Iqbal Mohamed MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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

  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.

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

  More

  I did not know Jo Cox, and Jo Cox did not know me, but what I do know is that Jo Cox was my friend. Hers is a legacy that we must not just honour with words, but live in practice. This is an opportunity to remind the country of Jo’s passion, drive and reason for being, why she was in this place and why she is so deeply missed. I am privileged to speak in this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater)—my predecessor and constituency neighbour—for continuing Jo’s wonderful work and legacy. I salute you, my friend. I was elected in 2024, so I did not have the honour of working with Jo, but—I am not saying this to cause offence to any Member—I feel that I know Jo Cox better than I know many Members of this House today, and it is not for want of trying. I absolutely adored the description given by the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who said that Jo was “quite mental”. I would qualify that by saying she was quite good mental. There is mental and then there is mental, and she was of the good kind. Having been elected as the Member of Parliament for Dewsbury and Batley, I feel extremely privileged to speak in this debate. Jo was born in Dewsbury and represented Batley and Spen, the two towns that I now represent, making it a special honour for me to be able to speak today. The values that she embodied and championed—tolerance, fairness and kindness—still echo powerfully across our communities. Much has rightly been made of Jo’s maiden speech, in which she spoke powerfully and eloquently about how “we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.” —[ Official Report , 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 674.] That is an apt mission statement or motto for this place, but I have gone through Hansard to see what Jo said immediately before those remarks, which are now internationally recognised. The remarks that she made before that are just as important, even though they are less commented on. She said: “Batley and Spen is a gathering of typically independent, no-nonsense and proud Yorkshire towns and villages. Our communities have been deeply enhanced by immigration, be it of Irish Catholics across the constituency or of Muslims from Gujarat in India or from Pakistan, principally from Kashmir.” —[ Official Report , 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 674.] As we look at the unsavoury scenes that have unfolded across the UK in the past week, from Belfast to Southampton, Jo’s belief in the strength of diversity and the power of connection has never been more important. Listening, respecting differences and building bridges where others might be tempted to build walls all matter today more than ever, and they matter in this place. As we reflect on Jo’s legacy, we must be honest about the marked deterioration in the state of our public life since her heinous murder. Civility, the basic respect that underpins democratic disagreement, has been under unprecedented strain and attack in the past decade. We see it in the abuse increasingly directed at elected representatives, in the growing normalisation of unsavoury discourse and, perhaps most pervasively and drastically, in the digital spaces that increasingly shape our national conversation. Jo understood that vehement disagreement is fundamental to any functioning democracy, but she also understood that democracy cannot function without a basic sense of humanity and a willingness to listen to the views of others in good faith. That is why we must confront one of the defining challenges of our time, which is the role of big tech and social media in poisoning our social fabric. Referring back to some of the comments we have heard, we must confront the wider ecosystem of public commentary from prominent political figures, media personalities and online influencers whose reckless or inflammatory language can help to create the conditions for real-world harm. In the run-up to periods of unrest in communities across our country, we have too often seen divisive narratives, misinformation and the amplification of fear and grievance. Social media platforms have allowed such content to spread rapidly and without sufficient accountability. Why would they do so? Because every click, every like and every forward earns them more pounds or more dollars, and more money for their shareholders. The result is an environment where tensions can be heightened, trust eroded and, in the worst cases, communities pitted against one another. Yesterday, we heard about the violence and riots in Belfast, where masked people—men predominantly—went around the streets shouting, “Foreigners out!” They also went into people’s homes, evicted them and set their homes on fire. This cannot be accepted, tolerated or encouraged. If we are to honour Jo’s legacy, we must be clear that freedom of expression carries responsibility, and that those with large platforms—whether in politics, media or tech—must be held accountable for the impact of their words. Too often, we have allowed these platforms to become amplifiers of anger, division and dehumanisation, without any restrictions. It is a far cry from the open, respectful dialogue on which democracy depends. The Jo Cox Foundation has rightly called for more actions to reduce online harms, but we in this House must be crystal clear that regulation has not gone anywhere near far enough or fast enough. Algorithmic systems reward outrage over empathy. They monetise violence and incitement to violence. Abuse and disinformation spread faster than compliments and the truth, and anonymity acts as a shield for those who seek to bully and threaten. These companies must be brought to heel both for the health of our younger generations and for the health of our democracy and our society. There is a deeper, more insidious link between the toxic nature of online spaces and the growing crisis of loneliness in our society, of which Jo was such a prescient observer. The Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness put this issue firmly on the national agenda, and its relevance has only grown since. There are now half a million more people experiencing chronic loneliness than before the pandemic, with young people among the most likely to feel isolated. The evidence is clear that loneliness weakens social cohesion, reduces trust and leaves individuals more vulnerable to political polarisation and extremism, so when people feel disconnected from each other, our democracy itself becomes more fragile. Jo instinctively understood that connection more than most parliamentarians, which is why her legacy is not just about remembrance, but about the responsibility we have in this House and the other place. It is a responsibility to rebuild civility in our politics and to calm tensions, not inflame them, both in this House and in our wider nation; a responsibility to strengthen the social fabric of our communities, not undermine them by pitting different groups against each other; and a responsibility to ensure that the technologies shaping our lives serve humanity, not damage it. That means taking seriously the call for a renewed cross-Government strategy on loneliness, and one that recognises social connection as fundamental to physical health, mental wellbeing and social cohesion. However, it also means going further. It means holding big tech companies to account for the environments they create, embedding safeguards against online abuse and disinformation, and investing in digital literacy so that people of all ages can navigate these spaces safely and critically. Above all, it means leading by example, because every one of us in this House has a role to play in setting the tone of public debate. I promised in my maiden speech, to this House and to our nation, that I would not deliberately say or do anything to harm any other person. I try to live by that principle, and I apologise to Members of this House and to members of our nation if, in the 23 months I have been an MP, I have failed in that promise, but I will try to do better. We cannot call for civility while engaging in division, and we cannot demand respect while tolerating abuse. If we are to honour Jo’s memory, we must embody her values, not just invoke them. That starts with recognising, as she did, that our shared humanity is greater than our differences, and it continues with the choices we make about how we speak, how we listen and how we treat one another. So I end by echoing the words of the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) that we must love like Jo, live like Jo, care like Jo and serve like Jo.

• 20 May 2026 · Artificial Intelligence · Hansard source

  More

  Given the growing warnings from leading scientists, industry figures and Nobel laureates that advanced AI systems could pose existential risks on a par with nuclear or biological threats, does the Minister agree that the current reliance on voluntary commitments through the AI Security Institute is insufficient, and will he outline the concrete steps that the Government will now take to move beyond non-binding agreements, and to introduce enforceable, internationally agreed standards?

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

  More

  Every time I come to Parliament, I take a taxi from my home to the station. I speak to many private hire drivers, as I am sure many Members across the House do. In the past two years, since the settlement with Uber to class drivers as employees and get some benefits, the commission rates have ballooned. Before, they were fixed at nearly 25%; now, they are dynamic. Drivers sometimes get less than half the fare that customers pay. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government should do more to prevent any exploitation of workers and protect them from modern slavery conditions?

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

  More

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

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this debate on the first anniversary of the For Women Scotland Ltd v. the Scottish Ministers ruling. I also thank her and other colleagues in this Chamber for their work on these sensitive issues surrounding sex and gender. They have helped ensure that Parliament continues to grapple with these issues in a careful and thoughtful manner. This issue has faced our society since before I became a Member; and even before I entered this place, it was clear that it was being weaponised, one human being against another, by people who do not always have the best interests of those groups or human beings at heart. I am struggling to put into words my complete confusion that, in the 21st century in the UK Parliament, we are debating what a woman is. It is Adam and Eve, if you are people of faith or believe in the origin of human beings, and even if you are not people of faith, people have known what a woman and a man are since the beginning of time. I stand here with full respect for those who feel or want to be or, for whatever reason that I do not understand, believe that they are a different gender from the biological sex that they are in. However, women’s rights have been less, and diminished, for centuries, and every single year they are fighting on many fronts for equality. I have stood in this place and in the main Chamber talking about women’s rights on healthcare, maternity rights and gender pay equality—things that men have taken for granted but where they have imposed a substandard level of right on women. It is completely unacceptable. But here we are now, questioning the fundamental biology of women—not just in this place, in this country, but everywhere in the world. I cannot reconcile the situation that we have faced. When the Supreme Court finally gave a ruling that clearly defined what a man and a woman are under the law, we expected this gaslighting, this aggressive lobbying and this fighting between fellow human beings to, hopefully, recede with clear guidance, rules and processes at parliamentary level, at a legal level and at an employment rights level. But here we are a year later, and the Government have been dilly-dallying and sitting on the ruling, which does not change the law, as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) said. The anniversary provides an opportunity not only to reflect on the nature of this specific ruling, but to reaffirm the fundamental principle that in a democratic society governed by the rule of law, the judgments of our highest courts must be respected and properly implemented. The Supreme Court’s ruling of 16 April 2025 brought much-needed legal clarity. It confirmed that, within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, references to “sex”, “man” and “woman” are to be understood as referring to biological sex. How somebody felt that they referred to something else, I cannot understand. That was not the creation of a new law, but the authoritative interpretation of legislation passed by Parliament. I stand here with women constituents, men constituents, trans women constituents, trans male constituents and people who are still trying to find their way through their biology and feelings, and I stand for each and every one of those without fear or favour. I have met trans people in my constituency, both those who have transitioned fully, so they are either a man or a woman because biologically they have transitioned, and those who have not transitioned and have a gender recognition certificate or live their life as the opposite gender.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Fur: Import and Sale · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing this important debate. I think that we will rightly repeat several of the key issues and reasons why the import of fur products should be banned in the UK and those points are absolutely crucial. As we have heard, the United Kingdom banned fur farming over two decades ago because Parliament rightly recognised the extreme and unnecessary cruelty it inflicts on defenceless animals. Yet today we continue to allow the import and sale of fur products produced using precisely the same methods that we judged unacceptable within our own borders. That contradiction is simply impossible to defend. If fur farming is rightfully recognised as too cruel to permit in this country, then it also should be considered too cruel to profit from its proceeds. Every year, tens of millions of animals across the world are confined to small wire cages or trapped in the wild solely for their fur. An estimated 85 million to 100 million animals globally are farmed or trapped for their fur. Investigations and scientific assessment have shown repeatedly that such conditions fail to meet animals’ most basic behavioural needs and cause severe and inhumane suffering; but do we really need scientific studies to prove that the way in which fur is farmed and animals are trapped is inhumane and causes suffering? Of course not; we can see it with our own eyes. These are wild animals who should be allowed to roam free in the wild, but are instead kept locked up in tiny cages in deplorable conditions. Once their pelts are ready, they are gassed or anally electrocuted, as we have heard. Many of the animals are killed at about the age of one year, when their pelts are in their prime. That is the real nature of the system that continues to supply the global fur trade. While the UK banned fur farming domestically, we remain inextricably connected to the system through the import of furs. As we heard from the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn, figures from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs show that the UK continues to import about £30 million to £40 million-worth of fur products each year, which equates to an estimate of about 1 million animals annually. That raises an obvious ethical question.

• 9 Feb 2026 · UK-India Free Trade Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  The UK is well regulated: we have auditing and verification, and there is a level of trust in the system for products, services, food, pharmaceuticals and agriculture. I am a big fan of India—my heritage is Indian, and my family is from India, so I am not here to criticise India unnecessarily—but the culture of compliance there is not on the same level or as embedded as it is in Europe and the UK. We would need more audits and external inspections to confirm that the products coming to our shores meet our standards, and for that the Government must invest more in resources, not reduce team sizes. Does the right hon. Member agree?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Standards in Public Life · Hansard source

  More

  Confidence in the Prime Minister is at an all-time low, and many of the reasons for that have already been discussed. However, one particular issue is that the Prime Minister visited Palantir’s head offices in Washington DC in February 2025. Will the Chief Secretary confirm whether Peter Mandelson advised the PM to visit Palantir? What was the purpose of the visit? Will the Government publish details and minutes of the discussions that took place at that meeting? Will the Government review all existing contracts with Palantir and suspend any further engagement with it until the investigations are completed?

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

  More

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

• 5 Jan 2026 · Venezuela · Hansard source

  More

  The unstoppable machine of American imperialist invasions has killed millions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. From aiding, arming and abetting a genocide in Palestine, to now the invasion and abduction of a leader in Venezuela, for oil, minerals and gold, and to protect the petrodollar, this has nothing to do with democracy or narco-terrorism. With ongoing threats to Greenland, Cuba, Colombia and Mexico, the list of gangsterish aggression continues unopposed. Has the global rules-based order now collapsed, or did it ever even exist for western warmongering powers?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Online Safety Act 2023: Repeal · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for his powerful and eloquent introduction to this important debate. The scale of this petition should make us reflect: over half a million people have called for the repeal of the Online Safety Act, not because online safety is unpopular, but because they believe that the legislation does not yet strike the right balance. Let me be clear: the Online Safety Act exists for a reason. I stand in strong support of its intent, aims and objectives, and I am not in favour of its repeal. For too long, online platforms have failed to protect users, particularly children, from serious harm. The statistics are sobering: nearly one in five children aged 10 to 15 have exchanged messages with someone they have never met; over 9,000 reported child sexual abuse offences in 2022-23 involved an online element; and, in recent years, we have seen tragic cases where exposure to harmful online content has contributed to devastating outcomes. Repealing the Act would leave us with very little meaningful protection, so it remains central for regulating online spaces in the UK. We must accept that necessary truth, although it is a hard pill to swallow. Supporting the Act, however, does not mean ignoring the parts that need important improvements. One of the most significant concerns is age restriction. Age-gating can and should play a role in protecting children from genuinely harmful content, but it is increasingly clear that the boundaries of age restrictions are not defined well. There is growing evidence that lawful political content, including news and commentary on conflicts such as Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan, is being placed behind age gates. Teenagers aged 16 and 17 are finding themselves blocked from accessing political information and current affairs, sometimes more strictly than in film and television content regulated by the British Board of Film Classification. That should give us pause, particularly when the House is considering extending the vote to 16-year-olds. If we believe that young people should be active participants in our democracy, we cannot also allow systems that restrict their access to political debate by default, just because these are difficult and sensitive topics. What is or is not age-restricted needs to be far clearer, more consistent and more proportionate. The second area where clarity is urgently needed is generative AI. As we are having this debate, the Home Secretary is making a statement on violence against women and girls, which she has rightly described as a “national emergency”. The Government’s five-year national strategy acknowledges the growing threat posed by intimate deepfakes, with one survey by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children showing that three in five people fear becoming a victim. With current laws proving too difficult to apply in complex and rapidly evolving cases, what specific legislative proposals are the Government hoping to develop to address deepfake abuse? When this legislation was drafted and passed, the pace of AI development was very different. Today, AI tools and chatbots are embedded across social media, search engines and messaging platforms, with people relying on ChatGPT, Gemini and Copilot as search engines and virtual assistants embedded into almost every online service we use. They can generate harmful and misleading content within seconds, including advice related to self-harm, eating disorders, substance misuse and suicide assistance. Only last week, I led a debate in Westminster Hall on the need for stronger AI regulation. That debate reinforced a growing concern that many AI-driven services currently sit at the edges of the Online Safety Act. Although Ofcom has acknowledged that gap and issued guidance, guidance alone is not enough. We need clarity on how generative AI is regulated and whether further legislative action is required to keep pace with the technology. The message of this petition is not a rejection of online safety; it is a call for a system that protects children while safeguarding freedom of expression, political engagement and public trust. The challenge before us is not to repeal, but to refine by strengthening definitions, clarifying age restrictions and ensuring that the Online Safety Act evolves alongside emerging technologies. If we get that right, we can protect users online without undermining the democratic values we try to defend.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Kashmir: Self-determination · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for securing this debate. For some, Kashmir is seen as a geopolitical flashpoint, but for thousands of people in my constituency and across the UK, it is something far more personal and intimate. It is a place where their parents were born, the place where their children’s grandparents still live and the place they call home, even from thousands of miles away. My office has heard from many families who were gripped by fear as the recent violence escalated. One article described the situation bluntly: “We were not able to step outside of our homes because of the intensity of firing from both sides. We could only hear loud bangs from inside.” Others shared the heartbreak of losing relatives in the clashes, and several wrote to me terrified because their elderly parents were visiting during the violence and became stranded, unable to return safely. These are not distant political events; they are lived experiences for people I represent. The human rights violations that we have heard about from Members on both sides of the Chamber do not exist in isolation. The root causes go back decades to the 1947 partition and the unresolved question of Kashmir’s political status, with incursions and human rights abuses from both the Indian side and the Pakistani side—a legacy of imperial decision making that continues to shape instability today. The violence is escalating, and the reports that India intends to impose Israel-style policies in Kashmir—demographic engineering, land dispossession and silencing of activists—only deepen the urgency. The right to self-determination is not optional. It is enshrined in UN Security Council resolutions 47 and 51. For 77 years, this promise has been denied. As a permanent member of the Security Council and a nation that champions democracy and human rights, the UK must act. I urge the Government to lead on human rights, and demand and facilitate independent investigations into atrocities on both sides of the line of control; to push for and facilitate dialogue, and to use our diplomatic influence to bring India, Pakistan and the Kashmiri representatives around the negotiating table; to support and enforce the 18 UN resolutions since 1947, none of which has been fully implemented, and especially advocate for a free and fair plebiscite; and to provide humanitarian support as required to protect civilian life on both sides of the line of control.

• 10 Dec 2025 · AI Safety · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member touches on a broader point: any area with experts and specialist requirements for end users or for the use of that tool for an audience or demographic must directly involve those people and experts in the development, testing, verification and follow-up auditing of the effectiveness of those tools. AI companies are racing to build increasingly capable AI with the explicit end goal of creating AI that is equal to or able to exceed the most capable human intellectual ability across all domains. AI companies are also pursuing AI that can be used to accelerate their own AI developments, so it is a self-developing, self-perpetuating technology. For that reason, many experts, some of whom I have quoted, say that this will lead to artificial super-intelligence soon after. ASI is an AI system that significantly exceeds the upper limit of human intellectual ability across all domains. The concerns, risks and dangers of AI are current and will only get worse. We are already seeing systems behave in ways that no one designed, deceiving users, manipulating their environments and showing the beginnings of self-preserving strategies: exactly the behaviours that researchers predicted if AI developed without restraint. There are documented examples of deception, where AI asked a human to approve something by lying, claiming to be a human with visual impairment contacting them. An example of manipulation can be found in Meta’s CICERO, an AI trained to play the game of “Diplomacy”, which achieved human-level performance by negotiating, forming alliances and then breaking them when it benefited. Researchers noted that language was used strategically to mislead other players and deceive them. That was not a glitch; it was the system discovering manipulation as an effective strategy. It taught itself how to deceive others to achieve an outcome. Even more concerning are cases where models behave in ways to resemble self-preservation. In recent tests on the DeepSeek R1 model, researchers found that it concealed its intentions, produced dangerously misleading advice and attempted to hack its reward signals when placed under pressure—behaviours it was never trained to exhibit. Those are early signs of systems acting beyond our instructions. More advanced systems are on the horizon. Artificial general intelligence and even artificial superintelligence are no longer confined to speculative fiction. As lawmakers, we must understand their potential impacts and ensure we establish the rules, standards and safeguards necessary to protect our economy, environment and society, if things go wrong. The potential risks, including extreme risks, posed by AI cannot be dismissed. This may be existential and cause the end of our species. The potential extinction risks from advanced AI, particularly through the emergence of superintelligence, will be the capacity to process vast amounts of data, demonstrate superior reasoning across domains and constantly seek to improve itself, ultimately outpacing humans in our ability to stop it in its tracks. The dangers of AI are rising. As I have said, AI is already displacing jobs, increasing inequalities, amplifying existing social and economic inequalities and threatening civil liberties. At the extreme, unregulated progress may create national security vulnerabilities with implications for the long-term survival of the human species. Empirical research in 2024 showed OpenAI occasionally displayed strategic deception in controlled environments. In one case, AI was found to bypass its own testing containment through a back door it created. Having been developed in environments that are allegedly ringfenced and disconnected from the wider world, AI is intelligent enough to find ways out. Right now, there is a significant lack of legislative measures to counter those developments, despite top AI engineers asking us for that. We currently have a laissez-faire system where a sandwich has more regulation than AI companies, or even that of the rigorous safety standards placed on pharmaceuticals or aviation companies, which protect public health. The UK cannot afford to fall behind on this. I do not want to dwell on doom and gloom; there is hope. The European Union, California and New York are leading the way on strong AI governance. The EU AI Act establishes a risk-based comprehensive regulatory framework. California is advancing detailed standards on system evaluations and algorithmic accountability, and New York has pioneered transparency and bias-audit rules for automated decision making. Those approaches show that democratic nations can take bold, responsible action to protect their citizens while fostering innovation. We in the UK are fortunate to have a world-leading ecosystem of AI safety researchers. The UK AI Security Institute conducts essential work testing frontier models for dangerous capabilities, but it currently relies on companies’ good will to provide deployment action. We stand at a threshold of an era defined by AI. Our responsibility as legislators is clear: we cannot afford complacency, nor can we allow the UK to drift into a position in where safety, transparency and accountability are afterthoughts, rather than foundational principles. The risk posed by advanced AI systems to our economy, our security and our very autonomy are real, escalating and well documented by the world’s leading experts. The United Kingdom has the scientific talent, the industrial capacity and the democratic mandate to lead in safe and trustworthy AI, but we lack the legislative framework to match that ambition. I urge the Government to urgently bring forward an AI Bill as a cross-party endeavour, and perhaps even set up a dedicated Select Committee for AI, given how serious the issue is.

• 10 Dec 2025 · AI Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for taking part in this important debate. Amazing, informed and critical contributions have been made and it is important that the Government hear all of those. There were issues that I did not have time to cover such as the military and ethical use of AI. I think the whole thing about ethical use in any field where AI or any technology is applied is important. It is really hard at the moment for AI to be trained in innate human, ethical and moral behavioural standards. That is a challenge that needs to be overcome. Where there are actions taken by AI that can lead to harm, we should have human oversight and the four-eyes principle, or what we used to call GxP in the pharmaceutical industry, where a second person oversees certain approvals and decisions. Issues were raised around misinformation and the impact on our democracy, and also on the credibility and trustworthiness of individuals. Also raised was the gender imbalance and how AI represents men versus women, as well as the volume of data that is scraped and sourced from pornographic or illegitimate sexual violence against women videos. There should be a review of how that could be addressed quickly if AI regulation is not coming any time soon. On the last couple of points, I just reiterate my call for the UK to bring itself up to the current international standards and start taking a lead in building on, developing and refining those so that they are not destructive and damaging to growth and progress. On the investments and subsidies that we provide for foreign tech companies, they are great at onshoring costs, taking tax reliefs and subsidies and offshoring profits, so we never, ever benefit from the gain and the profits. I hope the Minister will look into that. Again, I thank everyone. Question put and agreed to. Resolved. That this House has considered AI safety.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Terminal Illness: Mental Health Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for bringing this important topic for debate. When we talk about mental health, we often picture everyday stress, anxiety or the long waits for talking therapies, but there is a group of people whose mental health needs are profound, urgent and too often invisible: people living with a terminal illness. That is not a topic that we often think about in the grand scheme of mental health provision, but the need for emotional and mental support in that medical situation is momentous—a need that I hope none of us here ever experience. Mental health services and support in our country are at breaking point. More than 1.5 million adults in England—not necessarily suffering from a terminal illness, but just adults generally—are waiting for mental health support and treatment, and more than 500,000 children. Patients are eight to 12 times more likely to wait for mental health treatment than they are for physical health support. While waiting, approximately 42% of patients deteriorate and seek further assistance through A&E and other NHS services, increasing the burden on our already stretched NHS. For people with a terminal illness, the situation is even grimmer and bleaker; it brings fear, grief, uncertainty and, for many, isolation. Those feelings affect not just the person who is diagnosed, but partners, children and family members, who carry the emotional weight of uncertainty and the news they have just received. Yet mental health support at the end of life is still inconsistent, still underfunded and still far too dependent on location and charity rather than on rights and entitlements. Right now, access to mental health support at the end of life is a postcode lottery—one of the most troubling parts of this whole issue. In some areas, people can receive specialist psychological support, family counselling or bereavement services as part of their palliative care; in other areas, those services simply do not exist. Whether someone receives help often comes down to the resources of their local hospice, the strength of its fundraising base or the priorities of an overstretched local health system. That creates a deep and unacceptable inequality. Families in the most deprived communities—such as those in my Dewsbury and Batley constituency and in wider Kirklees—already at higher risk of poor health outcomes, are often those with the least access to emotional and mental health support at the end of life. Wealthier areas can sometimes raise the funds to keep services going; poorer areas cannot. A person’s final moments should not be shaped by how affluent their postcode is or whether their local hospice can afford another counsellor that year. If we are serious about dignity in palliative care, then we must be serious about ending that inequality. Mental health support should be a guaranteed part of end-of-life care everywhere, not a privilege that depends on geography or charity fundraising. A few weeks ago, I attended a meeting with Forget Me Not hospice in West Yorkshire here in Parliament with other MPs from Kirklees. Forget Me Not staff spoke powerfully about what it means to support people to live well until the end of life, and to die with dignity, comfort and emotional support. They welcome the recent £100 million capital funding, which will allow them to keep operating or to repair their facilities, but they are still short of revenue funding to maintain the staffing levels that they had. This coming year, they have had to cut £1 million from their budget, reducing the number of spaces available for treatment in their two hospices by 800 out of 2,100. The impact on Kirklees and my constituents is severe. I believe that the Government guaranteed three years of funding for revenue costs for hospices, but £25 million is a drop in the ocean. I ask the Minister to set out what the Government will do to address the huge shortfall in funding for hospices across our country. Without that additional funding, hospices are reducing staff or cannot plan staffing beyond three years now—before it was for one year. They cannot provide specialist therapy or mental health provision with certainty. Yet hospices are the very places offering the kind of care our NHS simply cannot replicate: time, counselling, bereavement support and a community that wraps around the entire family. They are asked to do more every single year, with less stability to do it. People with terminal illnesses need more than medication and pain management; they need psychological support to process what is happening to them. They need space to talk about fear, leaving family behind and loss of identity. Families—often the forgotten grievers—need support too. No one should spend their final months fighting for the counselling that might help them face the end of life with peace rather than fear. Believing in dignity at the end of life comes hand in hand with mental health support as a core part of palliative care that we should recognise in policy and fund in practice. We owe people living with terminal illness and their families who love them nothing less.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I wholeheartedly agree. We in the UK have the capabilities to be a leader in these technologies and we must take a collective approach on green energy for both environmental and economic gains. We need certainty for private capital to flow in and the delivery of long-term taxpayer returns. Amendment 12 looks at the SAF mandate itself. It requires a review within 12 months of the sub-target for power-to-liquid fuel to assess whether it is ambitious enough and whether it reflects the urgency of the climate challenge and the pace of international competition. This is not about setting targets in haste; it is about ensuring our targets are based on evidence, consultation and real-world feasibility. The amendment explicitly requires engagements with power-to-liquid producers, airlines, experts and wider stakeholders, and it requires that a report be laid before Parliament. Let me be clear: I do not stand alone in calling for this. More than 130 organisations, from airlines and clean energy firms to researchers and investors, have called on the Government to prioritise PTL through the Bill. They have called for urgent engagement, timely regulation and a clear pathway to a commercial-scale plant in the UK by 2026. We already know the EU is moving faster, alongside Canada and the United States, with more ambition on PTL. If we fall behind, we will become importers of clean fuel, not exporters of clean technology and we will miss the industrial opportunity staring us in the face. Time is of the essence, and we must all work together to get this right.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise today to speak in support of amendments 2(a), 37 and 39, and new clauses 8, 10 and 11. Without going into a Third Reading speech, it is important to highlight that we are debating a Bill that will have a profound and, in many cases, devastating impact on thousands of families across our country. As the Resolution Foundation puts it, this Bill represents an “income shock for millions of low-income households.” That should give every Member in this Chamber pause. What is particularly troubling is that the areas hardest hit are the very communities that this Government claim to support—places in the north of England, in Wales and in my region of Yorkshire. These proud working-class areas are being failed by a Government tightening the purse strings on the most vulnerable. In Dewsbury and Batley, 7.9% of people claim personal independence payment. I have had more than 150 constituents contact me terrified about what these cuts mean. Those are not just numbers; they are real people with real needs. The universal credit health element is an essential lifeline for millions of people in our country. One of my constituents, Andrew Waring, ran a business before 2020. Then covid left him with long-term organ damage. He could barely walk 10 metres, and his PIP payments became a lifeline. Cutting such support is not about trimming fat; it cuts into people’s dignity and survival. More than 20 civil society organisations have urged MPs to reject these cuts. Even with the Government’s amendments and the change introduced last week to defer any cuts to PIP until the Timms review has concluded, people are still left concerned and in severe distress. As it stands, clause 2 will leave 750,000 people, according to the Government’s impact assessment published last night, up to £3,000 worse off by 2030. One in five people on universal credit and disability benefits have used a food bank in the past month, and this Bill will just increase that number. That is why I support amendment 2(a) tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) to maintain the current universal credit health element. That cut will especially hurt people with mental health conditions who are already struggling to access support. Many Members across the House have spoken in support of the other amendments that I also support, and I will not repeat their eloquent and informed speeches and the points they made. To conclude, what has been disappointing at the end of my first year in Parliament is to see a critical Bill, which will impact millions and millions of people in our country, rushed through the legislative process in a way that has not allowed the relevant time to understand, amend and improve it so that it is fit for purpose. I am sorry to say so, but this process has been a legislative mess.

• 4 Jul 2025 · Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) on introducing this important Bill. It is an absolute honour and a privilege to speak on this subject. I have spoken on animal welfare in two Westminster Hall debates in the past month, and it is an important topic to speak about on the anniversary of my election, so I am grateful for the opportunity. I am also an animal lover. I know that all right hon. and hon. Members present are extremely well informed, so the facts and information I will share is not for their benefit. I want to use this opportunity to provide some education for communities across our country and to share the message further afield, beyond this place. As Mahatma Gandhi said: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” We often say we are a nation of animal lovers, and today is a test: if we legislate, we must legislate like one. Cruel practices like smuggling pregnant animals or separating young animals from their mothers at an early age violates all levels of mercy. These acts cause unnecessary suffering and must be stopped. Having researched and had information provided by my team, I found the scale of the issue staggering. Between 2015 and 2019, dog imports under the pet travel scheme rose by 86%. Many of those were illegal or misclassified commercial imports. A single journey from Romania to the UK is over 1,500 miles. Puppies as young as 13 weeks are transported in cramped, filthy vans, We have heard about cropped ears, a cruel thing to do to any animal. More than 21,000 dogs with cropped ears are now estimated to be in the UK population—a result of the legal grey area that we hope the Bill will address. I pay tribute and express my gratitude, I am sure on behalf of the House, to the many charities and organisations that look after animal welfare and ensure issues are brought to the attention of this place, and that are on the ground helping: Battersea, Dogs Trust, Countryside Alliance and many more that are local, regional, national and international. It is important to share some of the key issues around biosecurity and health risks. Many smuggled puppies and kittens arrive in the UK without the core vaccinations required to prevent rabies, distemper, parvovirus and other life threatening illnesses. These animals are often too young to have received their vaccinations or to have developed any immunity. That is dangerous for them and also poses a serious public health risk to our communities and domestic pet population. The current system allows these animals to enter the country with minimal scrutiny, creating a perfect entry point for zoonotic diseases—those that can jump from animals to humans. I will share two or three case studies from Battersea. Milo, a six-month-old dog rescued by Battersea, had been brutally mutilated. His ears were hacked and crudely stitched shut with cotton thread, which had been left to fester. That was not just illegal; it was deliberate torture masquerading as aesthetic enhancement. We need to tackle the glorification of mutilated animals on social media or any other platforms that do not make it clear to the people viewing that it is not the natural state of the animal—it has been mutilated. That is an important point that I hope, through this debate, will become more well known. To give some more examples, Sunny, Ray and Sky, three Cane Corso puppies, were trafficked over 1,500 miles from Romania. They were just 13 weeks old—under the legal import age—and unvaccinated, mutilated and forced into cramped, stressful conditions. Their ears had been cropped and their tails docked—all illegal here but still allowed under import loopholes. Snowy, a heavily pregnant dog, was smuggled during the final 10% of her pregnancy, in breach of current law. She endured the journey in squalid, dark and suffocating conditions without adequate food or water. These journeys not only traumatise the animals but endanger the lives of unborn puppies and the mothers carrying them. I did not have much experience of the importation of animals into our country until my preparations for this and previous debates. I am aware that in my constituency there is an illegal trade of puppies, which are kept in small, cramped cages outside until they reach the age when they can be sold. These cruelly treated puppies can be sold for thousands and thousands of pounds. I hope that part of the work we are doing on the Bill can also look to address that. On the exploitation of loopholes, we have heard that the current pet travel scheme designed for holidaymakers has been systematically abused by organised puppy traffickers. Breeders mislabel commercial sales as personal pet movements to sidestep import rules, veterinary checks and regulations. Smuggling heavily pregnant dogs is a deliberate move, allowing traffickers to appear legitimate by showing the puppies with their mother, deceiving buyers into thinking that the litter was bred responsibly in the UK. These are not one-off cases. This is organised animal trafficking, often international in scale, that thrives on weak legislation, poor enforcement and consumer deception. Without the Bill, we are effectively enabling profit from pain through a loophole-ridden system that is ripe for abuse. On constituent engagement on this issue, through Battersea alone over 14,680 people across 649 constituencies have contacted their MPs to urge them to support the Bill. This is a groundswell of support that cuts across party lines. While I have only had one email from a constituent directly about the Bill, I have had over 87 emails in this Parliament from constituents calling for stronger animal welfare protections. This speaks to a powerful public mandate. People are demanding action to end the suffering of trafficked animals and uphold the UK’s reputation as a leader on welfare. Passing this Bill is the right and compassionate thing to do.