Iqbal Mohamed MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I will accept a Government who listen, adapt and change their approach in the light of new evidence put before them, so I would congratulate the Government on improving on the proposals. I really do not question the core intentions. Fourteen years of waste and mismanagement have led us to the point of having an unmanageable welfare state, and that absolutely must be assessed and improved, but that cannot be at the expense of support for the most vulnerable in our society. This Bill will impact not just on disabled people, but on carers. It slashes £500 million from carer’s allowance, which is the largest real-terms cut since the benefit was introduced in 1976. Carers save this country tens of billions of pounds through unpaid labour, and nearly half of them already live in poverty. Is this really the thanks that they deserve? It gets worse: if an existing claimant loses their PIP on reassessment, which happens all too frequently due to assessor errors, they will be treated as a new claimant and be subject to stricter rules. That includes anyone moving from DLA to PIP. That is punitive and regressive, and will erode trust in the entire system. We are told that there will be consultation, but what consultation happens when a Bill is pushed through in a single week without adequate scrutiny or engagement with those most affected? The principle of “Nothing about us without us” has been flagrantly ignored. We have heard from Scope that the extra cost of living with a disability is nearly £1,100 a month, which is not covered by PIP. That is expected to top £1,200 by 2029, yet under this Bill those same people will be expected to survive without the support they rely on. The Government expect disabled people to shoulder £15,000 in extra costs and to offer them less and less. The public see through this. Only 27% support these reforms, while nearly half of those surveyed believe that they will worsen the health of disabled people, and over half expect more pressure on the NHS. These cuts will make people sicker, more isolated and more dependent on an already overstretched service. The politics of this is damning, but it cannot be about politics—it must be about the people we are in this place to serve. I ask the Government to please go back, wait for the consultation to be completed, and then integrate the learnings and the feedback from the people affected so that this legislation makes a positive contribution to our society, not a negative one.

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The issue of palliative care has been raised across the House. We have been repeatedly told that this is not an either/or choice, but does the hon. Member agree that without world-class palliative care, that will force some patients down the assisted dying route, where otherwise they would have chosen better care?

• 19 May 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member mentions support for the person needing help—to help themselves, and also to help society. Does he agree that more and more people are getting into situations where they do not feel that they are being helped, and that they just feel incarcerated and restricted?

• 19 May 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Before I begin, I want to pay tribute to right hon. and hon. Members for their extremely informed, personal and moving speeches in support of the positive elements of the Bill, and for making extremely important, constructive suggestions about how to make it even better than it is. I stand today to speak in strong support of the Bill, and the urgent and long overdue reform of our mental health legislation. The Mental Health Act 1983, now 40 years old, was designed for a different era. While it has provided a legal framework for detaining and treating individuals in crisis, it no longer reflects our modern understanding of mental illness, patient rights or best clinical practice. As we have heard, the Act governs both civil patients and those involved in the criminal justice system, and it includes powers such as community treatment orders, but it is clear that the system it underpins is no longer fit for purpose. The need for reform is stark and obvious. Patients detained under the Act often have little say in their treatment or about who is involved in their care. As we have heard, racial disparities are deeply entrenched, with black or black British people 3.5 times more likely to be detained and 11 times more likely to be placed under a community treatment order. The journey towards reform began with the 2018 independent review, led by Sir Simon Wessely, which identified rising detention rates, poor patient experience and systemic disadvantages for people with learning disabilities and autism. A draft Bill followed in 2023, and I commend the Government for taking forward the proposed Bill. Each year, approximately 54,000 individuals are detained under the Mental Health Act. Alarmingly, as I have mentioned, black individuals are nearly four times more likely to be detained and 11 times more likely to be placed under a CTO. Furthermore, nearly 1,000 young people are detained annually, yet over half report that their hospital stay did not aid their recovery. These statistics are not just numbers; they are a call to action. There are serious concerns about the treatment of people with learning disabilities and autism. While the Bill rightly ends inappropriate detentions under section 3 of the Mental Health Act when there is no co-occurring mental illness, the delay in implementation due to the lack of resources raises fears of criminalisation, misdiagnoses, and exclusion from aftercare. We need a fully costed plan, with clear targets and accountability, to support this vulnerable group. Mind, the leading mental health charity, has identified a further three critical areas in which the Bill must go further. The first is tackling racial disparities. The disproportionate detention of black individuals under the current Act is a glaring injustice. The Bill must include measures to reduce this disparity, such as limits on the use of community treatment orders, and the introduction of a “responsible person” to oversee treatment decisions. Additionally, a statutory duty to monitor and report on progress against these inequalities is essential. I therefore support the creation of a dedicated role to monitor and act on racial disparities in detention and treatment. Secondly, the principle of least restriction is central to the Bill, yet it remains aspirational; there are no enforceable rights. Patients should have a statutory right to assessments and treatment, the ability to appeal treatment decisions, and expanded access to advocacy services. These rights are about not just legal protection, but respecting the dignity and autonomy of individuals facing mental health challenges. Thirdly, young people detained under the Mental Health Act often find themselves without adequate support or a voice in decisions about their care. The Bill must include a transparent decision-making test, tailored for children and young people, to ensure that their best interests are at the forefront of all treatment decisions. There should also be safeguards and the standardisation of advance choice documents. The Government say that the implementation timelines could be up to a decade, but I urge them to implement each element of the Bill as soon as is practically possible. This Bill is very welcome, and this is a pivotal moment in the history of mental health care in our country. It is a huge step forward, but it could go further. To truly transform mental health care, we must ensure that the legislation is not only progressive in its intentions, but robust in its protections. We have the opportunity to create a system that upholds the rights, dignity and humanity of every individual. Let us therefore not pass up this chance to make all the necessary changes. Let us amend this Bill to reflect the values of equality, autonomy and respect, and take this once-in-a-generation opportunity to build a fit-for-purpose mental health system that is fairer, more compassionate and more effective. I urge the Government to take this opportunity to address the gaps, take heed of the recommendations and concerns, and make the Bill right and proper.

• 19 May 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State give way?

• 19 May 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  As well as NHS funding for direct mental health services, does the hon. Lady agree that we should invest in preventive steps to help children to avoid the mental health anguish that they are suffering today?

• 19 May 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Secretary of State raises an important point about resources. The updated impact assessment estimates that the cost of reform is £5.3 billion. With the Secretary of State having confirmed that mental health spending is falling as a share of NHS expenditure from 9.01% to 8.73%, does the shadow Secretary of State agree that without legislative safeguards to protect mental health funding, the Bill may not achieve the aims it sets out to achieve?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that one of the greatest risks in this Bill is around coercion? It is not just about coercion from family members or friends, but about societal coercion and circumstances. The current state of palliative care in our country is among the worst in the developed world. Without adequate palliative care, patients might feel pressure to go down the assisted dying route instead.

• 15 May 2025 · Coroner Services: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  The lack of resources and coroners across the country has a knock-on effect on the NHS. There is an additional administrative and logistical burden from holding bodies and dealing with families who are getting in contact every hour, many times. That takes staff away from frontline services. Does the hon. Member agree that having the right level of coroner services would reduce the burden of knock-on costs on the NHS?

• 14 May 2025 · Gaza: UK Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has stated that the legality of the UK’s F-35 exports is currently being tested in the courts. In the High Court, the Government have made submissions that “No evidence has been seen that Israel is deliberately targeting civilian women or children”, and that there is “also evidence of Israel making efforts to limit incidental harm to civilians.” If the Government need to be shown evidence that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians, I suggest the Minister and his colleagues review the footage captured by the BBC of yesterday’s bombing of Gaza’s European hospital, the footage emerging from the Nasser hospital, the millions of hours of livestreamed footage available since 7 October, or the thousands of reports and articles published since. The past 18 months have seen a total war on all of Gaza, with acts of ethnic cleansing and extermination, according to the UN. Does the UK deny the existence of that evidence, and if so, have the Government committed perjury?

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

  More

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

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. Monitoring sewage overflows does not immediately improve the health of our environment or of the public. It is the first minimum step to be able to take meaningful action, but I am sorry to say that the previous Government failed to take meaningful action. Between 2021 and 2023, Dewsbury and Batley experienced a massive number of sewage spills, totalling 4,604 incidents with a total duration of a staggering 28,383 hours or approximately three and a quarter years. Does the right hon. Member agree with me and my constituents that the privatisation of the water industry has been a total and abject failure, causing significant harm to our environment, public health and wildlife, and—

• 25 Feb 2025 · Maternity Services · Hansard source

  More

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

• 28 Jan 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  Today is the ninth day of the siege on Jenin in the west bank by Israeli forces accused of war crimes. With over 3,000 Palestinians forcibly displaced, Jenin hospital under lockdown without water or electricity, and at least 14 people killed by the Israelis since the beginning of the ceasefire in Gaza, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has said that it is deeply concerned by the use of unlawful, lethal force in Jenin, including multiple airstrikes and apparently random shooting at unarmed residents. Can the Minister tell the House what specific and concrete steps the Government are taking or will take to facilitate an end to Israel’s siege and ethnic cleansing in the west bank?

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

  More

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

• 13 Jan 2025 · Hospice and Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  Hospices and palliative care are not just about easing physical pain; they are about dignity, compassion and humanity. How we care for those approaching the end of their life reflects who we are as a society. As has been mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members, palliative care should be an integral part of our wider NHS. Over half a million people die each year in the UK, yet too many of them do so in conditions that fail to meet their needs or respect their wishes. Hospices, the very sanctuaries of peace and care, are stretched to breaking point. Palliative care teams staffed by dedicated professionals and volunteers do extraordinary work, but they are increasingly underfunded, under-resourced and overlooked in policy debates. Those challenges are not the fault of those on the frontline; they stem from systemic issues in how we prioritise end of life care. Funding for hospices comes primarily from charitable donations, with only about a third provided by the NHS. That is not sustainable and nor is it fair. We would not dream of asking our hospitals or schools to rely on bake sales and fundraisers for their survival, so why should hospices be any different? I do not have hospices in my constituency, but I want to pay tribute to the local hospices that care for my constituents. The Kirkwood hospice has budgeted for a near £1 million deficit for 2023-24 and it expects the same level of deficits to continue in subsequent years. The picture is the same for the Forget Me Not children’s hospice in Kirklees, which also faces a £1 million shortfall and has put out an urgent appeal for public donations. Another issue is access. Palliative care should be a universal right, yet we know that availability varies widely depending on where we live, and one’s age and condition. Too many people, particularly in deprived areas or from minority communities, face barriers to receiving the care they need. That inequality is unacceptable in a society that prides itself on fairness and must be addressed by the Government. In conclusion, we must ensure secure, long-term funding for hospices and palliative care services. That requires a shift in how we think about end of life care: not as an optional extra, but as a core part of our healthcare system. The Government must step up and provide the sustainable financial support these services need to thrive now and for the future, and be able to support all communities equally.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Everyone in my constituency, and indeed in the whole country, knows that the last Tory Government decimated public services after 14 years of austerity, mismanagement, negligence and a sole focus on the rich, at the expense and neglect of the poor working class and the public sector. I sympathise with the new Government, and I will try to provide constructive support. I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s announcements in the Budget of increased investment in education, the NHS, infrastructure projects and other public services, but, like many other people in the House and throughout the country, I do not agree with the approach taken to the funding of those investments. Members on both sides of the Committee have indicated today that failing to protect key sectors and services such as general practices, care homes, pharmacies, childcare providers and third sector providers may have been an oversight or a mistake on the Government’s part, but I am not so sure. On the basis of the Government’s other blanket policies on abolishing the winter fuel allowance, imposing VAT on all private schools including low-fee and charitable schools and removing business rates relief from all private schools and charities without any announcement of safeguarding or compensatory measures to protect these services and sectors, it appears to have been a deliberate, or negligent, decision. It is clear that the Government inherited a dire state of affairs that requires huge investment, which must be paid for in a responsible way. I am sorry to say that the way that has been chosen by this new Labour Government is not the right one. Viable and progressive alternatives are available to the Government to raise finances for the necessary investment rather than inflicting the increase in national insurance contributions on the impacted bodies. Let me suggest a couple of easy measures that would support the Government’s investment. One possible solution is the imposition of a 2% wealth tax on assets over £10 million, which would raise the amount predicted to be raised by national insurance contributions; another is the closing of corporation tax loopholes that allow corporations to save billions and to offshore profits.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I completely agree that there is a direct link between pensioner poverty and demands on the NHS. The Government’s proposals in the Budget do not go nearly far enough. The situation is simply not sustainable. The ability to provide the bulk of its citizens with a roof over their head is a litmus test for the success of any state. Unfortunately, that test has been failed by successive Governments. Without more radical measures to increase the stock of affordable housing, I fear it is a test that this Government will also fail.

• 30 Oct 2024 · Children’s Hospices: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this important debate. In preparing for it, I learned that more than half of children’s hospices around the UK reported a deficit in 2023-24. As a result of a lack of long-term and sustainable statutory funding, coupled with the increasing costs incurred when providing lifeline care to seriously ill children and their families, more than half of children’s hospices in England ended the year in deficit. Looking ahead to 2024 and ’25, the picture gets even worse, with nearly three quarters of children’s hospices forecasting a net deficit and with the total shortfall across 35 organisations estimated to reach £25 million. In Kirklees, where my constituency sits, Forget Me Not Children’s Hospice is an essential part of our local health and care system. It offers vital palliative care and support to seriously ill children and their families. Despite that, however, the hospice is facing a turning point: crucial services, including respite and end of life care, will be cut if the Government fail to maintain the existing £25 million NHS grant funding for children hospices. For Forget Me Not, the impact of losing that grant would be catastrophic and result in a significant reduction in services in our area. That comes on top of already fragile sustainability as a result of historic underfunding, making it one of the least funded hospices in the UK. Amid a year of high inflation and the growing costs of recruiting and retaining skilled and experienced staff, children’s hospices’ costs are rising. UK Government Ministers must act urgently to ensure that seriously ill children and their families can access the crucial hospice and palliative care services they need. I stand here and join other hon. Members in asking the Minister to maintain the £25 million as ringfenced, centrally distributed NHS funding for children’ hospices beyond 2025, and to ensure that that funding increases by at least the rate of inflation. I also ask the Minister to use the new 10-year plan for England to review the way in which children’s palliative care is planned and funded, and to ensure that those vital and critical services are funded in full and not left to rely on community fundraising.