Ayoub Khan MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 7 Jul 2025 · Actions of Iranian Regime: UK Response · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Glastonbury Festival: BBC Coverage · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Glastonbury Festival: BBC Coverage · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 26 Jun 2025 · G7 and NATO Summits · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 25 Jun 2025 · Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Forgive me, Mr Speaker, but I have to push the Foreign Secretary on this point: a lot of hon. Members have asked him specifically whether he supports the attack conducted by the United States, but he has refused to answer that question. Is that because he realises, like many of the British public, that it was an illegal attack on Iran?

• 18 Jun 2025 · HS2 Reset · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for giving a candid and transparent statement to this House. On Birmingham—I am the only Birmingham MP present, which surprises me—it is disappointing that there will be delay and additional costs, but every cloud has a silver lining. My constituency has one of the highest levels of unemployment at 17%—four times the national average. In addition, we have seen the closure of a number of local stations; it would improve the network if they were reopened. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can get my constituents into jobs, and the possibility of opening three stations: Handsworth Wood, Soho Road and City Health Campus?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Disabled People in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the sensitivities involved in considering, discussing and voting on such a serious matter require, at the very minimum, an equality impact assessment? It is only through such assessments that we can understand the impact on residents up and down the country.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Disabled People in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  On the £5 billion cut to PIP, does the Minister agree that it is not just a lifeline for the most vulnerable in our society but is £5 billion that ends up in the economy? For that reason, does she not agree that a holistic impact assessment needs to be done? It ought not to be rushed, so that Members can review it and come to a sensible conclusion.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Genocide Convention: UK Compliance · Hansard source

  More

  We have heard repeated constantly the stance that genocide is a matter for a competent court—that has been a long-standing position of the Government—but we also know that a determination has been made, or has allegedly been made, because lawyers acting for the Government in court have said so, that that matter has been considered and that there is no genocide. Does the Minister understand why the British public are perplexed by what is being said in the House vis-à-vis what has been said in court?

• 16 Jun 2025 · Iran-Israel Conflict · Hansard source

  More

  I concur with the Foreign Secretary’s view that this can only be resolved through diplomacy and that that is the only way we will get a resolution. I know he is a learned friend—a fellow colleague at the Bar. He will understand international law. Does he agree that the Caroline principles that would allow Israel to conduct that strike were not engaged? Does he not smell a rat with the timing of what is happening?

• 16 Jun 2025 · Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report · Hansard source

  More

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

• 10 Jun 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly welcome the statement from the Minister with the imposition of sanctions on the two Israeli Ministers; although it is late in the day, that none the less requires our gratitude. Given that we have adopted this new precedent, will the Minister agree that any Member of the Knesset using language similar to that of the two Israeli Ministers will receive similar sanctions?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Local Authority Funding · Hansard source

  More

  It has been reported that the Birmingham bin strikes may last until December. How can this Government claim to support workers when they refuse to fund Birmingham city council properly? This dispute boils down to cash, yet the Government are failing Birmingham’s bin workers, residents and businesses. The Government backed our steelworkers. Will they back the bin workers with extra funding?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Non-stun Slaughter of Animals · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I was about to conclude my speech, but I wholeheartedly agree. I believe that labelling is paramount, and that people should have the choice to decide what meat to consume based on the methods used in the animal’s final moments.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Non-stun Slaughter of Animals · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member mentions halal meat. Does he adopt the same position for kosher meat?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Non-stun Slaughter of Animals · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Scientifically, one of the biggest challenges in modern times is to determine the level of pain. That will always be an enormous challenge; it just cannot be done. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that one method may be slightly less painful than the other, but it will never be factual. When we debate the different methods, we need real understanding, not dog whistles. Hon. Members have talked about the very small percentage of non-stunned meat, but we should be focusing on the wider cruelty, which simply goes unheard. Britain has a long and storied history of tolerance for religious slaughter practices. Successive Governments have upheld that principle, and I encourage Members to honour it. Every individual has an inalienable right to freely practise their religion without fear of persecution or discrimination, or of the state setting conditions for them. Our society is made richer, more vibrant and more humane when we treat each other with dignity—even when we disagree. That dignity begins when we recognise when an argument is not about what it pretends to be about. Let me be clear: abuse of the rules that perpetrates cruelty and excessive pain is reprehensible, and abattoirs that do not comply with welfare requirements should be disciplined, but the obligation to reduce animal suffering has its limits. Let us protect our faith communities, stand against veiled bigotry, and stand unapologetically with all affected communities.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Non-stun Slaughter of Animals · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for presenting this topic for debate following the online petition. I extend my gratitude to all Members, who have made efforts to treat this issue with the sensitivity that it demands. However, unfortunately, while there are people looking to promote animal welfare issues, such as Mr Osborne, who I am confident is sincere in his efforts, there are also those looking to make use of this debate to stoke hatred along cultural divides. Although the petition makes no reference to halal or kosher slaughter, it has been welcomed in right-wing echo chambers as an opportunity to marginalise and discriminate against the Muslim and Jewish communities. This selective false outrage is not about ethics; it is a concerted effort to provoke and to marginalise, and to turn the wider population against religious communities by painting their practices as cruel, foreign and incompatible with modern life. Given there are well-meaning concerns at hand, let us move beyond motive and look at practicalities. We must tread carefully when it comes to imposing a blanket ban on non-stunned meat, as we are looking at a sector that brings £2 billion of trade to the UK economy every year. The demand for non-stunned halal and kosher meat will not cease, because it is a matter of profound, unwavering religious conviction for many. Eliminating the practice outright would not just infringe religious freedom, but British farmers—the very people many of the campaigners claim to support—whose enterprises supply the demand for non-stun slaughter would be the first to suffer. In the blink of an eye, they would lose vital domestic and export markets to overseas competitors as Muslims and Jews are forced to turn to imports. It may be that the price of meat would fall for consumers because the costs of raw energy are so high in this country. What is more, many of the abattoirs that would ship such products to Britain’s shores do not observe animal welfare regulations as stringently as we do in the United Kingdom. Although some may think they are standing up for transparency or animal welfare, they are really outsourcing the practice abroad, where British regulation and welfare standards no longer apply, all the while harming local farmers and losing millions of pounds in tax revenue. It is not just short-sighted but self-defeating, and it harms entire religious communities. Let me be absolutely clear. If we want a serious and respectful conversation about animal welfare, let us have one. If we want to debate how best to balance religious freedom and national values, let us do that too. But those discussions must be fair, rooted in evidence and, above all, consistent.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  Dr al-Najjar along with nine of his 10 children were murdered when an Israeli bomb hit their home. All this happened while his wife, another doctor, served at Nasser hospital. We all know, and we have all seen, the many thousands of men, women and children lined up in a cage for food shot as if it was some sort of hunting game. We know also that former President Biden’s spokesman, Mr Miller, said to Sky during an interview that he had no doubt there were war crimes but that he did not say so, even though he was aware of it, when Biden was in power. Does the Minister fear that he finds himself in the same position, and if he does not, why does he not do what the thousands encircling this Parliament have asked to be done and stop the arms to Israel?