High Street Gambling Reform

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

High street gambling is hollowing out our high streets and causing untold harm to hard-working families. For too long, gambling harms have been tolerated, minimised or treated as an unfortunate side effect of what is in reality an exploitative, predatory industry. That approach has failed. The consequences are visible across the country, and acutely so in my constituency.

Gambling-related harm extends far beyond financial loss. Every year in the United Kingdom, between 250 and 650 people take their own life as a result of the relentless, isolating grip of gambling addiction. Gambling fuels cycles of debt, secrecy and shame, driving anxiety and depression, and placing unbearable strain on relationships. Children grow up in households marked by stress and instability, partners face emotional and financial ruin, and communities are left to deal with the long-term fallout.

Nationwide figures show that a staggering 1.4 million Britons have a gambling problem. What makes this harm particularly troubling is its predictability. Gambling harm is not randomly distributed; it disproportionately affects those in deprived areas already facing economic insecurity, poor mental health and social isolation. These noxious effects are not unavoidable collateral damage but the predictable human cost of an industry that pursues profit above all else and a regulatory system governed by weak safeguards. We must therefore be honest about how gambling companies operate. These are not passive providers of leisure but sophisticated corporations that systematically use behavioural data, targeted marketing and psychological design to maximise profit from often vulnerable users who are routinely incentivised to continue gambling despite clear warning signs.

Some 86% of gross online betting profits come from just 5% of customers. Major gambling operators feed on misery while dodging their wider social responsibilities. There are 440 offshore companies with UK gambling licences, with over 1,500 active sites from offshore locations. Profits taken from local high streets are routed through opaque corporate structures and offshore jurisdictions, minimising tax contributions to the very communities that bear the costs of this harm. An ITV investigation in November 2025 found that Sky Bet had relocated its headquarters to Malta to avoid paying our Government £55 million a year. That is a profoundly unjust settlement. Families are pushed into debt and despair; public services absorb the social and mental fallout of gambling harm; and the wealth generated is quietly siphoned away. Gambling giants have perfected a cynical extractive business model. This is not enterprise, but an egregious abuse of capitalism dressed up as entertainment. Yet the political establishment has failed to meaningfully wrestle with the harm that the gambling industry has caused.

For years lobbyists have successfully watered down efforts to rein in reckless gambling operators. Just a few months ago, the head of the UK’s Betting and Gaming Council made the ludicrous claim to MPs that gambling does not cause any social ills. Previously hiding behind so-called voluntary contributions to harm prevention amounted to a fig leaf that allowed profits to soar while safety mechanisms remain pitiful. The introduction of a statutory levy last year is not a success story, but an admission of failure and a clear verdict on the bankruptcy of self-regulation.

When an industry repeatedly places profit over protection, Parliament has not merely a right to act, but a moral obligation to do so. Despite that obligation, treatment and support services remain overstretched and unevenly distributed. Access remains inconsistent, with too many falling through the cracks. According to data from the annual Great Britain treatment and support survey, almost 40% of those experiencing problem gambling in Great Britain have not accessed treatment or support in the last year. Tools such as self-exclusion schemes, affordability checks and voluntary limits are too often poorly enforced, inconsistently applied and easily circumvented. The burden is frequently placed on individuals to recognise their own harm and seek assistance. Gambling regulations —as for alcohol and tobacco—must be preventive, mandatory and robust.

In particular, our communities remain constrained by the outdated “aim to permit” principle, which places a legal presumption on local authorities to approve new gambling premises even when harm is evident. Our existing regulatory framework strips local authorities of the ability to prioritise public health and community wellbeing, instead forcing them to wave through applications and turn local democracy into a rubber stamp for gambling profits. I am proud to support the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) and other colleagues in calling for its abolition.

In my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley, these national failures to effectively regulate the gambling industry have very real consequences. According to the gambling commissioner’s own register, Kirklees council has granted 34 gambling licences, with 10 gambling premises located in my constituency alone. That level of concentration is not accidental; it reflects a system that allows gambling operators to cluster in areas of economic vulnerability.

Gambling reform is ultimately about choices—not the choices of individuals under pressure, but the choices we make as lawmakers. Do we continue to allow an industry to extract wealth from the most vulnerable with insufficient safeguards, or do we act to rebalance the system in favour of public health, fairness and community wellbeing? We need protection from gambling education in schools, and we need support. For constituencies such as mine, this is not a theoretical problem; it is urgent and it demands immediate action. We must strengthen regulation, hold corporations accountable and properly fund treatment.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on securing this debate and on her campaigning on this issue over the years. That includes this week’s letter to the Prime Minister, which had nearly 300 signatories and which she co-ordinated. She was quite right to say that our high streets are being hollowed out by a surge of betting shops, with local people left seemingly powerless.

It seems to me that this issue should sit squarely with this Labour Government’s Pride in Place programme. I am not suggesting that we should have no betting shops—I recognise that the industry provides jobs and tax revenue—but local to where I am, there are three betting shops within walking distance of my office in Horwich, a town of fewer than 20,000 people, and there are two more nearby in Westhoughton town centre. The current situation is not conducive to fulfilling the Government’s manifesto pledge, which I proudly stood on in 2024, to tackle gambling harm, which is sadly a lived reality for far too many families in Bolton and Greater Manchester as a whole.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Let me make a couple of points about the high street. The way that these shops are set up, with attractive front faces and lighting, is quite appealing, especially to children and young people. Does the hon. Member agree that that should be managed and that there should be regulation around that? Like cigarettes and alcohol, there should be a health warning on the outside of the shop that would ensure that people are aware of what it is and what harms it can cause.

[Phil Brickell]

The hon. Member makes a valid point. We see that on high streets in my constituency time and time again, all too often, in the context of vape shops.

As an aside, we all know that gambling today is no longer confined to a once-a-week trip to the bookies; it is on people’s phones, in their pockets and available 24 hours a day. Online slots are among the highest-risk products, as they are fast, repetitive and designed to encourage long sessions and binge play. I commend the Government on the introduction of stake limits for online slots. Those limits matter, because harm increasingly happens not just on the high street, but on our phones, anywhere and at any time.

Let me go back to the high street. As we have already heard many times in this debate, the clustering of betting shops remains a serious and unresolved problem, particularly in deprived communities. I received assurances from the gambling Minister last year that cumulative impact assessments on gambling licensing will be introduced to strengthen councils’ ability to influence the density of gambling outlets, but this measure is pending parliamentary time—that much-dreaded phrase. I urge the Minister not to let this important measure get crowded out. It is a new year, and with new years come new year’s resolutions. How about a resolution to prioritise addressing what is a far too liberal regime for managing gambling harms?

We know that where gambling outlets cluster, harm increases, from debt and mental ill health to family breakdown and homelessness. According to the Government’s gambling-related harms evidence review, the north-west has some of the highest rates of at-risk gambling in England, with around 4.4% of adults experiencing elevated risk. Even more worrying is the fact that the north-west has one of the highest proportions of people harmed by someone else’s gambling—partners, children, parents and friends all pay the price.

I welcome the steps already taken by the Government. Frankly, the introduction of the statutory gambling levy to raise around £100 million a year for research, prevention and treatment is the least that the industry could do. While acknowledging the issue is always the first step, I know that the Minister, as a former councillor himself, will recognise it is no good leaving councils powerless to tackle the physical concentration of gambling premises on our high streets.

If we are serious about reducing gambling harm, we must accelerate reform. Our high streets should offer opportunity, not addiction; our laws should protect people, not profits.

BBC Charter Renewal

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. The BBC is rightly regarded as a national treasure. For more than a century, it has been trusted at home and across the world as a benchmark for accurate and impartial journalism. That reputation matters, and it is precisely because of the global admiration for the BBC that its recent failures, particularly with respect to its coverage of Gaza, must be confronted.

A comprehensive report published in June 2025 by the Centre for Media Monitoring examined more than 35,000 articles and broadcast segments over a 12-month period from October 2023. Its findings amount to a devastating indictment of the BBC’s claims to impartiality. On a per fatality basis, Israeli deaths received 33 times more coverage across articles, and 19 times more coverage on television and radio. To cite other equally damning statistics, BBC presenters shared Israeli perspectives 11 times more frequently than Palestinian perspectives, and the words “massacre” or “massacred” were applied almost 18 times more frequently to Israeli victims.

Headlines such as “Israel says Rafah crossing to open soon to let Palestinians leave Gaza via Egypt” amount to whitewashing of the ethnic cleansing and forced migration inflicted upon the Palestinian people. As the Centre for Media Monitoring report outlines, the term “war crimes” was mentioned in only 3% of articles in relation to Israeli violence against Palestinians. This hierarchy of language dehumanises Palestinian livelihoods, masking grave human rights violations behind a false notion of balance.

Internally, more than 100 BBC staff and 300 journalists and media professionals wrote a letter complaining that the corporation has become a propaganda platform for Israel, citing examples such as the BBC’s shocking refusal to broadcast the documentary “Gaza: Doctors Under Attack”. They wrote:

“Much of the BBC’s coverage in this area is defined by anti-Palestinian racism.”

This is not balance, but distortion. It is not impartiality, but systemic bias. Palestinian suffering is treated as less newsworthy, less human and less deserving of scrutiny or outrage.

Consequently, serious questions must be asked about the BBC’s governance. The continued influence of figures such as Robbie Gibb undermines public confidence in the BBC’s ability to report without fear or favour. The Government must ensure an end to partisan appointments and resist politically motivated attacks on reporting. They should meaningfully engage with trade unions and the National Union of Journalists throughout the charter renewal process. If the BBC is to retain its reputation for courageous, high-quality journalism, it must urgently reckon with its shortcomings, and this Government must stop looking the other way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the facts I cited are empirical evidence that is irrefutable? There has been no response from the BBC or the Government to the report from the Centre for Media Monitoring. Does he agree that there should be?

[Kevin Bonavia]

I have not read all that report; I hear what the hon. Gentleman has said about it. But the point I am making is not about those facts; it is that it is good that we can have a debate about the national broadcaster, in a way we would not for any other broadcaster. That is so important, and it helps us to listen more. That is what we need to do more in the age we live in, and through the BBC we can do that.

I say to all Members in this debate and beyond that we must make the BBC fit for the age we live in. If we did not have the BBC, we would not be in a world that I would want to be part of, so I ask the Minister to talk about how she will protect the BBC in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am pleased to respond to this debate on behalf of the Media Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who is in the main Chamber on other business. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing this important debate; as he said, we have previously debated this and many other media issues many times. I am really grateful to him for bringing forward this debate and for the huge expertise he brings to it, and to all hon. Members of all parties from across the House for attending. Today’s attendance shows just how important this topic is.

I will respond to some of the specific points raised in a moment. First, I would like to begin by saying that for over 100 years the BBC has been at the very heart of our national life and our successful media ecosystem. It tells us the story of who we are—our people, our places and the communities that make up life across the UK.

Throughout its long history, the BBC has been guided by the Reithian principles of informing, educating and entertaining. It is one of the most trusted news providers, both at home and abroad, at a time when the need for trusted news and high-quality programming is so essential to our democratic and cultural life and to our place in the world—a point made by the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the BBC, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland), as well as by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes).

The BBC provides vital educational content for all ages, and of course it is where millions of us turn for high-quality entertainment. “The Celebrity Traitors” final had over 11 million people tuning in live and sharing in that moment together—a point that the Liberal Democrats, I thought, made very well. It is no wonder that the BBC remains the most used media provider in the UK, with an average of 94% of adults using its services each month. The BBC is one of the UK’s greatest cultural exports, recognised across the globe and standing strong as the “light on the hill”, as the Secretary of State would say: a shining beacon in times of darkness and a trusted voice amid all the noise.

I appreciate that there are different perspectives, as this debate has reflected, and I will address some of the specific points, questions and ideas put to me. In the interests of time, perhaps I will not be able to go into much detail, but I can say directly to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), that there will be ample opportunity to debate this topic further in this place.

The right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) opened the debate by highlighting that the BBC has had a number of challenges, issues and scandals, as indeed hon. Members from across the House have pointed out. As the shadow Minister said, some—if not many—of those are of its own making. Where the highest standards have not been met, that is unacceptable. As the Secretary of State set out to the House in November, the chair of the BBC has accepted that there have been “editorial failings”, and this is simply not good enough. That has clearly had an impact on trust, as reflected in the statistics shared by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). The funding is a complex issue and I will address the questions put to me in as much detail as I can in a moment. In broad terms, we want to ensure that the cost is as low as possible. We want to examine how efficiently the BBC operates, how it provides services, the way they are delivered and whether that should be revisited.

The Chair of the Select Committee put big questions to me on the long-term sustainability, the funding settlement, changing viewer habits and the scope and size of the BBC. We will debate all of those not just over the 12-week consultation but over the coming year as we debate the charter. If I have time I will come back with a little more detail.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) spoke powerfully and gave a number of examples important to her own constituency. I was pleased to visit when I was the Media Minister. I want to put it on the record that I have heard the points around minority languages and the issues raised by colleagues in Northern Ireland, the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Indeed, the December before last the hon. Member for East Londonderry held a debate in the main Chamber.

I will address a point put to me by the shadow Minister on concessions. We are not looking to expand free TV licences or give them free to those in receipt of benefits. An example from Germany was taken out of context from the Green Paper; I can be clear about that now. To go into a little more detail, the BBC has clearly reached a critical juncture. The market has changed significantly, and the charter review is a timely opportunity to set the BBC up for success in a new and dynamic world. The right hon. Member for Maldon had responsibility for the last charter review 10 years ago. In a debate in December 2024 he said that the changes in the broadcasting landscape that have taken place during the 10 years since then have been

“huge and continue to accelerate.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 140WH.]

The new charter will formally set the terms of the BBC for the future with a clear ambition to set it on a path to thrive, well into the latter half of this century. Our Green Paper, published on 16 December, represents the first step on that path as we set out our vision for future-proofing our national broadcaster. The four sections outlined in the paper include governance and trust, funding, mission and purpose, and technology and digital. The BBC must remain independent, genuinely accountable to the public it serves, and critically, it must continue to command public trust.

Further afield, the BBC must also continue the World Service’s vital work in providing trusted and truthful news internationally. Members have given a number of examples. It is absolutely vital that the BBC is trusted by the British public and commands confidence in its impartiality as our national broadcaster. The charter review will support that aim and provide an opportunity to ensure the BBC remains the trusted independent source of news for UK citizens that it has been for over 100 years. As the current Media Minister has said, the corporation’s future should not be tainted by the “problems of today”.

The charter review will also ensure that the BBC remains an engine of growth, driving good jobs, skills and creativity across the UK. As part of this, we are considering how the BBC can further support the production sector across the nations and regions, including by ensuring that budgets and decision-making powers for commissioners are spread across the UK—a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). We are considering how the BBC can deliver more through others, working collaboratively and in partnership with organisations across the creative economy and the local news sector—something I have heard from my own local paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) made a very important point about that.

But the BBC role extends beyond economic growth and innovation. Whether it is to celebrate the coronation of His Majesty King Charles or to cheer on Britain’s gold medal wins at the Paris Olympics and Paralympics, the BBC has the power to bring the nation together. People right across our nation must be able to access content that genuinely reflects their lives, their communities and their contributions, so that all of us can see ourselves reflected in our national story—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) spoke about.

The BBC must commission, produce and distribute stories that are truly rooted in diverse UK experiences and promote British stories and creativity to the world. I have seen that in my own area, whether it is the BBC’s long read on the history and regeneration of our brilliant town centre, thanks to our Labour council, or the who to watch in the Yorkshire music scene, which are just a couple of pieces of coverage that the BBC has done from my own area. We know that to achieve all of this the BBC must be funded in a way that is fair and sustainable for the long term. The right hon. Member for Maldon secured a debate on this topic in December 2024, where he highlighted challenges with the licence fee, noting, as we do in our Green Paper, that the landscape has hugely changed since he was responsible for drawing up the current charter. He spoke during that debate about some of the alternatives to the licence fee, which also have their challenges, and he rightly identified the need for those to be considered alongside broader decisions about the future of television. Our thinking is certainly accounting for these points. Indeed, it was in Westminster Hall during my last debate as Media Minister that I responded to a debate—about the future of television—incredibly relevant to today’s topic.

At this stage, we are keeping an open mind on the issue and the Green Paper sets out a range of options that we are exploring, including how the BBC can operate more efficiently, how it could generate more commercial revenue, and how the licence fee could be reformed. This is a complex topic, and the public consultation will provide an opportunity for the public to have their say. In the interests of time, I am really sorry that I cannot respond in detail to some of the points raised today, though I had made notes to do so. I will make sure that I or the Media Minister write in answer to some of the specific questions.

We know that some funding options would represent a significant shift for both the sector and the BBC, as well as for audience experiences. The right hon. Member for Maldon has previously raised concerns about the potential for advertising on the BBC to impact commercial providers. A thriving media sector involving ITV, Channel 4, our diverse local media providers and others is vital for the UK, and I wish to reassure him that we will carefully consider the potential impacts on this ecosystem. I have heard the points he has made today and of course we debated them at length during the passage of what is now the Media Act 2024. We are also considering options for funding the World Service, of which I know he is a great supporter—as are many other Members across parties who have spoken brilliantly and given many examples—and for funding minority language broadcasting so that the rich linguistic heritage of our communities can continue to thrive and grow. That includes S4C, which I was pleased to visit as Media Minister last year to see its work first hand.

Many hard questions will be raised through this charter process, but it is important that it is the start of the conversation. There will be many more debates in this place as we have this discussion. The intention of the Green Paper is to spark debate and get Members from across the House and people across the country to share their views. We will continue to engage with the public and Parliament, and we will of course get the chance to have a full debate. In the meantime, I thank all Members for their contributions.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I was just about to sit down, but I will give way.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

The Green Paper is about the future of the BBC, but we also have to address the issues and challenges that it faces today while the consultation goes on and the new charter is defined, established and implemented. Please could the Minister advise when or whether the Government and the BBC will respond to the report from the Centre for Media Monitoring, with substantive action points as to how it is going to prevent or improve going forward?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As I said at the opening of my remarks, we expect the BBC to maintain the absolute highest editorial standards and where it has fallen short, we have urged them to take action. I will take that point away for the Media Minister. I thank so many Members for attending this debate. I think it reflects how important this issue and the future of our national broadcaster is.

Online Safety Act 2023: Repeal

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 722903 relating to the Online Safety Act.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard, and to open this important debate as a member of the Petitions Committee. I start by thanking the 550,138 people who signed the petition for their engagement with the democratic process, and in particular the petition creator, Alex Baynham, whom I had the pleasure of meeting as part of my preparations for this debate; he is in the Public Gallery today. My role as a member of the Petitions Committee is to introduce the petition and key contours of the issues and considerations that it touches on, hopefully to help ensure that we have a productive debate that enhances our understanding.

I believe that at the heart of any balanced discussion on this issue is a recognition of two simultaneous features of the online world’s development over the last 30 years. First, there has been the development of incredible opportunities for people to communicate and form bonds together online, which go far beyond the previous limitations of geography and have allowed a huge multiplication of opportunities for such interactions—from marketplaces to gaming to dating. We should welcome that in a free society.

Secondly, the opportunities for harm, hate and illegality have also hugely increased, in a way that previous legislation and regulation was totally unequipped to deal with. That is what prompted the introduction of the Online Safety Act 2023. As the Minister at the time said:

“The Bill is world-leading, and the legislative framework established by it will lead to the creation of a profoundly safer online environment in this country. It will kickstart change where that is sorely needed, and ensure that our children are better protected against pornography and other content that is harmful to them.” —[Official Report, 12 September 2023; Vol. 737, c. 799.]

Although some aspects of the Online Safety Act have been more prominent than others since its introduction, it is important in this debate to recall that there are multiple parts of the Act, each of which could separately be subject to amendment or indeed repeal by Parliament. There was the introduction of a framework placing obligations on in-scope services—for example, social media platforms—to implement systems and processes to reduce the risk of their services being used for illegal activity, including terrorism offences, child sexual exploitation and abuse, and drugs and weapon offences. Those duties have been implemented and enforced since March 2025. Secondly, the Act required services to implement systems and processes to protect under-18s from age-inappropriate content—both content that may be passed from user to user, and content that is published by the service itself, such as pornography sites.

We should recognise that the Online Safety Act implemented measures to regulate a wide range of diverse services, from social media giants to commercial sites, but also online spaces run by charities, community and voluntary groups, and individuals. As the first substantive attempt at regulating safety online, the OSA has brought into regulation many services that have not previously been regulated.

Mr Baynham explained to me that those services lay behind his primary motivation in creating the petition. He was spurred by concerns about the impact of the Online Safety Act on online hobby and community forums of the type he uses. They are online spaces created by unpaid ordinary people in their spare time, focused on the discussion of particular shared interests—games, a film or TV series, or football teams. A number of the administrators of such forums have expressed concern that they now face liabilities and obligations under the Online Safety Act that they are not equipped to meet.

I must declare an interest at this stage. For more than a decade, I have regularly used the Ready To Go—RTG—Sunderland AFC fans’ messaging boards. They provide thousands of Mackems with online space to discuss the many ups and downs of our football club and associated issues facing the city, with current topics including club finances, “Match of the Day” tonight and, following a successful Wear-Tyne derby yesterday, “The Mag meltdown” thread.

I heard directly from the administrator of the RTG forum in preparation for this debate. He told me that he came close to shutting the site down when the Online Safety Act came into force and has still not ruled that out completely. He points out that there have been thousands of pages of guidance issued by Ofcom on the implementation of the Act, and that, while tech companies with large compliance teams have the capacity to process that volume of guidance, having volunteers do the same is a huge challenge.

Ofcom has stressed that it will implement the Act in a way that is risk-based and proportionate, and has offered a digital toolkit targeted at small services in response. But even for the smaller sites the rules seem to require, for example, a separate and documented complaints system beyond the usual reporting functionality that small forums have often had in place. The administration of that system has been described to me as time-consuming and liable to being weaponised by trolls.

Some forum hosts feel that the uncertainty regarding the liability they face under the Online Safety Act is too much. The reassurance offered that prosecution is “unlikely” has not given sufficient confidence to some who have been running community sites as volunteers. To some, the risk of liability, personal financial loss or simply getting it wrong has been too great; when the Act came into force, 300 small forums reportedly exited the online space or lost their status as independent forums and migrated to larger platforms such as Facebook.

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

The hon. Member is making an extremely passionate and informed speech. While the unintended consequences of the Online Safety Act on the small forums and specialist groups that he highlights are critical, does he agree that a balance needs to be struck, whereby under-age children are protected from harmful content on whatever forum or website they are exposed to?

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for his powerful and eloquent introduction to this important debate. The scale of this petition should make us reflect: over half a million people have called for the repeal of the Online Safety Act, not because online safety is unpopular, but because they believe that the legislation does not yet strike the right balance.

Let me be clear: the Online Safety Act exists for a reason. I stand in strong support of its intent, aims and objectives, and I am not in favour of its repeal. For too long, online platforms have failed to protect users, particularly children, from serious harm. The statistics are sobering: nearly one in five children aged 10 to 15 have exchanged messages with someone they have never met; over 9,000 reported child sexual abuse offences in 2022-23 involved an online element; and, in recent years, we have seen tragic cases where exposure to harmful online content has contributed to devastating outcomes. Repealing the Act would leave us with very little meaningful protection, so it remains central for regulating online spaces in the UK. We must accept that necessary truth, although it is a hard pill to swallow.

Supporting the Act, however, does not mean ignoring the parts that need important improvements. One of the most significant concerns is age restriction. Age-gating can and should play a role in protecting children from genuinely harmful content, but it is increasingly clear that the boundaries of age restrictions are not defined well. There is growing evidence that lawful political content, including news and commentary on conflicts such as Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan, is being placed behind age gates.

Teenagers aged 16 and 17 are finding themselves blocked from accessing political information and current affairs, sometimes more strictly than in film and television content regulated by the British Board of Film Classification. That should give us pause, particularly when the House is considering extending the vote to 16-year-olds. If we believe that young people should be active participants in our democracy, we cannot also allow systems that restrict their access to political debate by default, just because these are difficult and sensitive topics. What is or is not age-restricted needs to be far clearer, more consistent and more proportionate.

The second area where clarity is urgently needed is generative AI. As we are having this debate, the Home Secretary is making a statement on violence against women and girls, which she has rightly described as a “national emergency”. The Government’s five-year national strategy acknowledges the growing threat posed by intimate deepfakes, with one survey by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children showing that three in five people fear becoming a victim. With current laws proving too difficult to apply in complex and rapidly evolving cases, what specific legislative proposals are the Government hoping to develop to address deepfake abuse?

When this legislation was drafted and passed, the pace of AI development was very different. Today, AI tools and chatbots are embedded across social media, search engines and messaging platforms, with people relying on ChatGPT, Gemini and Copilot as search engines and virtual assistants embedded into almost every online service we use. They can generate harmful and misleading content within seconds, including advice related to self-harm, eating disorders, substance misuse and suicide assistance.

Only last week, I led a debate in Westminster Hall on the need for stronger AI regulation. That debate reinforced a growing concern that many AI-driven services currently sit at the edges of the Online Safety Act. Although Ofcom has acknowledged that gap and issued guidance, guidance alone is not enough. We need clarity on how generative AI is regulated and whether further legislative action is required to keep pace with the technology.

The message of this petition is not a rejection of online safety; it is a call for a system that protects children while safeguarding freedom of expression, political engagement and public trust. The challenge before us is not to repeal, but to refine by strengthening definitions, clarifying age restrictions and ensuring that the Online Safety Act evolves alongside emerging technologies. If we get that right, we can protect users online without undermining the democratic values we try to defend.

Independent Football Regulator

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

I am happy to clarify that this was not a prime ministerial appointment; it was an appointment made by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. As the hon. Gentleman knows, as soon as I discovered the donation and that the information given at the start of the process was incomplete, I chose to declare that. I recused myself from the process, and the final decision was made not by the Prime Minister, but by the Minister for Sport.

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

Along with many others, I fully supported the Football Governance Act and the introduction of the Independent Football Regulator. I accept the Secretary of State’s comment that she sincerely was not aware of the donation, but does she understand the public’s perception that an “independent” appointee was chosen because of their donations to the party in government? What steps will she and the Government take to review the process and make improvement, so that it commands the public’s trust and is completely unimpeachable? I understand her comment about donors wanting to participate in public life, but the Government should consider putting down a really clear marker about the kind of roles donors can and cannot perform in support of the Government.

[Lisa Nandy]

Oversight of the whole process and the way that public appointments are made is the responsibility of the Prime Minister, but I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s suggestions and comments about the need to uphold the highest standards. In relation to this appointment, we did not meet the highest standards. It was a complicated process, and the post required a specialist skillset, and the appointment took place under two different Governments. That is not to make excuses; it is just to explain that this process was highly unusual. We have learned lessons from it, and we are implementing the commissioner’s recommendations in full.

In the end, the test of whether the public can have confidence in this appointment is whether Mr Kogan and the Independent Football Regulator are able to deliver on the promise that we will deal with bad owners and put fans back at the heart of the game. I am confident that we have made the right appointment, as evidenced by the fact that since he was appointed on 6 October, he has wasted no time at all in getting on with the job.

Mandatory Digital ID

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate. This is one of the most controversial and divisive issues currently supported by the Government, who have form. I am here on behalf of my constituents, as nearly 100 have written to me opposing the scheme, and nearly 4,000 have signed the e-petition.

We have heard the risks and the issues around data privacy, surveillance culture, user profiling, exclusion, focus creep and scope creep. Having worked in the IT industry for over 20 years, as well as in the cyber-security industry, I can say that there is no safe system at the moment. Relying on third-party software, owned by foreign states or companies—

[Emily Darlington]

Is the hon. Member aware of the Government’s statements that the system would be held internally and use sovereign tech?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I am, but that will not solve the issue.

[David Davis]

The tech has already been abroad. It has already been in Romania, and it is quite possible that malware is already inside it.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

One of the reasons for proposing the scheme was to give citizens and residents of the UK easy access to Government and public services. We have been crying out for joined-up government for decades, under the previous Government and the Labour Government before them. Our systems across Government Departments are islands of automation. They are separate—they do not connect; they do not talk to each other. Before this ID could be effective, we would need a fully integrated, safe, joined-up Government system with systems that talked to each other. There are people working in the NHS who have multiple log-ins to do their normal job. That is the environment that we are in.

My constituents and millions across this country are opposed to the scheme because they see the breach of their civil liberties but do not see the benefits of the scheme. The Government have not articulated them or the use cases. I asked the Secretary of State in the Chamber about what use cases the Government want to introduce the scheme for, about whether the prerequisites to deliver those use cases have been met, and about how the public can have guarantees about security, privacy and breach concerns before they are required, compulsorily, to sign up to the scheme.

The scheme needs detailed review. The pilots and previous attempts to implement such schemes have failed. They have exposed our country to third-party risks. Our data is already out there, and we cannot introduce a system that will make the rest of the data, which is not out there, easily accessible to those criminals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

This is about reconnecting citizens with Government. Everyone will have constituents coming to every one of their surgeries with a form they cannot fill out, a piece of maladministration in public services, something they cannot access or a difficulty in getting access to benefits. There are still people in this country who are entitled to huge parts of the benefit system but do not claim. There are people who will need this for verification of identity and their age in buying alcohol—all those things that are a big inconvenience for people. This is about reconnecting citizens with Government—modernising government, as we have heard from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). It is about making sure that the Government can be effective and can be in the digital age with a digital population. This happens in many other countries around the world. I do not have time to run through all of them now, but hon. Members can look them up.

Let me take on two issues before I finish. The first is data and security. This is a federated data system, so I say to the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) that his idea of bringing it all together in one database is the wrong option. The data does not move; it sits with the Government Department, and the digital ID system, or whatever system is used, goes into those datasets and brings out affirmative or otherwise—

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the Minister give way?

[Ian Murray]

I do not have time.

The system brings out affirmative or otherwise information in relation to the specific information that the system requires. Having one central database is the wrong approach; there would be security issues. The dataset is federated, and does not move from the home Departments. The system reaches in to get the data it requires and bring it into what it needs to do to answer the questions.

I fully understand the points made about digital inclusion; we all do. Governments have been talking about digital inclusion for far too long, and this is an opportunity to sort it once and for all. Where digital ID has been introduced, those in the most deprived communities, furthest away from Government services, have got the best access to them. Those who would not have had access before and geographically isolated communities, like those represented in Scotland by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, have been connected the quickest and have had the greatest use from the connection to Government services.

The myths about digital inclusion, about safety and security, about the ID being called a Britcard, and about it being mandatory are not the case in terms of the policy. I look forward to everyone inputting into the consultation and the Government bringing forward the legislation in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of mandatory digital ID.

Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

Had West Midlands police made a different decision, I really do wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would have come to this House to question that decision. I am afraid that I suspect the answer is yes. This is part of the problem with this debate: the chants that he talks about I think appal absolutely everybody in the House. He characterises the Government in a particular way, but he fails to make reference to the very many robust actions that we have taken around the Israeli Government’s actions in Gaza: we have condemned them, we have sanctioned members of the Israeli Government, we have restricted arms sales to Israel, and we have been out there on the ground playing our part in peace negotiations and pushing for aid to get in at pace—we still are. But he does not reference that because, sadly, I think he is trying to gain political support for his position.

Only a few of them have bothered to listen to any of the debate, but if hon. Members really want to resolve this, I say to them that they should work with us to ensure that all communities can express their passionate, deeply held views in appropriate and peaceful ways but that this country can remain an open, tolerant, diverse place where everybody is free to walk the streets and attend football games regardless of who they are.

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

After the conflation of antisemitism with the banning of football hooligans who happen to come from Israel, and the abuse that I and other people have received for supporting the ban on safety grounds, I must put on the record that I and those people are not antisemitic—never have been and never will be. The Prime Minister described the decision to ban the violent Maccabi hooligans by West Midlands police and Birmingham city council’s safety advisory group as antisemitism. The leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), said that the police gave in to extremist intimidation. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), called for the decision to be reversed, saying,

“You don’t tackle antisemitism by banning its victims.”

And there were racist comments by the would-be leader of the Tories, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who said that integration has failed in Birmingham.

Let me ask this: was it antisemitic for the Israeli police to cancel a football derby in Tel Aviv last night after those same hooligans forced the match to stop through violence and injury to fans and the police? Do we want those scenes to be repeated in our stadiums and on our streets?

[Lisa Nandy]

The decision that was made last night, as I understand it, was on the basis of rioting occurring at a live event. It was not a decision that is unprecedented in the UK from a safety advisory group in recent times—[Interruption.] Sorry, does the hon. Member want to know my answer?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Yes, please.

[Lisa Nandy]

In that case, can we have a little more decorum, because there are people outside of this place whose lives are being directly affected by the debate we are having and the tone of this debate.

The hon. Member tries to equate the two, but the truth is that he reveals himself in the language he uses. He refers to the “banning of football hooligans” and specifically to violent football hooligans, but this is not a decision to ban football hooligans; it is a decision to ban all away fans from a game, which a safety advisory group has not done in this country for nearly 25 years. It was a decision taken not on the grounds that he suggests, which was the risk posed by Maccabi Tel Aviv fans; it was a decision taken in no small part because of the risk posed to them because they support an Israeli team and because they are Jewish. I would gently say to him that if he is conflating everybody who supports an Israeli team—the vast majority of whom by definition will be Jewish—with violent football hooligans, he should consider whether he can really stand in front of this House and say that he is not behaving in a way that is antisemitic.

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Max Wilkinson]

Women’s football is outside the scope of the Bill, but I believe that the golden share concept would cover that sort of decision. I agree that what has happened to the Blackburn Rovers women’s team is a total disgrace.

Turning to new clause 7, our national game is something we all take immense pride in. Football is one of the cornerstones of British culture, and it should never be used by individuals or regimes to cleanse their reputations or distract from human rights abuses. That is why we have tabled an amendment aimed at strengthening ownership rules for football clubs. Prospective owners and directors should face clear and enforceable tests that include human rights considerations. The tests would help to safeguard not only the values that underpin our national sport, but the liberal and democratic principles that we as a country and all of us in this House stand for.

It cannot be right that we welcome with open arms those who preside over oppressive regimes or are linked to activity that potentially breaches the values we hold so dear. If a football club’s owners are linked to actions that breach international law, can we really say that our national game or this country should be hosting them? We think not, and that is why we have tabled new clause 7.

On player welfare, which has been mentioned, amendment 3 would provide support for former professional footballers suffering from neurodegenerative conditions. While broken bones and torn ligaments can be fixed, the long-term effects of repeated head trauma often go unnoticed. Kevin Moore, Chris Nicholl, Nobby Stiles and others gave their best years to the sport, and it is a disgrace that many of them are now left facing devastating illnesses without the support that they need. Our amendment would require the football industry to allocate a small share of its considerable wealth to those affected. I also want to acknowledge the work of Michael Giles, John Stiles and the Football Families for Justice. That work must be recognised here today.

Finally, I turn to the issue of gambling in football, covered in new clause 2. Gambling-related harm is widespread and deeply damaging. Fans watching football today are bombarded with adverts encouraging betting—from TV commercials to shirt sponsorships. The influence of gambling in football has become overwhelming and dangerous. Gambling firms spend about £1.5 billion a year on advertising, much of it directed at football fans. It is unacceptable that football fans are having their game irrevocably linked to that trade.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Max Wilkinson]

I am afraid that I have to make some progress. The losses are not just financial; they lead to mental health crises, family breakdown and even suicide. Public Health England estimates that there are around 400 gambling-related suicides annually. We are not calling for a ban on gambling, but on gambling advertising in football. Football must sever the link between the game and gambling.

This Bill is an important step forward for our national game and we welcome it. The beautiful game needs its defenders, not just on the pitch but in Parliament. We must make the game more accessible to fans, protect club heritage and ensure democratic fan representation. We must prevent the sport from being exploited by corrupt regimes, support retired players suffering from neurological diseases and stand up to the gambling industry’s grip on our national sport. That is for the sake of the fans and for fairness, but more importantly, for the future of our national game. Our amendments would do all that and I hope that Members across the House, as well as Ministers, will consider them today and in future. As we are discussing new clause 1, I finish by saying that we will vote for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans]

I thank my hon. Friend for her support. What brought this home to me about how much players were earning was when Johnny Giles, the great Leeds midfielder of the 1960s and ’70s, showed me his first contract from when he was playing for Manchester United: £18 in the winter and £12 in the summer. That sums up how much they were paid. A point that came up at that important meeting, which was attended by luminaries including Kevin Keegan, Chris Sutton, Paul Walsh and Barry Fry, was the complaints about the Professional Footballers Association. When I raised this on Second Reading, I was bombarded with emails from its public affairs arm saying, “Oh, you’ve got it all wrong,” but the question needs to be asked. It is the PFA’s members who are complaining about it and saying that it is not servicing them properly. It should be asking why that is happening. These are PFA members who have paid into its funds over the years, and if they are not being treated well, questions need to be answered.

According to new clause 13, the Secretary of State must set out the minimum requirements for the scheme, a timescale for the scheme’s establishment and arrangements and a timescale for periodic review of the scheme. Furthermore, all specified competition organisers should jointly operate, manage and fund the scheme through the formation of a joint co-ordinating committee. Any current or former player who has at any time been registered as a professional footballer would be eligible for the scheme.

To me, this goes beyond football. If research is discovered that helps dementia, Parkinson’s or motor neurone disease, the rest of society wins. This is something that football can lead and change society with. This scheme will provide crucial care and financial support to any eligible person who suffers from a neurodegenerative condition that is deemed to have been caused by or contributed to by playing football. A panel of independent experts must be appointed to determine whether a neurodegenerative condition of an eligible person has been caused by, or contributed to by, playing or training activities within the English football leagues. It will also determine the appropriate provision of care and financial support required in each case. The independent football regulator must ensure that the joint co-ordinating committee acts on the panel’s determinations, to ensure that ex-players and their families get the support they need.

This is a matter of urgency. Ex-players who have given so much joy should be treated with dignity and respect, and supported when they need to be. This new clause would ensure that. I pay tribute to campaigners including Michael Giles, son of Johnny, and John Stiles, son of Nobby. They have campaigned with dignity and respect and with a quiet determination, and it is time we showed the same respect to them. Denying or ignoring the link between football and neurological conditions is no longer sufficient. Recently we lost Alan Peacock, who starred for Middlesbrough and Leeds in the 1960s. He can be added to the long list of names, including Jackie Charlton and Bobby Charlton, his brother, who died of dementia; Martin Peters; Ray Wilson; and, of course, Nobby Stiles. The connection between football and neurological conditions acquired later in life must be addressed in this Bill, and if it is not, it must be addressed somewhere else.

This Government, especially a Labour Government, should treat injuries caused by or contributed to by football like any other workplace or industrial injury, and that is what my new clause would ensure. We on this side are the party for workers, and regardless of the industry, it is our job to support and protect them, especially as their union, in their words, lets them down. Since football has contributed so much to our economy and, more personally, to fans’ happiness, it is only common decency to support players when they are in need. This cannot be ignored any longer. Not only must support be provided, but the independent football regulator must be there for them.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I rise today to speak to the new clauses in my name and to lend my support to several of the other new clauses. Some have already been spoken about by my hon. Friends across the House. New clause 6 is about financial abuse, mismanagement or fraud and about protecting players. New clause 13, which my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) has just spoken about, deals with neurodegenerative care schemes.

Football should never be a luxury. It should be a shared national experience, accessible to families, young people and lifelong fans, but more and more it is becoming a commodity. A game that was built by and for the working class is now priced out of reach for the very people who gave it life. If I wanted to attend the first Premier League game in August, I would be looking at paying over £200 for two tickets on the secondary market. That is before travel, food and all the rising living costs are factored in. Even in ordinary times, that is a huge sum and for most people, it is simply unaffordable. Football is becoming a luxury experience, not a communal one. Historically, football thrived because it was accessible. Its rise alongside the expansion of the railway network allowed working people to follow their teams home and away. It became more than just a sport; it became a pillar of community identity and pride.

Fans—the heartbeat of the sport—are being pushed to the margins. Our current ticketing system is pricing them out. That is why I have tabled new clause 8, which would introduce a duty on clubs and competition organisers to ensure fairer access and great transparency in ticket sales, especially in reselling tickets when fans are not able to attend. We are seeing ticket prices skyrocket while secondary ticketing platforms exploit demand and rake in obscene profits. The new clause would compel clubs to monitor the secondary market, report harmful practices and offer resale channels to stop fans getting ripped off and scammed. Fans should know the real face value of a ticket and have a safe, fair way to buy and resell them—no more profiteering or shadowy resale platforms. The price of attending premier league games is beyond the means of most fans, even more so if they want to share that experience with family members.

I should declare an interest as a lifelong Liverpool fan, and I offer my condolences to the family of Diogo Jota and his brother who tragically died recently. While I may be biased in thinking that it is the greatest club in the world, I also say with pride that Liverpool has shown what fan-focused leadership looks like. The club recently froze ticket prices for the 2025-26 season following discussions with the supporters board. That model of engagement and sensitivity to supporters deserves recognition, but not every club takes that approach, and that is exactly the problem. We want to see this culture rolled out across the country, one where fans are not an afterthought but at the centre of decision making. My new clause would make that approach a requirement, not just a gesture of goodwill.

That leads me to my second proposal, new clause 14, which would introduce mandatory vetting of foreign financial investment in football. It is about protecting the soul of English football from the corrosive influence of dirty money. We have seen at first hand how vulnerable clubs struggling under massive debts become easy targets for opportunistic investors looking to launder their reputations or gain geopolitical influence. I have raised this before: sportswashing is now one of the most insidious trends in football. Where once the term might have brought to mind the 1936 Berlin Olympics or the 2015 Baku European games, today the UK is at the top of that list. That should shame us.

I repeat the example I gave in my speech on Second Reading of Abramovich’s ownership of Chelsea. While it was seen as a huge success for the club, his ties to the Russian state and his close relationship with Putin should have raised huge financial and ethical concerns, but these were overlooked. For years, he used our game to rebrand himself, shifting attention away from questions about the origins of his fortune, but it was only following the invasion of Ukraine that real action was enforced. That shows exactly why we need stronger safeguards to prevent that from happening again.

The new clause would empower the independent football regulator to block investment from funds linked to money laundering, criminal finance, human rights abuses or any breaches of UK or international law. That is the bare minimum. If Amnesty International or other watchdogs have flagged a state or source of funds for its abysmal human rights record, there should be red flags, not red carpets, for the potential owner. Let us be honest: fans sometimes embrace foreign investment out of desperation, but the independent football regulator should protect the game from nefarious funds and owners. This is not about bad actors; it is about a broken system. Club owners may not see the need for regulation. We are protecting not just finances but values. If this Bill and the independent regulator fail to stop the abuse of our football institutions by criminal or oppressive regimes, they will have failed in their public duty.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a lifelong Liverpool supporter, I would like to congratulate Liverpool and Arne Slot on winning the premier league in Arne’s first season as manager. This is my first season in Parliament, and I hope to follow in his footsteps, but I do not know what the parliamentary equivalent of winning the premier league is.

I welcome this Bill, and I commend the Government and the Secretary of State for standing up to the opposition to it, from the Tories and from the football industry. I noted the recent comment from one of the Chelsea owners, who felt it was hard to “appreciate the need” for a regulator. As an overseas owner of an English football club, he might not see the need, but I can assure him that football fans who have to pay increasingly extortionate ticket prices to see premier league games do see the need. Two of my nephews were lucky enough to see Liverpool win the premiership yesterday, but they had to pay over £50 for the privilege, and Liverpool is more sensitive to fan pressure on ticket prices than most.

Attending a premier league game is beyond the means of most fans, especially if they want to share that experience with family members. There is a desperate need to introduce an affordable ticket model. There is much to be learned from the German Bundesliga on that, despite our different ownership models. The current model of regulation is not working for the fans, or for the long-term interests of the clubs. If professional football clubs were treated like any other business, most would go bust tomorrow as their loans were called in.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

I agree wholeheartedly with all that the hon. Member has to say. Will he join me in congratulating Blackburn Rovers on their outstanding community work, especially to support young boys and girls from all backgrounds in football? Their commitment to inclusivity and development at grassroots level is truly commendable.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s comments, and I pay tribute to the work of Blackburn Rovers in their community.

We are probably all aware of the examples of Everton and Manchester United. Both are up to their ears in debt while either building or planning to build stadiums that cost between £750 million and £1 billion. If we look lower down the leagues, the sums are still eye-watering. York City lost £235 million last season, Salford City lost £5.3 million and Stockport County lost £7 million. It is difficult to see how, at some stage, without regulation, more and more clubs will not simply go to the wall. The financial precarity in football is such that it leaves the clubs open to bad actors seizing on their financial vulnerabilities to offer a route to potential success. I am, of course, referring to dirty money and the pernicious practice of sportswashing by dubious owners who see club ownership as a PR vehicle to airbrush their misdeeds and human rights abuses to reconstruct their reputations and exert geopolitical influence. It is deeply regretful that this odious and morally corrupting practice has been allowed to establish a foothold in our game since Roman Abramovich came to England as the owner of Chelsea football club with dirty money from Russia. He was found to have funded or donated over £100 million to illegal settlement expansion in the west bank.

The other issue I want to raise is around agent fees. In 2022 to 2023, over £408 million was paid by Premier League clubs to agents and facilitators, and in the football league over £65 million was paid in agent fees. Some agents are acting on behalf of both the player and the club and receiving remuneration from both. If that is not a conflict of interest or a potential bribe, I do not know what is. I strongly encourage the Government to look at this and try to stop as much money going to agents and get it back into grassroots football.

Gaza: BBC Coverage

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

Ensuring that no money has fallen into the hands of Hamas is the duty of all of us. The last Government were very clear about that in relation to the aid budget, and we are very clear about that too. The BBC needs to be as clear, or there must be consequences.

I also reassure the hon. Gentleman that in December I convened a roundtable with the Jewish community to discuss antisemitism in the arts and the creative industries more generally. I was appalled by what I heard at that meeting, which was convened by Lord Mann and the Board of Deputies of British Jews. We are working very closely together to stamp out the many unacceptable practices that we have seen creep not just into the BBC, but across broadcasting and the arts more generally since this appalling conflict began.

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

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her answer to the urgent question. We all agree that the genuine inaccuracies and misrepresentations in this documentary, and in all reporting, must be addressed, and that steps must be taken to prevent them from reoccurring. We also all agree that there is no place for antisemitism or any other racism anywhere.

The BBC has been accused by more than 100 of its staff of giving Israel favourable coverage in its reporting of the war on Gaza, and criticised for its lack of accurate, evidence-based journalism. The letter, sent to the BBC’s director general and chief executive officer, said:

“Basic journalistic tenets have been lacking when it comes to holding Israel to account for its actions.”

Its signatories included more than 100 anonymous BBC staff and more than 200 people from the media industry. The letter also said:

“The consequences of inadequate coverage are significant. Every television report, article and radio interview that has failed to robustly challenge Israeli claims has systematically dehumanised Palestinians.”

What steps—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have got to get to the question, please.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

My apologies, Mr Speaker. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to investigate and address the unacceptable and biased anti-Palestinian and pro-Israel reporting by the BBC since 7 October, so that it can be trusted by those in this House and by the licence fee payers who fund its existence?

[Lisa Nandy]

The views that the hon. Gentleman has expressed show what a contested and difficult area this is to report on. While this Government believe it is essential that we shine a spotlight on what is happening to people—particularly children—in Gaza, there is no excuse for antisemitism, or for the sorts of practices that have been alleged against the BBC in recent weeks in relation to this documentary.

National Youth Strategy

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

My hon. Friend points to a very relevant problem. In the 20 years since I was in the youth sector, I do not think that problem has got any less acute. It forces organisations to reinvent the wheel constantly, or to stop doing work that is incredibly valuable. As the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) pointed out earlier, the relationship between a youth worker and a young person is incredibly valuable and important to protect, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I are well aware of that. I would be amazed if it did not come up through the call for evidence to young people. The consultation is being designed by them, for them, and I would be amazed if that issue did not form part of the recommendations that we take forward into the national youth strategy. In the unlikely event that it does not, however, we will absolutely make sure that we deal with that concern. I have heard my hon. Friend loud and clear.

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

I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State and fully support her aims to provide fit-for-purpose and effective support to the young people in our country. One key component is the provision of sports and leisure facilities for young people. In September 2023, the Dewsbury sports centre and swimming pool were closed due to limited reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. Last week I attended a full council meeting in which the Labour cabinet decided to close the Dewsbury sports centre permanently, citing repair costs of £9 million to £10 million and the lack of £1.13 million in running costs. The impact of the closure on my constituents, including thousands of young people, is catastrophic. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how the Government can help with the reopening of the Dewsbury sports centre as soon as possible?

[Lisa Nandy]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. I do not think I have had the opportunity to congratulate him since he was elected. This Government are very committed to making sure that we provide the sports and leisure facilities that young people across the country are clamouring for. I have seen for myself in every part of the country how much it improves young people’s confidence and educational outcomes, and also how it provides them with the opportunity to live richer, larger lives. I was very struck at the Olympics and Paralympics this summer by just how many of those athletes started out in the sort of leisure facilities that he describes.

However, we do young people a disservice if we are not honest with them about the problems and their causes. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that councils around the country are not clamouring to close down their leisure facilities. Those councils have had the worst funding settlements from Government in living memory, and they are dealing with the human cost of that in their communities every day. They are on the frontline dealing with that. I congratulate those councillors who are prepared to go out and be honest with people about the challenges that they face and to seek innovative solutions. I give the hon. Gentleman a commitment that I will work with his council to help achieve our shared ambition of making sure that young people in Dewsbury get the opportunities that they deserve.