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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests · Hansard source

  More

  This weekend alone, almost 900 people—several of whom were from my constituency—were arrested. The Terrorism Act was not brought in to arrest vicars, retired grandmothers and NHS consultants for holding a placard, yet the police are now in the position where that is exactly what they are doing weekend after weekend. Will the Minister consider the views of international human rights experts, like the UN Human Rights Commissioner, who has described the ban as “disproportionate and unnecessary”? Will he also acknowledge our concerns that political decisions must be open to political challenge—otherwise, we risk a massive loss of confidence in our democracy?