Ayoub Khan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  May I start with a preamble? It is important to say that this is not about the Jewish community; it is about the state of Israel. We must be careful in our words and ensure that we do not conflate the two. It is always said that the strength of a nation’s alliance is measured by how much it can endure. For two years, this Government have supported the state of Israel through the unimaginable: genocide in Gaza, illegal settlement building in the occupied west bank, and even war in Iran. It is also said that the power of a lobby group is measured by how far a Government can be pushed beyond the limits of policy making. I think it is fair to say that for millions up and down this country, the Government’s approach to Israel has defied the most basic logic, justice and humanity. Continued arms sales amid mass extermination, the weaponisation of terrorism law to silence dissent, the welcoming of wanted war criminals on the steps of 10 Downing Street—with every decision this Government have made, it is not only reasonable to ask questions about political influence in Britain, but necessary. This is not about Jewish communities or Jewish identity, and it is not about denying anyone the right to advocate for Israel, Palestine or any other state. Lobbying is part of our democracy, but when such practices are shrouded in secrecy while shifting huge sums of money, we must ask, “Are this Government truly committed to cleansing our politics of foreign influence, or are they just concerned with blocking the foreign donations they do not get?” This is about more than simply election funds. It is about access and influence. Anyone who claims that these donors receive nothing in return is being naïve. The transactional nature of donations applies no less to those in the highest echelons of our democracy. Just this year, Labour Friends of Israel, which funded many Cabinet members, was reported to the Electoral Commission over concerns about opaque funding arrangements. Ministers in this Government publicly identify themselves as members of that organisation, yet it is not registered as a Members’ association, and therefore avoids the further disclosure requirements that accompany that status. That cannot be right. More troubling still is the question of direct support from the Israeli state. Electoral records show that the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs has provided financial support to UK parliamentarians. That must be transparent.

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is clearly very emotional in delivering his points. Would he agree that, whichever nation is concerned, our responsibility to the millions of British citizens is to be transparent? Would he support transparency when it comes to donations of any kind?

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier, the Minister said that the premise of the petitioners and this petition falls foul of the IHRA guidance. He knows that this petition and its wording will have gone through the Petitions Committee. Does he agree that it does not fall foul, otherwise we would not be debating it?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  If the past few months have taught us anything, it is that military might is no guarantee of security. Trump deployed the full force of his military—dropping bombs and killing thousands in Iran—and it has brought nothing but mounting debt and a far worse deal than the one Obama struck without firing a single missile. In addition, Trump and Netanyahu have wiped more than $2 trillion from the global economy and brought energy price hikes that are thought to have pushed 100,000 Brits out of work. Of course, that does not mean that we abrogate our responsibilities and do not support our armed forces in terms of personnel and the deterrence that we need, but does the Minister agree, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, that careful diplomacy and tackling the cost of living crisis, especially for the most vulnerable, do more to bring security than any bomb?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lebanon: Israel Defence Forces Operations · Hansard source

  More

  All of us in this House know that words have consequences, whether they are spoken in this House or outside. We remember the Prime Minister’s comments about the cutting of vital supplies being fair game. Look at the lack of criticism and calling out of war crimes that we have all witnessed; the specific terminology of “war crimes” is not being used by Ministers of this Government. Recently, Cenk Uygur—someone that even Piers Morgan holds in high regard—was banned from entering the United Kingdom. It is words and actions like those that embolden Netanyahu and his right-wing Government. Does the Minister recognise that words need to change, as well as sanctions?

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Two Sikh women were raped in the Birmingham and west midlands area. While one of them was being raped, a perpetrator directed Islamic and Muslim slurs at her. My mosque in my constituency was attacked not once, not twice but on three separate occasions. These attacks do not happen in a vacuum. We all saw the scenes from the march over the weekend and heard the vile Islamophobic comments that were made. What advice can you provide about getting a Minister to make a statement on this topic?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Middle East: Economic Update · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor said that we did not start this war and have not joined this war, and the reason for that is that this war is illegal. Iran never posed an imminent threat. Pakistan has taken valiant steps to negotiate a deal, which led to Iran opening the strait of Hormuz, but unfortunately and absurdly, Donald Trump is blocking the strait, causing a major economic crisis for everyone. I welcome the 5p cut in fuel duty and the £150 reduction in energy bills, but the reality is that they are having an insignificant impact on families, especially vulnerable families. What imminent steps will the Chancellor take to help and shield them?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Every credible legal analyst will state that this attack on Iran by Israel and the US was illegal. There was never an imminent threat, and the Caroline principles incorporated into the UN charter were simply not engaged. Given that Trump now seeks to withdraw from this war, and given the disquiet in this House about whether our base use is offensive or defensive in nature, will the Defence Secretary allow a parliamentary debate in which Members can vote on whether we should allow our bases to be used? If not, why not?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  The one thing Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu knew full well when they entered this illegal war unilaterally was that the strait of Hormuz would be a place of strategic weaponry, if you want to call it that, for Iran to use against all other nations. Some European countries have unilaterally now decided to open negotiations with Iran, such as France and Italy. They have done that because they are not participating in any direct military action. My question for the Foreign Secretary is: if the Iranians said, “We would allow UK ships to pass through the strait of Hormuz, but you must prevent America from using your base,” would we comply?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Strait of Hormuz · Hansard source

  More

  Over the weekend, France and Italy opened talks with Iran to allow their ships to pass through the strait of Hormuz. France has limited America’s use of its bases to non-combat missions only; Italy has refused to help altogether. With this Labour Government giving a licence to American assets on British bases, there is no hope of our striking a similar deal to let our ships through at present. Will the Government confirm that they will keep all options on the table—including suspending American military operations from our bases—because British citizens must come first, and they must be shielded from bearing the brunt of America and Israel’s illegal war?

• 16 Mar 2026 · United Nations Charter · Hansard source

  More

  When nations commit war crimes, the UN charter makes it plain that other nations must not provide any support or assistance. Trump and Netanyahu started this illegal war and, in welcoming US aircraft on British bases so that they can be loaded with 2,000 lb bombs, the UK is clearly aiding and abetting that, in breach of international law. Right now, we are helping to escalate this conflict, which is bringing us to the brink of global recession. That is why the British public do not support our involvement in this war. Would the Defence Secretary like to explain why they are wrong?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Middle East: Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I mean no discourtesy to the Secretary of State, but in his statement, which lasted for 10 minutes, there was an omission: the murder of 165 young children at a school, which was allegedly targeted by a Tomahawk cruise missile in a double-tap strike. The Government talk about calling out war crimes—in particular, violence against women and girls—but this does very little to support that proposition. Will the Secretary of State condemn that attack? Would he like to explain what he has done to talk to his alleged allies about this particular strike?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Gaza: Support for Children · Hansard source

  More

  Amid the illegal attack on Iran by America and Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu has closed all the border crossings into Gaza. What does the Minister know of this? Food and humanitarian aid are once again being blocked.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for accepting that the reason the British Army is not involved is that it would be unlawful and illegal. Thereby, what America has done is illegal—an illegal attack that has led to the death of 167 girls aged between seven and 11. There are people sitting in this Chamber who oppose refugees coming to this country; they are the very same people who are asking for war. Would he be surprised if we had a sudden influx of refugees as a result of what has happened?

• 9 Feb 2026 · UK-India Free Trade Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  We all want a trade deal—a symbiotic relationship through which not just our country succeeds, but any other country that we trade with also succeeds—but that must not and cannot be a compromise that undermines the core British value of upholding the law, as well as ethical and moral values. However, when it comes to this agreement, that is exactly what we have done. Our commitment to human rights, climate change and justice have been sidelined for obvious commercial gain, and this kind of moral weakness has become a defining feature of pretty much everything that this Government have done on the world stage, discarding human rights at the first sign of pushback and branding cowardice as pragmatism. Time and again we have seen the same story. We all know that when the Prime Minister went to China, the Uyghurs—who we all know face forced assimilation, abuse and genocide in Xinjiang—were the last item on his agenda, if not left out entirely. Today, British Jimmy Lai has been sentenced to 20 years in jail for defending democracy in Hong Kong, so it is clear that any attempts to move the dial on that front have failed miserably. Without doubt, the same can be said of the Prime Minister’s trip to India. He promised to raise the case of Jagtar Singh Johal, who many hon. Members have mentioned—a British Sikh who has been imprisoned for eight years without conviction, all because he stood up for the most basic human rights for Sikhs in India. Environmental and labour standards have been neglected too. The Government refused even to complete an independent human rights risk assessment that would have highlighted the violations that British money was at risk of perpetuating. That refusal speaks volumes. Nowhere is this Government’s moral abrogation more glaring than in their silence on Kashmir. A region born out of the catastrophic failure of partition in 1947, Kashmir has endured decades of broken promises and betrayed commitments, yet the Prime Minister did not even pretend to raise its plight with Prime Minister Modi. For a people long accustomed to British indifference, this was simply the latest insult. The region is not only occupied partly by India, but had its constitutional autonomy removed in 2019. For decades, the people of Kashmir have seen their most fundamental rights trampled upon; we have military occupation, political repression, arbitrary detentions, extrajudicial killings, and restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly. The suffering endured by the Kashmiri people at the hands of India is nothing short of horrifying, and yet it is in that context of systemic and unashamed oppression that Kashmiri people’s fight for self-determination continues to be ignored, overlooked by nations that are more interested in kowtowing to an occupying power for economic gain. For more than 75 years, successive British Governments have washed their hands of a crisis they helped to create, hiding behind the fiction that it is merely a matter for India and Pakistan. Even now, when we have presidency of the United Nations Security Council, we are silenced by our political objectives and paralysed when it comes to addressing injustice around the world. This Government are always talking about their non-tolerance of affronts to justice, but when the time comes to act on those promises, they falter. It is not just about priorities—it is a sign of the discrimination that this Government are willing to tolerate on our own shores, when it suits their interest. It speaks to the responsibilities they are willing to flout when sorting out the mess that our empire left behind. Wherever there are human rights violations, we cannot neglect our moral and legal obligations abroad for quick wins at home. Just as there should be with any trade deal struck by this nation, the free trade agreement with India should have included a clause that made the benefits of trade conditional upon the protection of human rights, the release of political prisoners, the enforcement of labour standards and the liberation of the oppressed. I heard the Minister mention the fact that we have such a clause, but it is not enforceable; unfortunately, that might as well not have been included in the documentation, because it has no bite. If there are no meaningful sanctions to deter nations from committing such atrocities, how can we expect them to change? I gently request that the Government reflect on how committed they truly are to upholding international law and on their willingness to have tough conversations with our allies. In a world where, I am afraid to say, we are losing international law and the values aligned to it, Britain must be a binding force that holds it together no matter what. I echo what the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) has said repeatedly in this Chamber: we must uphold our moral and legal obligations. Wherever there is injustice, we must be the force that stands up to it.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement today and commend her on her leadership, particularly in travelling out to Sudan to see at first hand the atrocities that are being committed. We all know that in conflict innocent civilians will always get caught up in crossfire, but the distinction in this case is that children are specifically being targeted—children being raped as a weapon of war and young boys being kidnapped and forced to bear arms. I am sure the whole House welcomes the additional support we are giving in the form of financial aid, but it is a drop in the ocean given the challenges faced in Sudan, so what more are we doing with our allies to ensure we can maximise the aid that gets into Sudan? Also, given that we are now in pole position as president of the United Nations Security Council, is there any prospect that we can get UN troops to protect the civilian population, and children in particular?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Armed Conflict: Children · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this important debate. There is no period of greater importance than childhood. Every child deserves dignity, protection and the support needed to give them the best possible start in life. Yet today, more than 500 million children are living in active conflict zones around the world. Every day, we are confronted with the human cost of war on children: the 20,000 Ukrainian children abducted and taken to Belarus and Russia, many of whom may never see their families again; the 10.8 million children in Yemen denied food, clean water, healthcare and education; and the millions of girls in Sudan facing displacement, starvation and the constant threat of abduction, exploitation and enslavement. The scale of trauma being inflicted on children worldwide is both incomprehensible and intolerable. Ending this suffering requires two things from a Government such as ours—adequate humanitarian and development assistance to meet children’s immediate needs, and the political courage to prioritise human rights and the prevention of harm over political expediency. On both counts, unfortunately, this Government have failed, in my view. At a time when children’s suffering has never been more widespread, the Government chose to halve the overseas aid budget. That was not an unavoidable necessity, but a political choice, and one that has stripped millions of children of access to food, healthcare, education and protection. Now is not the time for retreat; it is a time for leadership. Instead, the Government have turned away from their responsibility to uphold the most basic human dignities. However, this failure goes beyond aid. The Government have also failed to take the political action necessary to prevent and halt the conflicts that devastate children’s lives in the first place. Nowhere—nowhere—is that more evident than in Gaza. For over a year, this Labour Government stood by as Palestinian children were bombed, shot and starved, and as their schools, hospitals and homes were destroyed. Through their inaction, the Government have been complicit in the destruction of the conditions children need to live, learn and grow. They stood by as their lives were reduced to bare survival, or taken away altogether. We cannot soften the reality of the physical, emotional and psychological trauma inflicted on these children. A recent study led by the University of Cambridge found that constant bombardment and starvation have left children in Gaza “too weak to learn or play”, and convinced that they will be “killed for being Gazans”. These children have lost not only their homes and health, but their hope and their faith that the international system will protect them. Children in Gaza will have lost the equivalent of five years of education since 2020. Rebuilding education across Palestine is going to cost billions. As a result, children will depend on foreign aid for decades, not because this was inevitable, but because the Government failed to stand up for international law when it mattered most. We must be honest about our role in this devastation. The suffering did not occur in a vacuum, and our silence and inaction were not neutral. Lives were destroyed because it was politically convenient to look away.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Military Independence from US · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister and the Secretary of State consider diverting defence spending away from programmes that do not truly protect the British people? Our nuclear deterrent now consumes nearly a third of the defence budget through Trident, a system that cannot be launched without US approval. In pursuing nuclear deterrence and mutually assured destruction, we have drained funding from conventional forces and neglected the diplomacy and development that actually prevents conflicts. Does the Minister believe that prioritising nuclear defence over reducing tensions, ending conflicts and promoting peace genuinely delivers security for our people, and if so, can he explain why?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Military Independence from US · Hansard source

  More

  5. Whether he is taking steps to increase the UK’s level of military independence from the US.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a persuasive point about modelling and impact assessments. Having practised at the criminal Bar for the last two decades, I can tell the House that there will still be opening speeches by defence counsel and prosecution counsel, and there will still be cross-examination of witnesses. Most importantly, there is the questioning of the defendant. Judges understand the procedure, but defendants must also understand the procedure and closing speeches. I cannot see where there will be savings. That is why the modelling is so important. Does the hon. Member agree?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Middle East and North Africa · Hansard source

  More

  Deep down we all know that there is no real ceasefire. How can it be a ceasefire when more than 500 civilian Palestinians have been murdered, approximately 100 of them children? We all celebrated the new year with family and friends with fireworks, while Israel Defence Forces soldiers celebrated new year by firing unlimited bullets into Gaza blindly. The level of depravity is unspeakable. We now know that 37 reputable organisations are being prevented from providing humanitarian aid. Here is one suggestion. We know that nine countries, along with the UK, expressed their concern. What stops the Minister and this Government joining with those nine countries and making a visit to the International Criminal Court to raise this matter, so we get a ruling and then enforce it, if necessary with military?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Sudan: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  As well as the atrocious mass murders, the humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan only worsens. It is vital that we commit ourselves not only to giving aid, but to delivering it in a way that reaches as many people as possible. Recently, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact highlighted how our Sudan-related aid is being undermined by understaffing, short-term and unpredictable funding allocations, over-complex compliance procedures and insufficient support for frontline responders. When can we expect the Government’s response to those findings? Can the Minister assure the House that the necessary changes will be made to ensure that humanitarian assistance gets through?