Alex Sobel MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 3 Sept 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Prime Minister, in September 2021, you met ex-Arsenal player Michael Thomas in Portcullis House alongside other former footballers of the V11, when I hosted them in Parliament. Last night, the BBC broadcast the V11 documentary, exposing the fraud perpetrated against them and the financial abuse that they have suffered within the footballing system. They have all suffered terrible financial loss, but His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is still chasing them for taxes from funds that were defrauded from them. Prime Minister, will you join me in meeting Michael Thomas and other players to see how we can protect victims of fraud and, instead, go after the perpetrators of fraud?

• 1 Sept 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I have been talking about starvation in Gaza for the last 18 months, and now it is officially recognised as a famine. Today I want to raise with the Foreign Secretary the starving of one man: Marwan Barghouti. Shortly after we announced the recognition and the Israeli Government retaliated, in my view, with the E1 plan, Ben-Gvir entered his cell in an Israeli prison, and he was very clearly being starved. It is time that Marwan Barghouti is freed by Israel. A man of peace who can push forward the peace process is being starved and not given access to his family, the International Red Cross or his legal team. What more can we do to see his release and enable him to get his human rights and not be harassed and threatened by Ben-Gvir, who we have sanctioned?

• 1 Sept 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I want to start by paying tribute to Andriy Parubiy, the former Ukrainian Speaker, who was brutally assassinated in his home city of Lviv. He played a key role in the Maidan protests, which freed Ukraine of Russian interference. I really thank my right hon. Friend for raising the issue of the British Council attack in Kyiv. A man was injured, and we need to remember that the British Council is not just any body; it is an arm’s length body of the FCDO. It takes British culture and values, and English language teaching, around the world. In the same attack, the EU delegation building was also attacked. We have heard tonight from Bulgaria that Ursula von der Leyen’s plane was jammed by Russia and had difficulty landing—it had to use paper maps to land. I am afraid to say that we are hearing more and more on the streets that this war is a matter for Ukraine and Russia, but I think everybody in this Chamber knows that if Ukraine falls, it will not end there. This is a war for all of us, and Ukraine is fighting for all of us. I would like my right hon. Friend to reassure me that we are making it very clear that we know that Putin’s aggression will not stop at Ukraine if Ukraine fails, that the Ukrainians are fighting for all of us, and that we will give them all the support they need to ensure that we are all free in Europe.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Transnational Repression in the UK · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his question on SLAPPs. In our inquiry, we heard from those who were precluded from reporting on certain types of transnational repression through the use of SLAPPs, which were relevant to the inquiry and to exposing transnational repression in the United Kingdom. Although we have not put forward an amendment or a legislative mechanism, that is certainly in the scope of the report.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Transnational Repression in the UK · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his questions. I have worked with him, as he knows, on the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief. Religious belief is one of the reasons why we see transnational repression, and China is a particular example when it comes to subjecting citizens to it for their religious belief. We took evidence from a senior member of the Iranian diaspora, Mr Abedini, as part of the evidence, who was very nearly killed—not in the UK but in Turkey, which still is transnational repression because he was not in Iran. He was only saved because the gun jammed on the third shot when he was attacked. As I said, we know that Iran is increasing its attacks. Individual members—myself and the Chair, as the hon. Member referred to—work closely with many Iranian groups based here, in France and in other places. Much of our evidence was from those from the Iranian community.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Transnational Repression in the UK · Hansard source

  More

  I was thinking that I might have had a quiet first day back after recess, but I have now been in the Chamber for six hours and 20 minutes, so I am clearly working hard for my constituents yet again. I am also working hard on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights for which I give this statement on the seventh report of the 2024-25 Session, “Transnational repression in the UK”. The Committee believes that transnational repression is a serious and under-recognised threat. The report argues: “Its impacts extend far beyond those directly targeted, creating a broader ‘chilling effect’ on entire communities and undermining fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, assembly, and association.” The Committee received credible evidence that a number of states have engaged in acts of transnational repression on UK soil. The report highlights China, Russia and Iran as the three most flagrant transnational repression perpetrators in the United Kingdom. Transnational repression is generally understood to refer to certain state-directed crimes or actions against individuals that take place outside the territory of the perpetrating state. Transnational repression can take many forms: it could include harassment, online disinformation campaigns, surveillance, stalking and physical violence, in addition to threats to family members, attempts to force individuals to return to their country of origin and assassination attempts. The Committee launched its inquiry into transnational repression in response to increasing reports of foreign Governments moving beyond their borders to persecute people here in the United Kingdom. In the last year, the number of state threat investigations run by MI5 has increased by 48%. There have been several recent high-profile transnational repression cases, including the issuance of bounties against Hong Kong pro-democracy activists and Iran’s intimidation of UK-based journalists. MI5 and counter-terrorism police have dealt with more than 20 threat-to-life cases relating to Iran since the start of 2022. The Government have recently set out a strategic framework to address transnational repression following a review of the UK’s transnational repression approach by the defending democracy taskforce. The Committee received 181 written evidence submissions, 91 of which we were able to publish. Many submissions were from people with personal experience of transnational repression. The Committee also held four oral evidence sessions, where we heard from legal experts, academics, human rights advocates, journalists and—most importantly—victims of transnational repression themselves. I express my gratitude to all those who contributed to the inquiry for their bravery in coming forward; in particular, those victims of transnational repression who put themselves at personal risk by coming and appearing in public before the Committee. There is currently no universally accepted definition of transnational repression, and the UK Government have chosen not to adopt a formal definition, opting instead to describe it as “certain foreign state-directed crimes against individuals.” Without a clear definition of what constitutes transnational repression, it is difficult to collate reliable data on the scale and nature of transnational repression-related activities. It appears that the Home Office does not currently collect or require police forces to collect data on transnational repression incidents taking place in the UK. The report recommends that the Government adopt a formal definition of transnational repression and establish data collection and monitoring mechanisms. The Committee report welcomes the introduction of the foreign influence registration scheme—FIRS—as a tool to help strengthen the UK’s ability to tackle transnational repression. The designation of Iran and Russia as countries listed on the enhanced tier of FIRS was consistent with the evidence presented to the Committee regarding the threat posed by transnational repression operating from these states. The report argues that China’s omission from the enhanced tier risks undermining the credibility and coherence of FIRS and recommends that China be specified under the enhanced tier of FIRS. Looking to support for victims, transnational repression victims felt that the overall police response to transnational repression has been inconsistent. Many affected individuals described limited awareness of transnational repression among frontline officers and a lack of clear referral pathways. Some victims had even been advised to avoid political activity or to self-censor, while others had been incorrectly referred to hate crime or diversity and equality officers. Counter-terrorism policing and the College of Policing have launched guidance and awareness modules on foreign interference, and the powers introduced in the National Security Act 2023. This training is now available for all 45 territorial police forces in the UK. However, the training is mandatory only for counter-terrorism officers. The report recommends that serious consideration should be given to making transnational repression training mandatory for all police officers. At present, victims of transnational repression are advised to report incidents through standard policing channels, for example by calling 999 or 101 or by attending their local police station. However, victims felt that early signs of transnational repression could be more effectively identified though a dedicated helpline, where those answering calls would have received training on how to recognise and respond to transnational repression threats appropriately. The report recommends that the Government establish a reporting hotline for transnational repression victims. Regarding diplomatic policy, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office uses tools to target transnational repression that largely align with those used to address other foreign policy challenges. These include private engagement with foreign Governments, issuing a démarche and terminating privileges and immunities, in addition to reducing official or ministerial contact, denying diplomatic visas, imposing sanctions or asking for diplomats to be withdrawn or expelled. The Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020 give the Secretary of State the power to designate individuals for the purpose of imposing sanctions on them. The Secretary of State has to consider that the designation is appropriate, and must have reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is or has been involved in an activity which, if carried out by a state, would amount to a serious violation of a person’s right to life, their right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or their right to be free from slavery. Activities in the UK are covered if they are carried out by someone who is not a UK national. Some transnational repression conduct may fall under the 2020 Regulations if it amounts to a serious violation of the right to life or the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. However, much transnational repression conduct, including even violence, intimidation, harassment, illegal deportations, abductions and Interpol and extradition abuse, would fall outside the scope of the regulations. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the Government review the scope of the UK’s sanctions framework to assess the feasibility of introducing specific transnational repression sanctions. The UK should also adopt a more proactive approach to sanctions, particularly in cases where UK nationals and residents are directly affected. The report also recommends that the UK should ensure that diplomatic responses, such as the expulsion of officials, public démarches and the imposition of sanctions, are not only available in principle but actively and visibly deployed in response to serious incidents. With that, I recommend this report to the House.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Transnational Repression in the UK · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his role in this inquiry and the great role he plays on the Committee. I will start by talking about the absolutely brilliant evidence we received from Chloe Cheung from Hong Kong, who is from Leeds. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), who represents her, was just here. She speaks to exactly that point. Because of her activities in Leeds—being visible, demonstrating, helping set up Hongkongers in Leeds—she had a million-dollar bounty put on her head at the age of 80. It is incumbent on us to ensure the safety of the Hong Kong community. One of the shortcomings we found in the evidence was the fact that Chloe was advised just to call 999 or 101 when she was threatened. She was even followed by two people who she suspects were either interested in the bounty or from the state authorities. We need to do much more to protect democracy activists and just ordinary Hongkongers who live here, going about their daily lives. I hope the Minister has heard that, and he will also have read our report and seen the evidence from Chloe. We look forward to the Met, West Yorkshire police and others in upscaling their support for people like Chloe.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Humanitarian Situation in Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend knows, the issue of malnutrition for the Sudanese is not contained to Sudan. Many millions of displaced people are in neighbouring countries, and those countries are unfortunately also suffering from conflict, whether that is Uganda, South Sudan, Eritrea or Rwandan militias in the DRC. Do we not need to also take action to ensure that the Sudanese are getting adequate nutrition when they are displaced into neighbouring countries that are also seeing conflict?

• 22 Jul 2025 · Music Streaming: Label-led Principles · Hansard source

  More

  As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on music, I commend the Minister on doing an excellent job of bringing record labels into these new provisions. The history of the music industry is sadly full of tales of exploitation, and the industry has proved notable for its intransigence. Protecting the dignity of British songwriters by putting money in their pockets is a welcome step, and it is pleasing to see greater transparency over artists’ renegotiations. However, it is clear that the label provisions, as helpful as they are, do not change or rectify the economic injustice of the streaming model as it stands. As the Minister knows, copyright law was not brought up to do date for streaming, never mind for what is approaching with AI. More than half the membership of the Musicians’ Union earn less than £14,000 a year. I commend the Minister for his efforts, but can he also offer Members reassurance that this is not job done, when so many music creators and workers are still so poorly served by current arrangements? What more is he going to do for new and emerging artists in terms of the streaming model?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Global Plastics Treaty · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Minister, with whom I served in the shadow Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team for three years, will respond to the debate; I look forward to that. With less than one month to go until the next round of the UN plastic treaty talks in Geneva, we must ensure that the international and domestic focus keeps us on track. We must also ensure that the UK delegation’s priorities are clear, so I thank everybody for taking part in today’s debate. Keeping on track is difficult when the number of fossil fuel lobbyists present at the talks rises in each and every round. Those lobbyists seek to derail the talks, and to prevent any limits to plastic production being agreed. We have seen this before with the tobacco industry. We cannot allow private interests that are damaging to health to take precedence, and we cannot allow the mismanagement of plastics, plastic leakage into the environment and the associated colossal greenhouse gas emissions. Towards the end of my time on the Environmental Audit Committee, we undertook an inquiry on plastic waste. This was in 2021-22. In the three years since it was published, little has changed. Recycling plastic is difficult. Globally, only 9% of plastic has ever been recycled. Furthermore, the carbon emissions associated with plastics outstrip those from the entire global aviation and shipping industries. Approximately 50% of the plastic packaging waste generated in the UK is exported for recycling—or so we think. That is what we call the UK’s plastic recycling capacity gap. The UK has one of the highest per capita plastic waste levels in the world. Cheap single-use packaging is incentivised over unpackaged products, or investment into reuse and recycling and wider circular economy initiatives, which the Government are seeking to champion. On the EAC, we found that much exported waste was just being dumped, with no prospect of recycling. People diligently recycling at home in the UK would be rightly appalled if they saw what was happening to the plastic they put in their bins —green bins in Leeds—for recycling. To support our UK delegation and address this issue head-on, the UK should take a lead on the international stage in securing global, legally binding targets to cut plastic production. Our recycling and waste treatment industry is hugely supportive of the proposed treaty set out at the discussions, and supports a binding target to reduce global virgin plastic production. The Government need to support the policy measures necessary to make that workable in practice. If the Government develop a clear road map for implementing the policies required to deliver a domestic circular economy for plastics, they could set a binding, viable target for reducing virgin plastic production. They could also set out clear policy interventions to stimulate end-market demand for recycled plastics, and create the conditions for major new investment in plastics sorting and reprocessing infrastructure, so that we end the plastics recycling capacity gap in the UK, create jobs in plastics reprocessing, ensure quality, and ensure that plastic is being recycled, not just dumped. That would be a Great British plastic initiative. The UK exports approximately 50% of its plastic packaging waste. We must set out proposals for clamping down on illegitimate exports of plastic waste being dumped overseas. While the vast majority of plastic waste exported from the UK is for reprocessing, which is managed in an environmentally sound manner, there have been instances in the past few years where illegitimate exports of low-grade plastics have been dumped or burned overseas. A robust and properly resourced regulator could be empowered to enforce the right standards and clamp down on illegal waste exports. We must end plastic dumping. The UK Government have already implemented strong steps to improve the quantity and quality of plastics sent for recycling. However, Governments need to address fossil fuels’ influence in politics, particularly in the international plastic treaty negotiations. That is the only way we can deliver a circular economy for plastics. There needs to be sustainable long-term demand for any recycled product created. Otherwise, we will carry on with the unsustainable practice of using virgin plastics, and the fossil fuel industry will continue to have an international influence on our UN processes.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Global Plastics Treaty · Hansard source

  More

  Arrr!

• 17 Jul 2025 · Strategy for Elections · Hansard source

  More

  As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, I warmly welcome this policy paper. I think my hon. Friend the Minister and I were much more poorly equipped to vote when we were 18 than today’s 16-year-olds, so I warmly welcome that measure. I also welcome the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, introduced last week, with the Government saying that first past the post “can lead to individuals being elected with only a small proportion of the total votes cast”, and that Mayors and police and crime commissioners “should be elected with a greater consensus among their electors.” The Government have also claimed that this change will give the local electorate an “increased voice” and will “better support the democratic mandate of people elected to such positions”. Given the flawed nature of first past the post, will the Minister consider also reviewing the system for elections to this place?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Defence Secretary for his comprehensive statement. As a trade envoy, I was with the UK Government’s mission to last week’s Ukraine recovery conference in Rome, where two of the top asks for civilian recovery were improved air defence and de-mining, so I was very pleased to hear those mentioned. His statement is about our support for Ukraine, but for the long-term security of our own country and the whole of Europe, what lessons are the Ministry of Defence and the UK defence industry learning from Ukraine’s innovation in defence?

• 16 Jul 2025 · Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  What is happening in Sudan—in Darfur, in particular—is one of the world’s deepest and longest-running humanitarian crises. Unfortunately, we are seeing rising tensions and military action in neighbouring South Sudan, particularly in the Upper Nile region. The Ugandan army has recently entered South Sudan, and there is a real risk of regional conflict and civil war, which would create a much deeper humanitarian crisis across the whole region. What is the UK doing to de-escalate that potential conflict, such as talking to Uganda and South Sudan?

• 14 Jul 2025 · State of Climate and Nature · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State has been a global leader in this space for 20 years. We all know about the Climate Change Act 2008, but without his singular intervention at COP15 in Copenhagen, the world would not have agreed and would be on a worse climate trajectory today—the whole House needs to hear that. We now need significant afforestation and the repair of the world’s ecosystems—be they peat bogs, permafrost or seagrass—so what plans does he have to lead in that space at COP30 in Belém?

• 8 Jul 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also associate myself with the tribute from my hon. Friend the Minister after the tragic death of Diogo Jota. My son is a Liverpool fan, and his generation of Liverpool fans regarded him as one of the finest players in the club, so it is very sad news for them. I rise to speak to my two amendments to the Bill: amendment 12 and the linked new clause 6. I also support new clause 13, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans). This is a great Bill that will improve football and the financial stability of clubs, but I want to raise the failings of the great game of football with regard to the financial wellbeing of players. These amendments seek to address ongoing financial grooming and disregard for player welfare in the football industry. I believe this is an historic opportunity to reform football governance in England for the long-term good of clubs, supporters and players. However, to leave out the wellbeing, protection and long-term security of players—the very people who drive the game, whom we see week in and week out, in the stands and on television, and who are the beating heart of football—would be a fundamental mistake. I have written a letter to the Secretary of State, supported by over a dozen Members of Parliament and 319 current and former professional players, coaches and managers across the game, including many legends of the game. Many of those have been victims of financial grooming and fraud. They have written, alongside me and other Members, to express our strong support for the introduction of an independent football regulator, and to urge that player welfare be included in the regulator’s remit. The current system is failing too many players. Issues affecting player welfare span financial exploitation and mental health problems to retirement transition and dementia. The support system is fragmented, opaque and often reactive at best. Despite the Professional Footballers’ Association mandate, too many players feel unsupported, unprotected or unheard. These are not just historic problems; they are happening now. This is not simply a matter of correcting the past. New forms of financial exploitation are appearing today, particularly through digital platforms and sophisticated forms of financial exploitation and grooming. Some of the individuals involved remain active in football, and operate unchecked and outside meaningful oversight. Players, especially younger ones, continue to face avoidable risks, such as predatory financial advice and abuses, post-career mental health problems and financial crises, and in many cases the lifelong consequences of concussion. This is a rare and timely legislative moment. The Football Governance Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to embed protections for everyone in the game—not just clubs and investors, but players too. Including player welfare in the regulator’s scope would ensure that minimum standards, transparency and accountability are applied across football. A regulated environment would provide strong co-ordination between the clubs, the premier league, the EFL, the PFA, the FA, the League Managers Association, and other associated organisations, ultimately benefiting all parties. Football must be more than financially sustainable; it must also be ethically sound. That means protecting the health, dignity, welfare and future of the players who give everything to the sport. I urge the Government to ensure that player welfare is not overlooked as this important legislation moves forward. My amendment 12 seeks to safeguard the current and former players involved in English football who have been victims of financial abuse, mismanagement or fraud, or who are at risk of becoming victims of financial abuse, mismanagement and fraud. My new clause 6 seeks to embed measures aimed at achieving the financial abuse, mismanagement and fraud objective. Unfortunately, we see financial abuse and grooming across the sports, music, media and cultural industries; football is not unique. However, this is a unique opportunity for the regulation of football that could lead as an example for other areas. I want to finish by saying that this is classist abuse of young and budding talent.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely do. As a Leeds United fan, I know that we definitely cross the spectrum from sport to culture—everybody has probably seen “The Damned United”. In a country such as Spain, football goes across the cultural spectrum, but the ownership of clubs is also with the fans and not with oligarchs—as the former Chelsea owner was—or others. There is a different cultural aspect to it in other European countries. As I was saying, this is classist abuse of young and budding talent that exploits their lives for the benefit of financially high-powered middlemen. Labour’s driving mission is to protect working people against exploitation. Let us include football players in our party’s founding mission and give them the protections they deserve.

• 26 Jun 2025 · Legislative Scrutiny: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to address that, as I did not include those who have come to this country to seek asylum due to an impingement of their right to practise their faith or religious belief in their home country. We have seen an increase in asylum claims—I do not have the figures to hand—but the Committee’s consideration of that area in its inquiry on the Bill was in relation to the list of safe countries. Countries might be broadly safe, but not safe for individuals who are practising certain beliefs. I mentioned three countries, and of those the one where there are issues in that regard is India. The Government should review the list of safe countries and have regard for the UN Human Rights Council’s universal periodic review in terms of the ability of an individual to practise their religion or belief in safety. That is an important consideration that the Government should take into account.

• 26 Jun 2025 · Legislative Scrutiny: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding the time for this statement on the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on legislative scrutiny of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. I also thank my fellow members of the Committee, Lord Alton, who is the Chair, and the staff, who worked very hard in the production of the report. The Bill is intended to prevent loss of life at sea and to deter and disrupt organised immigration crime. The Committee welcomes that intention. The Bill introduces a number of new offences targeted at organised criminal gangs facilitating unlawful migration, but the Committee is concerned that the new offences are drafted excessively broadly and pose a serious risk of criminalising refugees and other vulnerable groups. It recommends some changes to address that issue. Clauses 13 to 17 create three new precursor offences. Those measures are intended to target the activities of facilitators and organised criminal gangs that look to profit from organised immigration crime. The provisions engage rights under the refugee convention—in particular, article 31, which prohibits the general imposition of penalties on refugees on account of their unlawful entry or presence in the country where they claim asylum. Those offences could potentially also interfere in some cases with rights under the European convention on human rights—notably, article 5, the right to liberty and security, and article 1 of protocol 1, on peaceful enjoyment of possessions—which are incorporated in domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998. The Committee supports the Government’s intention to disrupt and deter organised immigration crime and to safeguard life. However, the Committee is concerned that, as drafted, the precursor offences create uncertainty, extend beyond the Government’s stated legitimate aim and risk inadvertently criminalising persons who ought to be protected from criminal penalty. The scope is broad, the thresholds are low and the penalties are high. In its report, the Committee proposes a series of amendments to deal with those issues. Clause 18 makes it an offence for a person, while journeying by water to the UK from France, Belgium or the Netherlands, to have done an act that “caused, or created a risk of, the death of, or serious personal injury”— physical or psychological— “to, another person.” The Government should ensure that that clause is sufficiently clear and defined, reflects the legitimate aim that it is intended to achieve and is proportionate to that aim. In particular, the Committee believes that a mental element should be introduced to ensure that only conduct that is intentional or reckless is criminalised. The Bill will repeal the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 in its entirety, as well as certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. Repealing the 2024 Act removes the significant incompatibilities identified in the predecessor JCHR’s report. However, certain provisions of the 2023 Act have been kept, which raises human rights concerns. Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act modifies the common-law position such that it is for the Secretary of State, not the courts, to determine what is a reasonable period of detention. The Committee agrees with its predecessor Committee and recommends repeal of section 12 to restore certainty and ensure compliance with article 5 of the ECHR. Section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act broadens the public order disqualification in section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The Committee believes that that provision is not compatible with the UK’s obligations under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings and article 4 of the ECHR, on prohibition of slavery and forced labour. The Committee recommends repeal of the provision. Section 59 of the IMA amends section 80A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which provides that asylum claims and human rights claims from nationals of listed states must be declared inadmissible. The Committee believes that it must be possible for such individuals who face a real risk of persecution on return to make a protection or human rights claim, which must be considered on its merits, in order to guard against the risk of refoulement. If the Government choose to bring section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act into force, they should, at the very least, periodically review the list of safe countries, with particular consideration of the rights of minority groups. In 2023, Georgia, India and Albania were added to the list of safe states to speed up the process of returning people who have travelled from those countries illegally, but we understand those states to be high risk in particular for LGBTQI+ people. It is therefore important that the Government take notice of the universal periodic review by the United Nations Human Rights Council of states listed, as well as other assessments, in order to judge their safety for specific groups, particularly those from the LGBTQI community. Section 62 of the IMA means that if a person making a human rights or asylum claim does not allow the Home Office to look at everything, including private information, on their phone, then the Home Office shall take that into account as damaging the person’s credibility when deciding whether to believe the person. The Committee believes that this provision should be amended to make it clear that the credibility of a claimant who has provided a reasonable excuse for their failure to provide a password or other method of access requested by the Home Office will not be affected. Clauses 19 to 26 introduce new search, seizure and retention powers in relation to electronic devices. The Committee is concerned that there is a risk that the new powers of search, seizure and retention may in practice lead to a blanket policy to search and possibly seize and retain items such as mobile phones from asylum seekers, victims of trafficking and children. The Committee recommends that the Government clarify in the Bill how these invasive powers will be used, in order to guard against the risk of indiscriminate searches. The Committee also recommends that guidance clearly sets out that in circumstances where electronic devices are confiscated the authorities must facilitate the contact of individuals with their close family members. The Committee is concerned that clause 35(7) and (8), deeming transfer of personal data to third countries and international organisations to be necessary for important reasons of public interest, inappropriately disapplies the normal safeguards in data protection legislation when data is transferred to third countries. The Committee recommends the removal of those provisions. Clause 41 amends the current powers contained in paragraph 2(2) of schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971, which permits the Secretary of State to detain individuals liable to deportation on the grounds that their presence in the UK is not considered conducive to the public good. The Government state that the clause is intended to clarify that the Home Office may detain someone subject to deportation from the point at which the Home Office serves notification that deportation is being considered. However, the operational effect would appear to amount to retrospectively making it lawful to have detained persons liable to deportation. This does not comply with article 5 of the ECHR, which requires a lawful basis for detention, and article 13 of the ECHR, which guarantees an effective remedy. The Committee recommends the repeal of this clause. The Committee believes that the requirements in clause 43 for imposing conditions such as electronic monitoring, geographical exclusions and curfews should be expressly limited to cases involving conduct such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, extremism or serious crime, or where the person poses a threat to national security or public safety. The Committee proposes an amendment to deal with this point. The Committee acknowledges that the exclusion of individuals who pose a danger to the community is an important issue, and supports the Government’s intent to ensure that dangerous sex offenders cannot benefit from the protections of the refugee convention. Individuals will be able to argue against the presumptions made by the state regarding the seriousness of their offence and the danger that they pose to the community. This is important to give refugees the opportunity to argue against the seriousness of their offence and the danger they pose to the community. Given the severe infringement on the right to privacy posed by the imposition of electronic monitoring, the Committee believes that the threshold test for electronic monitoring should be one of necessity and proportionality, not whether it is appropriate. Clause 52 should be amended accordingly. Overall, the Committee welcomes the Government’s intentions in bringing forward this legislation but would like to see changes to ensure that the legislation is more tightly focused on criminalising those who exploit refugees and other vulnerable groups.

• 26 Jun 2025 · BBC World Service Funding · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that this form of soft power, the BBC World Service—in particular, the Farsi and Russian services—is a much more cost-effective way to try to create democracy and democratic change in countries than military action is?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Just a week ago, we were here calling for de-escalation because there were so many civilian deaths, but in the past week we have seen an escalation and so many more civilian deaths in Israel, Gaza and Iran. We know that it is much easier to get into a conflict than to conclude it. If the justification for military action is now a nuclear weapons programme and being a threat to neighbours, how many other nations fit that category? Is North Korea not another example, but with an even more advanced nuclear weapons programme? Where are we in terms of justification and article 51 of the UN charter?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  In the words of the organisation Stonewall: “Pride Month 2025 is grounded in this year’s powerful theme, activism and social change. It’s a reminder of how far the LGBTQI+ community has come and how much work still needs to be done.” I would like to thank Stonewall, Trans+ Solidarity Alliance and Rainbow Migration for their vital work, which I have relied on in understanding the challenging issues facing the LGBT+ community. Rainbow Migration in particular supports LGBT+ people through the asylum and immigration system. Its work is pivotal to a number of constituents of mine who have fled their country and identify as LGBT+. They are seeking support in the UK, where they can feel like their true selves. Rainbow Migration has asked Home Office Ministers to remove blanket inadmissibility provisions for so-called “safe states” such as Albania, Georgia and India. For example, Noah, a gay Georgian and former service user of Rainbow Migration, had the following lived experience of a “safe state”. Noah fled homophobic persecution in Georgia. He was extremely fearful of being sent back there, saying that he would rather take his own life than go back and face persecution. He said: “No one can know that you are gay in Georgia. If people do, homophobic people will try to attack you. Either with words, or they’ll try to beat you.” Noah was physically attacked by family members. He was forced to stay in a hospital for people with mental health issues and had an exorcism performed on him at church. Thankfully, he was granted refugee status due to the risk of harm, but he is deeply concerned about Georgia’s designation as safe. He says: “Georgia cannot be considered a safe country. They don’t know what is going on in Georgia—how the LGBT people are living there. They cannot understand. The last time that Pride took place, the television operator was killed. Who will come and say Georgia is a safe country after that? If you’re gay, your two options are either hospital or exorcism.” How can we in this country describe Georgia as safe for LGBT people? In 1997, under the last Labour Government, the first positive recognition of same-sex relationships in UK law was introduced for migrants. The unmarried partners concession made it possible for same-sex couples to make an application for a partner of a British citizen to remain in the UK if they had lived together for four years. It paved the way for greater legislative equality for same-sex couples, and it was the first time same-sex relationships were recognised positively in British law. Being an ally is about reflecting on how to contribute to lasting social change and acting on that reflection, so I agree with Rainbow Migration in calling for an asylum and immigration system that treats LGBT people with dignity. Unfortunately, the UK’s current legal framework for dealing with inequality and discrimination is creaking under the weight of the culture wars. Legislation such as the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998, which were designed to protect the most marginal and vulnerable in society, have been weaponised by those who seek to promote exclusion and social division, with this year’s Supreme Court ruling and the subsequent guidance by the EHRC causing widespread fear among the trans community. At a time of rising discrimination, the UK should reassert its commitment to the value of equality, instead of creating a set of contested rights that dehumanise the most marginalised. It can do this in a powerful way by signing and ratifying protocol 12 to the European convention on human rights, which creates a general prohibition on discrimination. The UK is one of only nine countries in the Council of Europe not to have signed protocol 12. Everyone in the UK would benefit from access to the human right of the general prohibition on discrimination, including LGBTQI+ people.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Iran-Israel Conflict · Hansard source

  More

  As always, civilians are paying the heaviest price: there were 1,195 casualties on 7 October, with at least 74 hostages since; there have been 55,000 casualties in Gaza; this weekend, 24 Israelis were killed by Iran, and 224 Iranians were killed by Israel. We need to de-escalate this conflict, and quickly. Those 55,000 people in Gaza deserved a future. I understand that the conference to be co-chaired by Saudi Arabia and France on the two-state solution has now been delayed. What are we doing to get that back on track, and how will we progress that solution?

• 12 Jun 2025 · SEND Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak about the deepening funding crisis, and the crisis in general, for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, including the failure of our national curriculum to meet the needs of all learners. Since the curriculum reforms introduced in 2012, we have seen a return to a rigid, academic model of education—one that might have suited a mid-century grammar school but fails to deliver for a modern comprehensive system. The curriculum is simply inaccessible for at least a third of our pupils, both those with SEND and many others who thrive with practical, creative or vocational learning. Too many children are being told, implicitly or explicitly, that their job is to, “Just get a pass and forget about it.” That is not a curriculum that inspires or includes, it is not a curriculum that recognises or nurtures diverse talents, and it is certainly not a curriculum fit for the 21st century. It also ignores the cost of adequately educating children with special educational needs. This narrow focus does more than limit opportunity; it damages self-esteem, confidence and emotional wellbeing. It restricts the gifts and potential of our young people, particularly those who already face the greatest barriers. Critically, schools have lost the flexibility they once had to tailor education to the needs of their pupils. They are now judged on a narrow set of outcomes, forcing a one-size-fits-all model on to a hugely diverse student body—again, a cut-price way to deliver our education system. That has consequences. We can draw a direct line from the rigidity of the curriculum to the crisis in school attendance, and from there to the rise in NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—who are vulnerable to exploitation or even to entering the youth justice system as they are exploited by organised crime. Too many young people with SEND are being failed by a system that offers them no real route to thrive, and when school stops being a protective factor, the risks grow. That situation is being made worse by how SEND funding is distributed. Local authorities are under incredible pressure, with funding that simply does not reflect the growing complexity and volume of need. We see huge disparities between areas, and often between schools within the same local authority, where children miss out on vital support not because their needs are different, but because of postcode lotteries in funding. Fair and adequate funding is a matter of educational justice. If we are serious about inclusion, we cannot continue to under-resource the very system meant to deliver it. We urgently need to reimagine our education system not as a funnel toward academic exams alone, but as a foundation for every child’s success in every form it might take. I hope the Minister will listen to the parents, carers, teachers and young people themselves calling for change.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  On 23 May, I stood in exactly the same spot where I am standing now and asked the Foreign Secretary to sanction Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, so I thank the Government for their action today. The Palestinian people are now in existential crisis. Even this week, we saw the Israeli military board a British-flagged vessel in international waters and confiscate it. Mass starvation events in Gaza continue, and as the Minister has said, there is increasing settlement action on the west bank. I have been to the region and met senior members of the Palestinian Authority, and I am proud that the Prime Minister took the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority into Downing Street, and that we have a trade envoy to Palestine. The Palestinian Authority is a government under occupation, and has all the effects of government, so what is stopping us from recognising them as the legitimate government of a state? What is the Minister’s view of the Palestinian Authority?