Ayoub Khan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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?

• 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

  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.

• 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.

• 7 May 2025 · Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  In my Birmingham Perry Barr constituency, notwithstanding these forecasted cuts, people are already suffering because the Department for Work and Pensions—or perhaps His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—is trying to clamp down and suspend benefits such as PIP. That is causing immense anxiety for disabled and vulnerable adults, who are now having to seek an appeal while their benefits are being cut. Does the right hon. Member agree that an equality impact assessment needs to be conducted now, as opposed to simply cutting £5 billion in the near future?

• 30 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Gaza: Israeli Military Operations · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Kashmir: Human Rights and Peace · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Jammu and Kashmir: Human Rights · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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! 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. 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?

• 20 Jan 2025 · Family Visas: Income Requirement · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Middle East: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  Some weeks ago, I asked the Foreign Secretary about getting assurances that children receiving polio vaccinations would not be killed after receiving them. Since then, thousands of children have been killed in northern Gaza. Given the ICC’s recent ruling about war crimes, the British public no doubt want to know why the Government are shying away from their legal and moral obligation to ban all arms and all trade.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Homeless Families: Relocation outside London · Hansard source

  More

  We have an enormous homelessness problem in Birmingham, with some 25,000 families currently waiting to get on to the property ladder, but Labour-run Birmingham city council is selling the Commonwealth games development’s approximately 1,400 family units, which could be used to accommodate these families. Birmingham city council, with the support of the commissioners appointed because of the budget deficit, will sell those units at a loss of some £300 million to the taxpayer. Would it not make sense for the Government to help retain those units and put them to proper use?

• 6 Nov 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate those hon. Members who made their maiden speech in this debate. Their speeches were touching and very inspirational. The Chancellor promised us that by making the necessary tough choices, the autumn Budget would provide the blueprint for unlocking growth and prosperity, yet I struggle to see the substantive improvement that my constituents will experience to their lives—and for good reason. Many people in Birmingham Perry Barr have never felt as poor, as disheartened and as ignored as they do at this moment, and it does not take much soul-searching to see why. The Budget did not deliver for the 73.7% of pensioners in my constituency who are no longer eligible for the winter fuel payment, many of whom are now forced to choose between keeping warm, feeding themselves or incurring an inordinate amount of debt. The Budget did not hear the pleas of families in low-income households. Some 48.9% of children in Birmingham Perry Barr live in poverty, and 5,930 children in my constituency alone live in households directly impacted by the two-child benefit cap, yet despite the child poverty crisis unfolding nationally, this Government’s refusal to remove that cruel measure has limited their ability to tackle the issue head-on. In the wake of the Budget, the safety net for our nation’s most vulnerable stakeholders is unable to support the weight of living; the protections are brittle and hollowed out. This Budget did not serve my constituents in Birmingham Perry Barr, nor did it ease the burden for Birmingham’s 1.2 million residents, who continue to face indiscriminate cuts to local government spending. Following mismanagement, Birmingham city council, which, incidentally, is Labour-run, is essentially bankrupt. Necessary services such as transport for schoolchildren with special needs, adult social care, youth centres and libraries are being cut and closed—the list is endless. What was once a far-reaching local government authority has been reduced to a minimalist, bare-bones, skeleton service. While I welcome the Government’s slight increase in local government finances, Birmingham city council needs a significant amount of funding. I urge the Government to consider increasing local government finance.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Israel: UNRWA Ban · Hansard source

  More

  A few weeks ago, I sought assurances from the Foreign Secretary in respect of children being killed after being given the polio vaccinations that the Minister has mentioned. Those vaccinations were undoubtedly given by staff members working with UNRWA. Close to 1,000 civilians have been killed since I sought that assurance from the Foreign Secretary. We will all recall that young teenager burning alive in a tent with an intravenous drip. Given the current state of affairs, does the Minister agree that all our talk of diplomatic and political levers is falling on deaf ears, and that the only real thing that this Government can do is put words into action, namely sanctions—including trade sanctions—embargoes on all licences, and the unconditional recognition of Palestinian statehood?

• 8 Oct 2024 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. In Birmingham Perry Barr there is an all-girls faith school where parents earning just above minimum wage secure places for their children. We already have an enormous problem in the constituency with the secondary school sector, where waiting lists are somewhere in the region of 100 places. Does the hon. Member agree that not only does it not stack up financially but we simply have not got the infrastructure to deal with this policy?

• 2 Sept 2024 · Middle East Update · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s decision to withdraw some arms export licences. I am confident that, even though our arms trade is insignificant, it is bound to have a repercussion on other countries that provide arms licences, so I certainly welcome the move. What steps can he take, in liaising with his Israeli counterparts, in relation to the Palestinian children who will now receive polio vaccinations and are being moved from pillar to post, without a real safe zone? Will the Foreign Secretary seek assurances that they will be given a safe zone and not be blown away after being given their vaccinations?