Iqbal Mohamed MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In Dewsbury and Batley, Yorkshire Water has dumped sewage for more than 1,597 hours so far this year, exceeding the confirmed total sewage pollution for 2025. Yet the Environment Agency has not completed any prosecutions against water companies for sewage dumping committed in the past five years. What exactly in this system constitutes effective enforcement and accountability, and what are this Government doing right now to strengthen it?

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State talks about deregulation, but we have seen what that has led to in the finance sector, the banking sector and the water industry: consumers end up paying the price. The Secretary of State also talks about AI; speaking way back in 2014, Stephen Hawking cautioned: “The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.” Why do the Government believe that deregulating AI is going to assist their growth mission? It will put consumers’ lives and the human race at risk.

• 24 Mar 2026 · UN Framework Convention on International Tax Co-operation: Global Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  1. Whether he has had discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on global taxes on oil and gas companies in the context of the proposed UN framework convention on international tax co-operation.

• 24 Mar 2026 · UN Framework Convention on International Tax Co-operation: Global Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  The combined market value of the six big oil super-majors has soared by more than $130 billion since the first US-Israeli attack on Iran, while my constituents and those across the country face higher bills. Will the Energy Secretary and the Government work with international partners to establish global taxes on the fossil fuel industry through the UN tax convention and help bill payers with their energy costs?

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

  More

  I completely agree, and I was happy to support the hon. Gentleman’s private Member’s Bill and speak in the debate. Anything that we deem unacceptable or cruel in our country is unacceptable or cruel wherever it is done, and we should not help to perpetuate that cruelty elsewhere around the world. The ethical question is, as the hon. Gentleman just said, why are we comfortable outsourcing animal cruelty to other countries simply because it then occurs beyond our shores? Increasingly, the general public recognise the incoherence of that perverse position. There has been a profound sea change in British public attitudes to the fur trade. A YouGov survey found that 93% of people in the UK do not wear real fur and, as we heard, 97% would never wear real fur. A 2023 poll found that 77% believe that when a type of farming is banned in the UK for being too cruel, we should also ban imports of products produced in the same way overseas. An easy win for the Government would be to implement a policy that is widely popular: such cruelty is unacceptable to the people of our country. In other words, that is not a controversial position among the public, but reflects a widely shared, common-sense position that the fur trade is outdated and unnecessary in the 21st century. The economic case for maintaining the fur trade is increasingly weak. The UK fur market has been in steep decline over the past decade. Fur imports now represent just a tiny fraction of the UK’s overall clothing trade. Many major brands and global luxury houses have already turned away from fur entirely, and London Fashion Week banned its use in 2023. The direction of travel is clear: the industry is dying, consumer demand is collapsing and alternatives are widely available. Environmental and public health concerns are also associated with fur production. Studies have shown that the carbon footprint of fur significantly exceeds that of many other materials used in fashion, given the intensive farming of carnivorous wild animals and the process it entails. Meanwhile, outbreaks of SARS—severe acute respiratory syndrome—and avian influenza on fur farms have highlighted the risks that such facilities can pose as potential transmission hubs for zoonotic disease, thereby increasing the likelihood of future pandemics. Taken together, the case for a more comprehensive ban is compelling. I welcome the efforts of colleagues who have brought forward proposals to prohibit the import and sale of fur in the United Kingdom, including the Fur (Import and Sale) Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn. Such legislation would close the obvious loophole that currently exists in our animal welfare framework. The UK was once a global leader in banning fur farming. Many other countries followed our example. We now have an opportunity to lead again, by ending our association with a trade that is morally repugnant, environmentally harmful, economically marginal and overwhelmingly rejected by the public. There is no such thing as humane fur farming, wherever it takes place, and it must end now.

• 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.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  What steps is DEFRA taking to raise public awareness of the impact of methane-reducing feed additives used in livestock farming, such as Bovaer? What steps is DEFRA taking to ensure that all chemicals and additives are tested and proven to be safe for humans, animals and nature before being approved for use in agriculture and food?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Water White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State and the White Paper. Some £7.6 billion has gone from the pockets of my constituents in Dewsbury and Batley, and all other customers of Yorkshire Water, into the pockets of shareholders in the form of dividends. In addition, there has been £1.4 billion in interest payments on money held by the company, yet bills have risen by an eye-watering 28% to 34% in the past year, and are predicted to rise by a further 30% between now and 2030. What steps will the Secretary of State and the Government take, and will they consider retrospective penalties for past failures to claw back dividends that went to shareholders instead of being invested in pipes or used to reduce customers’ bills?

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

  More

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

• 15 Jan 2026 · Covid-19: Financial Support · Hansard source

  More

  My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister was elected on a platform that pledged to clean up politics and crack down on those who defraud the public purse. However, instead of introducing stiffer penalties for individuals and corporations that are illegally profiteering from a crisis, the Government are spearheading punitive legislation on alleged welfare fraud, criminalising innocent benefit claimants. In conclusion, what unites all of what I have spoken about, as it does Members from all parts of the House, is that fraud, waste and cronyism are a failure of governance and a failure to adequately plan and properly design systems to protect the public purse. If we are serious about restoring—

• 15 Jan 2026 · Covid-19: Financial Support · Hansard source

  More

  I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for securing this important debate. The covid pandemic was an unprecedented crisis that placed immense strain on ruling parties worldwide. Few, if any, could dispute that rapid, decisive intervention was necessary to prevent an utterly catastrophic collapse in the British economy. However, acknowledging the scale of the challenge does not absolve the Government of responsibility for how that money was spent, how their support schemes were designed and implemented, or how recklessly public funds were safeguarded. While some degree of waste and fraud is inevitable in a crisis, the scale of loss during the pandemic was not inevitable, but the result of systemic failure within the UK Government. That failure remains unchecked under the current Labour Administration. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that covid support measures totalled somewhere between £169 billion and £192 billion. That included a variety of schemes, from furloughing individuals to protect them from unemployment to grants and loans intended to help businesses stay solvent. However, the support system simply did not work for nearly 3.8 million freelancers and self-employed workers. Many were excluded altogether from financial assistance through rigid eligibility criteria, outdated data or the blunt distinction drawn between modern forms of work. That said, much of the covid-19 spending—for those to whom it was available—undoubtedly saved jobs and prevented mass insolvency. Departments and public bodies were forced into reactive policymaking, scrambling to design schemes in real time, often without effective oversight or proper safeguards against abuse. Nowhere was that more evident than in the scale of fraud committed against the Government support schemes. According to the independent covid counter-fraud commissioner’s final report, published last month, some £10.9 billion of taxpayer money was lost to fraud and error across covid support schemes. Of that sum, only £1.8 billion has been recovered so far. The remainder, as the report makes clear, is likely beyond recovery, with fraud prevention efforts identified as falling short across Government. The causes of this failure are well documented in the aforementioned report, but one particular point that stuck out to me was that banks were instructed to suspend their usual due diligence, despite voicing explicit warnings about heightened risks of fraud. Better design was possible. Britain appears to stand alone in the G7 on the scale of fraud experienced during covid. Other countries managed to move quickly while still embedding stronger checks. The lesson is not that speed and scrutiny are incompatible, but that the Government of the time chose not to prioritise the latter. That so few consequences have followed these failures only deepens public cynicism with democratic political processes. Keir Starmer was elected on a—

• 6 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Pozitive Energy is a supplier to businesses in my constituency. It has provided inaccurate contracts and bills to customers, and has tried to bill them for premises that they do not occupy. It has disconnected customers from the electricity supply without notice, and fraudulently sent electricity bills for a meter that it disconnected. Now Pozitive Energy is demanding payment of the standing charge for a meter. Will the Secretary of State investigate rogue suppliers, and advise on how we will protect customers?

• 10 Dec 2025 · AI Safety · Hansard source

  More

  The enforcement processes that we have for existing regulations where human beings are providing that service are auditable. We do not have enforcement mechanisms for this kind of regulated service or information being provided by the internet or AI tools. There is a need to extend the scope of regulation but also the way in which we enforce that regulation for automated tools. I am a fan of innovation, growth and progress in society. However, we cannot move forward with progress at any cost. AI poses such a significant risk that if we do not regulate at the right time, we will not have a chance to get it back under control—it might be too late. Now is the time to start looking at this seriously and supporting the AI industry so that it is a force for good in society, not a future force of destruction. We are all facing a climate and nature emergency. AI is driving unprecedented growth in energy demand. According to the International Energy Agency, global data-centre electricity consumption will become slightly more than Japan’s total electricity consumption today. A House of Commons Library research briefing found that UK data centres currently consume 2.5% of the country’s electricity, with the sector’s consumption expected to rise fourfold by 2030. The increased demand strains the grid, slows transition to renewables and contributes to emissions that drive climate change. This issue must go hand in hand with our climate change obligations. Members have probably heard and read about AI’s impact on the job market. One of the clearest harms we are already seeing is the loss of jobs. That is not a future worry; it is happening now. Independent analysis shows that up to 8 million UK jobs are at risk from AI automation, with admin, customer service and junior professional roles being the most exposed. Another harm that we are already facing is the explosion of AI-driven scams. Generative AI-enabled scams have risen more than 450% in a single year, alongside a major surge in breached personal data and AI-generated phishing attempts. Deepfake-related fraud has increased by thousands of per cent, and one in every 20 identity-verification failures is now linked to AI manipulation. I move on to the ugly: the threat to the world. The idea that AI developers may lose control of the AI systems they create is not science fiction; it is the stated concern of the scientists who build this technology—the godfathers of AI, as we call them. One of them, Yoshua Bengio, has said: “If we build AIs that are smarter than us and are not aligned with us and compete with us, then we’re basically cooked”. Geoffrey Hinton, another godfather of AI and a winner of the Nobel prize in physics, said: “I actually think the risk is more than 50% of the existential threat”. Stuart Russell, the author of the standard AI textbook, says that if we pursue our current approach “then we will eventually lose control over the machines.” In May 2023, hundreds of AI researchers and industry leaders signed a statement declaring: “Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war”. That is not scaremongering; these are professional experts who are warning us to make sure that this technology does not get out of control.

• 10 Dec 2025 · AI Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I am grateful for the work that her Select Committee is doing, but I gently suggest that we need representatives from all the other affected Select Committees, covering environment, defence and the Treasury, because AI will affect every single function of Government, and we need to work together to protect ourselves from the overall, holistic threat.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I will come to that in the short time I have remaining. It is not true that we do not have enough money to fix these problems. If the Chancellor was serious about rebuilding Britain, she would adopt straightforward, fairer tax reforms. As many Members across have said, we could raise tens of billions of pounds by closing loopholes that allow foreign multinationals to shift profits offshore and avoid paying UK corporation tax while onshoring expenses and taking advantage of subsidies and tax relief. We could implement the digital services tax that was originally promised, ensuring that big tech finally pays its fair share of its record profits. We could end the preferential treatment of income from wealth over income from work by taxing capital gains at closer parity with earnings. We could introduce a genuine windfall tax on excessive profits, particularly in energy, finance and banking, and reform tax reliefs that disproportionately benefit the wealthy, and instead redirect revenue to public services. These are not radical ideas; they are basic principles of fiscal fairness. The Budget is a moral statement, and today’s Budget shows us a Government who still choose war over welfare, profits over people, and short-term headlines over long-term stability. To borrow a phrase, they are choosing the few over the many.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Lady agree that it is the linking of electricity prices and of renewable energy prices to gas that is creating these high energy prices, and that de-linking them would immediately cut prices for the consumer?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations · Hansard source

  More

  We must do whatever it takes to get aid into Gaza to stop people dying of starvation, and to get in medical aid to stop people dying from treatable illnesses and injuries. Not only must this Government and all their allies work together to get aid into Gaza, but any involvement of Israel in Gaza must be immediately removed. Israel must not have any part to play in the peace plan. It is the perpetrator of a genocide. How can it be allowed to participate in distribution or the implementation of a peace plan that will save lives in Gaza? The peace plan said that a minimum of 600 trucks a day would be allowed into Gaza to support more than 2 million people to meet their basic needs. However, much more than that is needed as a result of the complete annihilation of Gaza, its infrastructure and its medical facilities. Malnutrition exceeds 90%, and the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification announced that phase 5—famine—was reached in July this year. The UN says that at the current pace of less than 100 trucks a day, it would take six months just to deliver the pre-positioned aid that is at the borders. UNRWA estimates that, on average, there has been a maximum of 150 to 170 trucks of aid a day, so the ceasefire has done little to stabilise access to essential services. We have heard that the Gaza health system remains on the brink. Hospitals and clinics continue to be understaffed, undersupplied and under threat. UNICEF and other agencies have warned that the collapse of medical infrastructure means that even treatable illnesses can become life or limb-threatening. People continue to starve as aid is held up by the Government. The pattern we are seeing is stark. Even with the supposed truce, children are being killed, people are being wounded and violations continue with impunity. I have said this in the main Chamber, and I will repeat it: Israel does not want peace, it does not want the Palestinians to have their state, and its plan of complete extermination of the Palestinian people is continuing to be enacted before our very eyes. It has been more than two years—we are now in the 26th month—and we must act now to get Israel out of Gaza, to get all the aid that is waiting at the borders in, and to provide all the supplies to start rebuilding not just the buildings in Gaza but people’s lives. The violation of international humanitarian law continues unabated. The ceasefire was never a cure, but it was an opportunity for real, sustained protection of civilian life from Israeli bombardment. We must demand that Israel adheres to the pause in hostilities not just in name but in practice. The delivery of aid, including food, water, medicine and critical services, must be allowed immediately and unfettered. Our moral responsibility demands more than words. I am so sorry to say this, but since I became an MP, I have not seen a concrete step by our Government that I believe has saved lives. The millions of pounds in aid that have been allocated to helping Gazans has been sat at the borders. Our supply of weapons and parts for F-35s has continued. The amount of weapons sold to Israel since this Government came to power is four times as much as over the last three years of the previous Government. Our complicity and active participation in these atrocities must stop, and the Government must act immediately to get aid in.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Illegal Waste: Organised Crime · Hansard source

  More

  In 2023-24, there were 1.15 million fly-tipping incidents across England, with about 47,000 classified as tipper-load lorry sized or industrial. A tip fire occurred at an unauthorised waste dump in Dewsbury in early 2012. It burned for four weeks, causing significant disruption and house evacuations, and it cost over £1.2 million to manage and to clear the waste. There is no excuse for fly-tipping, and perpetrators must be made to pay for the clean-up. What resources are the Government providing to Kirklees council to help keep waste and recycling centres maintained and open, and what enforcement action is the Environment Agency taking against illegal dumping?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Mandatory Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  One of the reasons for proposing the scheme was to give citizens and residents of the UK easy access to Government and public services. We have been crying out for joined-up government for decades, under the previous Government and the Labour Government before them. Our systems across Government Departments are islands of automation. They are separate—they do not connect; they do not talk to each other. Before this ID could be effective, we would need a fully integrated, safe, joined-up Government system with systems that talked to each other. There are people working in the NHS who have multiple log-ins to do their normal job. That is the environment that we are in. My constituents and millions across this country are opposed to the scheme because they see the breach of their civil liberties but do not see the benefits of the scheme. The Government have not articulated them or the use cases. I asked the Secretary of State in the Chamber about what use cases the Government want to introduce the scheme for, about whether the prerequisites to deliver those use cases have been met, and about how the public can have guarantees about security, privacy and breach concerns before they are required, compulsorily, to sign up to the scheme. The scheme needs detailed review. The pilots and previous attempts to implement such schemes have failed. They have exposed our country to third-party risks. Our data is already out there, and we cannot introduce a system that will make the rest of the data, which is not out there, easily accessible to those criminals.

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

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I do understand his point. This is a transition. We are moving away from fuels that are killing our environment and our ability to survive on planet Earth. It is a responsible thing to do to find ways to reduce our reliance on carbon-generating fossil fuels through cleaner alternatives. This may not be the final solution for aviation—it might be a transition. Future technologies and innovations might allow us to stop the use of such fuels altogether. 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. As I have mentioned, the EU, Canada and the United States are moving faster. We must not miss this industrial opportunity to take a lead in progressing innovative SAF alternatives and licensing that technology around the world. We must act decisively, not incrementally. I support the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, but I believe we have a responsibility to make it stronger, bolder and more targeted towards the fuels that will truly deliver net zero. My amendments are practical, proportionate and widely supported. They add not cost, but clarity, confidence and a commitment to a sector that needs all three. If we want to lead the world in clean aviation, we must lead with action, not just ambition. I call on friends and colleagues across the House to support the amendments in my name, and in doing so to give PTL the foothold it needs to take off in the UK.

• 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.

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

  More

  I am pleased to rise to speak to my new clause 7 and amendment 12. I support the intentions of the Bill, and I want to strengthen it with my amendments, which I believe are essential to ensuring this legislation delivers a real, lasting impact for our climate, our economy and our position on the global stage. The Bill rightly seeks to unlock private investment in UK sustainable aviation fuel through a revenue certainty mechanism. This is a welcome and necessary step that gives certainty to businesses looking to invest in this world-leading mechanism to decarbonise the aviation sector. However, if we are serious about climate leadership, preventing the worst effects of climate breakdown and long-term energy resilience, we must do more than build a framework; we must prioritise the right fuels. That is why my new clause 7 focuses on power-to-liquid sustainable aviation fuel. Not all SAF is equal. Power-to-liquid SAF is the cleanest, most sustainable option we have, in my opinion. It is made from renewable electricity and captured carbon, and it does not rely on limited or environmentally questionable feedstocks such as used cooking oil or palm derivatives. It is future-proof, and it is essential if we are to hit our net zero targets without compromising environmental integrity. The Government themselves, in their SAF mandate guidance, recognise power-to-liquid fuels as having the greatest potential. The Committee on Climate Change has said that we need 13 TWh of synthetic fuel by 2040 to stay on a credible path to net zero. The potential is there, but it will remain untapped unless we take deliberate action to bring this industry to life.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Educational Assessment System Reform · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this important debate. For everybody in this room and every educationalist across the country, the aim is to get the best from every child at every age, from kindergarten through primary, secondary and whatever path they choose to take going forward, whether it is university or apprenticeships. However, where we are with our education system and our assessment system does not help us get to that point. As we have heard, our exam system is pushing young people to their limits. For some, exams are the right tool and they are excited by them—they are built for the exams and will show the best version of themselves—but for many, exams are not that vehicle. Last summer, nearly two thirds of students sitting their GCSEs and A-levels said that they struggled to cope, with many reporting panic attacks, self-harm and even suicidal thoughts. Over a third of 10 and 11-year-olds said SATs made them feel ill, and more than half worried about their abilities for the first time. Those figures tell us something is profoundly wrong. Our assessment system is damaging the very young people it is meant to serve. We have created an environment where success is defined by performance in a few hours of high-stakes exams, rather than by sustained learning or genuine understanding. Only around 5% of primary school leaders believe that SATs reflect a child’s true ability, and just 3% think that they accurately measure school performance. Exams are meant to measure learning, not resilience under stress. We need a system that uses a fairer mix of assessment methods, combining exams with course work, project work and modular or digital assessments to better reflect the diverse strengths of every student.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families · Hansard source

  More

  This is a harrowing story about Ida and Sarah. Does the hon. Member agree that not every person who is impacted by failings of state, and who has lost family and loved ones, has the resources, time and energy to fight for five and a half years?