Oral Answers to Questions

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend raises that issue with me very frequently indeed, and for good reason. I totally accept his characterisation. The people of Bournemouth have three such hotels, which is an extraordinary pressure not just on public services but on community tensions. I do not want those hotels open a minute longer than they have to be, so Bournemouth is absolutely uppermost in our minds.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)]

Earlier this year, the race and faith network at Greater Manchester fire and rescue service wrote to its firefighters targeting anyone who might be representing Reform UK at the local elections in what can only be described as an attempt at intimidation. Firefighters can legitimately stand in local elections. Does the Minister agree that such politicisation and institutional bullying is wholly unacceptable? What will the defending democracy taskforce do to investigate that and stop it happening again?

[Dan Jarvis]

I listened carefully to what the right hon. and learned Lady said and will give it due consideration as chair of the defending democracy taskforce.

Murder of Henry Nowak

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me give my hon. Friend the assurance that, as soon as the IOPC investigation has concluded and it has made its findings on the specific circumstances of this case, I will make sure that we return to the House so that we have an opportunity to debate collectively what the correct response will be. Let me also reassure him and everybody else that I will never stand for a system where there is any suggestion of differential treatment before the law. We are all equal before the law and every lesson we learn must always live up to that abiding principle.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)]

Henry Nowak was murdered near my constituency and local people are rightly furious with Hampshire police—not only the officers who attended the scene, but those leading the force. It is important to remember that Henry’s murderer accused him of racism. In honour of Henry’s legacy, it is important that we are all abundantly clear that the judge found absolutely zero evidence to back up that claim.

Does the Home Secretary agree that a false accusation of racism against a white person is just as bad as, if not worse than, a legitimate claim of racism, because of the deceit? Does she also agree that, watching the bodycam footage, it is clear that police officers treated Henry with disdain, contempt and arguably negligence because of the colour of his skin? We are hearing No. 10 say that two-tier policing does not exist. I ask the Home Secretary: where is the leadership today? British people are furious. The leadership is not coming from the Government.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I disagree entirely with the right hon. and learned Lady. Great leadership has already been shown by the family of Henry Nowak in the tenor of their response and their statement, and in their desire—rightly, in my view—not to see this murder used as a tool for furthering division in our country. We would all do well to take our lead from Henry’s family.

I am in the House today; I am answering questions and I have undertaken to come back once the IOPC investigation has concluded. The right hon. and learned Lady is a former Home Secretary and will know that those independent arrangements exist so that people can have confidence in the findings made in cases such as this and can know that they are made without political interference or for political ends.

On the broader point about false allegations that the right hon. and learned Lady made, lies are lies and they must be called out as such. Where a lie is criminal or leads to criminality, it must face the full force of the law. That is what has happened in this case. There has been a measure of justice, because the criminal case has concluded, the murderer has been found guilty of murder and the judge has made further findings in relation to the circumstances of the case. I urge her and some of her colleagues, when commenting on this case, to stick to the facts as they have been established.

Child Sexual Offender Data

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I want to begin by putting on the record my thanks to the 651 constituents in Hartlepool who signed the petition. They are right to demand greater transparency and accountability from the institutions responsible for protecting children. I also thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for opening the debate in such a measured way.

Let me be absolutely clear: child sexual exploitation is one of the most vile, destructive and unforgivable crimes imaginable. It destroys lives, shatters childhoods and leaves scars that never heal. It is a crime that demands from all of us the strongest possible response. That word “unforgivable” is important. I make no apology for saying this, both as a Member of this place and as a dad: for those convicted of the rape of a child, no punishment is too harsh. They should be chemically castrated, they should be given hard labour, and they should never be allowed to see another free day for the rest of their, I hope, very miserable lives.

There should be no ambiguity and no softness when it comes to protecting our children. I support wholeheartedly the intent of the petition: transparency, accountability and truth. Where facts are missing, speculation—sometimes fostered by malign actors—fills the gap, and when trust in institutions breaks down, it is ordinary people and, most importantly, victims who suffer. As we have heard, sunlight is the great disinfectant. It matters. The public have a right to know the full picture of crime in their communities and how we intend to deal with it.

Of course there are practical challenges. As Baroness Casey has highlighted, some categories, such as religion, depend on self-declaration and, on that basis, may not always be particularly reliable. But those challenges are not a reason for inaction. They are a reason for getting the systems right, not for avoiding the issue altogether.

Let me make a second point very clear: this debate must be about victims, not about political point scoring, and not about narrowing or distorting the problem. Analysis by the police showed that 115,000 children were victims of sexual abuse in 2023. The child sexual exploitation taskforce identified 4,228 group-based offences in that same year, of which 1,125 were cases of family abuse and 717 were sexual exploitation cases, including offences perpetrated by grooming gangs. Even if we accept that not all crimes will be recorded, not all data will be accurate and many crimes will remain hidden, there is simply no doubt what these figures reveal: group-based abuse is real and must be tackled without fear or favour.

The figures also show something broader and far more uncomfortable: this abuse takes many forms and happens in many settings. The most common offenders are not organised networks; tragically, they are family members, trusted adults, friends of the family, neighbours, acquaintances and, in a growing number of cases, peers—children themselves, under the age of 18. These are hard truths, but they are essential truths if we are serious about prevention. That is why we cannot afford a selective focus. Every victim matters, every offender must be pursued, and every form of abuse must be confronted with equal seriousness.

It is true, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), that investigations of grooming gangs have identified instances where offenders come disproportionately from an ethnic minority background. That must be investigated and confronted without fear or favour wherever it occurs. I trust that the independent inquiry, which in my view was set up too slowly, albeit much faster than under previous Administrations, will do that. Anyone found to be complicit in not dealing with these appalling crimes should be brought to justice with the severity of punishment they deserve.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)]

The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. Three years ago, when I was Home Secretary, I set up the grooming gangs taskforce. In its first year, it led to 500 arrests and safeguarded over 4,000 girls. I am proud of that, but it was not nearly enough. Just for daring to tell the truth that, in places like Rotherham, these were racialised crimes perpetrated largely by Pakistani Muslim men against white girls, I was attacked by—it has to be said—my own Conservative party colleagues for being Islamophobic and for amplifying a far-right narrative. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that ethnicity reporting is essential if we are to combat the institutional fear that has taken over the police, social workers, schools, parts of our media and political parties, and if we are to get justice for victims?

[Mr Brash]

I would say very clearly that nobody should be castigated for highlighting a truth that is self-evident. I think the most important thing here is that once the essence of the petition is taken up by the Government—and I hope that it is—it will reveal a truth that there is an issue with grooming gangs, and that sometimes they come from particular ethnic minority backgrounds, but it will also reveal another truth: that the vast majority of perpetrators are not from grooming gangs or ethnic minority backgrounds. That is a truth that we have to get out into the open if we are to deal with it properly. I go back to the point that if we are insistent on a narrative that tries to sow division in our country and to be selective in its focus, the only people who will lose are victims of this appalling crime.

It is of genuine concern to me that we do not narrow the focus of this debate. Why would we want less transparency rather than more, unless the goal was something other than protecting children? Narrowing the focus of the debate to only some crimes is not about protecting children, but a tactic to weaponise the issue with the goal of promoting division, driving social media clicks and furthering the individual political ambitions of certain Members of this place. It is of genuine concern to me that today’s debate has been promoted, including by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), as a debate on grooming gangs. That is not what this debate is about. It is about all victims of child sexual abuse. It is about all data on all perpetrators.

I noted this morning that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth said that he was going to name and shame every Member of Parliament who did not attend the debate. There are 650 Members of Parliament, and I believe there are 50 seats around this Chamber. Temperance in our language would serve the victims of this crime far better than the language of the hon. Member. This issue must never be weaponised, and it must never be reduced to slogans or selective outrage. It must be about truth, accountability and, above all, justice for victims. I say wholeheartedly: publish the data, show the truth, and never forget the children we are duty-bound to protect. We owe them nothing less.

Crime and Policing Bill

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

These bikes often accelerate fast, and only someone who is used to riding something that can move quickly on two wheels can do that. If not, they will go off the back. In a car, they would be restrained by the seat, but that is not the case on a bike or motorcycle. Knowing that does take some instruction—being ready, leaning into it and all the rest of it. My main point is that that is a good illustration of how we are being a bit too casual about these modes of transport, and too many young kids do not understand that they should have some training. For their sake, we should do more on this issue.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has been generous with taking interventions. I support his amendment and note that his amendment helpfully includes e-scooters, because there is a real problem. As e-scooters do not meet the criteria in the Highways Act 1980, they are effectively banned. When I speak to the hard-working police in Waterlooville, they say that e-scooters are banned in public areas. We have a real problem with illegal usage in public areas and in the shopping centre. However, people do not know that, and we need the law to be more proactive, deliberate and expressive, and that is why an amendment like this is right. Is there anything he would like to add on the issue of e-scooters?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I bow before my right hon. Friend’s greater knowledge in these matters, having headed up the Department. I simply say that for this particular purpose, I agree with her. I am urging the Government to take this matter away and look at it in the other place. Although I will not press my amendment, because legal bikes are incorporated in the earlier cycling amendment that I put forward and the Government accepted, we need more work on illegal bikes and e-scooters.

My worry, as I have said again and again, is that people can buy these things without any qualification whatsoever, whereas if I as a motorcyclist buy a bike, I have to be able to demonstrate that I am qualified to ride it away from the shop. People are not required to do so with e-bikes and e-scooters, so there is a peculiarity. Everywhere else in our legislation, we follow through. This one has dropped through the grid, and I therefore urge the Minister and the Department to look closely at the matter and see whether we can define that better in the other place and ensure that shops are unable to sell those bikes. I will not press this new clause because I think we are at the right place so far with the Government.

Crime and Policing Bill

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I think we need to consider both.

I remember a case involving a lady, Carla Foster, in June 2023. From my reading of the case, she admitted to lying about where she was in her gestation, saying that she was further back in pregnancy, at seven weeks, when she was actually much further along; she turned out to be around 33 weeks pregnant when her baby—her little girl, whom she called Lily—was born. In the papers I have read about the case, she described being traumatised by the face of that baby, which could have been prevented if she had been to a proper clinic and seen a health professional, as that health professional would have clearly seen that she was not seven weeks pregnant, and that taking abortion pills intended for early pregnancy was not a suitable or safe medical intervention.

If one has a termination later in pregnancy, it is done by foeticide. Essentially, an injection of potassium chloride is administered to kill the baby, and then the baby is born in the usual way, but deceased. That is why it is important to know what the gestation is—because the termination offered under the law is done by a different route, to make sure that it is done safely. We know that the later in pregnancy a termination happens, the more a woman is at risk of medical complications.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an expert and well-informed speech, and I shall be supporting her amendment. On the point about the risks involved with abortion to birth, what does she think about jurisdictions such as New Zealand and the State of Victoria in Australia that have decriminalised abortion and seen a significant increase in failed late-term abortions—where a baby is born and there has been a lot of physical harm and risk as a result?

[Dr Johnson]

Every jurisdiction has a democratic right to do as it chooses and I respect that, but it is a tragedy when we hear of cases where late-term abortions have not been supported by medical care or the law, and women and infants have suffered significant harm as a result.

I want to raise the case of Stuart Worby. Some people say that this issue is about protecting vulnerable women, but in this case, which was prosecuted in December 2024, a man who did not want his partner to be pregnant, when she did want to be pregnant, decided to take matters into his own hands. He asked a woman who was not pregnant to get the pills for him. He put them in a drink and gave them to his partner, inducing a miscarriage. He has rightly been put in jail for that, but the case demonstrates that there are men out there who will obtain tablets with the help of a woman. That could not have happened if women had to have an in-person appointment, because the woman arriving at the clinic to get the abortion pills on the man’s behalf would be clearly seen not to be pregnant, so would not be able to obtain the medication. My amendment seeks to protect women—women who are wrong about their gestation or who are mistaken in thinking they have had a bleed or whatever—to make sure that they have a safe termination using the right mechanisms.

United Front Work Department

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I agree that is not the right approach; the current Government’s approach is the right one. I have laid out the strategic approach we intend to adopt with China. We have to be clear headed about the nature of the threat we face, but we also have to look for areas where we can co-operate as well.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)]

Last year, as Home Secretary, I made the decision to exclude Yang Tengbo from the UK because his presence posed a threat to our national security. That decision was based on the advice of MI5, and I am very pleased that the High Court has upheld that decision. I say gently to the Minister that it is regrettable that it has taken a high-profile case, public outcry and Opposition MPs dragging the Minister to the Chamber to finally get the Government to commit to implementing the foreign influence registration scheme—a scheme that we enacted and that was ready to go at the time of the general election. If the Government are really serious about tackling the unprecedented threat posed by China—malicious cyber-attacks, transnational repression, the Confucius institutes, Chinese police stations, and of course human rights abuses against the Uyghur Muslims—when will they list China on the enhanced tier?

[Dan Jarvis]

I was not going to make this point, but given the way in which the right hon. and learned Lady has made hers, I will gently point out that the previous Government had a significant period from the passing of the National—

[Suella Braverman]

indicated dissent.

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. and learned Lady shakes her head. It is a statement of fact that the previous Government had a significant amount of time—many months—from the passing of the National Security Act 2023, during which they could have chosen to implement FIRS. They did not implement FIRS. It now falls to this Government to do so, and that is precisely what we will do.

Small Boat Crossings

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Yes, I agree profoundly with my hon. Friend, which is why the new Government have changed tack in this area. I am sure that we will see the results in due course.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)]

The Government have pledged millions of pounds to smashing the gangs, on top of the millions of pounds that we spent on stopping the boats. The Government have pledged more drones on the channel and to fast-track cases, just as we deployed drones on the channel and fast-tracked cases. The Government have set up a border security command, which sounds remarkably similar to the small boats operational command that we set up when in government. Other than scrapping the one thing that would have worked—that is, the deterrent—what have this Government done that is different that is actually going to stop the boats?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

First, the border security command is operationally completely different from the command on the channel, which is deliberately there to try to save life and find out what is going on on the water. Operationally, the border security command will co-operate across borders in a very different way. If I were the right hon. and learned Lady, I would not be boasting about the colossal morass of wasted expenditure that the Rwanda scheme represented—£700 million down the drain, with plans to spend nearly £10 billion on the plan over the next few years. It was a gross waste of money that did not deter a single boat crossing.

Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

Suella Braverman Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I reassure the hon. and learned Lady that we will do exactly that.

I turn to the measures in the Bill. We are creating a new regime for bulk personal datasets that have low or no expectation of privacy: for example, certain datasets that are widely publicly or commercially available. Bulk personal datasets are an essential tool to support our intelligence services in identifying fragments of intelligence within a large quantum of data, in order to disrupt threats such as terrorism and hostile state actors. The Bill seeks to create a new statutory oversight regime for how the intelligence services access and examine bulk personal datasets held by third parties. It will place that oversight on a statutory footing, increasing the transparency of the regime. The regime will be subject to strong safeguards, including the double lock.

We are also making changes to the notices regime that will help the UK anticipate and address the risk to public safety of companies rolling out technology that precludes lawful access to data. We want to work with those companies to achieve common goals, but we must have the tools available when collaboration falls short.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)]

I know that the Home Secretary wants to make progress, but I am grateful for the opportunity to comment.

These reforms to the IPA are necessary to upgrade our world-class regime and ensure that our frameworks are kept up to date with evolving threats and, importantly, technology. We know that the terrorists, the serious organised criminals, the fraudsters and the online paedophiles all take advantage of the dark web and encrypted spaces: to plan their terror, to carry out their fraudulent activity and to cause devastating harm to innocent people such as children, in the field of online paedophilia. Does he share my concern and indeed frustration with companies such as Meta and Apple? The former has chosen to roll out end-to-end encryption without safeguards and the latter has rolled out advanced data protection, which will allow these bad actors to go dark, which will severely disable agencies and law enforcement from identifying them and taking action, and will enable—indeed it will facilitate—some of the worst atrocities that our brave men and women in law-enforcement agencies deal with every day.

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. and learned Friend—and immediate predecessor—makes incredibly important points. Digital technology and online technology have been a liberator in so many ways, but, sadly, as has been the case with technology throughout time, it has also been used by those who would do people harm. Indeed, she mentioned in particular the harm done to children. We take that incredibly seriously. We value the important role of investigatory powers and will continue to work with technology companies—both those well established at the moment and those of the future—to maintain the balance between privacy and security, as we have always done, and ensure that these technology platforms do not provide a hiding place for terrorists, for serious criminals and those people taking part in child sexual exploitation.

The three types of notices under the existing IPA are data retention notices, technical capability notices and national security notices. Those notices must be both necessary and proportionate, and they are of course subject to the double lock. The Bill does not introduce any new powers for the acquisition of data. The changes are about ensuring that the system is up to date and remains robust. The Bill will create a notification notice allowing the Secretary of State to place specific companies under an obligation to inform him or her of proposed changes to their telecommunications services or systems that could have an impact on lawful access. This is not a blanket obligation, and it will be used only where necessary and proportionate, and then only on a case-by-case basis.

The notice does not give the Secretary of State any powers to veto or intervene in the roll-out of a product or services. It is intended to ensure that there is sufficient time for appropriate consideration of the operational impact of the proposed changes, and potentially for discussions with the company in question about them. The public, rightly, would want their representatives to know in advance if companies were proposing to do something that would put public safety at risk, and responsible companies will work with Governments to avoid endangering people, who are of course also their customers.

The Bill will also amend the IPA to require the company to ensure that existing lawful access is maintained. That means the company cannot legally take any action that would negatively affect the level of lawful access for our operational partners during the review period. In the other place, the Government tabled an amendment to allow a timeline for review of a notice to be specified in regulations. We also gave the judicial commissioner further powers for managing the review process. Taken together, they ensure that companies are clear on the length of time that a review can take, which reduces uncertainty for their business as well as providing greater clarity for the review process. In the other place, my noble colleague Lord Sharpe of Epsom also committed to a full public consultation before amending the existing regulations on the review of notices, and laying new regulations relating to the notification notices.

The Bill also clarifies the definition of a telecommun-ications operator, to make it clear that companies with complex corporate structures that provide or control telecommunications services and systems in the UK fall within the remit of the IPA. These changes do not directly relate to any particular technology, including end-to-end encryption, but are designed to ensure that companies are not able to unilaterally make design changes that compromise exceptional lawful access.

The Bill makes changes to the powers of public authorities to acquire communications data. Section 11 of the IPA made it an offence for a relevant person in a relevant public authority to knowingly or recklessly obtain communications data from a telecoms operator or a postal operator without lawful authority. The Bill will set out examples of the acquisition routes that amount to lawful authority outside the IPA, giving greater clarity to public authorities that they are not inadvertently committing an offence. Further targeted amendments will ensure that public sector organisations are not unintentionally prevented or discouraged from sharing data. Further changes will allow bodies with regulatory functions to acquire communications data.

The Bill also creates a new condition for the use of internet connection records—ICRs—by the intelligence services and the National Crime Agency. The IPA currently requires certain thresholds to be met on the known element of an investigation, such as exactly when a website has been accessed. That limits the ability of operational partners to use the ICRs to detect previously unknown criminals, terrorists or state threat actors who are acting online. The proposed measure will allow greater detection of high-impact offenders by removing the requirement to unequivocally know a specific time or times of access and service in use, and instead will allow these factors to be specified within the application.

Antisemitism in the UK

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for her comments and questions. She asked about protests. I agree that it is completely unacceptable for people to seek to intimidate others, to incite racial hatred or to glorify terrorism. In fact, it is illegal. The police have made 600 arrests at protests since 7 October, and we in Government are urging the police to use all their powers to ensure that hatred is not incited in the course of the marches that have happened.

The shadow Home Secretary rightly asked about online safety, where a great deal of hatred is fomented. We are engaging with online platforms on a regular basis; I think the Home Secretary is due to travel to California next week to discuss these issues, among others. From memory, schedule 7 to the Online Safety Act 2023 contains a list of priority offences, one of which is inciting hatred. When that part of the Act comes into force, large social media platforms will be under an obligation to take proactive steps in advance, not retrospective steps after the event, in order to prevent priority offences from taking place. That will include hate crime of the kind she mentioned.

The right hon. Lady asked about non-crime hate incidents. The changes to the guidance were designed to ensure that minor spats between neighbours, or expressions of essentially legitimate political views, do not end up wasting police time by getting recorded. Where things do not meet the criminal threshold but might be useful in pursuing a criminal investigation later, they will still be recorded. To be clear, inciting racial hatred is a criminal offence under sections 17 and 18 of the Public Order Act 1986; causing harassment, alarm and distress through threatening and abusive language, or causing fear of violence, is an offence under sections 4, 4A and 5 of that Act; and there are various other criminal offences as well. Those things meet the criminal threshold and are therefore not affected by any change to non-crime hate incident recording rules in any event.

Updating the law and the approach to extremism is kept under continual review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities spends a great deal of time considering the question of extremism. In relation to criminal law, just a week or two ago we announced various changes for which we intend to legislate via Government amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill when it comes back to the House on Report in a few weeks’ time. Those measures will tighten up a number of areas relating to protest, including removing the “reasonable and lawful excuse” defence to various public order offences, making it easier for the police to have a blanket prohibition on face coverings, which are often menacing but also make it difficult to identify people committing criminal offences at protests. We will make it an offence to climb on key war memorials, which is grossly disrespectful, and introduce other measures as well. We keep things under continual review, so if further changes to the law are needed, the right hon. Lady can be assured that we will make them.

It is this Government’s view that antisemitism is a scourge that must be fought online, on the streets, through the law and through the courts. I am sure the whole House will be united in that fight.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his hard work and genuine commitment to seriously tackling this issue, and I was pleased to work with him and CST last year. The reality is that the Jewish community has been demonised and targeted, is scared and has been let down by the authorities. The Jewish community needs its champions and friends to speak in its defence without fear or favour. Lord Ian Austin, who sits in the other place, is one such courageous advocate who has campaigned for decades against antisemitism and Islamism. Does my right hon. Friend share my deep concern about organisations such as Midland Heart, which has suspended Lord Austin as its chair merely for his speaking against Islamism, terrorism and antisemitism?

[Chris Philp]

Let me first pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend for her work during her time as Home Secretary. We worked closely together, and I can tell the House that the Jewish community had no stronger advocate in the Government on these issues, particularly during the events of the autumn. I agree with what she said about Lord Austin. I have read the tweets that he sent, and it strikes me that there is nothing unreasonable about them. He was criticising Islamism, which is a form of extremism. That is obviously not the same as the Muslim community more widely, as everybody knows. I do not think that the actions proposed by Midland Heart are in the slightest bit reasonable. I join my right hon. Friend the DLUHC Secretary in urging Midland Heart to urgently reconsider what it has done. Lord Austin is a tireless campaigner against racism, was a great servant of this House when he was here, and does not deserve the treatment he has recently received.

Death of Jalal Uddin: Statutory Inquiry

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Thursday 9th November 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)]

Today I am announcing the establishment by the Home Office of a statutory inquiry, under the Inquiries Act 2005, to investigate the death of Mr Jalal Uddin on 18 February 2016 in Rochdale, Greater Manchester.



The inquiry will be chaired by His Honour Edward Thomas Henry Teague KC, Chief Coroner of England and Wales.



In accordance with the provision of section 3(1)(a) of the Inquiries Act 2005 His Honour Judge Teague will sit alone as chair.



I am establishing a statutory inquiry after careful deliberation and on the advice from the Chief Coroner that this is necessary to permit all relevant evidence to be heard.



The formal setting up-date of the inquiry is today. I will place a copy of the terms of reference for the inquiry in the Libraries of both Houses.



The direction of the inquiry’s investigation will be a matter for the chair. As the sponsoring Department, the Home Office will provide support and ensure that the inquiry has the resources needed to fulfil its terms of reference.

[HCWS23]