Ayoub Khan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Jun 2026 · Fly-tipping: Residential Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for not just securing this debate, but articulating each and every point that impacts the agenda of fly-tipping. It is prevalent not just in my constituency, but across the whole city of Birmingham, and, as has been said, across the whole country. The hon. Member said that repetition makes any argument more persuasive, but she has touched on all the key points that I was going to speak about. Fly-tipping is an eyesore. It damages the appearance of streets, parks and green spaces. It attracts vermin, impacts on health and obstructs pavements. Children and vulnerable adults are all impacted. Within certain parts of my constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr specifically, there is an ageing community. While they take pride in their neighbourhood, unfortunately the fact that they are old and vulnerable means that they cannot deal with the issues like fit and able people can. The ageing community owns properties that have private land at the rear, and unfortunately that has been abused. Not by them—they have been very proud of their back spaces—but by rogue waste collectors who have identified that particular location and regularly fly-tip there. Unfortunately, the local council cannot deal with it; they simply say that it is private land and that they are not able to touch the dumped rubbish. Local councillors have not been receiving any community chest award money to spend, so the rubbish is simply piling up, causing immense issues for vulnerable people. It really comes down to finances. It is not an issue in silo, but needs to be dealt with across all departments within the local council. We often hear that CCTV or drones may assist, but all that comes with costs that cannot be met unless councils are resourced. Unfortunately, we had bankruptcy in Birmingham. We are out of that bankruptcy at present, but that does not mean that we have sufficient resources to be able to deal with the types of fly-tipping that we witness almost daily. Those regular hotspots are real eyesores. I reflect back on when I was growing up in a little town called Aston. As a kid, I used to relish the thought of playing snowballs with my siblings in the morning during winter. By the time we got up, the whole street was clean because every neighbour had got out in the morning and cleaned their front patch. The only place we could play snowballs was in the local park. That is the level of pride that we want to re-instil within our communities. It can be achieved only if we have a council that is able to effectively resource and tackle the fly-tipping. There needs to be a national campaign. I do not think this is a local issue for a local campaign. Education needs to be at the forefront: young children need to be taught at school and young people need to be taken out for regular sessions to clean streets and take pride in the local community. We also need methods to report people who offend. We need to embolden our communities. A lot of people out there take pride and want to report such problems, but fear that if they do so, they will be identified and there may be repercussions. It comes down to resources.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Improving the UK Visa System · Hansard source

  More

  Of course, it creates further uncertainty and, I suspect, further costs because families are having to pay lawyers thousands of pounds. I absolutely agree that the level of uncertainty should be resolved. The system is not cheap for those who use it. For workers and families, the costs are extraordinary, with the total cost from entry to citizenship ranging from about £12,000 for a lone skilled worker visa holder to more than £40,000 for a parent and child. The immigration health surcharge alone is about £1,000 per person for each year of leave, which is paid up front. A family with one adult dependent and one child on a five-year skilled worker visa will be charged nearly £15,000 to access the NHS. When we take income tax into account, they are paying twice over for the public services that many of them help sustain. They paid their duties in full and then some, and now they are being told that is not enough. The system is also not cheap for employers. When visa fees, health surcharge payments and compliance costs are included, the five-year sponsorship cost for a single skilled worker can reach £14,000—and that is assuming that everything goes smoothly. The idea that businesses casually choose to sponsor overseas workers instead of hiring locally is simply not credible. If employers could easily recruit British workers with the skills they need, they would do so. The truth is that successive Governments have left this country with serious skill gaps. Now, instead of fixing those gaps, the Government are punishing the employers and migrant workers who have stepped in to fill them. The consequences are already being felt. Skilled worker visa applications in 2025 were 59% lower than in 2023 when work migration peaked. Construction companies, health trusts and care homes are facing chronic staff shortages. Universities are also under pressure, as tougher restrictions on international students reduce applications and cut vital tuition income. Migrant workers are at the heart of the systems that care for our sick and elderly, build our homes, grow our food and drive innovation. Public opinion recognises this, more than Ministers often admit. British Future’s latest immigration tracker survey has shown that more than 60% of the public support increasing or maintaining numbers of nurses, doctors, care home workers, engineers, seasonal agricultural workers, academics, teachers and IT experts, while more than half support increasing or maintaining numbers of construction workers, catering staff and lorry drivers.

• 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.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making persuasive arguments. As in many constituencies, support for SEND is an ever increasing problem in my own. This is about not just support but the quality of support. Parents have to lose their jobs because the transport to take SEND children to and from school is being cut. Does he agree that the consultation should focus on need rather than on the financial aspect?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Southport Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  Like those of others, my thoughts and prayers are with the victims of the horrific attack in Southport. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken to address what can only be described as a very challenging environment. Only two weeks ago, I visited the Islamic Jami Community and Education Centre in Kingstanding, along with the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), because we share a constituency boundary. The building had been attacked a few weeks into the month of Ramadan, and then attacked again with vile vandalism and graffiti. Those attending the institution were clearly very anxious, but members of the community also came out to support the local Muslims. Will the Home Secretary join me in commending not only the actions of West Midlands police, who acted very swiftly, but those of the various faith groups who came together? They do not just come together in solidarity when an incident such as this occurs; they are also the very backbone when it comes to identifying any form of extremism within our communities.

• 25 Mar 2026 · NHS Continuing Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  I totally agree about the need for parity of service across the United Kingdom. That must be not only the right thing, but the only thing to do. A recent report from the Nuffield Trust describes CHC as an “all or nothing” affair for applicants that creates a cliff edge between carers getting full NHS funding and paying out of pocket to care for loved ones. But although chance certainly plays a role in determining who gets funding and who does not, there is also a sinister practice at play—one that violates the very principles of our health service and inflicts unnecessary hardship on families across the country. That is the ever more common practice of revoking funding, and making vulnerable people appeal and fight for the right to retain the funding they should have had all along. We see the same pattern emerging with benefit claimants and home-to-school transport for 16 to 18-year-olds with special educational needs and disabilities. In the vast majority of cases, after all the time and energy wasted by applicants and assessors, the decision is overturned.

• 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?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Supported Exempt Accommodation: Birmingham · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered supported exempt accommodation in Birmingham. It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I declare my interest as a landlord. It is fair to say that most people up and down the country will not know much, if anything, about supported exempt accommodation, but in Birmingham it is something that almost everyone has become all too familiar with. In just eight years, the number of people housed in supported exempt accommodation in our city has tripled to more than 32,000 across 11,200 properties. My Birmingham Perry Barr constituency alone hosts 20% of the city’s total units. That means thousands of vulnerable individuals placed in a small number of neighbourhoods. This is not a marginal issue for us; it is shaping daily life. With the city containing more supported exempt accommodation than anywhere else, Brummies face a completely different reality on the ground from every other community in the country. Of most immediate concern to my constituents is the antisocial behaviour, criminal activity and fly-tipping that come with a high number of these properties in such close proximity. Let me be absolutely clear from the outset that this debate must not be about stigmatising vulnerable people. Many of those housed in supported accommodation are there because they have experienced trauma, addiction, serious mental health issues, abuse, time in care or even time in custody. They deserve compassion, dignity and meaningful support. But compassion must be matched with realism. Some of the individuals placed in ordinary residential streets have needs so acute that they require intensive, structured and often 24-hour care. When someone is in such crisis that they are unable to manage basic personal safety, hygiene, or addiction issues in public spaces, that person is not being supported adequately. They are not “bad neighbours”. They are people who require structured, possibly clinical support environments—not standard terraced housing or residential streets. The same applies to certain ex-offenders, particularly those leaving custody with complex behavioural, psychological or substance misuse issues. Reintegration is vital, but it is a delicate process that needs close management and the right resources. The issues that are being caused in my constituency are a matter not of law and order, but of care. I have had reports of individuals experiencing severe mental health breakdowns defecating in public spaces. Residents have described open drug use on streets where parents are walking their children to school. There are cases of individuals injecting themselves in broad daylight, in full view of families. For many of my constituents, everywhere they look they see visible manifestations of profound vulnerability and unmet need.

• 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 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I totally agree. These changes are simply unfair—not just unfair, but economically short-sighted. They risk driving away the very people our country depends on—highly skilled professionals who make up a small group of fewer than 70 specialist occupations, yet who are critical to productivity, innovation and competitiveness. Employers already struggle to recruit domestically, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. Raising the salary threshold to £50,000 ignores the labour market reality and places further strain on businesses that are already paying visa fees, skills charges and the immigration health surcharge. The hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) mentioned how much people pay, but there is an added cost: that of legal fees, which can run into thousands of pounds. These workers are not burdens on the state: they pay tax, national insurance and over £1,000 per adult each year through the health surcharge. Many have partners who are also highly skilled and work full-time, yet whose contributions are simply overlooked. Most concerning of all is the proposal to extend the settlement route from five years to 10, potentially applied retrospectively. People—doctors, carers, engineers and teachers—came here in good faith, having been recruited during shortages and given a clear promise of settlement after five years. Changing that promise years later breaks that trust and undermines confidence in an already punitive system. If the Government truly want a controlled and effective system, they must value contribution over political expediency. I urge Ministers to rethink this proposal, protect existing routes and ensure that the UK remains a country that keeps its word.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I hope to devote a large portion of my speech to new clause 36, which stands in my name, but let me first swiftly acknowledge the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) and the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith). While pension fund managers should no doubt ensure that they deliver sufficient returns to their clients, they must also reflect on the duties that they have not only to those who make contributions, but to society at large. That means not using public money to prop up industries that rail against our primary objectives, be they preventing violations of human rights, upholding our commitment to net zero or delivering unfettered justice for those who have been wronged, as in the case of those whose pension contributions made before 1997 have not risen with inflation. I wholeheartedly align myself with the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) on the need for ethical parameters. In tabling new clause 36, I hoped to bring a focus to the practices relating to pension funds that fall under the local government pension scheme—those that make provision for the employees of schools, universities, local authorities and police forces, to name just a few. Those pension fund managers preside over £390 billion in assets, under the management of members of the investment banking sector. Given that much, if not all, of the funding that flows from our schools, councils and the like comes from taxpayers’ money, we have a right to ensure that none of it is being put to waste. I regret to report, however, that these local government pension funds are heading for an absolute embarrassment of riches. While public money sits idle in a vault, lining the pockets of the investment bankers who manage the funds, we are experiencing deep funding crises in our schools, our universities and our local councils. Year after year, since the moment when these pension funds were established, we have seen the same tactics deployed by those who preside over them. Councils, schools and others end up putting too much of their budgets towards employer contributions, leaving them with less money to spend on the things that matter, while obscene amounts of money are left to be used as a lucrative plaything for the investment banking sector. When calculating the money that councils, schools and the like must pay into their employees’ pensions, the pension fund managers first estimate the annual rate of return that they expect to get from their assets. To do that, they enlist the work of an actuary firm—usually one of the “big four”—which takes into account market conditions and various risk factors in order to come up with a figure. The work of these actuaries is incredibly precise, yet every year they end up drastically underestimating the amount by which the local government pension funds will grow over the next year. Why? Because the local pension boards set the assumptions and parameters on the basis of which they make such calculations, often with the intention of overstating elements that may hit the fund’s assets, such as market volatility and uncertainty. From there, by default, they then skim a substantial percentage off the fund’s assets, usually about 0.5%. While that may not seem a lot, given that, for example, West Midlands Pension Fund holds £21.2 billion-worth of assets, it means that at least £1 billion is being scraped off the top every year. When a highly conservative estimate for growth is combined with lofty management expenses, the result is one thing, and one thing only: our councils, schools and key institutions end up putting more than they need into the banking sector, under the guise of securing their employees a comfortable retirement. Then, once they get to the end of the year and have mysteriously exceeded their artificially conservative projections for growth, the pension fund managers are left with an even bigger pot of money, from which they take their mandatory percentage fee. It is this repeated cycle of grossly inflating the contributions of our state institutions that is resulting in more and more taxpayer money being used not to fix our crumbling public services that benefit society as a whole, but for city bankers to make big bets on the market and make profits. It is the equivalent of pension funds setting the rules of the game, marking their own homework and keeping the proceeds for themselves, rather than refunding those who put into the system. It has got to the point that even the LGPS Scheme Advisory Board, which advises local pension boards, has said that they need to stop overcharging their clients and underestimating their growth. Unfortunately, however, all the power lies in the hands of the Secretary of State to make the changes that would put much-needed investment back into our schools, councils and the like. I will give an example. Research by David Bailey, of the University of Birmingham, and John Clancy, of Birmingham City University, has shown that Birmingham city council has handed over £1.2 billion in employer contributions to the West Midlands Pension Fund in the past 10 years. By 2022 the council was being asked to pay an extra 37% on top of its standard bill, whereas the nine other core city councils in the UK were asked to pay an average of around 17%. Birmingham city council is calculated to have overpaid the West Midlands Pension Fund by roughly £547 million. In 2023 the council declared section 114 bankruptcy, and this year it has approved council tax rises of 21% and £300 million in cuts to vital services. Hypothetically, had that payment never been made, Birmingham city council would have needed neither to declare bankruptcy, nor to approve budget cuts that reduced its offer to bare-bones skeleton services. The implications that clamping down on the excesses of local pension boards would have for local councils, schools and universities, and for the British taxpayer, are truly incomprehensible, yet as things stand we are shying away from rebalancing the books and from deploying as much of the Government’s investment into public services as we can. That leads me to my new clause 36, which would put a cap on the investment expenses that can be claimed on LGPS pension funds. In the case of the West Midlands Pension Fund, the management expenses that are charged amount to an increase of four percentage points in employer contributions. Because the fund charges 60 basis points in management fees, Birmingham council tax payers are paying £13.4 million to the investment managers, which works out at £50 on every band D council tax payer’s bill. However, if new clause 36 were to be put in place, only £3.30 would be charged to every council tax payer’s bill. In the same period, the pension fund has consistently failed to report where the investment management expenses that it charges go, and whom they benefit. As I say, my new clause 36 would implement a cap on the fees that investment bankers can take from pension funds. While that would certainly mark a great step forward in ensuring that excessive wealth gets put into the hands of the private sector, we must also do more to ensure that our schools and councils pay no more in employer contributions than they must, so that they can put more investment into things that really matter—whether that is local government funding for adult social care or for schoolchildren with special education needs, or being able to put more teaching staff in our classrooms.