Abtisam Mohamed MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents · Hansard source

  More

  The exploitations in the leasehold system are endless: unfair service charges, ground rents, marriage value buy backs, the hidden cost of utilities, inflated insurance—the list goes on and on, as do the ways that freeholders line their pockets while ordinary homeowners bear the cost. We have seen that acutely in Sheffield, with Andrew Milne buying up hundreds of freeholds at £250, and then shamefully charging homeowners extortionate prices to buy them back. He has rightly faced consequences with the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the police for blackmail. It was only a few months ago that residents in Walkley in my constituency were receiving legal letters saying that their leases would soon be up for sale, leaving them worried whether they too would be subjected to extortion. No one should be living with that kind of fear. Across the developments of Columbia Place, Millsands, Riverside House, Anchor Point and Little Kelham in my constituency, residents speak with one voice: the problems in their homes are overwhelming; the responsibility to chase managing agents is taking up their time; and they are being charged extortionate amounts for work that never seems to happen properly, or at all. Two weeks ago, I met with over 40 residents from Little Kelham. Their stories told of one horror after another. I heard from a family with a six-year-old child living in a home with a broken window, who were told by the managing agent that there was not enough money to fix it. Another family were told to move out from their home for six weeks for repairs. It ended up being 14 months, and when they moved back in, the repairs were incomplete. Another resident told me that her service charge went up by 250%, and when she challenged that, so opaque were the figures and how they were calculated, they were then dropped. Many other residents, who had tried to take over the management of their properties, complained that the finalised accounts they requested never materialised. The lack of financial transparency is staggering. It shows that these are not only isolated failures but symptoms of wider structural problems. There are two things that my constituents are calling for above everything else: transparency in their arrangements, and accountability when things sadly go wrong. Today’s motion rightly says that the absence of statutory regulation for property management agents represents a major weakness in our plans for reform. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has made it clear, as does the evidence in Lord Best’s review, that voluntary self-regulation has not delivered the standards that leaseholders deserve, nor will it deliver the accountability they want. Where management agents repeatedly fail residents, simply issuing guidance is not enough. The regulator should be able to impose meaningful financial penalties and, where appropriate, remove licences altogether. Leaseholders deserve far greater transparency over their service charges, stronger rights to challenge unreasonable costs, and easier routes to replace managing agents who fail to deliver. We have got to seize this opportunity to ensure that managing agents are properly regulated. That is the action that my leaseholders deserve and that I hope the Minister will carry out in following through the recommendations of the Committee.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the measures that she has announced today, but I want to come back to her strong advice to businesses that we should not conduct any economic and financial activities in illegal Israeli settlements, rather than having an outright ban. We know a ban is possible, because we did it for illegally occupied territories in Ukraine, and we know it is the right thing to do, because when it comes to trading in ivory, firearms or narcotics, we ban it outright. We know that anything less than a total ban risks the UK aiding Israel’s repeated violations of international law. Is it not time to move beyond strong guidance and advice by taking meaningful, proportionate action and having an outright ban?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lebanon: Israel Defence Forces Operations · Hansard source

  More

  Some 125 health workers have been killed in Lebanon in the last three months alone. Today, an Israeli strike hit an ambulance in south Lebanon, killing two paramedics, which takes the death toll to 127. The November 2024 ceasefire agreement is barely worth the paper it is written on. The Minister rightly condemns the targeting of civilians, but what about Israel’s targeting of health workers or journalists? Does the Minister realise that condemnation without action has utterly failed, and reinforces Israel’s continuing disregard for international law? Will the Minister make it clear today that sanctions must be used to hold Israel accountable?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Cost of Living: Students · Hansard source

  More

  4. What steps her Department is taking to help reduce the cost of living for students.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Cost of Living: Students · Hansard source

  More

  A recent cost of living survey by Sheffield Hallam students’ union shows that 82% of students are struggling, and many are working more hours at the expense of their studies. Too many are skipping meals and going without essentials, harming their health and their participation in university life. That is compounded by serious financial challenges at our universities, including staff cuts that are putting further pressure on the learning experiences of students. What action is the Minister taking across Government to review and widen financial support for students? Will he meet me to discuss the financial situation at Sheffield Hallam University?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Performance · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the dedicated postal workers in Sheffield Central, who work tirelessly to ensure that people receive their letters and deliveries throughout the year. I have also been contacted by constituents in the Nether Edge area of Sheffield who have complained of delays and missing post. Some residents have missed important work papers, legal documents and hospital appointments, while others have found themselves waiting endlessly for their gas or electric cards. One constituent in particular is responsible for planning decisions in the Peak district, and is still waiting for official committee papers posted first class nearly a month ago. That has directly impacted his ability to do his job. Many described receiving nothing for weeks on end, and then finally receiving a bundle of post on one day. Missing vital mail has become a danger to people’s health, wellbeing and financial security. Despite contacting Royal Mail, it has not responded to a single one of my emails; it is just not good enough. What will the Minister do to ensure that there is no discrepancy between what Royal Mail is telling us and what their workers are saying is happening on the ground, particularly about the deliberate strategy within the company to devalue those who are doing their jobs in the sorting offices?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do agree. The logical approach would be to treat this as a time-limited measure—or the Justice Secretary should consider a mandatory time-bound review, assessing the impact of these changes not only on the backlog but on trial outcomes, on equality before the law, on public confidence, and specifically on black and ethnic minority defendants. All those matters must be included in a review if it is to be robust. The review must not only allow Parliament to examine the evidence but, if the reforms fail to deliver the benefits claimed or produce serious unintended consequences, allow us to revisit and, if necessary, reverse them. That would be a constructive and responsible approach. Efficiency in the courts is important, but justice is equally important. I say to the Justice Secretary that if we are to take a step as serious as limiting the right to jury trial, at the very least Parliament should have the right to rigorous scrutiny, a meaningful review, and the clear possibility of reversal if this policy does not work.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In my previous work as a solicitor, I represented women who had suffered terrible violence, and people who had been pushed to the margins of society. I have seen at first hand how fragile access to justice can be, and how years of under-investment have taken a wrecking ball to our justice system. Change is clearly needed, but the reforms before us, removing the right of defendants to elect trial by jury, do not appear to be a proportionate answer to that problem. The evidence does not support the claim that the reforms will deliver the benefits suggested, with projections suggesting that the impact on the backlog may at best be modest. That raises an obvious question: if the contribution that these measures will make to reducing the backlog is uncertain, why are we being asked to make such a profound and permanent change to one of the central safeguards in our criminal justice system? Members have spoken about a range of offences, from theft to drug-related crimes, but when people are taken to court over action to advance causes in which they believe—in the past it was the suffragettes; today it is the climate activists and Palestinian protesters—it is ordinary people, their peers, who recognise the moral imperative behind their actions to prevent greater harm. The freedoms that this system protects are not abstract. They exist precisely to safeguard individuals against the power of the state when they stand accused of a criminal offence, and that is why we should be cautious before curtailing them. There is also a serious question about the impact that these reforms may have on black and ethnic minority defendants. The Justice Secretary’s own review, published in 2017, highlighted deep disparities and a troubling lack of trust in parts of our criminal justice system. One of his key messages was that fairness must not only exist, but must be seen to exist. Juries who are drawn from our communities play an important role in public confidence. Reducing access to jury trial could risk further eroding trust among certain communities who already feel disproportionately affected by the criminal justice system. It is therefore essential that if these reforms proceed, their impact on black and ethnic minority defendants is specifically examined, transparently and rigorously. None of this is to deny the seriousness of the backlog crisis. The courts must function efficiently, and the victims should not have to wait years for justice. However, if the purpose of these reforms is to address the backlog, I suggest that we should understand why they are being introduced as a permanent alteration to our justice system, rather than a time-limited measure.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Environmental Protection and Biodiversity · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He may know that Sheffield is well known for being the outdoor city and is one of the few major cities in the UK that has a national park within its boundaries. I support him in his red lines for nature campaign. Does he agree that protecting nature is vital, not just to protect our green spaces, but to make sure that communities have access to the right types of space, so that they are happier and more fulfilled?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I have constituents and family in the region who are all terrified about what may come next. The world is an infinitely more dangerous place today than it was last week. Trump and Netanyahu chose to throw away diplomacy and launch a direct attack on Iran—an attack that, as the Prime Minister has said, can never be justified under international law. Equally, Iran’s indiscriminate attacks on airports and hotels across the Gulf are flagrant violations of sovereignty and clear breaches of international law. Does the Prime Minister recognise that this attempt at regime change, like so many others before it, will only result in years of instability and conflict in the region? What assurances can he give that the UK’s involvement will remain defensive and not turn into full-scale military involvement, as we saw in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Student Loan Repayment Plans · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing the debate, which at its core is about fairness. In my Sheffield Central constituency, which is home to two major universities, I regularly meet with students and graduates, whether in surgeries or through meetings with student officers. One core theme that they have relayed to me is that they feel anxious and frustrated, and they rightly ask why the system is stacked against them. I will read a few examples that constituents have given me. One said: “I started university in 2012 and since graduating have had a salary of between £30,000-£40,000 for much of that time. Despite this, since graduating my loan has increased from ~£45,000 to nearly £80,000”. Another said: “I borrowed £76,829. I repay £3,700 every year. But my interest rises by £7,000. Paying it off within 30 years is impossible. It makes me wish I hadn’t gone.” When education makes young people regret participation, something is profoundly wrong. We are told that the system is progressive because repayments are income contingent, but if we look closer, higher earners clear their debt quickly, escape decades of interest and move on. The thought of such staggering debt will likely put off working-class students from going to university. That is not progressive; it is regressive, and it will entrench inequality rather than reduce it. I say to the Minister: we must cap interest on all student loans at CPI and restore fair repayment thresholds.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on his expert advocacy on this issue. As a former lawyer who worked in immigration before being elected to this House, I can say with confidence that the changes announced last year, and expected to emerge from the consultation, represent some of the most complex and far-reaching reforms in decades. We are told that this is a moral mission to restore order and control and create a system that is fair and firm. If that is the aim, why are we proposing changes that strip away certainty for people who are already here—people who believed that ILR was a transitional route to stability, and not a moving target?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I agree entirely. Many people uprooted their lives, accepted jobs, bought homes, enrolled their children in schools and planned their futures in good faith, on the understanding that settlement after five years was the agreed pathway. They are now being told, midway through that journey, that the rules have changed. Retrospective application of this policy would be not only deeply unfair, but entirely unjustified. At the same time, the uncoupling of joint routes to settlement would leave families separated for longer periods. Consider a family where the primary breadwinner is fast-tracked to settlement, while their spouse—the primary caregiver, perhaps working part time—is left on a longer and more precarious route. Where are the impact assessments for those on maternity leave, part-time workers, carers or people with disabilities? We cannot announce a two-dimensional approach to migration and work out the consequences later—not when it concerns some of the most life-altering decisions that people will ever make. I know that the proposals are under consultation, but we must be clear about the direction of travel. They risk recreating the very conditions that defined the hostile environment: long-term uncertainty, barriers to stability, and communities living with the constant fear that the rules could change again. When my constituents hear migration described as a destabilising event and migrants framed as a burden to be managed, and see policies recycled from failures of the past, they know that this is not reform, but a road to insecurity and division. The congregations of St Mark’s and St Mary’s in my constituency have also presented me with a petition that urges the Government to show compassion and make suitable transitional arrangements for those who are already here, building their lives and contributing to our communities in Sheffield. They, like many of my constituents, know that the proposals lack humanity. They know that they will impose extraordinary hardship on friends, neighbours and the wider community. And they know that a country that truly believes in sanctuary does not make belonging something that has to be earned again and again, over a lifetime. I urge the Minister to end any retrospective changes, and to retain the five-year route for people who are already here.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Support for Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  14. What fiscal steps she is taking to support small businesses.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Support for Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Sheffield Central businesses continue to face disproportionately higher pressures, with ever-increasing running costs stacking up and a drop in footfall. Businesses like the Gamers Guide Café and the Dove and Rainbow pub tell me that they need much more to survive the dip in foot traffic, so will the Minister set out how he is reducing pressures on high street cafés and pubs, and will he consider targeted relief to ensure viability for hospitality businesses?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the Minister’s work, which I know will bring real relief to many of my constituents. However, leaseholders in the Riverside Exchange development are being blocked from securing their right to manage because of absentee leaseholders. This has left them trapped with eye-watering service charges, which have increased from £1,900 to £5,500. Can the Minister set out how the upcoming legislation will reform and reduce the minimum qualifying threshold for the right to manage, which is currently set at 50%?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Warm Homes Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, warmly welcome the plan and the investment that is coming with it, and I strongly commend the leadership of the Secretary of State in this area. It is great news that small businesses are the vehicle that will drive home the upgrades in our local communities, but they too have struggled. I have over 5,000 small businesses in Sheffield Central. Will he outline how those small businesses will benefit from this plan?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Water White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  The chief executive of Yorkshire Water said her bonus may “feel like it’s a lot of money” and that she gets “paid what the board decide” she “ought to be paid”; £1.5 million through an offshore company feels like a lot of money because it is a lot of money. She was rewarded for failure, and as my constituency still deals with burst water pipes, it feels like her board decides she should be rewarded for failure. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the new water ombudsman will enforce the prevention of these hidden bonuses, and that infrastructure development will not just end up in higher bills for customers?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Yemen · Hansard source

  More

  In the context of what the United Nations special envoy has described as a rapidly worsening humanitarian and economic crisis in Yemen, does the Minister welcome the forthcoming southern dialogue conference, led by Saudi Arabia and supported by the Arab League and the Gulf Co-operation Council? How is the UK, as penholder on Yemen, supporting that process to deliver a tangible road map for a way forward that addresses the aspirations of southern communities?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Yemen · Hansard source

  More

  1. What recent assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of the situation in Yemen.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Northern Powerhouse Rail · Hansard source

  More

  Like my Sheffield colleagues, I strongly welcome the Government commitment to upgrading our Sheffield station and putting in place faster and more frequent trains to Leeds and Manchester. This will increase our city centre regeneration, and will be of strong benefit to our universities and students who commute into the city. Will the Minister meet me and other South Yorkshire MPs to discuss timescales and to ensure that our infrastructure plans match the economic ambitions for growth and regeneration in Sheffield?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q13. England is the only country in the world with a fully privatised and monopolised water system, and it is broken. My constituents in Sheffield Central, like many across the country, continue to face burst water pipes, polluted rivers and rising bills—all while the chief executive of Yorkshire Water has taken £1.3 million in bonus payments through an offshore company, and that is on top of her very healthy £660,000 salary. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the forthcoming water White Paper will have stronger accountability and put the public interest first, before bosses’ bonuses? More importantly, will it consider bringing this essential public service back in-house?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Kashmir: Self-determination · Hansard source

  More

  I commend my hon. Friend on his continued advocacy on this subject. Does he agree that international humanitarian law is clear that the protection of civilians is not optional, that the UK has deep and historic ties to Kashmir and its people, and that we are therefore not fulfilling our obligations? Given that context, does he agree that we need to do more?

• 25 Nov 2025 · COP30 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for his update and commend his continued leadership on this issue. I welcome the conference’s focus on strengthening multilateralism, including creating the Belém mechanism for a just global transition. But beyond the walls of the conference, here in the UK we need to be moving much faster away from oil and gas. The UK’s four biggest banks continue to finance polluters, and the drilling licence for Rosebank still has not been rejected. Does the Secretary of State agree that it should be the big polluters subsidising the taxpayer in our climate response and not the other way round?

• 25 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will address Government amendments 152 and 153. I thank the Minister and her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), for responding to our concerns at the outset of proceedings on the Bill. As we reach the end of debate on the Bill, I am struck by how significant this moment is for local democracy and for communities like mine in Sheffield, where residents won a referendum on how the city will be run. They chose to adopt the committee system of governance, and secured a democratic mandate to change the culture of the council. When the Bill was introduced, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), along with the leaders of Sheffield council and grassroots campaigners, made the case for our constituents’ decision to be respected through the inclusion of Sheffield’s example in legislation. As a result, Government amendments 152 and 153 now provide the legal basis for what Sheffield has decided, and will, in turn, protect the democratic process. Amendment 152 clarifies that the committee system can operate where it already exists, while amendment 153 sets out how a council such as Sheffield can continue that operation through a review and a resolution to confirm that it should remain. Those amendments mean that our system of governance is both recognised and protected. For Sheffield, it means confirming that our referendum result was not just symbolic but an expression of democratic choice. It also means that that choice is honoured, not overwritten, and recognised in law. I acknowledge the collaborative work that has brought us here. We have spoken constructively for many months with campaigners from It’s Our City Sheffield, which has been instrumental in ensuring that Sheffield’s voice was heard; with local government leaders who have taken on the mantle of embedding a culture of inclusivity and opening up decision making; and with Ministers, to ensure that the Bill protects the system chosen by our residents, and offers the legal clarity needed to support effective local government. For Sheffield, that is the right outcome. Finally, I would like to express my support for new clauses 67 and 68 and amendment 168, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), and new clause 83 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), on the issue of cross-border taxi licensing. I declare my interest, as a member of two unions—GMB and Unite—that have been actively campaigning on this issue. Those amendments would strengthen the Government’s new clauses 49 to 57 on setting national minimum standards for private hire, but they go further in explicitly ending out-of-area taxi licensing—an issue that is repeatedly raised by my constituents and has been raised by the Transport Committee, as well as Baroness Casey’s recent review. However, constituents have contacted me to urge slight caution on some of the wording in new clause 83, especially in proposed new section 55C of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, to ensure that it does not lead to the prevention of legitimate cross-border journeys such as airport journeys. To echo the words of Sheffield residents, this is a decisive moment with the potential to resolve a problem that has undermined public safety and the integrity of our licence system for far too long.