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 8 of 9.
“He has said, for example, that defendants from minority ethnic backgrounds are statistically more likely to receive harsher sentences than their white counterparts for a similar offence. That is not the opinion of politicians or pressure groups, but a warning from within the senior judiciary itself. The Bill ignores that reality. Worse still, it undermines one of the very tools designed to correct it: the pre-sentence report.”
“Let me begin by drawing Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a member of the Bar. I will align my comments with those of the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). The Bill, and the amendments, do not in reality tackle two-tier justice in this country; in fact, they risk entrenching it. Our justice system is founded on a principle that we all claim to uphold—fairness and equality before the law—but today we are being asked to support legislation that fundamentally undermines that principle. Let me be absolutely clear. This is not a matter of opinion. Lord Justice William Davis, the chair of the Sentencing Council, has written candidly about the issue.”
“I know some will argue that we need to understand the root causes of disparity, and they are right: that longer-term work is essential. However, while it is going on we must act in the present. We must allow the experts to do their jobs and support the guidance that they, not we, have developed through years of experience, research and consultation. This Bill is not just misguided; it is regressive. I cannot and will not support legislation that sidelines expert insight, ignores data and compromises the principles of fairness that we all claim to defend in the name of political convenience. Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, and right now the communities that face this disparity will no doubt be concerned about the Government’s approach.”
“The hon. Gentleman has made his point, but as a criminal practitioner who has frequented courts over the last 20 years, I have seen disparities. I have seen sentencing which, in my view, was not fair. Lived experiences among certain communities are just as important as those of other minorities, whatever their backgrounds. Ultimately, who has decided that this is an important element that needs to be taken into account in the sentencing guidelines? This went through all the consultation under the last Government. People had seen it, and agreed to it. It did not raise a concern back then, so why should it now? Addressing inequality is not the same as creating inequality. It is, in fact, the only way in which to ensure real equality—to ensure that justice is not just blind in theory, but fair in practice.”
“Judges have been vilified, as have others sitting on the Sentencing Council, by Members of this House. Does the hon. Member agree that, if there is to be any vilification, it should be of the Conservative Members who formed the previous Government, who held the consultation and agreed to the guidance?”
“Does he also agree that the law-abiding people of Kashmir deserve to live in peace and security without the shadow of perpetual conflict, and that will be achieved only if they have the right of self-determination?”
“I share the sentiments that have rightly been expressed by all other Members. It is crucial to condemn unequivocally all forms of violence irrespective of their source, and our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. The recent incident is a stark reminder of the fragile peace that hangs by a thread in a region that has suffered for too long from recurring cycles of violence. The intricate history of Kashmir requires a diplomatic approach underpinned by international co-operation Does the Minister agree that the role of the UK, as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, must be to encourage and support efforts that prioritise dialogue and reconciliation between India and Pakistan?”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My understanding, as a new MP, is that there is a long-standing convention by which a Member who intends to refer to another Member during proceedings—particularly in a critical or contentious manner—should inform that Member in advance. That courtesy gives the Member concerned the opportunity to be present and, if necessary, to respond. Earlier, reference was made to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) without prior notice. I seek your guidance on whether that is in keeping with the expected standards of conduct in the Chamber.”
“More than 15,000 children have been murdered, more than 15,000 women have been murdered, and more than 15,000 innocent men have been murdered. The Minister used the word “contribution” when making reference to a two-state solution. I ask him whether the contribution of all those who have been murdered—the blood that has been spilled—is not sufficient for Palestine to be recognised as a state.”
“I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for tabling his amendments. We have the finest legal system in the world, and one of its principles is the presumption of innocence. As drafted, the Bill undermines that fundamental principle, which will raise stress and anxiety and undermine vulnerable people in our society. Does the hon. Member agree that that is the current position with the Bill?”
“Child sexual exploitation is a vile and despicable crime that cuts across all sections of our society. It is perpetrated by individuals with blackened souls who come from all races, creeds, religions and backgrounds. All law-abiding citizens want justice for the victims of those horrific acts. Does the Minister agree that our focus must be on supporting the victims of exploitation and stopping the perpetrators, but that that must be done in such a way that does not fan the flames of hate towards innocent groups of people who, like all law-abiding citizens, condemn such acts?”
“I recall asking the Minister on a previous occasion about getting support from military personnel, and he said that I had gone “from zero to 100” very quickly. The difficulty with this Government is that they have been very slow to react. I was out last Thursday picking up bin bags with youth workers from a local organisation who had worked 12-hour shifts and were then spending their evenings cleaning up the streets. The Minister has failed to raise the fact that thousands of tonnes of recyclable waste have not been collected, encouraging further fly-tipping. When will this Government intervene and resolve the issue? Bin workers work hard. Up to 200 of them will lose up to £8,000, and that needs to be resolved.”
“This morning, firefighters in Birmingham made it plain that they will stand in solidarity with the bin strikers in Birmingham and not collect the rubbish. We know that there are only 17 workers, which means this is a drop in the ocean financially. Given that the Government have said they will do all they can to bring the strike to an end, will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that they will force the council to make the payment, and that they will deploy the Army to assist the local charities and organisations that are helping to clear up and need extra support?”
“I welcome the Minister’s statement. These discussions are sometimes very polarised, but let me say now that this is not just an affront to the House and every Member in it and not just an affront to the Government, but an affront to the British public who put us here. Thousands of British citizens travel to Israel to make their way to the third holy site, Masjid Al-Aqsa, and hundreds have been refused entry on arrival. What reassurance can the Minister give them when our own MPs seem not to be able to get there?”
“Birmingham city council, which is the largest council in Europe, covers some of the vast number of roads and arterial routes coming in and out of the city with Spaghetti junction. Labour has controlled the council for around a decade, and roads are simply going from bad to worse. Part of the problem is the desensitisation of the residents, who feel there is just no point complaining about a pothole—officers come out but do not repair them. What mechanisms need to be put in place so that we can address the potholes that exist and are getting worse?”
“It is nothing short of a disgrace and a damning indictment of Labour’s inability to govern. Will the Prime Minister take urgent action to protect public health and the people of Birmingham by immediately deploying the—”
“Q7. This Labour Government have failed the British public at every turn: they have abandoned the WASPI women, leaving them without the compensation they deserve; they have turned their backs on pensioners by failing to support the winter fuel allowance; they have let down children by keeping the two-child benefit cap in place; and they will inflict further hardship on the most vulnerable by slashing £5 billion from benefits. Perhaps the most immediate and visible failure, which poses an immediate and direct health risk to the people of Birmingham, is the appalling financial mismanagement of Labour-run Birmingham city council. After more than a decade of Labour control, that council’s incompetence has led to mountains of uncollected rubbish piling up on every street, so large that they can be seen by satellites orbiting in space.”
“Time and again we have heard Ministers at the Dispatch Box say that they are doing everything they can, and talking about the diplomatic levers that they are trying to pull. We all know that since the ceasefire was broken because of the Israelis not complying, 1,100 people have been killed, mainly women and children, and 15 aid workers assassinated—we know they were assassinated because some of them had their hands tied behind their back. The Minister knows that there are only three actions we can take: stop trade; sanctions; and recognising Palestine. Those are the only actions that this Government can take to prevent Israelis causing more damage. Which one will he take?”
“The hon. Member is making some very important points, which were also raised last week. As he said, this is not just a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan; by virtue of the origination of the problem, in which Lord Mountbatten was instrumental, Britain has an important role to play. Is he therefore concerned about what the Minister said last week about this being a matter that should be left with Pakistan and India to resolve themselves?”
“It is precisely the language being used by the Minister that undermines the position of Britain on the global platform. Our position is that, on the one hand, we champion human rights and criticise any violation of international law, but on the other hand, we are very selective when it comes to applying sanctions. We are very reluctant to impose sanctions on a global economic power such as India. We say things like, “This is a matter for India and Pakistan.” We reach out to them and invite them to negotiate, but we do not actually uphold international law. Does the Minister agree that that is at the core of why Britain is being undermined internationally?”
“We have recently heard about the Arab summit contributing $53 billion to support redevelopment and restructuring within the Gaza strip. Does the hon. Member agree that recognising the state of Palestine first, and then discussing funding packages, would prevent the nonsense that we constantly hear, from Trump and others, about the riviera?”
“One of the key objectives of the Sentencing Council is to ensure that there is parity of sentence up and down the country. It is a known fact that people from ethnic minorities sometimes get tougher custodial sentences than their white counterparts for similar offences. Given that, does the Lord Chancellor regret her attempt to discredit the considered and evidence-based conclusions of some of the most esteemed members of our judiciary when they published the guidelines on pre-sentencing reports?”
“I ask the Minister: given the United Nations Security Council resolutions that have been ignored, what sanctions will this Government now impose to remain consistent in our legal and moral obligations?”
“Why do we pick and choose when to stand for justice? Why do we let economic interests decide who is held accountable and who is ignored? This is not the Britain that we aspire to be. If we are to reclaim our moral authority and restore our standing as the defender of justice, we must hold all violators of international law to the same standard. That means taking a stance even when it is difficult. It means considering sanctions against nations such as India for the ongoing abuses in Kashmir. It means standing resolute, not for profit or political gain, but for the fundamental human rights of every individual, no matter where they live or who they are. Justice must not be selective. Human rights are not negotiable. Let us be the nation that places international law above all else.”
“The fair and equal application of justice has been tarnished by the weight of economic interests, and our moral compass has wavered in the face of convenience. How can we claim to champion human rights when we turn a blind eye to atrocities that violate the very essence of international law? Kashmir, a region bound by United Nations Security Council resolutions, has been abandoned to decades of suffering. The people of Kashmir endure a brutal occupation, with their voices silenced and their rights stripped away, while we—the nation that helped shape modern international law—remain silent. In Gaza, civilians are caught in an unrelenting cycle of violence and despair, yet our actions remain hesitant and inconsistent. Contrast this with our swift and justified response to Russian aggression!”
“I thank the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this important debate and for her persuasive and articulate speech. I also thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). Britain has long been a beacon of justice—a nation that has stood as the gold standard for the rule of law, a pillar of fairness to which the world looked in times of darkness. Our legal system has been revered globally and trusted so profoundly that even international contracts choose English courts as the final arbiters of truth. That is the legacy that we inherited, a legacy of unwavering integrity and of standing for what is right, no matter the cost, but I fear that that legacy has been somehow slipping in these times. In recent years, we have seen the principles that once defined us compromised by political expediency.”
“Anyone with a moral compass wants to support peace and stability for Israelis and for Palestinians—that is paramount—but it is sickening to constantly hear the disparity in the argument whereby Palestinians are dehumanised. Today on the BBC, we heard about one individual who was killed in Ukraine by a missile—one individual. I am not saying that that is not important—of course it is; any loss of innocent life is important—but thousands of children in Gaza can be killed and it barely makes the headlines. The atrocities in the west bank are continuing. We must do all that we can to support the Palestinians.”
“I thank the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this important debate. I will not repeat what has already been set out, but I think that the British people want to hear politicians who sit in this Chamber speak the truth. The repeated suggestion that the more than 40,000 innocent men, women and children who have been massacred were somehow being used as human shields is nonsense. Most British people know the truth because they see it on social media. The only evidence of human shields is the ones that the Israeli army have used. We have seen that documented and international organisations have confirmed it. Any reputable organisation that makes adverse findings against the Israeli army and the Israeli leadership is immediately labelled as antisemitic, diluting the very essence of that word.”
“I hope that the additional officers will assist, but they cannot assist if they are not adequately resourced to do the things that can drive young people away from gang culture. In closing, I again thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich for securing this debate. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take away my personal experiences, and the need for additional resources in Birmingham, especially when Birmingham city council has an enormous deficit of more than £376 million. It simply does not have the resources to deal with this issue, and it requires additional funding from the Government.”
“It is not just about closing the gap by making sure that Amazon, eBay and other online retailers are held to account; we also need tougher rules and sentences for adults who purchase online and provide weapons to young children. That is important, given what we understand about gang culture and the way that young children can be coerced into that environment. Police officers and PCSOs are also important. We had community support officers in inner-city areas setting up equipment for football, rugby and cricket. They would be in charge and take young children to local parks and interact with them. It has already been mentioned that we had a significant reduction in police officers and PCSOs.”
“If we are serious about tackling knife crime, of course prevention is vital, and youth centres are instrumental in that, but we need to resource them appropriately. There is no point having a youth centre where children cannot go to events or play football at a local football stadium because they cannot afford the £7 per child—parents simply do not have that money. Resourcing youth centres adequately is very important, so that they can provide the sort of things that I experienced. Hon. Members have talked about social media, and I am glad that the Government are taking strident steps to address that aspect, but the online purchase of weapons is critical.”
“My father worked 12-hour shifts and I hardly ever saw him, and my mum was very keen to ensure that we stayed on a straight and narrow path. It was the youth centres that took up all my evenings and weekends. It was all the social activities that they took us on that meant we were out of the gang culture, which was rife. While the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) rightly points out that Birmingham council, although it originally decided to slash youth centres, has now decided to keep them all open, the resources are not being provided—staffing levels are being reduced. I urge the Minister to review what we have in Birmingham. The debate is on the west midlands, but the statistics show that there were 6,185 knife-related incidents in the last three years just in Birmingham.”
“I reflect on my personal experiences, and one of the most important factors that allowed me to remain out of gang culture, not standing on corners or in the local park or shopping centres, was the youth centres. I had two prominent youth centres within walking distance of my home. One is now called Saathi House, and there was a play centre within Aston park. We had youth workers. I chuckle when I talk about the youth workers that helped steer my life—Fat Phil was the name of one of them, and Sandra was another. They were instrumental, because they took us away from standing on corners, and from the local shopping centres and parks. They took us out on weekend trips. I came from a family that was not wealthy.”
“It is an honour and a privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for securing this important debate. I hope to be somewhat succinct. I echo the sentiments expressed by other hon. Members, but I want to talk about my personal experiences as someone who grew up in an area that has had, historically, the highest deprivation, high crime and a gang culture—the area of Aston. I grew up in an environment where young lads would hang around on street corners, in the local park or in local shopping centres, and we know the phrase “idle hands are the devil’s workshop”. What was it that allowed me and my siblings, and people closely affiliated with me in my social surroundings, to achieve so much coming out of an area such as Aston?”
“I thank the hon. Member for his articulate and persuasive statement. In my constituency, we have surgeries such as the Al-Shafa medical centre, which has more than 6,000 patients. Given the pressure on the NHS, more work, such as basic analysis and experiments relating to cardiovascular disease and so forth, now needs to be done in local surgeries. Does the hon. Member agree that when such GP practices have the additional burden of paying increased national insurance, there need to be more methods, or maybe redirection of income, so that they can sustain their great work in constituencies?”
“In seeking to protect the integrity of our borders, we must not lose sight of the integrity of our family values. I urge the Government to reconsider these draconian measures, remember their duty to the people they serve, and ensure that policy reflects both economic reality and the enduring importance of family unity. Let us not punish our citizens for their choice of partners; instead, let us support them in building their family lives, regardless of nationality.”
“They may find themselves in the very difficult position of having to leave family, work and so on, to go to a country where they cannot get a job or do not have the skills or experience to take on employment. There are enormous difficulties. This proposal is a punitive measure against those who have committed no crime other than falling in love. We know that love has no borders, especially in a world of social media. So many young people go on to social media because it is a global environment where people fall in love all the time. This policy will impact so many people. The Home Office, which is tasked with protecting and supporting our citizens, should not be placing barriers between family members; it should support and facilitate their union.”
“This policy was driven by the last Government to feed into the narrative that they were doing something about immigration. They were going to curtail the amount of people coming in, and the one way they could do that was to increase the threshold. That argument does not succeed either, however, because people who are wealthier or have assets can still marry and bring their spouses into the UK. This policy would harshly affect countless British citizens who have chosen to marry partners from abroad. Stats from the Office for National Statistics clearly identify that the median annual salary in the UK falls well below the benchmark, so this will be impossible. People will have to choose between living with their loved ones in the UK or leaving the country.”
“Incomes in London are substantially greater than in the rest of the country, but that in itself is unfair because we all know that expenses in bigger cities are far greater. Someone earning £30,000 in Birmingham would be able to retain, say, £15,000, whereas someone earning £40,000 in London may only be able to retain £5,000 as a contribution towards the spouse and the marriage working out in the UK. There is an enormous disparity but, let us face it, this is not about having a spouse or a family to provide for. If it were, the Government would be at real odds. If it is about affordability, what do we pay a couple in the UK over the age of 25? I think it is about £600 a month. Obviously there are housing costs associated too, but there is simply no comparison.”
“It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate. I have a speech written, but it is always interesting just to speak my mind. Prior to my election as Member of Parliament, when I was a councillor I had hundreds of constituents contact me about the relative increase to an income of £29,000. Many constituents were concerned that they could not bring their spouses to the UK because they would not meet the threshold, and many were having to work more than one job. As hon. Members have rightly said, people working in certain sectors would simply not be able to meet the threshold. Apart from that, there is a disparity when we look at where people are earning.”
“On the point about what a spouse costs the state in terms of public services, surely the income generated by the working spouse would mean that they are not entitled to receive benefits of any kind.”
“Let me place on record my appreciation and gratitude to all the nations—especially Qatar—that have participated in securing this deal. Last year, I, along with Members from both Houses, was in Qatar during the Doha forum. We all know that there have been many deals and ceasefires that Israel has withdrawn from, and that, as the Minister quite rightly says, this is a fragile deal. Other than urging Israel, what tangible steps will the Government take to ensure that it sticks to the deal, instead of going back to the mass killings of innocent Palestinians?”
“Child sexual exploitation is a vile crime that violates the trust, safety and dignity of children. Perpetrators of such despicable crimes—individuals or groups, no matter their race, religion or creed—must face the full force of the law. I commend the Home Secretary for her statement and the steps it sets out, especially on victims’ right to review. So many victims feel that the authorities have neglected their position. Can the Home Secretary please give a timetable, even an estimate, for the duty of candour? I am sure she knows that justice delayed is justice denied.”
“I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. He makes a very eloquent and persuasive statement. The current Government use compensation as an excuse, saying it is too expensive, but we have seen, for example, train drivers being given an additional £600 a day. We have seen Government intervene on the Post Office scandal. Does the right hon. Member agree that the argument can be easily disabused by looking at the track record on assistance for those who have found themselves at the forefront of injustice?”
“Such a scheme would recognise the important contribution made by women born in the 1950s, and support the impartial, independent role of the ombudsman, thereby giving it the credence it deserves. As representatives of the public, we must ensure the principles of transparency, accountability and fair treatment that underpin our democracy. It is time we stood up for this deserving group of women across the country and specifically the hundreds and hundreds from Birmingham Perry Barr who have written to me.”
“I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing this important debate. I will not repeat what so many Members have already said—repetition never makes any argument more persuasive—but the stark fact raised by the right hon. Member is that a WASPI woman dies every 12 minutes, so we will have lost five or six by the time the debate finishes. As politicians, we have a responsibility and an obligation to act urgently to establish a comprehensive compensation scheme that can be tailored over time. We do not have to raise hundreds of millions of pounds straightaway; that could be done over the lifetime of this Parliament.”
“In spite of what the ombudsman has recommended, it is clear that the current Prime Minister recognised and advocated throughout the country that WASPI women were dealt an enormous injustice. It is a principle of democracy where we advocate for something when we want power, we ought to deliver once we get power to maintain trust and confidence. In spite of what the ombudsman recommends, does the Minister agree that the Prime Minister should honour what he advocated?”
“Some are saying this is all part of the agenda not to give the Palestinians any recourse even to medical aid. Because what have we got? More than 200 aid workers killed and 500 medical staff killed. These are just some of the basic stats that everybody in this country can see, yet we still have arguments of self-defence. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not going to take up too much time, because other Members want to speak, but we have an opportunity early next year. My colleague, the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), has presented a Bill on the recognition of Palestinian statehood. That is our opportunity to stand up for the rights of the Palestinians. They have suffered far too much.”
“They see stories like that and they are outraged by politicians who stand up and somehow provide this smokescreen of self-defence. Self-defence has parameters. Excessive self-defence is no defence. It cannot be used to avoid accountability. We are constantly reminded by senior political figures, whether from this country or America, that somehow this is self-defence, when everybody else can see that it is not. Look at the words of Benjamin Netanyahu: “Amalek” is the word he used. Look at some of the video footage that comes out of Gaza. Animals, including donkeys, are being shot so that food cannot reach its destination. Paramedics are being killed. Recently, a doctor at a hospital was murdered, raped and put out on to the streets.”
“It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), the petitioner Sandra Downs, and all the petition signatories up and down the country. It is fair to say that we have heard a lot of discussions and statements by hon. Members all saying pretty much the same thing: that what is taking place in Gaza is a genocide and that the UK Government need to do more. It is almost sickening to be constantly reminded by some that there is an agenda of self-defence when everyone—even children at schools—can see what is taking place on social media. They see stories like that of Hind Rajab, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne); more bullets penetrated that vehicle than she had bones.”