Iqbal Mohamed MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

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

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for his personal efforts to achieve some justice, and for the attempts to get aid into Palestine and Gaza in order to save lives. However, as a new Member, I have been coming to the Chamber for 11 months, riding on the coat-tails of many right hon. and hon. Members who have gone before me, and who are here today, who have been fighting for this cause for many years before I arrived. We have heard only words and rhetoric from the Government; there has been no meaningful action to save lives, beyond the aid that was allowed in earlier. What steps are the Government taking to finally get aid into Gaza, so that we can save the babies, the starving children, the mothers and all of humanity? Otherwise, tens of thousands of people will no longer be here in a few days’ time.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Non-stun Slaughter of Animals · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I am also an animal lover, and it is really important to put that on the record. I think everybody in this room would be happy to be described as an animal lover. However, we are omnivores, and some of us eat meat. As a Muslim, I will only eat meat that has undergone slaughter using the traditional Islamic halal method. The rhetoric around non-stunned slaughter, and the way this debate is being framed in Parliament today, are deeply concerning not just to me, but to other Members, to organisations and to many of my constituents. I care about animal welfare, which is the supposed topic of the debate, but I am equally disturbed by the undertone—a title dressed as a welfare concern, but sounding like a dog whistle for xenophobia, targeting religious practices, particularly those of Jewish and Muslim communities. The methods of slaughter we are discussing are long-standing practices already regulated by clear legislation. Previous Governments have ensured that safeguards are in place to protect animal welfare during religious slaughter. So why are we having this conversation again, if not to stigmatise kosher and halal traditions? The claim in the petition that non-stun slaughter does not reflect our culture or modern values is not just inaccurate; it is worryingly exclusionary and divisive. It shows a lack of understanding of why these practices exist and how they are monitored. Let us make this conversation what it should be: about learning and inclusion. As the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) said, many people may not realise that both halal and kosher slaughter practices are centred around minimising suffering. They require the animal to be alive and healthy at the time of slaughter. Animals must not be shown the implement with which they will be slaughtered. They should not be in the presence of other animals that are being slaughtered. If that is not humane, I do not know what is. A sharp knife is used to make a swift incision, cutting key arteries and the windpipe, but not the spinal cord, causing rapid unconsciousness and minimal pain. Evidence shows that when done properly—the key word here is “properly”; I am a proponent of halal and kosher slaughter done in the proper way—kosher and halal methods can be as humane as stun slaughter, if not more so. In fact, if we flip the narrative, mistakes in stunning can cause suffering and expose animals to bad welfare in pre-slaughter handling, or cause pain and fear. We have heard how halal and kosher slaughter are performed. In the UK, the main methods used to stun an animal before slaughter include penetrating captive bolts, which are used on cattle, sheep and some pigs. A gun fires a metal bolt through the skull into the brain, causing unconsciousness after excruciating pain. In electrical stunning, which is used on sheep, calves and pigs, an electric current is passed through the brain, temporarily rendering the animal unconscious, but not always. Chickens are often stunned before slaughter using an electrical water bath, which involves shackling the birds upside down and passing them through a bath of electrified water. Does that sound humane to anyone in this room? It does not sound humane to me. We have already heard about gas stunning and killing, which is primarily used for pigs and some poultry. Animals are exposed to mixtures of gases, such as carbon dioxide, that cause unconsciousness and eventually death. Each of those stunning methods can lead to the death of the animal, and the eating of a dead animal by Jewish and Muslim believers is not permissible. This is not a simple “stun good, not-stun bad” issue. It is far more complex and should be centred around good and well-monitored practice. Assuming that there is only one ethical way to slaughter an animal is not science; it is imposition, and it does not reflect the values of a pluralistic society. To claim that halal and kosher practices are outside of “our” culture is a dangerous path—one that risks vilifying communities under the guise of animal welfare. If we are talking about welfare, let us talk about factory farming. Are the same concerns being raised about that industry, which still allows animals to live in cages, to be mass culled and to suffer through profit-driven systems from birth to death? Despite the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and subsequent legislation, certain intensive farming practices are still legal and widely used. One is enriched cages for hens. Although barren battery cages were banned in 2012, around 28% of the UK’s laying hens are still kept in enriched cages, which severely restrict natural behaviours. Another is farrowing crates for sows, which prevent mother pigs from turning around or interacting properly with their piglets.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Non-stun Slaughter of Animals · Hansard source

  More

  We in this place must drive our society to move away from divisive rhetoric, hurtful behaviours, racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia. Any attempts to bring them to the fore should be challenged, and communities should be protected. Another practice that is allowed is the use of individual calf pens. Young calves can be kept in isolation for weeks, which can cause stress and developmental issues. All the practices I have mentioned are legal under current UK law, but are increasingly seen as inhumane by animal welfare advocates. Many of my constituents in Dewsbury and Batley have written to me in support of the RSPCA’s campaign to end cages that restrict an animal’s movement for life. Why are we not debating that? These are not questions of belief; these are clear, systemic welfare violations, undisputed and urgent. Yet, here we are instead scrutinising faith-based practices rooted in ethics and compassion. This debate must not become a platform to demonise or criminalise. If we truly care about welfare, we must look at the bigger picture: intensive farming, mass culling, corporate cruelty, the prevalence of illegal fox hunting, and the importing and selling of fur products, which is still permitted. That is where the real, meaningful change lies.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Non-stun Slaughter of Animals · Hansard source

  More

  On CCTV and enforcement of existing humane slaughter processes, does the hon. Member agree that the Government must ensure that there are adequate resources for inspectors’ visits and audits of abattoirs so that the right level of treatment of animals is maintained?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Non-stun Slaughter of Animals · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 20 May 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, welcome the statement from the Foreign Secretary and the change in tone. However, I am disappointed to note that the actions announced relate to new trade deals. Last week was the 77th anniversary of the Nakba—Arabic for catastrophe—which commemorates the murder of over 15,000 Palestinians and the illegal forced displacement of more than 750,000 Palestinians from their homes during the establishment of the state of Israel. The Nakba was not a one-time historical event. It accelerated a process of dispossession, erasure, violence and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people which began under British colonial rule. The current genocide in Gaza is just the latest in that process. Will the Foreign Secretary now take this opportunity, on the 77th anniversary of the Nakba and amid the ongoing starvation of 2 million people today, to end all existing military, economic and diplomatic support for Israel as a matter of legal obligation, to ensure that the UK is no longer complicit in Israel’s great violations of international law?

• 19 May 2025 · Legal Aid Agency: Cyber-security Incident · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her statement. She is absolutely right. I join the Opposition in condemning the criminals who perpetrated this attack. She has already explained what constituents who may be impacted should do, and I will not ask her to repeat that, but can she assure this House that the learnings from this cyber-attack are already being applied across Government and the public sector? If extra steps are required to access legal aid or process payments by legal aid providers, will the providers be compensated accordingly?

• 19 May 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member mentions support for the person needing help—to help themselves, and also to help society. Does he agree that more and more people are getting into situations where they do not feel that they are being helped, and that they just feel incarcerated and restricted?

• 19 May 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Before I begin, I want to pay tribute to right hon. and hon. Members for their extremely informed, personal and moving speeches in support of the positive elements of the Bill, and for making extremely important, constructive suggestions about how to make it even better than it is. I stand today to speak in strong support of the Bill, and the urgent and long overdue reform of our mental health legislation. The Mental Health Act 1983, now 40 years old, was designed for a different era. While it has provided a legal framework for detaining and treating individuals in crisis, it no longer reflects our modern understanding of mental illness, patient rights or best clinical practice. As we have heard, the Act governs both civil patients and those involved in the criminal justice system, and it includes powers such as community treatment orders, but it is clear that the system it underpins is no longer fit for purpose. The need for reform is stark and obvious. Patients detained under the Act often have little say in their treatment or about who is involved in their care. As we have heard, racial disparities are deeply entrenched, with black or black British people 3.5 times more likely to be detained and 11 times more likely to be placed under a community treatment order. The journey towards reform began with the 2018 independent review, led by Sir Simon Wessely, which identified rising detention rates, poor patient experience and systemic disadvantages for people with learning disabilities and autism. A draft Bill followed in 2023, and I commend the Government for taking forward the proposed Bill. Each year, approximately 54,000 individuals are detained under the Mental Health Act. Alarmingly, as I have mentioned, black individuals are nearly four times more likely to be detained and 11 times more likely to be placed under a CTO. Furthermore, nearly 1,000 young people are detained annually, yet over half report that their hospital stay did not aid their recovery. These statistics are not just numbers; they are a call to action. There are serious concerns about the treatment of people with learning disabilities and autism. While the Bill rightly ends inappropriate detentions under section 3 of the Mental Health Act when there is no co-occurring mental illness, the delay in implementation due to the lack of resources raises fears of criminalisation, misdiagnoses, and exclusion from aftercare. We need a fully costed plan, with clear targets and accountability, to support this vulnerable group. Mind, the leading mental health charity, has identified a further three critical areas in which the Bill must go further. The first is tackling racial disparities. The disproportionate detention of black individuals under the current Act is a glaring injustice. The Bill must include measures to reduce this disparity, such as limits on the use of community treatment orders, and the introduction of a “responsible person” to oversee treatment decisions. Additionally, a statutory duty to monitor and report on progress against these inequalities is essential. I therefore support the creation of a dedicated role to monitor and act on racial disparities in detention and treatment. Secondly, the principle of least restriction is central to the Bill, yet it remains aspirational; there are no enforceable rights. Patients should have a statutory right to assessments and treatment, the ability to appeal treatment decisions, and expanded access to advocacy services. These rights are about not just legal protection, but respecting the dignity and autonomy of individuals facing mental health challenges. Thirdly, young people detained under the Mental Health Act often find themselves without adequate support or a voice in decisions about their care. The Bill must include a transparent decision-making test, tailored for children and young people, to ensure that their best interests are at the forefront of all treatment decisions. There should also be safeguards and the standardisation of advance choice documents. The Government say that the implementation timelines could be up to a decade, but I urge them to implement each element of the Bill as soon as is practically possible. This Bill is very welcome, and this is a pivotal moment in the history of mental health care in our country. It is a huge step forward, but it could go further. To truly transform mental health care, we must ensure that the legislation is not only progressive in its intentions, but robust in its protections. We have the opportunity to create a system that upholds the rights, dignity and humanity of every individual. Let us therefore not pass up this chance to make all the necessary changes. Let us amend this Bill to reflect the values of equality, autonomy and respect, and take this once-in-a-generation opportunity to build a fit-for-purpose mental health system that is fairer, more compassionate and more effective. I urge the Government to take this opportunity to address the gaps, take heed of the recommendations and concerns, and make the Bill right and proper.

• 19 May 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State give way?

• 19 May 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  As well as NHS funding for direct mental health services, does the hon. Lady agree that we should invest in preventive steps to help children to avoid the mental health anguish that they are suffering today?

• 19 May 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Secretary of State raises an important point about resources. The updated impact assessment estimates that the cost of reform is £5.3 billion. With the Secretary of State having confirmed that mental health spending is falling as a share of NHS expenditure from 9.01% to 8.73%, does the shadow Secretary of State agree that without legislative safeguards to protect mental health funding, the Bill may not achieve the aims it sets out to achieve?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that one of the greatest risks in this Bill is around coercion? It is not just about coercion from family members or friends, but about societal coercion and circumstances. The current state of palliative care in our country is among the worst in the developed world. Without adequate palliative care, patients might feel pressure to go down the assisted dying route instead.

• 15 May 2025 · Gavi and the Global Fund · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member talks about vaccine inequality in women and girls, but would she agree that the global Gavi programme helps to address the inequalities that people face? During the covid pandemic, it was clearly reported that richer and more affluent countries had priority for vaccines when compared with low and middle-income countries. Gavi is essential to help to perpetuate equality.

• 15 May 2025 · Gavi and the Global Fund · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 15 May 2025 · Gavi and the Global Fund · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that even before the devastating cuts to UK foreign aid, there was instability in funding for global vaccination programmes? We have already heard that over 1.5 million children die from preventable diseases. Does he agree that the reduction in UK foreign aid will have a devastating impact on the ability to provide vaccines to these children, and will end up costing lives?

• 15 May 2025 · Gavi and the Global Fund · Hansard source

  More

  Before I came to this place, I worked in the pharmaceutical industry in safety, efficacy and regulatory compliance. Does the hon. Member agree that the leadership role that the UK has played to date is not just limited to financial contributions and support, but has ensured that the vaccines that are rolled out in third world and low and middle-income countries are as safe as they can be?

• 15 May 2025 · Gavi and the Global Fund · Hansard source

  More

  Gavi relies heavily on philanthropic foundations, notably the Gates Foundation, but there are concerns that they may have a disproportionate influence on setting the priorities for global vaccine programmes. Does the right hon. Lady agree that any reduction or pulling back of the UK’s support of those programmes could exacerbate those concerns?

• 15 May 2025 · Sanctions Implementation and Enforcement · Hansard source

  More

  The UK rightly has imposed sanctions on Russia for its illegal invasion of Ukraine and on Putin for war crimes. The UK has imposed sanctions on officials in Syria for breaches of international humanitarian law, for targeting hospitals, schools and aid convoys and for obstructing humanitarian aid, as well as for the use of chemical weapons and the indiscriminate bombing of civilians. How do the Government therefore justify the absence of similar sanctions on senior members of the Israeli Government, when there is clear evidence of Israel perpetrating the same violations? What actions have the UK Government taken to comply with their obligations specified in the International Court of Justice advisory opinion from July 2024 to withdraw all political, economic and diplomatic support that helps perpetuate Israel’s unlawful occupation of Palestine?

• 15 May 2025 · Coroner Services: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  The lack of resources and coroners across the country has a knock-on effect on the NHS. There is an additional administrative and logistical burden from holding bodies and dealing with families who are getting in contact every hour, many times. That takes staff away from frontline services. Does the hon. Member agree that having the right level of coroner services would reduce the burden of knock-on costs on the NHS?

• 15 May 2025 · Coroner Services: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  One way that we in Dewsbury and Batley try to overcome this restriction—a rule I also could not understand—is by working with our not-for-profit and charitable funeral services, especially in religious communities. Organisations such as Fisabilillah and Sadaqah Jariyah build a relationship with the coroner to try to facilitate communication with families who reach out to MPs. Does the hon. Member agree that these organisations in communities should be congratulated and thanked for their service, and that the communication channel he speaks of should be formalised and made permissible?

• 15 May 2025 · Coroner Services: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  To reduce the burden and time it takes for post-mortems, does the Minister agree that we should use technology, and MRI and CT scans, wherever possible, which will also speed up the release of the body?

• 14 May 2025 · Gaza: UK Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has stated that the legality of the UK’s F-35 exports is currently being tested in the courts. In the High Court, the Government have made submissions that “No evidence has been seen that Israel is deliberately targeting civilian women or children”, and that there is “also evidence of Israel making efforts to limit incidental harm to civilians.” If the Government need to be shown evidence that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians, I suggest the Minister and his colleagues review the footage captured by the BBC of yesterday’s bombing of Gaza’s European hospital, the footage emerging from the Nasser hospital, the millions of hours of livestreamed footage available since 7 October, or the thousands of reports and articles published since. The past 18 months have seen a total war on all of Gaza, with acts of ethnic cleansing and extermination, according to the UN. Does the UK deny the existence of that evidence, and if so, have the Government committed perjury?

• 14 May 2025 · Ministerial Code: Compliance · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for her urgent question. The people of Britain have lost faith in politics and politicians. It is really important that what we do in this place, since the Labour Government came to power and from this day forward, is aimed at rebuilding that trust. What reassurance will the Minister give me, other Members of this House and our electorate that the Government will not deliberately or knowingly breach the ministerial code going forward?

• 14 May 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following on from the point of order made by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the comments made against him were absolutely disgusting and disrespectful. The words we use in this place can have direct consequences on the outside and impact on the security of Members. What steps can be taken to hold Members to account for the language that they use in this place, so that debate is respectful at all times?