Israel and Palestine

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

Last week represented an important change in Britain’s approach to Israel and Palestine, and I welcome it. For the first time, this Government acknowledged the reality staring us in the face: that the occupation is unlawful, that illegal settlements are destroying any prospect of Palestinian statehood, and that in parts of the west bank Palestinians are being ethnically cleansed by what the Foreign Secretary himself called settler terrorists. Those are not my words; they are now the words of His Majesty’s Government. That makes the question before us today all the more urgent. If we finally recognise what is happening, why are we still refusing to confront those who are responsible for making it happen?

This is not simply the work of a few rogue extremists. Under this Israeli Government, more settlements have been approved in four years than in the previous 20. Some 800,000 settlers now live across the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Foreign Secretary himself told the House that settlers had attacked Palestinian communities under Israeli military protection, and that Israeli Government Ministers had supported ethnic cleansing. We need to stop pretending that the settlements are somehow separate from the Israeli state, because the settlements are a monster of its own making. By tinkering around the edges with sanctions on settlers and leaving the Government at the heart of their enterprise untouched, this Labour Government are trying to tiptoe around the raindrops and not get wet; but, like the last Government, they will be soaked in complicity, and the sanctions do nothing to punish the real architects of this apartheid.

Settlers are murdering Palestinians with IDF protection. The Israeli Government are giving them the land to invade in the first place. If we are serious about ending illegal settlements, where is the ban on trade with the nation of Israel itself? Government policy now contains an extraordinary contradiction. We will sanction the people who finance settlement construction; we will penalise companies that build settlements, and ban the products coming from within them; yet when the Israeli state allocates the land, approves the plans and sends armed forces to protect settler terrorists, the consequences suddenly stop.

As I said only last week in a question to the Foreign Secretary, this is a litmus test of our most basic principles. If those who help to establish illegal settlements should be sanctioned, why not the officials who authorise them? Why not the institutions that finance them, and the state contractors that build them? Why should our wider trading relationship remain untouched when settlement expansion is official Israeli Government policy?

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

The July 2024 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice declared that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories was unlawful under international law and that Israel must end the occupation as quickly as possible, stop all settlement activity, and evacuate all settlers. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is time to honour that advisory opinion, and does he also agree that we should make a distinction between the actions of the Israeli Government and the state of Israel itself?

[Ayoub Khan]

I agree wholeheartedly with the first part of the hon. Member’s intervention—of course we should uphold international law—but I am a little confused by the latter part. It is the Israeli state that drives policy, and one cannot distinguish between the Israeli state and the Israeli Government. I entirely agree that we must not conflate them with the Israeli people, because that would be wrong. I suspect that all Members in this House want to see the scourge of antisemitism tackled, as well as anti-Muslim hate. There was a massive increase in anti-Muslim hate following 7 October, across the city of Birmingham and across the country, and we must do whatever we can in this House—unified by one principle, the principle of humanity—to ensure that where we see wrong we address it, and do so without fear or favour.

As I have said before, one of the prime reasons why we have independent Members of Parliament, why protesters came on to the streets, and why students at universities are protesting is the fact that they are not antisemitic. Of course, I accept that there have been occasions when there has been antisemitism, and we must all condemn it, but in the main, all those people were championing one aspect: the freedom of the Palestinians, who have been under oppression for so many decades.

I return to my original point. We must all work together to prevent the rise of antisemitism in this country, as well as anti-Muslim hate, and we must all try to address that conflation. We have witnessed, for example, the suppression of doctors’ freedom of speech by their regulators when all they have done is question some of the actions that have been taken. Israel cannot claim to be a victim—not the people of Israel, but the state—when it prevents journalists from entering. We should say, “If you are open and transparent, allow journalists to come in, and allow them to document what is taking place.” However, I suspect that Israel will be unwilling to do that, precisely because of the genocide that we are witnessing.

In Gaza, more than 73,000 Palestinians are officially recorded as dead—murdered. Homes have been reduced to rubble, aid has been obstructed, and entire bloodlines have been wiped out. I have no hesitation in calling out what everyone is seeing with their own eyes: a genocide, livestreamed for the world to see. Netanyahu’s Government have demonstrated an extraordinary contempt, time and again. Extraordinary reporting raises profoundly disturbing questions about what Netanyahu knew before that attack. According to Haaretz, the President of the United Arab Emirates warned him a week and a half earlier that Hamas were planning a major operation, and he did not pass that warning to his security chiefs. How absurd is the proposition that a Prime Minister informed of an imminent threat would not advise his chief security officer? Either he did not believe the information or

“he wanted to see what they could plan so that then he could come down hard”.

Those are not my words; they are the words of none other than Hillary Clinton.

We were told for years that the destruction would stop when hostages were released—Netanyahu said the war could end if Hamas surrendered and returned them—yet Haim Rubinstein, a spokesperson for the Israeli Hostages and Missing Families Forum, said as far back as 2025 that Israel rejected an early proposal to release civilian hostages if the IDF did not enter Gaza. This is the regime that we continue to do business with and are choosing to stand by—a far-right Government who have refused peace at every turn and in its place opt for bloodshed and gaslighting. Yet for far too long, western Governments have taught Netanyahu one lesson and one lesson only: condemnations will come, statements will be issued and red lines will be crossed, but meaningful consequences will not follow.

Last week’s announcement can be remembered in one of two ways: it can be the moment Britain finally changed course, or it can become another intolerable status quo, with tougher words, narrowly drawn sanctions, business as usual elsewhere and yet another year in which the prospect of Palestinian statehood crumbles under the weight of Israel’s never-ending bloodshed. Acknowledging the problem cannot be the end of British policy. If we truly believe Palestinians have the right to self-determination, this must be only the start, because as the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) said, time is not on our side, and we cannot and must not wait until there is no Palestine left to recognise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I, too, put on the record my thanks to the Minister’s predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), for all the work he has done to get us to this place, and to the Minister and his team for all the work they are doing at the moment, particularly last week.

I welcome today’s general debate on Israel and Palestine. It is a timely debate that rightly deserves the attention of the House. There will, no doubt, be a small minority online who will ask why events thousands of miles away should take up time in the British Parliament, so let me address that from the outset.

First, Britain does not exist on a planet of its own, detached from the rest of the world. What happens beyond our shores has consequences here at home. We also have a particular historic and moral responsibility when it comes to Israel and Palestine, given the Balfour declaration, the British mandate and our country’s historical role in the region. But even putting that history aside, whether we like it or not, conflicts elsewhere affect the lives of people right here in Britain. A war in Ukraine, a war involving Iran or instability across the middle east can mean higher prices at the petrol pump, higher energy bills, greater inflationary pressures and, ultimately, higher borrowing costs for families. More fundamentally, growing instability around the world threatens the peace, security and freedoms upon which all our lives depend. Britain therefore has both an interest and a responsibility in seeking peace, upholding international law and preventing further conflict.

Secondly, we cannot discuss this conflict without confronting the extraordinary loss of human life. According to figures published by the United Nations, more than 73,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since 7 October 2023. More than 21,700 of those killed have been children—21,700 children.

[Ayoub Khan]

The hon. Member may be aware that the United Nations inquiry revealed that the IDF was intentionally targeting children as a way to end the future generation. That inquiry should prompt this Government to take even further steps towards sanctions.

[Naz Shah]

Certainly, the Secretary of State highlighted in his remarks last Tuesday that the Government will seek advice from the ICJ and are continuously supporting those inquiries, but the hon. Member makes an important point.

Sadly, we live in a world where we can go about our daily lives and not always feel the seriousness of the pain in Gaza, or comprehend the magnitude of the killing. Putting those thousands of deaths to one side for a moment, as mothers and fathers, in this Chamber and beyond, can we not feel the pain being felt by the people of Gaza? I recently saw a video of a father who believed his child was dead, only to be reunited with his son more than two years later, having thought that he had been killed and buried beneath the rubble of Gaza’s destruction. He holds his son, pulls him close and cries uncontrollably, completely overwhelmed with emotion.

Can we imagine being that father? If we had lost our child, can we imagine the happiness, relief and overwhelming emotion of that moment of being reunited? That is one story that at least has some happiness at the end, and it makes us tear up because we imagine, “What if this was my child? What if this was your child?” But I ask: how do those mothers who will never see their beloved children again feel; those fathers who will never again hold their children tightly to their chests; those children growing up in Gaza with no mother, no father, no guardian and no shelter?

What is it like to live in a conflict zone where someone who is a journalist, like Hamza al-Dahdouh, can be killed in an Israeli airstrike, or, like Shireen Abu Akleh, can be shot dead while doing their job? Years later there is still no accountability to bring about justice for their families.

It is a conflict zone where someone can be a British, Australian, Canadian or Palestinian aid worker for the World Central Kitchen, trying to provide basic food and humanitarian assistance to people living among the rubble, and be killed by the IDF. The seven World Central Kitchen workers were travelling in a clearly marked convoy and co-ordinating their movements with the Israeli military. Three of those killed were British. They were returning from delivering food and humanitarian assistance to people in Gaza when their vehicles were struck. Their deaths show the extraordinary danger faced by aid workers trying to feed civilians in a warzone. Israel acknowledged serious failures in the strike and dismissed two officers, yet the families of the World Central Kitchen workers have called for independent accountability—that call is falling on deaf ears.

That is the treatment of journalists, aid workers and others whose very purpose is to help and bear witness. So where is the justice, the accountability and the protection of life for everyone in Gaza? God forbid you stand up and consistently speak out against the oppression, killing and destruction of the Palestinian people, and call for sanctions in line with international law and the position of successive British Governments for decades—the response is that Israel sanctions people like me.

Israel and Palestine

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

I can assure my hon. Friend on his last point: all licences that materially contribute to the occupation will not be allowed. That is why we now have a double lock in relation not only to Gaza but to the occupation. On the speed of action, we want to move as speedily as we can with these measures.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I was elected to the House not just because people saw injustice or hypocrisy from the previous Labour leadership but because this topic became a litmus test of credibility, integrity and morality for the British people, who could see what was taking place in Gaza and in the west bank. I saw the attacks on the Foreign Secretary, who was referred to as a “Jew hater” when he came out with this proposal, and the disgusting comments by the American ambassador, labelling him often as antisemitic for talking about justice and the rights of Palestinians. Will he work with colleagues on this side of the House so that we can forge stronger relationships between British Muslims and British Jews, preventing those actors and agitators—even in this House—who want to sow division in our communities?

[Ed Miliband]

I undertake to work with Members across the House on these questions; more unites us than divides us on them, and we do need to act. I say to the hon. Member and others in the House that part of acting is upholding Israel’s right to exist and its security, which includes opposing BDS, because part of being faithful to a two-state solution is upholding the rights of the Palestinian people and the Israeli people.

Falkland Islands: Sovereignty

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty McNeill]

As I have already stated to the House, we are in ongoing dialogue through all our diplomatic relations to stress to people in every capital—but, most of all, to the people of the Falkland Islands—that the Falkland Islands remain British and always will.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

It is concerning to hear the sabre-rattling from Argentina towards a self-governing population who overwhelmingly identify as British. It is not just the United States that is fanning the flames, however. Israel’s sanctioned Minister of National Security has called for Israel to recognise the Falklands as Argentinian, and its President has stated:

“Israel will act against Britain.”

Ignoring the irony of an Israeli Minister accusing another country of illegal occupation, what discussions has the Foreign Secretary had on this matter with our supposed ally, which is trying to undermine British sovereignty?

[Kirsty McNeill]

We make clear to all our partners, all our allies and, indeed, people in every capital of the world that the Falklands Islands are British. We are resolute in that, and that position will not change.

Middle East

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I do not seek to offend the Foreign Secretary, but how can we lecture businesses in the United Kingdom about morality when we are witnessing a genocide? Even if they are considering only the risk of a genocide, the Government should take steps to prevent that, such as cutting off all trade, and we still supply components to the F-35 programme. We recently witnessed five British citizens being tortured, sexually assaulted and dumped in Greece. A seven-month-old child was murdered in the hands of his mother, and no doubt an investigation will conclude that that child was a shield. Why does she not sanction the leader, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and what will the Government do to prevent this show business sale, in London on Sunday, of illegal properties there?

[Yvette Cooper]

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), we will pursue any angle we can against operations taking place here in the UK. It is important to be clear that we have very much led the way with the sanctions that we have imposed. Most countries obviously do not sanction individual members of the Israeli Government, but we have done so because we were so appalled by the incitement by those individuals.

As the hon. Member will know, one of those Ministers was involved in the shocking flaunting and just the most disgraceful promoting of what were really disturbing ways of treating human beings on the flotilla that did not meet the basic standards of humanity. He also referred, as I described in my statement, to the really distressing case of a baby just seven months old being killed. That is why we will continue to pursue sanctions, and we will continue to pursue other options with allies across the world.

The other thing we need to do is build the same sense of international consensus that we had in the autumn on the 20-point plan for Gaza. There was only partial consensus on the west bank at that time. We and other countries recognised the state of Palestine as part of that, so there was that strong commitment, and the 20-point plan refers to the transition to the Palestinian Authority and links with the future state of Palestine. However, we need to strengthen the international consensus built in the autumn to cover a much wider area—not just Gaza, but also the west bank—with a broader regional security framework. We have seen the power we have when we get international consensus together, but individual countries acting alone do not have such an impact.

Lebanon: Israel Defence Forces Operations

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

We keep all those questions under review, and we recognise the magnitude of events in the middle east. I will decline to enter into the hypothetical question, but obviously events in the middle east—whether in Iran or Lebanon—are of real concern to constituents right across the country, including in my constituency of Lincoln and in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Rushcliffe.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

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?

[Mr Falconer]

Words do matter. It has been a long-standing principle of this Government, and indeed previous Governments, that it is not for Ministers to say what crimes are—that is for courts to find. That is why we have not used the particular formulation that the hon. Gentleman would like to hear. I do not think anybody in the Chamber could have any doubt about the extent of criticism that other Ministers and I have delivered in relation to Israeli conduct, whether in Lebanon or Gaza. That has been criticism not just in words, but through concrete actions, including sanctions against Israeli Ministers, as I set out earlier in my question. We have a very delicate situation in the middle east, which we are seeking to navigate in the best interests of the region and of the United Kingdom. I sing the praises of many people in this Chamber, but Piers Morgan, I am afraid, is not one of them. We have to make difficult decisions in a serious way, and that is what we try to do day in, day out.

Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Badenoch]

I am going to make some progress. I say gently to Labour MPs—and kindly, as I have been asked to—that if they vote against today’s motion, they are admitting that Labour has lower standards, and should be held to a lower standard than everyone else. When they were elected, they promised their constituents integrity and higher standards, and I am sure that most of them meant it at the time. This country is the mother of all Parliaments, and today’s vote is about Parliament. It is not about the Labour party; it is about the Prime Minister being held to account. To those who are saying that this is a stunt, I say that it is about whether the Prime Minister is accountable, not just to the Opposition but to Labour MPs and their constituents.

Labour Members may believe that the Prime Minister is telling the truth. As Mr Speaker said, they are not being asked whether the Prime Minister is telling the truth; they are being asked whether the Privileges Committee should investigate whether the Prime Minister told the truth. That is a different thing. The question is whether there is a case to answer that he misled this House and has failed to correct the record.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

The British public are already fed up with politicians—we see that from the low turnout at general elections. We have here a prime example of why the British public have lost confidence in politicians. We are trying to shield the public from the truth and hide it from them. Does the right hon. Member agree that in order to restore that trust, this Prime Minister must be put in front of the Committee?

[Mrs Badenoch]

I agree that this is a matter of trust with the public. We have to show that we do things properly here. As I was saying, the question is whether there is a case to answer that the Prime Minister misled this House and failed to correct the record. If there is a credible case that he did, this matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges—those are the rules of the House.

I will quickly run through the facts to make sure that every Labour MP hears them. The Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson before security vetting was granted, in direct contravention of the advice given to him on 11 November 2024 by the then Cabinet Secretary—that is not due process. The Prime Minister’s own National Security Adviser described the appointment and due diligence as “weirdly rushed”, and the Foreign Office was not asked to feed in—that is not due process. [Interruption.] The chair of the Labour party has a lot to say, so I will give way and let her say what she wants to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gurinder Singh Josan]

The right hon. Gentleman should understand that we are here today only because of things that have been determined, whether from the release of papers through the Humble Address or from evidence people have given to the Foreign Affairs Committee. For him to say that those processes have no relevance is wrong; they absolutely have full relevance. My whole case is that we should let those processes complete in their entirety. That is why I believe this motion is premature. Given that those processes are already taking place, this privilege motion is premature. More than that, this motion is a clear attempt to bypass those processes.

Whatever one’s view of the substantive issues, there are some points on which we should all agree. The Prime Minister has been forthcoming in addressing the allegations, both in the House and outside. The Prime Minister has apologised from the very outset in the House and outside it, for the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson, and his apologies have been full, wholesome and without equivocation. He has also specifically apologised to the victims of Epstein. The Prime Minister has repeatedly answered questions in the House and outside, and has shown a willingness to be held accountable.

[Ayoub Khan]

Whatever the merits of the motion, does the hon. Member accept that the party whip should not be exercised so that politicians are constrained and cannot support or oppose a particular motion? Does he agree that that whip should be withdrawn?

[Gurinder Singh Josan]

I am a humble Back Bencher, and I would not disagree with my Chief Whip in respect of his decisions on how to apply the whip. That is a matter for him.

All the inquiries that I have mentioned are ongoing, and are being robustly pursued. I fear, therefore, that the motion risks setting an unhealthy precedent, namely that unproven allegations alone are sufficient to utilise one of Parliament’s most serious procedures. That is not something with which any of us should be comfortable. The naked politicising of this process will not serve Parliament well. My further fear is that while Opposition Members are seeking to utilise this procedure in this way, some of them will already be looking into what other procedures they can use to extend the process in the same partisan fashion.

It is incumbent on all of us to give consideration to due process and proportionality. Diverting from the high standards that voters expect of the House risks damaging confidence in Parliament itself. Substantial parliamentary and other processes are already under way. We should not pre-empt those processes, which is what this motion has the potential to do, but should allow them to be completed. That is in the best interests of Parliament and in the best interests of transparency, due process and proportionality, and that is why I call on Members to vote against the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I rise in this debate first and foremost to reiterate, as other colleagues have done, my fullest solidarity with the victims of Epstein. We should always maintain them at the forefront of our minds. Notwithstanding their absence from the motion, I know that many colleagues on both sides of the House have referenced them, and I am sure that we will continue to do so.

I want to be clear that I will vote against this motion, not because I have to be told to, but because the case has absolutely not been made. Given some of the contributions made about shaving or putting on make-up in the morning, and considering and reflecting on the vote that will be cast tonight, I will have no compunction whatsoever and absolutely no doubt in my mind when I go through the Lobby that I will have made the right decision. I do not need insinuations to the contrary impugning my integrity.

[Ayoub Khan]

rose—

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

Before I explain why I am making that case and that decision, I will happily give way.

[Ayoub Khan]

Of course, every Member is entitled to make their decision, and to vote in either Lobby, but they have to justify that to the electorate. Given that, does the hon. Member believe that a three-line Whip is necessary?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Pinto-Duschinsky]

No, I will make some progress.

What is more, this Government are undertaking an extensive release of documents in the interests of transparency and out of respect for this House. Ministers have updated us on the progress with the Humble Address. On top of that, the Foreign Affairs Committee is holding hearings. Alongside that, the Government have already strengthened the processes around national security vetting and senior appointments. So I ask again: what is the real substance here? We are not uncovering new facts. In fact, the Conservatives’ argument has changed time and again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) so eloquently pointed out. What we are seeing is lots of throwing mud in the hope that some of it will stick. The Conservatives are speaking not in the public interest, but in service of political opportunism.

[Ayoub Khan]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[David Pinto-Duschinsky]

No.

The Conservatives are demeaning and diminishing an important parliamentary process. Our disciplinary processes are serious, and they should not be used for political point scoring. A Committee of Privileges investigation would not bring further clarity; it would only create a long, costly and wholly unnecessary duplication of processes that are either completed or already under way. It is a distraction, and I guess that is why the Conservatives want it. It is a stunt, and that is why I will vote against it.

Under the previous Government, this House was treated with contempt. Standards were bent and procedures were torn apart to protect those in power, with the support of many Conservative Members. We are entitled to ask: why do they raise this matter now? Well, it is because there is an election in a few days’ time, but it is also because they fundamentally cannot accept the change that this Government are delivering. They cannot accept that we are investing in public services that they ran into the ground.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

May I first extend my thoughts and prayers to the victims of Epstein? I commend the bold and courageous contributions of Labour Members who will be voting for the motion.

I was elected as an independent Member of Parliament to represent the people of Birmingham Perry Barr without fear and without favour. I was sent here without a party Whip—without shackles or controls, or indeed hidden notes given to me behind closed doors. I was sent here to exercise my judgment, my discretion and my conscience at the behest of my constituents, and that is exactly what I do each and every day.

The truth is that the British public feel deeply, profoundly disenfranchised. Too many people no longer trust politicians. Too many believe that we say one thing and do another. Too many feel that there is one rule for those in power and another for everyone else. We cannot simply dismiss that sentiment; we must confront it. Honesty matters. Integrity matters. Credibility matters. Above all, transparency matters. Without those fundamental elements, public confidence does not just weaken; it disappears. And once it is gone, it is incredibly difficult to rebuild. I therefore ask colleagues across the House—especially Labour colleagues—what message do we send today if we refuse even to allow a Committee to examine the facts? What are we saying to the public if we block scrutiny before it has even begun?

The motion is not a verdict, a judgment or a declaration of guilt; it is a fair, established parliamentary process to examine evidence, to determine the facts and to allow the truth to emerge. Yet we are told that Labour Members are under a three-line Whip. For those outside the Chamber who may not know, that means they are being instructed and compelled to vote against the motion—to vote against even allowing the question to be examined. Let us be honest about what that looks like.

If an individual votes to prevent the investigation, they are not defending due process, but denying it; they are not upholding transparency, but obstructing it; they are not strengthening public trust, but further eroding it. To the British people, it will look like they are shielding, blocking and protecting the powerful from scrutiny. That is precisely the perception that we should all be fighting against, not reinforcing.

If we expect the public to follow the rules, to respect the law and to have faith in our institutions, we must hold ourselves to the same, if not higher, standards. We cannot ask for trust while refusing accountability, we cannot demand integrity while avoiding scrutiny and we cannot rebuild confidence by closing ranks.

This is a moment that calls for courage—not partisan courage, but moral courage; the courage to say, “Let the process take its course”; the courage to say that no one is above scrutiny; and the courage to put principle above party. As an independent Member, I answer only to my constituents and to my conscience. I am confident that every Labour Member will listen to their conscience. My conscience tells me that supporting this motion is the right thing to do, not because of politics, but because of principles, and not because of personalities, but because of the standards that we owe to the British public.

I urge colleagues across this House, particularly those under instructions today, to reflect carefully on the message that their vote will send. Will it be a message of openness or a message of obstruction? Will it be a message of accountability or a message of avoidance? The public are watching and they will draw their own conclusions. If we are serious about restoring trust in politics, we must be serious about transparency. If we are serious about integrity, we must be serious about scrutiny. If we are serious about public confidence, we must allow the truth to be examined, wherever that truth leads. For that reason, I support the motion. The Prime Minister is willing to put each and every Labour Member of Parliament at risk at the next general election, but he will not risk going in front of the Privileges Committee.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State, Alex Burghart.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman should listen to my speech. I have just said that Catherine Little, Sir Chris Wormald and Sir Olly Robbins all agree on the point that due process was followed. When the Prime Minister received new information about the UKSV process this month, he immediately asked for the full facts to be established and he then come to this House on 20 April.

On the statement that Peter Mandelson’s appointment was “subject to developed vetting”, the Prime Minister has always been clear that this appointment was in line with the processes at the time. I understand that there have been some questions about this process, but to be clear, as Sir Olly Robbins told the Foreign Affairs Committee in November:

“As is normally the case with external appointments to my Department…the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance.”

As Sir Chris Wormald told the same Committee:

“The normal thing is for the security clearance to happen after appointment but before the person signs a contract and takes up post.”

And as the former Cabinet Secretary said in his letter to the Prime Minister, having conducted a review into the process,

“the vetting process was complete before the previous HMA Washington took up post on 10 February 2025, and it is more usual for security vetting to happen after appointment.”

[Ayoub Khan]

The Minister clearly believes that the Prime Minister has a defensible position, so will he support the withdrawal of the whipping of Labour Back Benchers?

[Darren Jones]

I am not going to answer silly questions.

Next, on the question of pressure—[Interruption.] Many hon. Members have asked questions today about a general pressure, a specific pressure or a variety of different pressures, so they may want to listen to the answer. It is important to be clear about this, because there is pressure to get stuff done every day across every area of government, as we work hard to deliver for the British people. The Leader of the Opposition and other Members who have previously served in government will no doubt recall that from their time in office, but there is clearly a difference between asking for progress updates and putting pressure on officials to predetermine an outcome or not to follow a proper process. That was not the case in this scenario.

Middle East

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

Because the regional stability and security issues around the middle east have so many wider ramifications, some of the Gulf countries, for example, that I have spoken to are not only immensely seized by the issues around the Iranian threat and the direct threat to their airspace and communities, but are raising with me issues around Palestine, Gaza and Lebanon. This ought to be a moment for intense international diplomacy in support of regional security and not for allowing wider escalation and regional threat that would pose long-term instability for the region.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

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?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can say to the hon. Member that we are working closely with our European allies, including France, Germany and Italy, on a range of these issues. I do not think that his characterisation of the situation is right.

Strait of Hormuz

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I can assure the right hon. Member that we keep a range of threats and risks under close monitoring. We will always take the steps that we can to protect shipping and our interests and allies in the region, but I am not going to get into the specifics of any individual location.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

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?

[Stephen Doughty]

British citizens do come first. The Prime Minister has set out clearly the basis for the decisions he has made, which includes, of course, the defence of our allies and partners in the Gulf, which I am sure the hon. Member would agree is important, and indeed British citizens and interests in the Gulf. Again, I am not exactly sure what policy he is suggesting we should follow. The Prime Minister will continue to approach this in a calm and level-headed way in the British national interest.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Elmore]

International NGOs remain indispensable to the UN-led humanitarian response, and we have supported key INGO partners, including through the Disasters Emergency Committee. In January, we marked the UK’s £3 million aid match for the middle east appeal. In total, we have provided £13 million since the appeal began. On 30 December last year, the UK led a statement with nine other countries to underline the vital role that INGOs play in Palestine. We continue to engage those organisations that have been impacted by new registration requirements, and we have raised that issue directly with the Government of Israel.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

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.

[Chris Elmore]

We would like all borders, including Rafah, to be open as quickly as possible and not in a phased process. We are making representations to the Israeli Government in that regard.

Sudan

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

That is exactly why I had meetings directly with the African Union, to make sure that the work to support civic society involves the work it is doing locally and also involves neighbouring countries directly. The hon. Member is completely right to say that if this simply becomes an ongoing stand-off between two military-led parties, we will not get a secure and sustainable peace for Sudan. The first stage has to be the humanitarian truce, but we have to have that civilian transition.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

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?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the hon. Member’s points about the horrendous way in which children are being targeted. Some of the most disturbing reports are of children and women who have managed to flee from one of the cities under siege. They are leaving—they are fleeing, they are running away—yet on those journeys, they are stopped and face rape, sexual violence and kidnapping. The most terrible crimes are being committed, so we are working on how we can strengthen support for children and use not just the work of the UN Security Council or that of the UN more widely, but any international forum we have, to raise the plight of children.