Ayoub Khan MP: speeches
4 Jul 2024–3 Jul 2025
How these years work
Our reporting years run from 4 July to 3 July, starting with the 2024 general election. They are not official parliamentary sessions. Office costs keep IPSA’s April–March financial years. Records may cover only part of a year; a missing record does not mean no work was done.
Read what this MP said, asked and contributed in Parliament.
16 published records · newest first.
Speeches
- 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source
More
Does the shadow Minister accept that there is a distinction in intent between Palestine Action and the other two organisations? There is no intention with Palestine Action to cause injury to people, so matters can already be dealt with in the criminal courts.
- 17 Jun 2025 · Genocide Convention: UK Compliance · Hansard source
More
We have heard repeated constantly the stance that genocide is a matter for a competent court—that has been a long-standing position of the Government—but we also know that a determination has been made, or has allegedly been made, because lawyers acting for the Government in court have said so, that that matter has been considered and that there is no genocide. Does the Minister understand why the British public are perplexed by what is being said in the House vis-à-vis what has been said in court?
- 4 Jun 2025 · Prosecutions for Violence against Women and Girls: West Midlands · Hansard source
More
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. In my constituency we have high levels of deprivation and crime, especially domestic violence, rape and sexual assault. Talking about the criminal justice system, I know as a member of the Bar and a criminal defence barrister that a lot of young wannabe barristers are deciding to go to other professions purely because the funding is not there. Does the hon. Member agree that there is no point having extra court sitting days without the support mechanisms of lawyers? What more could the Government do to support that?
- 20 May 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source
More
This Government have consistently maintained that the determination of genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes is a matter for a competent court, yet the lawyers instructed by this Government to defend against a case brought by Al-Haq recently have been unequivocal that it is this Government’s firm position that no genocide is occurring, that we have no legal obligations to the International Court of Justice ruling and that it is a matter for Parliament, not the courts. I ask the Foreign Secretary to clarify: are those lawyers speaking on behalf of this Government, and if that truly is the Government’s position, will he finally explain why he sees military support for Israel as compatible with our obligations under international law, rather than saying it is simply a matter for the courts?
- 14 May 2025 · Gaza: UK Assessment · Hansard source
More
We have had truly shocking statements in this Chamber. The Foreign Secretary suggested that not enough Palestinians had been killed for it to constitute a genocide. The Prime Minister stated that although he understood the definition of genocide, he did not refer to it as a genocide. The Minister repeats that it is a matter for the International Court of Justice. If that is the case, why are Government lawyers advancing submissions that no genocide has been conducted when it comes to the sale of F-35 parts?
- 7 May 2025 · Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I extend my extreme gratitude to the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for bringing forward this debate. Thousands in my constituency will be affected by the proposed cuts to PIP and to wider benefits. That is about not just numbers on a balance sheet, but the daily lives of real people. PIP is a vital lifeline for those living with disabilities and long-term health conditions. It helps to cover the extra costs that many of us never have to think about: mobility aids, transport and specialist care. Cutting that support does not just tighten budgets; it strips away independence and, more importantly, dignity. We must ask ourselves what kind of society we want to be: one that turns away from its most vulnerable, or one that lifts them up, ensuring that disability does not mean poverty, isolation or fear. Behind every efficiency saving is a person: a mother skipping meals so her disabled son can get to an appointment; a veteran left waiting months for a reassessment; or a young woman terrified of losing the support she needs to work part time and stay independent. This is about not just fairness but justice, compassion and basic human rights. I ask the Minister to halt these proposed cuts, to review PIP with empathy and not austerity, and to build a system that supports not punishes the most needy in our society.
- 30 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source
More
Let me begin by drawing Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a member of the Bar. I will align my comments with those of the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). The Bill, and the amendments, do not in reality tackle two-tier justice in this country; in fact, they risk entrenching it. Our justice system is founded on a principle that we all claim to uphold—fairness and equality before the law—but today we are being asked to support legislation that fundamentally undermines that principle. Let me be absolutely clear. This is not a matter of opinion. Lord Justice William Davis, the chair of the Sentencing Council, has written candidly about the issue. He has said, for example, that defendants from minority ethnic backgrounds are statistically more likely to receive harsher sentences than their white counterparts for a similar offence. That is not the opinion of politicians or pressure groups, but a warning from within the senior judiciary itself. The Bill ignores that reality. Worse still, it undermines one of the very tools designed to correct it: the pre-sentence report.
- 30 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source
More
Judges have been vilified, as have others sitting on the Sentencing Council, by Members of this House. Does the hon. Member agree that, if there is to be any vilification, it should be of the Conservative Members who formed the previous Government, who held the consultation and agreed to the guidance?
- 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.
- 30 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source
More
Does the hon. Member know that any defendant before the courts who has no previous convictions, despite the seriousness of the offence, is entitled to a pre-sentence report?
- 28 Apr 2025 · Child Rape Gangs · Hansard source
More
Child sexual exploitation is a vile and despicable crime that cuts across all sections of our society. It is perpetrated by individuals with blackened souls who come from all races, creeds, religions and backgrounds. All law-abiding citizens want justice for the victims of those horrific acts. Does the Minister agree that our focus must be on supporting the victims of exploitation and stopping the perpetrators, but that that must be done in such a way that does not fan the flames of hate towards innocent groups of people who, like all law-abiding citizens, condemn such acts?
- 11 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
One of the key objectives of the Sentencing Council is to ensure that there is parity of sentence up and down the country. It is a known fact that people from ethnic minorities sometimes get tougher custodial sentences than their white counterparts for similar offences. Given that, does the Lord Chancellor regret her attempt to discredit the considered and evidence-based conclusions of some of the most esteemed members of our judiciary when they published the guidelines on pre-sentencing reports?
- 21 Jan 2025 · Knife Crime: West Midlands · Hansard source
More
It is an honour and a privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for securing this important debate. I hope to be somewhat succinct. I echo the sentiments expressed by other hon. Members, but I want to talk about my personal experiences as someone who grew up in an area that has had, historically, the highest deprivation, high crime and a gang culture—the area of Aston. I grew up in an environment where young lads would hang around on street corners, in the local park or in local shopping centres, and we know the phrase “idle hands are the devil’s workshop”. What was it that allowed me and my siblings, and people closely affiliated with me in my social surroundings, to achieve so much coming out of an area such as Aston? I reflect on my personal experiences, and one of the most important factors that allowed me to remain out of gang culture, not standing on corners or in the local park or shopping centres, was the youth centres. I had two prominent youth centres within walking distance of my home. One is now called Saathi House, and there was a play centre within Aston park. We had youth workers. I chuckle when I talk about the youth workers that helped steer my life—Fat Phil was the name of one of them, and Sandra was another. They were instrumental, because they took us away from standing on corners, and from the local shopping centres and parks. They took us out on weekend trips. I came from a family that was not wealthy. My father worked 12-hour shifts and I hardly ever saw him, and my mum was very keen to ensure that we stayed on a straight and narrow path. It was the youth centres that took up all my evenings and weekends. It was all the social activities that they took us on that meant we were out of the gang culture, which was rife. While the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) rightly points out that Birmingham council, although it originally decided to slash youth centres, has now decided to keep them all open, the resources are not being provided—staffing levels are being reduced. I urge the Minister to review what we have in Birmingham. The debate is on the west midlands, but the statistics show that there were 6,185 knife-related incidents in the last three years just in Birmingham. If we are serious about tackling knife crime, of course prevention is vital, and youth centres are instrumental in that, but we need to resource them appropriately. There is no point having a youth centre where children cannot go to events or play football at a local football stadium because they cannot afford the £7 per child—parents simply do not have that money. Resourcing youth centres adequately is very important, so that they can provide the sort of things that I experienced. Hon. Members have talked about social media, and I am glad that the Government are taking strident steps to address that aspect, but the online purchase of weapons is critical. It is not just about closing the gap by making sure that Amazon, eBay and other online retailers are held to account; we also need tougher rules and sentences for adults who purchase online and provide weapons to young children. That is important, given what we understand about gang culture and the way that young children can be coerced into that environment. Police officers and PCSOs are also important. We had community support officers in inner-city areas setting up equipment for football, rugby and cricket. They would be in charge and take young children to local parks and interact with them. It has already been mentioned that we had a significant reduction in police officers and PCSOs. I hope that the additional officers will assist, but they cannot assist if they are not adequately resourced to do the things that can drive young people away from gang culture. In closing, I again thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich for securing this debate. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take away my personal experiences, and the need for additional resources in Birmingham, especially when Birmingham city council has an enormous deficit of more than £376 million. It simply does not have the resources to deal with this issue, and it requires additional funding from the Government.
- 16 Jan 2025 · Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse · Hansard source
More
Child sexual exploitation is a vile crime that violates the trust, safety and dignity of children. Perpetrators of such despicable crimes—individuals or groups, no matter their race, religion or creed—must face the full force of the law. I commend the Home Secretary for her statement and the steps it sets out, especially on victims’ right to review. So many victims feel that the authorities have neglected their position. Can the Home Secretary please give a timetable, even an estimate, for the duty of candour? I am sure she knows that justice delayed is justice denied.
- 13 Nov 2024 · Facial Recognition: Police Use · Hansard source
More
I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this important debate. It is difficult to follow the comprehensive presentation of the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), but I would like to come at this debate from a different perspective—as a criminal barrister by profession. In trials that I have conducted, we have had difficulty with experts when identifying suspects charged in very serious cases. Two experts in relevant IT facial recognition software find it difficult to come to the same conclusion. One expert in a trial will say, “This is highly likely fitting of this particular defendant—confidence level maybe 50% or 60%.” Another expert in the same trial will counterargue and say, “Well, there are dissimilarities between the face and the image that we have been able to capture.” Ultimately, it is a matter for the jury as to whether they accept one expert’s opinion over another. As a result, at present, we have counterarguments between experts over facial recognition technology. What concerns me is the idea of allowing the state, in essence, to deploy this kind of technology in high streets, for example. The hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) has already raised the issue of the disproportionate rate of stop and search—by multiple times; I think the rate was nine times higher for black males. What impact will facial recognition live transmission data have in the city of Birmingham? It is going to have an enormous impact. Members have raised the difficulties with the percentage error of recognitions, and the distrust that we have in Birmingham is a challenge already, particularly with young men and the police. What will this technology achieve? Will young men start wearing more face coverings in city centres? How will this technology be used, even if it is legislated for properly? For example, will the police have to notify the public, “We are using this facial recognition technology in the Bullring today between the hours of 10 am and 10 pm?” It does not seem to serve any real purpose. We have a very effective police force in the west midlands, and it uses CCTV, which we have all over. If hon. Members go to any street in Birmingham, they will find tens or hundreds of houses with CCTV, and the police have used that to great effect; after a crime is committed, they track back and they prosecute. We have had so many successful prosecutions in very serious crimes, such as murder and violent crime, but the deployment of this technology will create enormous problems and divisions. As I said, there are already problems with how minority communities feel when they are stopped and searched. I think the right hon. Member for Maldon said that in the trial about 10 people were stopped, with one to two—as little as 10%—being identified. As the technology develops further, that percentage may increase, but at present I do not see how it will assist at all. Criminals know very well how to avoid detection, and face coverings will become the norm. Other than surveillance, this technology achieves very little. I do not see how it will assist in detection. The hon. Member for Brent East drew some simple parallels. What would the public think about being stopped on a busy high street and asked to come to a police van to give their fingerprints and DNA? They would be outraged, and rightly so. It would almost legitimise police officers approaching people, in particular young men. We know that not just black people, but people of colour, women and children will be subject to the technology, and we know that there are errors. The right to privacy and the freedoms that we have are far greater than this technology, and I do not see how it will assist in deterrence, because people will simply use face coverings and all sorts of other things.
- 10 Oct 2024 · Gaza and Humanitarian Aid · Hansard source
More
I agree, and I am sure there will be many similar contributions throughout this debate. I welcome the Government’s reinstatement of UNRWA funding, but we must do more. We must address the root cause of the suffering, and an immediate, permanent ceasefire is absolutely essential. Diplomatic calls from Governments of various nations have fallen on deaf ears. The only option available now is to enforce a ceasefire through the prohibition of all arms sales to Israel. If the UK did that, it would send a clear message to others, who would inevitably follow suit, but innocent lives are being lost and the Government have done little to change the course of Israeli aggression. I ask the rhetorical question: how can we send aid with one hand while providing the weapons of destruction with the other? How can we claim to stand for morality and justice when we are complicit in this collective punishment? Time is of the essence. Every 10 minutes, another child in Gaza dies. This regime of mass murder and destruction is fuelled by the west’s unconditional support and its granting of full impunity for breaches of international humanitarian law. The time for change is now, not later. Will the Minister admit that Israel is actively blocking efforts to distribute humanitarian aid and reach a ceasefire agreement? What will the Government do to encourage Israel to open border crossings for humanitarian aid?
Explore activity by topic or department
Contributions by debate topic
4 Jul 2024–3 Jul 2025. Existing keyword taxonomy applied to official debate titles and contributions; a contribution may appear in more than one topic and unclassified records are retained.
View as listWhat this shows and doesn't show
Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →