Iqbal Mohamed MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 3 Jul 2025 · NHS 10-Year Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I also welcome the statement and the 10-year plan, and I offer my full support for most of the elements. Staying focused on the positive, I hope to be permitted to raise three points. First, Dewsbury and Batley is unfortunately one of the many constituencies with dental deserts. Dewsbury West, a ward with over 20,000 residents, has no dentist, so how will the 10-year plan and the Government address that for my constituents? Secondly, I fully support the plans to move healthcare into communities. In Dewsbury, we have a local hospital in the heart of the community that, with the right investment, could serve many more. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will build on what we have, rather than fragment it? Finally, Dewsbury and Batley is home to a wonderfully diverse community, but has some of the most deprived neighbourhoods, with the associated healthcare inequalities. Will the Secretary of State agree to visit my constituency so he can hear from my constituents and healthcare professionals, and ensure that their challenges are addressed?

• 3 Jul 2025 · Phone Theft · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for bringing this important debate. I rise to support her and to bring urgent attention to an issue that continues to disrupt lives not just across the UK, but in my constituency: the rising tide of mobile phone thefts. This is not a petty crime or just about the loss of a device. This is about identity theft, financial vulnerability and, in many cases, the complete disconnection of some of the most vulnerable people in our communities from the services they rely on every day. The numbers for the last two years speak volumes. Between December 2021 and November 2023, West Yorkshire police recorded over 560 mobile phone thefts in Dewsbury and Batley alone—293 in 2021-22 and 269 the following year. On average, more than 20 people in my constituency fall victim to this specific crime every single month, and that is just what is recorded. We know full well the real figures are likely higher. Many do not report these crimes, believing that the police have more serious matters to attend to or that nothing can be done. As the hon. Member said, mobile phone theft is serious. These are not just communication tools; they are banks, medical records, job applications, childcare arrangements, emergency lifelines and priceless memories. I read about a constituent—a single mother—in Dewsbury Moor whose phone was stolen while shopping. It was not just the phone she lost; she missed three job interviews, could not access her new universal credit account and had her personal photos and private medical records compromised. That is not an isolated story. Mobile phone theft is a systemic threat to digital safety and personal dignity. Nationally, hundreds of thousands of mobile phones are stolen annually, and many of those devices end up in highly organised criminal supply chains. Some are exported; others are wiped and sold locally. In some cases, victims are followed or even assaulted for their devices. What is worse is that recovery and prosecution rates remain disturbingly low. Across many police forces, less than 5% of mobile phone thefts result in charges. What must we do? First, we need to treat mobile phone theft as organised crime, not petty theft. The links between phone theft, fraud and even violent crime are well established. Police forces must be resourced and mandated to treat it with the seriousness it deserves. Secondly, we need stronger action from telecom providers and tech companies. Why are some phones still so easy to wipe clean and resell?

• 3 Jul 2025 · Phone Theft · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his informed contribution to the debate. I agree with him and the hon. Member for Brent East, who indicated that companies are not doing enough. It should be easy to disable phones so they are beyond use both in this country and abroad, and so the only value they have would be in the spare parts they contain. We need stronger action from telecoms providers and tech companies. They must put the protection of their customers’ data above profits from their customers having to buy the same or a similar replacement. Why are some phones easy to wipe and resell? Why are tracking systems so easy to disable? The Government must act to force companies to make tracking systems stronger and less easy to disable. Thirdly, we must support local policing. In Dewsbury and Batley, neighbourhood policing teams are overstretched, trying to deal with phone snatching, shoplifting and antisocial behaviour with limited boots on the ground. They deserve the tools, the people and the political will behind them to make our streets safer. Finally, we must support victims. Many cannot afford to replace their phone or reclaim their digital identity without support. Let us explore emergency tech funds or digital safety grants for vulnerable individuals and families. We live in a digital world in which stealing someone’s phone is tantamount to stealing their identity, their access to society and, for some, their only link to help. We must not stand by while our constituents are targeted, their privacy violated and their future interrupted. Let us act not just with concern, but with conviction.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  I stand here in support of the 6,020 WASPI women in my constituency and every single WASPI woman across the UK. I congratulate the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) on securing this crucial debate. I also thank her for her powerful and compelling speech, which clearly presented the case and evidence as well as the injustice that these women have suffered and the clear need to address it through the payment of compensation by implementing the recommendations of the ombudsman. Without wanting to repeat any of the points that have been made, I will read out some specific comments from my constituents in Dewsbury and Batley. Virginia, a constituent of mine, wrote to me just after I was elected: “I am absolutely devastated and I feel betrayed. For years, senior Labour representatives and even the Prime Minister himself pledged to deliver fair compensation to those impacted. They have now made a political choice to break that promise and to ignore the findings of an independent watchdog…The DWP got it wrong, and they cannot simply adopt a ‘pick and mix’ approach to which elements of an independent ombudsman’s conclusions they find convenient.” She went on to say: “Furthermore, in recent months, all pensioners losing their Winter Fuel Allowance have been written to directly. Why does the Government not feel this would have made a difference for WASPI women?” Another constituent, Ann, wrote: “I need to vent my frustration and anger at the Government’s announcement yesterday that they will not accept the Ombudsman’s recommendation to pay WASPI women some compensation for maladministration. They were in support of this whilst they were in opposition.” This decision is a complete betrayal and a breach of trust between this place and the people we represent, and it must be reversed. Ann went on to say: “The people making these decisions are in fortunate positions themselves but I was relying on their understanding and compassion for others who were less able to make up the c£48k which I reckon to have ‘lost’.” Paula wrote to me: “As you know, thousands of women living in Dewsbury were impacted. Many, including me, were left with little time to make alternative plans for their retirement and have been affected by this lack of notice ever since.” She raised a critical point, which was that she had no notification from the DWP at all until she wrote to it in 2006 asking for clarification. When it replied to say that she would be able to retire at 65, that came as a shock. In 2011, when an extra year was added, the DWP did not communicate that to her, either. In conclusion, as the hon. Member for Salford has clearly explained, the Government’s justification for not paying compensation is absolutely flawed. The argument that it is too costly or complex to provide compensation is untrue. As the ombudsman wrote in its findings, “finite resources should not be used as an excuse” to avoid “a fair remedy.” As such, I repeat the calls of Members from across the House for the Government to reverse their decision, bring a vote on compensation to this House, and engage in out-of-court talks with WASPI women.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that taking this step to ignore the findings of an ombudsman sets a really dangerous precedent that could be exploited by private companies and by Departments?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Just to reflect on the record of the previous Government, as of 2024, approximately 24% of the UK population—nearly 16 million people—were living in poverty. Between 2019-20 and 2022-23, an additional 2.1 million people were living in poverty. In the year to April 2024, before the Labour Government came into power, 4.45 million children, or 31% of children in the UK, were living in relative poverty. Will the right hon. Lady agree with me that the previous Tory Government failed a majority of the population, including disabled people and children?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will accept a Government who listen, adapt and change their approach in the light of new evidence put before them, so I would congratulate the Government on improving on the proposals. I really do not question the core intentions. Fourteen years of waste and mismanagement have led us to the point of having an unmanageable welfare state, and that absolutely must be assessed and improved, but that cannot be at the expense of support for the most vulnerable in our society. This Bill will impact not just on disabled people, but on carers. It slashes £500 million from carer’s allowance, which is the largest real-terms cut since the benefit was introduced in 1976. Carers save this country tens of billions of pounds through unpaid labour, and nearly half of them already live in poverty. Is this really the thanks that they deserve? It gets worse: if an existing claimant loses their PIP on reassessment, which happens all too frequently due to assessor errors, they will be treated as a new claimant and be subject to stricter rules. That includes anyone moving from DLA to PIP. That is punitive and regressive, and will erode trust in the entire system. We are told that there will be consultation, but what consultation happens when a Bill is pushed through in a single week without adequate scrutiny or engagement with those most affected? The principle of “Nothing about us without us” has been flagrantly ignored. We have heard from Scope that the extra cost of living with a disability is nearly £1,100 a month, which is not covered by PIP. That is expected to top £1,200 by 2029, yet under this Bill those same people will be expected to survive without the support they rely on. The Government expect disabled people to shoulder £15,000 in extra costs and to offer them less and less. The public see through this. Only 27% support these reforms, while nearly half of those surveyed believe that they will worsen the health of disabled people, and over half expect more pressure on the NHS. These cuts will make people sicker, more isolated and more dependent on an already overstretched service. The politics of this is damning, but it cannot be about politics—it must be about the people we are in this place to serve. I ask the Government to please go back, wait for the consultation to be completed, and then integrate the learnings and the feedback from the people affected so that this legislation makes a positive contribution to our society, not a negative one.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise not just with grave concern but with absolute conviction. I speak in support of the reasoned amendment tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and with a plea to the Government to pause, think, reflect and bring back something that will work for the betterment of disabled people. I am afraid to say it, but I have been saddened to hear disabled people being presented in a negative light throughout this debate, although not by all Members. Disabled people are not a burden on society; they are part of society, and they make an invaluable contribution to it. The support that they receive allows them to make that invaluable contribution. If this Bill passes, it will do unconscionable damage to disabled people, their carers and their families, who are already on the brink in this cost of living crisis. It will deepen poverty, increase hardship and undo decades of progress on social security. I urge the Government to withdraw it now and come back when it is fit for purpose. My independent alliance colleagues and I have been clear and consistent in saying that we are acutely aware of the devastation this Bill will cause. We have fought it and will fight it every step of the way until a Bill that is fit for purpose is before us. Today we are being asked to sign off on billions of pounds in cuts without any credible data. We have a moving target, as elements of the Bill that are published will no longer apply when it comes back to the House. We have heard the Department’s analysis that 150,000 people would be pushed into poverty, and maybe more than 20,000 children. Despite the talk of concessions that were rushed out and tweaks that were made, they do not change the core injustice. This Government want to create a two-tier welfare system in which today’s disabled people get help but tomorrow’s disabled people are discarded. New PIP claimants will have to pass a cruel new threshold to qualify for PIP compared with existing claimants. My question to the Secretary of State is: can she explain to my constituents who designed this four-point system? Who defined the criteria by which somebody would qualify or not qualify?

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Even celebrities such as Emma Raducanu, and others in the public eye who have been affected by stalkers, feel unsafe and unprotected by existing legislation. Does the hon. Member agree that is clear additional evidence that the law needs strengthening?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the inquiry and the investigation into who was responsible for helping this scourge to continue unabated, but does the right hon. Lady agree that the 20 recommendations of the Jay review urgently need to be implemented and that the inquiry should not delay the implementation of those recommendations?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Post-industrial Towns · Hansard source

  More

  The towns of my constituency, Dewsbury and Batley, lie at the heart of West Yorkshire’s heavy woollen district. We have a proud history of textiles, and we were the centre for recycled wool textiles called shoddy and mungo. Today, we are actually the UK’s capital, if not the European capital, of putting people to sleep—that is, making beds. However, there has been very little investment from Government to help the furniture industry in my constituency. Does the hon. Member agree that, as well as technological investments, the Government should look to revitalise the workforces and niche industries in all parts of our country and help them to expand, grow and overcome the Brexit barriers?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Disabled People in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  Talking of austerity, Kirklees council has been devastated by the cuts imposed on it by the previous Government. Some 18.9% of people in Kirklees are recorded as disabled. Does the hon. Member agree that taking away PIP from nearly 4,200 residents in my constituency will put an even greater burden on council services that are ill-equipped to bear it?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Genocide Convention: UK Compliance · Hansard source

  More

  Nearly a year ago, in an advisory opinion, the ICJ ruled Israel’s occupation of the Palestine territories unlawful. It clearly specified obligations on all states not to provide any economic, diplomatic, political or military support that helps to perpetuate that unlawful occupation. The UK Government’s assessment of the advisory opinion has not yet been published. Will the Minister advise us when that assessment will be published and whether he believes that the UK Government are in full compliance with the advisory opinion?

• 16 Jun 2025 · Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates · Hansard source

  More

  I think we should look at good practice elsewhere and at how other countries have transitioned away from these practices. I am not having a go at farmers at all, but I hope the Government will expedite their manifesto commitment to look at animal welfare and help farmers transition to a more humane system. Farm animals do not just feed us; they live their entire lives under farmers’ care—our care. I am sure we can all agree that care must mean more than simply the absence of cruelty, but even that we do not have. We cannot argue that it is a radical or long process, because alternatives are popping up and farms are taking initiative to move away from these practices without waiting for legislation. Although it is embarrassing that we are not leading the way, we can catch up and set a new standard for all, which would be met with little pushback as long as we had the appropriate Government support for our farmers. This debate must be the beginning of addressing intensive farming practices that strip animals of dignity in service of profit and drawing a line between industry and responsibility. If we want to be a country that preaches welfare, let us prove it: ban the cages and give animals a life that reflects the respect they deserve, not just as a means to an end, but as living beings entrusted to our care. This is not radical; it is responsible, it is compassion and it is necessary.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this important debate. The Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, said: “Whoever is kind to the creatures of God, he is kind to himself.” Caring for animals is not just an ethical issue in Islam; it is an act of worship to God. Mahatma Gandhi said: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” The way we treat farmed animals is not only our responsibility, but a reflection of our values and what we stand for in this country. Unfortunately, right now, the reflection I see is distorted, because despite all the proud talk about Britain’s leadership on animal welfare, millions of animals are still confined in cages and crates that violate the most basic standards of dignity and care. I rise in support of the petition, not just because of what it asks us to do—to ban cages for laying hens, farrowing crates for sows and individual pens for calves—but because of what it represents: a call for us to honour our moral duty to animals that feed us and often clothe us, and for which we consider ourselves caretakers. That call is echoed by my constituents in Dewsbury and Batley, who are deeply disturbed that, despite UK legislation that protects animals, practices such as the use of farrowing crates, enriched cages and calf pens remain legal in the UK. They are legal, but they are increasingly indefensible. Just because something is legal does not always mean it is right. Many highlight that after watching documentaries or seeing images, they are horrified by how our food industry treats animals throughout their lifetime, simply to make it easier to farm their produce. Recent footage from a Devon pig farm exposed by campaigners and reported by The G uardian shows sows trapped in crates so tightly that they cannot turn around, care properly for their piglets or even lie down in comfort. In that practice, the pig is reduced to a machine, treated as an object for the benefit of the food industry. That is a moral failing. Let us be clear: the farrowing crate is not an unfortunate glitch in a mostly humane system; it is the system itself, and it is built on a trade-off we no longer need to accept. We prioritise production over compassion, but public support is strong and nearly 75% of vets are concerned about the welfare impact of farrowing crates. What are we waiting for?

• 16 Jun 2025 · Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. I do not oppose farmers’ critical work to provide food for our country. I hope that the Government will push to speed up the transition by supporting the 8% of farmers who have already implemented new systems and supporting the other 92% to make the transition. As the petition highlights, this issue affects not just pigs, but birds and calves. One of the most shocking facts I came across while researching it is that hens are confined to cages that give them little more space than the size of an A4 sheet of paper. Imagine that! The RSPCA calls those cages “unacceptably restrictive” and companies like Waitrose, Sainsbury’s and McDonald’s have committed to change. If private businesses can do it, why have the Government not? Other countries are ahead of us; even in Scotland, a consultation on cages in farming practice has been launched. We must follow them. This is not just about discomfort; it is about denying animals the chance to express their natural behaviours—to peck, stretch, dust bathe or nest. It is about mothers being unable to care for their young and calves being kept alone, unable to bond or play. These are not just welfare issues; they are issues of dignity. They are about whether we accept a food system built on the routine suppression of life’s most basic instincts—even if it is an animal’s life.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates · Hansard source

  More

  It is a very difficult challenge, but, as has been mentioned, food produced elsewhere that is allowed to be imported needs to meet the standards that we follow in the UK. Cost cannot be a reason to compromise on the welfare of animals. I am keen to hear from the Minister how the Government will help farmers.

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The issue of palliative care has been raised across the House. We have been repeatedly told that this is not an either/or choice, but does the hon. Member agree that without world-class palliative care, that will force some patients down the assisted dying route, where otherwise they would have chosen better care?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Select Committee, the Chair and its members on the publication of the report. Which of the 10 tests ensure that business growth will be ethical, moral and responsible, and which of the tests protect the consumers, the public and the environment?

• 12 Jun 2025 · SEND Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this important debate. Given the limited time that has been allocated, I will speak about the state of SEND in my area and then suggest how the Government can address some of these challenges. The Dewsbury and Batley constituency sits in the authority of Kirklees, which ranks very low in terms of funding per child in the high-needs block of the dedicated schools grant. According to recent reports, Kirklees is the second worst funded council for high-needs funding per capita. Kirklees has nearly 9,600 disabled children and young people between the ages of nought and 24. Since 2016, there has been a real-terms spending cut of £717,000 on services for disabled children in Kirklees. Given the lack of funding, it is not surprising that in June 2022 a joint SEND inspection by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission reported two priority areas of action, which, as far as I am aware, are still unresolved. Without the necessary funding, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the council to address these challenges. In Kirklees, one in eight EHCPs were processed within the 20-week legal timescale, compared with the national average of 50%, making it one of the worst rates nationally. Kirklees is part of the Department for Education’s safety valve programme, which helps local authorities with their SEND deficits, but that may pressure councils to limit EHCPs, adding barriers for families seeking essential support for their children. I completely agree that the Government’s plans for major SEND reforms are necessary and overdue. However, current rumours and media leaks have alarmed many families. The Disabled Children’s Partnership, which represents 130-plus charities, royal colleges and parent groups and supports early intervention, has warned that reforms must not disrupt current placements or support arrangements; they must not remove EHCPs for children with complex or unmet needs; they must not abolish the SEND tribunal, which is a vital legal safeguard; they must not remove support after the age of 18 before young people are ready; and they must not redefine SEND in ways that narrow eligibility.

• 12 Jun 2025 · SEND Funding · Hansard source

  More

  Statistics published today by the Government show that there are more than 482,000 children with ECHPs but 1.284 million children without ECHPs who require SEND support. Although the £750 million is welcome, does the hon. Member agree that it is a drop in the ocean and that the Government need to invest more?

• 12 Jun 2025 · SEND Funding · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a really important point about early intervention. The current funding models respond only to high-level need and EHCPs, which leads to an over-reliance on costly EHCPs and new special school places. Does she agree that we should look to allocate a ringfenced proportion of the high-needs funding to early intervention in mainstream schools?