Ayoub Khan MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I hesitate to interrupt the Minister’s final remarks, but will he shed some light on the strike by young junior doctors? Queen Elizabeth hospital in my constituency serves many local residents. The young doctors I have spoken to talk about the cost of living and the inability to support themselves, at the point when they are entering an exciting career. What more support will the Government provide them with?

• 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 wholeheartedly agree. One of the difficulties in Daniel’s case was that an assessment found that there was no material change in the level of support that he required, but a reassessment was conducted subsequently, and the funding was then withdrawn. I met Daniel, and I felt so sorry for his parents, who are now struggling because of the withdrawal of the funding. It is shocking that someone can sit somewhere and make a desk-based reassessment of someone’s condition and then strip them of funding. I am confident that the family will ultimately secure funding, but the stress that they are going through is simply unacceptable. I urge the Minister to review Daniel’s case. I recall writing to him on this very matter in July last year. He replied that the operational delivery of CHC is the responsibility of integrated care boards. Care boards do indeed have delegated autonomy to make funding decisions, but they must follow national guidance, and the Government have the power to act when those duties are breached. I would welcome the Minister’s reflecting on his stance on this matter. At the very least, will he meet me, Linda and Dave so that he can gain insight into how the system is failing people like Daniel? Caring for our loved ones should not be subject to a cliff edge or an all-or-nothing gamble. If we want to build an NHS fit for the future—one that delivers care closer to home and puts patients first—then fixing CHC must be a core part of that mission.

• 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.

• 25 Mar 2026 · NHS Continuing Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered NHS continuing healthcare. It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. The continuing healthcare—CHC—system should represent the very best of our national health service, offering 24-hour, round-the-clock care for approximately 50,000 of the country’s most vulnerable adults, but at the moment the reality is quite the opposite, exposing some of the system’s innermost failures. For those who may be unaware, continuing healthcare is a package of care arranged and fully funded by the NHS for adults with significant ongoing health needs. Crucially, eligibility is based not on diagnosis, but on whether a person has a “primary health need”. If they qualify, the NHS covers all their care costs; if they do not, they are left to navigate a complex and means-tested social care system, often at catastrophic personal cost to their carers and family. CHC was created to protect those with the most severe and complex needs, but today it often does the opposite: it confuses, delays and denies. CHC is a lifeline for people with the most complex, severe and often life-limiting conditions, making it all the more crippling when funding is stripped at short notice without a clear reason, and yet there is a body of evidence, which is growing year on year, to suggest that the system is unfair, inconsistent and often inaccessible to those who need it most.

• 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?

• 5 Feb 2026 · National Cancer Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister and thank her for presenting this national cancer plan. Her conviction, enthusiasm and passion for the subject are clearly seen from the Dispatch Box. She talks about regional disparity, but we also have disparity within constituencies. My constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr operates 20% below the national average, so I am pleased that the Minister will be addressing that. It has been reported that 64 radiotherapy machines are running over their 10-year lifespan, which has cost the NHS 87,000 appointments. We know that we have 28 new machines. What will the Government do to get more new machines?

• 15 Dec 2025 · NHS: Winter Preparedness · Hansard source

  More

  We are told that the NHS is adequately funded, but in Birmingham and my constituency, the ambulance service does not respond. People dialling 999 are informed that they ought to catch a taxi to the hospital, because there are no ambulances. There is not just corridor care; ambulances are also being used as facilities in which to care for vulnerable people. What can the Government do to ensure that ambulances are ready and available to pick up those who need that service?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Homelessness: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this debate, which is important for the country and, indeed, for Birmingham. In Birmingham, more than 25,000 families are currently on the housing register, and shockingly, around 10,000 children live in temporary accommodation. In some cases, families are split, with a father and some children living in temporary accommodation in one part of the city, while the mother lives with other children in another part. That causes me great anxiety not only because of the impact on mental health, but because of the direct impact on families and children. Children may not be able to go to local schools because they have no fixed abode. Another growing problem in Birmingham—and certainly in Birmingham Perry Barr—is rough sleeping. On some of the high streets in my constituency—Soho Road, Villa Road in Lozells, Aston Lane—and at the One Stop Shopping centre, desperate individuals are out in the cold, looking for some small change for a hot drink in weather that will only get worse. Some of them have difficult and complex needs, some are drug addicts and some have had problems with alcohol. There are also people who have been in the military. I am not going to mention his name, but I know of a young man, who I think is in his mid-30s, living in temporary accommodation but without the support that he needs. He is frequently out on the streets until the early hours of the morning. That, in itself, can cause a degree of antisocial behaviour because, with increased crime and people on the street late at night, there are always ramifications in a local neighbourhood. I totally agree with the hon. Member for Harrow East about ringfenced funding. That is so important in Birmingham, which has been run by Labour for the past decade. It is not just because Government funding has been reduced but because there has been a high degree of funding mismanagement by Birmingham’s Labour-run council. Ringfenced funding for housing will ensure that people get the support they deserve. It is not just about the funding that central Government provides to councils under the Barnett formula but about the recent Pride in Place funding the Government have announced. Edgbaston, Erdington, Hall Green, Hodge Hill, Ladywood, Northfield, Selly Oak and Yardley—eight constituencies in Birmingham, all with Labour MPs. But which constituency did not get any funding? Birmingham Perry Barr. We only have to Google or ChatGPT search the deprivation indices to see that Birmingham Perry Barr has among the highest. Will the Minister speak to her colleagues about why Birmingham Perry Barr has been excluded?

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

  More

  My constituency has one of the highest unemployment rates at 17%, and many of my constituents receive the universal credit health element. Does the hon. Member agree that if they were to be stripped of financial support, that may have an enormous impact on their mental health, which would cause a further drain on the NHS?

• 8 Jul 2025 · Down’s Syndrome Regression Disorder · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. In Birmingham, we certainly have hundreds—I do not have an exact figure. Does she think that those who are suffering from Down’s syndrome should have a letter written to their GP outlining that there is this other condition—one of regression? This is so that, when and if the worst occurs, at least the general practitioner’s notes, which are now shared across the NHS, would reflect that potential scenario.