Paulette Hamilton
MP for Birmingham Erdington · Labour · United Kingdom
“The Health and Social Care Committee is publishing its report tomorrow on fixing the food environment, and it will be making several recommendations to support everyone to eat more healthily.”
“May I start by saying that my thoughts are with the families and with the babies who have died? I would also like to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh): I am sorry you had to go through this. It should not have happened, and I am angry.”
“We have yet another review. My daughter had a baby a few years ago. If I had not been with her, she would have lost that baby, because it was as if she was invisible. It was not until somebody else went into the room with her and said, “Enough”, that the people there were really willing to listen. These failures are systemic.”
“Q8. I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership. One of the concerns I hear most often from my constituents across Erdington, Kingstanding, Castle Vale and south Oscott is about the rapid growth of exempt accommodation.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing this vital debate.”
“My hon. Friend makes a vital point. It needs to be joined up. The one thing I have learned from being an MP and seeing things work in my area is that when we work together, we get things done. Organised criminal networks are operating across multiple organisations and exploiting vulnerable individuals.”
The complete record
Every one of 394 lines we hold for Paulette Hamilton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 8.
“The Health and Social Care Committee is publishing its report tomorrow on fixing the food environment, and it will be making several recommendations to support everyone to eat more healthily. Will the Minister commit to engaging positively with the details of our report, and will she set out the steps that the Government are already taking in that area?”
“Q8. I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership. One of the concerns I hear most often from my constituents across Erdington, Kingstanding, Castle Vale and south Oscott is about the rapid growth of exempt accommodation. In my constituency and across Birmingham, properties refused house in multiple occupation licences are opening anyway as exempt accommodation, with very little scrutiny. This undermines local communities and decision makers, so will the Prime Minister confirm when new legislation will be brought forward and whether it will close the loopholes? Will that legislation and its regulations be applied retrospectively, so that communities such as mine are protected?”
“We have yet another review. My daughter had a baby a few years ago. If I had not been with her, she would have lost that baby, because it was as if she was invisible. It was not until somebody else went into the room with her and said, “Enough”, that the people there were really willing to listen. These failures are systemic. What worries me is that funding is not ringfenced for maternity services—it can go anywhere in the system. Once this review—or whatever it might be—has been done, what will be done to ensure that the funding follows the recommendations? It is no good having the funding there if it is being run by local organisations that are using it to plug holes. That has got to stop.”
“May I start by saying that my thoughts are with the families and with the babies who have died? I would also like to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh): I am sorry you had to go through this. It should not have happened, and I am angry. I am a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, and the reason I am angry is that last year we did a follow-up review on black maternal health, and the same things kept coming up over and over again: racism, equality issues, women being silenced, a lack of governance, women not being heard, unavoidable deaths, and a lack of accountability. Where does it stop? There is a lack of training, and the system is failing our women; we have had over 70 recommendations, but that is what we found last year. Every time we say, “Enough is enough”, what happens?”
“Since the launch of Operation Fearless, there has been a concerted effort to tackle antisocial behaviour, antisocial crime, shoplifting and wider criminality that has affected confidence in the town centre for many years. Despite those efforts, enforcement agencies are often placed in an impossible position: shops are closed down, only for the same operators to open under a different name days or weeks later. There is also growing local concern about the wider criminal exploitation linked to some of these premises.”
“We are not talking about isolated incidents or minor trading offences; we are talking about organised criminal networks using retail premises as fronts for wider illicit activity—selling illegal tobacco, counterfeit goods, untaxed alcohol and unregulated vapes, which normally end up in the hands of young people. In my constituency, Operation Fearless and Operation Skybridge have resulted in one of the largest seizures of illicit goods in Birmingham’s history. I pay tribute to the work of our local police officers, trading standards teams and everyone involved in Operation Fearless and Operation Skybridge. Residents have seen the difference that visible enforcement activity can make.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing this vital debate. When I speak in this House about illicit activity in high street shops, I do so on behalf of the people of Birmingham Erdington, including those in Kingstanding, Castle Vale and south Oscott. These residents take great pride in their community and deserve to feel safe on their local high street. Areas such as Erdington High Street and Slade Road are not simply a row of shops but the centre of community life. They are where people go to work, shop, meet neighbours and access essential services. However, for too long, organised criminal activity has been allowed to take hold in my community, undermining legitimate businesses and damaging public confidence.”
“What steps will be taken to ensure that local authorities and police forces have the long-term powers and resources they need to tackle organised criminal activity on our high streets once and for all? Finally, how will the Minister work with local authorities and other agencies to tighten our planning and licensing rules, to stop unscrupulous landlords doing what they have been doing and getting away with for so many years? Residents tell MPs that it is lawless up there, because there is nothing they can do.”
“My hon. Friend makes a vital point. It needs to be joined up. The one thing I have learned from being an MP and seeing things work in my area is that when we work together, we get things done. Organised criminal networks are operating across multiple organisations and exploiting vulnerable individuals. That is why we need stronger and faster closure powers, better support for trading standards teams and greater accountability for landlords who repeatedly rent properties to those engaged in illicit activity. I welcome the Government’s work to date, but I ask the Minister what further support the Government will provide to build on the success of operations such as Fearless and Skybridge at a hyper-local level.”
“I thank the hon. Member for securing this vital debate. I represent the constituency next door to his, and I agree with much of what he has said. People are saying they need to feel safe on the streets. My constituency has had Operation Fearless, which has now expanded to the hon. Member’s area. It has been absolutely brilliant, because we have had extra police, but unfortunately it is only short term. Does the hon. Member agree that any future Government support for West Midlands police must guarantee targeted resources to support the work that is so desperately needed in local communities?”
“My constituents in Gravelly Hill in Erdington continue to raise serious concerns about the impact of air pollution on health and quality of life around the A38 spaghetti junction interchange. With almost 200,000 vehicles passing through the junction each day, residents remain concerned about the cumulative impact of emissions on surrounding communities. Despite repeated requests, a ministerial visit to discuss their concerns has yet to be arranged. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on air quality in urban communities, and ask the relevant Minister to visit spaghetti junction to see at first hand the challenges faced by local residents?”
“Residents want to see clearer national guidance, stronger enforcement and better co-ordination between councils, police and transport authorities. That is particularly important on major roads such as Chester Road, where speeding has devastating consequences for pedestrians, cyclists and other motorists.”
“I rise to speak about Chester Road in Erdington, which has become a real concern for many residents because of the repeated serious collisions and fatalities over recent years, the most recent being on 24 May 2026. Residents tell me that although speed restrictions and traffic calming measures have been introduced, too many drivers are simply ignoring them. There is a growing frustration locally that the rules exist on paper, but enforcement and compliance are inconsistent. Many of my constituents in Erdington feel there is a lack of clarity and consistency around speeding policy, particularly around how 20 mph and 30 mph zones are enforced in practice. Communities need confidence that road safety measures will change drivers’ behaviour, not just introduce more signage.”
“We cannot accept preventable deaths and serious injuries as simply the cost of using our roads. Will the Minister tell the House how residents can be assured that communities can have confidence that road safety measures will be enforceable on our streets?”
“My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Sometimes we do not look at the issues faced by people who live in the countryside because we are looking at the issues that we face on the busy roads in some of our areas. He is right that it is vital that we do not look only at what is happening in cities and we look at rural areas as well. God help me, I would not like to see an animal killed because of something that I or someone else had done on the streets, so I agree with him. Road safety is not just a transport issue—it is a public safety and public health issue affecting families across Erdington and around the country. Local people should not feel frightened crossing the road, waiting at a bus stop or walking near a busy junction because speeding has become normalised.”
“My constituent Ethan Lacey from Castle Vale in Birmingham is fighting for his life in hospital in Thailand following a serious incident. His family are facing unimaginable distress as they seek to support him and navigate the challenges he is facing in dealing with medical issues from thousands of miles away. Given the urgency of the case, will the Leader of the House help me to secure an urgent meeting with the relevant Foreign Office Minister to discuss immediate support for Ethan and his family?”
“If patient voice is weakened at the same time that local representation is reduced, there is a real risk that health inequalities become even less visible within the system, and we cannot allow that to happen. The ambition to improve joined-up care and strengthen community healthcare is the right direction of travel. I simply ask the Government to keep a close watch on local representation and patient voice as these changes are implemented. Patient voice must not be lost and health inequalities must not increase. ICBs should not be used as a vehicle to reorganise NHS management structures.”
“As a former cabinet member on Birmingham city council with governance responsibility for health and social care and public health, and as the chair of Birmingham health and wellbeing board, I know how important local government involvement is in these decisions, yet under these proposals, somebody in that position would not automatically have a seat around the table—they would have to compete for it. I believe the Bill should protect three things in relation to ICBs: genuine local partnership, a combined focus on health inequalities and prevention, and a strong focus on place, reflecting the needs of local communities like mine. One of my biggest concerns about the Bill is the reduction in independent patient representation, including the abolition of Healthwatch structures.”
“That is why the investment in Stockland Green health centre in my constituency in Birmingham matters so much to my residents and to me. It represents the right ambitions: shifting care into the heart of the community, bringing services together locally and making healthcare more accessible for residents in Birmingham Erdington. The principle of that is absolutely right. My concern is that parts of the Bill risk moving us away from the original purpose of integrated care. Integrated care systems were created because health is shaped by far more than hospitals alone. I am concerned that the Bill risks moving us away from that local collaborative model and towards something far more centralised.”
“As someone who has worked in the NHS for 25 years as a district nurse and who has been involved in integrated care systems in Birmingham and Solihull since the very beginning, I will focus my contributions on three areas of the Bill: health inequalities, patient voice and integrated care boards. Let me start by saying that I support the principles of the Bill. My constituents want services that work better. They want care that is easier to access closer to home and properly joined up, and parts of the Bill help to support that ambition. I want a focus on neighbourhood health plans and shifting more care into communities. Some of the best healthcare happens in people’s homes, in clinics and through early intervention before problems become a crisis.”
“My hon. Friend is making some fantastic points, especially those highlighting the findings of the Health and Social Care Committee. Allied health professionals are absolutely vital to what we do in the health service. As with health visitors, their numbers seem to be going down at the moment, and nothing is really being done to build them back up. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to build the numbers of allied health professionals back up?”
“I urge Members across the House to support new clause 29, not as a challenge to the Bill, but as a practical step towards fairness, transparency and accountability in our justice system. This House should be confident in reforms, but it should also be confident in knowing when to pause, assess and reflect. That is all that the new clause asks for.”
“New clause 29 does not assume the outcome. It does not claim that the provisions of clause 3 will necessarily have a negative impact, but it does recognise that without proper review, we simply will not know. That in itself would be a failure of our responsibility as legislators. The timeline set out in the new clause—a review after 12 months and a further review no later than after 36 months—strikes a careful balance. The reviews allow for early identification of any emerging issues, while also ensuring that long-term effects are properly understood. Importantly, the reviews would be laid before Parliament, ensuring transparency and enabling this House to scrutinise the findings. If the changes are working well, a review would demonstrate that; if they are not, a review would give us the opportunity to put things right.”
“We know all too well through evidence, lived experience and countless testimonies that people from ethnic minority communities often have lower levels of trust in the criminal justice system. That shapes how justice is perceived and whether it is seen as legitimate. For ethnic minority communities, this is fundamentally about trust in the justice system and perception of fairness. Equally, we must recognise that socioeconomic disadvantage can profoundly affect a person’s experience of the courts. White British individuals from lower-income households are also more likely to feel marginalised by systems that appear distant, complex or unresponsive to their circumstances. If this House is serious about fairness, we must be serious about understanding how reforms affect those who are most at risk of being left behind.”
“That reflects its work with the families involved in the court system, where even small procedural changes can have a significant impact on people who are already dealing with instability, stress or crisis situations. New clause 29 would ensure that Parliament receives clear evidence-based assessments of how the provisions are working in practice. Crucially, it would require that the assessments consider the impact on two groups: people from ethnic minority backgrounds and white British individuals living in lower-income households. As highlighted in earlier stages of the scrutiny of the Bill, there is a lack of clear statutory review built into the provisions, in particular in clause 3. Some may ask, why specify those groups? The answer is simple—because justice is not experienced equally by all.”
“It has also emphasised the importance of evaluating how such changes operate in practice, including their impact on vulnerable and disadvantaged groups and on the capacity of the courts to deliver justice effectively. The society has made it clear that such changes can have unintended consequences that are often felt most by the people who already struggle to access justice. That goes directly to public confidence in the justice system. Surely, trust and perception in the justice system are just as important as the legal framework itself. Concerns have also been raised by the Family Services Foundation, which highlights how procedural changes can disproportionately affect vulnerable individuals and families already facing complex challenges.”
“Those provisions mark a clear shift in how justice is delivered. When we make changes of this scale, we have a duty not only to legislate, but to reflect on their impact and remain accountable for the consequences. The Law Society of England and Wales has raised concerns that reforms to court processes must be carefully monitored to ensure they do not inadvertently undermine access to justice, particularly for those who already face barriers in navigating the legal system. These concerns are drawn from the experience of legal practitioners working day to day in the courts, particularly in cases involving litigants in person who often are trying to navigate complex procedures without legal representation.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I rise to speak to the new clause that is tabled in my name, which I do not intend to push to a vote. It would require the Lord Chancellor to conduct and lay before Parliament a review of the impact of clause 3 after 12 months, and again after no later than 36 months. At its heart, the new clause is both modest and reasonable. It does not seek to block the Government’s proposals outright, nor does it attempt to rewrite the substance of the Bill. It simply asks that we understand the impact of the changes we are making and that we are accountable for them. As Members across the House know, clause 3 introduces significant changes to the operation of the courts, particularly through the insertion of the new provisions into the Senior Courts Act 1981.”
“I thank the shadow Minister; I am listening to what he is saying and I am finding it really interesting. But let us not forget that, until 2019, we had a backlog of something like 40,000, and that has now doubled to nearly 80,000. The Tory party was in power at that time and presided over all this. We are trying to make a difference. It has been said that everything that has been done is wrong, but I ask the shadow Minister why he did not bring in at least some of the preliminary changes that he says we should have brought in. At least then we would have some of those statistics to work from now that we are trying to make changes in the system.”
“I am learning so much from these sessions. I have a question on choice. Many people feel that the removal of choice is a real problem. Can the Minister explain why that choice is not being given to people who feel that they need it because they feel that the system is working against them? How will they feel that they have that choice even without a jury present?”
“I am no expert, but I find this argument fascinating. What would it take to make the shadow Minister believe what the Minister is saying? I do not understand this subject, except for everything that I have read, but the Minister has been absolutely clear. What does the shadow Minister need to make it clear so that we can move on to another point?”
“The Minister makes such a brilliant point. She is right: 31% of those who have become magistrates are from an ethnic minority group. But when we look outside London, we see that we are unable to recruit in the numbers that we need in big cities such as Birmingham. Would consideration ever be given to paying younger magistrates, because they are struggling to get employers to give them time off to do this important work?”
“The Minister is making some important points, but I must bring her back to what she said about the fairness of jury trials, and about people feeling that they are fair. At the moment, many minority groups and working people of a lower socioeconomic level feel that if a trial is moved to be heard by just a judge and magistrates, it will not be fair. The Minister needs to clarify that. I absolutely agree with what she says about the need for change, but we must bring the public along with us. If the judge is a white middle-class man, the magistrates are white middle-class men and we cannot get variety, how will we get fairness? Remember, your mum is watching.”
“A judge reasoning a case cannot just say, “Well, I don’t really believe that Baird woman—I didn’t like the look of her. I’m not going to follow what she says,” as juries can. You have to sit down and reason out why it is so. Are you being rational or not? That will be a great asset to fair trial in the middle tier where Sir Brian is going to allocate the most serious of cases, which, frankly, the state has never said need to go to jury. It is about having a punt on a jury trial.”
“She told the most convincing story—what a woman; she is brilliant—to the House of Commons about what happened to her. After 1,088 days, the man was acquitted of raping her. She then had the resource to sue, and she sued in the civil court. A judge believed her and awarded compensation, which she felt was redeeming. There are many cases now where jury trials fail complainants and, if they have the resource, they go to the civil courts, and the judges there are more amenable. We must not muddle jury trial and fair trial. In many cases—in Australia, all over New Zealand and in most of Canada—there is a right for a jury trial-allocated defendant to opt out. More opt out of jury trials than remain in. Do you know why that is? It is because the acquittal rate is higher in judge-alone trials universally.”
“It is the cases in the middle, which are at a relatively lower level of crime, where there is a right that the guy charged with rape or murder does not have to pick where he is tried. There is a right to do that for relatively small cases, which is exercised sometimes —you have heard from Sir Brian—in a very self-interested way, which doesn’t surprise you, does it, really? If you can put the case off for three years, the witnesses might never come. All of that is a problem, and it should be dealt with by bringing in a perfectly fair method of trial: a skilled judge, with or without two magistrates. Make no mistake about judges, there is a need to keep them well trained, of course there is. However, judges now do a lot of fact-finding, not only in criminal cases. Look at the case of Charlotte Nichols, who waited 1,088 days to get to court.”
“Q Good morning, all. I want to ask a quick question to the former Victims’ Commissioner. Vera, based on your many years of experience as Victims’ Commissioner and working alongside the justice system, do you think structural reform is needed at this stage? Dame Vera Baird: It is absolutely imperative. There is no way of stopping the problems that my colleague Claire has so well expressed without stopping smaller cases going into the jury list. The state has not said that they need to be tried by jury. As you know, the state says all summary offences go to the magistrates court, as do all indictable offences where it is imperative to have a jury trial—they are very important; the public needs transparency. That is what has been fixed.”
“Q Thank you for allowing me back in, Chair. My question is for Professor Katrin Hohl. Let me start by saying that justice delayed is absolutely justice denied. As has been talked about, there is a lot of distrust in the system. With your vast experience in criminology and criminal justice, could you give us two clear reasons why these reforms are so needed?”
“Unless you have someone supporting survivors through those processes, they can be brutal. It is very hard to sustain the energy and commitment to return to those settings, time after time. You build yourself up, as my fellow panellists have said, and then you are let down again. The experiences themselves are also deeply distressing. Without those specialist services there to support survivors, justice will not happen either way. It is really important that there is a recognition that specialist services are pivotal to ensuring that justice happens.”
“We need really comprehensive training and understanding. We also need unevidenced concepts like parental alienation to be banned from family courts, and we need actual regulated professionals—if they need to be brought in—to advise courts and judges in a way that the system and survivors can have confidence in. Right now, this is inconsistent and, in some cases, outright dangerous, as we can see from the many reports we have produced at Women’s Aid. I would say that those are the three most important things to ensure that we have a safe system. The other piece that perhaps sits outside the provisions of the Bill is the specialist domestic abuse and sexual violence services that need to be there to support survivors through either the family court processes or the criminal court processes.”
“If it was that bad, why are you still there?” There is a real lack of understanding of coercive control, economic abuse and how coercive control can manifest in multiple different ways—the isolation, the withdrawal of technology and all the many things that make it impossible to leave. I think that mandatory training is really important. The training also has to include a real understanding of the barriers that survivors face, particularly those with minoritised backgrounds, such as black women, women from minority backgrounds, deaf and disabled women and LGBTQ+ constituents. They face additional barriers and challenges in accessing justice, as well as in accessing empathy and understanding of their particular situations, which might have cultural implications, or mean different things in the domestic abuse context.”
“Q Thank you all, and can I add to everybody’s remarks about the powerful testimonies that are coming across today? Following on from Joe’s question, my question is for you, Farah. The Bill’s impact assessment states that repeal alone is unlikely to materially change the outcomes. As the chief exec of Women’s Aid, what further steps does Women’s Aid feel need to be taken to protect children from a parent? Farah Nazeer: I think the repeal of the presumption is the cornerstone, because that gives the foundation on which the other measures rest. I think the first thing is mandatory training so that there is real understanding of coercive control and domestic abuse. I still speak to survivors daily who tell us that judges are saying, “Well, why didn’t you leave earlier?”
“That knowledge resides with the judge; it may or may not reside with the community of peers. That is the goal. That issue can go both ways, but we have some confidence that judges are exposed to things that juries may not be.”
“Q Good afternoon, Doug. I have a really quick question. I am just going to be brutally honest. I am a woman of colour—a black woman. Within our communities in the UK, there is a fear that if we move towards a judge-only trial, it would create major problems. How has the Canadian system ensured that defendants from such diversity are receiving a fair hearing in judge-only trials? Doug Downey: Again, that is a wonderful question. One of the dynamics is cultural sensitivity. Whether a jury can be walked through what they are dealing with, with the proper lenses, is open for debate. I can tell you that we have a lot of effort going into judicial education, by the judges for the judges, on First Nations perspectives, with everything from body language to lived experience.”
“Clause 3 removes a defendant’s right to elect for a jury trial for either-way offences, replacing it with a judge-alone trial in a new bench division for offences likely to attract sentences of three years or less. Crucially, this is not a temporary pilot—it contains no sunset clause. This is a permanent structural change to one of the oldest rights in our justice system. The intention to speed up our justice is honourable, but my concern is about trust and perception.”
“I rise to speak on a Bill that is both necessary and difficult. Let me start by saying that I support its intention to tackle a Crown court backlog that has more than doubled since the pandemic, leaving victims waiting years for justice. Let us be clear what the backlog means: as the Victims’ Commissioner has warned, some trials are now listed for 2030. The bench division serves a purpose by enabling judge-alone trials for lower level cases, which means we can free up capacity and expect hearings to take about 20% less time. I represent Birmingham Erdington, a working-class constituency with a proud and diverse ethnic minority community. It is from the perspective of my constituents that I must scrutinise this Bill.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. For ethnic minority communities, that right has been seen as a vital protection against fear of bias, whether conscious or unconscious. A diverse jury of 12 brings the common sense of the community into the room; a single judge, however learned, does not offer that same representation.”
“I absolutely agree. That does back up what I am saying. I am not suggesting that our judiciary is biased, but perception matters, so I ask the Minister for two specific assurances. First, the Bill contains no clear statutory review, and there is no start or end date. Clause 3 allows the new provisions to be brought into force by regulation with a three-month minimum lead-in time, but beyond that, scrutiny is absent. I welcome that the Justice Secretary has announced a review. Can the Minister confirm the exact timeframe for that review? When will it begin and, crucially, when will it end? Secondly, if there is to be a review, I urge the Minister to make its scope explicit. Will the Minister commit today that any review will break down data by ethnicity?”
“I agree absolutely. Unless we work together to sort this out, we will not get a decent Bill that everybody can be happy with. To just throw it out at this stage would serve no purpose for anyone. The crisis in our courts demands action, and the Government are right to act. I urge the Minister to commit today to strengthening the scrutiny of these measures and putting a clear review on the face of the Bill. Let us prove to my constituents that their faith in justice is still well placed. I look forward to working with the Justice team on the Committee to strengthen this clause.”
“Councillors are the bedrock of their communities, working tirelessly on behalf of residents. I know this from my own time as a local councillor. Waseem Zaffar was an outstanding and much-loved Birmingham councillor, who served his constituents with passion and distinction, and his recent passing at the age of 44 is a great loss. Given the invaluable contribution of local government representatives, may I ask the Leader of the House for a debate in Government time to recognise the vital role that local councillors play in our communities?”