Iqbal Mohamed MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Jun 2026 · Belfast: Violent Disorder · Hansard source

  More

  I join the House in thanking the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for this urgent question and for her remarks. I associate myself with the House’s condemnation of the abhorrent attack on Monday evening and the scenes that we witnessed yesterday. A pastor at the scene in north Belfast, where multiple houses were on fire, said that people were being put out of houses “because they’re black”. According to media reports, even a two-month-old baby had to be evacuated to safety by the police last night, amid mob violence and rioting in Belfast. That is the reality of what this violence represents—not legitimate protest, but the terrorising of innocent families. This is where far-right rhetoric takes us: to pogroms that force the police to escort children from their homes. We know from history where this road leads: to a path of destruction and division. Can the Minister tell the House what the Government are doing to counter the spread of racism and to ensure that one individual’s actions are not used to stigmatise entire communities?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Small Towns: Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this important debate. This is a broad subject, but I will focus on bus services, because in my Dewsbury and Batley constituency and others like it, buses are quite simply the backbone of everyday life. For many constituents, especially those on lower incomes, buses are not optional but essential. They are how people get to work, to places of education, to hospital appointments and to see family and friends. When those services decline, the opportunity to live a full, happy and healthy life declines with them. Bus services in Dewsbury and Batley, and across wider West Yorkshire, have undergone a sustained 20-year decline, driven by operator withdrawals, rising costs, driver shortages and reduced post-covid numbers. The pattern is one of progressive route cuts, increased reliance on emergency subsidies and shrinking commercial viability. Nothing illustrates the fragility of the system more clearly than the ongoing instability among local operators. The significant cuts by Arriva across West Yorkshire, rightly described by Mayor Brabin as “appalling”, are the result of a failing business model managed by overseas owners who appear to have little regard for the needs of our communities. Cuts to Arriva bus services between Dewsbury in my constituency and Wakefield in the Minister’s constituency have had a huge impact. The 205 between Dewsbury, Morley and Pudsey has been cut, as has the 117 from Ossett to Leeds—the list is endless. Another failure is that of Yorkshire Buses, which operated services across West Yorkshire but has ceased trading entirely, citing a “continued rise in costs” that made the business “no longer sustainable”. The consequences are immediate and real. Services across the region have been affected, including bus routes across my constituency. The system needs long-term stability, not constant crisis management. I thank the West Yorkshire Mayor and the West Yorkshire combined authority for stepping in to provide emergency transport when companies go under, but this is not sustainable. I will conclude my remarks by asking the Minister three questions. What steps will the Government take to ensure that small towns such as Dewsbury and Batley are prioritised in national transport policy, rather than left behind? Will the Government commit to providing sustained, reliable revenue funding for bus services so that routes can operate frequently and dependably, rather than closing constantly? What specific action will be taken to reverse the long-term decline in bus use, particularly among elderly and disabled passengers?

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

  More

  On indefinite leave to remain, on the journey down from my constituency today, I spoke to the private hire driver. He is on a visa that requires renewal every two and a half years. He will have to do that renewal four times before he is eligible for indefinite leave to remain. He is not really complaining about that, but about the council not allowing him to continue working when his visa is up for renewal and he sends away his documents to be processed. Would the hon. Member agree that that should be looked at, and that there should not be any unintended consequences of that process?

• 8 Jan 2026 · Road Safety Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her statement, and I welcome and commend this Government’s road safety strategy. Late last year, there were three incidents outside Lydgate junior and infant school, Headfield school and Westmoor primary school in my constituency—thankfully, there were no fatalities. I joined West Yorkshire police, local councillors and the affected schools to conduct a road safety campaign outside those schools. In some parts of the country, roads outside schools are temporarily closed for 30 minutes at the beginning and end of the day, and other schools have no-parking zones that extend to ensure that there are no safety risks. Will the Minister confirm what steps the Government will take to increase road safety outside schools?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Free Bus Travel: Over-60s · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on introducing this important debate, which I welcome. I want to make clear that I strongly support e-petition 702845. The fact that more than 100,000 people signed it shows how strongly the public feel about the issue and how far it reaches into people’s everyday lives. The petition is simple and reasonable. It calls on the Government to extend free bus travel to people over 60 in England outside London, bringing England into line with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. At present, those living outside London must wait until state pension age—currently 66—to qualify, despite the fact that mobility, confidence in driving and independence often decline well before that point. The Government’s response recognises the value of bus services and points to welcome investment, including the funding announced in the recent Budget. I welcome that funding, but the response ultimately sidesteps the core issue. Responsibility is shifted to local authorities and devolved Governments, rather than making free bus travel a statutory entitlement across England. That matters because leaving it as a discretionary measure creates inequality and uncertainty. Local authorities are under immense financial pressure, and people’s access to free travel should not depend on where they live or how stretched their council’s budget happens to be. National problems require national solutions. We also need to be honest about the scale of the gap that people face. It is not a short transition period. The difference between age 60 and state pension age is six years, and that gap is set to increase further as the pension age rises. It is six more years during which people might be driving less, losing confidence behind the wheel, or giving up their car altogether, but are still expected to pay rising transport costs. For many older people, particularly in towns and areas with patchy public transport, the alternative is often taxis. That becomes harder in later life in retirement when people are more likely to live on a fixed income, watching every pound and trying to stretch their pension as far as possible. What was once an occasional expense can quickly become unaffordable. This debate is not just about transport policy, but about mental health, dignity and independence. I have spoken many times in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber about adult mental health and the importance of prevention. One of the clearest contributors to declining mental health in later life is loss of freedom of movement. Research by the London School of Economics shows that a policy of free transport for the over-60s would deliver powerful and measurable benefits. Older bus pass holders are 37% less likely to be sedentary, improving their physical health through everyday activity like walking to and from shops. They are also one third less likely to experience social isolation, a factor strongly linked to poor mental and physical wellbeing. The NHS increasingly recognises the importance of community mental health for all older people and the importance of staying socially connected, active and engaged. When people cannot get out to see friends, attend community groups, volunteer or even make simple, everyday journeys, isolation sets in. Loneliness, anxiety and depression are not abstract risks, but real outcomes of restricted mobility, and free bus travel for over-60s is therefore not just a concession, but an investment in wellbeing, independence and prevention.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Free Bus Travel: Over-60s · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that I do not have cost figures to hand, but the research that I referred to in preparation for this speech demonstrated the quantifiable economic benefits of the policy. I believe that any cost incurred from implementing it would be paid for many times over through reduced visits to GPs and hospitals, as well as increased economic spend by people who can get out more. Free bus travel also supports healthier ageing, reduces isolation and helps people to remain part of their communities for longer, easing pressure on health and social care services in the long term. I urge the Government to listen to the strength of feeling behind the petition, to move beyond passing responsibility elsewhere and to consider making free bus travel for over-60s a fair national and statutory entitlement. If we are serious about equality, prevention and supporting people through later life, that is a change that we should be willing to make. Providing free bus travel for over 60s is a proven, practical and popular policy. The evidence is clear, the public support is strong and the need is urgent—the Government must act.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Domestic Abuse: Children · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing this important debate. This is a heartbreaking topic. Tackling and preventing the harms being caused to children in their home demands urgent attention. When I think about domestic abuse against children, my mind often goes back to the posters we had when I was growing up, and that we may have seen recently in shopping centres and train stations, with two adults arguing and a child crouched in the corner and watching in fear. That image is everywhere when we talk about children and domestic abuse: the child on the sidelines, quietly absorbing the trauma around them. The reality is far worse than that familiar picture, because children are not just witnesses: 1.8 million children in the UK are experiencing domestic abuse right now. Women’s Aid has found that, in the last 30 years, 67 children have been killed by a parent who was also a perpetrator of domestic abuse, often during contact arrangements. That statistic and the fact it could happen during contact arrangements genuinely stopped me in my tracks. The more recent National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children briefing on child deaths due to abuse or neglect from July of this year estimates that at least one child a week is killed through abuse or neglect. In our country—in any country—that is completely unacceptable. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 recognises children as victims in their own right, which was the right move. However, I came across another troubling fact during research for this debate. In 2022, after that legal change, less than a third of survivors who wanted support for their children were able to get it. That demonstrates that changing the law does not automatically cause tangible change. If we do not fund the services or create spaces for children to heal and feel safe, the law is just a line on a page. I was disappointed not to hear anything about funding for tackling domestic child abuse and violence against women and girls in the Budget this week. It is important that the Government back up their intentions and ambitions to tackle this with real resources and funding. I thank organisations such as the NSPCC and the Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre, which work across Kirklees and West Yorkshire. My office often refers families to them, whether for counselling, for children recovering from abuse or for support when navigating domestic abuse cases. However, it is disheartening that we rely so heavily on charities to do the work that should be backed by proper Government strategy and funding. This year, the proportion of organisations providing children’s domestic abuse services without dedicated funding has doubled from 15.7% to 31.4%. That tells us everything about the state of the system. It is truly worrying after hearing last year about the Government’s commitment to halving violence against women and girls. Many of the women who come to my office with cases of domestic violence would have fled to a refuge with their children due to abuse from a partner. These issues of violence against women and girls, and protecting children from domestic abuse, go hand in hand. Yet when the number of organisations supporting children without any dedicated funding has doubled, it is hard to believe that those commitments are being matched by action. If anything, it shows that children are still an afterthought in a system that claims to protect them. Therefore, will the Minister please confirm what specific extra funding, resources and procedural changes the Government are planning or have allocated to this space? We were told by the Department for Education that, by the end of 2025, there would be a road map for a child protection authority—a recommendation that the Government received from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse—but we have heard very little since. The commitments are there and the reports all show the urgent need for long-term systemic change, yet we are not seeing that change actually happening. Will the Minister confirm when the road map for a child protection authority can be expected? Children deserve better than posters of fear and a system that waits until harm has already been done; they deserve to be protected, to recover and to grow up feeling safe and loved. Right now, too many are falling through the cracks, and we owe it to them to fix that.

• 20 Nov 2025 · Injury in Service Award · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing this important debate, and I welcome and thank all the public servicemen and women who are in the Gallery and watching at home. This debate coincides with the fantastic news this week that the brave train driver Samir Zitouni, injured during the Huntingdon train attack, has finally been discharged from hospital. It reminds us how often the people on our frontlines do not receive the credit or recognition they truly deserve. If that is true for a single shocking and horrifying incident that rightly captured national attention, we can only imagine the countless cases faced by our emergency personnel who risk their lives day in, day out and are so often unnamed in the reporting that follows. Only last month, I took part in a ride-along with West Yorkshire police, where I saw at first hand the pressures involved even in what we think of as routine neighbourhood policing. Reflecting on that experience, I am struck by how our officers can within seconds find themselves face to face with frightening and unpredictable situations. We might assume these are lower-risk encounters, but the reality is that any moment can turn into danger, leaving officers not only injured but sometimes medically discharged from the career they loved because they were protecting the public. In preparing for this debate, I learnt that since 2022 over 6,000 officers in West Yorkshire police have experienced assault-related injuries, and over 15,000 former police officers have suffered life-changing injuries in the line of duty across England. That is before we even begin to count paramedics, firefighters and so many others. The words of the campaign stayed with me: many of these people are left “injured and forgotten”—how incredibly upsetting that someone can give so much to the public yet receive so little in return. The very least we can do is recognise their sacrifice. As we have heard, there is currently no formal honour for those who survive catastrophic, career-ending injuries in the line of duty. To me, and to many across this House, that is a glaring injustice. I welcome the growing cross-party consensus and the clear strength of feeling in this place. That is why I strongly support the introduction of an injury in service award, mirroring the recognition rightly given to those who lose their lives, but extended to those who bear lifelong scars for their service. These individuals met every duty that the public asked of them, so it is time that the state met its duty to them. I urge the Government, the Cabinet Office and the Honours and Appointments Secretariat to act to ensure that these extraordinary sacrifices are finally recognised, formally and permanently. It would not take much from them, but it would mean the world to those who gain the recognition that they have long deserved. Our emergency services are there for us at the very worst moments of our lives. It is long past time that we showed them that this country sees, remembers and honours their courage.

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

  More

  The Minister mentioned a reduction of 6.3 megatonnes, but what is that as a proportion of the current emissions?

• 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

  Could the hon. Member clarify over what period the Government would do the cost impact assessment, if they were to do one? Does he agree that the transition to any new technology requires significant initial upfront investment? All the trillion-dollar companies in the world were losing millions before they became profitable.

• 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.

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  First, I thank Mayor Tracy Brabin for her investment in mass transit across West Yorkshire, including a new bus station in my town of Dewsbury. I am grateful for those investments, but how will this Bill stop a council from making the decision to distribute funding unequally across its borough? How would it stop a council from, for instance, making a decision to shut down a sports centre that is used by people of all ages on the pretence of there being reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete and then not taking steps to investigate or having a plan to reopen?

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have cut my six-minute speech down to three. I am a supporter of devolution and devolved power, community empowerment and local decision making. In my seat, we have a combined authority and, as I mentioned earlier, the benefits brought by the West Yorkshire Mayor in transport, with a new bus station, and in crime and policing. However, my community, even after being part of the combined authority for so long, is still not clear on where exactly the responsibilities of the council stop and those of the mayor start, or how they work together. I therefore stand here with some deep concerns. Instead of empowering communities, the Bill risks recentralising power and bypassing local ward councillors and local actors who truly represent our diverse communities. In Kirklees, we have a cabinet system: eight councillors, none of whom is from Dewsbury and Batley, make major decisions that have an impact on every single resident and constituent in my constituency. Moving to a mandated cabinet system across the country is short-sighted, undemocratic, biased and discriminatory. The Bill’s design places sweeping strategic powers in the hands of elected mayors and their appointed commissioners, who are often unelected. That is not genuine devolution; it is deception dressed up as localism. The second issue is a lack of funding and financial transparency. A core failing of the Bill lies in its fiscal ambiguity. There is little detail on sustainable funding. Strategic authorities may depend heavily on mayoral precepts, levies or council contributions, risking instability and underfunded local services. On transparency, while the creation of a local audit office is welcome, this reactive measure attempts to patch a broken audit system where hundreds of authorities still face unaudited accounts, without addressing underlying systemic weaknesses such as wasteful procurement practices, a lack of transparency and unequal distribution of spend across wards. Community voices are too often marginalised. The Bill does not prevent councils from letting vital community buildings be deliberately left in disrepair, then deciding to close the buildings because they do not have the funds to repair or run them. In conclusion, this Bill is not devolution; it is a shift of power from local councils to centrally influenced mayors, with an opaque financial model and tokenistic community tools. The Bill must be updated to restore genuine local leadership; to guarantee long-term, transparent funding; to ensure that procurement and audit practices remain accountable and community-informed; and to embed real neighbourhood-level governance with proper funding and citizen engagement, planning and influence.