and waste in Government spending by giving the council the means to expand that operation. The SEA pilot and groups of committed activists have done an incredible job to improve care standards for vulnerable people in supported exempt accommodation, where such action is needed, but they simply cannot fill the gap that the Government have allowed to grow. To make matters worse, rather than supporting them, the Government are refusing to fund the SEA pilot—its funding runs out next month. As a result, the bankrupt Birmingham city council has been left in an impossible position. It must either scrounge the money together to fund the initiative itself, or lose what little grip it had left on the situation. That point is worth repeating. After depriving the council of the powers to regulate the market for three years, the Government are now refusing to give it the means to provide even a band-aid solution to a problem that they are compounding. While assurances were given that the Government would respond to the consultation as soon as possible, we have been hearing that for a long time. This is not just about some additional antisocial behaviour taking place on the streets; it is about the vulnerable individuals who are being let down by the system, and it is about the residents who have paid the price for Government inaction and seen the character of their streets tainted. Residents feel that their neighbourhoods have been lost and, worst of all, they feel as though no one in Whitehall cares enough to solve the problem. This is not to say that there is no place for supported exempt accommodation in Birmingham, because it plays a pivotal role. When it works well, it changes lives. I have been to neighbourhood forums in my constituency and spoken to people who have turned their lives around because of the support they receive from their registered providers—people rebuilding their lives after serving prison sentences, suffering domestic abuse, leaving care, or combating debilitating addictions or mental health conditions. But without the efficient, effective and meaningful licensing scheme for supported housing that the council was promised three years ago, Birmingham is simply unable to cope. We are asking neighbourhoods to absorb extremely high numbers of people with complex needs, but we are not providing the council with the tools required to support those individuals or reassure residents, and inevitably it is only the vulnerable individuals and the residents around them who stand to lose. The problem of over-concentration is exacerbated by the inefficient support infrastructure that comes with it. The SEA pilot shows that when Birmingham is given tools, it delivers, but the city has more supported exempt accommodation than anywhere else in the country, and yet it does not have the corresponding level of funding, enforcement capacity, clinical provision or community-safety staffing required to manage the consequences. If someone requires 24-hour wraparound care, addiction services, psychiatric input and structured supervision, they need a properly funded care facility, not a standard residential property with light-touch oversight. We must distinguish individuals who are stabilised and ready for supported community living from those in acute crisis who require secure, high-support environments before they can safely transition into neighbourhoods. At present, that distinction is not being properly resourced and the result is unfair on everyone. It is unfair on residents who see behaviour that is deeply distressing and feel that their concerns are dismissed, it is unfair on vulnerable individuals who are placed in environments that do not meet the scale of their needs, and it is unfair on Birmingham city council, which is expected to manage the situation without adequate funding or authority. The council’s supported exempt accommodation pilot has demonstrated what can be achieved when resources are provided, but pilots and short-term funding are not enough. What Birmingham needs is sustained funding for community safety, including more community safety officers and a greater neighbourhood policing presence in areas with a high concentration of supported housing. I would be incredibly appreciative if the Minister could make the necessary representations to his colleagues in the Home Office on that front. The council needs the ability to manage concentration and set boundaries on the number of people from outside the city that it must house, because no neighbourhood should be asked to shoulder a disproportionate share of highly complex placements without the consultation, infrastructure and services to match it. When it comes to managing such complex matters, having an ineffective, watered-down licensing scheme is worse than having nothing altogether, because we end up with the same outcome at a higher cost to the taxpayer. I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on what can be done to ensure that the 2023 Act is implemented in a way that reflects the impact that exempt accommodation can have on neighbourhoods and community harmony. I would also be grateful to hear what is being done to increase the speed with which the Act is implemented, and clarification on when the Government will respond in full to the most recent consultation. Finally, the council needs the necessary powers to ensure that vulnerable individuals receive the best care possible. That means clarifying the extent of providers’ duty of care to their tenants, with tailored and specialist plans that not only provide personal support to the individual, but outline their obligations to ensure harmony with neighbours and the local community. To conclude, I have a couple of final questions for the Minister. What financial support do the Government intend to provide to Birmingham city council in its efforts to contain the local crisis that the Government’s prolonged inactivity has exacerbated? The SEA pilot, in particular, is of great value to my constituents, and it would be a real shame if it disappeared. Will he agree to meet with me and local groups so that they can convey to him the true scale of the impact that the oversaturation of SEAs is having on their neighbourhoods and communities? At the end of the day, this is about vulnerable people who need structured care, communities that need reassurance, and a local authority that cannot continue to carry a national burden without national support. Birmingham is not asking to step away from its responsibilities; it is asking for the means to fulfil them properly. It is my sincere hope that the Government will escalate their efforts to deliver exactly that.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Supported Exempt Accommodation: Birmingham · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) for her efforts in this debate—not just her contribution today, but her work in Parliament previously. I also thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) for his interventions. The hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) is not here, but we have had lengthy conversations and it seems that she is equally concerned, as are the other parliamentarians who represent Birmingham, about the sheer saturation of exempt accommodation. We all recognise the vulnerabilities of the individuals we all come across on a daily basis in our local shopping centres and hospitals, and the pressure on the West Midlands police when there are incidents. An enormous knock-on burden in Birmingham is being felt by local residents. Historically, many of the vulnerable individuals we now come across would not have been walking the streets. They would have been in care homes receiving the right level of care, but we do not see that now. I thank the Lib Dem spokesman and the shadow Minister for their contributions. As the Minister said, we are all essentially singing off the same hymn sheet. We all understand the importance of supported accommodation for those who can live with minimal support, integrate into society and contribute to local neighbourhoods. But unfortunately we are not getting that. Licensing and enabling the council to regulate the sector is so important. I hear the Minister, but I am afraid the phrase “as soon as possible” will not be well received by local residents who have to deal with the challenges on a daily basis. I accept that consultation with providers—especially those that do amazing work to provide support for vulnerable individuals who live in local neighbourhoods—is an important part of the process, but if there is going to be a delay because of the consultation, I would like the Minister to reconsider the SEA grant that is given to Birmingham city council. If licensing kicks in, let us say towards the end of the year, or even next year—whenever that may happen—the fact is that we do not have the capacity to deal with the problems that communities currently face. Will the Minister take that point away? I can see that I have gone over my allotted time, Ms Lewell. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered supported exempt accommodation in Birmingham.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister talks about what potentially might happen, but, with respect, that is almost scaremongering. Most of those people are hard-working citizens. Does the Minister not believe that that kind of language raises this spectre, which is precisely why we are having the debate? That kind of language does no justice to what is really happening in our migrant communities.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Warm Homes Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I especially welcome the fact that the plan will now ensure a degree of localisation and devolution when it comes to decision making, and hopefully it will get rid of the problems we saw with the previous Government’s scheme. Thousands of residents in my constituency have fallen victim to substandard work. The Secretary of State mentioned that there will be remediation. Will that remediation allow them to apply for the new scheme?

• 14 Jan 2026 · West Midlands Police · Hansard source

  More

  This is truly a sad day for British politics. Despite all the rhetoric in this House, Brummies know the truth: this is nothing but a witch hunt and the chief constable is being thrown under the bus. The Home Secretary knows all too well that West Midlands police have a reputation for working with all communities; it has never caved in to community pressure. We all know this because we regularly have far right protests and marches in our city. The police could have done a better job in terms of procedure, yes, but their reason for banning Maccabi fans was the same from day one. We all know about the unashamed racism and violence, and that is the reason they were banned, because that would have been brought to the streets of Birmingham—

• 14 Jan 2026 · West Midlands Police · Hansard source

  More

  The police did their job and now they are being punished for it, so I ask the Home Secretary: is it worth throwing our chief constable under the bus just to show that the words of the right-wing media and Dutch officials, under pressure from Amsterdam city hall, matter more than our British police?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a persuasive point about modelling and impact assessments. Having practised at the criminal Bar for the last two decades, I can tell the House that there will still be opening speeches by defence counsel and prosecution counsel, and there will still be cross-examination of witnesses. Most importantly, there is the questioning of the defendant. Judges understand the procedure, but defendants must also understand the procedure and closing speeches. I cannot see where there will be savings. That is why the modelling is so important. Does the hon. Member agree?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  A very valid point was raised earlier about triaging whether a case should have a jury trial. If a judge decides that the sentence would be less than three years, but after a trial in the absence of a jury it is decided that the defendant should get five or six years, do they have a right to appeal the decision and have a jury trial?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister tells the House that an insignificant number of cases will be impacted. If that is true, what is the point? I am sure he has heard the adage that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. It can only been done through jury trials.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Middle East and North Africa · Hansard source

  More

  Deep down we all know that there is no real ceasefire. How can it be a ceasefire when more than 500 civilian Palestinians have been murdered, approximately 100 of them children? We all celebrated the new year with family and friends with fireworks, while Israel Defence Forces soldiers celebrated new year by firing unlimited bullets into Gaza blindly. The level of depravity is unspeakable. We now know that 37 reputable organisations are being prevented from providing humanitarian aid. Here is one suggestion. We know that nine countries, along with the UK, expressed their concern. What stops the Minister and this Government joining with those nine countries and making a visit to the International Criminal Court to raise this matter, so we get a ruling and then enforce it, if necessary with military?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Criminal Court Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest as a practising criminal barrister. Before the Justice Secretary tears up clause 39 of Magna Carta, which guaranteed that no free person shall be imprisoned except by the lawful judgment of their peers, I ask him to consider that, when I was in the Crown court in Birmingham only a few weeks ago, a matter was delayed and adjourned because we did not have courtroom availability, so eliminating jurors will not solve the backlog in the way he has described, but it will erode public confidence in the principles that have protected our justice system for over 800 years. I accept that justice delayed is justice denied, but I am sure that he understands that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done, and that can only be done through juries.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Illegal Waste: Organised Crime · Hansard source

  More

  We have a serious fly-tipping issue in my constituency, but it is not just an issue in Birmingham Perry Barr; all of Birmingham has this issue because of the bin strikes. Residents are calling for CCTV cameras, but the city council says it has no funding available. I have two questions for the Minister. First, does she feel that the Labour-run city council should re-enter negotiations with the bin workers, given that agency staff are now also striking? Secondly, will this Government give additional resourcing to Birmingham city council for enforcement, such as CCTV cameras?

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for giving way. Does he agree that one of the most powerful lessons from Hillsborough, and indeed from the Grenfell Tower and Post Office scandals, is that truth delayed is justice denied? And does he agree that, while this Bill rightly places a duty of candour upon public authorities, it must also compel Ministers themselves to uphold that same duty when addressing this House, so that accountability begins at the very top? That includes the misleading information that was given from that Dispatch Box by his Minister last week in relation to the hooligan Maccabi Tel Aviv fans.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  As the Member of Parliament for the very area set to host this match and for the community whose public safety many Members of this House wish to play fast and loose with, I know the reality on the ground. I know that there has been a deliberate, disingenuous move by many to make this a matter of banning Jews, and to conflate matters of policing with those of religion. Just this morning, I saw a video of Jewish community leaders standing outside Villa Park saying that they too support the banning of this team’s fans, and I will release that video outside the Chamber. Those who are not welcome in Aston are the hooligans who have a long history of violence and vile racism, with chants like “f*** the Arabs”, “we will rape their daughters” and “there are no schools in Gaza because there are no children left in Gaza”. It is these hooligans who are not welcome. Can I ask the Minister how many millions of British taxpayers’ money her Government are offering to overturn the respected expert judgment of the West Midlands police and the safety group?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Criminal Courts: Independent Review · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. This independent review comes at a time when our criminal justice system is at breaking point. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this debate. As a member of the criminal Bar, I know the importance that many barristers out there place on this debate. We now know that Crown court trials could have a potential backlog of more than 100,000 cases by 2029. The review’s recognition of the need for significant reform is welcome, but restoring the criminal justice system cannot come at the expense of fairness, due process or the right to be tried by jury. I understand, as it is currently set out, that the proposal to create a new Crown court bench division would allow select cases that carry a sentence of up to three years in prison to be heard without a jury. Under the proposals, it would be the judges, not the defendant, who decide where a case is handled, and who therefore hold the power to potentially change the entire trajectory of a criminal case. Unless there is forthcoming evidence to show that this change creates additional capacity without distorting judicial outcomes, we surely cannot consider such an idea. The right to jury trial is, and should remain, a cornerstone of our justice system. For centuries it has served as a guarantee of public confidence and accountability. Any attempts to restrict or infringe upon that right should be approached with the utmost caution. Before we consider surrendering our core principles of jurisprudence, we should first seek out efficiency reforms in part 2 of Leveson’s review and postpone any changes to jury trial until such changes have been fully implemented. At the very least, we need the Government to make reassurances that such changes would be reversed as soon as the backlogs are cleared, and to confirm their belief that trial by jury remains the best way of administering justice in this country. In my view, removing trial by jury, even in complex or lengthy cases, risks undermining public trust, particularly among communities that already feel marginalised by the justice system. Non-jury trials should remain a measure of last resort rather than some administrative convenience. I clearly believe that this is not the right path to follow. I fear that we are being made to consider watering down our justice system because the Government fail to understand that, even with reform, we will not be able to change the reality on the ground without proper investment. Creating a new court division will not in itself solve the backlog; it will merely shift the pressure from one part of the system to another. Rather than sacrificing jury trials, we should be looking to solve things like the criminal legal aid system, which has been withering away thanks to years of chronic underfunding. Even with the Government’s recent £92 million commitment, more is required, especially if investment in one area comes at the expense of another. Another key priority must be to reduce demand on the courts themselves—for example, introducing a rebuttable presumption that certain groups of offenders, such as first-time offenders or those suffering from mental ill health or substance misuse, should in appropriate cases be diverted from the criminal justice system at the outset. In those instances, out-of-court disposals could deliver justice more swiftly, more proportionately and without mounting pressures on an already overstretched system. Finally, we cannot ignore the physical state of our buildings. Years of neglect have left our courts crumbling and have contributed directly to lost sitting days up and down the country. The House will always support positive reforms that make key improvements to our justice, but reform must be principled, evidence-based and properly funded. That is the only way to clear our backlogs, and the only way to restore the criminal justice system to the essential and reliable public service that it ought to be.