Preet Kaur Gill MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As we consider whether to put the Bill into law, we must reflect on our solemn duties, as legislators, to protect the wellbeing of our communities and safeguard them from harm. There has been much debate about giving people choice, about what happens in other jurisdictions, and about matters of faith and principle. I have heard from nearly 1,000 constituents, the vast majority of whom oppose the Bill for a range of reasons. I, too, opposed the Bill on Second Reading, and I set out my concerns, including those of principle, as well as major concerns about safeguarding. As a former children’s services manager with more than 18 years of frontline experience, I believe that, far from issues of safeguarding being improved in Committee, many of the provisions have actually been weakened. My concerns are similar to those of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith): the High Court-stage safeguard was removed from the Bill—fundamentally altering the basis on which Members voted on Second Reading—and the panels that replace the Court’s approval and the voluntary assisted dying commissioner who would oversee them are new and untested concepts. They would not have the powers or functions of a court or tribunal, they would not be required to question witnesses and they could not compel them to attend. The doctors who would assess people’s capacity and freedom to choose an assisted death would not give evidence under oath, and nobody would cross-examine them. The new assisted dying commissioner would run the assisted dying system and, at the time, be responsible for monitoring, investigating and reporting on its work, replacing the role previously given to the independent chief medical officers. The very definition of “terminal illness” has proved to be seriously flawed, because it would allow people with anorexia to qualify once their physical condition deteriorates. Amendments were tabled in Committee to introduce an enhanced test of a person’s mental capacity to make the choice to die. On Second Reading, hon. Members were assured that the existing law, in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, was tried and tested, yet in February the chief medical officer wrote to the Committee to clarify that there is no enhanced test for life and death decisions under this Act. The Committee also voted to allow a future Health Secretary to change at will the Act of Parliament that established the founding principles of our NHS—the language that first passed into law in 1946. The NHS was established “to secure…the physical and mental health of the people of England…and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness.” However, because that does not include assisting people to take their own lives, the Bill, as amended, now contains a power for those foundational words to be changed by secondary legislation. Following the Committee stage, I chaired a session titled “Committee of the Unheard” to hear from experts who had not been invited to give oral evidence in Committee. We discussed the impact of excluding family and loved ones, as is this Bill’s position. Importantly, the committee allowed us to explore issues around people with disabilities, people from other jurisdictions—specifically Canada—and black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. Had the Committee received that oral evidence, it may well have come to different conclusions. Finally, the Bill has highlighted the promise of choice. For choice to be real, there must be genuine options to choose from, but what has been highlighted is that palliative care provision is woefully inadequate, and that the worst served are also the most disadvantaged, from the most deprived communities. Worse, should the Bill come into force, the provision of palliative care is likely to be compromised if hospices have no legal right to opt out of assisted dying. No such opt-out is proposed in the Bill. That brings me back to our role as legislators. The question for us now is this: after all the consideration, can we be satisfied that our duties to protect people’s wellbeing and safeguard them from harm will be fulfilled if we pass the Bill? From everything that I have seen, heard and read, the answer must be no.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Air India Plane Crash · Hansard source

  More

  I am deeply shocked and saddened by the tragic Air India crash in Gujarat. My thoughts are with the victims, their families and all those affected in India and in the UK. Air India is an important operator for many of my constituents, especially for those in the Indian diaspora, and about 100 Air India flights arrive in Birmingham airport every month. What reassurances can the Minister give my constituents that the UK Government are supporting efforts to determine the cause of the Air India crash with our Indian counterparts?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Spending Review 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor, who visited Birmingham last week, knows that the west midlands region has the talent and ideas to thrive. A fair settlement in today’s spending review is not just support; it is a smart investment in Britain’s future. Over 26,000 people are on the housing register in Birmingham, so I thank her for doubling investment in the affordable homes programme. I also thank her for the announcement on the midlands rail hub investment, which I have been campaigning for. Does she agree that that will be transformational in delivering a decade of renewal and growth that works for everyone?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Bill because it finally lets local communities take back control. Communities in Birmingham Edgbaston and the Bartley Green, Harborne, Quinton and North Edgbaston wards that I represent will welcome its measures. I speak as the daughter of a bus driver—that time-worn political cliché—who was born and raised in her constituency and today still relies on the same No. 11 bus route. Those who, like me, have lived in Birmingham and the west midlands for decades have seen the decline of our bus services at first hand. Thanks to a failed Tory ideology, Britain has become one of the few places in the developed world to hand power to operators to slash bus services and to hike fares, with little say for the communities who depend on them. In Birmingham, our bus services are mostly run by private providers with an enhanced partnership with Transport for West Midlands. Over the years, I have exchanged many letters and had many meetings with one of the providers: National Express. I have campaigned to extend the X21 bus in Bartley Green, improving connectivity in our area. I surveyed Bartley Green residents on changes to the 23 and 24 buses, and have continued to fight to restore the iconic 48 bus route on which my constituents relied before it was rerouted. The problem remains that in a privately run bus network, communities have no democratic control over routes and feel shut out of the process. But the new powers in the Bill mean that that system is coming to an end. The Bill matters because buses are more than just a mode of transport; in some wards in my constituency, over 40% of households do not have access to a car. Buses services are a lifeline to thousands of people who need to get around for work or to go into town, see friends or visit their doctor—I would know, because I am a non-driver too. Poor services leave our communities feeling isolated and disconnected. The average life expectancy of a man can drop by seven years within nine bus stops in some parts of Birmingham. Opportunities within a city should be felt by everyone. But connecting people to those life chances needs a strong public transport network. That is what this Bill is about. My constituents’ complaints are too familiar: our buses are unreliable and frequently late. It is no wonder that 50% of Brummies choose to use their cars compared with 15% of people in London. In January, National Express put up our fares in Birmingham by 40%; last week, it put up them up again to the maximum £3 fare. The current system lets private operators set the terms. Finally, a Labour Mayor working with a Labour Government will franchise our buses, giving communities new powers to set routes, fares and services. Mayor Andy Street refused to take buses back under his control, but Richard Parker is changing that. Instead of subsidising the deregulated model with £50 million a year to ensure that services are not axed, he will take back control of fares and routes. Under his leadership, the franchising process will begin this year. Clauses 13, 23, 27 and 28 of the Bill will be pivotal to the combined authority plan. From 2010 until 2023, the miles clocked by buses across the west midlands dropped by a third. The promised upgrade failed to materialise, and in 2014 the last Government’s promise of a rapid transit scheme along Hagley Road in my constituency delivered only 300 metres of tramline in 10 years. Under this Government, we are already on the road to fixing our broken bus system. The new franchising powers are just the next step. The truth is that deregulation has meant little more than a race to the bottom for places such as Birmingham. Brummies have seen what forward-thinking leaders such as Andy Burnham have been able to do with the Bee Network in Manchester, and we want that too. We need this legislation and continued central Government funding to make that a reality. This Bill will help my community of Birmingham Edgbaston realise our ambitions. That is why I will be supporting it on Second Reading.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support the Bill and speak to new clauses 22 and 23 tabled in my name. The measures in the Bill will unlock the power of data to grow the economy, to improve public services and make people’s lives easier. By modernising the way in which consumers and businesses can safely share data, the Bill will boost the economy by an estimated £10 billion over the next decade. The Bill will also make our public services more efficient and effective, saving our frontline workers from millions of hours of bureaucracy every year, which they can use to focus on keeping us safe and healthy.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Kashmir: Increasing Tension · Hansard source

  More

  May I pay my respects to those who have lost loved ones in the horrific terrorist attack in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir? My thoughts are with them at this devastating time. Many of my constituents have written to me about the escalation of hostilities here in the UK. Can the Minister say what conversations he is having with Indian and Pakistani counterparts to address this situation?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Birmingham: Waste Collection · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for their support in addressing the public health concerns in Birmingham. As the Minister says, 26,000 tonnes of waste has now been cleared, and weekly collections will resume. I put on record my thanks to everyone involved in the clean-up, including many volunteers—they are the best of Birmingham. Does the Minister agree that it is right that the council resolves equal pay issues, with over 7,000 women now due compensation? That is precisely what the deal on offer does, while ensuring that no worker has to lose pay.

• 22 Apr 2025 · “For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the ruling from the Supreme Court and the Minister’s statement. The Supreme Court has been clear that “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex. The question now turns to how we make sure that the Equality Act is properly understood and implemented. How will the Minister ensure that public bodies, third-sector organisations, sports bodies, regulated sectors and so on comply with the Act, so that women’s safety, privacy and dignity are protected?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate · Hansard source

  More

  The news over the weekend that Jaguar Land Rover was pausing shipments to the United States was worrying for many of my constituents. JLR employs 9,000 people at its factory in nearby Solihull, and supports thousands of jobs in the wider supply chain. After the flip-flopping of previous Governments, this Government have acted decisively to give British car makers certainty and support in the transition to electric vehicles. Can the Minister confirm whether she is planning to build flexibilities into the mandate targets?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Israel: Refusal of Entry for UK Parliamentarians · Hansard source

  More

  This is an unprecedented situation, and I pay tribute to both my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) for the manner in which they have conducted themselves. I have visited Israel on many occasions, and I have had the opportunity to live there. While Members of this House may have disagreements with the current Israeli Government, does the Minister agree it is essential that we enable delegations to visit the region? That is the only way that we listen, learn and are exposed to a wide range of views and perspectives.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Birmingham City Council · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s statement. The Birmingham bin strike means that many of my constituents have not had their bins collected in weeks, and this week a constituent wrote to me to say that they had been bitten by a rat. I have been raising the public health situation and calling for the council to take emergency measures, so I do welcome the fact that it has declared a critical incident today. Does the Minister agree with me that it is unacceptable that Unite pickets have been frustrating the council’s contingency plans by blocking depots, and that it is time for Unite to accept the fair deal on the table? Seventeen people cannot hold 1.2 million Birmingham residents to ransom.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Spring Statement · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the Chancellor for her statement. Does she agree that the Conservative party does not understand the link between its total failure to build houses and infrastructure, which our constituents desperately want, and the economic constraints that we face today?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), to her role. It is a great pleasure to speak in the debate and to support this genuinely world-leading piece of public health legislation, which will help to consign smoking to the history books. Unless we act to help people to stay healthy, the rising tide of ill health in our society threatens to overwhelm our NHS. Paring back public health, as the last Government did, was the definition of penny wise, pound foolish. It is vital that we tackle the causes of ill health, not just the symptoms, so that we can save the taxpayer billions of pounds and, most importantly, save lives. We know that prevention is better than cure. As we have heard today, smoking remains the single biggest preventable cause of ill health in our country, causing 80,000 deaths a year. It is responsible for one in four cancer deaths, and it is a factor in over 70% of lung cancer cases. In my own constituency alone, nearly 12,000 people smoke. They are more likely to leave the workforce due to ill health. Many will suffer strokes, heart attacks and conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. On average, they will lose 10 years of life expectancy. However, the real tragedy is how many thousands of those smokers will have started when they were children, when they did not know any better, and have simply never been able to quit. Most smokers report wishing that they had never started, which is why it is incumbent on us all to support this legislation to help stop the start. According to ASH, in my constituency alone the cost of smoking exceeds £90 million every year, including £56 million in lost productivity, £4 million drained from the NHS and £30.7 million in social care. The costs of smoking to our society are enormous, and that is why it is time to stub it out. Even today, in 2025, hundreds of young people a day take the first drag of a habit they will never manage to kick, and will regret for the rest of their lives. I was proud to lead the Opposition’s response to the last Government’s Bill through Committee in the last Parliament and, as I said then, there is no freedom in addiction. It is a shame that the leader of the Conservative party allowed her ideology to blind her from that fact when she voted against the legislation in the last Parliament, and against this Bill in this one. Where the last Government failed to get their Tobacco and Vapes Bill over the line, this Government will get the job done. I am proud that the Government have vastly improved on the legislation that the previous Government drew up. First, the introduction of a new licensing regime to cover tobacco and nicotine products, including vapes, is hugely welcome. That was a key recommendation of the Khan review in 2022, which the last Government largely ignored and which retailers and the public overwhelmingly support, according to surveys conducted by ASH. The status quo, where there was no requirement to obtain a licence to sell those products, is a major gap in enforcement, particularly when we consider that the sale of alcohol is licensed, while nicotine and tobacco are not. Secondly, I am pleased that the Government are taking forward an amendment I tabled in Committee during the last Parliament, for the introduction of £200 on-the-spot fines for retailers selling products to under-age people. In 2019 to 2020, 50% of the councils that undertook test purchasing reported that cigarettes or tobacco products were sold to children who were under 18 in at least one of their premises. That proves that the current regime is not enough of a deterrent. The introduction of new on-the-spot fines, which are double the amount proposed by the previous Government, will be much easier to issue and much harder to ignore. Does the Minister agree with me that double the fine is double the deterrent? Thirdly, I commend Ministers on the action they are taking on vapes. Under the last Government, youth vaping trebled in two years. An estimated one in three vapes on the market were illicit, and products often contained harmful chemicals, heavy metals or even drugs. Gaping loopholes were left to sit on the statute book for years, putting children at risk. The promulgation of dangerous illicit vapes in shops, schools and on our streets is a real concern. Recently, in Birmingham, trading standards officers and the police led raids on retailers under Operation Cloud, when they seized nearly £6 million-worth of illicit vapes, tobacco and drugs. One raid alone, the biggest ever in Birmingham, clawed £1 million-worth of goods out of criminals’ hands. That shows the extent of the problem of the illicit market and the incredible job that council trading standards teams do to keep the public safe. I thank the Government for getting behind trading standards with a £10 million boost to support their work next year. In particular, I welcome the new Government’s introduction of clauses to this Bill to set up a testing regime for vapes, a proposal that I championed in the last Parliament. It is shocking that under the current rules, unlike with tobacco, there is no testing regime for vaping products. That means that dodgy products can be rubber-stamped by the British regulator and wind up on our shelves, undermining the valuable enforcement work that trading standards do to identify and seize un-notified products. As testing of vapes marketed at young people has shown, a significant proportion of vaping products are not what they say they are. Some market themselves as 0% nicotine when they are not, leading to accidental addictions; others contain harmful substances, such as heavy metals and even anti-freeze, as evidenced by research undertaken by Inter Scientific. That is why during the last Parliament I tabled amendments that would have established a new testing regime for vapes. Unfortunately, the Conservatives voted them down. I commend Ministers for introducing powers that the previous Government snubbed. Nearly 3 million people have quit smoking using vapes. Clearly vapes have a role to play in the transition to a smokefree future, but if they are to be used as stop-smoking aids, we need confidence that the products people buy are safe, which is what routine testing would do. Finally, I commend the Government on the amendments that have strengthened this Bill; they close the loopholes on vape vending machines and ban vape advertising, promotions and sponsorships. The new clauses will ensure that these products are kept away from the impressionable eyes of young people, so that the next generation are not simply substituting one nicotine addiction for another. There were significant holes in the last Government’s plan, and I am glad that the new Government are slamming them shut. The health crisis facing our country has never been confined to the running of its hospital wards, doctors’ surgeries and dental practices. We are a sicker nation, and that public health challenge needs confronting. Life expectancy was extended by three and a half years over the course of the last Labour Government, but in the 14 years under the Tories, it grew by just four months. In this Bill, we see the epitome of the future-facing approach that only a Labour Government can deliver. By stopping the start and ensuring that the next generation never develop an addiction to nicotine, we can protect their health and wellbeing and protect our NHS for many years to come.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Israeli-Palestinian Peace: International Fund · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) on securing the debate. I pay tribute to the thousands of Israeli and Palestinian peacebuilders, some of whom are here with us today. I thank them for their tireless and inspirational work, and the Alliance for Middle East Peace for all it does to give them a voice. They give us hope at a time when it is in such short supply. The past 18 months have been the most painful for the people of Israel and Palestine—on 7 October the worst massacre of Jews in one day since the holocaust, death and destruction in Gaza on an intolerable scale, and the torment of hostages held in chains for more than 500 days. The ceasefire must continue to hold, the hostages taken by Hamas must be unconditionally released, and desperately needed aid must be allowed to reach innocent Gazans. Out of the rubble of the conflict, we must vow to create the conditions for peace. Our goal has to be a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and independent Palestine. How do we get there? First, we have to learn the lessons from the past. For decades, diplomats and politicians have invested countless hours in trying to achieve peace from the top down. Each effort ultimately failed. Why? Because neither community felt that it had a real partner for peace. Without public support, even well-intentioned leaders cannot impose a lasting peace from the top down. We know from conflicts such as the one in Northern Ireland, most notably, that diplomacy can make a lasting difference, not just as a result of a top-down approach but from a bottom-up approach. I think of Middle East Entrepreneurs of Tomorrow, a pioneering summer school programme that has supported more than 800 Israeli and Palestinian young adults in learning computer science, social entrepreneurship and leadership skills. MEET is just one of hundreds of such programmes that have emerged since the signing of the Oslo accords. We know that they work. Just look at the data: 80% of participants in a dialogue project were more willing to work for peace, 71% reported more trust and empathy for the other, and 77% had a greater belief that reconciliation is possible. I commend the Prime Minister for his leadership. He has consistently supported that different path and his commitment in December to convene a summit in support of civil society peacebuilding is a vital first step. The United Kingdom has a unique opportunity: our experience of peacebuilding in Northern Ireland, our world-leading development expertise and the UK’s convening power mean that this is an area in which we can provide real leadership. When speaking about why the Obama Administration’s diplomatic efforts did not succeed in 2014, former US Secretary of State John Kerry said, “the negotiations did not fail because the gaps were too wide, but because the level of trust was too low.” Will the Minister provide an update on the preparations for the United Kingdom’s summit in support of peacebuilding? With the UK’s support in building peace from the bottom up by tackling the fear and mistrust that has only grown since 7 October, we stand a chance of learning the lessons of the past and making sure that the next effort at top-down diplomacy succeeds. We owe it to the people of Israel and Palestine.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q4. I was baffled on Monday when, given the chance to support legislation, backed by the National Crime Agency, to crack down on criminal smuggler gangs and secure our borders, Conservative and Reform Members linked arms in the voting Lobby to vote against it. The Conservatives spent three years and £700 million on their ludicrous Rwanda scheme, and saw four volunteers returned. Does the Prime Minister agree that there is only one party that is serious about repairing our broken immigration system?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome this important Bill, which will introduce new counter-terror-style powers to identify, disrupt and smash the people smuggling gangs. I take this opportunity to commend the Home Secretary on the work the Government have already done to remove foreign criminals and immigration offenders at the highest rate since 2018. By restarting asylum processing to clear the backlog and redeploying 1,000 staff to work on immigration enforcement, the Government have been able to deport more than 16,000 people, while the previous Government deported just four volunteers. I want to focus on an extremely important aspect of the Bill that has gone largely overlooked, and on which I have been campaigning for change. Clauses 43 and 44 will introduce new offences to clamp down on the rise of 3D-printed firearms, which is a serious threat. Such firearms present a new challenge to law enforcement because they can easily be made at home and are untraceable and undetectable by magnetometers in places such as airports and courthouses. While the UK has been successful in policing gun crime, law enforcement agencies have warned that they are underpowered to tackle this rising threat, so I am glad that the Bill addresses it. Birmingham, the city I represent, has regrettably become the gun capital of the United Kingdom, with nearly 600 firearm offences recorded in the West Midlands police area last year. In 2023, a local man was convicted of possession of a range of home-made assault rifles manufactured using a 3D printer in his home. That is why last year I introduced my Firearms (3D Printing) Bill, which would make it an offence to possess and share the blueprints to build these deadly weapons and to possess part of a 3D-printed firearm. I worked with Channel 4 and Middlechild TV on a documentary about this issue, and I was shocked to learn that files containing IKEA-like step-by-step guides to 3D print firearms at home can be downloaded from the web in as little as three clicks. That is putting the public at risk. I am therefore delighted that Ministers have wasted no time in closing this loophole, introducing much-needed legislation and backing my Bill. The horrors of the Dunblane massacre in the 1990s mean that the UK has got much right on gun control. Our constituents see mass shootings in other countries and are thankful for the strong gun controls we have here. However, that has never been a reason to be complacent, and the rise of 3D printer technology in recent years has presented a novel threat. Someone can buy a 3D printer for £150. As we saw in the Luigi Mangione case in the United States, 3D-printed firearms are not toys, but deadly weapons. Some might look like Nerf guns, but 3D-printed weapons can kill. In the United Kingdom, 3D-printed firearms are growing in popularity, with several cases in recent years. In 2023, a man from Bradford was held in possession of a FGC-9 home-made automatic sub-machine-gun, magazine and bullets. In May 2023, two men from Bradford and Hull were convicted of plotting to build and supply home-made weapons to criminal gangs. In the same month, National Crime Agency officers uncovered a factory in south London that was converting blank-firing guns into lethal weapons using 3D-printed parts. Earlier this year, an Islamist extremist was jailed for seven years after being found with instructions on how to build 3D-printed weapons. I mentioned the case in Birmingham, where a man was convicted of making assault rifles in his own home similar in size and scope to the AK47. The point of this legislation is to limit the accessibility of blueprints and prevent dangerous people using them to undermine gun control in the United Kingdom, and to send a strong message that the law will come down on those who want to do harm to our country. In conclusion, the Labour Government came to power promising safer streets. I am proud that we are taking stronger action to deliver on that pledge. In a weaponising world, legislation must keep pace with new technology and the rise of new novel threats. My call for a change in legislation has meant that those seeking to undermine our gun controls to commit criminal acts under the radar by downloading and sharing blueprints to make 3D-printed guns will now face criminal charges. I thank the Government for that. Finally, turning to other measures in the Bill, I commend the Government for taking a practical approach to Britain’s border security. The previous Government’s efforts were a disaster. They stopped processing asylum cases while failing to deport people with no right to be here, with the result that thousands upon thousands of asylum seekers have been left to languish in hotels and B&Bs across the country, costing the taxpayer billions. Even more self-defeating was the previous Government’s decision to write a blank cheque out of Britain’s aid budget to pay for that mess, taking away funding to tackle the crisis that many people are fleeing in the first place. There is no solution to the global displacement crisis without international development. The Bill is right to focus on the smuggling gangs. We need to break the business model of the vile criminals who are still shipping families across the channel, even in the freezing cold, with no concern as to whether they live or die. The Bill will equip our law enforcement agencies with the powers they need to stop them, disrupt their supply chains and bring most of those who profit from this human misery to justice. The new counter-terrorist powers—

• 4 Feb 2025 · UK-US Bilateral Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for calling this debate on the UK-US bilateral relationship. I listened closely to his speech and we agree on the importance of the UK-US relationship and our desire to build on those bonds. Britain’s place in the world matters. After the needless fights and petty politicking of the last Government, which did so much damage to our relationships around the world, I am proud that our Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made reconnecting with our allies a priority of this Government. After the furore of the Northern Ireland protocol, the collapse of US-UK trade talks, and strains following Brexit, I am glad that we now have a Government who are ready to put the national interest, rather than party interests, first. It was Winston Churchill who first described the UK-US relationship as “special”. For centuries, the relationship between our two nations has been one of collaboration, co-operation and enduring partnership. Together, we have defended the world from tyranny and two world wars, stood strong in the cold war, and for centuries worked closely towards our mutual security and prosperity. I put on record my congratulations to President Trump on his inauguration, and we look forward to working with him in the years ahead. As the Prime Minister has said, we will continue to build upon the unshakeable foundations of our transatlantic alliance as we tackle the global challenges together. We have our shared language, close cultural exchange, strong ties in commerce, and the many links between our peoples through business, friendships and family. Indeed, President Trump’s mother was Scottish and I know he has always been very fond of our country. I am sure that the depth of friendship will continue. The Prime Minister had a warm and constructive conversation with President Trump the other week, during which they discussed the economy. President Trump stated that they “get along well” and that the Prime Minister is doing a “good job”. There has been a lot of noise around our relationship with the United States and the new Administration, much of it coming from the Opposition Benches. There have been, as there always will be, things that we disagree on. We clearly did not agree with Elon Musk’s outlandish attacks on members of the Government, but differences on single matters of policy do not diminish the deep and enduring relationship between us and the United States. I dare say that the previous Government disagreed with the Biden Administration on many things. I regret to note that the Opposition really seem to be getting carried away, with Members seeming to suggest that the Government must choose between our relationship with the EU and our relationship with the United States. Last week, the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), suggested that improving our relationship with both the EU and the US was akin to an attempt at “making love simultaneously to a rhino and a sloth.” Leaving aside why anyone would want to do either of those things, is it not exactly that destructive attitude that has caused so much damage to British businesses and UK trade over the past 14 years? In these dangerous times, the idea that we must choose between our allies—that somehow we are either with America or with Europe—is wrong. Last year, the UK’s total trade in goods and services with the United States was £294 billion, and with the EU it was £822 billion. Our co-ordination with the United States on defence, security and foreign policy is indispensable, as is our co-ordination with Europe, our closest neighbours. Attlee did not choose between allies, nor did Churchill. The national interest requires that we work with both the EU and the US. In the years ahead, the UK will again stand tall on the world stage. This Government’s commitment to international law, their commitment to growing our economy and free trade, and their work navigating the new, more challenging multipolar era are all worthy of Opposition Members’ serious engagement, not party political sniping. Our shared history with the United States, our close security and defence partnerships and our economic ties matter more than words. This Government will continue to invest in the transatlantic relationship in the years to come.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Knife Crime: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for securing this timely and important debate and highlighting the real-life impacts of knife crime in her constituency. Knife crime is a public health crisis. I speak as an ex-cabinet member for public health and an ex-children’s services manager when I say that it is essential that we tackle both the causes and effects of knife crime. In July, the Office for National Statistics found that knife crime in England and Wales had risen by 78% over the past 10 years. That is a staggering increase and sets out the scale of the challenge facing the new Government in reversing that terrifying trend within a decade. I am sad to say that the West Midlands police force area is responsible for 10% of knife-enabled crime in the whole of England and Wales; only the Met police have more cases. However, the statistics alone never tell the real story and, as the MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, I have been witness to some horrific cases in recent years. Jordan Moazami, who was 18 years old and described as a “role model” by his peers, was stabbed and killed on Tennal Road in my constituency in 2019. Muhammad Hassam Ali, 17 years old, was followed and killed by a 15-year-old after a four-minute conversation in Birmingham city centre. And in 2021, Dea-John Reid, my constituent, 14 years old, was hounded by a gang of five boys and grown men before being stabbed in the chest and dying. I cannot do justice in words to the horror of those cases. In every one, what struck me immediately was the senselessness of it. And in many ways that is where we need to start when thinking about finding meaningful solutions to the epidemic of young boys taking each other’s lives. Prevention has to be our watchword. Understanding the root causes of knife crime is complicated. It is often a picture of poverty, drugs, gangs, exploitation, school exclusion, domestic violence, adverse childhood experiences and being in care. One of the two 12-year-old boys who killed Sean Seesahai in Wolverhampton in 2023 had experienced significant trauma in his life and been at risk of child criminal exploitation. According to the defence, he had been groomed, exploited and trafficked by men in the community, so there is a complicated story to tell there. One of the questions we ask ourselves is, “Who is looking out for these boys?” I think child criminal exploitation is often misunderstood by professionals, which prevents the early identification of child victims. Too often, child victims of exploitation are criminalised rather than safeguarded—something that exploiters and organised criminal gangs anticipate and utilise to their advantage. The services that might identify them as at risk—schools, youth services, mental health services—are all under strain: youth mental health services are in crisis, school exclusions have been at a record high and youth services have been cut to the bone. The tragedy is that sometimes it is that absence of a safe space that is putting children at risk. Some of the stories we hear are absolutely bleak. A Barnardo’s practitioner at a service dealing with child exploitation shared evidence that, during winter, groups of children often gathered outside a leisure centre and sat by the air vents, as that was the only place they could feel warm and safe. That became a spot for exploitation, described as “a hotspot for adults or older teens with cars driving by and offering lifts…and McDonald’s”. Of course, that is how the dynamics of exploitation start: the favours, the debts, the escalating patterns of criminality. I was struck recently by a comment by Martin Griffiths, a consultant trauma surgeon in London and NHS England’s national clinical director for violence reduction—an incredible practitioner who has done some amazing work through his charity. He said: “County lines drug carriers are all being exploited, whether it’s knowingly or not, by individuals or organisations who utilise them because they are impressionable. They are mentoring these kids to do bad things. These are children who are low on support, self-esteem and resources.” It is precisely that lack of spaces and opportunities that is part of what puts children and young people at risk. Research by YMCA in 2021 found that, in England, local authority spending on youth services totalled £379 million, a £1.1 billion cut in youth services on 2010. I am hugely relieved that, in Birmingham, despite the current challenges for the council, all youth centres will now remain open and be retained by the council or partner organisations. It is a huge testimony to the importance that residents and young people place on these services in our city, and I want to thank everyone who made their voice heard in the recent consultation. Communities and families have solutions, and they need to be part of the plan for change. I am really excited about the 10-year Young Futures programme the Home Office is working on, as it has the potential to do great things in my city. The creation of a new network of youth hubs is exactly what we need, and I should be grateful if the Minister would meet with me to discuss the provision in Birmingham. There were 50,000 knife-related crimes in the year to March 2023 across England and Wales, around 5,000 of which were in the West Midlands police force area. I am heartened by the Home Secretary’s categorical commitment that every youngster found carrying a knife will trigger a rapid intervention, including a prevention plan, to stop them reoffending. Identifying those young people before it is too late is half the battle, and when the signs are there, we must act on them. Can the Minister say more about the plans laid out in our manifesto this summer to place youth workers and mentors in A&E and pupil referral units? I want to pay tribute to brilliant charities, such as Redthread in my patch, which has been working at the Queen Elizabeth hospital for several years. I mentioned Martin Griffiths, a surgeon and clinical director; the work he has pioneered at his A&E as a trauma surgeon is extraordinary. Young people that he had seen many times before would often turn up on his operating table. He realised that A&E admissions were a critical opportunity to intervene. He has a multidisciplinary team at his hospital, based in A&E. Instead of just patching up children and sending them on their way, the team help them to get education, work or somewhere to live. There is mental health treatment and advice on special educational needs, and the police provide protection and support for those who want to get out of a gang. The hospital allows the patients to stay there until it is safe for them to be discharged. The results have been incredible: readmission rates have dropped from 30% to 4%. Redthread has a similar model and has demonstrated similarly remarkable results. Some 90% of the young people supported by Redthread did not return to hospital for a violence-related injury in the following year, and six months after the intervention 100% of the young people supported said they felt as safe or safer than they did before the incident. Young people who engaged in the full programme were 51% less likely to reattend than those who did not. A cost-benefit analysis showed that for every £1 spent, there was £4.90 of economic and social benefit. Can the Minister say more about the multidisciplinary and multi-agency work to address violence or exploitation? Finally, we need to crack down on the criminals and routes into serious violence and crime. It baffles me that we still do not have a specific statutory definition of child criminal exploitation. There have been multiple definitions, resulting in a confused, fragmented response by authorities, and investigators have to use laws on modern slavery to punish those coercing or forcing children to move drugs. A new offence of criminal exploitation of children would allow us to go after the gangs that are luring young people into violence and crime. I look forward to working with the Government on their plans to introduce this new law in due course. I am proud of the swift action the Government have taken to tackle knife crime so far: banning zombie-style blades and machetes, which were used to kill Ronan Kanda in Wolverhampton, setting an ambitious mission to halve knife crime in a decade, and launching a new coalition to tackle knife-enabled crime working together with technology companies, sports organisations and the health service. But there is undoubtedly a lot more to do. When does the Minister hope to bring forward the crime and policing Bill, so that we can move ahead with the Young Futures programme and strengthen those laws? The message we need to send to young people is one of hope and opportunity—that our society cares about them and that we are invested in them and their futures. Tackling knife crime has always been about prevention and protection as much as prosecution. After 14 years of abject failure by the previous Government on this issue, I am looking forward to working with the Labour Government to deliver change that saves more lives.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Health and Social Care: Winter Update · Hansard source

  More

  The Health Secretary will know that University Hospitals Birmingham in my constituency recently declared a critical incident, which I am pleased has now been stepped down. Does he share my view that shifting the focus of healthcare from hospital to community as we rebuild our NHS would have a consequential impact on the number of people in hospitals, which are under immense pressure?

• 14 Jan 2025 · UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor has only my admiration and support for the tough decisions that she is taking to fix the fundamentals. While Conservative Members were carping about the Chancellor’s whereabouts this week, she was having serious discussions with the world’s second largest economy and securing access for UK firms. Is it not clear that only Labour Members are serious about growth?

• 10 Dec 2024 · Telegraph Poles: Birmingham · Hansard source

  More

  I know that the Minister, in summing up, will address that point, because he has been proactive in meeting the regulator and the companies tasked with installing this infrastructure. He has already given them a clear indication of where the Government will go next if they do not adhere to the code. I also know that he has met Brsk since the previous debate on the issue; I thank him for that. I was interested to read confirmation that Brsk now has guaranteed access to BT Openreach infrastructure to install broadband lines underground, so why is it not doing so? It is not its business model—that is why it is not doing it. I would be interested to learn from the Minister when that was agreed, because Brsk has not been taking advantage of that in my constituency to date. Some providers are much better at this. I want to ensure that not everybody is painted with the same brush. There are some very good providers. Last year, broadband infrastructure carried out by Pipeline Utilities on behalf of Grain Connect left Willow Avenue in my constituency with some dreadful retarmacking, as well as broken and cracked paving slabs. When I wrote to the organisation about this, it confirmed that the site was inspected, and agreed to replace and relay the broken paving slabs and tarmac. That is exactly how we should be proceeding. My experience with Brsk has been very different. Repeatedly, it will arrive in an area to erect new broadband infrastructure poles without properly consulting residents or me. We have seen that behaviour on Vernon Road, Clarendon Road, Chad Road and Stirling Road. The company’s idea of consultation appears to be to put up a notice stating its intention to put up another pole—in some cases, with little to no consultation period. Sometimes, I am told, a notice has not gone up at all, despite my best efforts and those of my constituents to raise concerns about the siting of the poles. We have been ignored. This means that the infrastructure ends up causing issues that could have been foreseen or avoided if there were proper consultation. Poles have been erected in the middle of pavements, obstructing prams, wheelchairs and people with mobility issues. There have been attempts to erect unsightly poles in front of listed buildings, instead of exploring other options. Some roads are being peppered with poles, even when we are told they are a last resort. It is time for stronger action. Clearly, Brsk is not heeding Government advice. As we all know, since the rules were changed by the previous Government in 2016, there is no requirement for planning permission for poles up to 15 metres in height, and there is no legal requirement for consultation with local residents and businesses. Good practice asks telecoms communications operators to notify the council of their intention to install a pole, as well as to advertise their development proposal within the vicinity of the site, usually via a site notice, but in reality there is no real opportunity to object to an installation. There needs to be a strategy that targets areas of need and uses existing infrastructure. We are all familiar with the fact that the Electronic Communications Code (Conditions and Restrictions) Regulations 2003 require that, among other things, operators must share apparatus where possible, and use underground rather than overground lines where they can—yet that is not happening in practice. I know roads where as many as five or six poles have been erected. It is ugly, disruptive and excessive, and it impacts on house prices. As these issues are a matter for the regulator, Ofcom, I seek the Minister’s clarification on what monitoring of these requirements is being carried out to ensure that network providers collaborate and share network infrastructure, and what action Ofcom has been taking against providers who have been found to not comply. When I wrote to Ofcom, it said its role is “limited to enforcement of the Regulations” and that, under those, “operators have significant flexibility…to put up their own poles.” I know that the Minister has been looking at a revision of the code of practice. We would be grateful if he could say more on that. I also welcome that he has stated that he reserves the right to change the law in this area. It strikes me that stronger adherence to the regulations on sharing infrastructure is one of those rare examples where stronger regulation will actually save companies and consumers money. Surely it is cheaper for companies to co-ordinate with one another over the sharing of infrastructure than to erect new poles every time they need a new node for their network. It is baffling and frustrating that providers such as Brsk have not been more proactive in anticipating the concerns of the public before Ofcom has had to get involved. Fundamentally, my constituents of Birmingham Edgbaston are asking for respect: respect to influence decisions, and to ensure that broadband infrastructure is implemented in a way that respects their local environment, heritage and public interest. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on work to amend and strengthen the code of practice, so that operators respond to and engage in good faith with residents. I would also be keen to hear the outcome of his recent engagement with Brsk, having shared with him my experience of dealing with it, and to understand what more we can do to ensure that providers work together to share infrastructure, and that the requirements under the 2003 regulations are adhered to and enforced. I thank the Minister for his attention and look forward to working with him.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Telegraph Poles: Birmingham · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered telegraph poles in Birmingham. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and I welcome the Minister to his place. I want to thank him, as I know he has been working extremely hard on the issue by meeting MPs and working with the industry and regulators. The installation of telegraph poles is an issue that has been landing in the inboxes of MPs across the House and from across the country. In view of that, I hope he does not mind my summoning him to Westminster Hall to take more questions. I pay tribute to the many constituents I have worked with on the issue over the past two years, including the residents of Vernon Road, Montague Road in Edgbaston, Chad Road, Clarendon Road, Gravel Bank in Bartley Green, and Perrott’s Folly near the Waterworks tower. In particular, I pay tribute to the campaigning of my constituent Lizzy Jordan, who has left no stone unturned in trying to engage with the provider, Brsk, about which I will say more in a moment. Lizzy and our local residents have been a powerhouse. Last year, we managed to convince Brsk to move a pole in front of Perrott’s Folly and the Waterworks tower. This has a huge significance to our heritage, as the towers inspired JRR Tolkien in “The Lord of the Rings”. We have been pushing Brsk to do right by the residents in our area, but it is exhausting work. Over the past two years, I have engaged with, sent numerous emails to and met Brsk’s west midlands representatives. I joined a resident-led protest against Brsk installing poles outside Perrott’s Folly in my North Edgbaston ward. I have convened and attended a meeting between residents and Brsk about Vernon Road, Clarendon Road and Montague Road. I have written to the last Government and this on several occasions, and submitted evidence ahead of MPs’ roundtables on the issue. I have raised my concerns with Ofcom through letters, and I continue to support my constituents with casework. I think we all agree that it should not take a well-organised community campaign and an active local MP to get a provider to meet its statutory duties, and that is why I have called today’s debate. I want to say that I and the vast majority of my constituents support the roll-out of new broadband infrastructure. The importance of improving broadband speeds and access to the internet should not be underestimated. Nearly all aspects of our everyday lives —education, work, communication, entertainment—are made possible by the continuous expansion and upgrading of telecoms networks. There are significant digital dark spots in my constituency, such as in North Edgbaston and parts of Harborne, Quinton, Edgbaston and Bartley Green especially. In several areas, superfast broadband coverage is among the worst 10% of areas in the UK. According to recently published House of Commons Library data, 3.8% of lines across my constituency do not even have 10 megabits per second download speeds, with notable clusters of poor coverage in the most deprived areas, such as Bartley Green, and I have asked Brsk to focus on that area. I am not quick to forget how damaging the pandemic was for many of our children. Particularly in deprived areas with poor connections, we were unable to access remote learning. I and the vast majority of my constituents understand that the roll-out will provide a boost to our economy and set Britain up for the rest of this digital century. This infrastructure will provide opportunities and lower prices, and it can improve people’s lives, but there are ways of going about it. First, we should focus on areas that do not have coverage, not those that do. As the Minister has himself acknowledged, while the majority of providers are trying to do right by local people by making efforts to consult and not put up poles, some providers in my constituency such as Brsk have occasionally behaved like cowboys by not using existing infrastructure, failing to consult residents with the adequate 28 days’ notice, failing to observe the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requirements to ensure that pathways are clear and accessible until they are told to do so, failing to secure the right council permits for works, and putting up poles everywhere as the only means to address coverage. Given that Brsk’s business is communications, it is ironic how poor it has been at communicating with its stakeholders. The crux of the issue is that such companies are not exploring alternatives to poles or using existing infrastructure when they can. To give some of many examples—

• 10 Dec 2024 · Telegraph Poles: Birmingham · Hansard source

  More

  The crux of the issue is that these companies are not exploring alternatives to poles or using existing infrastructure when they can. I will give some of many examples. Freedom of information requests to our local council revealed that Brsk did not need to put up poles on Clarendon Road in my constituency, because it could have utilised existing ducts—but it did so anyway, ignoring that fact. Vernon Road is another example; BT installed full-fibre to St Paul’s school for girls at that location without any requirement for poles, yet a constituent came to my surgery on Friday to tell me that another pole had gone up, with a notice on the council’s planning portal appearing only after the pole had been erected. That is even after the Minister’s meeting with Brsk. I have met Brsk and exchanged exhaustive correspondence on these issues. What has struck me in my dealings with the firm is the lack of policy or strategy for work in my constituency. Poles are supposed to be a last resort, but even where they are not needed, like on Vernon Road, several go up anyway. There are now four on that road. Frequently, when issues are raised, they are not listened to. I asked Brsk for a map of where it is planning to roll out poles in my constituency, and it could not give me one. There is either a plan that it will not share or there really is no strategic focus on where the infrastructure is needed. My constituents have had similar experiences. An elderly constituent wrote to me earlier this year, deeply worried that a Brsk telegraph pole on an adjoining road, installed less than a metre from her back garden fence, was so close that it could easily provide burglars with access to her property. She told me she lives in perpetual fear that her house could be broken into. More importantly, that was avoidable. Had Brsk simply made an effort to engage first with residents about changes in their community, she would not have been left in that situation.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Telegraph Poles: Birmingham · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that important point about the business model. There are alternative ways to implement the infrastructure. In areas like his, this activity does not respect the environment, heritage or planning laws, and we end up with poles erected. Some of them do not even have any lines going through them, which just goes to show that the existing infrastructure meant there was no need for that, but, as he says, it is clearly quite a lucrative business model to sell on the new infrastructure.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Public Body Ethnicity Data (Inclusion of Jewish and Sikh Categories) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that, where a public body collects data about ethnicity for the purpose of delivering public services, it must include specific “Sikh” and “Jewish” categories as options for a person’s ethnic group; and for connected purposes. Jews and Sikhs are in the unique position of being considered both ethnic and religious groups under the Equality Act 2010. Sikhs and Jews have been legally recognised as ethnic groups for over 40 years, since the Mandla v . Dowell Lee case in 1983. The Bill would address a fundamental absurdity in the fight against discrimination and inequality, which is that we have not collected ethnicity data on Sikhs and Jews since laws on racial discrimination were first introduced nearly 60 years ago. The Women and Equalities Committee was told in February 2018 that the Government’s race disparity audit had identified around 340 datasets across Government, but found no data on Sikhs. The only data collected on Sikhs and Jews in more recent years is religious data. However, the quality of data collected by public bodies on religion, as opposed to ethnicity, is poor, patchy and incomplete. Religion data is never used by public bodies to make decisions for the purposes of delivering public services. This makes both Jews and Sikhs invisible to policymakers, ignoring the inequality and discrimination that both groups face. That is why a specific Jewish and Sikh ethnic category is needed, and that is what this Bill will create. This is a campaign to end the discrimination that both communities face. I campaigned for a Sikh and Jewish ethnicity tick box to be included in the 2021 census, because we know that for over 30 years, public bodies have been instructed to use the census’s ethnic groups questions to design and deliver services in compliance with equalities legislation. Given that we are talking about protected characteristics, we would expect public bodies to be instructed to routinely collect information on Sikhs and Jews, but they are not. The then Minister with responsibility for equalities, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), wrote this to me last year: “public bodies and decision-makers who think that their decisions may affect discrimination, harassment, or victimisation of Sikhs…should ensure that their compliance with the duty includes considerations of Sikh ethnicity.” However, they do not, because people incorrectly argue, and assume, that data collected on religion is a suitable substitute. Those people do not understand existing practices. Religion data is rarely collected to a good standard. It excludes non-practising Sikhs and Jews, and it is not used by public bodies to monitor and reduce inequalities or provide public services. The latter is key to this argument, because Sikhs and Jews are missing from whole swathes of public data—on education, housing, crime, health, criminal justice, the public sector workforce and the ethnicity pay gap. The Bill would allow public bodies to start systematically collecting data on Sikhs and Jews to address the discrimination and inequalities that they face, which is especially relevant as the Government have made a commitment to requiring ethnicity pay gap reporting. In presenting this Bill, I have the support of a wide range of community organisations, including the Sikh Council, 112 UK gurdwaras and organisations, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Antisemitism Policy Trust and the Community Security Trust. I would like to provide the House with a few examples of why this Bill is so important. The pandemic shone a harsh light on the inequalities between different ethnic groups. Many experts in public health now accept that we were too slow to recognise that some ethnic groups were dying at a far higher rate than others. The Office for National Statistics belatedly started analysing covid-related deaths data by religious group where data was available, a short-term exercise that has since been discontinued. It found that Sikhs died disproportionately from covid even after adjusting for region, population density, area deprivation, household composition, socioeconomic status and a range of other economic indicators. Not only that, but it showed that Sikhs were affected at a very different rate from other predominantly south Asian groups, meaning that analysis using the existing ethnic minority categories would fail to capture any of these inequalities. The Board of Deputies of British Jews has also recognised these arguments. British Jews died at almost twice the rate of the rest of the population, as there is a higher prevalence of certain genetic conditions among Jewish people—for example, of breast cancer in Ashkenazi Jewish women. Collecting better data will help public services to profile and respond to the community better. To address health inequalities, we need to learn from the pandemic, and we need to collect accurate data to ensure better outcomes for both these communities, based on evidence. To give just one example that highlights the absurdity of this system, NHS Blood and Transplant does not collect data on Sikh organ donors or Sikhs requiring an organ transplant, despite the fact that for more than a decade, there has been a policy of encouraging more Sikhs to become donors. NHS Blood and Transplant does not gather the single most important data point that would allow us to improve sign-up rates among this under-represented group. It is shocking. As Amanda Bowman, vice-president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, wrote last year: “Imagine you’re sitting in a hospital waiting room and have been asked to fill out a form which, among other questions, asks for your ethnicity…So which box do I tick?” As David Baddiel, the author of “Jews Don’t Count”, has said: “It is othering and alienating” that Jews do not have a distinct ethnic box to reflect their race. Since 7 October, the British Jewish community has faced an appalling rise in antisemitic hate attacks. While the Home Office collects data on religiously motivated antisemitic hate crimes, it does not do so on racially aggravated antisemitism. That is despite instances of racial hate crime outnumbering instances of religiously aggravated hate crime by 10 to one. There is a serious risk that Jewish hate crimes are being undercounted by the Home Office because it does not have its own Jewish ethnic category. In the first half of this year, the Community Security Trust found that the majority of antisemitic incidents that it recorded consisted of “anti-Jewish discourse” linking the victim “to Israel, Palestine, the Hamas terror attack or the subsequent war.” According to Crown Prosecution Service prosecution guidance, hate targeting someone’s real or perceived nationality or national origins, such as a link to Israel, would indicate a racially, not religiously, aggravated offence. The same goes for Sikhs, as is documented in the all-party group on British Sikhs report on anti-Sikh hate. Sikhs are the most visible minority in Britain, yet we do not collect data on racist anti-Sikh hate. The last Government’s hate crime action plan effectively ignored Sikh hate, or the need to define anti-Sikh hate. Herein lies the fundamental problem with focusing on data relating to religion, rather than ethnicity, when it comes to Sikhs and Jews. Religion is not a mandatory field in crime reporting standards that the Home Office sets for police forces, apart from in religiously aggravated hate crime cases. However, police forces are required to record ethnicity, or use ethnic appearance codes that relate to census categories that do not include Sikhs and Jews, despite their recognition in the Equality Act 2010. His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services has produced at least 30 reports since 2017 criticising police forces for the poor recording of data on the ethnicity of victims of crime. Let me give a final example. In October, the chief executive of the UK Jewish film festival warned of the “erasure of British-Jewish culture from national cultural life” by arts bodies, which are of course largely publicly funded. Benjamin Till, a composer who has been nominated for a British Academy of Film and Television Arts award, told the Jewish Chronicle that Arts Council England “doesn’t allow Jewish people to identify as anything other than a religion”. He insists that Arts Council England “must accept that Jewishness is a cultural, and…an ethnic identity.” As the all-party group on British Sikhs and the Board of Deputies of British Jews have warned, even on its own merits, using religious questions to capture data on our communities will increasingly become irrelevant. The percentage of Sikhs and Jews who identify with their ethnic group but do not practise their religion is growing. As Britain becomes increasingly secular, we are failing to recognise the other ways in which British Sikhs and Jews face discrimination. Ethnicity data can capture that in ways that religion data does not. As the Board of Deputies of British Jews has said: “We are concerned that until this situation is rectified, many Jewish citizens will not feel fully counted.” A former cabinet member for public health and protection on Sandwell council says that Sikhs and Jews are forgotten when it comes to the design of services because there is no ethnicity data on Jews and Sikhs to inform those decisions. In the rare cases where we do have some data, it exposes glaring inequalities. In 2018, 5.3% of deaths of homeless people in London were of Sikhs, who are 1.3% of London’s general population; and 27% of Sikhs in the UK report that someone in their family has an alcohol addiction. Good quality data saves lives. In the past few years, the Office for National Statistics has come to acknowledge the need to ensure that the ethnicity standard reflects the diversity of the UK population. That surely means it is time to address the injustice facing Sikh and Jewish people. Whatever the future of ethnicity data collection, we must routinely be included in our own right. If we consider our legal status as ethnic groups, we should be included. If we consider the size of our populations, we should be included. If we consider our contribution to Great Britain and society, we should be included. If we consider the specific forms of discrimination and the inequalities we face, we should be included. Our communities are asking for fairness and justice and to be counted as ethnic groups, given that we have been recognised as such in law for more than 40 years. As David Baddiel has argued, “identifying antisemitism as religious intolerance, rather than racism, downgrades its importance, which is what leads to Jews not counting.” The same goes for Sikhs, and it is not just a rhetorical point; it is literally the case that regarding Sikhs and Jews as a religious category means we are not counted. We are not counted when we fill in a form in an NHS waiting room, we are not counted in the census and local councils do not count us in the data they use to monitor and deliver services. It is high time that changed, so I urge Members across the House to allow this Bill to progress today. It is high time that public bodies ended this injustice, and as legislators we must put right this wrong and support them in doing that. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Preet Kaur Gill, Ben Coleman, Jas Athwal, Jon Pearce, David Pinto-Duschinsky, Joani Reid and Alex Sobel present the Bill. Preet Kaur Gill accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time on Friday 7 March 2025, and to be printed (Bill 142).