Naz Shah MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. As the Member for Bradford West, I am really proud that Bradford is a city of sanctuary. The Home Secretary is aware that I am a former foster parent to an Afghan refugee, and my concern is about the reform of article 8 that the Home Secretary suggests. Had somebody like my foster son come to this country and not had a parent, he would not be able to apply for his only sibling to come over. The same would potentially apply to a Ukrainian woman who has young children and cannot contribute because of the trauma that she has experienced. Will the Home Secretary meet me when she is doing her consultation on safe passage for refugees and asylum seekers?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  May I first associate myself with the comments of the Prime Minister regarding the heinous attack in Manchester and on Peacehaven mosque? An attack on any place of worship is an attack on our democracy and way of life. I thank the Prime Minister, his team—in particular, his Ministers—and our National Security Adviser for all their efforts and for the recognition of Palestine. As was stated earlier, it is long overdue and, historically, puts right what we should have done a long time ago. That has no doubt contributed to where we are today, so I once again want to say a huge thank you. Over 92% of homes in Gaza have been erased, with more than 730,000 people displaced, including 520,000 children, could the Prime Minister outline in detail what more is being done to rebuild Gaza in addition to aid and to our conversations?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Baby Loss · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for his work to secure this debate and for sharing his personal experience. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh). Hearing people’s personal experiences makes this a better place for us to legislate and do what we have to do, so I thank my hon. Friends very much for sharing, which takes bravery and courage. I am sure that the whole House shares those feelings. Losing a child is one of the most devastating experiences that any parent can face, as other Members have said. Words cannot describe the immense personal pain of dealing with such grief. To carry a child for nine months—sometimes less—and to dream of their future only to lose them is simply unimaginable. As a mother of three, my heart goes out to every parent who has endured the heartbreak of losing their child or baby. This debate, during Baby Loss Awareness Week, could not be more timely. Baby loss is not just a personal tragedy but a public health issue, in particular when it occurs as a result of preventable errors or gaps in care that we have the power to fix. Baby loss has a deep and lasting impact not only on mothers and fathers, but on siblings and entire families. For some, that pain comes immediately after the loss; for others, it may take weeks or months before the full emotional weight is felt. That is why I welcome the amendment to the Employment Rights Bill that will extend bereavement leave to those who experience pregnancy loss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, for her work in driving that change. It cannot be right that someone who suffers a miscarriage in the morning, losing the future that they dreamed of, is expected to turn up at work at 9 am as if nothing had happened. I am proud that the Labour Government have recognised the real human cost of such a loss, and ensured that families receive the time, care and support that they need to begin to heal. In Bradford, we have seen the devastating impact when maternity care falls short. Bradford teaching hospitals NHS foundation trust is one of the 14 NHS trusts now under review for historic maternity failures—a clear sign that systemic change is urgently needed. In November 2021, two newborn babies tragically lost their lives at Bradford royal infirmary after lapses in hygiene allowed a drug-resistant superbug to spread through the neonatal unit. A report found that staff were not consistently following hand hygiene guidelines and were unclear about the use of protective equipment. These were preventable deaths, heartbreaking for the families involved. I welcome the measures that the trust has since put in place, but we must ensure that lessons are truly learned so that no family ever has to endure such pain again. Every mother deserves to give birth knowing that she and her baby will receive the best possible care—care rooted in safety, dignity and compassion. In Bradford, a mother gave birth to her son on 13 February 2023; sadly, he passed away the next day. She was moved between units with little communication and no explanation of what was happening. She was not offered a transfer to another trust where her baby might have received neonatal care and a chance of survival. Her son was born alive but died in her arms, and her records were later found to wrongly describe the loss as a miscarriage. No mother should have to endure such failings. In describing what she went through, she said: “My experience at Bradford Hospital’s maternity unit destroyed me. My son died after birth. I nearly died myself, but they didn’t care. They sent me home the same day he died, even though I had clear signs of infection. I left that hospital with not just empty arms, but with a body that has never been the same. Now all I have is a baby I can visit at the graveyard and a lifetime of pain that they caused.” In my own constituency, I have consistently advocated the concern about the standards of maternity services and the leadership at the Bradford teaching hospital trust. On new year’s eve last year, a couple from Bradford were wrongly told that their unborn baby had died; the day after, she was delivered fit and healthy. Jamal and his wife Fozia were told by doctors that there was no heartbeat when they went for a routine test. They described their experience as going through hell and back. No parent should ever have to experience such pain and uncertainty. I have written to the Secretary of State, and I am glad that he is taking notice. I welcome the maternity review being led by Baroness Amos, but lessons must be learned. The failures at Bradford really need to stop, so that nobody goes through such experiences again.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Sport England: Tackling Racism · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; he is absolutely right. I will come on to the role that sport plays in bringing communities together and why it is so important. Just as its institutional nature was to pass off bias and discriminatory results in tournaments, so the BJJA dismissed Mumtaz’s requests, using improper processes and technical committees made up of the very same people who are embedded in the very same institutional culture—people marking their own homework, so to speak. It is an organisation that lacks constitutional clarity, organisational transparency and democratic credibility. No information about its governance structures or democratic procedures is publicly available, and there are no minutes of annual general meetings, committee meetings or executive meetings publicly available. To top things off, Mumtaz’s complaints were never going to be heard, because the very person overseeing the process and in control of the BJJA, the chairperson Martin Dixon, and the BJJA’s secretary were themselves promoting openly racist, Islamophobic and homophobic content online on their social media pages. I was going to quote some of it, but I thought it best to leave people to see it for themselves. Having no confidence in the BJJA, I supported Mumtaz to raise her complaint formally with Sport England, an organisation funded by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport that exists to help to bridge the gap between under-represented communities and sport. It is meant to help to remove barriers and increase participation. Sport England does not directly fund the BJJA, but it provides it with recognition, and as such holds the power to de-recognise it and ensure accountability. This evidence of racism was forwarded to Sport England on 29 November 2018. It is worth noting that, despite Onna Ju-Jitsu having previously won Sport England’s Satellite Club of the Year award, Sport England, instead of looking into the complaint, proceeded to engage in a phishing expedition and decided to “chase up Sensei Mumtaz Khan’s coaching qualifications”, claiming that was standard procedure for high-risk sports. I note that Sport England did not do that when it awarded Onna Ju-Jitsu its Satellite Club of the Year award, and the same yardstick is not applied to other clubs across the country. Sport England subsequently deemed that Mumtaz Khan’s coaching was invalid, to quash her complaint about the BJJA. That is a textbook example of trying to cover things up.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Sport England: Tackling Racism · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I absolutely agree, because often sporting bodies do not reflect the diversity of those playing sport within their structures and systems. That is absolutely the case at senior management levels, and that must be addressed as well. Coming back to qualifications, in comparison, sportscotland, Sport Wales and Sport Northern Ireland all confirmed—I have go this in writing—that they do not chase up qualifications. Let me address the issue of Mumtaz Khan’s qualification allegedly being invalid, with these important details. In September 2018, a complaint was raised with the BJJA. In November 2018, a complaint was raised with Sport England. In March 2019, less than four months later, the BJJA did not send Onna Ju-Jitsu the annual forms to renew membership, bearing in mind that it has been a member since 2013. In June 2019, Sport England makes an offer of mediation with Mumtaz, which she accepts. In July 2019, the following month, Sport England tells Mumtaz Khan that the need for mediation is being removed, because the BJJA said Mumtaz Khan had resigned her position as the diversity engagement officer, which she had never sent in. Sport England accepted, and recorded with its permission, a meeting at which the BJJA chair confessed that that did not happen. Mumtaz never resigned her position as the diversity engagement officer. It was said someone else had been appointed, but that was not true. That is a catalogue of BJJA telling Sport England: “This isn’t true,” “This isn’t right,” “These are confessions,” and that something that was clearly homophobic and racist is now just offensive. The list goes on. In October 2019, Sport England decided to chase qualifications, which include being a member of a national body. That is where the contradictions start. Where I come from in Yorkshire, someone is either pregnant or not. No one can be both or a bit pregnant. No one can pick and choose measuring yardsticks when it suits, as Sport England has done. Sport England has said to Mumtaz, “Well, because you’re not a member of this organisation, you can’t make a formal complaint,” yet she can run a ju-jitsu club, and she needs to have all these qualifications, she needs to be insured and she needs to meet all these criteria. But when it comes to a complaint about racism and homophobia: “D’you know what? You don’t meet the criteria.” Which is it? Sport England needs to get its head round this. It needs to sort itself out and get its house in order. When Mumtaz raised a formal complaint against the BJJA, it removed her as a diversity officer. I agree with Mumtaz Khan that she was targeted and victimised by Sport England for whistleblowing and raising concerns. It was only after my intervention as an MP that Sport England committed to even looking at the conduct of the BJJA. At first, when Mumtaz presented evidence of openly racist and homophobic slurs, they were judged merely just offensive. Someone put up a post saying, “I have found a cure for lesbians…Trycoxagain.” That is the kind of post we are talking about; they were homophobic and not just offensive. I am sorry, but I do not agree with that judgment. Later, despite recognising clearly racist evidence, an attempt was made to squash the issue by asking the chair to send a letter of apology to Mumtaz, rather than taking action to hold people to account. Evidence of the BJJA breaching all seven examples listed in section 64 of the sports council’s recognition review policy of 2017 was sent by Mumtaz to Sport England in October 2022. Again, it was left to Mumtaz to point out to Sport England how to do its job. Combined with the previous admission of racism, Mumtaz felt that that led to Sport England finally agreeing to take the matter to the other sports councils to gain agreement to derecognise the BJJA. After huge pressure, Sport England started a process to derecognise the BJJA, but never did; it gave the BJJA time to meet the criteria to get continued recognition. The BJJA did not meet the criteria in another six months, but Sport England did not go on derecognise it. When Sport England made a statement, it was reviewing the information submitted by the BJJA, so any decision about derecognition never happened. On 21 May 2024, Sport England released a statement suggesting it was continuing the association’s recognition, subject to a number of conditions, despite the deadline of meeting the original conditions being eight months earlier. In my eyes, Sport England was clearly taking action to avoid derecognising or implementing serious changes in the BJJA. Losing all hope in Sport England, Mumtaz Khan asked it to provide all the data. It was not just a cover up—it gets better! Sport England has accepted that it had, on her last attempt to make a subject access request and a freedom of information request, 4,763 emails, letters and documents relating to Sensei Mumtaz Khan and her club, but it will not give her any of them. I have even been to the Information Commissioner and we have done subject access requests. What is Sport England hiding? What is it trying to cover up? Why is it not releasing that information? That is an alarmingly high number of mentions for one individual and a small, local club, but we still do not have the information. I ask the Minister: how can these students or others expect fairness through the BJJA when the issues are institutional and directly linked to the chairman, Martin Dixon, who promotes homophobia and racism, and when there is no accountability? We do not know what is in those papers; it reminds me of the Azeem Rafiq case all over again. Martin Dixon has served as the chairman of the BJJA since 1992, a tenure spanning more than 33 years and counting. Although he has no doubt made many positive contributions to the BJJA over the years, this is a national governing body for a recognised sport in this country, not a fiefdom. If we do not get institutional change, including for those at the very top of the organisation, how can these students or others have any faith in competing in British jiu-jitsu? Let me summarise the issue: an award-winning, British jiu-jitsu sensei, Mumtaz Khan, who competed and was an asset to the BJJA, established a club and allowed younger generations, many of whom were from ethnic minority backgrounds, to break barriers and enter the sport. Despite years of direct discrimination and bias against students in her club, all she wanted to do was ensure a fair playing field for all competitors in the sport. No one was asking for special treatment—just fairness and equality. After all, fair play, transparency and good competition are the nature of sporting success. Instead, the governing body and established national entities that were supposed to step in and take action to ensure that real accountability was in place resorted to denial, inaction and a cover-up. This issue is about not just racism, racist sentiments or poor choices of words, but young people who face barriers to entry into sport due to the colour of their skin, their gender, their faith or their sexual orientation. When that happens, we are all worse off. This is an issue not just with the BJJA, but across all sports and across this country. I know at first hand the level of discrimination and racism faced by grassroots football clubs in my constituency. We are regularly told by Sport England, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and every major sporting body that there is “No room for racism”, that we must “Kick it out” and that we must “Change the game”. These are all commendable slogans, but that is the problem—they remain slogans. In this House, we know that it is not slogans but consistent, deliberate action that brings about real and lasting change in sports and in society. The only way to ensure ethical practice in sports is through accountability and transparency. Those are not optional extras; they are essential principles. In 2021, ex-cricketer Azeem Rafiq gave evidence to the then Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee detailing his experiences after a report found that he was a victim of racial harassment and bullying. From that case, we know the level of institutional racism in a sport such as cricket where we would expect better. The Minister will also be aware that, in 2023, Prince William wrote to Alpha United Juniors, a junior football club in my constituency, with concerns about almost 60 cases of racism that those juniors had faced in grassroots football. Children as young as seven years old had been the victim of racial slurs and threats of violence. The challenge, as we witnessed with Azeem Rafiq and now Sensei Mumtaz Khan, is that those who speak out about the evidence of bias, discrimination and racism are often subject to attacks themselves for merely raising the issue. When we look at those representing Britain at a global level in sports—Anthony Joshua, Tyson Fury or the likes of Amir Khan in boxing; Mo Farah, Kelly Holmes and others in the Olympics; Adil Rashid from Bradford or Moeen Ali in the England cricket team; and the likes of Marcus Rashford, Saka and others in football—we should recognise that allowing barriers to be broken enables the very best of us to compete and represent Britain at the highest level, which helps us to be the very best at sport across the globe.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Sport England: Tackling Racism · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the role of Sport England in tackling racism in sport. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am grateful to have been granted this debate, because this is an issue I have been dealing with for over seven years now. We know that racism exists within sports across the country, but what we do not talk about enough is when it impacts at a grassroots level—in local clubs that work and are situated in marginalised communities. This is not an issue exclusive to my constituency of Bradford West. Although I will make mention of wider racism in sport, my focus today is Onna Ju-Jitsu, a multi-award-winning martial arts club based in my constituency. For several years, I have had the privilege of supporting the club, which delivers self-defence and ju-jitsu training to children and adults from all backgrounds, ethnicities and faiths. Its membership includes students and individuals from disadvantaged communities, and I have witnessed at first hand the dedication and excellence this club brings, not just to the sport of ju-jitsu, but to our diverse communities. Impressively, the club has achieved a 50:50 male-to-female participation ratio and is led by a strong, accomplished female coaching team under Sensei Mumtaz Khan, a 7th degree black belt with over 32 years of experience. I would not want to get on the wrong side of Mumtaz. Almost seven years since I raised this issue directly with Sport England—it was on 29 November 2018, to be exact—I am raising this matter in Parliament because, despite Mumtaz’s best efforts to seek justice for her students who have been wronged, Sport England has failed. It has not only failed the club and those individuals; it has failed to uphold its own policies, and has engaged in what I can clearly see are—and I am clear in calling out as—textbook attempts to cover up that failure. The tragedy is that the very students who Mumtaz tried to seek justice for have now left British ju-jitsu without the justice they deserved. Any ambition they may have had for a future in sport ended the moment that accountability and justice were not provided by the very organisations that could have taken action. During a competition bout at the British Ju-Jitsu Association National Championships in Birmingham on 1 September 2018, a competitor from Onna Ju-Jitsu was injured by a kick to the face and head. The impact was significant; it was caught on video, and required attention from the event’s first aider and qualified paramedic. According to the accident report, the paramedic advised the competitor not to carry on the round due to the pain. The competitor accepted this reluctantly. That instruction was clearly conveyed on the accident report and verbally to the competitor and to Mumtaz. Despite this being directly attributed to an uncontrolled kick to the head—a move that would ordinarily receive a red card and disqualification—the bout was then awarded to the opponent. At the same championships, Ruqayyah Latif was moved up a weight category and missed out on a guaranteed gold or silver. Safa Zahid clearly won her match, but had her win go to another opponent. In fact, in one BJJ competition—not the championships—Safa Zahid was entered into a category to fight boys. She still managed to win a bronze, fighting boys with her two long plaits. Ismail Ghani fought someone whose dad refereed the final. He was told that he lost by one point to make him feel better, even though referees are not allowed to disclose scores. His brother, Eessa also suffered the same fate, losing his match by, again, apparently one single point. At the 2017 nationals, Eessa clearly won his final match. Even his competitor and the competitor’s father apologised to him, because they believed he had won. That match is all on video and recorded, by the way. Between them, those two brothers missed out on three gold medals. Another boy at the club was moved to a higher weight category and fought boys weighing up to 10 kg more than him, which was a serious safeguarding risk. The Minister responded yesterday in the main Chamber to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) regarding Alex Eastwood’s tragic death, and the same safety issues apply in this case. Going back to Onna Ju-Jitsu, when Halah, a young girl at the club, clearly won her match but was still handed a loss, that was when things erupted. This was not just one student fighting in one competition alone; the club competed for the first time at the British Ju-Jitsu Association national championships in 2014. During that competition, and subsequently at the championships of 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018, the club experienced numerous questionable decisions that denied its competitors gold medals and national championship status. We arrive here today as the result of literally years of systemic discrimination and bias faced by these competitors of ethnic minority backgrounds. Many of these students decided to leave the sport and never competed again, due to the blatant bias and discrimination that they faced. For that reason, Mumtaz lodged an official complaint with Martin Dickson, chairperson of the BJJA, regarding the award in one fight.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Sport England: Tackling Racism · Hansard source

  More

  I know how passionate my hon. Friend is about this issue in his constituency. I absolutely agree that we need such opportunities, because that is what it leads to. When we fail at the grassroots level due to institutional issues, we fail at success. There is growing concern that Sport England continues to fund and legitimise governing bodies that are consistently weak on equality, diversity and inclusion. What is being done to move beyond policy paperwork and enforce meaningful standards for inclusion, not just box ticking? It is time for Sport England to explain how it holds funded organisations accountable on issues of equality and diversity, because recognition without results undermines trust. What safeguards does Sport England have in place when repeated concerns about racism or exclusion are raised not just in jiu-jitsu but in other governing bodies? Has Sport England commissioned an independent review into ensuring transparency and accountability where patterns of exclusion emerge? We need to ensure that Sport England’s inclusion policies do not just exist on paper, but deliver a measurable change at every level of the sport. Although Sport England supports equality and diversity on paper, how is it measuring the real world impact across sport, particularly for marginalised communities? If we take the issue at the club I am talking about, it is clearly failing drastically. Grassroots and ethnically diverse-led organisations often feel under-looked. How will Sport England ensure that their voices shape future priorities? Ultimately it is taxpayers’ money that funds the institution. I am grateful to the Minister for taking time out and meeting me when I raised concerns with her Department. I would like the Government to act to ensure that Sport England immediately derecognises the BJJA. I want the Government to conduct a full independent investigation into the leading national governing body and ensure the establishment of a new body that can provide confidence in the sport. The Government should also arrange a full independent inquiry into Sport England’s handling of Mumtaz Khan’s complaint regarding the BJJA national governing body, and instruct Sport England to immediately release all the data held, unredacted, to Mumtaz Khan regarding her and her club from 29 November 2018 to date. I urge the Minister to take those matters seriously—no doubt she will. I also urge her to meet Mumtaz Khan and to hold Sport England and the BJJA to account. If we want British sport to reflect the values of fairness, respect and inclusion, we must ensure that those words are backed with real action.

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

  More

  I will make some progress. Hundreds of eating disorder experts, doctors, lawyers, charities, family members and people with lived experience urged Parliament to close this loophole and support amendment 38. As a Committee, we failed to heed their warning. We have now learned that the one remaining amendment that could protect people with eating disorders will not even be voted on. Our responsibility is to make the Bill safe. We know what happens when politicians think they know better than the experts. Let us make it clear: the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Pathologists, palliative care doctors, the British Geriatrics Society, almost every eating disorder charity and almost every disabled people’s group do not support this Bill. That is not because they do not believe in the principle; they are warning us about the dangers of this Bill, and of getting this wrong. Our job is not to be activists—to fight until our last breath for the principle, whatever shape or form it is delivered in. Of course we believe in causes—that is why each and every one of us is in Parliament—but we legislators must listen to the experts, heed the evidence, scrutinise and debate the ideas that are before us, and deliver for our constituents laws that are safe, workable and effective. We have a proud history; the likes of Florence Nightingale—the lady with the lamp—broke every barrier possible to heal the wounded, provide care for the vulnerable and reduce the chance of death. Those are the principles that our great NHS was founded on. We must ask ourselves whether those fundamental principles will still be intact if the Bill passes. Will they be there to protect those who face a postcode lottery in healthcare and palliative care, the most vulnerable, and those who have faced the greatest hardships in life and feel like a burden? Will those principles be there to protect those who feel like giving up, but whom we could help back up and push towards a better life? Instead, we will be giving them a way to give up, even if they could have survived. This is the question for all Members: what is the margin of error that we are willing to risk today when it comes to something as serious as death? I urge Members to vote against this Bill.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think he might have read some of my speech, which I will carry on with. I will set out why the Bill is not safe, and speak about the two amendments that I tabled: amendment 14, which we have nodded through today, and amendment 38, which we will not get the chance to vote on. Amendment 14 dealt with the issue of voluntarily stopping eating and drinking, or VSED, which has been used as a “bridge” to assisted death in other jurisdictions. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley accepted that amendment, but let me be very clear: this does not close the anorexia loophole—that was the subject of another amendment. Voluntarily stopping eating and drinking is not what happens to people with anorexia. People with anorexia stop eating and drinking because they have a psychiatric illness. Those are two categorically different issues. I must make it absolutely clear that even though amendment 14 has passed today, it does not address concerns about anorexia or close that loophole. Members in the other place are already raising the concern that, because this is a private Member’s Bill, they do not believe that they can provide all the necessary safeguards if we give a Third Reading today to a Bill that is not safe to be delivered to the public. At least 60 women with anorexia in multiple countries have died by assisted death when they needed treatment, not help to die. Every one of them was assessed to have capacity by two doctors.

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

  More

  I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), all the Members who served on the Committee and, indeed, the whole House for the approach that everyone has taken to this Bill. I want to make it clear that I came to this Bill with an open mind. Like many, I supported it in principle at first glance, but this debate is no longer about the principle of assisted death—that is not the decision before us today; it is not the issue on which we will walk through the Lobby when we decide to vote for or against this Bill. Our responsibility in this place is to make sure that the Bill is safe, workable and effective. That is the test that will lead us to vote for or against the Bill today. As the Bill stands, it presents a public safety issue.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report · Hansard source

  More

  First, may I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for her leadership and commitment to getting a grip on this issue? As a Member of Parliament for one of the largest constituencies of Muslim and Pakistani heritage people, I know the sheer anger and condemnation that the vast majority of them share, like all Britons who are against those who commit these vile actions and vile sexual abuse. That is backed up not only by recent polling by Opinium showing that a majority of Muslims are deeply concerned about grooming gangs, but by sermons in mosques, letters from leading figures, demonstrations on the streets and so much more that is often not given the media coverage it deserves. I am pleased to see that the National Crime Agency will be involved in the future inquiries. Let me reiterate in this House that British Muslims stand on the side of victims and support the full force of the law being used against all perpetrators of abuse. Does the Home Secretary agree that those who display selective outrage or fan the flames to blame entire communities do nothing to protect innocent victims or further the cause of victims?

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

  More

  On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member; she is making a very powerful speech. Does she share my concern about the removal of the coroner, as stated clearly by the Royal College of Pathologists, which speaks to her amendment?

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

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does she share my concern that most of our discussions today were thrashed out in Committee, and now we are being told that we have to leave them to the Lords, because we cannot fix the issues here? That is a really flawed process.

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

  More

  I am quite perplexed by my hon. Friend’s speech, but I would like to understand whether he has data related to the demographics of those jurisdictions compared with the UK. If he does, could he present it to the House to support his argument?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement, and I thank the Government for the sanctions that they have imposed. I appreciate that allies must work together and that it takes time to hold negotiations and put out joint statements—which are, I agree, more powerful—but I would find it helpful to be able to tell my constituents and the country what the Government’s position will be as they go into the negotiations in America next week. Will their offer be, “Yes, we should recognise Palestine immediately,” and if not, why not?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Non-stun Slaughter of Animals · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member clarify what he proposes? Eighty-eight per cent. of halal meat is pre-stunned. Is he just after pre-stunned meat? Is that the crux of his argument?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Non-stun Slaughter of Animals · Hansard source

  More

  Following on from my intervention on the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), I have looked at the issue of stunning. I have heard from a slaughterhouse that, particularly for lambs—chickens are slightly different—the same method is used, with the same level of electricity, for stunned meat and halal. Even with chickens, the difference is actually very slight. The same legislative practice applies to the majority of chickens that are stunned. Does the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) share my concern that we are focusing on a minute number here? Ultimately, it is very disheartening that people say they are absolutely mortified to see people are eating halal meat; they would be even more mortified if they knew the real issues.

• 20 May 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and the actions he has taken. I also welcome the Prime Minister’s joint statement yesterday. The word “genocide” is used quite often here, and all indicators point towards that happening. I appreciate the suspension of negotiations on a free trade agreement, but children are still dying every single day, and people are losing their homes. What will it take? What do we have to wait for to call it what it is and act to stop what is happening?

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

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the problem with this Bill, this process and what we are being told. We are being given things on the face of the Bill—

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

  More

  Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. My amendment 14 is very much about anorexia. It has been debated and hashed out time and again. I have come to the House today and been told, while sitting in my seat, that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley is minded to accept the amendment without any discussion. I do not know what risk assessments or other assessments the Government have made, so how can I speak to that amendment when I do not have those details? I can say that Chelsea Roff, an expert on anorexia, gave evidence to the Committee. I can talk about how clinicians from every single major charity for eating disorders have made it clear that if this Bill goes through, it will not be fit for purpose and people will fall through that loophole. Without the information in front of me, however, I cannot speak to the amendment.

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

  More

  I will make some progress. I sincerely appreciate the guidance from you, Madam Deputy Speaker, from Mr Speaker and from all across this House—the Clerks have been really helpful. I come back to the amendments. In Oregon, in the States, 60 women were given assisted death. Every single one of them—100%—were told that they had the capacity. We have an issue in this country. Some 11 cases have gone to the Court of Protection, and my understanding is that nine of them have been told that they do not have the capacity, but doctors have been given permission not to continue to feed them. That is an issue for us; there is an issue of capacity. There is a second issue in relation to amendment 38, which I will speak to. Even if my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley accepts my first amendment in its entirety, word for word, we do not close the loophole with amendment 38. What if we have somebody with diabetes? The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) spoke very passionately about diabetes. I know the experience, because I was gestationally diabetic on three occasions and dependent on insulin, and I also appreciate the risk of being a pre-diabetic. If somebody decides not to take insulin and that they do not want to have dialysis, they would bring themselves within the scope of this Bill as it is written. That is a fact. Contrary to the many people who have been on the radio and in other places saying, “The Bill excludes people’s mental health”, this Bill does not, as it is written, say that mental health is excluded. [Hon. Members: “It does!”] It does not.

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

  More

  Will my right hon. Friend give way?

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

  More

  Sorry, I will make some progress.

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

  More

  I thank Members for supporting amendments 14 and 38 in my name. I acknowledge that the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), has said that she is happy, as of this morning, to accept my amendment 14. My hon. Friend has also indicated that there might be a need to change some of the wording, but until I see the wording of the new amendment and can scrutinise it, I cannot make an informed choice about accepting that. In addition, I was told this at only 9.30 am, on the Floor of the House. It was not discussed with me, and I am not sure whether the promoter has discussed it with Ministers. This very argument has been hashed out in Committee, where many of us spent weeks and weeks scrutinising line by line. Indeed, the promoter tabled her own amendment 181 in Committee to strengthen clause 2. At that point, Ministers, outlining their neutrality, said that the amendments tabled, for which many colleagues had argued, were not, in the Government’s opinion, workable. In the Government’s opinion, what has now changed? Has an assessment been made by my hon. Friend or the Government that these amendments could now be accepted? What this speaks to—I emphasise this to all Members listening and to the public at home—is a fundamentally flawed process. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] This is not how we make legislation. I take my responsibility extremely seriously, as I am sure everybody in this House does. This is literally a matter of life and death. If the Bill passes without these safeguards, there is no coming back from those decisions.