Ayoub Khan
MP for Birmingham Perry Barr · Independent · United Kingdom
“Thanks to the outsourcing of interpreter and translation services to private providers, qualified interpreters and translators are being exploited through lower pay and are often substituted by those providing substandard services.”
“I welcome the nationalisation of British Steel, not least because it protects critical infrastructure needs, as well as local jobs and neighbourhoods. On procurement and competition rules, what assessment have the Government made to ensure British Steel does not fall foul of regulations on supplying steel within the United Kingdom?”
“Although we do not yet have data from this summer, more than half of NHS trusts reported at least one overheating incident during the summer of 2022, and the number of NHS overheating incidents requiring risk assessments rose by 53% between 2016 and 2024. Hon. Members have spoken about schools and other public buildings.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) not only for securing this timely debate but for his detailed and comprehensive speech, which took me back a few decades to my school days, when my biology teacher talked about global warming.”
“I recently visited my local hospital—unfortunately, a family member needed emergency treatment, so I was in an A&E department—and it was shocking. Hospitals and A&E departments are already in crisis.”
“It is really shocking that, despite hospitals receiving an enormous amount of investment, they are simply not adequate for treating the most vulnerable and needy when they need critical support. That experience brought home a simple truth: extreme heat is not a minor inconvenience, but a public health emergency. As hon.”
The complete record
Every one of 447 lines we hold for Ayoub Khan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 9.
“I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He is making some very persuasive points. I support the intentions of the Bill and pushing for these fuels is absolutely the right thing to do, but does he agree that we must also keep a focus on the wider opportunities—for example, in hydrogen, battery electric systems and next generation e-fuels—if the UK is to be a leader in this technology?”
“That is the only way to clear our backlogs, and the only way to restore the criminal justice system to the essential and reliable public service that it ought to be.”
“Another key priority must be to reduce demand on the courts themselves—for example, introducing a rebuttable presumption that certain groups of offenders, such as first-time offenders or those suffering from mental ill health or substance misuse, should in appropriate cases be diverted from the criminal justice system at the outset. In those instances, out-of-court disposals could deliver justice more swiftly, more proportionately and without mounting pressures on an already overstretched system. Finally, we cannot ignore the physical state of our buildings. Years of neglect have left our courts crumbling and have contributed directly to lost sitting days up and down the country. The House will always support positive reforms that make key improvements to our justice, but reform must be principled, evidence-based and properly funded.”
“I fear that we are being made to consider watering down our justice system because the Government fail to understand that, even with reform, we will not be able to change the reality on the ground without proper investment. Creating a new court division will not in itself solve the backlog; it will merely shift the pressure from one part of the system to another. Rather than sacrificing jury trials, we should be looking to solve things like the criminal legal aid system, which has been withering away thanks to years of chronic underfunding. Even with the Government’s recent £92 million commitment, more is required, especially if investment in one area comes at the expense of another.”
“Before we consider surrendering our core principles of jurisprudence, we should first seek out efficiency reforms in part 2 of Leveson’s review and postpone any changes to jury trial until such changes have been fully implemented. At the very least, we need the Government to make reassurances that such changes would be reversed as soon as the backlogs are cleared, and to confirm their belief that trial by jury remains the best way of administering justice in this country. In my view, removing trial by jury, even in complex or lengthy cases, risks undermining public trust, particularly among communities that already feel marginalised by the justice system. Non-jury trials should remain a measure of last resort rather than some administrative convenience. I clearly believe that this is not the right path to follow.”
“I understand, as it is currently set out, that the proposal to create a new Crown court bench division would allow select cases that carry a sentence of up to three years in prison to be heard without a jury. Under the proposals, it would be the judges, not the defendant, who decide where a case is handled, and who therefore hold the power to potentially change the entire trajectory of a criminal case. Unless there is forthcoming evidence to show that this change creates additional capacity without distorting judicial outcomes, we surely cannot consider such an idea. The right to jury trial is, and should remain, a cornerstone of our justice system. For centuries it has served as a guarantee of public confidence and accountability. Any attempts to restrict or infringe upon that right should be approached with the utmost caution.”
“It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. This independent review comes at a time when our criminal justice system is at breaking point. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this debate. As a member of the criminal Bar, I know the importance that many barristers out there place on this debate. We now know that Crown court trials could have a potential backlog of more than 100,000 cases by 2029. The review’s recognition of the need for significant reform is welcome, but restoring the criminal justice system cannot come at the expense of fairness, due process or the right to be tried by jury.”
“The Sentencing Council was headed by the late Lord Justice William Davis, who was a recorder at my local court in Birmingham. He made reference to the sentencing guidelines and the disparity in sentences highlighted in the probation report. We know that sentences were passed by judges. Given that judges have passed sentences that were disproportionate for certain communities, does the hon. Member agree that that is one of the reasons we must ensure jury trials remain?”
“The Minister rightly points out that we need investment, modernisation and structural reform, but one of the biggest elephants in the room is prosecution and defence barristers. We have seen a very low take-up of that profession because graduates do not feel that the income, which can be below the national minimum wage, is sufficient. We have also seen a lot of people leave the profession, so although we can have all these sitting days, we simply do not have enough counsel in Crown court to deal with trials. What does the Minister have to say about that?”
“Road accidents caused by negligence and people on drugs and alcohol cause havoc for those who lose members of their family. Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in thanking those families and activist groups, including RoadPeace, Mat MacDonald, our local media in Birmingham and the journalist Jane Haynes, for their campaign to bring about life sentences for the worst driving?”
“I have spoken to many parents and teachers, and part of the problem, certainly in Birmingham Perry Barr, was that EHCPs were being designed in relation to the budget, as opposed to what the needs were. Does the hon. Member agree that the only way we can reform the whole system is to make sure we have sufficient resources?”
“We have all witnessed what can only be described as genocide and ethnic cleansing, mass starvation, and the intentional murder of aid workers and people who want doctors and so forth. This Government’s approach, in saying that there is not a genocide, further emboldens Israel in what it is doing. Does the hon. Member agree that military intervention is an option that should not be off the table?”
“We have had a number of ceasefires historically. Each one was violated by the Israeli Government. The recent attack in Qatar is a clear example that the Israeli Government are not interested in a ceasefire; they are interested in a genocide, taking over the whole of the Gaza strip and west bank—we see that in their reactions and in what they say in the public arena. None of the levers that we have spoken about in this House seems to have had any impact. It is like a toothless tiger: we say we are going to apply this pressure and that pressure, and nothing seems to be done. This blatant, unlawful attack on Qatar requires punishment. Does the Minister not think that the immediate, unconditional recognition of a state of Palestine is a form of punishment and would go further to a ceasefire than what we are talking about?”
“Sixteen hundred individuals—mainly senior citizens—have been arrested. The Minister will understand that this is not just a big operation, but one that involves taxpayers’ money, with millions of pounds spent on arrests, and no doubt millions spent on legal aid if people are prosecuted in our courts system. Will the Minister release the legal advice upon which this proscription took place so that the public can see whether taxpayer money is being used effectively?”
“Despite all the protestations that we have heard from the Dispatch Box, by the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and others, it seems that Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu will stop at nothing. Like a dog that has tasted blood, Netanyahu can be stopped only by military intervention. To be absolutely clear, we are not working with the likes of Canada, Australia and France when it comes to the recognition of the state of Palestine, because we have adopted what is known as a contradictory conditional statement. Will the Foreign Secretary make it plain that the UK Labour Government’s position is that we will not recognise the state of Palestine so long as Benjamin Netanyahu fulfils certain conditions?”
“I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. It is often the innocent who get caught up in conflicts around the globe. We have heard today about some of the most harrowing offences, especially against women and girls, but also against minority communities and minority faith communities—especially the minority Christian community. We talk about diplomatic levers and how we should all apply political pressure. However, does she agree that we could also do something different—have an international military peace force, which could be deployed to help those residents and citizens?”
“(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if she will make a statement on the Government’s response to the Birmingham bin strikes.”
“That raises serious questions about the Government’s commitment to workers’ rights. The council’s action amounts to fire and rehire. With the Government’s role in these negotiations, we must ask: are they complicit in aiding and abetting the very practices they are legislating to ban? Finally, will the Minister confirm that the Government have the power to remove the commissioners who are blocking a deal? Will he personally commit to opposing the fire and rehire practices that the council is using?”
“Now the Government stand idly by while their own council cuts up to £8,000 from bin workers. This Government should be defending frontline workers, not their own incompetent council. The biggest betrayal is the Government’s deliberate downplaying of their involvement. For months, Ministers claimed that this was a local issue, yet it is now clear that Government-appointed commissioners must approve any deal. Just last week, the commissioners rejected a deal that could have ended the strike, despite the council’s managing director being inclined to accept it. The misery in Birmingham has been prolonged not by the workers, but by the commissioners and therefore the Government. This Government have the power to end the strike, and yet they have actively dragged their heels in reaching a deal.”
“The bin strikes in Birmingham have now dragged on for over four months, and Birmingham’s 1.1 million residents are paying the price. The Government have repeatedly scapegoated bin workers, yet they refuse to address the root cause and real reason why residents have seen their public services crumble and their council tax bills rise by 21%. At the heart of this crisis lies 13 years of mismanagement and incompetence under a Labour-run council. The Minister wants to blame the equal pay settlement for cuts, but conveniently forgets that the council has had this settlement looming for over a decade. Over 13 years, there has been endless council waste: an athlete’s village that housed not a single athlete sold off at a loss of £320 million, £216 million spent on an IT system that failed, and £53 million spent on consultants.”
“Citizens and families in my city of Birmingham are currently paying an average of £400 a year for their water bills—increasing to £800 by the end of this Parliament term. We know that the cost of living is spiralling out of control, and while families struggle with the cost of living, big bonuses are being taken by chief executives and shareholders. Will the Secretary of State consider bringing water back into public ownership, given that more than 60% of the British public are asking for that?”
“There are no red lines. Every single allegation made by the Israeli Government about the crimes committed by Hamas has been re-enacted and executed—for example, killing of innocent people, beheading of babies, burning of babies alive, rape, and hostage-taking, including of many hundreds of doctors. Now we are actually seeing children being shot in the genitals. There are games being played by the IDF. There are no red lines. Will the Foreign Secretary please tell us from the Dispatch Box: what are the red lines? What will cause this Government to take proactive steps?”
“May I take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for keeping the plight of the Sudanese at the forefront of our thoughts. We often hear the adage, “out of sight, out of mind”, and, unfortunately, the conflict in Sudan does not engage the mainstream media in the way that it should. We know about the recent harrowing events in North Kordofan, where 300 civilians, including children and pregnant women, were massacred. We know that, historically, there have been international peacekeeping troops on the ground. Will the Minister explore that opportunity with the relevant nations? Does she believe that that is something that can be considered?”
“The hon. Gentleman mentioned raising taxes, but does he accept that there are many ways to do that? One way is to look at large corporations and people who have far more money than they will ever use.”
“The Government say that they are committed to solving the issue, but they continue to fail the British public at every turn. At current projections, they are on track to be the only Labour Administration in living memory to oversee an increase in child poverty rates. It would be a shameful legacy to leave behind and the deepest betrayal of our future generations, so I urge the Government and Ministers to change their stance, stand on the side of British families and end the two-child limit. We face a child poverty emergency, and it is up to us to respond with the urgency it demands.”
“Working families—and more than 50% are working while relying on some benefits—and those doing everything asked of them are being abandoned in their hour of need, and it is happening under Labour’s watch. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has stated outright that scrapping the cap would bring nearly half a million children out of poverty. Ending this policy would not just relieve families, but ease the pressure on food banks, schools and charities—the organisations that have been forced to pick up the slack where the Government have abdicated responsibility. Despite all this evidence and all the human suffering, this Labour Government refuse to act. Time and again, they have shown where their priorities lie: protecting billionaires and large corporations from paying their fair share, while children go to bed cold and hungry.”
“It means children sharing a bed in a cold, damp flat because the heating bill must come second to food. It means school uniforms being bought two sizes too big because they need to last for years. At a time when food prices are soaring, with energy bills spiralling out of control, rent being unaffordable and council tax rising, this Government have actively chosen to make life harder for struggling families. No child’s future, no child’s health and no child’s dignity should depend on how many siblings they have, yet under this Labour Administration that is exactly the situation we have created. This is not just an economic failure; it is a moral one.”
“I find it deeply shameful that we must see our constituents suffer under the cruelty of the two-child benefit cap. It is a policy that punishes children for the circumstances of their birth, and it has no place in a civilised society. Outside the walls of the Treasury building, in Birmingham Perry Barr I receive testimonies from the families who must live with the reality of the two-child benefit cap, and 53% of children in my constituency live in poverty, which is more than 3,000 impacted by this cap. These are not just statistics; they are lives. In Birmingham Perry Barr, I constantly receive heartbreaking testimonies from families living with the consequences of this callous measure. Let me tell the House what that means in real life. It means a mother skipping meals so that her children can eat.”
“I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. I know that he is very passionate about this area. More than half a million people suffer from the illness. Would he agree that the issue is about not just a national roll-out and getting an understanding, but a proactive approach where general practitioners make referrals for individuals whom they know are at a higher risk?”
“Sir Brian Leveson has been given a basic mandate that we need to speed up jury trials, which will eliminate the fundamental principles and the cornerstone of our legal system. Does the Minister agree with that?”
“As a barrister working in criminal courts, I have often addressed the jury in closing speeches by saying, “Members of the jury, we have the best legal system in the world, and it is the best because you make it so. You bring your wisdom, your life experiences and your common sense, and you apply it to the facts in this case. Before you decide a verdict of guilty, bear in mind that if you or a member of your family were sat in the defendant’s seat, you would need to be sure before you returned a verdict of guilty. As a peer, that is an obligation on you.” I get the Minister’s point that justice delayed is justice denied, but equally, there is the principle that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done.”
“My constituency has one of the highest unemployment rates at 17%, and many of my constituents receive the universal credit health element. Does the hon. Member agree that if they were to be stripped of financial support, that may have an enormous impact on their mental health, which would cause a further drain on the NHS?”
“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?”
“I thank the hon. Member for bringing this important matter to the attention of parliamentarians. It is not just about those who have contracted cancer. We know that other respiratory problems may also occur. Does he agree that our veterans, who do so much for our country, need the benefit of additional research to ensure all aspects are covered, not just those who have suffered cancer? I pay tribute to her late husband for his effort and involvement in the military.”
“As a lawyer, I know there are always complexities around causal links, statistics and experts. There will always be a differing opinion. Does the Minister agree that anyone who has been part of the military should have available to them a legal team, funded by legal aid, to progress a claim—as opposed to a lawyer in a no win, no fee arrangement, which can bite into a substantial chunk of any compensation?”
“I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. In Birmingham, we certainly have hundreds—I do not have an exact figure. Does she think that those who are suffering from Down’s syndrome should have a letter written to their GP outlining that there is this other condition—one of regression? This is so that, when and if the worst occurs, at least the general practitioner’s notes, which are now shared across the NHS, would reflect that potential scenario.”
“First, I apologise to the hon. Member for Thurrock for using clumsy language—I meant no discourtesy. We have been discussing PIP and how it could impact many people who require care. Regression can happen very suddenly for people with Down’s syndrome, which is concerning because we are still looking at research and the methods for getting a final determination. Will the Government incorporate something, such as financial care packages and so forth, to deal with the additional care required by those individuals?”
“The Chief Secretary talks about fiscal stability and fiscal discipline. He will be aware that Labour-run Birmingham city council has been declared bankrupt, so I wish that skillset would be transferred to some of the people running that council. On a serious note, we still have a bin crisis in Birmingham; bin workers are still on strike, and it is forecast that they will not go back to work until Christmas this year. Local businesses and residents are absolutely fed up, so on a sincere note, will the Chief Secretary or his staff meet me and Birmingham MPs to bring this misery to an end?”
“Many people believe that the pre-emptive strike on Iran by Israel and the USA was illegal under international law. Most intelligence agencies, including the director of American intelligence, said that there was no viable evidence of an active nuclear weapons programme. Can the Minister tell the House what the UK intelligence agencies say?”
“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.”
“According to research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, one in five people in receipt of PIP are already in paid employment and working to the limits that their condition allows. Of those, 60% will lose their PIP. These people are already in work. What more do the Government want? Why are they punishing them? In my constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr, 9,000 people rely on this vital payment, but nearly 4,000 are set to lose out entirely, including 630 people currently in work. What do the Government say to my constituents who will lose the income required to live with their condition? What do they say to the millions of families who will have to tighten their purse strings so they can pay for the basic needs of loved ones?”
“This Bill targets those with fluctuating, invisible or mental health conditions—the very people who already face systemic injustice. It imposes narrow functional descriptors that do not reflect the real-world barriers people face. It punishes people not for being unwilling to work, but for not fitting neatly into bureaucratic tick boxes. Worse still, there has been no meaningful consultation with disabled people or carers, and no engagement with those who live this reality every single day. The Government are making policy about disabled people without disabled people. That is not just neglect; it is offensive. The evidence is clear: the Government are looking to make savings by depriving thousands of their means to live while telling them that the planned changes will empower them.”
“This Government’s Bill is not just flawed, but morally indefensible. From the outset, we need to be honest about what this Bill represents. It is not a reform; it is a calculated assault on some of the most marginalised people in our society—people with disabilities, people with complex mental health conditions and people already struggling under the weight of austerity and neglect. This Bill continues a pattern we have seen too many times, with cuts dressed up as reform and cruelty wrapped in the language of efficiency. The Department’s own assessment confirms the truth: 150,000 people will be pushed into poverty, approximately 20,000 of them children, if the Bill passes. That is not a side effect but the outcome, and the Government know it.”
“Worse still, just a year ago, when this Labour Government came to power, the people were promised change. The Prime Minister said on the campaign trail that those with the broadest shoulders should pay their fair share, yet only one year in this Government are stripping income from those who are most in need by telling disabled people that they are not impaired enough to earn state support.”
“This is nothing short of shameful, and if the Bill passes, it will be a national disgrace. The welfare state was built on the principles of solidarity, dignity and security, and this Bill tramples on those values. It will strip away independence, force people into deeper hardship and leave many with no safety net at all.”
“I say to the Ministers and hon. Members who claim that these changes are needed to preserve the welfare state that the welfare state was built on the idea that everyone would receive state support for things that were out of their control, no matter what. Passing this Bill will not preserve the welfare state but dismantle it, and I urge every Member of this House to reject it. We can and must do better than this. The people we represent deserve far better.”
“I wish we lived in a world where there was no chanting of death. Any form of racism is vile, be that Islamophobia, antisemitism or any other kind. The Secretary of State will recall that only last November, Israeli football fans were chanting, “Death to all Arabs” and, perhaps more sickeningly, “There are no schools in Gaza, because there are no children.” That kind of speech and chanting must equally be condemned. What is sad is that although we have had a ministerial statement today, we had no ministerial statement when that chanting happened—it is the hypocrisy that is causing an outrage in the British public. Does the Secretary of State not agree that that is what is happening out there in the community?”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Towards the end of the Secretary of State’s answer to my question, she said that I did no favours to the Palestinian cause by aligning myself with antisemites. At no stage did I say in my question that I was aligning myself with anyone at the Glastonbury event. Will the Secretary of State clarify what she meant? If she did not mean that, I apologise, but I would like some clarity.”
“The Democratic primary in the most cosmopolitan city in the world has demonstrated that people will no longer support hypocritical and disingenuous politicians. I am sure that the whole House agrees that Iran must not have nuclear weapons, but as a lawyer, the Prime Minister will understand that the attack on Iran by Israel and the US did not engage the Caroline principle, which allows for a pre-emptive strike. Does the Prime Minister agree with that analysis? If he does not, can he say from the Dispatch Box that he supported those attacks?”
“The UK has 225 warheads and a number of nuclear-capable submarines that are in a position to fire at any adversary at short notice. We are now investing in aircraft that can deploy nuclear weapons. Given that we are a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, will that not be seen as an aggravating feature by nations that are also subscribed to it?”