Ayoub Khan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Jun 2026 · Media Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  I am confident that everybody in this House wants freedom of speech and freedom of expression. However, we are all against freely available misinformation and disinformation, whether it is about the lack of integration in certain neighbourhoods or international affairs. There is clearly distrust, so something needs to be done. I welcome the Secretary of State bringing forward a Green Paper, but how will the Government ensure that those with the deepest pockets do not get prevalence when we look at mainstream media?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Social Media Ban for Under-16s · Hansard source

  More

  Many families and parents will be relieved by the announcement today of the ban for those under the age of 16, but there will also be parents who will be frightened, to a degree, because of the repercussions from children who have addictions. The Secretary of State has stated that children will be given support. Will parents be given some support as well?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q5. I am sure hon. Members will agree that I, as a person of colour in this House, cannot be held accountable for the vile acts of individuals who share my complexion or heritage. However, there are some in this Chamber who seek division to further their political ambitions—individuals who are fuelling hate against citizens of our own nation and causing hard-working, upstanding people to be afraid for their safety because of the colour of their skin. Teachers, doctors and nurses are afraid to go to work. Words have consequences, and with the eyes of the nation on us in this moment, what pure, cold actions will the Prime Minister take against those inciting and perpetrating violence and, more importantly, to support the victims following the brutal attack in Belfast?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  I begin where every debate on this subject must: with the victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, like the brave women here in the Public Gallery. There are few crimes more devastating, and there are few duties more important for this House than ensuring that every perpetrator is identified, convicted and punished with the full force of the law. Let me be clear at the outset: I support the proper collection and publication of data that helps us to understand patterns of offending, to close gaps in safeguarding, to improve prosecution and to protect children. As a barrister, I believe in evidence. I believe in facts. I believe that the criminal justice system must follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of whether those facts are convenient or uncomfortable. However, I also believe that we must be honest about what some people are doing with this issue, because there is a difference between using data to protect children and using children as a shield for prejudice. There is a difference between seeking transparency and seeking a radicalised political weapon. I am afraid that around this petition and the wider debate, there are some who appear far less interested in victims than in validating their own hatred of ethnic minorities, Muslims, migrants and foreign nationals. That is not safeguarding. That is not justice. That is exploitation of another kind. We have to be incredibly careful here, because the facts simply do not support the narrative that some would like to peddle. The data currently collected by the police is undoubtedly incomplete, and I welcome serious efforts to rectify that, but it is simply not true to suggest that we are operating in an evidential vacuum. The Ministry of Justice already records ethnicity and nationality data for those convicted and held within the prison estate. Although more up-to-date figures would of course be welcome, the available data show that as of 2020, more than 88% of prisoners serving sentences for sexual offences with an associated child sexual abuse offence were white. Fewer than 6% were Asian and fewer than 0.5% had no stated ethnicity. That is a relatively complete dataset. On those figures, white men are significantly represented, yet no serious person in this House would argue that white people are inherently more likely to commit child sexual abuse because of their ethnicity, culture or background, and rightly so, because it would be obscene policy and an obscene politics to draw sweeping conclusions about communities of millions from the crimes of 16,000 of the most depraved individuals in our society. When people insist on doing exactly that to Pakistani, Muslim, Asian or migrant communities, they are not following the evidence; they are revealing a prejudice. They are not interested in protecting children; they are interested in blaming communities. That does not mean we ignore cases involving Asian men, Muslims, foreign nationals or anyone else; it means the opposite. It means we investigate all of it. It means we should prosecute all of it. It means we do not allow any community to hide behind discomfort, political embarrassment or fear of reputational damage. However, it also means that we reject the grotesque idea that rape, abuse or grooming are the product of select or even inferior ethnicities, religions or nationalities. These are crimes committed by human beings. They are rooted in power, misogyny, coercion and the exploitation of vulnerability. They are not committed only by Muslims, migrants and minorities—far from it. If we are going to talk about consistency, let us talk about consistency. When John Ashby raped a Sikh woman in Walsall, he did so while directing Islamophobic abuse at her because he believed she was Muslim. That was not incidental; it was part of the terror inflicted on the victim. Yet many of the very people who are usually desperate to talk about ethnicity and religion suddenly changed their view. They said rape is rape. They criticised media outlets for making it about religion. Suddenly, the victim’s identity and the hate-driven nature of the attack was cleansed and downplayed. But when the perpetrator is Asian, Muslim or foreign, those same people insist that identity is everything. That is not concern for victims. That is selective outrage. When the victim is from a minority community, they tell us not to mention her race or religion. When the perpetrator is from a minority community, they tell us that his race or religion explains the crime. That double standard should shame anyone who claims to care about justice. I say this plainly: celebrating or minimising the rape of a woman because she is Sikh or because she is presumed to be a Muslim, is vile. Denying the religiously or racially aggravated nature of such a crime is vile. It is not British. It is not patriotic. It is not about protecting women and girls. I support better data collection, but unlike some, I do so because I am consistent and because facts matter. I support it because bad data creates a vacuum, and that vacuum is filled by either denial or hatred. We should not tolerate either. The Government must ensure that ethnicity and nationality data is collected accurately, consistently and nationally. They must ensure that safeguarding agencies share intelligence properly. They must ensure that victims and survivors are believed, supported and protected. They must ensure that local authorities, police forces, schools, health services and prosecutors cannot fail children because they are afraid of asking difficult questions. The victims of child sexual abuse deserve better than to be turned into ammunition in a culture war. They deserve justice and, above all, they deserve honesty. They deserve a system that is brave enough to collect the facts and decent enough not to twist those facts into bigotry. Let us have transparency. Let us collect the data and let us publish what can properly and safely be published, but we must do it for the right reason—to support survivors and bring offenders to justice, not to feed hatred or attribute those crimes to certain communities. This is a problem that everyone in our society shares and one that we all bear. It belongs to all of us to prevent it, and it belongs to Members to confront it with facts, consistency and compassion.

• 18 May 2026 · Youth Justice · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome these fairly comprehensive proposals, which I hope will seek to help young people who are either in the criminal fraternity or on the cusp of entering it. We all know that prevention is better than a cure—the old adage, “idle hands become a devil’s workshop” comes to mind. In Birmingham, where a third of our population are under the age of 20, we have lost a significant number of youth centres. In 2011, there were 59; that number has reduced to 16. What will the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State do to address this, and will he join me in commending voluntary organisations such as Real Aston football club and the parents who are coming together to fill that vacuum and support our young children?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Junior Doctors’ Foundation Programme · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) not just for securing this important debate, but for his service in this sector. I am shocked by what the hon. Member set out about the algorithm and how students or resident doctors are placed in the embryonic stages of their profession. In fact, I am astounded—I suspect many parliamentarians will not know this, and certainly the public will not be familiar with the process—that there is no appeals process. I suspect that something could quite easily be incorporated, within certain parameters, so that not everybody gets to appeal, but it is possible in exceptional circumstances. That must be right. When we talk about the future of healthcare in the United Kingdom, we are really talking about the people who hold it together every single day, and resident doctors are at the core of that. These individuals have committed years of their life to rigorous study, they have worked long hours and they have an unwavering dedication to patient care, yet at one of the most critical stages of their career, many feel unsupported, overstretched and uncertain about their future within the NHS. This is where and how the foundation programme plays a vital role. It is not just about a training pathway; it is the bridge between medical school and a lifelong career in medicine. At its best, the foundation programme provides structured learning, broad clinical exposure, and the opportunity to develop confidence and competence in real-world settings. It shapes not only skills, but professional identity. If we are serious about supporting and retaining resident doctors, however, the foundation programme must do more than simply place doctors into rotations—it must actively nurture them. That means ensuring fair workloads, access to high-quality supervision and protected time for education. It means creating environments where doctors feel valued, heard and supported not just as clinicians, but as people. Retention is not just about pay or contracts; it is about culture. When doctors, especially foundation doctors, feel respected, when their wellbeing is prioritised and when they can see a sustainable future within the system, they are far more likely to stay and build their careers in the United Kingdom. One of the biggest problems I see around Birmingham is new and young doctors talking about moving abroad. We cannot ignore the reality that many resident doctors have felt pushed to the point of taking industrial action. Strikes are never a first choice; they are a last resort when people feel that they have no other way to be heard. Concerns about pay erosion, rising living costs and consistently long and demanding hours have created a situation where many doctors feel undervalued and exhausted. I went to a picket line outside Queen Elizabeth hospital Birmingham. So many young doctors there talked about how they were unable to live in close proximity to the hospital; they were living many miles away, simply because of accommodation costs. That is quite surprising, because we often hear people talk about junior doctors earning so much money. But if in reality, after tax and all the other expenses, junior doctors—people who save lives—cannot afford to pay for accommodation near the hospital, that shows how our system is broken. If we want to be honest about supporting doctors, we must acknowledge that their concerns are not unreasonable. A system that relies on goodwill alone is not sustainable. Extra investment in the NHS means very little if it does not translate into better pay, safer working conditions and genuine support for the workforce delivering care every day. The Government must do more: not just words, but meaningful action. That means engaging constructively, addressing the pay concerns fairly and ensuring working conditions that allow doctors to provide safe, high-quality care without burning out. If we invest properly in the foundation programme and support doctors throughout their early careers, allowing them an appeals process for exceptional circumstances and giving them the basic support in addressing their current challenges, we are investing in the long-term strength of our healthcare system. Supporting resident doctors is not optional—it is essential. When we support them, we do not just retain doctors; we safeguard the future of patient care.

• 25 Mar 2026 · NHS Continuing Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. There is an unnecessary burden on families to start off with, and when the appeal process can take months and it is difficult for families to secure representation—they may end up representing themselves—that causes them further anxiety. I agree that there needs to be a review of the whole system, because it is a further bottleneck in an already very stressful situation for families. I will come to an example of a family I am trying to assist in that regard. In many cases, decisions are overturned and the status quo is restored. We must be honest about what is driving this. It is the same culture of cuts and austerity, sweeping across this Government and the previous one, that is to blame for the crisis. Independent analysis shows that CHC spending decreased by 42% in 2024 compared with previous years, even as need continued to grow. That is not because people are suddenly less ill, but because access is being constrained. Investigations have also revealed that private companies are being contracted to review CHC eligibility and, in some cases, to reduce care packages, raising serious ethical concerns about profit being tied to cuts in vital care provision. A system where decisions are not always driven by clinical need but by cost containment will inevitably fail to protect and care for some of our most vulnerable individuals. My constituent Daniel has experienced the injustice of the CHC process at first hand. He suffers from severe learning difficulties, autism, anxiety and behaviour of distress, and is cared for by his elderly parents, Linda and Dave. In order to receive the proper care, Daniel is supported every day by six personal assistants, all of whom are being paid thanks to CHC funding. After an annual review in January last year, it was confirmed that his condition had not changed and therefore his funding ought to continue, and yet, since a spontaneous and unwarranted review of the decision, Daniel’s eligibility has been under excessive and unreasonable scrutiny. The reassessment directly contravened the national framework for CHC, which states that a full reassessment must be arranged only if there is “clear evidence of a change in needs to such an extent that it may impact on the individual’s eligibility”. The saga was concluded two weeks ago when, despite providing no clinical rationale for the “significant change” in Daniel’s medical needs, the care board revoked his funding, leaving his parents to foot the bill for his care. For more than a year, Linda and Dave have carried on their fight against the care board’s impropriety, which has understandably come at a great financial, emotional and personal toll, all while continuing to care for Daniel. Unfortunately, Daniel’s story is neither exceptional nor surprising. It shows how many of those reliant on Government support are being stripped of it in the blink of an eye. The stories of Daniel and so many others show exactly what is wrong with the system. Since 2017, despite an ageing population and increasing complexity of need, the number of people eligible for CHC has fallen by more than 9%. Over the same period, the proportion of people found eligible after a full assessment has dropped dramatically, from around 31% to just 18.6%. That means that more people are being assessed, but fewer are receiving support. For families, that often means a gruelling process, characterised by a mire of lengthy assessments, appeals, delays and uncertainty, at the most difficult time of their lives. Confusion, exhaustion and distress are mainstays of that process. Even for those who are fortunate enough to be granted CHC funding, it can be withdrawn upon review, leaving families in a state of permanent anxiety that they could be plunged back into crisis at any moment. Behind every statistic is a family caring for a loved one with dementia, a neurological condition or even a severe disability—a family forced to give up work, drain their savings or even sell their home, all while navigating a system that is rigged against them from the start.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Hatzola Ambulance Attack · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the additional support that the Government are providing to our Jewish community. As a Muslim, I know how reassured the Muslim community was by Government support following arson attacks at a mosque. One of the biggest problems is on social media, particularly X, where extreme antisemitic remarks have been made about this incident. We know that this voluntary ambulance service supports not just the Jewish community but all communities. The perpetrators of this abhorrent and callous act must be apprehended. Does the Minister agree that it is important to expedite their apprehension so as to send a message of deterrence that says an attack on any community member or community asset is an attack on every single person in this country?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Social Cohesion Action Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for introducing this definition of anti-Muslim hostility. Many facets contribute to causing division in society, not least the cost of living. When we saw the march in London, a large number of the audience there were racist, but a large majority of the people attending were not racist, they were just concerned about the cost of living. How does the Secretary of State see this definition incorporated, in terms of holding our far-right media and social media platforms to account, and how do we balance that with addressing the cost of living crisis?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Community Cohesion · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for securing this debate on this important issue. Community cohesion in Birmingham has never been an abstract concept. It is a lived reality: it is the church that hosts a food bank for families of every background, the neighbour who checks in during Ramadan, and the gurdwara serving langar to anyone who walks through its doors. Our city works because, despite our differences, we choose to stand together. In recent years, we have seen how damaging political language can be. When politicians make statements that create suspicion or feed division, the consequences are felt far beyond Westminster. Words matter and narratives matter. When race or religion is weaponised for short-term political gain, it erodes trust between communities who have lived side by side for generations. We have also seen the constant drip-feed of misinformation from some politicians and commentators—misinformation that paints entire communities as problems to be solved, rather than partners in building our future. That kind of politics does not strengthen Britain; it weakens it. It does not make us safer; it makes us more fractured. No one knows that fact more than the people of Birmingham, who have seen their city trounced by people who take no effort to understand it. During the bin strikes, a narrative from outside was not about the council refusing to negotiate or the impact of years of austerity, but about blaming residents for the mess and asking silly questions like, “Why don’t they simply clean up the streets and take their rubbish to the tip?” We even saw the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) roam the streets for an hour, blaming residents for the supposed lack of integration in an area that not only hosts a vibrant community, but has been decimated by 14 years of austerity under his previous Government. We saw that again during the Maccabi Tel Aviv saga, when those raising legitimate concerns about safety and cohesion were smeared as extremists. We see the same story every time. The people of Birmingham have been subject to ridicule from outsiders who have made no effort to understand them—from politicians to media outlets who have stirred hate and division against a community they have never tried to understand. That is why measures such as the Hillsborough law matter so much. The principle behind the Hillsborough law, a duty of candour on public authorities and officials, is about more than one historical injustice. It is about changing the culture of public life and ensuring that those in authority act with honesty, transparency and responsibility. The tone set at the top shapes the reality on our streets, and that does not apply just to Birmingham. The same goes for all the towns and cities up and down the country that have been neglected, underfunded and stripped of their identities. Those places have been left behind by successive Governments and are now being kicked while they are down. It is in these places, where people have lost all sense of community, that resentment and hate take hold. Many will channel that anger into taking to the streets to raise flags or mount protests at asylum hotels and, before someone knows it, they are not a true patriot unless they look on non-white neighbours from abroad, even fellow British nationals, with contempt. Of course, the exception is those they know on a personal level. That is why it is so crucial that we get this right, not just by holding politicians and media outlets to a higher standard, but by investing in the very places that have been deprived of the means to understand and interact with one another. Community centres, youth clubs and grassroots sports are all things that we need to create cohesion, yet they are dwindling in supply. Birmingham Perry Barr lost out on £20 million over 10 years in Pride in Place funding. We have the highest unemployment, the highest inequality and high rates of homelessness and crime, but we still received none of the Pride in Place funding. There are 10 Birmingham constituencies, eight of which are represented by Labour parliamentarians. My constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr was left out. Birmingham has always shown that people of different races, religions and backgrounds can live, work and thrive together, but we must protect that legacy. We must challenge misinformation wherever we see it. We must refuse to let division define us, and we must demand better from those who represent us. Will the Minister address my point about funding for Birmingham Perry Barr? Pride in Place funding should be for communities that have the highest levels of deprivation in all indices. Birmingham Perry Barr has, but it has not received that funding.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Is not the real fear that young people are now able, through social media and other forums, to identify which political personality is telling the truth and which one is saying what is false, and the Conservatives are quite concerned that they will lose even more power?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Place-based Employment Support Programmes · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) for securing this important debate. In my constituency, the scale of youth unemployment is stark and deeply concerning. We are among the worst-affected areas in the country, with one in every six eligible adults—16.1%—currently not working. Those are not just statistics; they represent thousands of young people whose talents are being wasted and whose futures are being put on hold. Across the west midlands, around 29,000 young people are classed as unemployed, with youth unemployment rates in parts of Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Walsall running at double the national average. The sheer scale of the challenge facing our region underlines the urgent need for growth and genuine job creation. Young people are not short of ambition or willingness to work; what they are short of is real opportunities, secure jobs, quality training, and pathways into employment that offer dignity and progression. Too many are stuck in a cycle of rejection or short-term work, or being shut out altogether. I hope the Minister will detail how young people are being actively supported into large infrastructure projects such as HS2 and the large housing programmes. As the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), said: “To get Britain growing, we need to get Britain working again.” I wholly agree with that sentiment, but I cannot agree with the Government’s approach of removing universal credit from young people if they do not take up a job—there could be a whole host of reasons why they cannot do so. Punitive policies do not create jobs or address the structural barriers that young people face, and they risk pushing already vulnerable people into further hardship. Young people are struggling to get jobs, a struggle intensified by wider changes in the economy. New research suggests that the UK is now losing more jobs than it is creating because of artificial intelligence, and that Britain is being hit harder than any other major economy. According to a recent study by Morgan Stanley, British companies reported that AI had resulted in net job losses over the past 12 months, with employment down by 8%—the worst performance among comparable economies, including the United States, Japan, Germany and Australia. That performance matters, because it means that young people are entering a labour market that is shrinking, not expanding. Getting Britain working again does not require sanctions; we need investment, collaboration with local employers, properly funded skills programmes and an economy that works for every region, not just a few. I commend the excellent work of the West Midlands combined authority under Mayor Richard Parker, which is building up skills and training our young people in areas such as construction, the arts, tech, life sciences and clean energy. However, I urge more support from central Government to ensure this is happening across the midlands and the wider economy. If we are truly serious about growth, we must be serious about our young people. That means backing them, not blaming them; it means opportunity, not punishment; and it means ensuring that places such as Birmingham Perry Barr are not left behind, but are at the heart of our national recovery.

• 14 Jan 2026 · West Midlands Police · Hansard source

  More

  The police did their job and now they are being punished for it, so I ask the Home Secretary: is it worth throwing our chief constable under the bus just to show that the words of the right-wing media and Dutch officials, under pressure from Amsterdam city hall, matter more than our British police?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Kashmir: Self-determination · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Sir Roger. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for his passionate statement and for securing the debate. We speak about a valley that has carried the weight of unfulfilled promises for generations. Kashmir is not a footnote in history; it is a living community whose rights were affirmed by the United Nations and yet remain suspended in political frost. According to UN resolutions, the people of Kashmir were promised the right to decide their own future through a plebiscite. That right has not expired with time; it still stands like an unopened door. As has been stated, we must be clear that Kashmir is not a bilateral quarrel, to be tucked quietly into the filing cabinets of the two states. It is an international issue rooted in international commitments. Whether it wishes to or not, the United Kingdom sits inside the story. The partition that sculpted two nations also abandoned the Kashmiri people to a limbo not of their choosing. Our responsibility is not sentimental; it is legal, historical and moral. Economic partnerships must never become soft pillows under which we smother our legal obligations. Human rights abuses in Kashmir continue in the dark corners where accountability rarely reaches: sexual violence, disappearances, extrajudicial killings and detentions without trial or legal counsel. Those are not allegations to be met with diplomatic murmurs; they demand consequences. The UK must move beyond symbolic gestures and consider targeted sanctions, just as we have invoked international law in response to atrocities elsewhere, including the mass killing of Palestinians. Justice cannot be selective. The human reality along the line of control rarely makes headlines. Families divided by an invisible frontier, guarded by soldiers, live as if they are stitched to opposite pages of the same book, unable to meet, to mourn, to celebrate. That is unnecessary cruelty disguised as security. I call on the Minister to reflect on one issue on which the Government can deliver: the transformation of the line of control from a barrier into a bridge. Let designated crossings be open for humanitarian movement and for families tied by history, culture and ancestry. The United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan can support and safeguard the crossings. Compassion can be supervised; it does not need to be suppressed. The promise of a plebiscite is not a relic; it is the cornerstone of Kashmir’s right to self-determination. The UK Government must recognise that this is no longer a bilateral matter, but a global obligation. When India, for example, threatens to undermine the Indus waters treaty through collective punishment, the UK should send a firm signal that the international community will not tolerate such tactics. We ask for action and not eloquence, for courage and not choreography, and above all, for the rights of the Kashmiri people to be finally honoured.

• 10 Dec 2025 · AI Safety · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for securing this crucial debate. Many aspects of democratic life are under immense pressure, but when we look at developments that threaten to dislodge society on a mass scale within a matter of years, there are few things that pose greater risks than artificial general intelligence. AI has undoubtedly presented us with opportunities for innovation and growth—so much so that the Government have pinned their hopes on AI to improve public services on a lower budget. But it has also played a role in creating an incredibly challenging environment, where information is no longer subject just to interpretation, but to direct and unfettered manipulation, where both the state and society risk becoming dependent on a technology that we cannot control or fully understand. In their manifesto, Labour pledged to tackle the growing emergence of hybrid warfare, including cyber-attacks and misinformation campaigns that seek to subvert our democracy. That commitment only grows more timely and essential by the day, and yet we are falling ever further behind. Even at this stage of AI’s development, we are already seeing how it can distort reality at speed and on a scale far beyond anything we have seen before. This is not a theoretical problem. It is happening right now in real time around the world. And as time goes on, the practice of effectively determining what is real and fake will not only become a more central feature of our political reality, but will get increasingly difficult, with the consequences of making the wrong calls becoming ever more fatal. What makes the AI revolution more dangerous is the powerful algorithms that amplify dangerous posts and trends. What makes the AI revolution more dangerous is the power of algorithms to amplify dangerous posts and trends. On social media, where the rules reward provocation and engagement over truth, increasing use of advanced, unregulated AI only makes for a perfect storm. Increasingly, we see Governments, extremist groups and political networks deploying AI-driven bot networks to flood online spaces with co-ordinated narratives, drowning out facts in the process. These bots can mimic real people, fabricate grassroots movements and create the illusion of public consensus when there is none. This phenomenon is widely known as astroturfing. When thousands of synthetic accounts amplify the same message, that message gains legitimacy, not because it is true but because it seems popular. AI-powered information operations are fast becoming the norm, not the exception, and they are increasingly proficient at replacing actual reality with a reality of their own making. AI is not our enemy—it is a tool that is being developed and tested across our society—but unregulated AI that is unchecked, unaccountable and weaponised by those who seek to deceive is a threat to democratic stability. At this early stage in the adoption of AI, we have a unique opportunity to build the very guardrails that will protect our freedom of expression without undermining the integrity of our public discourse. If democracy is to remain strong, truth must remain strong. That is why we must confront the challenges of AI safety and AI-driven misinformation with urgency, because once trust is lost, our democracy will fail.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Monday the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport told the House, in relation to the Maccabi Tel Aviv match, that the risk assessment was based “in no small part on the risk posed to fans attending to support Maccabi Tel Aviv because they are Israeli and because they are Jewish.” —[ Official Report , 20 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 646.] However, reports last night revealed that the decision to ban away fans was due to intelligence suggesting that the main threat came from extremist Maccabi Tel Aviv fans themselves, and that they were the likely perpetrators of trouble in Amsterdam last year. The Ministerial Code requires Ministers to give accurate and truthful information to Parliament. If the Secretary of State had that information before her statement, she must correct the record. Can you ask her to clarify the position, Mr Speaker, and to return to the House immediately if she has breached the code that governs all parliamentarians?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not seek to repeat discussions from the urgent question earlier, nor will I repeat the comments that have been made about me on social media, but may I seek your advice on how Members on both sides of the House can be encouraged to temper their language outside this place? Comments made on social media can quickly get out of control. They have an impact on wider public discourse and, as I have experienced at first hand, on the safety and security of Members and their families.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Pride in Place · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome this new funding package. The city of Birmingham will receive £160 million over the next 10 years. My constituency, which has been in the media recently, undoubtedly has some of the highest levels of unemployment, child poverty, deprivation and health inequalities, but it has not received any of the funding. May I invite the Minister to meet me, so I can seek to persuade her that we need more funding, given that the eight neighbourhoods in Birmingham are patches that, unfortunately, have Labour MPs?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 16 Jul 2025 · Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  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?