Iqbal Mohamed MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Apr 2026 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I join Members across the House in paying tribute to the Minister for his work and the previous Government who started the compensation scheme. My constituent met me at a surgery last year and spoke to me about her late brother, who tragically died in 1988 after being infected with contaminated blood as a haemophiliac. Her family applied to the compensation scheme in June 2024, yet they feel that they are being treated as a lower priority because he is no longer alive. Can the Minister explain why bereaved families like hers are effectively being asked to wait longer? How can this two-tier form of justice be justified to those who have already waited for decades? Will he meet me to discuss this particular case and how the delays to compensation for my constituent can be alleviated?

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for her expertise in this area. Recognising biological sex is in the interests of trans people as well. We are not just different on the outside; we are different on the inside. Hospitals need to be able to treat people for who they are, not who they believe they are or who they want to be. We could end up with mistreatment, misdiagnoses and further litigation against the NHS for causing harm to somebody because we did not explicitly take into account their biological sex. The law already allows flexibility to accommodate the implementation of human rights for all. It permits the provision of single-sex services where justified, while also enabling appropriate alternative arrangements, such as unisex facilities, where these are needed to ensure that everyone is treated with respect. However, the clarity in principle that the ruling provides must now be matched by clarity in practice. We are now seeing movement from organisations. The International Olympic Committee recently announced that it will not allow non-biological women to compete in women’s sport. Girlguiding has now updated its guidance to go back to admitting guides based on biological sex. That is not discrimination against trans people; it is just common sense, and the protection and implementation of existing rights for girls and women. In that spirit, I ask the Minister three specific questions. First, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that public bodies and service providers are not delaying implementation of the judgment under the mistaken belief that they must wait for further guidance before acting? The Supreme Court ruling was black and white, and gave all employers, the public sector and sporting bodies enough information to proceed with implementing it. Secondly, how do the Government intend to support service providers in striking the balance between single-sex and unisex services in practice, particularly in frontline settings such as healthcare, education and local authority services, where the consequences of uncertainty are often felt most acutely? Finally, can the Minister set out how the Government intend to communicate clearly with the public about what the judgment means in practice, so that both women and trans people understand their rights and protections under the law? As legislators, we have a special responsibility to ensure that the law remains coherent and relevant to the world we live in. One year on, I hope that the message is clear. The law has been clarified. The rights of women to access single-sex services are justified and recognised. The protections afforded to trans people remain in place, and the responsibility now lies with all of us—whether that be the Government, public bodies, parliamentarians, employers, sporting bodies or any other group—to ensure that this clarity is translated into consistent, lawful practice.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is talking about employers and their preferences, but they oppose gender equal pay—they would rather pay women less than men to make more profits. Just because some company says they disagree with something or they are against it does not make it wrong. Does the hon. Member agree?

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  Does the right hon. Lady agree that the one-year delay in issuing the guidance has discriminated against 51% of the population, causing stress and potential harm?

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this debate on the first anniversary of the For Women Scotland Ltd v. the Scottish Ministers ruling. I also thank her and other colleagues in this Chamber for their work on these sensitive issues surrounding sex and gender. They have helped ensure that Parliament continues to grapple with these issues in a careful and thoughtful manner. This issue has faced our society since before I became a Member; and even before I entered this place, it was clear that it was being weaponised, one human being against another, by people who do not always have the best interests of those groups or human beings at heart. I am struggling to put into words my complete confusion that, in the 21st century in the UK Parliament, we are debating what a woman is. It is Adam and Eve, if you are people of faith or believe in the origin of human beings, and even if you are not people of faith, people have known what a woman and a man are since the beginning of time. I stand here with full respect for those who feel or want to be or, for whatever reason that I do not understand, believe that they are a different gender from the biological sex that they are in. However, women’s rights have been less, and diminished, for centuries, and every single year they are fighting on many fronts for equality. I have stood in this place and in the main Chamber talking about women’s rights on healthcare, maternity rights and gender pay equality—things that men have taken for granted but where they have imposed a substandard level of right on women. It is completely unacceptable. But here we are now, questioning the fundamental biology of women—not just in this place, in this country, but everywhere in the world. I cannot reconcile the situation that we have faced. When the Supreme Court finally gave a ruling that clearly defined what a man and a woman are under the law, we expected this gaslighting, this aggressive lobbying and this fighting between fellow human beings to, hopefully, recede with clear guidance, rules and processes at parliamentary level, at a legal level and at an employment rights level. But here we are a year later, and the Government have been dilly-dallying and sitting on the ruling, which does not change the law, as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) said. The anniversary provides an opportunity not only to reflect on the nature of this specific ruling, but to reaffirm the fundamental principle that in a democratic society governed by the rule of law, the judgments of our highest courts must be respected and properly implemented. The Supreme Court’s ruling of 16 April 2025 brought much-needed legal clarity. It confirmed that, within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, references to “sex”, “man” and “woman” are to be understood as referring to biological sex. How somebody felt that they referred to something else, I cannot understand. That was not the creation of a new law, but the authoritative interpretation of legislation passed by Parliament. I stand here with women constituents, men constituents, trans women constituents, trans male constituents and people who are still trying to find their way through their biology and feelings, and I stand for each and every one of those without fear or favour. I have met trans people in my constituency, both those who have transitioned fully, so they are either a man or a woman because biologically they have transitioned, and those who have not transitioned and have a gender recognition certificate or live their life as the opposite gender.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I am not a medical doctor—there are experts in this room—but if somebody has gone through operations under the NHS and that is medically assessed and professionally delivered, I respect their current biological status. If I have used the wrong language, I apologise, but these are special cases. The case that the hon. Member mentioned earlier in an intervention, where somebody had had breast cancer and had a double mastectomy, and may be misidentified as male, is a special case; that person has gone through a physical change that may make others see something different from who they are. Those are separate arguments to biological males identifying as women. As I was saying, none of these transgender constituents of mine has come to me and said, “I want to be entering single-sex spaces of the other gender to make me feel that I am who I believe that I am.” I think that needs to be understood—that this view is not universal across the transgender community. Clarity in the law is profoundly important. Without it, public bodies, service providers and indeed individuals are left navigating uncertainty. Inconsistent interpretations risk undermining both compliance with and confidence in our legal system, to distressing effect. Rights that already exist in law for any gender, biological sex, man or woman, cannot be usurped by new demands from people in our community, whether it is trans, or Muslims, or Christians, or people of no faith. Rights, once they are acquired and in law, should be protected and implemented, and any new demands or changes required to support in full other members of the community who may differ must be grappled with and dealt with by the Government without undermining existing rights. The Court’s judgment provides a clear, coherent framework within which decisions can be made, particularly in relation to single-sex services, which the Equality Act explicitly permits. Yet this judgment did not remove rights from trans people. Protections preventing discrimination remain firmly in place, as they should. Trans rights are human rights where they are not impinging on somebody else’s human rights. That is a really clear distinction that we need to make. This is not a zero-sum question of one group’s rights being set against another’s, with gains for one group coming only at the expense, or at the loss, of the rights of another. Rather, it is about ensuring that the law is applied as intended, recognising distinct protected characteristics and giving effect to each in a way that is workable and, crucially, fair. Of course, implementation must be done sensitively and responsibly, taking pains to ensure that the human rights and dignity of all are respected. The law already allows for flexibility to accommodate this. It is therefore really difficult to understand why the public sector, especially the NHS, is spending hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of pounds on going to tribunals, knowing that it will lose, for an ideological, entrenched reason. That should not be happening. That money should be spent treating women, trans women, trans men and other patients within the NHS. I pay tribute to the Darlington nurses and Jennifer Melle for being here, and for being the light, or the source of information, around this topic, having gone through so much suffering and persecution to stand up for their basic human rights as biological females.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this profoundly important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing it. SEND is one of the most common and most urgent issues raised by struggling families and overstretched schools in my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley, as it is for all Members from across the House. The situation cannot be allowed to continue. We all agree that the system is broken and needs to be improved. I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised the scale of the crisis and are attempting to bring forward wide-ranging reform, but good intentions must be matched by good policy. Consequently, I believe that a number of concerns must be addressed urgently if the reforms are to succeed. First, on consultation, the Government have told us that their new framework is being shaped in partnership with families, schools and other stakeholders, but serious questions remain about the adequacy and scope of that consultation. Recent reports show that Members have been effectively guided by the Department of Education on how they should respond to the consultation. That risks fatally undermining confidence in the process; consultation must be genuine and transparent. Secondly, on implementation, it is concerning that local authorities are already being instructed to begin reforming their systems by developing local plans and reshaping provision before the consultation has even concluded. That risks creating confusion, inconsistency and instability in a system that is already under immense strain, and it risks the perception that public consultation and consent for vital policy proposals are being treated as an afterthought, rather than as central to policy making process. Thirdly, on capacity, ambitious reforms require the workforce to deliver them. We need clarity on how many trained professionals will be required, how initiatives such as the proposed experts-at-hand service will be staffed, and how training for teachers will be delivered. Without that detail, we run the risk of expectations outstripping reality. Finally, on accountability, any changes to tribunal arrangements must not weaken families’ ability to challenge decisions, not least because they have been so successful in appealing them—we have heard the 99% figure. For many parents, the tribunal system is not an optional preference but a safeguard of last resort that must be preserved. Will the Government ensure that the ongoing consultation genuinely reflects the voices of families, schools and experts? Will it provide clarity on workforce training and funding? Will it protect the rights of families to challenge decisions? Will it ensure that reforms are implemented in a way that is transparent, evidence-led and properly resourced and has built-in accountability? If we get this right, we can transform lives for the better, but if we get it wrong, children will bear the cost for years to come.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as well as the harm caused to the children who do not receive timely support for their special needs, if children are in the wrong setting, harm is caused to the teachers, who are not qualified to support those children in their normal, mainstream setting? If we can do the assessments and get the right support quicker, it will help not only the children, but the educationalists providing their education.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  British drones flew over Lebanon hours before and after the Israeli massacre that killed at least 18 people in a Bekaa valley city, among 300 people across the region that day. We know that UK drones and surveillance flights have been used to feed operational information to the IDF during the genocide in Gaza, and it is deeply concerning that this may now be the case in Lebanon. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether these flights were co-ordinated with the Lebanese army? Was intelligence shared with Israel or with the United States? What is our armed forces’ role in this land grab and ethnic cleansing? Have any weapons supplied by the UK to Israel been used in Lebanon?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the attack on the Jewish community in Golders Green; there is no place for hatred, antisemitism or violence of any kind against individuals. An independent panel of senior judges found no basis for misconduct proceedings against the British chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, King’s counsel, yet reports suggest that elements within the Court’s governing body are seeking to disregard those findings, while ICC officials continue to face external pressure and sanctions. Given the UK’s commitment to the rule of law, and as a human rights lawyer himself, will the Prime Minister set out the steps that he will take to defend the independence of the ICC and support British nationals carrying out international judicial roles?

• 25 Mar 2026 · NHS Continuing Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  It is the responsibility of ICBs to administer and provide this support, but does the Minister share my concern and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) that the involvement of private contractors in eligibility reviews may not be appropriate? The ICB may feel that responsibility lies with the private contractor to guide it, rather than owning its decisions.

• 25 Mar 2026 · NHS Continuing Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I wholeheartedly agree with him, in particular about his constituents who had the support that their child needed for many years, had an annual review that reconfirmed that that support was necessary, and then suddenly, out of the blue, faced a challenge by some new body or process. Does he agree that there should be a clear, transparent process that is easy to understand by families who go through it, that there should be clear checks and balances to ensure that families receive a fair hearing, and that, when support is agreed and secured, it should be maintained until the next formal review is required and the criteria and conditions have changed?

• 24 Mar 2026 · UN Framework Convention on International Tax Co-operation: Global Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  1. Whether he has had discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on global taxes on oil and gas companies in the context of the proposed UN framework convention on international tax co-operation.

• 24 Mar 2026 · UN Framework Convention on International Tax Co-operation: Global Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  The combined market value of the six big oil super-majors has soared by more than $130 billion since the first US-Israeli attack on Iran, while my constituents and those across the country face higher bills. Will the Energy Secretary and the Government work with international partners to establish global taxes on the fossil fuel industry through the UN tax convention and help bill payers with their energy costs?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to continue, given the lack of time. The numbers are important. They mean that the Government are choosing to prioritise the interests of between five and 90 of the 226 children involved in the clinical trial at the expense of deliberately harming between 135 and 203 children, who will eventually come to terms with their birth sex. I ask the Minister, will the Government now confirm that the current pause—which I welcome and am grateful to the Government for—will remain in place unless and until all safety, ethical and scientific concerns are fully and transparently resolved?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. This is a Government who have shown that they care for the safety and welfare of children. They supported the Online Safety Act 2023 to counteract harmful digital content and removed, albeit eventually, the punitive two-child benefit cap to reduce poverty. The Government have committed to halving violence against women and girls, and have banned the pre-watershed advertising of junk food on TV. However, the trial flies in the face of the Government’s explicit mission to protect children from harm. It would expose children to severe and irreversible harm when viable, less harmful alternatives are available. Despite that, the Government are happy to permit a clinical trial that would give puberty blockers to 226 children. Research has shown that over 95% of children who start out on puberty blockers continue on to cross-sex hormones, while other research has shown that between 60% and 98% of children with gender dysphoria will outgrow that feeling and go on to live a normal, natural, healthy life in their born body.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Freedom of Religion or Belief in China · Hansard source

  More

  Given the 2021 parliamentary vote recognising the risk of genocide of the Uyghurs, does the hon. Member agree that the Government should be taking every step that they are obliged to take, under the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, to prevent genocide in China?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Freedom of Religion or Belief in China · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. With respect to the Uyghurs, does she agree that what we are witnessing in Xinjiang and elsewhere in China is not simply a matter of restricted religious freedoms, but something far more grave? She points to the fact that the Uyghurs are subject to mass detentions and so-called re-education camps, and are used in forced labour by the Chinese Government. Does she agree that this bears all the hallmarks of crimes against humanity and, as many credible voices have argued, may well constitute a genocide?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

  Care workers make an invaluable contribution to our country and the people that they care for. Does the hon. Member agree that illegal care companies that are charging to issue visas to people who then come to this country with no job are—along with those people arriving illegally—demonising the legitimate care workers without whom this country would not function?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. Too often when immigration is spoken about in public discourse, whether in the media, online platforms, or indeed in this House, the tone becomes detached from reality and at times from a basic sense of humanity. I do not know anybody who supports or condones illegal entry into our country, or exploitation of our compassionate rules to take advantage and usurp other people’s rights. However, we must reject the false binary that elites seeking to divide us are all too willing to present: that we have to choose between compassion and prosperity. That is simply not true. I want to present a real-world example of what a compassionate and beneficial immigration policy might look like: in January 2026, Spain’s left-wing Government issued a royal decree to create a pathway for around 500,000 undocumented migrants to obtain legal residency. To be eligible, migrants were required to have lived in Spain for at least five months—not 30 months, not five years, not 20 years—before application. Eligible individuals could apply for a one-year renewable residence permit, or a five-year permit for children. Permits allow people to work in any sector in any region of Spain. Why is Spain doing this? To address labour shortages and support economic growth. Spain has argued that undocumented migrants are already contributing to the economy but cannot work legally. The Government say that migration has accounted for 80% of Spain’s economic growth in the past six years. Spain has an ageing population and labour shortages in key sectors, making additional legal workers essential. The reform aims to strengthen the formal labour market and increase tax and social security contributions. The Government also argue that the policy will promote social cohesion and rights integration. It is a model based on human rights, focusing on dignity, inclusion and co-existence. Spain needs an estimated 2.4 million additional workers in the next decade to maintain productivity.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman is making an extremely eloquent speech. Of course we understand that the more people come into our country, the more the pressures on our public services will be exacerbated. The numbers he cited are post Brexit, under his former Government. If I remember correctly—I apologise if I get this wrong—net migration before Brexit was around a quarter of million people, mostly skilled labour or for specific work. After Brexit, the Europeans had to return, and we ended up allowing thousands of people to work in our care sector, in our NHS and in service industries that had too many vacancies. How does he explain the policies of his Government, which led to net migration rising from a quarter of a million to 900,000-plus, and what would he do differently today?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

  The reasons why Spain introduced the policy also apply to our country. Whether we address the challenges that both Spain and the UK have in the same way or differently is a question for the House. It is for the Government to make proposals and for the House to contribute to a fair, compassionate, productive and ethical policy. We do not want mass illegal or uncontrolled migration without benefits to our nation. Spain requires 2.4 million workers in the next 10 years to maintain productivity and to support the pensions system. My question to the Government is, what estimate have they made of how many new workers will be needed in the UK over the next 10 years to maintain productivity and to deliver the Government’s mission for growth, and how will that requirement be fulfilled?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

  Going back to back-door migration, does the hon. Member agree that the comments made by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) were about issues under his Government that were inherited by this Labour Government, not created by them? Can the hon. Member explain why the previous Government allowed those back-door routes to exist and why they did not take action to stop them when they were in power?