Birmingham Pub Bombings

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liam Byrne]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. She speaks with such passion and eloquence about this issue. She knows as well as I do how deeply the families feel their pain.

Since the exoneration of the Birmingham Six—the men who were tortured, framed and imprisoned—no one has been held to account for that failure. Since 1991, no new suspects have been brought to trial. Since 2019, even though witnesses have admitted that they knew who was responsible, no one has been compelled to testify, despite the fact that men like Michael Christopher Hayes, a former member of the Provisional IRA, confessed in a 2017 BBC interview that he accepted “collective responsibility” for what he called a terrible tragedy, and despite Witness O and Chris Mullin indicating in their evidence to the inquest that they had knowledge of those responsible for the murders. While the coroner accepted assurances from the Government Legal Department that relevant documents had been disclosed, widespread doubts remain about whether information held in the Home Office, Foreign Office or Ministry of Defence was, in fact, made available.

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

I commend the right hon. Gentleman on securing this important Adjournment debate. More than half a century has passed, and it seems that consecutive Governments have not provided closure, not just for the victims and their families, but for those who were falsely convicted and their families. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is a lack of political will, as opposed to anything else, that is preventing us from having a public inquiry?

[Liam Byrne]

The thrust of what the hon. Gentleman says is right. I will come on to some reflections on that in just a moment.

We know that there are documents that were not provided to the inquest. Key individuals involved have died, but there are allegations that at least two of those responsible are still alive and living free, and that their names can be found in books in the House of Commons Library. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) said, as the years pass, memories fade and witnesses die, and the trail of truth grows cold. That is why it is time to act now.

Let us look at the facts. This is the largest unsolved mass murder in British history. No statutory inquiry has ever been launched into what happened. No one from the state has ever been held accountable for the failings of the investigation, the imprisonment of the innocent or the denial of justice to the families. By contrast, at the urging of this House, we have rightly ensured for victims of Hillsborough, the infected blood scandal, Grenfell, Windrush and the Post Office scandal that we got to the bottom of what happened, and what caused the pain for so many victims. Why not Birmingham? Why are the people of Birmingham not given the justice that they deserve? It is time we sent the message from this House that there can be no more excuses.

A public inquiry is not just a legal tool, but a national act of conscience. It is how democracy apologises with honesty. It is how we tell the victims and their families that they matter, that their loss matters, and that their loved ones will not be forgotten. Crucially, it is how we learn. If we cannot learn the lessons of the past, the risk is that we repeat them.

We say often in this House that justice delayed is justice denied. It has been 51 years since that terrible night: 51 years of injustice; 51 years of doors closed and backs turned. I say that is long enough.

I want to be very clear with the House tonight about what we are seeking. We are seeking a statutory public inquiry under section 1 of the Inquiries Act 2005. We are seeking a judge-led process, with full legal powers to compel witnesses and evidence. We are seeking an independent inquiry that is resourced to ensure the effective participation of the families, and that asks openly, without constraint, fear or favour: who bombed Birmingham? We are seeking an inquiry that examines the role of the police, the criminal justice system and the state, both then and since.

We have to be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this crime is not covered by the legislation and the agreements that secured peace in Northern Ireland, and that means something important. It means that the Home Secretary has the power right now to order this inquiry. There is no legal obstacle; the only question is whether there is the political will.

In April 2024, eight Birmingham MPs wrote to the Home Secretary to demand this inquiry. In November 2024, on the 50th anniversary, Justice for the 21 renewed its call, and that call was backed by a cross-party group of MPs, mayors, lawyers and campaigners. I wrote again to the Home Secretary in spring this year. I have not yet had an answer about a decision on whether an inquiry will be launched, which is why I have asked for this debate tonight. I am asking not for special treatment, but for equal treatment—for Birmingham to be given the justice that has been offered to the victims of so many scandals, where we have set up inquiries to get to the bottom of the truth.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

No, I will make some progress now.

Palestine Action’s own materials state

“we are not non-violent and we have specific targets”.

The group has a footprint in all 45 policing regions in the UK, and has pledged to escalate its campaign. This disgraceful pattern of activity cannot be allowed to continue. In applying the legislative framework, the Government assess that Palestine Action commits acts of terrorism. In several attacks—

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Jarvis]

I will not give way, because I need to get these important points on the record.

Palestine Action has committed acts of serious damage to property, with the aim of progressing its political cause and intimidating and influencing the public and the Government. These include attacks against Thales in Glasgow in 2022 and against Instro Precision in Kent and Elbit Systems UK in Bristol last year. In such attacks, Palestine Action members have forced entry on to premises while armed with a variety of weapons, and damaged or demolished property, causing millions of pounds’ worth of criminal damage. As the House has heard, Palestine Action members have used violence against people responding at the scene.

During Palestine Action’s attack against the Thales defence factory in Glasgow in 2022, the group caused over £1 million-worth of damage, including to parts that are essential for our submarines. Palestine Action caused panic among staff, who feared for their safety as pyrotechnics and smoke bombs were thrown into the area to which they were evacuating. When passing custodial sentences for the perpetrators, the sheriff said:

“Throwing pyrotechnics at areas where people are being evacuated to cannot be described as non-violent.”

The Government also assess that Palestine Action prepares for terrorism. The organisation has provided practical advice to assist its members in carrying out significant levels of property damage at targets right across the UK. For example, Palestine Action has released an underground manual that encourages its members to create small groups or cells and provides guidance about how to conduct activity against private companies and Government buildings. It explains how to operate covertly to evade arrest and provides a link to a website, also created by Palestine Action, which contains a map of target locations across the UK.

The Government assess that Palestine Action promotes and encourages terrorism, including through the glorification on social media of its attacks involving property damage. Palestine Action’s attacks are not victimless crimes; employees have experienced physical violence, intimidation and harassment, and they have been prevented from entering their place of work. We would not tolerate this activity from organisations motivated by Islamist or extreme right-wing ideology, and we cannot tolerate it from Palestine Action.

By implementing this measure, we will remove Palestine Action’s veil of legitimacy, tackle its financial support, and degrade its efforts to recruit and radicalise people into committing terrorist activity in its name. We must be under no illusion: Palestine Action is not a legitimate protest group. People engaged in lawful protest do not need weapons. People engaged in lawful protest do not throw smoke bombs and fire pyrotechnics around innocent members of the public. And people engaged in lawful protest do not cause millions of pounds’ worth of damage to national security infrastructure, including submarines and defence equipment for NATO. Proscribing Palestine Action will not impinge the right to protest. People have always been able to protest lawfully or express support for Palestine, and they can continue to do so.

I am conscious of the time, so I will briefly turn to the Russian Imperial Movement. RIM is a white supremacist ethno-nationalist organisation that seeks to create a new Russian imperial state. The methods that RIM uses to try to achieve those aims threaten UK, Euro-Atlantic and wider international security and prosperity. RIM conducts combat activity via its paramilitary unit, the Russian Imperial Legion, and has actively fought alongside Russian forces and other pro-Russian right-wing extremist groups in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. In doing so, the Government assess that it has committed or participated in acts of terrorism.

RIM also prepares for terrorism. It manages a paramilitary training programme known as Partisan, which increases the capabilities of attendees to conduct terrorist attacks. By proscribing RIM, the UK will reinforce our steadfast support for Ukraine’s resistance to Russian aggression and our commitment to counter future threats from extreme right-wing terrorism in the UK and Europe.

Almost two years ago, it was my task on behalf of what was then His Majesty’s Opposition to strongly support the action taken to proscribe the Wagner Group, an organisation that rightly stood condemned for its acts of indiscriminate violence and terror in Ukraine and elsewhere. I hope the whole House will be as united today as it was on that occasion in endorsing the action taken against the Russian Imperial Movement.

To conclude, the first duty of Government is to keep our country safe. When our collective security and our values are threatened, we will not hesitate to act. Today’s proscriptions will send a clear and unambiguous message that this Parliament stands against terrorism however and wherever it manifests itself. Only in applying the UK’s counter-terrorism framework without bias can we maintain confidence in it. I therefore urge Members to support these proscriptions, and I commend the order to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross]

The right to protest is a hugely important part of our democracy. We support the right to protest and the right to free speech. We do not support a right to commit criminal damage or to intimidate or threaten the public, but that is exactly what these groups are doing and why they are quite rightly being proscribed.

We must be clear-eyed about the broader threat landscape we face. Terrorism remains one of the most serious threats to our national security. Whether it comes from international networks, those radicalised online or extremist groups operating on our soil, the threat is real and evolving and it must demand our constant vigilance. Our security services work tirelessly day and night to keep us safe. They have disrupted countless plots that the public will never know about, but we cannot be complacent. The nature of terrorism has changed—from sophisticated networks to lone actors, from physical attacks to attacks on cyber networks, and from foreign battlefields to our own communities—and our response must evolve accordingly.

We should reflect on what terrorism is. As defined by the Terrorism Act 2000, it occurs when an action’s

“use or threat is designed to influence the government…or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and…the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.”

The full list of actions are detailed in the Act, but they include serious violence against a person, those that endanger life or health and safety, and those that seriously damage property.

Proscription is not a step taken lightly, but it is a strong and necessary tool that the previous as well as the current Government have used and should use to protect the public, and to ensure that our police and security services have fuller access to the resources they need to keep the public, our institutions and our way of life safe. No one could hear the Minister’s description of the actions of Palestine Action, MMR and RIM and consider them to be those of peaceful, legitimate protest groups.

[Ayoub Khan]

Does the shadow Minister accept that there is a distinction in intent between Palestine Action and the other two organisations? There is no intention with Palestine Action to cause injury to people, so matters can already be dealt with in the criminal courts.

[Harriet Cross]

I thank the hon. Member for that, but if Palestine Action is using pyrotechnics against people who are escaping an attack by that organisation, that is intent. If it intends to damage Royal Air Force property and Ministry of Defence property by sabotaging RAF jets at Brize Norton, that is intent. It is showing intent as well as the other organisations.

These groups do not share our values. They do not respect our country. They do not care about our way of life and they show no regard for the safety of our citizens. On the Conservative Benches, we are proud of the actions taken by previous Conservative Governments to strengthen our counter-terrorism framework. We gave our police and security services the powers they needed to confront evolving threats, and we welcome and support the Home Secretary making use of the same powers today.

As the Minister said, proscription is a vital tool and a strong deterrent, but it is only a part—albeit a very important part—of what we need to do to keep our country safe. On its own, it is not enough. It must be followed by enforcement. We will, of course, be watching closely to ensure the police have the resources and the backing they need from the Labour Government to do just that.

As the Minister and I have said, the first job of any Government is to keep their citizens safe. We, as the official Opposition, will always support the Government in that aim. The activities of these organisations have clearly met the threshold for proscription under the Terrorism Act, and we on the Opposition Benches are very happy to support the Government in their aims today.

Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Too often, victims and survivors have been asked to tell their story, often to multiple agencies, and then have seen no action, which simply strengthens the distress that they feel. Seven thousand victims and survivors gave evidence to the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. As we draw up the arrangements for the national inquiry, we will work closely, as will the safeguarding Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips), to keep victims and survivors in our minds. We must ensure that they have support, and that the point my hon. Friend has raised on behalf of her constituent, and for the victims and their families, is taken seriously.

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

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, specifically about allowing the NCA to head the operation, with partner agencies, and working across all regions. As a barrister, I have spoken to many NCA officers and law enforcement officers, and one consistent criticism is that they do not have enough resources. This will be an enormous investigation, up and down the country, so will the Home Secretary assure the House that the resources that those officers will need to complete the investigation will not be limited?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have already provided some additional resources for policing, so that officers will be able to undertake the assessment and identification of cases that were closed but need to be reopened, or where other lines of inquiry need to be followed up. The hon. Gentleman will know that the National Crime Agency already does immensely important work through Operation Stovewood around South Yorkshire, and through its work on online child abuse. We need to bring all the different programmes of work closer together, involving both the National Crime Agency and the new centre for public protection that we are setting up, which will be about setting new standards across the country and rolling out the national operating model that all forces can then follow.

Irish Republican Alleged Incitement

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

Incitement to violence is completely unacceptable and there is never an excuse for it. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to mention the former Members of this House who lost their life serving their constituents and our country. I underline again the Government’s commitment and determination to ensure that all of us in this place, and all who serve in public life, can do so safely and securely. He spoke about the investigation. As I have said, that is on the way, but I take and understand his point about speed. He will understand that I have already responded to the point about funding. The Secretary of State will look at that—as will other Departments, I am sure.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the fact that Members of this House who have served their constituents in good faith have lost their life in so doing. That is utterly vile. We all have a responsibility to ensure that it does not happen again. That is the body of work of the defending democracy taskforce. I will ensure that it means we are best placed to address the threats that we all know about.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My understanding, as a new MP, is that there is a long-standing convention by which a Member who intends to refer to another Member during proceedings—particularly in a critical or contentious manner—should inform that Member in advance. That courtesy gives the Member concerned the opportunity to be present and, if necessary, to respond. Earlier, reference was made to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) without prior notice. I seek your guidance on whether that is in keeping with the expected standards of conduct in the Chamber.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for advance notice of his point of order. Had he been in the Chamber at the time, he would have heard me make exactly that point. It is a courtesy of this House that Members referring to others should give advance notice.

Child Rape Gangs

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

Thank you.

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

Child sexual exploitation is a vile and despicable crime that cuts across all sections of our society. It is perpetrated by individuals with blackened souls who come from all races, creeds, religions and backgrounds. All law-abiding citizens want justice for the victims of those horrific acts. Does the Minister agree that our focus must be on supporting the victims of exploitation and stopping the perpetrators, but that that must be done in such a way that does not fan the flames of hate towards innocent groups of people who, like all law-abiding citizens, condemn such acts?

[Jess Phillips]

Of course I agree. I want the perpetrators to be held accountable. What I can say without any doubt is that, as local inquiries have told us, people have covered things up, whether asked to or not, for seemingly multicultural reasons. That cannot stand. That said, we will always follow the facts to ensure that we completely and utterly deal with it.

Knife Crime: West Midlands

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour and a privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for securing this important debate. I hope to be somewhat succinct. I echo the sentiments expressed by other hon. Members, but I want to talk about my personal experiences as someone who grew up in an area that has had, historically, the highest deprivation, high crime and a gang culture—the area of Aston.

I grew up in an environment where young lads would hang around on street corners, in the local park or in local shopping centres, and we know the phrase “idle hands are the devil’s workshop”. What was it that allowed me and my siblings, and people closely affiliated with me in my social surroundings, to achieve so much coming out of an area such as Aston? I reflect on my personal experiences, and one of the most important factors that allowed me to remain out of gang culture, not standing on corners or in the local park or shopping centres, was the youth centres.

I had two prominent youth centres within walking distance of my home. One is now called Saathi House, and there was a play centre within Aston park. We had youth workers. I chuckle when I talk about the youth workers that helped steer my life—Fat Phil was the name of one of them, and Sandra was another. They were instrumental, because they took us away from standing on corners, and from the local shopping centres and parks. They took us out on weekend trips. I came from a family that was not wealthy. My father worked 12-hour shifts and I hardly ever saw him, and my mum was very keen to ensure that we stayed on a straight and narrow path. It was the youth centres that took up all my evenings and weekends. It was all the social activities that they took us on that meant we were out of the gang culture, which was rife.

While the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) rightly points out that Birmingham council, although it originally decided to slash youth centres, has now decided to keep them all open, the resources are not being provided—staffing levels are being reduced. I urge the Minister to review what we have in Birmingham. The debate is on the west midlands, but the statistics show that there were 6,185 knife-related incidents in the last three years just in Birmingham.

If we are serious about tackling knife crime, of course prevention is vital, and youth centres are instrumental in that, but we need to resource them appropriately. There is no point having a youth centre where children cannot go to events or play football at a local football stadium because they cannot afford the £7 per child—parents simply do not have that money. Resourcing youth centres adequately is very important, so that they can provide the sort of things that I experienced.

Hon. Members have talked about social media, and I am glad that the Government are taking strident steps to address that aspect, but the online purchase of weapons is critical. It is not just about closing the gap by making sure that Amazon, eBay and other online retailers are held to account; we also need tougher rules and sentences for adults who purchase online and provide weapons to young children. That is important, given what we understand about gang culture and the way that young children can be coerced into that environment.

Police officers and PCSOs are also important. We had community support officers in inner-city areas setting up equipment for football, rugby and cricket. They would be in charge and take young children to local parks and interact with them. It has already been mentioned that we had a significant reduction in police officers and PCSOs. I hope that the additional officers will assist, but they cannot assist if they are not adequately resourced to do the things that can drive young people away from gang culture.

In closing, I again thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich for securing this debate. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take away my personal experiences, and the need for additional resources in Birmingham, especially when Birmingham city council has an enormous deficit of more than £376 million. It simply does not have the resources to deal with this issue, and it requires additional funding from the Government.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s important point. Part of our wider work on tackling violence against women and girls is to ensure that children and young people have the confidence to be able to recognise abuse and exploitation. I know the Education Secretary takes this immensely seriously and is looking at how to take it forward.

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

Child sexual exploitation is a vile crime that violates the trust, safety and dignity of children. Perpetrators of such despicable crimes—individuals or groups, no matter their race, religion or creed—must face the full force of the law. I commend the Home Secretary for her statement and the steps it sets out, especially on victims’ right to review. So many victims feel that the authorities have neglected their position. Can the Home Secretary please give a timetable, even an estimate, for the duty of candour? I am sure she knows that justice delayed is justice denied.

[Yvette Cooper]

Work is under way on drawing up the Hillsborough law, which was part of the King’s Speech to be taken forward as a priority in this Session. That work is being done across the Cabinet Office, with Ministry of Justice support, and it is part of the wider work on making sure there can be proper accountability where things fail and where people are let down, alongside both the duty of candour and the duty to report.

Facial Recognition: Police Use

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Westminster Hall

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

I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this important debate. It is difficult to follow the comprehensive presentation of the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), but I would like to come at this debate from a different perspective—as a criminal barrister by profession. In trials that I have conducted, we have had difficulty with experts when identifying suspects charged in very serious cases. Two experts in relevant IT facial recognition software find it difficult to come to the same conclusion. One expert in a trial will say, “This is highly likely fitting of this particular defendant—confidence level maybe 50% or 60%.” Another expert in the same trial will counterargue and say, “Well, there are dissimilarities between the face and the image that we have been able to capture.” Ultimately, it is a matter for the jury as to whether they accept one expert’s opinion over another. As a result, at present, we have counterarguments between experts over facial recognition technology.

What concerns me is the idea of allowing the state, in essence, to deploy this kind of technology in high streets, for example. The hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) has already raised the issue of the disproportionate rate of stop and search—by multiple times; I think the rate was nine times higher for black males. What impact will facial recognition live transmission data have in the city of Birmingham? It is going to have an enormous impact. Members have raised the difficulties with the percentage error of recognitions, and the distrust that we have in Birmingham is a challenge already, particularly with young men and the police. What will this technology achieve? Will young men start wearing more face coverings in city centres? How will this technology be used, even if it is legislated for properly? For example, will the police have to notify the public, “We are using this facial recognition technology in the Bullring today between the hours of 10 am and 10 pm?” It does not seem to serve any real purpose.

We have a very effective police force in the west midlands, and it uses CCTV, which we have all over. If hon. Members go to any street in Birmingham, they will find tens or hundreds of houses with CCTV, and the police have used that to great effect; after a crime is committed, they track back and they prosecute. We have had so many successful prosecutions in very serious crimes, such as murder and violent crime, but the deployment of this technology will create enormous problems and divisions. As I said, there are already problems with how minority communities feel when they are stopped and searched. I think the right hon. Member for Maldon said that in the trial about 10 people were stopped, with one to two—as little as 10%—being identified. As the technology develops further, that percentage may increase, but at present I do not see how it will assist at all. Criminals know very well how to avoid detection, and face coverings will become the norm. Other than surveillance, this technology achieves very little. I do not see how it will assist in detection.

The hon. Member for Brent East drew some simple parallels. What would the public think about being stopped on a busy high street and asked to come to a police van to give their fingerprints and DNA? They would be outraged, and rightly so. It would almost legitimise police officers approaching people, in particular young men. We know that not just black people, but people of colour, women and children will be subject to the technology, and we know that there are errors. The right to privacy and the freedoms that we have are far greater than this technology, and I do not see how it will assist in deterrence, because people will simply use face coverings and all sorts of other things.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

I see no other Back Benchers who wish to contribute, so I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Immigration and Home Affairs

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I tabled an amendment to the Humble Address that read:

“At end add ‘and submits that the Government should immediately recognise the state of Palestine.’”

The wording was confirmed by me to the Table Office at 4.40 pm yesterday. It was co-signed by the hon. Members for Blackburn (Mr Hussain), for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

Order. Is it the hon. Gentleman’s intention to challenge the ruling of Mr Speaker when he selected the amendments to be voted on tonight? What is his point of order?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ayoub Khan]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is the fact that the amendment was not tabled despite being submitted to the Table Office on time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I do not think that would have made any difference to Mr Speaker’s decision about which amendments the House will be voting on later. However, his point is noted.

I call Nigel Farage to make his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

Yesterday and today, I have witnessed a number of maiden speeches from both sides of the House. there have been some excellent contributions which I must say were absolutely wonderful to listen to. I would like to thank the residents of the newly drawn constituency of Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley who have put their trust in me. It is a privilege and a great honour to speak in the King’s Speech debate today. Like most of my constituents, I am excited by the legislative agenda it sets out. Labour has hit the ground running with a bold plan for the transformation of our country that I believe will get us back on track after 14 years of chaos. It is because of that promise that I want to speak to several areas covered in the King’s Speech.

First, I am proud of Labour’s commitment to the most ambitious house building programme in a generation, particularly in terms of social housing. This programme must be designed and implemented in a way that addresses the significant regional disparities in housing provision.

My constituents will be thankful for Labour’s approach to youth provision. From tougher measures to tackle antisocial behaviour and knife crime to educational reform through Skills England, I believe over the course of this Parliament our young people will receive the support and training they need to take advantage of every opportunity afforded to them.

The newly outlined children’s wellbeing Bill will undoubtedly make a huge impact on families in my constituency, where child poverty is at unprecedented levels. The provision of free breakfast clubs as well as the development of a new child poverty strategy are both welcome and necessary after 14 years of deprivation. This Bill will also provide extra support to children with special educational needs, who need the greatest support and have previously been denied it.

While there are arguments in favour of retaining the two-child benefit cap, it is also clear that we can go much further and lift hundreds and thousands of children out of poverty. The significance of lifting this cap for the most vulnerable in our society cannot be overstated and I hope there is movement on this in coming months.

I am particularly glad at the direction taken by this Government towards regional and local government. As we all know, Birmingham is facing an unprecedented financial crisis, putting at risk valued services such as libraries and support to children and families as well as infrastructure and investment. In the limited time available today, I will not be expanding on what can be done to save those services, but debates and discussions will take place through other means.

That brings me to amendment (c). I put my name forward to be added, but for whatever technical reasons, it was not added.

I want briefly to address some of the newly elected independents in this House. Throughout the election they denounced the Labour party with divisive and harmful rhetoric. Luckily, we are now able to measure their words against their actions, and unsurprisingly they are found lacking in signing a Labour amendment. “Labour, the party of genocide”; “Labour, the party of nastiness”—that was the rhetoric played out in the election campaign when many candidates, especially women, were harassed and intimidated. Today, those independents sit on the Opposition Benches, but they are willing to sign a Labour amendment. Please go back and explain to your constituents the rhetoric that was played out. Why have you now joined forces with Labour Members by signing amendment (c)? Are you now saying that Labour is the right party?

[Ayoub Khan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tahir Ali]

No, I will not. You need to go back to your constituents and explain that. I will not take any interventions.