Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Debate between Ayoub Khan and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Points of Order

Debate between Ayoub Khan and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. The transfer of questions between Departments is a matter for the Government rather than the Chair. However, the hon. Gentleman’s concerns are now on the record, and I hope that those on the Treasury Bench have noted what he has said. Let me add that there is always the expectation that Departments will inform Members of such transfers. If there is a continuation, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not leave it there—but please, will he come and let me know?

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Monday the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport told the House, in relation to the Maccabi Tel Aviv match, that the risk assessment was based

“in no small part on the risk posed to fans attending to support Maccabi Tel Aviv because they are Israeli and because they are Jewish.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 646.]

However, reports last night revealed that the decision to ban away fans was due to intelligence suggesting that the main threat came from extremist Maccabi Tel Aviv fans themselves, and that they were the likely perpetrators of trouble in Amsterdam last year.

The Ministerial Code requires Ministers to give accurate and truthful information to Parliament. If the Secretary of State had that information before her statement, she must correct the record. Can you ask her to clarify the position, Mr Speaker, and to return to the House immediately if she has breached the code that governs all parliamentarians?

[Mr Speaker]

Unfortunately I do not have such powers, although perhaps at times I would welcome them. I will say this, however. I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. Ministers are responsible for their words in the House, and the Ministerial Code is not a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Member has certainly put his views on the record, and I am sure that—once again—we will find that those on the Treasury Bench have been listening.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ayoub Khan and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Q7.   This Labour Government have failed the British public at every turn: they have abandoned the WASPI women, leaving them without the compensation they deserve; they have turned their backs on pensioners by failing to support the winter fuel allowance; they have let down children by keeping the two-child benefit cap in place; and they will inflict further hardship on the most vulnerable by slashing £5 billion from benefits. Perhaps the most immediate and visible failure, which poses an immediate and direct health risk to the people of Birmingham, is the appalling financial mismanagement of Labour-run Birmingham city council. After more than a decade of Labour control, that council’s incompetence has led to mountains of uncollected rubbish piling up on every street, so large that they can be seen by satellites orbiting in space. It is nothing short of a disgrace and a damning indictment of Labour’s inability to govern. Will the Prime Minister take urgent action to protect public health and the people of Birmingham by immediately deploying the—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are meant to ask quick questions, otherwise nobody is going to get in.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ayoub Khan and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

If Members keep standing, it makes it easier for me.

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

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?