Iqbal Mohamed MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Culture, Media And Sport · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the investment that the Minister has already announced. In Dewsbury, our leisure centre and swimming pool were closed in September 2023, and have stood there, with no repairs or survey. Will she meet me to discuss what the Government can do to help reopen them? Maybe they could have some of the £400 million. The youth in my community are asking, “What can we do during the summer holidays?”

• 30 Jun 2026 · Antisemitism: University Campuses · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that people who are trying to divide us will sometimes pit one community against another, and where one community is being rightly and legitimately supported, they will try to weaponise that in another community and create friction? Does he also agree that the steps taken by the Government can be replicated across communities, and that communities and leaders in each of the discriminated-against communities should work together so that the support cannot be weaponised?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Legacy of Jo Cox · Hansard source

  More

  May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work? Before I came to this place, I did not follow many politicians, I am sorry to say, but I did follow the hon. Lady and a few like her who have always been an absolute rock and the strongest champion for the rights not just of women but of any person who has been the target of abuse or suffered at the hands of others. I wanted to put that on the record. There are sections in this House and in the community who say that hate speech online or in person is not as important to investigate as real crimes—burglaries, violence and other crimes we have seen this week. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is not an either/or? We have to tackle all crimes across our society, and tackling hate speech will hopefully reduce the level of violent crime that we see on our streets.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Improving the UK Visa System · Hansard source

  More

  On those tests, does the shadow Minister agree that the historical role played by the British Council in various countries across the world to support a more rigorous assessment should be reconsidered to play a role in this?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Small Towns: Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this important debate. This is a broad subject, but I will focus on bus services, because in my Dewsbury and Batley constituency and others like it, buses are quite simply the backbone of everyday life. For many constituents, especially those on lower incomes, buses are not optional but essential. They are how people get to work, to places of education, to hospital appointments and to see family and friends. When those services decline, the opportunity to live a full, happy and healthy life declines with them. Bus services in Dewsbury and Batley, and across wider West Yorkshire, have undergone a sustained 20-year decline, driven by operator withdrawals, rising costs, driver shortages and reduced post-covid numbers. The pattern is one of progressive route cuts, increased reliance on emergency subsidies and shrinking commercial viability. Nothing illustrates the fragility of the system more clearly than the ongoing instability among local operators. The significant cuts by Arriva across West Yorkshire, rightly described by Mayor Brabin as “appalling”, are the result of a failing business model managed by overseas owners who appear to have little regard for the needs of our communities. Cuts to Arriva bus services between Dewsbury in my constituency and Wakefield in the Minister’s constituency have had a huge impact. The 205 between Dewsbury, Morley and Pudsey has been cut, as has the 117 from Ossett to Leeds—the list is endless. Another failure is that of Yorkshire Buses, which operated services across West Yorkshire but has ceased trading entirely, citing a “continued rise in costs” that made the business “no longer sustainable”. The consequences are immediate and real. Services across the region have been affected, including bus routes across my constituency. The system needs long-term stability, not constant crisis management. I thank the West Yorkshire Mayor and the West Yorkshire combined authority for stepping in to provide emergency transport when companies go under, but this is not sustainable. I will conclude my remarks by asking the Minister three questions. What steps will the Government take to ensure that small towns such as Dewsbury and Batley are prioritised in national transport policy, rather than left behind? Will the Government commit to providing sustained, reliable revenue funding for bus services so that routes can operate frequently and dependably, rather than closing constantly? What specific action will be taken to reverse the long-term decline in bus use, particularly among elderly and disabled passengers?

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  On indefinite leave to remain, on the journey down from my constituency today, I spoke to the private hire driver. He is on a visa that requires renewal every two and a half years. He will have to do that renewal four times before he is eligible for indefinite leave to remain. He is not really complaining about that, but about the council not allowing him to continue working when his visa is up for renewal and he sends away his documents to be processed. Would the hon. Member agree that that should be looked at, and that there should not be any unintended consequences of that process?

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to start by associating myself with the remarks made by Mr Speaker about how we should conduct ourselves in this place: with kindness, compassion and respect, even when we disagree. I will quote Jalaluddin Rumi, a Muslim Sufi philosopher, who said: “Before you speak, let your words pass through three gates. Is it true? Is it necessary? Is it kind?” I believe that if we all followed that principle here, in the other place and in our country, we would be more united and compassionate to each other. I join Members across the House in paying tribute to the absolutely amazing speeches by the hon. Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Harlow (Chris Vince). They spoke generously about their constituencies, and I intend to do the same, although as an independent Member I will do so without the burden of a Whip. Having said that, I am not sure that colleagues on the Government Benches feel particularly burdened by the Whip at the moment either. I mention the lack of a Whip behind me, but that is the furthest thing from a complaint. The people of Dewsbury and Batley provided me an explicit instruction in 2024, when they returned the first independent MP to Yorkshire in more than a century, and they doubled down on that message last Thursday. Across five wards out of six on Kirklees council that I represent, 11 out of 15 elected councillors are independents. In this election, the people showed that voting for an independent is not a protest vote, but a real alternative to failed party politics. The two-party system is well and truly finished, and I will not mourn its demise if it means that we get more legislators who pick constituents over their party Whip or their rich corporate donors.

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making an extremely eloquent speech. Does she agree that people are sick and tired of living in towns that just look dirty? They are not cleaned or maintained, and sports clubs do not even get the grass on their fields cut. The basic requirement for having pride in our towns and cities is for a council to be funded so that it can do the basics of keeping the streets clean and cutting the grass so that people can play sport.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent and serious speech. Does he agree that, in addition to fossil fuels, local government pension schemes are exposed to industries and assets that our constituents rightly consider deeply unethical? They include tobacco companies, arms producers that are complicit in genocide, and other companies that are exploiting nature or our constituents for profit. Does he agree that there should be an ethical investment policy that covers all unethical investments?

• 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

  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.

• 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?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Rough Sleeping: Families with Children · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing this important debate. I will repeat and add to a couple of points that we have already heard. It is not an unfortunate inevitability but a national disgrace that, in one of the wealthiest countries on Earth, families with children are still being pushed into homelessness and, in some cases, on to the streets. We are a country with immense resources and capacity to solve problems—one that spends tens of billions of pounds on weapons every year, and that has just opened Crossrail, the Elizabeth line, after one of Europe’s largest construction projects—yet we cannot guarantee that every child in this country has a safe and secure roof over their head when they go to sleep at night. That is a fundamentally moral contradiction, and it should weigh heavily on all of us, as parliamentarians with the collective power to change that status quo. The statistics alone paint a bleak picture. In autumn 2025, an estimated 4,793 people were sleeping rough on a single night in England: a record high, and a 171% increase since 2010. We must remember that the figure, which is a snapshot of just one night, is widely acknowledged to have been undercounted. Even more shockingly, recent reports suggest that families with young children have been forced to sleep rough after being refused emergency local authority accommodation, in direct contravention of the law. As we know, children in temporary accommodation are still classed as homeless, and the numbers show that over 175,000 children are currently homeless in temporary accommodation. Based on the most recent council-level data, as of June 2025 more than 600 children were living in temporary accommodation in Kirklees, where my Dewsbury and Batley constituency sits. These children are part of the around 375 family households in Kirklees in temporary accommodation as of March 2025. That temporary accommodation is costing Kirklees between £7 million and £8 million, which is money that could be better spent providing other public services. Recent reports have shockingly suggested that families with young children are being forced to sleep rough after being refused emergency local authority accommodation, despite that being in direct contravention of the law. If families are reaching the point where they are unable to prevent their children from sleeping on the streets, in cars or anywhere else not designed for human habitation, then something in the system is clearly broken and the state is failing in its most basic obligations to its citizens. One constituent, who has been contacting me regularly over the past several weeks, is a single mother with three children, one of whom has autism and asthma. The council has been unable to provide suitable accommodation for her and her children, and she has been sleeping in her car for the past several weeks. Her car is now uninhabitable, as it has been written off. She has been forced to accept temporary bed and breakfast accommodation. It is not suitable for her children, but she has nowhere else to go. I am sure that Kirklees is doing everything it can to help the family, but given the lack of resources and the lack of adequate family social housing, such examples are not as rare as they should be.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Rough Sleeping: Families with Children · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right. We all pay tribute to all the charities across the country, including the one in her constituency, that are stepping in to help people in times of desperate need, when Government and councils have not been able to provide the necessary support. I pay tribute to all those charities, but they should not have to step in to provide the basic necessities for children and families in our country. Part of the failure undoubtedly lies with the immense financial pressures facing local authorities. Councils across the country are struggling to meet their duties to house those at risk of homelessness, including children, because of skyrocketing costs, limited housing supply and shockingly overstretched budgets. The cost of temporary accommodation alone has placed extraordinary financial strain on local government, with councils now covering more than half of those costs themselves, according to a recent analysis by the Institute for Government. I see the consequences of this crisis at first hand in my constituency, where housing and homelessness are among the issues most frequently raised by my constituents. My office regularly hears from families who are on the brink of losing their homes and from people facing unfair evictions, struggling with rising rents or desperately seeking emergency accommodation at a time of unimaginable crisis. Increasingly, we see that these are not isolated individuals, but families with children who are living with the constant fear of having nowhere to go. Local authorities want to help, but they are operating with limited resources in the face of overwhelming demand. Another shocking incident, reported by local media at the start of this year, is that a single mum of three, including a 12-year-old daughter with cancer, has been housed by my local authority in a one-bedroom flat with damp and mould for the past two years, after a no-fault eviction by a private landlord who wanted to sell their property. Such stories mean that we must be honest about the scale of the challenge facing us and the requisite ambition to adequately address it. I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that no local authority unlawfully refuses emergency accommodation to families with children, and how will compliance with the statutory duties be monitored? Secondly, what additional financial support will be provided to councils that are struggling with the costs of temporary accommodation? Finally, what specific measures within the Government’s homelessness strategy are targeted at preventing families with children from ever reaching the point of rough sleeping in the first place? Ultimately, this debate is about the kind of country we want to be. A society that allows children to sleep on the streets is a society that has lost sight of its most basic humanity. Ending rough sleeping among families is not simply a policy challenge, it is a moral imperative, and one that this Parliament must treat with the urgency it deserves.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Town and City Centre Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that empty shops and buildings in town centres are a draw for nefarious activities, with people squatting or committing crimes from those places. I encourage the Government to look at that. The recent announcement of business rate cuts will help certain businesses, but that should be extended across all town centre businesses. On Sunday, thieves brazenly stole the 129-year-old mayoral chains from Dewsbury’s town hall, having climbed in through the roof. Constituents tell me that they no longer feel safe shopping, or even leaving home after dark. These are not abstract statistics; they are lived realities that have major ramifications for an individual’s quality of life. The decline of visible neighbourhood policing and the hollowing out of council services and youth centres have played a significant role in this deplorable state of affairs. Those changes were not inexorable certainties, but a conscious political programme of austerity. That is why I welcome the Government’s renewed emphasis on neighbourhood policing, including dedicated antisocial behaviour leads and guaranteed patrols in towns. In Dewsbury, we have seen the emergence of a new town centre team. Those initiatives matter: visibility matters. Nationally, the challenge is stark: shoplifting is at record levels, phone snatching rose by 153% in a single year and abuse of retail workers is escalating. The Crime and Policing Bill contains some welcome measures, but legislation alone will not rebuild public confidence. Town centre safety requires a holistic approach—policing, youth services, urban design, transport, economic regeneration and more must work together. Ultimately, crime is a threat not just to security, but to democratic trust. Safer town centres are not just a policing objective; they are a democratic necessity. If we want people to believe in our towns, institutions and democracy, we must start by ensuring that they feel safe on our streets.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. Last week I held a meeting with the Nigerian community in my constituency. Around 30 workers were present, many of whom work intolerably long hours performing vital tasks for scandalously low pay in the healthcare and social care sectors. These people are scared: they are scared that the state will arbitrarily deprive them of their security and their ability to plan for the future with any certainty. One of those individuals—her name is Uzoamaka—wrote to me outlining her concerns. Uzoamaka came to our country in 2022, and works in the NHS. She wrote: “I am an immigrant, a taxpayer, a worker, and a human being. But the new immigration white paper strips me and others like me of dignity, stability, and belonging”, She goes on to say that proposals to extend indefinite leave to remain “to make someone live in limbo for ten years, despite working hard and paying taxes, is cruelty in slow motion. Ten years of exclusion, from a future. This is not about integration. It is about humiliation.” How can a Labour Administration who profess to care about social justice participate in such performative barbarity against immigrants—a group already vilified in the media and subject to acute marginalisation in wider society? As Uzoamaka writes: “this entire system treats immigrants as disposable tools. We are good enough to pay into the NHS, but not to benefit from it. We are needed but never welcomed.” Similarly, a proposal that workers could still qualify after five years if they earn over £50,000 is “a gatekeeping tool. Most healthcare assistants, carers, cleaners, and laboratory technicians will never meet this bar. Yet we clap for them, we depend on them, we call them key workers. Now we discard them.”

• 28 Jan 2026 · Local Authority Children’s Services · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for securing this important debate and for his passionate and heartfelt speech. I want to begin by acknowledging that Kirklees council has improved significantly since previous inspections. The most recent inspection in 2024 judged it as good overall for children’s services, and it has been allocated extra funding in 2026-27 to try and address some of the findings. However, the message to the Government is that the councils that have done all they can to get from requires improvement to good need extra support in funding and resources to then go and push further to get to outstanding. Today, I want to focus on one area that may not otherwise be raised. We have heard that the pressures on local authorities are intense and growing. In Dewsbury and Batley, around 300 children are being raised in kinship care—cared for by grandparents, aunts, uncles or close friends who step in during moments of crisis. Alongside that, over 100 children are currently in local authority care in Kirklees. Importantly, Kirklees has lower numbers of looked after children than many of our neighbouring councils, reflecting long-standing preventive approaches and sustained investment in early help and family support. We also have a higher proportion of children able to remain with their extended families, with greater use of special guardianship orders, which we know significantly improve outcomes for children. Kinship carers in particular provide a vital service in offering continuity, familiarity and love at a time of upheaval. Yet too often, they do so with insufficient support. Across Yorkshire and Humber, almost half of kinship carers rate the support they receive from local authorities as poor or very poor. Alarmingly, 12% say they may not be able to continue caring for their kinship children in the next year if circumstances do not improve. That will put almost 2,000 children at risk of entering formal care in Yorkshire and Humber. That is not just a human tragedy, but also a financial one. Evidence shows that, for every 100 children supported in well-resourced kinship care rather than local authority care, the state saves £4 million a year, while improving long-term outcomes for those children. Nationally, children’s social care reforms are widely welcomed and have been shaped by the expertise of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services. The renewed focus on multi-agency family support, early intervention and prevention is particularly welcome. The proposed investment, through the Families First Partnership programme and wider reforms, has the potential to make a real difference, strengthening our ability to help families stay together where safe, deploy evidence-based interventions and deliver high-quality social care. But reform must be matched with sustained funding and genuine cross-Government co-ordination alongside real, sustained support on the ground. That means investing in early intervention, strengthening kinship care support, improving placement sufficiency and ensuring joined-up working across services. My final point to the Minister is that, in the first year of being an MP, I raised the automatic off-rolling of children after 20 days of absence without authorisation. That really needs to be looked at—there needs to be a formal meeting and a review of why that child was out before just off-rolling them, because that can create safeguarding issues.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Warm Homes Plan · Hansard source

  More

  The Labour-run Kirklees council failed to apply for the first round of Government warm homes local grants last year. In a cost of living crisis, that is an unforgiveable abdication of duty and a total failure by Labour councillors, resulting in a loss of between £1.5 million and £7 million that was secured by neighbouring authorities. I welcome the Government’s warm homes plan, but will the Secretary of State confirm that the cost of the plan will not be added to monthly household bills? Under the previous Government, my constituents were left with incomplete, dangerous and ineffective installations that they had to pay thousands to remove. Will he ensure that they will not be faced with the same issue?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned speech about Yorkshire Water, which also serves Dewsbury and Batley. In 2024, there were at least 346 sewage dumps in local waterways in Dewsbury and Batley, lasting over 1,000 hours. That equals 1.5 months of continuous sewage discharge. Discharges around Batley beck, the River Calder and the River Spen are blighting our waterways and our community. In addition, sewage is backing up into streets and people’s homes because of a failure to maintain pipes or design the system correctly. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that water companies have been getting away with almost murder for too long and must be held accountable? Customers must not have to pay any longer for their failings and their profiteering.

• 20 Jan 2026 · ADHD Diagnosis · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for securing this important debate. Delays and problems relating to ADHD diagnosis are not just a marginal administrative issue, but a profound failure of our system to meet medical needs early, effectively and equitably. For too many children and adults, long waits for diagnosis can negatively shape their entire life trajectory, harming their educational attainment, mental health, employment prospects and personal relationships. NHS estimates suggest that 2.5 million people in England have ADHD, including nearly half a million children and young people, yet demand continues to vastly outstrip capacity. In September 2025, over 60% of both adults and children had been waiting more than a year for an ADHD assessment. In my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley, Rachel reached out to me rightly outraged at an 18-month wait for ADHD assessment, with Kirklees council working through a backlog from November 2022. Another constituent, Laura, has spoken about her difficulty accessing medication even after diagnosis. The pressure on councils has been increasing on all fronts, with funding decreasing at the same time over the 14 years of the previous Government. I am not blaming the councils, but they do need support.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that council-approved, community-organised events bring people together. Those who are going know what they are going to, and any pets that will be affected can be kept away from that area for that period. The timing of those displays is also critical. There should be a watershed, whereby fireworks are allowed beyond a certain time of day. I fully support the hon. Member’s acknowledgment of the role of councils in helping communities to enjoy fireworks in a responsible and less damaging way. We have heard that fireworks can be equally distressing for people, including veterans with PTSD, autistic and neurodivergent individuals, young children and the elderly. For those people, loud and unexpected noise can provoke severe anxiety. Worse still are the routinely reported cases of emergency workers being attacked with fireworks. Those impacts are not confined to a single night, but repeated over weeks and months, creating prolonged periods of stress. The harms that emerge from fireworks are not hypothetical—they are recurring, predictable and preventable. The petitions do not call for some totalitarian overreach by the state by pushing for an outright ban. They recognise the cultural importance of fireworks in bringing communities together, but rightfully argue that public access, in its current form, is outdated and irresponsible. There was an incident in my constituency during the last bonfire night—well, not a night; it is more like weeks—when a firework rocket had been let off at the wrong angle and pierced the windscreen of a parked car. Thankfully, nobody was hurt, but the rocket was lodged in the windscreen. I do not know what the owner’s insurance company said about that, but that could have been a child, a human being or an animal, and the results would have been catastrophic. Other European countries have introduced more stringent restrictions, leading to fewer injuries and continued public support. Even within the UK, Scotland and Northern Ireland have stricter regulations than England. Alternatives such as organised displays, quieter fireworks and modern light or drone shows harnessing technological developments are increasingly popular and far less harmful. Responsible celebration should not come at the expense of animals, vulnerable individuals or community wellbeing. I therefore urge the Government to listen carefully to this recurring debate. It is the first one I have taken part in; I was not able to take part last year, but I know from research that this subject comes around every year, and it is really important that we do something about it. I urge the Government to listen carefully to the petitioners, to conscientious animal welfare experts and to those who diligently advocate for persons with disabilities, and to bring forward meaningful reform that strikes a better balance—

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member from Yorkshire, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing this important debate. I stand here today to speak in support of the two petitions, both of which have attracted significant backing in my own constituency. More than 200 constituents signed the petition calling for a reduction in the maximum noise level of fireworks and more than 230 signed the petition seeking to limit their sale to local authority-approved events. Those numbers and the popularity of this debate reflect a genuine and deeply felt concern about the troubling effects that fireworks can have in our communities. I have also had more than 100 emails since I was elected in July 2024. Paula, one of my constituents, wrote to me: “They are constant, nearly every night…getting louder and are being let off at all hours. They are not only antisocial; they are harming my dog.” Such stories are repeated across our nation.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The main cemetery in Dewsbury is approaching capacity following the increase in burials since the covid pandemic. The local authority has been aware of this issue for several years. However, there remains significant uncertainty and concerns are becoming increasingly urgent. The issue is of particular cultural and religious significance, with only two burial plots remaining for Muslim burials. What steps will the Secretary of State take to support local authorities in addressing burial capacity shortages in Kirklees?

• 8 Jan 2026 · High Street Gambling Reform · Hansard source

  More

  High street gambling is hollowing out our high streets and causing untold harm to hard-working families. For too long, gambling harms have been tolerated, minimised or treated as an unfortunate side effect of what is in reality an exploitative, predatory industry. That approach has failed. The consequences are visible across the country, and acutely so in my constituency. Gambling-related harm extends far beyond financial loss. Every year in the United Kingdom, between 250 and 650 people take their own life as a result of the relentless, isolating grip of gambling addiction. Gambling fuels cycles of debt, secrecy and shame, driving anxiety and depression, and placing unbearable strain on relationships. Children grow up in households marked by stress and instability, partners face emotional and financial ruin, and communities are left to deal with the long-term fallout. Nationwide figures show that a staggering 1.4 million Britons have a gambling problem. What makes this harm particularly troubling is its predictability. Gambling harm is not randomly distributed; it disproportionately affects those in deprived areas already facing economic insecurity, poor mental health and social isolation. These noxious effects are not unavoidable collateral damage but the predictable human cost of an industry that pursues profit above all else and a regulatory system governed by weak safeguards. We must therefore be honest about how gambling companies operate. These are not passive providers of leisure but sophisticated corporations that systematically use behavioural data, targeted marketing and psychological design to maximise profit from often vulnerable users who are routinely incentivised to continue gambling despite clear warning signs. Some 86% of gross online betting profits come from just 5% of customers. Major gambling operators feed on misery while dodging their wider social responsibilities. There are 440 offshore companies with UK gambling licences, with over 1,500 active sites from offshore locations. Profits taken from local high streets are routed through opaque corporate structures and offshore jurisdictions, minimising tax contributions to the very communities that bear the costs of this harm. An ITV investigation in November 2025 found that Sky Bet had relocated its headquarters to Malta to avoid paying our Government £55 million a year. That is a profoundly unjust settlement. Families are pushed into debt and despair; public services absorb the social and mental fallout of gambling harm; and the wealth generated is quietly siphoned away. Gambling giants have perfected a cynical extractive business model. This is not enterprise, but an egregious abuse of capitalism dressed up as entertainment. Yet the political establishment has failed to meaningfully wrestle with the harm that the gambling industry has caused. For years lobbyists have successfully watered down efforts to rein in reckless gambling operators. Just a few months ago, the head of the UK’s Betting and Gaming Council made the ludicrous claim to MPs that gambling does not cause any social ills. Previously hiding behind so-called voluntary contributions to harm prevention amounted to a fig leaf that allowed profits to soar while safety mechanisms remain pitiful. The introduction of a statutory levy last year is not a success story, but an admission of failure and a clear verdict on the bankruptcy of self-regulation. When an industry repeatedly places profit over protection, Parliament has not merely a right to act, but a moral obligation to do so. Despite that obligation, treatment and support services remain overstretched and unevenly distributed. Access remains inconsistent, with too many falling through the cracks. According to data from the annual Great Britain treatment and support survey, almost 40% of those experiencing problem gambling in Great Britain have not accessed treatment or support in the last year. Tools such as self-exclusion schemes, affordability checks and voluntary limits are too often poorly enforced, inconsistently applied and easily circumvented. The burden is frequently placed on individuals to recognise their own harm and seek assistance. Gambling regulations —as for alcohol and tobacco—must be preventive, mandatory and robust. In particular, our communities remain constrained by the outdated “aim to permit” principle, which places a legal presumption on local authorities to approve new gambling premises even when harm is evident. Our existing regulatory framework strips local authorities of the ability to prioritise public health and community wellbeing, instead forcing them to wave through applications and turn local democracy into a rubber stamp for gambling profits. I am proud to support the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) and other colleagues in calling for its abolition. In my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley, these national failures to effectively regulate the gambling industry have very real consequences. According to the gambling commissioner’s own register, Kirklees council has granted 34 gambling licences, with 10 gambling premises located in my constituency alone. That level of concentration is not accidental; it reflects a system that allows gambling operators to cluster in areas of economic vulnerability. Gambling reform is ultimately about choices—not the choices of individuals under pressure, but the choices we make as lawmakers. Do we continue to allow an industry to extract wealth from the most vulnerable with insufficient safeguards, or do we act to rebalance the system in favour of public health, fairness and community wellbeing? We need protection from gambling education in schools, and we need support. For constituencies such as mine, this is not a theoretical problem; it is urgent and it demands immediate action. We must strengthen regulation, hold corporations accountable and properly fund treatment.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Free Bus Travel: Over-60s · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on introducing this important debate, which I welcome. I want to make clear that I strongly support e-petition 702845. The fact that more than 100,000 people signed it shows how strongly the public feel about the issue and how far it reaches into people’s everyday lives. The petition is simple and reasonable. It calls on the Government to extend free bus travel to people over 60 in England outside London, bringing England into line with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. At present, those living outside London must wait until state pension age—currently 66—to qualify, despite the fact that mobility, confidence in driving and independence often decline well before that point. The Government’s response recognises the value of bus services and points to welcome investment, including the funding announced in the recent Budget. I welcome that funding, but the response ultimately sidesteps the core issue. Responsibility is shifted to local authorities and devolved Governments, rather than making free bus travel a statutory entitlement across England. That matters because leaving it as a discretionary measure creates inequality and uncertainty. Local authorities are under immense financial pressure, and people’s access to free travel should not depend on where they live or how stretched their council’s budget happens to be. National problems require national solutions. We also need to be honest about the scale of the gap that people face. It is not a short transition period. The difference between age 60 and state pension age is six years, and that gap is set to increase further as the pension age rises. It is six more years during which people might be driving less, losing confidence behind the wheel, or giving up their car altogether, but are still expected to pay rising transport costs. For many older people, particularly in towns and areas with patchy public transport, the alternative is often taxis. That becomes harder in later life in retirement when people are more likely to live on a fixed income, watching every pound and trying to stretch their pension as far as possible. What was once an occasional expense can quickly become unaffordable. This debate is not just about transport policy, but about mental health, dignity and independence. I have spoken many times in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber about adult mental health and the importance of prevention. One of the clearest contributors to declining mental health in later life is loss of freedom of movement. Research by the London School of Economics shows that a policy of free transport for the over-60s would deliver powerful and measurable benefits. Older bus pass holders are 37% less likely to be sedentary, improving their physical health through everyday activity like walking to and from shops. They are also one third less likely to experience social isolation, a factor strongly linked to poor mental and physical wellbeing. The NHS increasingly recognises the importance of community mental health for all older people and the importance of staying socially connected, active and engaged. When people cannot get out to see friends, attend community groups, volunteer or even make simple, everyday journeys, isolation sets in. Loneliness, anxiety and depression are not abstract risks, but real outcomes of restricted mobility, and free bus travel for over-60s is therefore not just a concession, but an investment in wellbeing, independence and prevention.