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.

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.

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.

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.

Supported Exempt Accommodation: Birmingham

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered supported exempt accommodation in Birmingham.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I declare my interest as a landlord.

It is fair to say that most people up and down the country will not know much, if anything, about supported exempt accommodation, but in Birmingham it is something that almost everyone has become all too familiar with. In just eight years, the number of people housed in supported exempt accommodation in our city has tripled to more than 32,000 across 11,200 properties. My Birmingham Perry Barr constituency alone hosts 20% of the city’s total units. That means thousands of vulnerable individuals placed in a small number of neighbourhoods. This is not a marginal issue for us; it is shaping daily life.

With the city containing more supported exempt accommodation than anywhere else, Brummies face a completely different reality on the ground from every other community in the country. Of most immediate concern to my constituents is the antisocial behaviour, criminal activity and fly-tipping that come with a high number of these properties in such close proximity.

Let me be absolutely clear from the outset that this debate must not be about stigmatising vulnerable people. Many of those housed in supported accommodation are there because they have experienced trauma, addiction, serious mental health issues, abuse, time in care or even time in custody. They deserve compassion, dignity and meaningful support.

But compassion must be matched with realism. Some of the individuals placed in ordinary residential streets have needs so acute that they require intensive, structured and often 24-hour care. When someone is in such crisis that they are unable to manage basic personal safety, hygiene, or addiction issues in public spaces, that person is not being supported adequately. They are not “bad neighbours”. They are people who require structured, possibly clinical support environments—not standard terraced housing or residential streets. The same applies to certain ex-offenders, particularly those leaving custody with complex behavioural, psychological or substance misuse issues. Reintegration is vital, but it is a delicate process that needs close management and the right resources.

The issues that are being caused in my constituency are a matter not of law and order, but of care. I have had reports of individuals experiencing severe mental health breakdowns defecating in public spaces. Residents have described open drug use on streets where parents are walking their children to school. There are cases of individuals injecting themselves in broad daylight, in full view of families. For many of my constituents, everywhere they look they see visible manifestations of profound vulnerability and unmet need.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

With the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ayoub Khan]

Of course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I spoke to the hon. Gentleman beforehand, and he knows where I am coming from. I congratulate him on bringing forward this critical issue for vulnerable people. He will know that every constituency, wherever it may be in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has immense housing pressures, and it is often the most vulnerable—the very people he is referring to—who fall through the cracks. Does he agree that every local authority and housing authority—in Birmingham or, as it may be, in Northern Ireland—must have greater access to supported living for those who could thrive with a little help? We have a duty of care, as do the Government, to ensure that everything possible can be done to change the way things currently are.

[Ayoub Khan]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. Often this comes down to adequate resourcing. As I described, we have a situation in which individuals who need intensive support are not being provided that support. They are being placed in neighbourhoods, which in itself is very challenging; someone might have an addiction to alcohol and be placed in a community where there is very little infrastructural support. It is vital not only that there is suitable accommodation but, more fundamentally, that we have the right level of support in and around particular areas. When we have large saturation without the support, the problems faced by many of my constituents and people in Birmingham more broadly are inevitable.

That brings me nicely to the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, which was passed to resolve some of the issues that we are facing in Birmingham. It promised to introduce compulsory national minimum standards for exempt accommodation, including on referrals, care and support, and quality of housing. It promised to grant local councils the powers and resources needed to enforce such standards, and greater control over the licensing and planning permission given to providers. Since the Act received Royal Assent, however, it has been stuck in the consultation stage, with disagreements over how to implement it on the ground. While the Act shows no sign of taking effect, the expansion of exempt accommodation in Birmingham continues unabated.

The Government seem intent on painting the situation in Birmingham as simply a local matter that is nothing of their making, and the council’s call for powers to regulate the concentration of these properties as some kind of nimbyism, and yet the city’s importing vulnerable individuals from other local authorities against the council’s will is what caused the explosion in the first place.

While supported exempt accommodation plays an important role in housing vulnerable people, the concentration and volume of provision in Birmingham far exceeds local need. This is not something that the Government have not known about; in written evidence it submitted to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee in 2022, Birmingham city council confirmed that only 42% of properties were needed to meet local need, with much of the remaining 58% being used to house people referred through local authorities or national bodies outside the Birmingham area. In all too many cases, people are being put in exempt accommodation in Birmingham simply because it is available, with no afterthought for the relative level of support that tenants can be provided or for the impact on the local area. Worst of all, Birmingham city council knows that is happening, but the Government still have not given it the licensing powers to stop it.

Inaction on the Government’s part has been glaring, but I am pleased that the same cannot be said of activists in my constituency. During my time as Member of Parliament for Birmingham Perry Barr, I have been encouraged by the tireless efforts of local groups to raise the issue, including the HMO Action Group, the Handsworth Triangle Action Group, the Soho Road business improvement district and Handsworth Helping Hands. I must also thank Birmingham city council and West Midlands police for mobilising in the way they have to try to tackle the crisis.

A particular bright spot has been the council’s in-house SEA pilot, which we can safely say has punched well above its weight and made Birmingham better for it. With minimal Government funding, the pilot has recovered £8.8 million in overpaid housing benefit, while also completing 2,600 antisocial behaviour investigations. That is with only 21 people covering the entire Birmingham city area. We must think of what more can be done to reduce fraud and waste in Government spending by giving the council the means to expand that operation.

The SEA pilot and groups of committed activists have done an incredible job to improve care standards for vulnerable people in supported exempt accommodation, where such action is needed, but they simply cannot fill the gap that the Government have allowed to grow. To make matters worse, rather than supporting them, the Government are refusing to fund the SEA pilot—its funding runs out next month. As a result, the bankrupt Birmingham city council has been left in an impossible position. It must either scrounge the money together to fund the initiative itself, or lose what little grip it had left on the situation.

That point is worth repeating. After depriving the council of the powers to regulate the market for three years, the Government are now refusing to give it the means to provide even a band-aid solution to a problem that they are compounding. While assurances were given that the Government would respond to the consultation as soon as possible, we have been hearing that for a long time.

This is not just about some additional antisocial behaviour taking place on the streets; it is about the vulnerable individuals who are being let down by the system, and it is about the residents who have paid the price for Government inaction and seen the character of their streets tainted. Residents feel that their neighbourhoods have been lost and, worst of all, they feel as though no one in Whitehall cares enough to solve the problem.

This is not to say that there is no place for supported exempt accommodation in Birmingham, because it plays a pivotal role. When it works well, it changes lives. I have been to neighbourhood forums in my constituency and spoken to people who have turned their lives around because of the support they receive from their registered providers—people rebuilding their lives after serving prison sentences, suffering domestic abuse, leaving care, or combating debilitating addictions or mental health conditions. But without the efficient, effective and meaningful licensing scheme for supported housing that the council was promised three years ago, Birmingham is simply unable to cope. We are asking neighbourhoods to absorb extremely high numbers of people with complex needs, but we are not providing the council with the tools required to support those individuals or reassure residents, and inevitably it is only the vulnerable individuals and the residents around them who stand to lose.

The problem of over-concentration is exacerbated by the inefficient support infrastructure that comes with it. The SEA pilot shows that when Birmingham is given tools, it delivers, but the city has more supported exempt accommodation than anywhere else in the country, and yet it does not have the corresponding level of funding, enforcement capacity, clinical provision or community-safety staffing required to manage the consequences.

If someone requires 24-hour wraparound care, addiction services, psychiatric input and structured supervision, they need a properly funded care facility, not a standard residential property with light-touch oversight. We must distinguish individuals who are stabilised and ready for supported community living from those in acute crisis who require secure, high-support environments before they can safely transition into neighbourhoods.

At present, that distinction is not being properly resourced and the result is unfair on everyone. It is unfair on residents who see behaviour that is deeply distressing and feel that their concerns are dismissed, it is unfair on vulnerable individuals who are placed in environments that do not meet the scale of their needs, and it is unfair on Birmingham city council, which is expected to manage the situation without adequate funding or authority.

The council’s supported exempt accommodation pilot has demonstrated what can be achieved when resources are provided, but pilots and short-term funding are not enough. What Birmingham needs is sustained funding for community safety, including more community safety officers and a greater neighbourhood policing presence in areas with a high concentration of supported housing. I would be incredibly appreciative if the Minister could make the necessary representations to his colleagues in the Home Office on that front.

The council needs the ability to manage concentration and set boundaries on the number of people from outside the city that it must house, because no neighbourhood should be asked to shoulder a disproportionate share of highly complex placements without the consultation, infrastructure and services to match it. When it comes to managing such complex matters, having an ineffective, watered-down licensing scheme is worse than having nothing altogether, because we end up with the same outcome at a higher cost to the taxpayer.

I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on what can be done to ensure that the 2023 Act is implemented in a way that reflects the impact that exempt accommodation can have on neighbourhoods and community harmony. I would also be grateful to hear what is being done to increase the speed with which the Act is implemented, and clarification on when the Government will respond in full to the most recent consultation.

Finally, the council needs the necessary powers to ensure that vulnerable individuals receive the best care possible. That means clarifying the extent of providers’ duty of care to their tenants, with tailored and specialist plans that not only provide personal support to the individual, but outline their obligations to ensure harmony with neighbours and the local community.

To conclude, I have a couple of final questions for the Minister. What financial support do the Government intend to provide to Birmingham city council in its efforts to contain the local crisis that the Government’s prolonged inactivity has exacerbated? The SEA pilot, in particular, is of great value to my constituents, and it would be a real shame if it disappeared. Will he agree to meet with me and local groups so that they can convey to him the true scale of the impact that the oversaturation of SEAs is having on their neighbourhoods and communities?

At the end of the day, this is about vulnerable people who need structured care, communities that need reassurance, and a local authority that cannot continue to carry a national burden without national support. Birmingham is not asking to step away from its responsibilities; it is asking for the means to fulfil them properly. It is my sincere hope that the Government will escalate their efforts to deliver exactly that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ayoub Khan]

I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) for her efforts in this debate—not just her contribution today, but her work in Parliament previously. I also thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) for his interventions. The hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) is not here, but we have had lengthy conversations and it seems that she is equally concerned, as are the other parliamentarians who represent Birmingham, about the sheer saturation of exempt accommodation.

We all recognise the vulnerabilities of the individuals we all come across on a daily basis in our local shopping centres and hospitals, and the pressure on the West Midlands police when there are incidents. An enormous knock-on burden in Birmingham is being felt by local residents. Historically, many of the vulnerable individuals we now come across would not have been walking the streets. They would have been in care homes receiving the right level of care, but we do not see that now.

I thank the Lib Dem spokesman and the shadow Minister for their contributions. As the Minister said, we are all essentially singing off the same hymn sheet. We all understand the importance of supported accommodation for those who can live with minimal support, integrate into society and contribute to local neighbourhoods. But unfortunately we are not getting that. Licensing and enabling the council to regulate the sector is so important. I hear the Minister, but I am afraid the phrase “as soon as possible” will not be well received by local residents who have to deal with the challenges on a daily basis.

I accept that consultation with providers—especially those that do amazing work to provide support for vulnerable individuals who live in local neighbourhoods—is an important part of the process, but if there is going to be a delay because of the consultation, I would like the Minister to reconsider the SEA grant that is given to Birmingham city council. If licensing kicks in, let us say towards the end of the year, or even next year—whenever that may happen—the fact is that we do not have the capacity to deal with the problems that communities currently face. Will the Minister take that point away? I can see that I have gone over my allotted time, Ms Lewell.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered supported exempt accommodation in Birmingham.

Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who is an ardent and extremely consistent advocate for Birmingham despite not being a Member of Parliament for the city. Her constituency borders Birmingham, and she has highlighted the devastating impact that the bin strikes have been having on her constituents.

Earlier this month marked one year since the bin strikes began, yet the council walked out of negotiations in the summer. It has made absolutely no effort to secure a negotiated settlement to the dispute. For more than a year, Birmingham city council has continued in its pursuit to cut the pay of essential workers. After bankrupting the city, it is diverting what little taxpayer money it has available and using it, not to reverse some of the budget cuts it installed, but to prolong a process that has caused rubbish to pile up in our streets. At no point has the council leadership—or this Government–– done the one thing it should have all along and admitted who is truly at fault for stalling negotiations, inflicting misery upon residents and prolonging this saga.

It was a Labour-run council whose incompetence bankrupted the city before passing a budget that slashed public services by £300 million, raised council tax bills by 18% and made the cuts to the waste management service that triggered the dispute. It was a Labour-run council that stood idly by while the deal put forward by its own managing director was vetoed by the Government-appointed commissioners, and it is a Labour-run council that has refused to re-enter negotiations for six months, even as the agency staff it hired to replace the striking workers have joined the picket line in droves.

Reports due before Birmingham city council show that attempts to break the bin strikes have already cost more than £33 million. That figure includes lost income from waste services, emergency street cleansing, security and temporary facilities. Even that figure is likely to underestimate the true cost once spending on agency staff and contractors is fully accounted for. While that is happening, nearly £20 million of those costs are being met by cutting spending elsewhere, placing further strain on already underfunded services and raising a fundamental question about value for money. A dispute that could have been resolved at a fraction of the cost has been allowed to spiral into a financial and service delivery disaster.

While the council drags its feet on reaching a deal that it has spent inordinate amounts of money to avoid, it is the residents who are harmed the most. It is the residents who are being asked to tolerate collapsing services while tens of millions of pounds are burned on band-aid solutions. Across the city, most have gone weeks —sometimes even months—without a single bin collection. Piles of waste have become the new normal. As the streets grow dirtier, fly-tipping has surged, unchecked and unchallenged. On many occasions, I have been out late at night, side by side with local community organisations, collecting rubbish from the streets of Birmingham. For more than a year now, my constituents have filled in where the council is nowhere to be seen, doing the job it has failed to do. The situation has got so bad that some feel it is right to blame local residents for not taking it on themselves.

Let me be clear: the people of Birmingham take pride in their communities. They care about their streets, their neighbours and their city just as much as anyone else. They do not deserve to be scapegoated for a mess that is not of their making. The blame lies squarely with the Labour-run council, which has broken the social contract between itself and Birmingham’s 1.2 million residents. It took taxpayer’s money to deliver essential services and failed to uphold its end of the bargain. It did not need to come to this. A proactive council would have sat down, found a solution and put residents first. Instead, it has let things deteriorate to the point that the Army has had to be called in to clean our streets.

This situation exposes the limits of pretending that this is purely a local matter. The Government have repeatedly shirked responsibility by claiming that this is a matter for the local authorities, but Birmingham city council is under a statutory intervention. Government-appointed commissioners are involved in improving outcomes, yet Ministers have repeatedly sought to distance themselves from responsibility. If the Government have a role in overseeing decisions, they also have a responsibility to ensure that those decisions are not prolonging misery or unnecessarily inflating costs.

Ultimately, Birmingham’s residents want two things: to have their bins collected safely and reliably, and to be confident that their money is not being squandered through mismanagement at a local and national level. If the council and Government cannot manage even to consider a negotiated settlement, it will be the residents who are forced to pay for their mistakes. As I have repeatedly asked in the main Chamber, I ask the Minister whether the Government will now ask Birmingham city council leaders to sit at the table with Unite the union and come to a resolution, so that residents can have a proper bin service?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ayoub Khan]

Does the hon. Member agree that the issue is not just the lack of green and recyclable waste collections, but that communities who live in inner-city areas, where more individuals live in a particular home and that home is terraced, suffer most?

[Manuela Perteghella]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I understand that recycling is now at 15% in this authority; given that there have been no weekly recycling collections for almost a year, it is a surprise that any recycling gets done. Perhaps it is the result of the good work of residents, who are doing their best to take rubbish to the tips, despite the failings of the council and the Government. Missed collections and overflowing communal bins for flats are all too common, waste to landfill has doubled and recycling rates have crashed. Sadly, I suspect that Birmingham might now be the worst-performing authority for recycling in the country.

Fly-tipping is another recurring issue, not only in Birmingham but across the west midlands, including in my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon. Rubbish, furniture, electrical goods and all sorts of waste get dumped on the streets of our cities, on lay-bys and on farmland. That matters deeply to our constituents. The Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to commit to proper community policing, and to a rural crime strategy that includes fly-tipping. Will the Minister set out steps to help support local authorities and enforcement agencies to tackle that environmental crime?

Back in Birmingham, the Liberal Democrat group leader on the council, Councillor Roger Harmer, informed me that there have been no negotiations since July 2025. The council and Unite are in deadlock, and Unite’s mandate for industrial action is active until at least March 2026. I say to my Labour colleagues that talks are needed urgently, as the alternative is the strike continuing into the summer, which would not benefit anyone.

In two of the 10 constituencies in the council area, over half of children are living in poverty. The financial fallout of the bin strikes and the cumulative financial crises of the council are being felt in the hungry bellies of increasing numbers of children. I hope that the councillors, trade unionists and the Government keep those children and their parents in mind and make a renewed effort to end this crisis.

The deadlock must end, and Birmingham’s Labour councillors need to get around the table to negotiate, or step aside to make space for those who will. Likewise, the Government must tackle the funding crisis in local government, and they must get a grip on adult and children’s social care, on provision for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, and on the prevention of homelessness to help alleviate the financial burden on councils.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments on the fair funding review and the recovery grant, which was needed due to the significant damage done to council finances by 14 years of Tory misrule. I have already met scores of colleagues to discuss council funding, and I will meet scores more over the next couple of days. I look forward to talking with my hon. Friend about the proposal she mentions.

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

Birmingham residents have just marked the first anniversary of the bin strikes. We have spent more than £15 million on agency staff. Will the Minister personally intervene to help broker a deal between the trade unions and Birmingham city council?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the needs of Birmingham residents. They should come first, and everybody deserves a good bin service. We want all parties to come to the table and deal with this as swiftly as humanly possible.

Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this debate.

We have heard several contributions about the cumulative impacts, which is an important term. Although the impacts come within the planning remit, they are often not given the priority that they ought to have. In fact, they ought to be the prime consideration in any new development.

I welcome the Government’s proposal to develop more than 1.5 million homes over the next five years, because in the city of Birmingham and my constituency, Birmingham Perry Barr, the housing shortage is an enormous problem. Somewhere in the region of 25,000 families are living in temporary accommodation. I often hear about split families, with the husband and some children living in one part of the city and the wife and some children living in another part, so housing is an important and desperate need.

Building new homes is not just about the bricks and mortar. Other hon. Members have eloquently set out the other important infrastructure necessities, so I will not repeat that, but I want to talk about a development in my constituency. The athletes’ village was meant to be a legacy project. It cost somewhere in the region of half a billion pounds, and it was meant to deliver 1,200 to 1,400 family units. It was originally meant to be used by the athletes arriving to participate in the Commonwealth games, and after that the properties were, in tranches, going to become social and affordable homes.

Hon. Members have already talked about the word “affordable”. When I graduated, I started my first job on an income of, I think, about £14,000. I purchased my first home at the cost of £30,000, and I was able to pay off the complete mortgage within a number of years. Developers now give people the option of purchasing 50:50, so they get a mortgage for half the value of the property. “Value” is the buzzword, because the value of the property is determined by the area in which it is built. Affordable homes are not really affordable; that word often gets used to make it seem like people can get on to the property ladder, but they are not really offered much.

The athletes’ village was, at first sight, an extremely welcome development. It would provide extra units that we desperately needed in that inner-city area, but the problems are now emerging. It was not planned very well. In London, it is acceptable for tower blocks with many units to be built because there is the transport infrastructure, and people are used to going out and doing small amounts of shopping—that is the lifestyle—but for residents of Birmingham it is an enormous challenge. The families who live there were essentially blackmailed into taking on those properties. If a band A homeless person is given the option of taking on a new home, they will bite the council’s hand because they would rather be living in a permanent new home than temporary accommodation. Some of that temporary accommodation is absolutely awful.

The families are now struggling, because they have no parking spaces. Residents on one neighbouring street are up in arms, because some of their parking spaces have been taken. It is becoming very toxic, and a number of vehicles have been vandalised. It is causing serious problems in the local community. I have taken the issue up with the acting chief executive of Birmingham city council, and we are looking at ways to deal with the matter.

I will not take up much more time, but I would welcome a meeting with the Minister, or a member of his team, to see how we can resolve this issue in Birmingham Perry Barr. It will require additional support—perhaps to acquire some land so that we can resolve parking issues. This is just one of the issues we get when we do not think properly about the cumulative impact. That should be paramount. Once again, I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire for securing this valuable debate.

Homelessness: Funding

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this debate, which is important for the country and, indeed, for Birmingham.

In Birmingham, more than 25,000 families are currently on the housing register, and shockingly, around 10,000 children live in temporary accommodation. In some cases, families are split, with a father and some children living in temporary accommodation in one part of the city, while the mother lives with other children in another part. That causes me great anxiety not only because of the impact on mental health, but because of the direct impact on families and children. Children may not be able to go to local schools because they have no fixed abode.

Another growing problem in Birmingham—and certainly in Birmingham Perry Barr—is rough sleeping. On some of the high streets in my constituency—Soho Road, Villa Road in Lozells, Aston Lane—and at the One Stop Shopping centre, desperate individuals are out in the cold, looking for some small change for a hot drink in weather that will only get worse. Some of them have difficult and complex needs, some are drug addicts and some have had problems with alcohol. There are also people who have been in the military. I am not going to mention his name, but I know of a young man, who I think is in his mid-30s, living in temporary accommodation but without the support that he needs. He is frequently out on the streets until the early hours of the morning. That, in itself, can cause a degree of antisocial behaviour because, with increased crime and people on the street late at night, there are always ramifications in a local neighbourhood.

I totally agree with the hon. Member for Harrow East about ringfenced funding. That is so important in Birmingham, which has been run by Labour for the past decade. It is not just because Government funding has been reduced but because there has been a high degree of funding mismanagement by Birmingham’s Labour-run council. Ringfenced funding for housing will ensure that people get the support they deserve.

It is not just about the funding that central Government provides to councils under the Barnett formula but about the recent Pride in Place funding the Government have announced. Edgbaston, Erdington, Hall Green, Hodge Hill, Ladywood, Northfield, Selly Oak and Yardley—eight constituencies in Birmingham, all with Labour MPs. But which constituency did not get any funding? Birmingham Perry Barr. We only have to Google or ChatGPT search the deprivation indices to see that Birmingham Perry Barr has among the highest. Will the Minister speak to her colleagues about why Birmingham Perry Barr has been excluded?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on his continued work on homelessness. He is respected across the House, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), said, and we are all grateful for his work.

I thank the 14 hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I again agree with the shadow Minister that that number, along with the 17 hon. Members who spoke in the last such debate, sends a message to people outside this place that tackling homelessness is a priority for Members on both sides of the House of Commons. I will encourage all officials in the Department to read this debate to understand where MPs are coming from and the priority that this subject represents for them. The Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 of the hon. Member for Harrow East is a priority for me, and I want to work with him to implement it. I hear what he said about its delay and take that as an instruction to work harder to get it done.

More broadly, I thank hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions. As has been said, although homelessness is a problem of not having enough houses, it is not just a housing problem; it is a profound injustice that devastates lives. Everyone has a right to a roof over their head. Homelessness is a visible reminder that our society falls short in the duties that we owe to one another—something that the Labour Government are determined to change.

Some hon. Members mentioned the homelessness strategy, about which I can only say, “Watch this space.” I am determined to get on and publish it before Christmas, and I am really keen to work cross-party with hon. Members to make it work. We had an excellent parliamentary engagement session last week, which was less formal than this debate, and I think it works really well to have a combination of informal opportunities and debates such as this for hon. Members to talk through what they want to see in the strategy.

As we move towards the delivery phase of the homelessness strategy, it will be right for us to continue holding those parliamentary engagement sessions on a range of issues to make sure that hon. Members can feed into them. Last week, we talked through the preventive nature of the strategy from the point of view of housing and affordability, and how we can enable the support that the most vulnerable people need. A couple of hon. Members also made important points about people with complex needs.

You will forgive me, Mr Vickers, if I briefly mention the Budget. I have no doubt that, as with any Budget, not every hon. Member got all their heart’s desires, but ending the two-child limit was one of mine. I have met many kids in temporary accommodation, or otherwise living in poverty, who will benefit. I think of those children every day when I walk into the Department, and what we can collectively do to give them their futures back.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) said, we announced in the Budget that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will lead a review, involving me and other Ministers, of value for money in homelessness services. It will include looking at ways to improve the supply of good value for money and good quality temporary accommodation and supported housing, such as through greater co-ordination in planning and procurement in different parts of the state.

A couple of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon)—who I commend for his work as my predecessor as Minister for Local Government, setting in train a really important set of reforms that will help in this area—mentioned the absolutely dire state of temporary accommodation, both for the kids in it and for the taxpayer, and the fact that we are not getting value for money at the moment. I encourage all Members to engage with that value for money review; we want to see some of the worst cases so that we can provide an evidence base.

[Ayoub Khan]

The Minister is making some powerful points in recognition of the challenges that we face. On the Budget, it will always be difficult to balance the books and maintain the status quo. Does she accept that the mammoth task of addressing homelessness can be achieved only with the substantial amount of investment that can come through wealth taxes—with wealthy people paying more for the vulnerable in society?

Pride in Place

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is completely right. We want pace, we want momentum and we want to get on with investing in our communities. Our community delivery unit will be working really closely with communities. If places want to run, it is our job to work alongside them so that they can run.

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

I welcome this new funding package. The city of Birmingham will receive £160 million over the next 10 years. My constituency, which has been in the media recently, undoubtedly has some of the highest levels of unemployment, child poverty, deprivation and health inequalities, but it has not received any of the funding. May I invite the Minister to meet me, so I can seek to persuade her that we need more funding, given that the eight neighbourhoods in Birmingham are patches that, unfortunately, have Labour MPs?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I would be happy to meet the hon. Member. We know there is deprivation across the country, and everything the Government are trying to do, from our strategy to drive growth to the work my colleagues in other Departments are doing on child poverty—we are taking action across the piece—is to tackle that. We have focused on certain communities, but we know that there is work to be done in all our communities.