Iqbal Mohamed MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 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.

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

  More

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

• 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.

• 24 Apr 2025 · EU Trading Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing this critical debate. It is an understatement to say that since the US elections, the plates of international politics have been shifting, especially since the Trump Administration announced the introduction of trade tariffs. British people are rethinking their opinions, and one welcome consequence of that process relates to the EU. An opinion poll commissioned by the TUC and conducted earlier this month found that two in three Brits now back a closer relationship with the EU, with just 20% opposed. That includes key target voters, such as eight in 10 of those who switched from Conservative to Labour at the 2024 election and more than half of Reform-leaning voters who voted Labour but may now vote Reform. Perhaps that is not too surprising. As we have heard, according to official figures, the long-term impact of the UK leaving the single market and the customs union is the loss of between 4% and 8% of our GDP. As Trump seeks to raise trade barriers, it feels like a no-brainer that we should be seeking to reduce ours with our closest neighbours. Research by the think-tank that has already been referenced found that a deal with the EU that included deeper alignment on goods and services would completely offset the impact of US tariffs for the UK. Unfortunately, to date, the Government seem too in fear of being accused by the right of being too close to the EU to lead decisively on this issue. The Prime Minister’s earlier rejection of the EU’s proposal of a youth mobility scheme with the UK is just one example where the Government have baulked at acting in the national interest. Along with many others, I hope that the Prime Minister adopts an approach less driven by the fear of Reform at next month’s EU-UK summit. Although I voted to remain, I believe it is important that the democratic will of the people is respected, but it is also important that we are honest with the people about the lies they were told and the harms that Brexit has brought to our nation. It is therefore time to stop being afraid to speak the truth about the damage of Brexit and to act in the national interest. Now is the perfect time to start writing a new chapter and move towards a more positive trading relationship with the EU.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Political Finance Rules · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with the hon. Member. The action that the Electoral Commission should be permitted to take should not just be limited to bigger, greater fines for donors. There should be consequences for those accepting donations and potentially being influenced. My constituents and the people of this country see and feel in their daily lives the deep impacts of pro-rich, pro-war, anti-poor and anti-consumer decisions and policies. The solution lies in reforms: to tighten spending rules; to shine a light on the source of financial contributions; to lower spending limits to reduce campaign costs and reliance on large donations; to introduce donation caps of £10,000 a year for individuals and organisations, as recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life; to remove the corrupting influence of big money in politics; and to close loopholes to ensure that overseas trips for parliamentarians are funded only by trusted sources. The UK used to lead the way on funding transparency. The UK was a founding member of the Open Government Partnership, and placed third in the 2014 OECD open data index, but in recent years the UK has slipped. The most recent OECD rankings saw the UK fall to 24th place, with stories about dodgy dealings, personal protective equipment procurement and Ministers’ disappearing WhatsApp messages all contributing to the decline in the trust that the public place in their politicians. As has been mentioned, it should be a cause for grave concern that of the £85 million of private donations in 2023 alone, two thirds came from 19 donors giving more than £1 million each, the highest ever share of mega donations. If we do not want our politics to go the way of American politics, with British equivalents to the likes of Elon Musk and his fellow tech billionaires blatantly using money to buy influence and remake politics in their own interests, we need tighter regulation of political finance than we currently have, and full transparency for the public.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Political Finance Rules · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for securing this important debate. The lack of transparency in the funding of our political parties is well documented, although I suspect not so well known among members of the public, who tend to associate the corrupting influence of money in politics with other countries, usually very far away. The reality is that it is taking place on our doorstep. According to research done by Transparency International, almost £1 in every £10 reported by political parties and their members since 2001 has come from unknown or questionable sources. Some £42 million comes from donors alleged or proved to have been involved in other corruption, fraud or money laundering, and £38.6 million comes from unincorporated associations that have not reported the source of their income, despite Parliament introducing new transparency rules in 2010. The rest of its findings highlight millions from donors alleged or proved to be intermediaries for foreign funds and/or a hidden source, and millions from companies that have not made sufficient profits to support the political contributions they have made. Other research has confirmed that successive Governments have invested trillions in the defence industry. Our new Government are also proposing to increase defence spending to 2.5% and then to 3%. The defence industry is reportedly responsible for approximately 40% of all corruption worldwide, and much of the money that we and other countries spend in defence is funnelled back through opaque channels into political parties and members. The industrial military complex needs to be investigated and dismantled. The fact is that our political finance rules are too weak on hidden money, making the system vulnerable to subordination from rich individuals and secretive vested interests. My constituents and people from our country are concerned by the malign influence on Government policy of parties, Governments and Opposition Members and other Members accepting millions from state and industry lobbies, corporations and mega-rich donors.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Jammu and Kashmir: Human Rights · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this important debate. I have many Kashmiris in my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley, and one of the pledges I made to them during my election campaign was that I promised to stand up for peace, justice and human rights anywhere around the world. Kashmir is their homeland and very close to their hearts and my heart. A report issued by Amnesty International last year captures the reality of the repression to which the Kashmiri population are subjected. It describes a clampdown on freedom of expression via the use of restrictive travel bans and arbitrary detentions to intimidate critical dissenting voices into not speaking out. It describes how those subject to detention under stringent anti-terror laws are now being detained for much longer without trial than before: the average was 269 days between 2014 and 2019, and about 330 days from 2019 to 2024. This is, in effect, a form of internment. We know from the experience of internment in Northern Ireland in the 1970s that it did nothing more than act as a recruiting agent for paramilitary organisations. Add to that the extrajudicial killings, the police and army abuses, the Indian Government’s decision to strip Kashmir of its autonomy and statehood, and the draconian crackdown that followed in its wake, and it is not surprising that the region is in constant ferment. What is surprising is how little is known in this country about the state of affairs in Kashmir, especially considering the British Government’s historical role in the creation of Kashmir, the partition of India, and all the chaos that came in its wake. The UK has a historic responsibility for the current situation. It has a responsibility to put rhetoric about upholding human rights into practice and to use governmental pressure on India to that end. I have no illusions about the difficulties in making the British Government act. As the plight of the Palestinians illustrates, the UK’s commitment to human rights exists more in theory than in practice. Nevertheless, thanks to public campaigning, the issue of Palestine will not leave this Government alone—it is like a stone in their shoe. For those of us concerned about the issue of human rights and self-determination for Kashmir, the challenge is to make it the stone in the other shoe. The Government must take responsibility and a leadership role as a peacemaker and enforcer of international law. What will the Government do to remove the impunity they provide the Indian Government for their many breaches of international and humanitarian law? What specific steps will the Government take to enforce the UN resolutions that have already been mentioned? What diplomatic engagement is the UK using to seek a peaceful resolution for the Kashmiri people and the right to self-determination? What action are the UK Government taking to enforce human rights in Kashmir? What humanitarian aid are the UK Government providing to Kashmir, and how will that be impacted by the decision to reduce foreign aid by 40%?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Maternity Services · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing this important debate. We are here today because maternity services are not at the level that they need to be at. There are many, many fantastic services across the country, but we are here to highlight those that need urgent improvement to improve outcomes for all mothers, not just some. The excellent report that the all-party parliamentary group for birth trauma produced last year is to be commended for the way that it highlighted the fact that, for a minority of women, the experience of childbirth is traumatic and has long-lasting consequences. The section about stillbirth and neonatal death includes a submission from one mother who reported: “The scenes in theatre can only be described as chaotic and these along with subsequent events have left me traumatised and suffering with PTSD.” I pay tribute to the Brontë birth centre in my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley, a midwife-led birthing centre in the Dewsbury and District hospital. It recently reopened in April after having been closed for two years because of staff shortages. Two of my children were born there more than 20 years ago, so it will always have a special place in my heart. I would not want my comments to be misconstrued as criticism of the services it provides. We have heard about the difference between midwife-led and consultant-led services, and we have heard about positive examples of where midwife-led services are more appropriate and can deliver better care. I am not making a point about midwife-led versus consultant-led care: the APPG report also cites horror stories from women in childbirth where consultants were present. Rather, my point is that, in reviewing maternity provision and seeking to minimise the risk to women during childbirth, we should also ensure seamless obstetrician provision for midwife-led care if required. If mothers giving birth in the Brontë birth centre encounter complications that require more in-depth medical care—God forbid—they would need to be moved from Dewsbury to Wakefield, which is a journey of more than half an hour. That increases the risks to the mother and the unborn child, so I would like the Government to address that issue. For many who have experienced emergency situations, the image painted earlier of sheer terror and panic is all too real. It is likely that maternity services will fail to meet the national maternity safety ambition to halve the 2010 rate of stillbirths by 2025—indeed, recent figures suggest the 20% decline in stillbirth deaths achieved between 2010 and 2020 is in reverse—so it is imperative that we explore every aspect of maternity provision to ensure it is as safe as it can be. Although almost 61% of maternity services are rated good, only 1% are rated outstanding, and just under 38% are still rated as requiring improvement for safety. Improving maternity services in the NHS is a critical priority, and the many reports since 2010 have made several key recommendations to enhance care quality and safety. I would like the Minister to share what steps the Government are taking, or will take, to address workforce gaps where the need to recruit and retain more midwives and maternity staff is essential to provide adequate support for mothers and babies. What steps are the Government taking to reduce health inequalities, to tackle disparities in maternal health outcomes, particularly for black and ethnic minority women and those in deprived areas? How will the Government ensure that adequate funding—including the reinstatement of the bursaries for midwives and nurses—is available and allocated to deliver the best quality maternity services? Enhancing maternal mental health support for women with long-term mental health conditions is crucial. Listening to women’s experiences is also key; the continuous gathering of feedback and acting on it are essential to improve care. What are the Government doing to implement anti-racism strategies so trusts can set clear standards of behaviour to support both staff and patients? If implemented, these improvements will help ensure that all mothers receive safe, high-quality care during pregnancy and birth.

• 4 Feb 2025 · UK-US Bilateral Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John, and I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for securing this debate. I put on record my membership of the British-American Parliamentary Group. I also congratulate President Trump on his election and inauguration, and I thank him for his role in bringing about the ceasefire in Gaza. A truly special and constructive bilateral relationship between the UK and the US is essential. Key elements of such a relationship must be: mutual respect, where both nations respect each other’s sovereignty and decisions by valuing each other’s perspectives and priorities without imposing one’s will on the other; equality, with a balanced partnership where both countries have an equal say in decisions, with collaborative decision making ensuring that both parties benefit fairly from the relationship; shared goals and values, where the relationship is built on common values such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law; and being a critical friend, and having open, transparent and honest communication where both nations are able to express their concerns and opinions freely, fostering an environment of trust and understanding. Instead, I am afraid to say, the UK-US special relationship is often described as toxic, abusive and destructive, due to several key factors. There is an imbalance of power where the relationship is frequently characterised with the UK as the junior partner. That dynamic has led to the UK being pressured into supporting US policies and actions that do not align with our own national interests or ethical standards. Political manipulation by the US, forcing the UK’s political alignment, has sometimes resulted in catastrophic decisions—for example, the UK’s support for the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, based on questionable or fabricated intelligence, which led to significant loss of life and long-term regional instability. A special relationship is important and essential. However, our country’s best interest is not served by blind subservience in the face of US power. The disasters of failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq show only too well where that leads. The failures post 9/11 continue to reverberate decades later, whether in the form of refugees from Afghanistan appearing on our shores or the continued threat of ISIS. I hope that the Government’s failure to challenge US support for Israeli apartheid in the west bank and the genocide in Gaza will not also come back to haunt our country in the years and decades to come. In conclusion, it is crucial for the UK to assert its sovereignty and pursue an independent path that aligns with international law and its own values, and to be a positive influence on the US.

• 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.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency · Hansard source

  More

  Before being elected to this House I worked for nearly 20 years in the pharmaceutical regulation and compliance industry. I know from first-hand experience the critical role that the MHRA must play in protecting the public and its indispensable role in ensuring public trust in the medical sector. My comments, therefore, come from a place of wanting to ensure that that trust, so painstakingly built up, continues to be strengthened. A recent survey by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry found that 80% of respondents felt the MHRA’s lack of capacity was undermining industry trust and deterring domestic investment—problems compounded by Brexit, which has created obstacles to co-operation in the European Union. Faced with a large backlog of clinical trial applications, one would imagine the obvious solution is to make more resources available to recruit and train new staff, and to rebuild relationships with our European partners. However, the Prime Minister seems more determined to demonstrate his commitment to slashing red tape and the need to, as he says, “regulate smartly and regulate creatively”. I must admit I get very nervous when I hear that kind of language used in relation to the pharmaceutical industry, because it is normally code for measures that threaten safety standards even further. The need for openness, transparency and regulation is probably greater than ever before. Recently, I have had constituents raise with me why the animal feed additive Bovaer, which is given to cows to reduce methane, is not tested or approved to MHRA pharmaceutical standards and why it is not even listed on milk cartons. Constituents have raised concerns with me about the use of carcinogenic chemicals in our food. We know that a host of chemicals that are banned from being used in food in the European Union are permitted in the United States. It is perfectly understandable for people to fear that, amid the bonfire of red tape that the Government are planning to set alight, some things that better protect us might go up in smoke. Constituents have also raised questions with me about the latest impact of the covid-19 vaccines. Before anyone starts accusing me of being an anti-vaxxer, I took both covid vaccines and agree that they saved many lives, but it is also the case that legitimate concerns have been voiced about long-term side effects. We now know that in the largest vaccine study to date, two very rare side effects—a neurological disorder and inflammation of the spinal cord—have been detected. Other studies have confirmed side effects including inflammation of the heart muscle and the lining around the heart, particularly in young males, as well as blood clots in the brain’s venous sinuses. Today we stand united in our commitment to safeguarding the health and wellbeing of our citizens. The motion highlights critical issues within the MHRA that demand our immediate attention and action. The Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review has shed light on persistent and exacerbated patient safety concerns since its publication in 2020, and it is our duty to ensure that the MHRA undergoes substantial revision to address those issues. The safety of our citizens must be paramount, and we cannot afford to overlook the shortcomings that have been identified. In conclusion, let us not forget that our primary responsibility is to the people we serve. We must act with urgency and determination to rectify those issues with the MHRA. By implementing these recommendations, we can work towards a safer, more responsive healthcare system that prioritises patient safety and trust above corporate profits and interests

• 19 Nov 2024 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) for securing this crucial debate. As the Member outlined, the humanitarian situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is beyond dire, and I will not repeat the details of how awful the situation is. Suffice it to say that all we have to do is look at our phones to see Palestinian refugees being bombed, murdered and repeatedly displaced on a daily basis. I want to use my time to concentrate on what this Government are going to do. Their record to date has been abysmal. From the Prime Minister legitimising the right of Israel to impose a siege on the entire population to the Foreign Secretary appearing to be ignorant of the meaning of the word “genocide” and the Government refusing to impose any meaningful sanctions on either arms sales or illegal settlements, this Government’s failure to take action against ethnic cleansing and genocide has made them complicit in those acts. I draw our Government’s attention to the actions of the Irish Government, and suggest they take a leaf out of their book. At the moment, the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill is making its way through the Irish parliamentary system, where it has received Government and cross-party support. The Bill is not new: it was first introduced in 2018, and there were concerns at the time that its measures might be in breach of EU law. However, the Irish Attorney General has updated his legal advice to refer the Bill to the next stage of the Irish parliamentary process, following the ICJ’s ruling in its advisory opinion in July. As discussed previously in Parliament, the ruling found that Israeli settlements in the west bank and East Jerusalem were in breach of international law. It found that occupation of those territories amounts to long-term annexation, which has undermined the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, and that the occupation must be brought to an immediate end. Therefore, countries can no longer lawfully trade with those settlements. When the Bill is passed, Ireland will become the first EU country to ban trade with those illegal settlements, which are the main impediment to Palestinian rights to self-determination. The response of successive UK Governments to the issue of illegal settlements is to say that the UK does not recognise them, and that goods originating from the settlements are not entitled to tariff or trade preferences, while at the same time refusing to actually suspend trade in goods and services between the UK and companies operating in the illegal settlements. While I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s introduction of new sanctions on three illegal settler outposts, and four organisations that have supported and sponsored violence against communities, his actions are ineffective and ambiguous. Why just impose sanctions on a handful of settlements? There are at least 144 settlements sanctioned by the Israeli Government, and another 196 outposts.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Facial Recognition: Police Use · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this important debate. I have researched this subject and listened to hon. Members’ contributions, and it has been frankly shocking to learn that LFR has been in use since 2017 without any specific legislation in place to control its use and protect our civil liberties. That is seven years too many without legislation. Although I agree that the use of real-time facial recognition in the United Kingdom promises enhanced security and efficiency, it also raises significant legal and moral concerns, and there are severe adverse consequences for our society. As a former software test manager, I am extremely concerned that private companies that profit from their technology are allowed to self-regulate and to confirm the efficacy of the products that they sell, and that the police are guided by those companies in how to use the tools and rely on the companies’ reports of their efficacy to take legal action against innocent civilians. The technology operates by capturing and analysing highly sensitive and personal biometric data. As has been mentioned, the legal framework for its use is complex and at times insufficient. The Data Protection Act 2018 and the General Data Protection Regulation provide some safeguards, requiring data processing to be fair, necessary and proportionate. However, the lack of specific legislation for facial recognition technology leaves huge room for misuse and overreach. The deployment of this technology without explicit consent undermines several of our fundamental rights, some of which have been mentioned. The first is the right to privacy: constant surveillance and the collection of biometric data without explicit consent infringe an individual’s privacy rights. This is particularly concerning when the technology is used in public spaces without people’s knowledge. The second right is the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and expression. The use of facial recognition can deter individuals from participating in protests or public gatherings due to the fear of being monitored or identified. This undermines the fundamental right to assemble and express opinions freely. The third right is the right to non-discrimination. As has been mentioned, facial recognition systems have been shown to have higher error rates for people of colour, women and younger individuals. This bias can lead to disproportionate targeting and wrongful arrests, exacerbating existing inequalities and discrimination. The final right is the right to data protection. The collection, storage and processing of biometric data must comply with data protection laws. Inadequate safeguards can lead to unauthorised access and misuse of personal data. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) cited examples of how this technology is used in Russia and China, and we know that it is used extensively in Israel as part of its apartheid regime and occupation of the Palestinian people. Violations highlight the need for strict regulation and oversight to ensure that the deployment of facial recognition technology does not infringe fundamental human rights. The technology subjects individuals to constant surveillance, often without their knowledge, eroding trust in public institutions. The ethical principle of autonomy is compromised when people are unaware that their biometric data is being collected and analysed. Let me cite some examples of the technology’s inefficacy and unreliability. In 2020, the Court of Appeal found that South Wales police’s use of facial recognition technology was unlawful, and that the force had breached privacy rights and failed to adequately assess the risks to individual freedoms. The technology’s accuracy is not infallible: misidentifications can lead to miscarriages of justice, where innocent individuals are wrongly accused or detained. The disproportionate impact of FR technology on black people and people of colour is particularly concerning. Research has consistently shown that these systems are more likely to misidentify individuals from those groups. For example, a National Institute of Standards and Technology study—I do not know how old it is—found that FR algorithms were up to 100 times more likely to misidentify black and Asian faces than white faces. This disparity not only undermines the technology’s reliability, but perpetuates systemic racism. In practice, this means that black people and people of colour are more likely to be subjected to unwanted surveillance and scrutiny, which can lead to a range of negative outcomes. There are other examples of miscarriages of justice and misuse. In one instance, the Metropolitan police used FR technology at the Notting Hill carnival, leading to the wrongful identification and harassment of innocent individuals. These and the other examples cited by hon. Members underscore the potential for significant harm when this technology is deployed without adequate safeguards. In conclusion, although facial recognition technology offers potential benefits, its deployment must be carefully regulated to prevent misuse and protect individual rights. The legal framework needs to be strengthened to ensure that the use of technology is transparent, accountable and subject to rigorous oversight. We must also address the inherent bias in these systems to prevent further entrenchment of racial inequalities. As we navigate the complexities of integrating new technologies into our society, let us prioritise the protection of our fundamental rights and ensure that advancements serve to enhance rather than undermine our collective wellbeing.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Again, I will confess to my lack of knowledge on the detail around the alternative proposed by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). I would defer to the House to select an appropriate working model that best represented the people of our country.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Chair. I am honoured to serve under your chairmanship. Before I begin my prepared remarks, I wish to commend and pay tribute to right hon. and hon. Members across the House for their skills of oratory and persuasion and their education and ability to entertain. It has been an absolute privilege to hear Members with such experience speak, so well-informed are they on such topics. I also wish to speak to new Labour Members who, like me, are finding their feet and learning the ways of the world in this place. I am pleased to hear that they are passionate about pushing and challenging their party to implement the laws and changes that the constituents and the country demand. but I remind them of the consequences of that. Rebellion, as I have seen in this short time, is rewarded with sanction or suspension, so it is better to get as much as possible into this Bill now than to hope that they may ever get a chance to do so again. The House has been made aware that faith in political parties and institutions is at a low ebb—perhaps the lowest in my lifetime. We have been told that only 12% of the British public say that they trust politicians; political parties are the least trusted of any UK public institution, and trust in Parliament is on the decline. Any measure that helps to rebuild that trust is to be supported, which is why I support this Government Bill to remove hereditary peers. The anachronistic nature of hereditary peerage contributes to the sense not only that the House of Lords is out of touch, but that all our political institutions are out of touch. It feeds a disconnect between the people and their systems of governance and reinforces a belief that politics is the preserve of another elite, the political elite, that lives in its own bubble in Westminster. Given this urgency to rebuild faith in politics and the need for radical change to that end, it is disappointing that the Government have chosen to be so timid in their ambition. I understand that further changes could be introduced further down the road. Indeed, hon. Members have said that they will try to push for more changes. For instance, perhaps they could remove the over-80s from the Lords, or retire the 26 bishops who are automatically given a seat. The Lords themselves have raised the idea of removing those Members who rarely, if ever, attend. But even these tame reforms appear to be too much for this Government at this stage. We need much bolder action.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is a very important point. I agree that representation across the four nations is key, and that the balance between the two Houses and how they work together is also very important. We have seen what happens when people feel alienated from their political system: they can gravitate to those with divisive answers. Unaddressed political grievances combined with a lack of faith in political institutions can be a toxic combination. Reforming the House of Lords so that it is fit and proper is not the sole solution to that problem, but is a key part of the solution. We in this House, as elected officials, have a duty to do the right thing at the right time in the right way to deliver the right outcome for our constituents and our country, and the right thing is to adopt the sensible and democratic amendments that have been tabled, and the right time to do that is now.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I agree that the Bill is a positive step, but it is the smallest of the steps that could have been taken by this Government. As we all know in this place, the promise of jam tomorrow is just a promise and hardly ever materialises. We need much bolder action now. It is bad enough that we are alone in Europe in having a fully unelected second Chamber. It is frankly ridiculous that, with more than 800 Members, it is so large. I will put that into some perspective: the US Senate has 100 elected members, who serve a six-year term, and a third of the membership is elected every two years; the Canadian Senate has 105 members and a mandatory retirement age of 75; and the French Senate has 348 elected members, who serve six-year terms, half of whom are up for election every three years. The fact that our second Chamber has been allowed to balloon out of all proportion looks more sinister when we consider that last year Lords appointees donated over £50 million to political parties. When it looks like our political institutions are up for grabs to the highest bidder, with jobs for life, is it any wonder that people see it as another private members’ club?

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member makes a very important point. I, as a new Member of Parliament, am not educated or informed enough to answer it immediately, and I would defer to the House to define how that process would work.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech today. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) and for Erewash (Adam Thompson) on their excellent maiden speeches. They have set a high bar that I will struggle to match. I thank the people of Dewsbury and Batley for the trust they have placed in me. I am honoured and humbled to be their representative and a voice for all residents. Dewsbury and Batley is a newly formed constituency, so I thank my two predecessors. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for her service as the MP for Batley and Spen. She helped secure funding for the town centre, and became an MBE for helping to promote social cohesion and tackling loneliness. I wish her well as the new Member for Spen Valley. Secondly, I thank Mark Eastwood for his service as the MP for Dewsbury. He was a man of great perseverance and helped secure over £40 million in funding for the town. I am honoured to follow Mark as the second locally born and bred MP for Dewsbury. I stand here as the eldest of six children born to Gujarati Indian immigrants who came here in the ’60s. I am an immensely proud, passionate and no-nonsense British Indian Muslim Yorkshireman who grew up on a council estate in Dewsbury Moor on free school meals and uniforms. My late father, Gulam Ahmed, and my mother, Noorjhan Fatima, gave us love, put food in our bellies and taught us proper British and Islamic values, such as honesty, integrity, hard work, friendship, compassion and wanting the best for others. My political journey started when I was around nine or 10 years old. I remember standing in front of my parents’ wardrobe mirror and asking God to make me one of two things when I grew up. I asked to be either a “Blue Peter” presenter, because a job that paid you to travel the world, do amazing activities and be on TV was surely the best gig in town, or—and I did not know why at the time—I asked God to make me a parliamentarian. I remember looking down at the colour of my skin and thinking that that might be difficult, but here I am today in the most diverse Parliament in history, where I look forward to breaking down barriers, making friends, doing good and preventing harm. If a “Blue Peter” producer is watching, however, I am still available for a guest appearance or a Christmas special.