Improving the UK Visa System

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing this debate.

This debate is about more than simply improving the UK visa system; it is about creating an economy that delivers for families, workers and employers alike. It is crucial that we get this issue right. If we are serious about economic growth, supporting public services and helping British businesses succeed, we must be honest: the current direction of travel is deeply damaging. What is worse is that many people are either celebrating it or complaining that we are not moving quickly enough. Now is not the time to accelerate; it is time to slam on the brakes before we drive our economy off a cliff.

The visa system is becoming too harsh on workers, too costly for employers and it is bringing too much uncertainty for families who came to this country in good faith. They followed the rules, paid the fees and contributed to our economy and our communities. The proposal to double the standard qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain from five years to 10 is particularly concerning. Roughly 2.2 million people with temporary visas that ended in 2024 were on a path to settlement and all of them have had the rug pulled from beneath them by this Government.

People came to the United Kingdom under one set of expectations. They built careers, enrolled children in schools, rented or bought homes and made long-term plans. Now, after years of working, paying tax and contributing to our country, they are being told that they must do more to earn their future here.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that one of the worst aspects of the new system is how it treats husbands and wives separately? If a husband has gained five years of work experience but the wife has stayed at home to look after their children, she will be treated separately under the new rules such that her path to indefinite leave to remain will become much longer than his. That is having a damaging impact on families.

[Ayoub Khan]

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.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be winding his speech up soon.

[Ayoub Khan]

In conclusion, Britain should be a country that attracts talent, rewards contribution, and keeps its promises. The current approach does the opposite: it prices people out, damages competitiveness, and leaves families with great uncertainty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this timely debate.

We are here to talk about improving the UK visa system. That has to start with addressing one of the most cynical flaws in our system, which is the domestic abuse loophole. That loophole involves migrants falsely claiming to be victims of domestic abuse in order to stay in this country. That is a national issue, and a local one for me in West Yorkshire.

Before I continue, let me be clear that those who are genuine victims of domestic abuse must be afforded the utmost protection by society and lawmakers, no matter their gender, the colour of their skin, the language they speak or where they come from. We cannot, however, allow that obligation to be used to allow people to con their way into this country and ultimately claim citizenship, falsely accusing those they relied on to get here of heinous crimes, potentially causing lifelong impacts for the innocent people with whom they entered a relationship. Under UK law, migrants who claim to be the victims of domestic abuse and who are on temporary visas as the partners of British citizens, can apply for permission to settle permanently if the relationship has broken down because of domestic abuse or violence.

Permission to settle gives them the right to live, work and study here for as long as they like, and to apply for benefits if they are eligible. They can use that to apply for British citizenship. That rule, known as the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession, was brought in to help genuine victims of abuse to secure permanent residence more quickly than through other routes, such as asylum. There is stark evidence, however, that that it is being used by male and female migrants to dupe British partners into relationships and marriage.

[Ayoub Khan]

It is not just the scenario that the hon. Member highlights. There is evidence of false domestic violence cases, where partners get indefinite leave to remain and British nationality, and then bring over their true partner, which is a further exacerbation. Is the hon. Member aware of that?

[Robbie Moore]

I am aware of that, as it resonates with some of the casework I get in my constituency in Keighley. I am also aware of people being encouraged to fabricate false allegations by so-called online legal advisers. The scale of the problem has been amplified through a freedom of information request from the BBC. It found that a total of 5,596 migrants made applications for indefinite leave to remain as victims of domestic abuse in the 12 months up to September 2025, the most recent period for which the data was available.

The BBC reported one case where a British mother, who had left her male partner after reporting him for rape, was subsequently accused by him of domestic abuse. She said that was a false allegation, made so that he could stay in the country. The allegations were never proven, but the partner was able to use them to avoid having to return to Pakistan. I know from the correspondence I get through casework in my constituency that there is a noticeable increase in the issue.

There was one mother whose son and spouse came to reside with her family after a marriage had been entered into. A complaint of domestic abuse was made, not only against the son but the wider family, which resulted in the mother losing her job in a local school. The police explored it, which resulted in them taking no further action, but because the claim had been made, it caused huge stress for the family. The individual who made the claim was protected by the state, through the money they were being paid to reside in a different place and by being able to claim benefits. That is wrong, and I hope the Government will look at that loophole.

Let me reassure Members across the House that it is, of course, right and proper that we offer the utmost protection to victims of domestic abuse. Immigration authorities will not get it right every time, but the numbers I cited earlier and my experience from constituency casework prove that this loophole is getting traction, and is being promoted for others to utilise. What reassurance can the Minister offer me that the Government are aware of this issue, are taking it seriously and have a plan to stop it escalating further?

Child Sexual Offender Data

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I begin where every debate on this subject must: with the victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, like the brave women here in the Public Gallery. There are few crimes more devastating, and there are few duties more important for this House than ensuring that every perpetrator is identified, convicted and punished with the full force of the law.

Let me be clear at the outset: I support the proper collection and publication of data that helps us to understand patterns of offending, to close gaps in safeguarding, to improve prosecution and to protect children. As a barrister, I believe in evidence. I believe in facts. I believe that the criminal justice system must follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of whether those facts are convenient or uncomfortable. However, I also believe that we must be honest about what some people are doing with this issue, because there is a difference between using data to protect children and using children as a shield for prejudice. There is a difference between seeking transparency and seeking a radicalised political weapon. I am afraid that around this petition and the wider debate, there are some who appear far less interested in victims than in validating their own hatred of ethnic minorities, Muslims, migrants and foreign nationals. That is not safeguarding. That is not justice. That is exploitation of another kind.

We have to be incredibly careful here, because the facts simply do not support the narrative that some would like to peddle. The data currently collected by the police is undoubtedly incomplete, and I welcome serious efforts to rectify that, but it is simply not true to suggest that we are operating in an evidential vacuum. The Ministry of Justice already records ethnicity and nationality data for those convicted and held within the prison estate. Although more up-to-date figures would of course be welcome, the available data show that as of 2020, more than 88% of prisoners serving sentences for sexual offences with an associated child sexual abuse offence were white. Fewer than 6% were Asian and fewer than 0.5% had no stated ethnicity.

That is a relatively complete dataset. On those figures, white men are significantly represented, yet no serious person in this House would argue that white people are inherently more likely to commit child sexual abuse because of their ethnicity, culture or background, and rightly so, because it would be obscene policy and an obscene politics to draw sweeping conclusions about communities of millions from the crimes of 16,000 of the most depraved individuals in our society. When people insist on doing exactly that to Pakistani, Muslim, Asian or migrant communities, they are not following the evidence; they are revealing a prejudice. They are not interested in protecting children; they are interested in blaming communities. That does not mean we ignore cases involving Asian men, Muslims, foreign nationals or anyone else; it means the opposite. It means we investigate all of it. It means we should prosecute all of it. It means we do not allow any community to hide behind discomfort, political embarrassment or fear of reputational damage.

However, it also means that we reject the grotesque idea that rape, abuse or grooming are the product of select or even inferior ethnicities, religions or nationalities. These are crimes committed by human beings. They are rooted in power, misogyny, coercion and the exploitation of vulnerability. They are not committed only by Muslims, migrants and minorities—far from it.

If we are going to talk about consistency, let us talk about consistency. When John Ashby raped a Sikh woman in Walsall, he did so while directing Islamophobic abuse at her because he believed she was Muslim. That was not incidental; it was part of the terror inflicted on the victim. Yet many of the very people who are usually desperate to talk about ethnicity and religion suddenly changed their view. They said rape is rape. They criticised media outlets for making it about religion. Suddenly, the victim’s identity and the hate-driven nature of the attack was cleansed and downplayed. But when the perpetrator is Asian, Muslim or foreign, those same people insist that identity is everything. That is not concern for victims. That is selective outrage.

When the victim is from a minority community, they tell us not to mention her race or religion. When the perpetrator is from a minority community, they tell us that his race or religion explains the crime. That double standard should shame anyone who claims to care about justice. I say this plainly: celebrating or minimising the rape of a woman because she is Sikh or because she is presumed to be a Muslim, is vile. Denying the religiously or racially aggravated nature of such a crime is vile. It is not British. It is not patriotic. It is not about protecting women and girls.

I support better data collection, but unlike some, I do so because I am consistent and because facts matter. I support it because bad data creates a vacuum, and that vacuum is filled by either denial or hatred. We should not tolerate either. The Government must ensure that ethnicity and nationality data is collected accurately, consistently and nationally. They must ensure that safeguarding agencies share intelligence properly. They must ensure that victims and survivors are believed, supported and protected. They must ensure that local authorities, police forces, schools, health services and prosecutors cannot fail children because they are afraid of asking difficult questions.

The victims of child sexual abuse deserve better than to be turned into ammunition in a culture war. They deserve justice and, above all, they deserve honesty. They deserve a system that is brave enough to collect the facts and decent enough not to twist those facts into bigotry. Let us have transparency. Let us collect the data and let us publish what can properly and safely be published, but we must do it for the right reason—to support survivors and bring offenders to justice, not to feed hatred or attribute those crimes to certain communities. This is a problem that everyone in our society shares and one that we all bear. It belongs to all of us to prevent it, and it belongs to Members to confront it with facts, consistency and compassion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Natalie Fleet]

I give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan).

[Ayoub Khan]

I welcome the £65 million additional support for getting to the facts of what happened up and down this country. Youth centres have been mentioned, and in Birmingham we have lost 38. Will the Minister consider looking at further investment in youth centres, which could capture a lot of data that might be useful?

Southport Inquiry

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Phase 2 will consider how we deal with, and what is the correct public policy response to, children who are violence-fixated. One of the horrifying developments of the last few years is the number of children—ever younger children—who are fascinated with extreme violence, and have a nihilistic approach to it. That is shocking, and I have seen cases involving very young children. There must be an adequate public policy response that is able to counter this descent into violence fixation, and to do so effectively. That is the meat of the work that will be done in phase 2, and we will of course follow closely all of the recommendations that are made.

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

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.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the solidarity between people from different communities. We do not often talk about it in the House—we tend to do so only when a horrifying incident has taken place—but it is indeed the backbone of the way in which we function as a society. I pay tribute to all those who spend their time working with people from backgrounds that are different from theirs, in terms of either race or faith, to hold our communities and ultimately our nation together.

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the overall threat picture shows a very challenging environment. The issues with which we are dealing today relate to someone with no fixed ideology who was clearly vulnerable to terrorism and had a fixation with extreme violence. We see that running alongside the more traditional, well-known and understood elements of extremism, such as Islamist or extreme right-wing terrorism, but even within those better understood forms of extremism, we see that the pattern is changing. It is always evolving and developing, which poses a challenge to all the practitioners who must try to keep up with the way in which extremism is presenting itself in our communities. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that that work is as robust as possible, and to taking every possible step to counter extremism in all its forms.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I think probably every Member has had cases where antisocial behaviour is ruining lives and it feels like the right action is not taken. In many cases, and certainly in mine, the local authority’s resources have been hollowed out, and enforcement and antisocial behaviour teams are often one of the first to go. The hon. Member is absolutely right: people have to adhere by the agreement they sign when they get a tenancy.

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

May I join Members in condemning the attacks last night on the four ambulances? In my constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr, antisocial crime is on the rise, yet since 2010, West Midlands police has had 520 fewer officers to tackle it. Now, thanks to this Government leaving a funding shortfall of £41 million, residents must either pay more council tax to fill the gap or lose another 80 police officers. Labour promised more police officers on our streets, and now they are pedalling backwards on their word. Why should the people of Birmingham, who have seen their council tax rise by 24% over three years, be squeezed even more to keep what little police presence they have?

[Sarah Jones]

By the end of this month, there will be 3,000 extra officers across our communities in our neighbourhoods and 13,000 by the end of Parliament. An extra £2 billion has gone into policing in the last two Budgets, including over £700 million extra this year that our police forces can use. That is a 4.5% cash increase and a 2.3% real-terms increase. We will invest, but we will also reform, because the problem with policing is that it has been unproductive. We need to make sure our officers are not behind desks, like they were under the last Government, but in our neighbourhoods fighting crime.

Immigration Policy

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

I totally agree. My hon. Friend can assure people in Harlow that every element of our system will incentivise people to come here and follow the rules, and if they do not, that will be a bar to citizenship. It will bar them from getting what they want from our settlement system. That is the right balance for the British people to ensure that our generosity is not abused.

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

I am very perplexed, and indeed I suspect that most Brits will be perplexed. We have more than 650,000 job vacancies, of which more than 165,000 are for unskilled workers. Why are we not dealing with the refugees—processing their applications, giving them training, putting them into jobs and enabling them to earn some money, rather than paying their hotel costs?

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard earlier that we in the Home Office are making decisions faster than ever without affecting the grant rate. We are making those quick decisions so that those who need protection can build their lives in this country. The hon. Gentleman may well have heard Question Time earlier today, when we were talking about the number of young people in Britain who are out of work. I cannot accept that so many young people in Britain can be out of work and the Government can have no aspiration for them to fill roles.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I represent a constituency that is proud of its diversity, and I see at first hand how welcoming talented, hard-working people from around the world enriches our society. That is why the Government’s proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain hit so close to home and threaten to up-end the lives of many in my area.

Few in this Chamber will truly understand the insecurity that comes with moving to another country—of building a life while your future, family plans and financial stability rest on political decisions that are beyond your control. It is no surprise that so many who contribute enormously to our communities and economy feel frustrated as the goalposts are moved yet again.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

One of my constituents is incredibly distressed: they are a dependant of a local business owner and they contacted me about the European Community association agreement route. They are concerned that the proposed earned settlement skilled worker metrics cannot be applied to ECAA entrepreneurs, who must demonstrate a genuine business rather than meet salary thresholds. Does the hon. Member agree that any changes to indefinite leave to remain must properly consider those on the ECAA route, and any other specific routes?

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Please be brief.

[Ayoub Khan]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp]

I thank my hon. Friend for a point well made. This place never ceases to amaze me—but that is politics.

Some Members have raised Unison’s campaign on sector-wide visas. There is a commitment in the immigration White Paper to look at how we make it easier for those workers to change employer—that is being looked at seriously within the consultation. However, we want to retain the ability to punish those dodgy employers who are dishing out visas when they clearly should not be.

The Government are committed to providing opportunities for British workers. It is only right that we reduce reliance on international workers, and last year the Health Secretary announced a £500 million investment in a fair pay agreement for adult care workers, boosting their wages across England. But we still need to act to ensure that those who arrived while the requirements were relaxed earn their settlement and demonstrate that their integration and economic contribution to the UK meets the standards that we are setting.

The petition also touches on transitional arrangements, and whether the proposals will apply to those already halfway to settlement. As we have seen in this debate, this is a hugely important issue. We have asked for views on that in the consultation, and I hope Members will understand that while I acknowledge their keen interest and the concerns of many individuals, I cannot say anything that could prejudge the outcome of the consultation. The consultation will be published when it closes.

Some strong points were made around family income, the gender pay gap, those who are more vulnerable, those who are disabled, those who have university fees, and of course those on armed forces concessions. All of that is being considered within the consultation, and there will be more detail to come. I can only apologise that I cannot give more detail on that today. I assure Members that we will listen to what people tell us in the consultation before deciding how earned settlement will work.

Turning to the second petition, we are considering whether benefits should only be available to British citizens and not, as is the case now, to those with settled status. I know Members have concerns about this issue. The Government have a responsibility to British taxpayers to ensure their money is spent in a fair and equitable way. It is therefore right that we reassess the point at which migrants can access public funds.

We know the challenges that the country faces, and that this Government have inherited. One of the most significant challenges is a serious lack of social housing. We are taking steps to tackle the challenge, but we must be realistic. I have already set out the number of people who are expected to apply to settle over the next five years under our current system. All of those people could be eligible for benefits and social housing. I am sure that many of us in the Chamber will have constituents who have spent years on the waiting list for social housing. Continuing to add to that list will not solve the problem.

[Ayoub Khan]

The Minister talks about what potentially might happen, but, with respect, that is almost scaremongering. Most of those people are hard-working citizens. Does the Minister not believe that that kind of language raises this spectre, which is precisely why we are having the debate? That kind of language does no justice to what is really happening in our migrant communities.

[Mike Tapp]

I disagree. There is nothing in my language that is raising the temperature. The hon. Member would do well to listen to my praise of migrants in my contribution. I have made it clear that I do not think that all those who seek to settle would seek to access the welfare system and housing system, but it is quite clear that some would, and we are already at capacity, with 1.3 million of our constituents on the social housing waiting list.

We would like to hear people’s views on the measure, so I encourage anyone who is interested in providing those views to do so before the consultation ends. I am conscious of time, so before I finish, I want to again express my thanks to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe and to all Members who have contributed today. These are sweeping reforms, and I understand the strength of feeling toward them. I have heard the points that have been raised here, which will all feed into the important consultation. It is important that everyone who may be affected by the proposals has a fair and equal opportunity to make their voice heard.

As I have set out, the consultation is currently open to all until 12 February, and further information on how to respond and provide views can be found on the Government website. We want to ensure that any decision taken has a robust evidence base and a clear understanding of how people may be affected, and that is why this may be unclear to some of our constituents at this point.

Clearly, these are issues of great significance, not only in the context of the immigration system, but for our nation itself. I say to colleagues here and across the House that we understand the importance of our task, we are determined to get this right and, as I have set out, we are proceeding with the seriousness and care that the public and Parliament rightly expect.

West Midlands Police

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Having commissioned Sir Andy to investigate these matters, I think it is important that we reflect on his findings. He found that there was no evidence that police officers were motivated either by antisemitism or as a result of political interference, or were otherwise behaving with malign intent. It is important that I follow those findings from the independent inspector and act accordingly.

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

This is truly a sad day for British politics. Despite all the rhetoric in this House, Brummies know the truth: this is nothing but a witch hunt and the chief constable is being thrown under the bus. The Home Secretary knows all too well that West Midlands police have a reputation for working with all communities; it has never caved in to community pressure. We all know this because we regularly have far right protests and marches in our city. The police could have done a better job in terms of procedure, yes, but their reason for banning Maccabi fans was the same from day one. We all know about the unashamed racism and violence, and that is the reason they were banned, because that would have been brought to the streets of Birmingham—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is getting to his question.

[Ayoub Khan]

The police did their job and now they are being punished for it, so I ask the Home Secretary: is it worth throwing our chief constable under the bus just to show that the words of the right-wing media and Dutch officials, under pressure from Amsterdam city hall, matter more than our British police?

[Shabana Mahmood]

You would think that the hon. Member, who I believe used to be a barrister, might be more cognisant of the actual facts in this matter. I am responding to findings made by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services—that is, the independent inspector of policing. It is a sad day for all those who believe that policing should occur without fear or favour. I would encourage him to read the letter from Sir Andy Cooke, published today, in detail and reflect on whether he believes that we as a country should be able to rely on and trust all information put out by the police. The hon. Member purports to speak for every Brummie in the city, but I think other Brummies in this Chamber know that is simply not the case. I will tell him what every Brummie, and indeed every citizen of our great country, needs and deserves: that when the police carry out a risk assessment, we can trust it and rely on it, and that they will always be open and frank about what is really going on. That is not what happened in this case, but it is what we all should expect and deserve, whichever community we belong to. It is what we all need for our collective safety and for the cohesion of our country.

Violence against Women and Girls Strategy

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

The Home Secretary was on television talking about the Home Office’s plans with regard to the centre for violence against women and girls, the expansion of V100—a Metropolitan police data source targeting the most violent offenders—and the biggest-ever investment, £53 million, in perpetrator programmes to tackle high-risk-of-harm perpetrators.

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

Alarmingly, in Birmingham Perry Barr—and, I suspect, in Birmingham generally—some women who have been the subject of domestic violence are thinking about moving back in with the perpetrators not because they want to rekindle the relationship but because of the inadequacy of their temporary housing. Can the Minister confirm that accommodation will be included in the strategy?

[Jess Phillips]

As the hon. Member’s constituency borders mine, I am afraid that we see many of the same problems. The inadequacy of some of the temporary accommodation in Birmingham is not something I would ever defend. What he is seeing, therefore, does not surprise me. Safe accommodation for victims of domestic abuse is part of the strategy, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has already said today that we will be increasing the funding to local councils so that those victims can have access to housing.

Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

That is an entirely fair challenge. That is precisely why we have Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, look at these matters very closely—an expert in this field who is entirely independent from Government. There is respect for him across the House; the Government certainly hugely value his opinion. I would ask the hon. Lady to look carefully at what he has said on these matters.

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

Sixteen hundred individuals—mainly senior citizens—have been arrested. The Minister will understand that this is not just a big operation, but one that involves taxpayers’ money, with millions of pounds spent on arrests, and no doubt millions spent on legal aid if people are prosecuted in our courts system. Will the Minister release the legal advice upon which this proscription took place so that the public can see whether taxpayer money is being used effectively?

[Dan Jarvis]

There is a process in place when the Home Secretary makes decisions on proscription. As part of that process, she will, of course, consider legal advice, as well as advice from experts right across Government and law enforcement. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that these decisions are not taken lightly. No Government and no Home Secretary would seek to take these decisions lightly, and the previous Home Secretary certainly did not do so.

Birmingham Pub Bombings

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liam Byrne]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. She speaks with such passion and eloquence about this issue. She knows as well as I do how deeply the families feel their pain.

Since the exoneration of the Birmingham Six—the men who were tortured, framed and imprisoned—no one has been held to account for that failure. Since 1991, no new suspects have been brought to trial. Since 2019, even though witnesses have admitted that they knew who was responsible, no one has been compelled to testify, despite the fact that men like Michael Christopher Hayes, a former member of the Provisional IRA, confessed in a 2017 BBC interview that he accepted “collective responsibility” for what he called a terrible tragedy, and despite Witness O and Chris Mullin indicating in their evidence to the inquest that they had knowledge of those responsible for the murders. While the coroner accepted assurances from the Government Legal Department that relevant documents had been disclosed, widespread doubts remain about whether information held in the Home Office, Foreign Office or Ministry of Defence was, in fact, made available.

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

I commend the right hon. Gentleman on securing this important Adjournment debate. More than half a century has passed, and it seems that consecutive Governments have not provided closure, not just for the victims and their families, but for those who were falsely convicted and their families. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is a lack of political will, as opposed to anything else, that is preventing us from having a public inquiry?

[Liam Byrne]

The thrust of what the hon. Gentleman says is right. I will come on to some reflections on that in just a moment.

We know that there are documents that were not provided to the inquest. Key individuals involved have died, but there are allegations that at least two of those responsible are still alive and living free, and that their names can be found in books in the House of Commons Library. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) said, as the years pass, memories fade and witnesses die, and the trail of truth grows cold. That is why it is time to act now.

Let us look at the facts. This is the largest unsolved mass murder in British history. No statutory inquiry has ever been launched into what happened. No one from the state has ever been held accountable for the failings of the investigation, the imprisonment of the innocent or the denial of justice to the families. By contrast, at the urging of this House, we have rightly ensured for victims of Hillsborough, the infected blood scandal, Grenfell, Windrush and the Post Office scandal that we got to the bottom of what happened, and what caused the pain for so many victims. Why not Birmingham? Why are the people of Birmingham not given the justice that they deserve? It is time we sent the message from this House that there can be no more excuses.

A public inquiry is not just a legal tool, but a national act of conscience. It is how democracy apologises with honesty. It is how we tell the victims and their families that they matter, that their loss matters, and that their loved ones will not be forgotten. Crucially, it is how we learn. If we cannot learn the lessons of the past, the risk is that we repeat them.

We say often in this House that justice delayed is justice denied. It has been 51 years since that terrible night: 51 years of injustice; 51 years of doors closed and backs turned. I say that is long enough.

I want to be very clear with the House tonight about what we are seeking. We are seeking a statutory public inquiry under section 1 of the Inquiries Act 2005. We are seeking a judge-led process, with full legal powers to compel witnesses and evidence. We are seeking an independent inquiry that is resourced to ensure the effective participation of the families, and that asks openly, without constraint, fear or favour: who bombed Birmingham? We are seeking an inquiry that examines the role of the police, the criminal justice system and the state, both then and since.

We have to be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this crime is not covered by the legislation and the agreements that secured peace in Northern Ireland, and that means something important. It means that the Home Secretary has the power right now to order this inquiry. There is no legal obstacle; the only question is whether there is the political will.

In April 2024, eight Birmingham MPs wrote to the Home Secretary to demand this inquiry. In November 2024, on the 50th anniversary, Justice for the 21 renewed its call, and that call was backed by a cross-party group of MPs, mayors, lawyers and campaigners. I wrote again to the Home Secretary in spring this year. I have not yet had an answer about a decision on whether an inquiry will be launched, which is why I have asked for this debate tonight. I am asking not for special treatment, but for equal treatment—for Birmingham to be given the justice that has been offered to the victims of so many scandals, where we have set up inquiries to get to the bottom of the truth.