Iqbal Mohamed MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 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.

• 7 May 2025 · India-Pakistan: Escalation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement, and I associate myself with all Members of the House in the condemnation of the terror attack in Pahalgam. I want to express my concern at the military escalation between nuclear-armed neighbours, which has already resulted in the killing of 26 innocent people. I have thousands of Kashmiri and Indian constituents—I myself am of Indian heritage—and they are absolutely terrified by what they saw last night. They have been glued to their screens worrying about their loved ones. The Minister has already explained what diplomatic steps the UK is taking to de-escalate the situation, but will he reassure my constituents that those steps will be neutral and impartial, will not favour one country over the other, and will prioritise peace and stability in the region?

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to confirm my agreement with new clauses 1 and 12, and I associate myself with the speech of the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden). I have had several emails on the protection of copyrighted information and revenue streams for artists, including from Yvonne, who contacted me recently. It is essential that the creative arts and intellectual property are protected and that artists are properly compensated if their output is used in AI. On new clauses 1 and 12, the case for raising the age of consent for data processing from 13 to 16 has been well made across the House, so I will not repeat the points made, but I will say that it is essential that we give our children their childhoods back. They need to be protected from the toxic content to which they are being exposed by social media and online. New clauses 3 to 6 and new clause 14 would place transparency requirements on AI companies to report on what information and data they have used, from where, and with what permission. That is essential to holding the AI companies to account and to ensuring that content holders and data owners are informed and have adequate channels of redress for misuse of their information. I am sure that new clause 7 was spoken about while I was out of the Chamber, but let me say now that the right for our citizens to use non-digital verification is key. My mother—who is in her late 60s, bless her—would not have a clue what to do if she did not have family to help her with her benefits claims, doctors’ prescriptions, appointments and so on. We cannot exclude millions of our citizens who may choose not to have smartphones and not to be exposed to toxic content online, or who are simply not tech-literate. I urge the Government to ensure that we do not exclude millions of our citizens. I also strongly support new clause 11, but I will defer to earlier speakers in that regard. As for new clause 18, many constituents have written to me or spoken to me, expressing concern about sharing their NHS and other private data with third parties such as Palantir. It is essential for this new Government to adopt a posture of supporting ethical, transparent business practices for all suppliers who provide services in our country. We have already heard about the background of Palantir. I do not know how true this is, but some of my constituents believed, or had read, that during the Prime Minister’s first visit to the US, after meeting Donald Trump he visited Palantir’s headquarters, or one of its offices. I urge the Government to protect—

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a lifelong Liverpool supporter, I would like to congratulate Liverpool and Arne Slot on winning the premier league in Arne’s first season as manager. This is my first season in Parliament, and I hope to follow in his footsteps, but I do not know what the parliamentary equivalent of winning the premier league is. I welcome this Bill, and I commend the Government and the Secretary of State for standing up to the opposition to it, from the Tories and from the football industry. I noted the recent comment from one of the Chelsea owners, who felt it was hard to “appreciate the need” for a regulator. As an overseas owner of an English football club, he might not see the need, but I can assure him that football fans who have to pay increasingly extortionate ticket prices to see premier league games do see the need. Two of my nephews were lucky enough to see Liverpool win the premiership yesterday, but they had to pay over £50 for the privilege, and Liverpool is more sensitive to fan pressure on ticket prices than most. Attending a premier league game is beyond the means of most fans, especially if they want to share that experience with family members. There is a desperate need to introduce an affordable ticket model. There is much to be learned from the German Bundesliga on that, despite our different ownership models. The current model of regulation is not working for the fans, or for the long-term interests of the clubs. If professional football clubs were treated like any other business, most would go bust tomorrow as their loans were called in.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s comments, and I pay tribute to the work of Blackburn Rovers in their community. We are probably all aware of the examples of Everton and Manchester United. Both are up to their ears in debt while either building or planning to build stadiums that cost between £750 million and £1 billion. If we look lower down the leagues, the sums are still eye-watering. York City lost £235,000 last season, Salford City lost £5.3 million and Stockport County lost £7 million. It is difficult to see how, at some stage, without regulation, more and more clubs will not simply go to the wall. The financial precarity in football is such that it leaves the clubs open to bad actors seizing on their financial vulnerabilities to offer a route to potential success. I am, of course, referring to dirty money and the pernicious practice of sportswashing by dubious owners who see club ownership as a PR vehicle to airbrush their misdeeds and human rights abuses to reconstruct their reputations and exert geopolitical influence. It is deeply regretful that this odious and morally corrupting practice has been allowed to establish a foothold in our game since Roman Abramovich came to England as the owner of Chelsea football club with dirty money from Russia. He was found to have funded or donated over £100 million to illegal settlement expansion in the west bank. The other issue I want to raise is around agent fees. In 2022 to 2023, over £408 million was paid by Premier League clubs to agents and facilitators, and in the football league over £65 million was paid in agent fees. Some agents are acting on behalf of both the player and the club and receiving remuneration from both. If that is not a conflict of interest or a potential bribe, I do not know what is. I strongly encourage the Government to look at this and try to stop as much money going to agents and get it back into grassroots football.

• 6 Mar 2025 · International Women’s Day · Hansard source

  More

  As other speakers have said, International Women’s Day was born out of struggles waged by past generations of women whose efforts and sacrifices will by and large not be recorded in the history books, but whose actions have enabled other women to walk an easier path through life than they perhaps did. Unfortunately, the continuation of that struggle seems more pertinent now than at any other time in my adult life, as there is a concerted attempt to roll back the hard-won gains of the women’s movement. We see that in the toxic influence of a resurgent, reactionary politics, amplified via two loosely regulated social media platforms enabling misogyny literally to reach into the bedrooms of young teenage boys. I am referring to not just the Andrew Tates of the world, but the Donald Trumps of this world, who ridicule the very notion of there being an unequal playing field that hinders the lives of women—indeed, Trump and his supporters state the exact opposite. In their world, it is men, and white men in particular, who are the real victims of moves to tackle inequality. Two things about that narrative worry me. First, it is getting traction in this country. A study conducted by the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership at King’s College London found that nearly one in two Britons—47%—say that when it comes to giving women equal rights with men, things have gone far enough in Great Britain. That is a notable increase on the 38% who said the same last year, and a stark increase on the proportion who felt that way as recently as 2019. That means that for the first time, Britons are now more likely than Americans to agree that women’s equality has gone far enough. Secondly, those views normalise misogyny and encourage violence against women and girls. They literally put women’s lives in danger. It is therefore critical for MPs to reassert the reality of institutionalised misogyny and sexism, which more often than not is denied, whether in the House of Commons, the police force or the military, where instances of misogyny are put down to some bad apples and the institutions involved are let off the hook. We have to demonstrate more forcefully a zero-tolerance approach to hate and abuse against women. We also need more practical measures right now to make it safer for women to live their lives free of harassment and to go about their everyday lives without fear of attack. Two years after the murder of Sarah Everard, it should be the least that we can do in her memory, and in the memory of approximately 450 women murdered by—

• 27 Feb 2025 · Gaza: BBC Coverage · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her answer to the urgent question. We all agree that the genuine inaccuracies and misrepresentations in this documentary, and in all reporting, must be addressed, and that steps must be taken to prevent them from reoccurring. We also all agree that there is no place for antisemitism or any other racism anywhere. The BBC has been accused by more than 100 of its staff of giving Israel favourable coverage in its reporting of the war on Gaza, and criticised for its lack of accurate, evidence-based journalism. The letter, sent to the BBC’s director general and chief executive officer, said: “Basic journalistic tenets have been lacking when it comes to holding Israel to account for its actions.” Its signatories included more than 100 anonymous BBC staff and more than 200 people from the media industry. The letter also said: “The consequences of inadequate coverage are significant. Every television report, article and radio interview that has failed to robustly challenge Israeli claims has systematically dehumanised Palestinians.” What steps—

• 23 Jan 2025 · Holocaust Memorial Day · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to speak in this debate. I pay tribute to all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed today, with powerful, moving and, in many instances, personal accounts. In the UK on Holocaust Memorial Day we remember the 6 million Jews murdered during the Holocaust, alongside the millions of people murdered under the Nazis’ persecution of other groups. We also remember the more recent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur, as well as others who have suffered atrocities since world war two. Yesterday, I had the privilege of attending the Holocaust Memorial Day ceremony in Portcullis House and I heard the moving testimonies of Holocaust survivors Yisrael Abelesz and Alfred Garwood. I will not be the only person in this House who was deeply moved by their testimonies and, among those who listened to Radio 4 earlier in the week, by the interview of 92-year-old Holocaust survivor Ivor Perl, who was just 12 years old when forced into a cattle truck to Auschwitz, where he lost most of his family. What struck me about Ivor was how, despite everything he had seen and endured, he retained his capacity for love and his belief in the power of love. However, I was also struck by his sense of pessimism about the future and his feeling that the world today increasingly resembles the world of the 1930s. I am sad to say that I share that concern. We have seen a growth across Europe of a politics that unashamedly demonises minority communities and presents them as aliens in our midst, to such a degree that people become inured to their plight or ill treatment. The Holocaust shows us where that toxic combination can lead. The Nazis’ attempt to rid Europe from what they saw as an alien presence in their midst did not happen overnight. They first had to dehumanise the Jews, depict them as an alien culture, subject them to antisemitic conspiracy theories that they were part of a global conspiracy to manipulate global events, and strip them of their citizenship rights. In his recent film “Occupied City”, the director Steve McQueen shows how that unfolded in one city, Amsterdam, where the bulk of the Dutch Jewish population lived. His film chronicles the measures the Nazis took. They sacked all Jews from public sector jobs, banned them from all public places, closed down all Jewish schools, forced Jews to wear a special badge to demarcate them from everybody else, prevented them from marrying non-Jews, subjected them to daily humiliation and physical abuse and ultimately rounded up every Jew they could find and deported them to death camps. The film chronicles the most tremendous heroism of ordinary Dutch people to resist those measures and show solidarity with their Jewish neighbours. However, it also shows that antisemitism had taken seed in Dutch society, where years of antisemitic propaganda had rotted the foundations of that society and many ordinary people collaborated in the persecution of the Jews and betrayed their neighbours. A Jewish community that numbered around 80,000 at the start of the Nazi occupation was reduced to 16,000 by the end of it. That picture was repeated in city after city across Europe. But those words do nothing to capture the sheer terror and horror of what the experience must have been like for the many millions of people unfortunate enough to have experienced it. The generational trauma that it has left in its wake resonates with every Jewish family to this day. The Holocaust embodies the reality of fascism in power. Unfortunately, the ideas at the core of fascist ideology—racist narratives, wrapped up in ethno-nationalist fantasies—are on the rise. In Germany at present, we see the far-right Alternative für Deutschland, a party with neo-Nazis in its ranks, on track to be comfortably the second largest party in the German Parliament. In Austria, the far-right Freedom party recently won a third of the popular vote with an election pledge to remigrate citizens with migrant heritage. A similar dynamic is well under way in France, Italy and other countries where the far right has significant electoral footholds. These are not fascist parties of the classic type, but they are walking on that ground. When Members—I am sorry to say—of this House demonise and talk about deporting immigrants, and the President of the United States commits to deporting millions of immigrant families, with the richest man in the world cheering him on while giving fascist salutes, it should send shivers down everyone’s spines. There is more than a whiff of the 1930s in the air. Holocaust Memorial Day also pays tribute to the genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur and Bosnia. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and others about the genocide in Bosnia that resulted in the deaths of 100,000 men, women and children, with 8,000 murdered in the Srebrenica massacre. I wish to mention the other genocides that are commemorated on Holocaust Memorial Day. In the genocide in Cambodia in the 1970s, the Khmer Rouge sought to create a communist utopia, forcing urban populations into rural camps. Intellectuals, professionals, religious leaders and ethnic minorities were targeted. Approximately 1.7 million to 2 million people—about 25% of Cambodia’s population—were killed through executions, starvations and forced labour. In Rwanda in the ‘90s, over the span of 100 days, an estimated 800,000 to 1 million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were massacred. The genocide was fuelled by deep ethnic tensions, propaganda and political instability. In Darfur, where the atrocities continue, Government-backed militias have carried out mass killings, rapes and displacement in response to an uprising by rebel groups. The conflict is characterised by ethnic cleansing, with hundreds of thousands of people killed and millions displaced. Unfortunately, violence and instability continue in the region. There are more recent examples, such as Myanmar. As we remember on this 80th anniversary all those affected by the Holocaust, the Bosniaks killed in Srebrenica 30 years ago and the victims of the genocide that I have just mentioned, we should also remember all those who, in their day-to-day lives, have suffered atrocities in approximately 285 distinct armed conflicts since the end of the second world war. Let recommit to never allowing the politics of hatred, racism and demonisation, which contributed to the awful reality of fascism, to take hold in our society ever again. In his interview, Ivor Perl said that “the world has not learned anything, it gets repeated all over again”. He is right. We have heard from Members across the House that we have failed to fulfil the promise of “never again” in these 80 years—never again for every single human being who walks this planet. However, there is nothing stopping us from fulfilling it from now for all people of all nations, all abilities, all faiths and none, and setting an example for the people of our country and the wider world to follow.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) states, there are documented health risks with first-cousin marriage, and I agree that there is a need for greater awareness about that issue. Virginity testing and forced marriages must be prevented, and the freedom of women must be protected at all times. However, the way to redress the issue is not to empower the state to ban adults from marrying each other, not least because I do not think such measures would be effective or enforceable. Instead, the matter needs to be approached as a health awareness issue and, where women are being forced against their will to undergo marriage, as a cultural awareness issue. In doing so, it is important to recognise that this is a highly sensitive issue for many people. In discussing it, we should try to step into the shoes of those who perhaps are not from the same culture as ours, to better understand why the practice continues to be so widespread. An estimated 35% to 50% of all sub-Saharan African populations either prefer or accept cousin marriage, and it is extremely common in the middle east and south Asia. The reason the practice is so common is that ordinary people see family intermarriage as something that is very positive overall; as something that helps to build family bonds and puts families on a more secure financial foothold. However, as is well documented, it is not without health risks for the children of those relationships, some of whom will be born out of wedlock. Instead of stigmatising those who are in cousin marriages, or those who are inclined to be, a much more positive approach would be to facilitate advanced genetic test screening for prospective married couples, as is the case in all Arab countries in the Persian gulf, and to run health education programmes targeting those communities where the practice is most common. I therefore urge the House to vote against the motion and to find a more positive approach to addressing the issues that are caused by first-cousin marriage, including the health risks, and the consequences of modern conflicts and displacement of populations around the world. Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to. Ordered, That Mr Richard Holden, Robert Jenrick, Dan Carden, Claire Coutinho, David Smith, Neil O’Brien, Lee Anderson, Mr Andrew Snowden, John Lamont, Nick Timothy, Katie Lam and Laura Trott present the Bill. Mr Richard Holden accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 17 January 2025, and to be printed (Bill 146).

• 2 Dec 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, start by joining the Deputy Prime Minister in expressing my sincere condolences to the families tragically impacted by this avoidable disaster. I welcome her statement and the positive steps and actions she has outlined to address the findings of the inquiry. I welcome the plans to introduce heavy penalties for those who fail to meet repair deadlines, but I share the concerns of campaigners that the timescales for making properties safe are way too long. The Deputy Prime Minister may say that the Government are taking “decisive action”, but the building safety fund was first opened for registration in 2020. The 2029 target must not be for the first building to be remediated—it must be guaranteed to be when the last one will be. For over seven years, residents and leaseholders have continued to live with the mental anguish that the properties they and their families go to sleep in every night are unsafe, aware that what happened to the residents of Grenfell could well happen to them. As we have heard, residents also face extortionate home insurance bills and rising costs for repairs that should be the sole responsibility of the developers, while leaseholders face ruin, financially trapped in properties that they bought in good faith but were built in bad faith. To widen the argument and the issue at hand, the picture of property developers cutting corners to make a profit and disregarding human life in the process is one that, before Grenfell, we wanted to believe belonged to a bygone era. Unfortunately, it is very much the reality of 21st-century Britain; a culture has become embedded where corporate bosses think they can get away with cutting corners in the pursuit of profit. We have seen the ugly imprint of that culture again and again, whether it is Government lobbyists scamming the public purse during the covid crisis, water companies polluting our rivers, the blatant disregard for truth and basic decency in the Post Office Horizon scandal, or people being burned alive in buildings that are not fit for purpose. The only way to root out that culture is regulation to protect the public from those who seek to exploit them, and I am concerned that the Deputy Prime Minister does not go nearly far enough in that regard. We know that the property industry in general is rife with profiteering, and I am concerned that we will see more of the same as property agents hike up fees, earning hundreds of millions of pounds in the process by charging administration fees on works to make buildings safe. In opposition, the Labour party committed to preventing this by calling for the nationalisation of the process of fixing high-rise flats to eliminate administration fees, and I encourage the Government to pursue that policy. I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to consider applying the risk assessment to buildings of under 11 metres as well. Campaigners are right to say not only that a comprehensive risk assessment must apply to buildings of all heights, but that building safety crises go far beyond external cladding and a holistic approach must give equal consideration to non-cladding defects—