Iqbal Mohamed MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Israel: E1 Zone Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  All settlers are criminals— not just those who are violent—because they occupy land that does not belong to them. Since the late ’90s, successive Governments have called the E1 a red line because it would permanently divide the west bank and destroy the possibility of a Palestinian state. Meanwhile, more than 700,000 settlers now live illegally over 140 sanctioned settlements and 100 unsanctioned outposts in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and settlements continue to expand while Palestinians continue to be forcibly displaced. The International Court of Justice has made it clear that states must not assist in this unlawful occupation. Is the E1 finally the moment when this Government will match their words with action, or will this simply become another so-called red line that Israel crosses without consequence?

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. The right to freedom of religion is a fundamental human right and must be protected. I congratulate my neighbour and West Yorkshire colleague, the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), on securing the debate. I speak to join him and others in trying to help tackle antisemitism in UK universities, but also antisemitism anywhere and everywhere in our wonderful country. I begin by placing on the record my clear and unequivocal belief that antisemitism, like all other forms of religious discrimination, is a scourge that has no place in our society, and that we should do all we can to stamp it out. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to hate or to incite hatred or violence against others, including against Jewish people. It deeply saddens me when I read news stories about how Jewish students have been feeling increasingly unsafe on university campuses in recent years, or reports about things such as the Union of Jewish Students poll that found that one in five students would be reluctant to, or would never, house-share with a Jewish student. I am not Jewish and I am not going to try to deflect attention away from the subject of this debate, but I share some of the experiences of Jewish students. They may not, thankfully, be as extreme or intense, but I understand some of what those students are or may be going through and I have complete sympathy. I could cite similarly harrowing statistics, but other Members have already mentioned those, so I will skip them because of the lack of time. This reality is unacceptable, plain and simple—no ifs, buts or maybes. No Jewish student should be made to feel intimidated or of less worth because of their beliefs. We must demand a far more proactive and co-ordinated response from Government, higher education institutions and civil society organisations. Universities must not only have robust policies in place, but actively enforce them. Reporting mechanisms need to be accessible and trusted. Support services must be properly resourced. And there must be a clear message from leadership at every level that antisemitism has no place in our educational institutions or our society. At the same time, it would be remiss of me not to say that it also deeply troubles me when I look across the pond to the United States and hear accusations of antisemitism—including at protests on campuses—thrown around without sufficient care in response to criticisms of the Israeli state’s actions in the middle east. Just last week, the independent UN inquiry found that Israel continues to commit genocide by deliberately targeting Palestinian children in Gaza. However, Israel is a state. It is a Government. It has its army. It does not represent or reflect the views or actions of Jews around the world. However, on campuses and across our country, many students are engaging in protests because of their principled opposition to these gross injustices. Those protests cannot and must not include acts or words of antisemitism. It is therefore vital that we do not conflate legitimate and courageous defiance of this Government’s apathy in the face of inhumanity with the specific and pernicious form of racism that antisemitism constitutes. Safeguarding free speech and the freedom to protest is not in tension with protecting Jewish students from discrimination. Rather, the two must go hand in hand. If we dilute the definition of antisemitism to incorporate righteous criticism of Israel, we risk eroding trust among students and communities. It is also important to acknowledge that discrimination rarely exists in isolation. Alongside antisemitism, we are witnessing worrying and cascading levels of Islamophobia, with hostility and suspicion towards entire Muslim communities intensifying and spreading in response to individual incidents and subsequent inflammatory comments by politicians and public figures. What is needed is a consistent, principled approach that protects students from harassment and hate, while also upholding their rights to political expression and peaceful protest, and that brings communities together, rather than pitting them against one another. Ultimately, this is about the kind of society we want to be—one where Jewish students are safe and supported, where Muslim students are free from prejudice and suspicion, and where all students can engage critically with the world around them without fear of being mischaracterised or silenced. We must be able to hold two truths at once: that antisemitism on campuses is real and must be confronted decisively, and that legitimate political dissent from students and academics, peaceful, principled and rooted in justice, must be protected. If we can strike that balance, we will not only make our universities safer, but we will make them stronger. I conclude by extending my support to the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley and Members across the House in working together to tackle and address antisemitism in UK universities and wider society.

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

  More

  I commend the hon. Member for his unity and solidarity with Jewish students and Jewish people. Does he agree that conflating Israel with all Jewish people is also something that should be avoided, as it can lead to an increase in antisemitism?

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mrs Harris. The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) referred to my remarks in answering a question. Maybe I was not very clear, but he mischaracterised my remarks as referring to all Jews or Jewish donors. My remarks clearly referred to pro-Israeli donors, whoever they are. To clarify, it is those who support the illegal actions of Israel or—

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the Minister that lobbying and donations across Parliament from any source must be investigated and that the rules must be reinforced. But on the specific point around Israel, Labour Friends of Israel, Conservative Friends of Israel and other friends of Israel groups—

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister answer the question?

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  I will continue because of time. Britain claims to defend its democracy from foreign interference. We rightly sanction Russia for undermining democratic institutions, and warn about the threats from China and Iran to our political system, yet when substantial evidence of foreign influence concerns Israel, our principles of transparency, scrutiny and accountability appear to vanish. Given the lack of time, I will give just one example. Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms manufacturer, operates 16 sites across the UK and supplies around 85% of Israel’s drones and military ground equipment—systems that have been widely used during Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Declassified UK reported that in December 2024, representatives of Elbit Systems met Home Office officials in a private meeting, with details withheld under FOI exemptions. Elbit Systems benefits from substantial British defence contracts. The defence industry cannot become a shield for privileged and secret political access without accountability. No amount of democracy should exempt a state from scrutiny, no lobbying should be beyond accountability, and no Government should let political convenience override the principles of democratic integrity.

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  I will continue. The 255 of my constituents who signed this petition, and the 118,000 people who signed from across the country, would like to hold our Government and our system to account for these donations. What are they for?

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise for not giving way earlier. On the point about Israel being singled out, the Rycroft review focused specifically on Russia and China, and did not mention Israel once. It was correctly carried out and nobody had any objections. What is the difference?

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  My definition would be donors who turn a blind eye to blatant violations of Israeli law, British law or international law.

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman believe that we need more of the AI weapons that Israel has used to shoot at children’s genitalia in Gaza?

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I join my friend, the hon. Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali), in condemning antisemitism in all forms, anywhere. My remarks referring to Israel refer to the Israeli Government’s actions and organisations’ interactions with parliamentarians in this place. In June 2024, Declassified UK revealed that 13 of the then 25 members of the Labour Cabinet received hundreds of thousands in donations from pro-Israel donors, and that some 180 of Britain’s 650 MPs had accepted such funding during their political careers. That is one in four elected Members.

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

  More

  The importance of international development aid cannot be overstated. I recognise the need for a nation to be prepared to defend itself against threats from outside and from within, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that funding for that should not come from international development aid?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry to say that the sanctions and actions announced today will not prevent Israel from continuing to act with impunity and committing one war crime after another. On Friday, I received a reply from the Foreign Office to a letter that I sent three months ago on the UN commission of inquiry findings that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. In that reply, the Minister for the Middle East stated: “as soon as this Government took office, we ordered a review into Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law, which has continued to conclude that Israel is not committed to upholding IHL in Gaza.” Why, in the light of that assessment, are the Government still limited to giving statements of concern, rather than taking meaningful actions to prevent further atrocities and breaches of IHL?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lebanon: Israel Defence Forces Operations · Hansard source

  More

  The illegal actions of Hezbollah and Iran must be condemned, but so must the illegal actions of Israel. Israel carried out 11,518 attacks in Lebanon between 2 March and 11 May, with more than 3,000 further estimated attacks since. Israel has bombed and destroyed or heavily demolished more than 100 villages. As of yesterday, Israel has injured 10,577 people and killed 3,468 people, including 128 health workers. It has attacked and damaged 17 hospitals, destroying three of them. It employs double and triple-tap attacks on civilians. Will this Labour Government do anything meaningful to stop Israel’s thirst for the blood of innocent civilians, its insatiable appetite for the most barbaric violence and its Gazafication of Lebanon and the wider middle east? Does the UK support or condemn Netanyahu’s declared plan for a Greater Israel?

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

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the best form of defence is peace, and that the overseas development aid budget—as was mentioned earlier by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell)—is a key component of achieving peace around the world through soft power and diplomacy? A great deal of that aid is crucial for people’s survival in many parts of the world.

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

  More

  I believe that every single Member in this House has a primary duty to their constituents—those who voted for them and those who did not. Every single resident in their constituency has a right to their Member representing them without fear or favour. I look forward to welcoming many more independent and independent-minded colleagues to this place in future. As for the Gracious Speech, it contains measures that I welcome. The Hillsborough law is long overdue—a statutory duty of candour and accountability will finally begin to address a culture of institutional defensiveness that has failed families for too long. There are also meaningful steps on economic security. The small business protections Bill will tackle late payments—a crisis that is costing the UK economy £11 billion annually and closing 38 businesses every day. That is a practical reform that will make a real difference. The Government are also right to prioritise cyber-resilience. Some 43% of UK businesses experienced a cyber-attack last year, with the UK facing major attacks every week on average. This is a real and growing threat, and action is both welcome and necessary. The Government are likewise correct to identify access to SEND provision as a key issue. Parents should not need to go through the lengthy, challenging and dispiriting process of obtaining an education, health and care plan before their children can receive the support they need. However, the Government’s proposals need to be matched with a more comprehensive plan to address the teacher recruitment and retention crisis, in order to ensure that classrooms receive the targeted interventions they need. There are clearly measures in the Gracious Speech that move us in the right direction—admittedly, they may be too little, too late in some instances, but they are welcomed none the less. I cannot, though, ignore the measures included in this speech that I vehemently oppose. Words do not put a roof over people’s heads or food on their tables. Words do not heat homes or make work pay, and they do not end the cost of living crisis that is affecting the majority of people in our country. The Government’s actions do not address the acute nature of that crisis for many people in our constituencies. The actions that the Government have taken need to be challenged. The continued curtailment of protest rights undermines the fundamental democratic principle of the right to dissent. If the Government continue down this path, they will stand on the wrong side of history, and the UK will be listed with other authoritarian regimes. The immigration and asylum Bill, while framed as “fair but firm”, runs the risk of introducing a system that is anything but—a system in which rights are conditional and subject to contribution, narrowly defined by income. Retrospectively doubling the standard qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain from five years to 10 would leave an indelible stain on this Government’s legacy. The expansion of digital ID, presented as a convenience, instead represents a wildly unpopular Orwellian shift in the relationship between citizen and state. It creates what Big Brother Watch rightly calls an “intrusive” system from “cradle to grave” that would be “ripe for mass surveillance and more government control over people’s lives.” These proposals risk trading away hard-won freedoms in the nebulous name of efficiency. That is a trade that this House must scrutinise and stop. Our principles must not stop at our borders. We cannot claim—as this Government so often do—to defend the rule of law and human rights while failing to uphold those principles abroad. The UK must end weapons exports to Israel and to any other state suspected of, or shown to be, violating international humanitarian law, or accused of genocide before international courts. Our commitment to justice must be consistent, otherwise it loses all credibility. Perhaps the greatest weakness of this King’s Speech is not what it contains, but what it leaves out. It contains no meaningful framework for AI safety, despite overwhelming evidence of the risks posed by this new technology, which is developing at an alarming rate. An Institute for Public Policy Research report has stated that up to 8 million jobs could be lost due to AI disruption in the next three to five years. AI-exposed firms are already cutting entry-level roles and reshaping the labour market. Even more worryingly, many AI experts, including Geoffrey Hinton and more than 300 others, consider the risk of existential catastrophe as a consequence of loss-of-control scenarios to be plausible at best and likely at worst without adequate regulations and global collaboration. Our blueprint should be the Montreal protocol. That framework helped to pause and reverse the damage to the ozone layer from the use of chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs. The world had decades to stop and reverse the harms from CFCs, but with AI, the disastrous consequences could be realised during this Parliament. The potential risk from unregulated AI could cause irreversible harm to humanity and our planet. It demands immediate and meaningful Government action to prevent these harms before it is too late. The public is rightfully clear that it wants sustained, forceful action. A 2025 survey by the Ada Lovelace Institute and the Alan Turing Institute found that 72% of the UK public reported that laws and regulations would increase their confidence in AI. However, in today’s Gracious Speech, there was no plan for governance, safety or accountability. Similarly, it offers no plan to hold social media companies to account. There is no meaningful framework for transparency, no clear standards for algorithmic responsibility, and no serious enforcement mechanism for those who flagrantly breach the rules. There is no ability to take action to ban addictive platforms or to compel safety by design. This King’s Speech is a programme of progress in parts, problems in principle and profound omissions. It contains measures that I welcome, proposals that I must oppose, and omissions that I and others cannot ignore. It falls short of the radical action that this country needs and has been crying out for. It lacks urgency on material issues that affect people’s daily lives. It avoids hard decisions to tackle vested interests. It fails to hold power and wealth to account. It also fails to clean up politics by banning dodgy donations and revolving doors. In conclusion, the people of Dewsbury and Batley did not send me here to be loyal to a party; they sent me here to be loyal to them and to stay true to them. In this Session, I will vote against inhumane, unjust and unfair policies wherever they appear; defend our public services and the funding they need to thrive; and give voice to my constituents of every faith or none and of every colour and creed who refuse to look away from injustice abroad. I will fight for Dewsbury sports centre, Batley baths, GP surgeries, local dentists and the buses, schools, charities and communities that hold our towns together.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q14. Everything international law is supposed to protect is being violated: a genocide against the Palestinian people, the catastrophe in Sudan, the Gazafication of Lebanon. Against that backdrop, last week the Government closed the international humanitarian law unit and stopped funding access to the Centre for Information Resilience database of 26,000 human rights and conflict incidents across Israel, Palestine and Lebanon. That database underpins decisions on IHL breaches, arms export suspensions, and whether the UK is acting within the law. Usually, criminals or their accomplices are the ones destroying evidence of their crimes, not a human rights lawyer or a Government who are apparently committed to upholding international law. My question is simple—

• 22 Apr 2026 · Government Procurement Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I also welcome the Minister’s response to the urgent question and the proposal to go British first in our procurement strategy, with over £400 billion spent per year. The Minister is no doubt aware that Members across this House, including myself, have repeatedly raised concerns about Palantir’s ethics, its record of complicity in human rights abuses, including the genocide in Gaza, and the way it has secured extremely large public contracts here in the UK. Can he explain how awarding hundreds of millions of pounds—in many instances with no full, open tender process—to a single US surveillance and technology firm, which over the weekend released a dystopian manifesto for world domination, is compatible with a modern procurement strategy that claims to have transparency, value for money and the public interest at its heart?

• 16 Apr 2026 · NHS Federated Data Platform · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. In a briefing for investors, Palantir chief executive officer Alex Karp said: “we are super proud of the role we play, especially in places we can’t talk about…Palantir is here to disrupt…and when it’s necessary, to scare our enemies and on occasion kill them.” If it looks evil, if it smells evil and if it behaves evil, then it is evil. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this debate. Given my lack of speaking time, I am going to have to cut my speech short. We must examine Palantir’s record elsewhere in the world in our assessment of its suitability as a supplier to the NHS. Palantir has long-standing contracts with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the tools to track and target migrants that it has provided to ICE have facilitated racial profiling, family separation and violations of due process. In January 2024, Palantir entered into a strategic partnership with the Israeli Ministry of Defence to support war-related missions, meaning that its advanced data systems are used to perpetuate a genocide against the Palestinian people. Reports from Novara Media and the Financial Times state that NHS staff have been warned that they could be fired for criticising the NHS contract with Palantir, that NHS organisations are under pressure to sign up voluntarily to the Palantir data system, and that technicians have been told to stop working on alternate systems. The Swiss Government have previously rejected engagement with Palantir, raising national security concerns; in the US, hospital systems in New York have moved away from Palantir arrangements, citing data governance and control issues; and here at home, uptake of the FDP remains uneven, with many NHS professionals reluctant—in some cases refusing—to engage with it. Perhaps most concerning of all are the reports that patient data opt-outs do not apply to the federated data platform due to a legal direction issued under section 254 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, yet that direction has not been published or named or been subject to scrutiny. This debate is not about technology; it is about who we trust to sit at the heart of our NHS, and on that question, the Government must think again.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

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

• 25 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

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

• 16 Mar 2026 · Strait of Hormuz · Hansard source

  More

  It is suspected that AI systems have been used to target and murder 165 schoolchildren and their teachers using US-made Tomahawks, with further double-tap attacks falling on survivors 40 minutes later. This Government say that tackling violence against women and girls is a priority, but in failing to call out this clear war crime, those words mean nothing as the bodies of children get buried. Will the Minister explain what the UK Government are doing to hold America and Israel to account for these war crimes, and does he share my concerns about the use of AI to kill?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Social Cohesion Action Plan · Hansard source

  More

  We all agree that there is no place in our society for hatred or discrimination against anybody, anywhere. Islamophobic incidents in the UK are at record levels; there are thousands of incidents each year, with many more likely to be unreported. Abuse is increasingly normalised and politicised through media, TV and online, at institutional as well as street level. Police data shows serious undercounting, making specialist monitoring essential. Islamophobia in the UK is not limited to fringe behaviour, and data shows a pattern of escalating hostility and normalisation in public discourse, including in this place and the other place. How will this definition be integrated into the Nolan principles, and what sanctions will apply to Members of this House and Members of the other place?