Legacy of Jo Cox

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak opposite the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), with whom I have worked extensively over many years on international development, thereby demonstrating one of Jo’s core beliefs: more in common. The hon. Lady spoke so movingly about Jo and encapsulated perfectly the essence of who she was and what a politician should be: decent, principled, clear and determined.

I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), who secured this debate, in her place. She exhibits all of Jo’s brilliant qualities in fighting for the causes to which she is devoted, such as assisted dying, on which I am proud to work alongside her. The whole House recognises that on this very divisive issue, she showed incredible decency and probity in the way in which she pursued it.

I cannot quite believe that we are commemorating a whole decade since Jo’s life was brutally cut short. Ten years on, it is just as painful to comprehend. Jo was both my colleague and my friend. We were different in our politics and backgrounds, but on the issues that we were both passionate about, we moved in lockstep. Like the Minister, I remember exactly where I was when the horrific event took place.

Our paths first crossed when Jo and I marched together against injustice in Darfur through the centre of London. Subsequently, I met her in Sudan, in Darfur, in 2006 on two separate visits, one of which included the then Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron. Jo was a huge presence all those years ago, and I remember her also for her trademark scarves. I marvelled at the way she discharged her role at Oxfam in Sudan, supporting women and children and helping to secure water for the thousands of refugees living in camps. I still wear the green wristband she gave me then, as a reminder of the desperate plight of people caught up in what President Bush rightly described as a genocide.

And yet today, 20 years later, Sudan is still in crisis, with ethnic cleansing practised with impunity. Whereas 20 years ago the international community, through the United Nations and the African Union, put military forces on the ground to stop it, sadly today unbridled barbarism continues in plain sight, and the international community is doing nothing to stop it. I am sure the whole House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for leading a debate on this issue in Westminster Hall later today.

Shortly after her election in 2015, Jo asked me whether we could team up to run a new all-party group called friends of Syria. Without hesitation, I agreed. Syria was ablaze. She knew that I took a great interest in the Syrian refugee crisis from the Back Benches, watching with despair as the situation got worse and worse, as the Minister described so well. Jo was determined to use her experience and expertise to champion the dispossessed, and felt we might be well paired to campaign together. As she said in her maiden speech back in 2015,

“we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]

We would do well to reflect on her words and especially her character—fearless determination, unintimidated by tribal political pressures, putting the greater good above personal ambition and placing policy above party.

Jo and I worked closely together for a year until she was murdered. I loved every minute of it. We had a rather useful good cop, bad cop routine. Unusually for me, I found myself as the good cop. Needless to say, Jo relished the bad cop role, especially when confronting the villains of the piece, and believe me when I say that she took no prisoners. On one occasion, we were taking tea with the Russian ambassador to remonstrate about the appalling crimes committed in Aleppo in Syria. The ambassador had recently complained to the Foreign Office that in the House, I had compared Russia’s bombing of Aleppo to the Nazi bombing of Guernica during the Spanish civil war. During the meeting, Jo did most of the hard-ball talking, and at the end of it she had triumphantly reduced a seasoned diplomat to incoherence, laying bare his inability to defend the indefensible. I very much doubt he will ever forget that meeting.

Today, we need more people like Jo. The climate 10 years after her murder is even more febrile and more divided. We have all seen the shocking examples of that recently, and we must not forget that in the end, Jo was a tragic victim of those divisions. Her murder sent shockwaves through us all, yet lessons have not been learned, and a few years later, the wonderful Sir David Amess paid the same price. We must also not forget the MPs who were murdered before: Airey Neave in 1979; Robert Bradford in 1981; Anthony Berry in 1984; and my beloved friend and colleague Ian Gow, on Monday 30 July 1990, as he left his home at the Dog House in Hankham near Eastbourne to serve his constituents. All were murdered by terrorists while serving their constituents.

Today we are witnessing more and more the consequences of polarisation, wrought by fear and cynical exploitation. Divisions are growing and principled politicians are declining, yet this debate underlines that in these dark days there is more that unites us, and so much of the work we do in this place is not characterised by division. Jo would have been appalled by Boris Johnson’s decision first to vaporise the Department for International Development, and secondly to slash the development budget. I suspect she would have been even more incandescent to learn that a Labour Government had gone even further, and I have no doubt in my mind that were she alive today, she would have fought tooth and nail to stop it from happening. Unfortunately, very few people have put their heads above the parapet, for reasons that we all understand—fear of missing out on promotions, of facing demotions, or of generally rocking the boat. Politics is a fragile business.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

The importance of international development aid cannot be overstated. I recognise the need for a nation to be prepared to defend itself against threats from outside and from within, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that funding for that should not come from international development aid?

[Sir Andrew Mitchell]

Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. International development is the other side of the defence coin. The two work together, and the role of soft power is enormously important in preventing conflict and war. I see that the Leader of the House is with us today, and I hope very much that he will restore the old custom that once a year there should be a debate on international development in the House, in Government time. When I next have a chance to speak during business questions, I shall perhaps ask him whether he will consider that.

The passage of time will never erase Jo’s memory and legacy, and her profound impact on those who had the pleasure of knowing, loving and working with her. I am looking forward to hearing contributions from many hon. Members, as we all take comfort in the memory of a truly wonderful human being.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I did not know Jo Cox, and Jo Cox did not know me, but what I do know is that Jo Cox was my friend. Hers is a legacy that we must not just honour with words, but live in practice. This is an opportunity to remind the country of Jo’s passion, drive and reason for being, why she was in this place and why she is so deeply missed. I am privileged to speak in this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater)—my predecessor and constituency neighbour—for continuing Jo’s wonderful work and legacy. I salute you, my friend.

I was elected in 2024, so I did not have the honour of working with Jo, but—I am not saying this to cause offence to any Member—I feel that I know Jo Cox better than I know many Members of this House today, and it is not for want of trying. I absolutely adored the description given by the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who said that Jo was “quite mental”. I would qualify that by saying she was quite good mental. There is mental and then there is mental, and she was of the good kind.

Having been elected as the Member of Parliament for Dewsbury and Batley, I feel extremely privileged to speak in this debate. Jo was born in Dewsbury and represented Batley and Spen, the two towns that I now represent, making it a special honour for me to be able to speak today. The values that she embodied and championed—tolerance, fairness and kindness—still echo powerfully across our communities. Much has rightly been made of Jo’s maiden speech, in which she spoke powerfully and eloquently about how

“we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 674.]

That is an apt mission statement or motto for this place, but I have gone through Hansard to see what Jo said immediately before those remarks, which are now internationally recognised. The remarks that she made before that are just as important, even though they are less commented on. She said:

“Batley and Spen is a gathering of typically independent, no-nonsense and proud Yorkshire towns and villages. Our communities have been deeply enhanced by immigration, be it of Irish Catholics across the constituency or of Muslims from Gujarat in India or from Pakistan, principally from Kashmir.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 674.]

As we look at the unsavoury scenes that have unfolded across the UK in the past week, from Belfast to Southampton, Jo’s belief in the strength of diversity and the power of connection has never been more important. Listening, respecting differences and building bridges where others might be tempted to build walls all matter today more than ever, and they matter in this place. As we reflect on Jo’s legacy, we must be honest about the marked deterioration in the state of our public life since her heinous murder. Civility, the basic respect that underpins democratic disagreement, has been under unprecedented strain and attack in the past decade. We see it in the abuse increasingly directed at elected representatives, in the growing normalisation of unsavoury discourse and, perhaps most pervasively and drastically, in the digital spaces that increasingly shape our national conversation.

Jo understood that vehement disagreement is fundamental to any functioning democracy, but she also understood that democracy cannot function without a basic sense of humanity and a willingness to listen to the views of others in good faith. That is why we must confront one of the defining challenges of our time, which is the role of big tech and social media in poisoning our social fabric. Referring back to some of the comments we have heard, we must confront the wider ecosystem of public commentary from prominent political figures, media personalities and online influencers whose reckless or inflammatory language can help to create the conditions for real-world harm.

In the run-up to periods of unrest in communities across our country, we have too often seen divisive narratives, misinformation and the amplification of fear and grievance. Social media platforms have allowed such content to spread rapidly and without sufficient accountability. Why would they do so? Because every click, every like and every forward earns them more pounds or more dollars, and more money for their shareholders. The result is an environment where tensions can be heightened, trust eroded and, in the worst cases, communities pitted against one another. Yesterday, we heard about the violence and riots in Belfast, where masked people—men predominantly—went around the streets shouting, “Foreigners out!” They also went into people’s homes, evicted them and set their homes on fire. This cannot be accepted, tolerated or encouraged.

If we are to honour Jo’s legacy, we must be clear that freedom of expression carries responsibility, and that those with large platforms—whether in politics, media or tech—must be held accountable for the impact of their words. Too often, we have allowed these platforms to become amplifiers of anger, division and dehumanisation, without any restrictions. It is a far cry from the open, respectful dialogue on which democracy depends. The Jo Cox Foundation has rightly called for more actions to reduce online harms, but we in this House must be crystal clear that regulation has not gone anywhere near far enough or fast enough. Algorithmic systems reward outrage over empathy. They monetise violence and incitement to violence. Abuse and disinformation spread faster than compliments and the truth, and anonymity acts as a shield for those who seek to bully and threaten. These companies must be brought to heel both for the health of our younger generations and for the health of our democracy and our society.

There is a deeper, more insidious link between the toxic nature of online spaces and the growing crisis of loneliness in our society, of which Jo was such a prescient observer. The Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness put this issue firmly on the national agenda, and its relevance has only grown since. There are now half a million more people experiencing chronic loneliness than before the pandemic, with young people among the most likely to feel isolated. The evidence is clear that loneliness weakens social cohesion, reduces trust and leaves individuals more vulnerable to political polarisation and extremism, so when people feel disconnected from each other, our democracy itself becomes more fragile.

Jo instinctively understood that connection more than most parliamentarians, which is why her legacy is not just about remembrance, but about the responsibility we have in this House and the other place. It is a responsibility to rebuild civility in our politics and to calm tensions, not inflame them, both in this House and in our wider nation; a responsibility to strengthen the social fabric of our communities, not undermine them by pitting different groups against each other; and a responsibility to ensure that the technologies shaping our lives serve humanity, not damage it. That means taking seriously the call for a renewed cross-Government strategy on loneliness, and one that recognises social connection as fundamental to physical health, mental wellbeing and social cohesion. However, it also means going further. It means holding big tech companies to account for the environments they create, embedding safeguards against online abuse and disinformation, and investing in digital literacy so that people of all ages can navigate these spaces safely and critically.

Above all, it means leading by example, because every one of us in this House has a role to play in setting the tone of public debate. I promised in my maiden speech, to this House and to our nation, that I would not deliberately say or do anything to harm any other person. I try to live by that principle, and I apologise to Members of this House and to members of our nation if, in the 23 months I have been an MP, I have failed in that promise, but I will try to do better. We cannot call for civility while engaging in division, and we cannot demand respect while tolerating abuse. If we are to honour Jo’s memory, we must embody her values, not just invoke them. That starts with recognising, as she did, that our shared humanity is greater than our differences, and it continues with the choices we make about how we speak, how we listen and how we treat one another. So I end by echoing the words of the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) that we must love like Jo, live like Jo, care like Jo and serve like Jo.

[Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)]

What an honour it is to be here in the Chamber, alongside 2015 friends—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) —and obviously my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), to share my memories of Jo and talk about her legacy in a world that, quite honestly, could do with a lot more people like Jo in it right now.

On 7 May 2015, I was one of 177 new MPs elected for the first time. Fifty of us were Labour MPs, and 11 years later, 36 out of those 50 remain, but I have no doubt that, if it were not for the tragic and senseless act that day, there would be 37 of us now. Jo was a fellow newbie back in 2015, a respected colleague and someone I was proud to call a friend. She stood for everything that is right, and she was never afraid to share her beliefs or call out injustice.

My final and lasting memory of Jo is of just two days before, when she invited those of us in the 2015 intake to her houseboat to celebrate our first year in this place. I do not understand why—I have never quite understood it—but I am almost certain I won the prize for the best accessories and earrings. What I do remember is that we were greeted by a beautifully decorated chalkboard that the children had written, welcoming us—I’m getting choked thinking about it—to their home. None of us could have known that in less than 48 hours she would be gone. The memories of that evening are so precious and remind me of what an exceptional woman she was, opening up her home despite already juggling her responsibilities in Westminster and in Batley and Spen with being a devoted wife, daughter, sister and, most importantly, mother to two wonderful children. She was remarkable: passionate about everything she stood for and determined to make our country a better place for everyone who called it home.

It feels inconceivable that 10 years have already passed since we lost Jo. Returning to Parliament just days after her death and sitting on the Opposition Benches listening to the shock and horror felt across the House is something I will never, ever forget. Voices from every party spoke of how Jo was the very best of us, how her values were shared by us all and how important it was that we all lived by her words. Jo truly believed what she said in her iconic maiden speech: that in our diverse communities, right across the country, we have far more in common than the things that divide us. It is a message that perhaps even needs to be told more today than 10 years ago.

Much of my work in this place over the last 10 years has been on things that I know Jo would have taken an interest in: the ongoing campaign to encourage more women to stand for office and achieve a 50:50 Parliament; standing up against abuse in public office, particularly of female MPs; and our campaign to improve menopause support and services in healthcare, in the workplace and across society. I wish she had had the opportunity to fight those causes with us, because her voice would have been one well worth listening to. Jo always spoke with real conviction about the things that mattered most, and she cared immensely about those who felt targeted, isolated or alone. She celebrated diversity, she believed in the value of community, and she used her platform to be a voice for those who felt marginalised and silenced.

Jo’s legacy has already written itself. Indeed, the very words she herself spoke in this Chamber and beyond are just that. Hate and division should not be tolerated. Nobody should feel comfortable knowing that others are experiencing loneliness. If Jo’s one voice on its own could get that message across so clearly, imagine the impact if we all used our voices together to spread those words of love and hope.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Does the hon. Lady agree with me that Jo was the change she wanted to see? That is a real example for all of us in this House and across our nation. We should follow in her footsteps and be the positive change we want to see.

[Carolyn Harris]

I certainly do. Jo’s vision is something I have tried desperately to live up to in all my political career.

In Jo’s memory, 10 years on from her tragic and untimely death, I urge colleagues from all parties—even those who are not with us today—to remember what she stood for, to amplify her message and to encourage others to celebrate the wonderful diversity of our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

I will come on to social media and the way that division is amplified and monetised, and how bad behaviour is often rewarded more than being a good citizen in that debate.

I am proud of our country and believe that the vast majority in this country are decent, hard-working people who want the best for themselves and their neighbours, whatever their background, race or religion. However, we have to look in the mirror collectively, as a country, and ask what has taken us to the point where an attack that all of us see as horrific, which has played out in Belfast over the last couple of days, could in any way justify the scenes of a family—women and children—running away from their house, which has been left in flames and smoke. That is where division has got us. How can we find ourselves in a situation where a woman fleeing war in Ukraine who has been homed in Belfast, finds her house being attacked, while violent protesters are egged on from Russia?

We have to reflect on the fact that cohesion does not happen by accident. People do not come together unless there is leadership that brings them together. Maybe we all need to be a bit more determined in calling out what is in plain sight. We must also accept that it has been a characteristic of politics in Britain since the EU referendum. At that moment, something changed. Being online has of course made it worse; the way that those divisions are exploited, and how extremism now has a platform that it did not have in the mainstream before, is all part of that.

I am not convinced that mainstream politics is adequately responding to the scale of the challenge that is in front of us. I do not feel that we have the regulations. At some point—my god!—Ofcom might realise that it is a regulator, and then who knows what it could achieve. We must ask whether the architecture is in place to deal with the scale of the challenge.

As we see homes set on fire, businesses damaged and people attacked, I would say that this is a national emergency. In a civil emergency, we would respond as a nation and a Government in a more determined way than we have seen. I fear that the power being held by a handful of very wealthy, powerful, connected individuals, who control our social media in the way that the old media was controlled by the wealthy and powerful for vested interests, is almost placing the Government into a position of fear—fear of the response if they take action. These things are not easy, but taking no action —or cautious action—is not rising to the challenge ahead.

I have three reflections on where we find ourselves. First, every elected representative has a responsibility not just to challenge views they disagree with but to build bridges across political differences and seek common ground wherever it can be found. We are elected to represent whole communities, not factions of communities. We should lead by example in the tone we set, the respect we show, and the openness with which we are willing to engage. That is not always easy—political disagreements are deeply felt—but little can be achieved without it.

Secondly, I continue to believe—although this is tested on a regular basis—that social media can be a force for good. It offers opportunities to connect people, to learn to organise, and to bring people together around shared interests and common causes. In fact, we all use it in this House—there is no one here who is not on one social media platform or another for those reasons. I do not begin by looking at social media from a point of cynicism about the technology itself. We have got to be honest about social media’s flaws, however, because too often the incentives that are built into platforms reward outrage over understanding, division over dialogue, and conflict over compromise. In many respects, previous generations could have barely understood the scale and pace of that, but the Government have to recognise and step up to the scale of the challenge.

Thirdly, we have to address the underlying tensions that drive fear, anxiety and anger. Where people feel insecure in their jobs, worried about their family’s future, unable to access housing, or disconnected from the opportunities available elsewhere, those concerns cannot simply be dismissed or ignored. We must respond with great urgency to the conditions that people feel, particularly when they say that they are unheard and feel left behind.

Alongside all that, we have to recognise that social cohesion is not a passive state. It does not happen by accident. It requires effort, compromise, and a willingness to listen, understand and sometimes disagree without condemning, rather than everything being a culture war or about identity, where the winners of the argument are those who can shout loudest, not those who can convince. That was the lesson that Jo Cox tried to teach us, and it remains as important today as when she first said it.

For some, those concerns might sound abstract. Quite often, we talk around the houses about social media regulation and its impact, but in a town such as Oldham, where we are now 25 years on from the Oldham riots, we know the cost when communities are torn apart and division is normalised. We know the cost when people live completely separate lives, not interacting in communities, the education system, the housing system or even in the economy; where the opportunities to meet people from a different background are the exception, not the rule; where people self-select to live a separate life, because it is easier and maybe more secure than making the effort to reach out and build bridges across different communities.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

To highlight the hon. Gentleman’s point, after the murder of Mr Nowak, Tommy Robinson said:

“The whole system is set against white people. And it must be smashed!”

In recent days, Musk has reposted messages claiming that the British Prime Minister hates white people and “millions must go”. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is the language of incitement to hatred and violence, and that wherever it is possible for our law to reach, the Government and law enforcement agencies must tackle that behaviour with the strongest force of the law?

[Jim McMahon]

It is clear that extremists will capitalise on the anxiety, fear and frustration that people feel in the country, and on the everyday problems they face. People are facing difficult circumstances now when trying to get a house that is affordable and secure, keep a job that can provide a good standard of living for themselves and their family, and feel safe in the community they call home where they are raising their kids—those are real issues that people face—and it is the oldest trick in the book to blame thy neighbour rather than the real cause of the problem.

I remember doing a kind of test at secondary school— I am not sure whether this is still done—in which the classroom was divided by the eye colour of the children in the class, with the blue-eyed kids on one side and the brown-eyed kids on the other. I was on the side with the blue eyes. We were given a handful of sweets to share among ourselves—a much bigger group of kids—while the brown-eyed kids were given a big bowl of sweets. There was more than enough for everybody in that group—they were stuffing their face and enjoying themselves. Within seconds, we had stopped looking at where the bigger bowl of sweets had gone and started squabbling among ourselves over the few sweets left on the table. Of course, the message was that when people are left to fight for scarce resource, they fight the person nearest to them, who is trying to fight for the same resource; the lesson was to look where the resource had been taken before it got anywhere near our table.

I say that because in a town like Oldham, people from every background are working hard, but there are not enough sweets to go around the community to give people a good standard of living and to make them feel safe in the communities where they live. I hear it from the white community and I hear it from the Muslim community. I hear it from people from every background, because we are all part of the same place, with the same hopes, fears and concerns about the future. It poses a real question for the Government about the economy and the fact that the wealth that we are creating is not being fairly distributed among society. The workers who are creating that wealth are fighting for scarce resource in a society that is, frankly, still setting working people against other working people.

The fact that race, religion or however many generations someone happens to have been British are dividing lines in an argument makes me really fearful. When it comes to matters of asylum and refugees, my town has a strong history of supporting people fleeing persecution. I have always thought that when looking into the eyes of a child in such a situation, we must think to ourselves: there but for the grace of God go I. If that was my child, what would I want as a response to protect the child I love? I expect our country to provide what it would for my child for children who are fleeing war.

Let us be honest, though: our asylum and immigration system is not working for people who are fleeing war and persecution any more than it is for anybody else. We have to get a grip of the system. It can be a bit too easy in politics to talk firm without outlining what is fair. We need to make sure that there is balance and equity in that debate. If we do not, those divisions will be exploited.

Oldham has had to literally rebuild itself and its community from the ashes of riots in which the town set itself on fire. Looking at our history, I think we can be a bit too complacent in our assumption that the malign forces might suddenly go away and we can regulate the online world better and sort out the algorithms.

By the way, we should not allow Members of Parliament to be paid by platforms for their insightful posts. Parliamentarians should, of course, post on social media, but they should post in the public interest. They should not be doing so for the financial kickback they get. I do not know whether this is the case, but they certainly should not be using paid parliamentary staff to post content online in order, ultimately, to get paid a fee through the back door on these platforms. We should all be driven by public service and by wanting to represent our constituents.

What we learned in Oldham was that every politician in every party has to take responsibility. It is the one thing that I feel we have lost in some of this debate.

I also want to reflect on David Amess. We are here reflecting on a decade passing since Jo passed away, but many of us were also affected by David being killed in his advice surgery.

My final words are not for the people in this Chamber—we speak about ourselves quite a lot. Instead, I want to thank the families of Members of Parliament for allowing their loved ones to serve in politics. I am sure that when Members set off on a Monday morning to head to this place, or when they go out on a Thursday or Friday or on the weekend in their constituencies, there will be times when their family members wonder whether the person they love will return. Our politics have to be better than that, but we should not underestimate what families who support MPs offer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dawn Butler]

That is incredible. These are sometimes signs and messages as opposed to coincidences, but what is not a coincidence is your kindness and the person you have been in this House. It obviously runs in the family.

We need those traits more than ever in society, because there are politicians in this House and activists in our country who are intent on sowing division. As much as we try to stop them, it sometimes feels as though we are not winning the battle. That is tough, when we know there are more better people in the world than there are bad. It is tough because the people who are fuelled by money, ego and power are getting more publicity than anybody else.

Yesterday I was on Iain Dale’s show, having an argument with a Member from the other place. He kept saying, “Social media is a voluntary contract; it shouldn’t be banned or legislated.” Well, he was completely talking out of his rear end. [Interruption.] I’m getting better. He failed to understand the real damage that social media can do. Social media is like somebody producing a hate leaflet and delivering it through someone else’s letterbox, whether they want it or not. The fact that people get rewarded and paid to do that means that they do it more often. We have to recognise that in government, and we have to we legislate. It is tough, but we have to do it. We are in a different world right now.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Does the hon. Member agree that unless and until the Government take action that hits these companies where it hurts—in their profits—they will continue to do what they are doing? We set age limits on alcohol and cigarettes, and we ban heroin, crack cocaine and all that kind of stuff. This is one of those products that causes such harm.

[Dawn Butler]

I agree 100%: we have to hit them where it hurts. There have to be consequences. We have laws on inciting hatred in our country, and yet these companies seem to openly and flagrantly bypass them. The leader of Reform gets something like half a million or a million views whenever he posts a hate post—he is not that popular by any stretch of the imagination. It just feeds egos, and we need to legislate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the moving and impassioned speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler).

I want to begin by expressing my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for her deeply moving tribute and the contribution she made today, speaking about her dear sister. I also pay tribute to the work of the rest of Jo’s family, who, in the decade since her senseless and terrible murder, have been champions for celebrating her life, her legacy and her values. Jo’s principled internationalism and her humanitarian legacy are and should be a source of great pride to her loved ones. It was the singular sense of humanity and compassion that she brought to her causes which drove them forward. From refugee rights to the protection of civilians in war, her contributions were remarkable.

Jo’s work in Syria rightfully won many admirers in many countries, and we should also remember her outspoken and impassioned advocacy for the rights of the Palestinian people. After working in Gaza and the west bank with Oxfam, Jo spoke passionately in Parliament about the need for the Government to do more for humanitarian aid in Gaza, as well as for civilian protection during the 2014 Gaza war. I know that her voice has been sorely missed in this place over recent years.

I must also place on record my admiration for the work of the Jo Cox Foundation. As Members have said, the efforts of the foundation are carrying forward Jo’s mission on tackling loneliness and social isolation. The scale of loneliness in this country is a tragedy in and of itself, but the impact of this isolation on an individual’s health and wellbeing and on the fabric of our social wellbeing demands real action. The foundation’s efforts deserve recognition, and I support the campaign for a new cross-Government action plan to tackle loneliness, while noting my admiration for organisations in my constituency, including Neighbours in Poplar, for their work in bringing our communities together.

Two years ago, I participated in research undertaken by the Jo Cox Foundation for its 2024 Civility Commission report, “No place in politics: tackling abuse and intimidation”. As I stated to those at the foundation then, I have long faced a heightened risk to my own safety: serious death threats, threats to kidnap me, threats of sexual violence and threats about ripping off my hijab in public. This abuse has not relented in the years since I was first elected to this House, and I am sad to say that, despite progress being made on the representation of women in this House, I do not feel there has been sufficient progress in our country to protect elected representatives or those who are standing for election.

Despite all the initiatives on security and justice in the years since Jo’s death, politics in this country remains a dangerous and difficult environment for women. We know that elected representatives and candidates from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds are particularly targeted for abuse. I say this knowing that Jo was absolutely passionate about achieving a 50:50 Parliament, and she was a passionate advocate for women standing for public office not only in the UK but in many different countries around the world. The constant abuse and threats of violence against women representatives and candidates represent a major obstacle that is holding us back in the UK, and we must do more.

Young people, women and survivors of domestic abuse often reach out to me and other Members of this House to say that they would like to stand for office, to take forward their lived experiences into politics, and they ask us for advice. I have to be completely frank that I now often struggle to give them that encouragement, because after many years of trying to rebuild and move on with my life, I am really aware of the physical and mental health toll on me as the post-separation harassment goes on and on.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work? Before I came to this place, I did not follow many politicians, I am sorry to say, but I did follow the hon. Lady and a few like her who have always been an absolute rock and the strongest champion for the rights not just of women but of any person who has been the target of abuse or suffered at the hands of others. I wanted to put that on the record.

There are sections in this House and in the community who say that hate speech online or in person is not as important to investigate as real crimes—burglaries, violence and other crimes we have seen this week. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is not an either/or? We have to tackle all crimes across our society, and tackling hate speech will hopefully reduce the level of violent crime that we see on our streets.

[Apsana Begum]

I agree that we must take steps both online and offline with the same level of energy and commitment, and I thank the hon. Member for his kind words.

When Members first come to Parliament or enter politics, they know that they are ultimately taking a risk with their life, and that is not something we should have to do when we put ourselves forward for office. It is not easy for me to say that I have also contended with that scenario—perhaps I have to understand that it just comes with the job. There have been times when I have legitimately feared for my life, and that was particularly true during the last general election campaign. As I have previously informed the House, during that election the abuse and intimidation that I had long endured reached new heights. It was an election in which my abusive ex-husband stood as a candidate against me, after I had already faced several years of post-separation harassment. Even before that I had already endured a vexatious trial, and a reselection process in the Labour party, during which I experienced harassment from his associates. Alarm bells were rung by organisations in the domestic abuse sector, and representations were made on my behalf, but the situation is ongoing and unresolved. All of that has been a deeply harrowing experience that I truly do not believe any survivor of domestic abuse should be expected to endure.

I also feel a strong sense of duty and responsibility to other survivors of domestic abuse in this country, and over the years they have reached out to me, saying that they feel a strength when they see people in this House speak about their own experiences. I do not want to be a case study or a statistic sometime in the future, or for us to say that nothing could really happen in this situation, yet sometime down the line, one or two decades later, we will all look back and say, “Oh yeah—she was really failed. The system did not protect her as a survivor of domestic abuse. We are better now, but there were failings along the way.”

For that reason, along with Members across the House, I am working to try to secure better protection for candidates facing domestic violence, post-separation harassment, and hostility in the context of election campaigns. That is why I have provided testimony and participated in the work of the all-party group on women in Parliament, and given evidence to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which is developing a method for institutional action—MINA—to protect candidates standing in elections or those in elected office who suffer violence in politics.

Domestic abuse can affect people from all walks of life and in all forms of employment, including those of us serving in public office. All survivors should be able to have dreams and hopes, a life beyond domestic abuse, and play a role in national policy making and our democracy, just like anybody else who has not gone through those awful and horrific experiences. This is not just about me. As I have said, no survivor of domestic abuse should be prevented from standing or staying in office due to post-separation harassment.