Israel and Palestine

Debate between Ayoub Khan and Warinder Juss

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.

Prosecutions for Violence against Women and Girls: West Midlands

Debate between Ayoub Khan and Warinder Juss

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Warinder Juss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and as I go through my speech, her question will be answered in more detail.

In the west midlands, the police recorded 7,744 reports of rape or sexual assault, yet only 217 actually resulted in either a charge or a conviction. That is a charge or conviction rate of just 2.8%, which is clearly unacceptable. The court backlog for adult rape cases in the UK is at a record high, with more than 3,500 individuals awaiting trial. Each case represents a survivor still waiting for justice, unable to move on with their lives and begin any healing process. If justice delayed is justice denied, we are consistently allowing our court system to deny justice.

I am pleased that this Government have begun to take significant steps to transform the policing response to these heinous crimes. That includes announcing Raneem’s law, which will see domestic abuse specialists placed in 999 control rooms, together with the roll out of new domestic abuse protection orders, with independent legal advocates for rape victims to be rolled out next year.

However, delays in our court system can expose victims to the risk of further harm. One of my constituents, who had suffered several incidents of domestic violence, had to repeatedly chase for an extension to her domestic abuse protection order because there were delays in the court providing a non-molestation order to protect her from contract from her ex-partner. That resulted in her having to move from her home, and she felt completely let down by the whole system.

It has to be said that the legacy of chronic underfunding left by the previous Government has sent our justice system into crisis. Between 2010 and 2023, the justice budget for England and Wales fell by 22% in real terms, and since 2010, 43% of our courts were closed. That mess was unfortunately left by the previous Government for this Government to clear up.

The average time it takes for an adult rape case to make the full journey from report and investigation to a verdict is over six years. In early 2024, 61% of police investigations into rape and sexual assault were closed because the victim withdrew their complaint. Last year, more than 280 rape prosecutions collapsed because the victims pulled out after a charge was laid. Even when victims choose to go ahead with the trial, 21% of rape trials are postponed at the last minute.

As a former lawyer, I have to say that one of the problems with the justice system is a critical shortage of legal professionals. The Criminal Bar Association recently reported that 64% of prosecuting barristers and 66% of defence barristers are unlikely to reapply to go on to the lists to be instructed for RASSO cases because of poor legal aid fees and the impact that these cases have had on their wellbeing. In 2023, 139 sex offence trials were postponed because there was no prosecution barrister, and a further 113 were postponed because there was no defence counsel.

One in four trials now does not go ahead as scheduled. That is totally unacceptable; survivors are being left in limbo as trials are delayed by months or even years, and cases are increasingly abandoned, destroying victim confidence in our justice system and fundamentally undermining the rule of law.

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

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. In my constituency we have high levels of deprivation and crime, especially domestic violence, rape and sexual assault. Talking about the criminal justice system, I know as a member of the Bar and a criminal defence barrister that a lot of young wannabe barristers are deciding to go to other professions purely because the funding is not there. Does the hon. Member agree that there is no point having extra court sitting days without the support mechanisms of lawyers? What more could the Government do to support that?

[Warinder Juss]

I agree, and I will go on to mention some of the steps that the Government are taking.

There has been a recent surge in the volume and complexity of cases coming before the Crown court, which has further contributed to the backlog. We see more of those cases coming through at the highest level since 2014. The guilty plea rate for rape cases sits at just 15% on average, compared with 66% across all other crimes. That means that rape cases are harder to prepare for and more time-consuming for victims and lawyers. I am pleased that West Midlands police have taken the initiative of having a violence against women and girls strategy that rightly places justice at the heart of its mission, prioritising investigation and evidence.

To answer the question put by the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), the Government have provided additional funding of £24 million for criminal legal aid and an extra £92 million annually for criminal legal aid solicitors. They have also increased magistrates’ sentencing powers, in addition to a new commitment to increase Crown court sitting days, which are all positive steps. Following the sentencing review and as part of the Government’s safer streets mission, there will now be increased tagging for perpetrators of violence against women and girls. I also welcome the Government’s drive to recruit approximately 1,000 judges.

Coroner Services: West Midlands

Debate between Ayoub Khan and Warinder Juss

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ayoub Khan]

I really appreciate the intervention from the hon. Gentleman, who makes a poignant point. The service does require modernisation. In Birmingham and Solihull we have one senior coroner, two area coroners and seven assistant coroners to look after a population of approximately 1.5 million, according to the 2021 census. In comparison, in the hon. Gentleman’s patch, there are four coroners for 1.9 million people, which is simply not enough.

As I said, these families are not just dealing with the loss of a family member, but being kept in suspense, both spiritually and emotionally.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

In May 2024, more than 6,000 inquests in this country had been delayed by more than a year. As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, each of those inquests represents a grieving family unable to find closure, plan funerals or settle estates. Does he agree that this Government should now act to clear the backlog and to provide extra funding? This situation is nothing short of a crisis.

[Ayoub Khan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I was going to quote those figures in my speech. He is absolutely right that those 6,000 delays have a direct impact on not just families who want closure, but current cases that need to be worked on. The time spent by the coroner on inquests will naturally impact the basic sign-off of documents in other cases, and where the coroner is not available to sign off, families will have to wait to effect burial. We need modernisation, of course, and I seek support from the Minister on how we can modernise the service.

As I said, I hear of grieving families every week. They are tired, frustrated and often feel helpless, and turn to elected representatives for intervention. I want to share a story from my constituency that highlights the human impacts of these delays. A prominent brain surgeon had lost his father. The funeral, which should have taken place within a day, was delayed for over a week due to coroner backlogs. That surgeon, bound by faith and family duty, remained in mourning and could not return to work until the burial had taken place. His father’s death was more than a personal loss; it had a professional consequence, too. Appointments were cancelled and surgeries were delayed. There are countless examples of where family members, and extended family members, have to remain in mourning, which means that they are not able to do the work that they would ordinarily do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ayoub Khan]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member. Up and down the country many organisations such as undertakers provide that support mechanism. Unfortunately, from my personal experience—this is certainly the case in Birmingham, and I am confident it is in the west midlands region too—a family’s first port of call is their local councillor or parliamentarian, and there is an expectation from the community or the family that they will make representations to the coroner. If elected representatives are unable to have that communication because of the code of conduct, our very function is undermined. It is important that organisations maintain the relationships that they have with coroners, but it is also important to give parliamentarians the ability to communicate with the coroner directly. To ensure that the services meet the demand of their communities, they need additional funding. Coroner services require transformation, but resourcing for that transformation is important. That means hiring more pathologists.

[Warinder Juss]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene again. Apart from him, I think I am the only Member from the west midlands in the Chamber; my constituency is Wolverhampton West. Does he agree that there appears to be a postcode lottery, as the time it takes to process an inquest ranges from 10 weeks to 76 weeks depending on where a person lives? If we do have a postcode lottery, does he agree that we must address that by having a national performance framework for our coroner services and targeting funding for underperforming areas?

[Ayoub Khan]

Of course, if there is a disparity in the level of service received, there ought to be some mechanism for identifying where that is occurring and an understanding as to why. If it is because of resources and manpower, that must be addressed. I fully agree with the hon. Member’s analysis. It is a shame that we do not have other parliamentarians from the west midlands in the Chamber. I am confident that some will have received an enormous amount of contact and huge numbers of calls throughout their tenure, as I do.

One of the issues is resourcing, including those MRI and CT scan facilities available for post-mortems and dedicated to that purpose. Although our coroner in Birmingham and Solihull has access to those devices, unfortunately they are not dedicated to that task, and a deceased may lie in the coroner’s mortuary until a facility becomes available, which can take days, and sometimes even longer.

A transformation also means ensuring that services operate not just five but seven days a week, because death, grief and religious obligations do not adhere to the normal working week. We also need to develop a clear protocol across all local authorities that recognises the need for expedited burials in line with religious beliefs. There must be training, awareness and sensitivity in coroner services.