Budget Resolutions

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

Again, we are working with local areas to make sure that we progress as quickly as possible. We are happy to engage with local leaders as part of that programme.

As we move towards a local government finance settlement, we will continue working with local leaders to plan and invest for the long term. I am clear that local government is the foundation of the public services on which neighbourhoods and communities rely, which are essential to our wider ambition to rewire the state.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I wholeheartedly support regional mayors delivering for local communities. This Labour Government always promote localisation and devolution, but how will the Secretary of State ensure that regional mayors interact and work with local councillors? After all, local councillors are elected to represent their local neighbourhoods.

[Angela Rayner]

Our plans are about making sure that mayors work with local authorities. In fact, in my area in Greater Manchester, we have seen the combined authority have really good pulling power, with our economy doing better than other areas, so we want to see that across the whole nation.

That is why the Cabinet statement on rewiring the state committed to the financial sustainability of local authorities, and this Budget is the next step towards that. The upcoming local government finance policy statement will set out our next steps alongside the rewiring the state delivery plan. Good growth is growth that we can see and feel. We need to draw a line under a decade of drift during which the public realm was seen as sideshow to politics—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) should know about sideshows.

Our high streets are where we catch up with friends for a coffee, and those businesses provide solid jobs at the heart of our communities. Those small moments of joy give us real hope, and that is why our strategy is giving hope back to the high streets. New powers, new funding and changes to the business rates system will provide much-needed relief for thousands of cafés, pubs and high street shops. We are freezing all retail, hospitality and leisure bills in real terms to protect them from above inflation increases for the next two years, and we are lifting the small business rate relief threshold for qualifying properties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

Like many of my colleagues, I am delighted with the new Prime Minister’s clear ambition to reindustrialise Britain, which can drive economic prosperity in areas that really need it. My constituency is an example of somewhere that can drive and reap the benefits from this reindustrialisation. In Pendle and Clitheroe we do not trade financial derivatives; we make aeroplanes, furniture, chemicals and cement, and we produce food. Not only does manufacturing make up over a quarter of the jobs, but they are often the best jobs, too. However, the truth is that, as I speak, Britain is still deindustrialising. We are as vulnerable to global supply shocks as any major economy without the sovereign capability in key sectors to look after our basic needs.

I am glad to see the Chancellor deliver immediate relief for households, but in the long run we must not just treat the symptoms of this failed economic model—with fiscal transfers patching up the gaps—but overhaul it entirely. The British economy remains too reliant on the City, foreign money and importing increasingly expensive essentials. True economic security can only come from the British economy being productive enough to convert world-leading innovation and research into valuable industrial output.

I was pleased to see some of the announcements at the Budget last week reflect this challenge, with measures including: serious public investment into productive British industries via the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank; an acknowledgement of the need for cheaper power and protections offered to energy-intensive manufacturers; support for vocational apprenticeships, which is essential for skills development in manufacturing and aligned sectors; and a long-term partnership with Rolls-Royce, whose Barnoldswick site in my constituency provides well-paid jobs for hundreds of my constituents—a reminder that Britain could still be home to world-leading industrial champions in highly competitive sectors.

But there is a lot more to be done. We must be clear about what we mean when we talk about reindustrialisation. The clue is in the name—it is about industry. Reindustrialisation must mean increasing physical production of goods needed at home and abroad. I hope that we will see more detail on how we will achieve this in the forthcoming 10-year plan.

As a short-term measure, I would like to see an expansion of the British industrial competitiveness scheme to a much wider range of manufacturing firms in Britain. We cannot expect our productive sectors to thrive and grow with energy costs as high as they currently are. Over the long term, we must improve our energy sovereignty by making it cheaper to build nuclear power stations urgently and reducing our reliance on gas imports by using our own North sea supply.

I would also urge the Government to include in the 10-year plan an ambitious plan for rebuilding our defence industrial base, alongside a continued commitment to British procurement. Building our domestic capacity for defence and other critical sectors can be supported beyond procurement through investment in equity stakes, taking control of essential inputs, as the Government did with British Steel, and accelerating planning decisions for key sectors.

So many of our challenges stem from a lack of quality work in productive industries. That is not talked about enough.

[Ayoub Khan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jonathan Hinder]

I am sorry, but I am rushing through my speech.

[Ayoub Khan]

You will get an extra minute.

[Jonathan Hinder]

Go on then.

[Ayoub Khan]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about reindustrialisation. All the different jobs he talked about require students who have degrees. Does he agree that the Budget should have contained something about student loans, because students are suffering at this moment in time?

[Jonathan Hinder]

I definitely think that the House needs to come back to plan 2 loans. That will become a bigger and bigger issue.

So many of our challenges stem from a lack of quality work in productive industries. We do not talk about the link enough, but high streets are crippled by a lack of good jobs that provide a decent income and give people money in their pockets to spend in their area. Young people are stuck at home, unable to get a place of their own and start a family, and we see the selling-off of British assets to fund a current account deficit.

There is something even more fundamental at play when we talk about reindustrialisation. Sometimes in these economic policy debates we lose a sense of what really matters in life. Why is it that so often those jobs that appear to be the most socially useless are paid the most and those that contribute something so important to our society are often paid the least? If our economy is driving those perverse incentives that push bright young people into careers trading securities—some people call them “BS jobs”—we had better change those incentives, had we not? We need an economic framework that, instead of incentivising rent seeking, incentivises productive, meaningful work, providing people with not just a sense of satisfaction, pride and a good living but something useful to society—imagine that?

I know that this is not easy, but our economy cannot go on consuming too much and producing too little. I urge the Chancellor and his Ministers to ensure that reindustrialisation, which has struck such a chord with the British people, is turned into a fully-fledged plan for national reconstruction.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sally Jameson]

We had an excellent meeting with Cornwall leaders and MPs in No. 10 North not long before that decision was taken. I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution to that, and I understand the distinct status that Cornwall has. We will continue to work with him to ensure that Cornwall can make the most of its foundation strategic authority in the future.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

Birmingham city council is now officially out of bankruptcy, so will the Government remove the Government-appointed commissioners, who are costing taxpayers millions of pounds—money that could be better used elsewhere?

[Jim McMahon]

The involvement of commissioners in any local authority, or envoys for that matter, is a last resort after all else has failed, so no Government take such an intervention lightly. We also want to ensure that there is an exit for intervention. We have proven, in Liverpool and other places, that where the council shows sustained improvement, we are happy to review that. Although Birmingham has taken significant steps at improvement, there are still steps yet to take.

Council Housing

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for securing this debate and for presenting a very persuasive argument.

One of the biggest casework inquiries that I get in my constituency concerns the shortage of housing. Birmingham, which has the largest council in Europe, has an enormous housing issue—just look at the stats. In the west midlands region, we have 7,500 homeless families living in temporary accommodation, including 15,000 children. That has an impact on families and the children, who often live many miles from their school, with parents struggling to maintain their jobs because they have to escort their children to school. It will have a dramatic effect on our future generations. Birmingham has the youngest community, and I fear the impact that a lack of affordable homes will have on our next generation.

There are 65,000 families on the social housing waiting list. I am sure the Minister will say that the West Midlands combined authority has received somewhere in the region of £400 million to develop and build 3,000 additional homes, which of course is welcome, but when we contrast the numbers with the requirements, it really is a drop in the ocean. There will also be private developers, but one of the biggest issues that I see and that my constituents feel is that it is not just about building homes anywhere just to meet the quota, but about building communities and ensuring we have the right infrastructure: GP surgeries, medical care facilities and local shopping centres. A whole infrastructure needs to be thought of.

Planning is another big issue. The Labour Government often say they champion devolution and localisation and want local people involved in decision making. However, Birmingham is being asked to be anti-devolution, because planning powers could be given to the regional mayor. If that happens, it will take away that community on the ground who want homes where they fulfil all the criteria.

May I quickly ask the Minister a question? I know we have limited time. The Perry Barr Village was developed at a cost to taxpayers of £700 million. It was sold to Legal and General at a loss to the taxpayer of £350 million. Will the Minister inquire into what happened with that loss of £350 million to Birmingham taxpayers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about the different approaches across the UK and how we can all learn from each other on what works, as well as learn from the areas where it perhaps did not go quite as planned. I will make sure that I pass his comments on to the Housing Minister to have conversations across Governments. 

We have also provided greater certainty on future costs associated with the decent homes standard and the minimum energy efficiency standards. We have allocated more than £1 billion through the warm homes social housing fund to improve the energy efficiency of social homes. Quality matters, as rightly outlined by my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) and for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury).

In addition to revenue, we know how important borrowing and the capacity to borrow are for councils’ delivery plans. Since 2023, a preferential borrowing rate has been available from the Public Works Loan Board for council house building. This rate will be extended and we will be announcing more details in due course.

We continue to work closely with councils and the wider sector to understand the remaining barriers to council house building and investment, including the impact of the housing revenue account debt and borrowing rates. We have also increased the threshold at which councils must open a housing revenue account from 200 homes to 1,000 homes. That is enabling small councils to deliver more homes without incurring additional operating costs.

We have also heard from councils that workforce shortages, skills gaps and capacity pressures will constrain their abilities to build. That is why we are investing a further £46 million over the next three years through capacity to build funding, on top of the £17 million already invested since 2025. That will help councils develop an ambitious pipeline, strengthen specialist housing capacity and make the most of the Government’s wider investment in council house building. These gaps have been identified by Members in the debate today, including the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Joe Morris), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham).

Finally, we are taking decisive action to reform the right-to-buy scheme, which has acted as a break on council confidence to invest in new social housing for too long. We are reforming the scheme to ensure that more homes are built than lost, while maintaining an important route for social housing tenants to own their own homes, which was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth).

My right hon. Friend the Housing Minister is at this very moment in the Bill Committee, debating the detail of our reforms. The Social Housing Bill builds on the reforms to cash discounts that we implemented in 2024 to ensure that more social homes are protected, while removing powerful disincentives to build. Notably, we are tightening the eligibility requirements and exempting newly built social housing from the scheme for 35 years to ensure that homes are not sold before councils have recovered their investment.

[Ayoub Khan]

The Minister will have heard me talk about the £400 million being invested through the regional authority for 3,000 homes. I contrast that with the more than £700 million invested of taxpayer money in the Perry Barr athletes’ village, which was then sold at a loss to the taxpayer of £350 million. Can the Minister assure me that that matter will be investigated?

[Jim McMahon]

Today is not about getting into the rights and wrongs of individual programmes at local authority level. The hon. Member and I have had many conversations about Birmingham city council in the past and I am sure that will continue. The matter here today is how central Government ensure that we have the framework, the incentives and the funding to get councils building council homes and social homes in their area.

In addition, we have enabled councils to retain 100% of receipts from right-to-buy sales and provided greater flexibility on how those receipts can be used. That includes permitting councils to combine receipts with grant funding to unlock capacity for house building.

These measures are already bearing fruit. Councils delivered around 10,600 homes in 2024-25, which is the highest level since current records began in 1991-92. Our package of right-to-buy reforms is estimated to deliver a net gain of around 18,000 social homes over the next 10 years, compared with a pre-reform baseline of a loss of 26,000 homes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) mentioned empty homes. We are strengthening powers to bring empty homes back into use by reforming empty dwelling management orders. We are reducing the period for which a property must be empty before it becomes eligible from two years to six months under that programme.

We know that we must go further and faster to deliver the good-quality, affordable homes that people need. We also know that councils share that ambition. The Government are committed to backing councils to build at a scale not seen for decades, and to build the right homes in the right places. We will continue to work with all levels of local and regional government to turn that ambition into homes and better outcomes for local people, so that everyone across the country has access to a home that is decent, secure and affordable.

Heathrow Airport Expansion

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir John. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to today’s debate. I thank the hon. Members in attendance, and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for bringing this important debate to the House.

Hon. Members may have noticed that I am not the Aviation Minister; my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather) is attending Committee proceedings on the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill. However, I am here as the Minister for Local Transport. I care deeply about the impacts of the expansion on the wider transport network. That means considering how people travel to and from the airport and ensuring that transport infrastructure is able to meet future demand while supporting local communities.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will make a bit of progress, if the hon. Member does not mind. We are a bit short on time.

I may not be able to respond to every question raised during the debate, as the Government are currently considering the consultation responses, and parliamentary scrutiny of the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement—or HENPS—remains ongoing. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt those processes or prejudge any future decisions while that work remains under way. However, I will ensure that hon. Members receive responses in due course to any points that I am unable to cover.

This Government recognise Heathrow’s critical role as the UK’s only hub airport, connecting businesses and passengers to global markets and supporting trade, tourism and investment across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I will come on to ultrafine particles in a bit. First, turning to the four tests—economic growth being the first—expansion could generate economic growth across the country, with updated analysis indicating potential cumulative benefits of between £39 billion and £52 billion to UK passengers and the wider economy, including lower fares, increased flight frequencies and fewer delays.

[Ayoub Khan]

With any infrastructure project, there will obviously be a balance between growth and the economy on the one hand, and the impact on the environment and many families on the other. In this case, it seems that the growth does not outweigh the negative impact. May I digress a little? It may be unsurprising that we do not have transport infrastructure, given the cost to drivers who have to park at airports. Sixteen of the top 20 airports across the UK have faced an increase of more than 33% in six months. Drivers are calling it an absolute rip-off; 81% of those surveyed agree. Will the Minister consider reducing the costs, or involving himself in that?

[Simon Lightwood]

I am sure that the Aviation Minister will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s message and will be delighted to respond to him.

Any promoter must give evidence that expansion will deliver benefits across the country, not just locally. Analysis published alongside the draft HENPS indicates that up to 40% of the estimated GDP growth is expected to accrue in regions outside London and the south-east.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Florence Eshalomi]

My hon. Friend raises an example of a good local initiative as we look at how we can end the scourge of rough sleeping. We have to be honest that central Government alone cannot achieve that task. We have to work with the local voluntary groups, councils, community groups and charities that are doing fantastic work across the country. I would be pleased to look at the example that my hon. Friend set out to see what lessons we can learn.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

My constituency has among the highest levels of deprivation. Unfortunately, subways and bus shelters are home to the most vulnerable. I know that £440 million has been allocated, but I do not know how much has been given to Birmingham city council. Will the Minister meet me to see how we can address this issue?

[Florence Eshalomi]

It is truly shocking that we are still seeing people having to sleep in poor and worrying conditions on the streets. I am happy to look at how much funding the hon. Member’s local authority has received from the new funding. The Government have committed £442 million in new funding in the Prime Minister’s ambition to end homelessness, and I am happy to give the hon. Member additional detail on the impact that will have for his constituency.

Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

The recommendations are very clear in their scope. I hope my hon. Friend will allow the Government to take the necessary time to respond to those recommendations in detail—there is a lot in them—and then to bring forward amendments to the legislation and take that through both Houses in the usual way.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

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?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Member is right to highlight the very high profile case of Nathan Gill, who was accepting bribes on behalf of Russia, a hostile foreign state, and effectively kowtowing to it rather than responding to the wishes of the British public. We cannot allow that to happen. That is why we are bringing forward the provisions in the Representation of the People Bill, and we will be bringing forward further amendments based on Philip Rycroft’s review that is before the House today.

Social Cohesion Action Plan

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

We will measure the outcome of the report through new measures as part of the social cohesion framework that is described in more detail in the action plan, and we will be engaging directly with major employers, including the national health service, to ensure that they are taking every possible action to eliminate discrimination in the workplace, whichever groups might be targeted.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I thank the Secretary of State for introducing this definition of anti-Muslim hostility. Many facets contribute to causing division in society, not least the cost of living. When we saw the march in London, a large number of the audience there were racist, but a large majority of the people attending were not racist, they were just concerned about the cost of living. How does the Secretary of State see this definition incorporated, in terms of holding our far-right media and social media platforms to account, and how do we balance that with addressing the cost of living crisis?

[Steve Reed]

Part of the action that the Government are taking is the allocation of £5.8 billion to some of the most held-back communities in the country—over 300 constituencies will benefit from that funding. It will be local communities, through neighbourhood boards, who will decide for themselves how that money will be spent, directly addressing poverty but also directly addressing the lack of power that many of those communities feel. That will deliver the kind of change that the hon. Gentleman is describing and that we all want to see.

Community Cohesion

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for securing this debate on this important issue. Community cohesion in Birmingham has never been an abstract concept. It is a lived reality: it is the church that hosts a food bank for families of every background, the neighbour who checks in during Ramadan, and the gurdwara serving langar to anyone who walks through its doors. Our city works because, despite our differences, we choose to stand together.

In recent years, we have seen how damaging political language can be. When politicians make statements that create suspicion or feed division, the consequences are felt far beyond Westminster. Words matter and narratives matter. When race or religion is weaponised for short-term political gain, it erodes trust between communities who have lived side by side for generations. We have also seen the constant drip-feed of misinformation from some politicians and commentators—misinformation that paints entire communities as problems to be solved, rather than partners in building our future. That kind of politics does not strengthen Britain; it weakens it. It does not make us safer; it makes us more fractured.

No one knows that fact more than the people of Birmingham, who have seen their city trounced by people who take no effort to understand it. During the bin strikes, a narrative from outside was not about the council refusing to negotiate or the impact of years of austerity, but about blaming residents for the mess and asking silly questions like, “Why don’t they simply clean up the streets and take their rubbish to the tip?” We even saw the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) roam the streets for an hour, blaming residents for the supposed lack of integration in an area that not only hosts a vibrant community, but has been decimated by 14 years of austerity under his previous Government. We saw that again during the Maccabi Tel Aviv saga, when those raising legitimate concerns about safety and cohesion were smeared as extremists.

We see the same story every time. The people of Birmingham have been subject to ridicule from outsiders who have made no effort to understand them—from politicians to media outlets who have stirred hate and division against a community they have never tried to understand. That is why measures such as the Hillsborough law matter so much. The principle behind the Hillsborough law, a duty of candour on public authorities and officials, is about more than one historical injustice. It is about changing the culture of public life and ensuring that those in authority act with honesty, transparency and responsibility.

The tone set at the top shapes the reality on our streets, and that does not apply just to Birmingham. The same goes for all the towns and cities up and down the country that have been neglected and stripped of their identities. Those places have been left behind by successive Governments and are now being kicked while they are down. It is in these places, where people have lost all sense of community, that resentment and hate take hold. Many will channel that anger into taking to the streets to raise flags or mount protests at asylum hotels and, before someone knows it, they are not a true patriot unless they look on non-white neighbours from abroad, even fellow British nationals, with contempt. Of course, the exception is those they know on a personal level.

That is why it is so crucial that we get this right, not just by holding politicians and media outlets to a higher standard, but by investing in the very places that have been deprived of the means to understand and interact with one another. Community centres, youth clubs and grassroots sports are all things that we need to create cohesion, yet they are dwindling in supply. Birmingham Perry Barr lost out on £20 million over 10 years in Pride in Place funding. We have the highest unemployment, the highest inequality and high rates of homelessness and crime, but we still received none of the Pride in Place funding. There are 10 Birmingham constituencies, eight of which are represented by Labour parliamentarians. My constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr was left out.

Birmingham has always shown that people of different races, religions and backgrounds can live, work and thrive together, but we must protect that legacy. We must challenge misinformation wherever we see it. We must refuse to let division define us, and we must demand better from those who represent us. Will the Minister address my point about funding for Birmingham Perry Barr? Pride in Place funding should be for communities that have the highest levels of deprivation in all indices. Birmingham Perry Barr has, but it has not received that funding.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for securing this debate and for his powerful and eloquent contribution, and all the hon. Members who have spoken for their contributions and insight. There is clear passion and commitment across the House to tackle this issue, which I agree is cross-party.

Throughout our history, the United Kingdom’s ability to withstand external challenges has been underpinned by a shared sense of pride, tolerance and courage. We are accepting of our neighbours, proud of our varied experiences, traditions, national identities and customs, and confident that those differences enrich our communities and our country. Those core foundations that have kept us united in the face of adversity on so many occasions are now under threat.

One of the privileges of my role is that I have been able to talk to communities across the country. Time and again, I have heard clearly about the rising tide of hate and division seen in communities. I talk to our Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu communities, and hear that people, who have made this country their own and have been here for generations, feel scared in this country, in their communities and in their homes. We have got to turn the tide on that.

People are under pressure, and in that context—it is a tale as old as time—bad faith actors will try to exploit our communities in order to tear them apart. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) is absolutely right; at the heart of this is a story about economic neglect and of the failure of the Conservatives to properly fund our amazing councils and invest in our communities. We see the impacts of that in terms of closed shops on our high streets, shut up libraries, closed youth clubs and the abandonment of so many of our vital community assets that bring people together. That sense of decline on too many of our doorsteps has bred a real, justified sense of frustration, anger and a lack of control.

I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that it is not just a question of local growth; it is a question about cohesion. We cannot and we will not pretend that the legacies of any of those issues can be reversed overnight, but as both a Labour Government and as a Parliament, we can be confident that the way in which we restore cohesion and pride in our communities does not lie in this building or the corridors of Whitehall. The answer is in the communities and people that we represent. We all know that the bonds that hold society together are anchored locally, so often it is the voluntary community and charity groups and the grassroot bodies at the heart of our communities—we all have them in our constituencies—that bring people together every day.

To build stronger communities, we must bring people together to make positive, meaningful change in their own neighbourhoods. That ethos is at the heart of our groundbreaking Pride in Place programme, which, importantly, will mean local people will decide how money is invested. They will work together to unite their communities and bring everyone around the table to find common ground and invest in their priorities. That point has been made time and again by hon. Members, who have provided amazing examples of how that is happening.

As a Government, we see our role as supporting and enabling that, whether it is through places that have received Pride in Place funding or, more broadly, the approach that we want to increasingly see where we create the ability for communities to get a grip on the funding the Government are already spending. That will enable them to shape it, drive it and, fundamentally, invest in their priorities. To achieve all that, we are working closely with pioneering councils and communities. A great example is in Rugby, where the local authority and other partners are stepping forward as one of the first to deliver the work that we want to see on our high streets through, for example, high street renewal auctions. That will unlock vital spaces on our high streets for local businesses and community groups so that everyone can be part of building thriving high streets. That is renewal in action, led by people who know their patch better than we ever will in this place. They are backed by the Government who are choosing unity over division.

Let me pick up the point on flags that was made by my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby, for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales). I absolutely agree that we must reclaim our flags and national symbols, and push back on those who want to use them to divide and intimidate our communities. We know this is a difficult area for councils to navigate, and that is why we are providing guidance, best practice and training to support them in navigating this terrain and to ensure they can hold our national symbols so that they represent all our communities, and to push back on those who want to use them in a divisive way.

We are absolutely clear that we need to work on social cohesion. We are working across Government to develop a response, led by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and we will say more very shortly. To update hon. Members, this includes three key strands. First, building confident communities that bring people together so that we can build common ground. Pride in Place is one example, but this is about creating spaces and places where people can cohere around issues they care about in their area. There is a critical role for voluntary, community and faith organisations in doing this hard work. Many have been doing so during difficult periods under the Conservative Government, but without support from Government.

[Ayoub Khan]

I gently ask the Minister, in relation to Pride in Place funding: why is Birmingham Perry Barr, which is at the centre of Birmingham and has the highest level of deprivation, not being given any money? Why should those residents feel left out?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We have a very clear methodology based on a combination of deprivation, connection and access to assets in local places. That is published for every hon. Member to see. We have provided Pride in Place funding in particular parts of Birmingham. I would love to have Pride in Place in every deprived community, and I will continue to make that case and champion it. We are rolling out a further 40 areas, considering both deprivation and cohesion, and will say more about that shortly.

Critically, we want this to be an approach that applies to all parts of the country. Irrespective of whether an area is part of the programme, we want it to have access to funding and the ability for local community groups to come together to drive priorities and regenerate their place. We will say more through our high streets strategy and the ongoing work we are doing.

On cohesion, the first strand is building confident communities. The second is strengthening integration. That means supporting people who come to this country, both existing and new migrants, so that they are integrated into society, speak the language and contribute to the community, while ensuring there is zero tolerance for those who want to sow hate and division. Whether that is the rise in religious hate or racism, there must be proper enforcement, with a clear line we say people cannot cross, and if they do, action is taken against it.

The final strand is tackling extremism, which we know is on the rise, with robust action to disrupt it in our communities and, critically, online, where we know we are seeing increasing division, hate and radicalisation. We know we must respond. We recognise that this is a first step. The hard work of trying to build cohesion in our communities is ongoing, and we as a Government are absolutely committed to playing our part.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) made the important point that whatever we do on cohesion must be rooted in a wider strategy to tackle inequality and poverty, because that is the breeding ground for division. It is essential that the work my Department is doing sits alongside wider Government action to increase living standards and tackle poverty, whether through the child poverty action plan, removing the two-child benefit cap, lifting the national living wage, tackling homelessness, building the next generation of social housing or reviving public services so they provide a foundation for everyone to live well and do well.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), raised the important point of asylum accommodation. We inherited a legacy of asylum hotels from the last Government that was an absolute shambles and paid no regard to community cohesion, tension or consent. We will do the hard work of closing those hotels, but we must work hand in glove with local authorities to provide accommodation in a way that brings communities with us and has their consent.

We know this is a critical task, and the Prime Minister has told me it is one of the most important things that we will do as a Government. He is right. The Government will play their part, but we all have a responsibility as Members of this House and as politicians, because the words and language we use have an impact on what happens on the ground. We all have a collective responsibility to step up, working with local government and with grassroots organisations to do the vital work of holding and cohering our communities.

Funeral Premises: Environmental Health Inspections

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mark Sewards]

I absolutely agree. There have been too many cases in recent memory of people not being cared for with the dignity that they deserved.

This topic first came to my attention when my constituents Cody and Liam Townend contacted me, along with another mum, Zoe Ward. They lost babies in different circumstances and went to the same funeral director, an organisation called Florrie’s Army. To their horror, their babies’ bodies were taken to the private home of the person in charge of Florrie’s Army, and they were not treated with the care and respect that they deserved. I will not repeat the shocking details here, but the BBC report can be found online. Cody and Zoe asked what I could do to help, because although it was reported to the police, they found nothing actionable.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. I know that he is deeply passionate about our shared work in the all-party parliamentary group for funerals, coroners and bereavement, where we have learnt about the cases he described. Does he agree that the Minister would benefit from meeting our APPG to discuss the funeral sector and how it can develop the clear standards, robust oversight and proper enforcement it so desperately requires?

[Mark Sewards]

I concur; the Minister is very welcome to come to our APPG.

Representation of the People Bill

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is quite frankly absurd to grant children the right to vote, and even place 14 and 15-year-olds on the electoral register, all while maintaining the plethora of age-based rights elsewhere. Just look at the contradictions. A 16-year-old would be able to determine who governs the country, yet not able to enter legally binding contracts such as buying and renting property, purchasing alcohol or tobacco, or making independent medical decisions. It simply does not stack up, and Labour Members know it.

Even with these obvious inconsistencies, I do not believe that the Government have thought through the unintended consequences of this Bill. First, on turnout, younger age groups are historically less likely to vote. Lowering the voting age and bringing another 2 million individuals into the electorate will only compound the issue, and as we see turnout levels drop, there will be more questions about the legitimacy of our elections and electing our leaders.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

Is not the real fear that young people are now able, through social media and other forums, to identify which political personality is telling the truth and which one is saying what is false, and the Conservatives are quite concerned that they will lose even more power?

[Mr Bedford]

If the Government get their way, young people will not be able to access social media anyway, so I am not sure the hon. Member’s argument holds up.

Secondly, other inconsistencies arise because the Government believe that those young people should be shielded. They should be shielded from fatty foods, smoking alcohol and, as just mentioned, social media, yet overnight—on reaching the age of 16—they are considered sufficiently informed to decide who they want to run the country.

Thirdly, and most importantly in my eyes, there is the issue of family voting. In the light of the recent allegations about the Gorton and Denton by-election, this raises serious concerns. Could lowering the voting age increase the risk of undue political influence in households? Could some young people face pressure to vote in line with family expectations rather than exercising genuine independence? Votes at 16, alongside watering down the rules on voter ID at polling stations, lead Conservative Members to question whether our democracy is being undermined still further.

To conclude, lowering the voting age is contradictory. It creates inconsistency in our age-based rights system. It carries the potential for serious unintended consequences for turnout and the legitimacy of our elections, political divisions and voter independence. Labour Members should consider these risks very seriously indeed, before inflicting lasting damage on our fragile democracy.