Injury in Service Award

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing this important debate, and I welcome and thank all the public servicemen and women who are in the Gallery and watching at home.

This debate coincides with the fantastic news this week that the brave train driver Samir Zitouni, injured during the Huntingdon train attack, has finally been discharged from hospital. It reminds us how often the people on our frontlines do not receive the credit or recognition they truly deserve. If that is true for a single shocking and horrifying incident that rightly captured national attention, we can only imagine the countless cases faced by our emergency personnel who risk their lives day in, day out and are so often unnamed in the reporting that follows.

Only last month, I took part in a ride-along with West Yorkshire police, where I saw at first hand the pressures involved even in what we think of as routine neighbourhood policing. Reflecting on that experience, I am struck by how our officers can within seconds find themselves face to face with frightening and unpredictable situations. We might assume these are lower-risk encounters, but the reality is that any moment can turn into danger, leaving officers not only injured but sometimes medically discharged from the career they loved because they were protecting the public.

In preparing for this debate, I learnt that since 2022 over 6,000 officers in West Yorkshire police have experienced assault-related injuries, and over 15,000 former police officers have suffered life-changing injuries in the line of duty across England. That is before we even begin to count paramedics, firefighters and so many others. The words of the campaign stayed with me: many of these people are left “injured and forgotten”—how incredibly upsetting that someone can give so much to the public yet receive so little in return. The very least we can do is recognise their sacrifice.

As we have heard, there is currently no formal honour for those who survive catastrophic, career-ending injuries in the line of duty. To me, and to many across this House, that is a glaring injustice. I welcome the growing cross-party consensus and the clear strength of feeling in this place. That is why I strongly support the introduction of an injury in service award, mirroring the recognition rightly given to those who lose their lives, but extended to those who bear lifelong scars for their service. These individuals met every duty that the public asked of them, so it is time that the state met its duty to them.

I urge the Government, the Cabinet Office and the Honours and Appointments Secretariat to act to ensure that these extraordinary sacrifices are finally recognised, formally and permanently. It would not take much from them, but it would mean the world to those who gain the recognition that they have long deserved. Our emergency services are there for us at the very worst moments of our lives. It is long past time that we showed them that this country sees, remembers and honours their courage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp]

My apologies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) mentioned Sue Mitchell, who in November 1984 was also subject to ramming by car. She actually managed to commit an arrest, which shows immense bravery on the ground. The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) talked about Robert Gifford, who served with the British Transport police and witnessed the Ladbroke Grove train crash, which must have been harrowing in many ways. The hon. Member mentioned another constituent, who was beaten by thugs. That demonstrates the challenges our officers experience every day out there on the ground.

The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) spoke about Ian, who served for 30 years in Thames Valley police, and I thank him for his service. The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) talked about Andrew Barr, who served with the Met police for 16 years, as well as with search and rescue. Service is often in the blood of those who serve with the police force, and that is why they often volunteer in other ways. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) talked about air crash injuries and Councillor Coles, who rightly praises the fire brigade. As with the police, every day while we are in this place, the fire brigade officers literally run towards danger, and I thank them.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) made a really good point about high-profile cases that the press pick up on, when we all send out to the country our thanks to the police, but we must remember that the unnamed do not get that from the media. Routine policing can become dangerous at any moment. While we are safe in here, the police are out there on the streets putting their lives at risk.

The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) spoke about Bill Maddocks, a firefighter. It sounds like an extremely complex case, so I will not comment on that at this moment. If the hon. Member will write to me and the Minister for Policing and Crime, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), we can get into the detail.

The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) gave a considered statement, which I thank him for, and mentioned PC Geoff Newham, who was involved in a crash and was injured. After his injury, his trying to solve complex issues, such as county lines, demonstrates the dedication to service that so many in our police forces and emergency services have. I thank him very much for that.

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for his considered approach. He mentioned Elsie Galt, to whom I send my thanks, who suffered from a road traffic accident.

There are clearly physical effects that can have significant or, in the most serious examples, life-changing consequences. Then there is the emotional and psychological impact, which, again, can last for years or even a lifetime. We must always remember that the impact of such incidents is felt not only by the individuals themselves, but by their loved ones, their colleagues and their families. When dedicated public servants suffer serious injuries in the course of their duties, it is of course incumbent on us as a state and a society to wrap our arms around them and ensure that they are given all the support they need.

I turn to the specific focus of the debate. I will summarise the Government’s position, but I will do so with full recognition that I am a relative latecomer to this debate, as has been set out by others in a very long-running discussion. I commit to take any outstanding questions away, including on the case that the hon. Member for Cheadle raised. The first point to make is that the Home Office is well aware of the proposal under discussion. Senior officials have spoken many times to leaders of the campaign; indeed, the previous Minister for Policing met a number of them to hear their thoughts on this important matter.

My understanding of the situation is that work continues to identify whether a medal is the best method of recognising emergency services workers who are injured as a result of their duties, and whether it is viable. I realise that the hon. Member for Cheadle and other Members in favour of his proposal would wish me to go further and make a commitment. Respectfully, and with full recognition of the importance of the issue in question, I am afraid I cannot do so today. What I can say is that when any decision is made, it will be communicated to all interested parties, including those in the Gallery today.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I am sure there is a bit of disappointment at the Minister’s statement, but could he enlighten the people in the Gallery and the Chamber on the timescale for when a decision might be reached?

[Mike Tapp]

I cannot give a timescale right here and now, but I will meet the Policing Minister in the next week and we will come back to you with an answer on that.

Asylum Policy

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

We already do safe country reviews, and we would seek to continue that. Those reviews, and our position on different countries, are publicly available; in fact, most pass through the House, in secondary legislation. I make no apology for a system that will privilege those who come to this country through a safe and legal route, rather than those who paid people smugglers thousands of pounds to end up in the north of France.

The point on visa sanctions is related to the fact that many countries do not comply with us when we seek to return people lawfully to their country. That is just one of the tools we have at our disposal to ensure compliance from those countries, so that they take their people back.

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

The UK has historical and ongoing involvement in unlawful military interventions, alongside allies such as the United States and Israel. How does the Home Secretary assess the correlation between these foreign policy actions and wars, and the displacement of populations, resulting in increased numbers of refugees and asylum seekers arriving in the UK? What steps will her Government take towards proactive peace-building initiatives and the restoration of overseas humanitarian aid, which could address the root causes of displacement and reduce the long-term pressures on our asylum system?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The Government always play their full part in peace processes wherever we can, and we have put our shoulder to the wheel on the delicate diplomatic efforts required to bring conflicts to an end, but that is not relevant to what we are discussing today. We have a broken system today. We have thousands of people stuck in the system today, and thousands of people coming on boats through the north of France, for reasons that have nothing to do with the British Government. We still fulfil our international obligations, and will do so going forward as well, but I make no apology for wanting to move to a system in which we incentivise safe and legal routes instead.

Manchester Terrorism Attack

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I join the Home Secretary and all Members across the House in my unequivocal condemnation of the heinous terrorist and antisemitic attack against Jewish worshippers in Manchester, and I express my heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Mr Daulby and Mr Cravitz. As a proud British Muslim, I remind the House and those listening that the actions of these so-called Islamist terrorists were vile and unacceptable. They have nothing to do with the religion of Islam and are actually in total contradiction to the teachings of Islam and the obligations of all Muslims.

In my constituency and across the country, Muslims have joined the Jewish community in being saddened and angered by the terrorist attack in Manchester, and by any and all hatred and violence expressed against any community. We stand in full solidarity with them. The Home Secretary said that the terrorist was not known to the police or to the Prevent programme, so will she advise the House what steps are being taken to address any gaps identified in our preventive measures so that such acts of terrorism cannot happen again?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The attacker was not known to counter-terror policing and had not been referred to the Prevent programme. Once all the facts are in, we will be able to draw wider lessons. As we did not know him, the question will be: should he have been on our radar? That is a question that I and others in our security services will take seriously. He was, of course, known to the police in the context of those two charges for rape, and the IOPC will now investigate all his history with the police in a non-terror context so that we can draw those wider lessons.

Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

It would be playing a very long game to say that I have been taken kicking or screaming into this issue. Sarah Rowbotham was one of the whistleblowers, and I wrote a book about her and this particular issue about nine years ago. I have also set up many, many support services for victims of these crimes. I will always do what I think is best in these cases, and I took the advice of Baroness Casey. Trying to see bad faith, or to score political points, is not what we should do.

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

I pay tribute to the Minister for her work and thank her for her statement.

This crime is absolutely abhorrent. Every single victim and survivor of this crime must get justice, no matter the perpetrator—Pakistani, Indian, English or anyone—so can we please dial down the politicisation and the inflammatory rhetoric in this place, and show total compassion and empathy when we work together to tackle this scourge in our country for every single victim? May I ask the Minister for a meeting with me and my colleagues so that we can learn how we can support the work of the Government in this space?

[Jess Phillips]

Of course I will meet the hon. Gentleman and, like I say, any colleagues who wish to take part in this work. As somebody who represents a large and diverse community, I have to say that the Pakistani part of my community has been most fervent in wanting the truth to come out, because harm has been done to them by the alleged wokeness that has been talked about.

As I finish my statement, let me take this opportunity to say that we have to make sure that we have the facts and do not feel squeamish about the perpetrators. At 6 am on Monday morning, I met victims of this crime who are black, white and Asian. We must not silence those victims by only ever talking about one type of victim. The victimhood in group-based abuse is not just one type, apart from one thing: they are all girls.

Bills Presented

Sentencing Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Shabana Mahmood, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Angela Rayner, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretary Peter Kyle, presented a Bill to make provision about the sentencing, release and management after sentencing of offenders; to make provision about bail; to make provision about the removal from the United Kingdom of foreign criminals and the processing of information about foreign criminals for immigration purposes; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 299) with explanatory notes (Bill 299-EN).

Vehicle Registration Marks (Misuse and Offences) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Dr Al Pinkerton presented a Bill to make provision about offences relating to the misuse and illegal copying of vehicle registration marks; to require the Secretary of State to introduce measures to reduce incidences of such misuse and illegal copying; to make provision about support for victims of any such offences; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 September, and to be printed (Bill 298).

Phone Theft

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for bringing this important debate. I rise to support her and to bring urgent attention to an issue that continues to disrupt lives not just across the UK, but in my constituency: the rising tide of mobile phone thefts.

This is not a petty crime or just about the loss of a device. This is about identity theft, financial vulnerability and, in many cases, the complete disconnection of some of the most vulnerable people in our communities from the services they rely on every day. The numbers for the last two years speak volumes. Between December 2021 and November 2023, West Yorkshire police recorded over 560 mobile phone thefts in Dewsbury and Batley alone—293 in 2021-22 and 269 the following year. On average, more than 20 people in my constituency fall victim to this specific crime every single month, and that is just what is recorded. We know full well the real figures are likely higher. Many do not report these crimes, believing that the police have more serious matters to attend to or that nothing can be done.

As the hon. Member said, mobile phone theft is serious. These are not just communication tools; they are banks, medical records, job applications, childcare arrangements, emergency lifelines and priceless memories. I read about a constituent—a single mother—in Dewsbury Moor whose phone was stolen while shopping. It was not just the phone she lost; she missed three job interviews, could not access her new universal credit account and had her personal photos and private medical records compromised. That is not an isolated story. Mobile phone theft is a systemic threat to digital safety and personal dignity.

Nationally, hundreds of thousands of mobile phones are stolen annually, and many of those devices end up in highly organised criminal supply chains. Some are exported; others are wiped and sold locally. In some cases, victims are followed or even assaulted for their devices. What is worse is that recovery and prosecution rates remain disturbingly low. Across many police forces, less than 5% of mobile phone thefts result in charges.

What must we do? First, we need to treat mobile phone theft as organised crime, not petty theft. The links between phone theft, fraud and even violent crime are well established. Police forces must be resourced and mandated to treat it with the seriousness it deserves. Secondly, we need stronger action from telecom providers and tech companies. Why are some phones still so easy to wipe clean and resell?

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

On that very topic, the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee had an inquiry where we put this to Apple and Google. It turns out that phones that are reported stolen in this country go on something called the GSMA blacklist, which stops the hardware from working and the phones cannot be reused in this country. The police says that most stolen phones go abroad to networks that do not use that blacklist. I put it to Apple and Google that they could use this blacklist. They said yes they could, but no they did not want to. Does the hon. Member agree that these companies should enable that blacklist, which would—in my humble opinion—effectively stop the theft of phones on the streets of London?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I thank the hon. Member for his informed contribution to the debate. I agree with him and the hon. Member for Brent East, who indicated that companies are not doing enough. It should be easy to disable phones so they are beyond use both in this country and abroad, and so the only value they have would be in the spare parts they contain.

We need stronger action from telecoms providers and tech companies. They must put the protection of their customers’ data above profits from their customers having to buy the same or a similar replacement. Why are some phones easy to wipe and resell? Why are tracking systems so easy to disable? The Government must act to force companies to make tracking systems stronger and less easy to disable.

Thirdly, we must support local policing. In Dewsbury and Batley, neighbourhood policing teams are overstretched, trying to deal with phone snatching, shoplifting and antisocial behaviour with limited boots on the ground. They deserve the tools, the people and the political will behind them to make our streets safer.

Finally, we must support victims. Many cannot afford to replace their phone or reclaim their digital identity without support. Let us explore emergency tech funds or digital safety grants for vulnerable individuals and families.

We live in a digital world in which stealing someone’s phone is tantamount to stealing their identity, their access to society and, for some, their only link to help. We must not stand by while our constituents are targeted, their privacy violated and their future interrupted. Let us act not just with concern, but with conviction.

Crime and Policing Bill

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Let me start by highlighting my support for new clauses 85 and 86, which deal with neighbourhood policing. They would ensure that police forces are required to practise community policing

“at a level necessary to ensure effective community engagement and crime prevention”.

It is a shame that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) is not in his place to intervene for a definition on that. It is about engaging with local communities and ward panels to define the appropriate levels in their areas—which I am sure he would support— rather than taking a top-down view. The new clauses would compel the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the state of community policing.

We have outlined a way of funding that too: 20% of future police grants would be ringfenced for community policing activities, literally making crime pay—in the reverse of the manner in which that phrase is normally used—by allocating funds recovered from the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to community policing. That is important, because commitments to policing numbers mean little without serious action to reverse the scale of forthcoming cuts, such as the cuts of 1,419 officers and staff that we in London are about to experience this year. Indeed, as the Metropolitan Police Commissioner recently told the BBC,

“ambition and money go alongside each other”.

I urge Members across the House to support those new clauses.

I will now turn to my new clauses 95 and 96. It is good to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), in her place to continue a conversation that we have had many times on stalking. Stalking is a heinous crime: it throws lives into chaos, leaves victims in life-changing and near-constant terror, and too often goes unpunished. The current legislation forces too many victims to meet an improbably high bar of evidence, forcing them to jump through hoops to be a perfect victim, just to prove the scale of the threat against them.

I have heard from victims in my Sutton and Cheam constituency who have had their lives completely upended by their stalkers, and who are completely at their wit’s end after facing so many obstacles to getting justice. It is clear that the two relevant sections of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 are the root of those obstacles. The distinction between a lesser section 2A offence and a more severe section 4A offence is failing victims and fails to recognise the total scope of stalking.

Successful prosecutions of section 4A offences are far too hard to achieve. The burden of proof is placed so heavily on the victim.

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

Even celebrities such as Emma Raducanu, and others in the public eye who have been affected by stalkers, feel unsafe and unprotected by existing legislation. Does the hon. Member agree that is clear additional evidence that the law needs strengthening?

[Luke Taylor]

The hon. Member provides a clear and visible example of how the legislation is not working, if somebody with such a high profile and with additional security protection cannot be protected from stalkers. I thank him for his apt intervention.

The burden of proof means that many victims withdraw from the process completely and give up on gaining justice. My new clauses would compel the Secretary of State to publish a review into the two clauses within six months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, and to make time for that review to be properly considered in the House upon its completion. They would also compel the Secretary of State to launch a review into the effectiveness and adequacy of the stalking awareness guidance provided by public bodies in England and Wales, and to make similar provision for proper consideration and debate in this House. I know that aim is supported by the Minister, so I would like to hear how it is being brought forward.

New clause 43, tabled by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), is incredibly important and deserves the support of the House. The new clause automatically commences the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 when the Crime and Policing Bill receives Royal Assent. That he has managed to corral together such luminaries in this House as the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), and the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) and for Clacton (Nigel Farage), to support the measure is a triumph in itself.

We spoke about new clause 130 in Committee, and I very much support its measures on tool theft. It would add the theft of tools from tradesmen to the list of aggravating factors in the Sentencing Act 2020, and present a way forward towards more sensible regulations of temporary markets, where too many stolen tools are often sold out of car boots. I recently visited the Kimpton industrial estate in Stonecot in my constituency, where I heard more about the awful impact of that kind of theft from tradespeople, who too often are left with their livelihoods wrecked and very little proper recourse to getting their lives back on track, other than to fork out huge amounts to buy new tools, which in many cases are later stolen again. It is a horrible cycle, which I also heard about at the Stop Tool Theft rally on the streets outside this Chamber earlier this year.

The measures set out in the new clause provide a good path forward but will not solve the issue alone. Without the kind of commitment to restoring community policing that I mentioned in reference to new clauses 85 and 86, police forces will remain too overstretched to mobilise the resources to investigate these crimes in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

I rise to support new clause 144, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers). On Monday, the Government hastily came to the House to deliver yet another U-turn and to announce a national inquiry into rape gangs. It is apparent that this U-turn was forced on them, because whenever any member of the public or Member of Parliament said that they wanted a national inquiry, the response from the Government was that they were “far right”, “jumping on a bandwagon” or even blowing a “dog whistle”—those were the words used by Ministers on the Front Bench.

This was a hasty U-turn. In fact, those on the Government Front Bench were somewhat taken aback, as it appears that the Prime Minister had appointed Baroness Casey of Blackstock in the hope that the whole thing would go away and that the inquiry would not happen. She said that she changed her mind because of the weight of evidence that confronted her. Her words were, “I think I have surprised people in Downing Street and beyond.” She did, and the clincher was that the local inquiries were inadequate, because local authorities could decide whether they were going to commission an inquiry and the Government would not intervene. She also said that of the five local inquiries, only one came forward—that was in Oldham. There was reluctance from local areas to face up to the facts and to accept their failings. Denial ran through absolutely everything.

Denial is like a poisonous thread: it weaves its way through all public bodies, strangles the truth and stops justice coming forward. It is essential that an investigation is held into all the failings of the police, local authorities, prosecutors, charities and political parties. The Prime Minister himself was in denial until Saturday, when the U-turn was forced upon him. He often brandishes his credentials as the former director of public prosecutions, and in 2014 he penned an article for the Guardian in which he acknowledged that there were at least 1,400 victims, but he did nothing until the U-turn was forced upon him.

We need to ask questions about the statutory inquiry, because the public need to know the answers. Who will chair the inquiry? What type of inquiry will it be? It already seems to have been watered down. Will it be independent, a national inquiry or, as it now seems, a national commission? What are the terms of reference? It is not good enough to say that we will hear “in due course”. What are the inquiry’s powers? That is unclear. Will there be judicial powers to subpoena people to give evidence?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I welcome the inquiry and the investigation into who was responsible for helping this scourge to continue unabated, but does the right hon. Lady agree that the 20 recommendations of the Jay review urgently need to be implemented and that the inquiry should not delay the implementation of those recommendations?

[Esther McVey]

The inquiry should not delay that, but the inquiry needs to be done with speed and haste, not be watered down and not brushed under the carpet, because it is essential that the victims’ voices are heard and that they have justice.

The House also needs assurance there will be no exemptions from prosecution in exchange for evidence. It needs to know if witnesses can be compelled to produce documents protected by public interest immunity. When will that happen? It is not good enough that the Home Secretary was saying that it would be three years away, close to a general election. It needs to be done as soon as possible. I also wonder why it will be a statutory inquiry, not a criminal inquiry. Is it because a criminal inquiry can lead to arrest, charges and criminal prosecutions, whereas a statutory inquiry tends to make a series of recommendations to then be acted on? At the end of this inquiry, will we see prosecutions? Will we see deportations?

Time and again, we heard that community cohesion was put above working-class girls. That cannot ever happen again. That issues were not investigated for fear of people being labelled racist cannot ever happen again. If somebody does wrong, the colour of their skin or their religion do not matter: they have done wrong. If they have committed a criminal act it is right that they are brought to justice. This Government will not get away with a watered-down national inquiry. They have been dragged kicking and screaming to deliver a national inquiry. That national inquiry needs to be delivered.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I agree with both my colleagues, and that is why we have tabled amendments and new clauses to address this issue. I will come on to those in a moment.

It was a Labour Government that chose to cancel the removals deterrent before it started, and that is why the numbers are higher than they have ever been in history. It is a result of their choices.

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

Talking of the Rwanda scheme, the previous Tory Government spent £700 million on a scheme that saw four volunteers removed. That figure included £290 million given to Rwanda for nothing in return and £134 million on IT systems that were never used. Can we get a refund?

[Chris Philp]

As I said already, the plan was never started. The first plane was due to take off on 24 July, but the Labour Government cancelled it within days of coming to office. The money would have been extremely well spent had the scheme started, because the deterrent effect would have stopped the boats, meaning that we would not have tens of thousands of people in hotels costing billions and billions.

While we are on the topic of hotels, let us look at how the Labour Government’s pledge during the election to end the use of asylum hotels is going. The numbers in asylum hotels have gone up by 8,000 so far under this Labour Government. Speaking of removals deterrents, I was in Berlin four or five weeks ago talking to members of the CDU party, which is now in Government. The incoming German Government intend to implement a removals deterrent very similar in concept to the Rwanda scheme. So other Governments around the world have realised that they have to do this; it worked in Australia, and the new German Government will be doing something very similar. It is just our Government who are going headlong in the opposite direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Iqbal Mohamed.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

The UK immigration system is in shambles. That is no secret after the debacle of the last Government, with the proposed Rwanda scheme, the controversial refugee barges, the Illegal Migration Act 2023 to stop boat crossings, and the hostile environment, which made immigration enforcement the responsibility of nurses, doctors, teachers and public service workers. I think we all agree that any step towards fixing this mess is a step in the right direction, and the Bill deserves credit for repealing certain measures proposed by the previous Government. However, it needs to go further and it still has substantial issues: worryingly, it criminalises vulnerable families fleeing hardship and it fails to adequately protect victims of trafficking.

International Women�s Day

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

As other speakers have said, International Women�s Day was born out of struggles waged by past generations of women whose efforts and sacrifices will by and large not be recorded in the history books, but whose actions have enabled other women to walk an easier path through life than they perhaps did.

Unfortunately, the continuation of that struggle seems more pertinent now than at any other time in my adult life, as there is a concerted attempt to roll back the hard-won gains of the women�s movement. We see that in the toxic influence of a resurgent, reactionary politics, amplified via two loosely regulated social media platforms enabling misogyny literally to reach into the bedrooms of young teenage boys. I am referring to not just the Andrew Tates of the world, but the Donald Trumps of this world, who ridicule the very notion of there being an unequal playing field that hinders the lives of women�indeed, Trump and his supporters state the exact opposite. In their world, it is men, and white men in particular, who are the real victims of moves to tackle inequality.

Two things about that narrative worry me. First, it is getting traction in this country. A study conducted by the Global Institute for Women�s Leadership at King�s College London found that nearly one in two Britons�47%�say that when it comes to giving women equal rights with men, things have gone far enough in Great Britain. That is a notable increase on the 38% who said the same last year, and a stark increase on the proportion who felt that way as recently as 2019. That means that for the first time, Britons are now more likely than Americans to agree that women�s equality has gone far enough.

Secondly, those views normalise misogyny and encourage violence against women and girls. They literally put women�s lives in danger. It is therefore critical for MPs to reassert the reality of institutionalised misogyny and sexism, which more often than not is denied, whether in the House of Commons, the police force or the military, where instances of misogyny are put down to some bad apples and the institutions involved are let off the hook. We have to demonstrate more forcefully a zero-tolerance approach to hate and abuse against women. We also need more practical measures right now to make it safer for women to live their lives free of harassment and to go about their everyday lives without fear of attack. Two years after the murder of Sarah Everard, it should be the least that we can do in her memory, and in the memory of approximately 450 women murdered by�

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

Like my hon. Friend, I am horrified that such practices should be allowed to continue. Online platforms have a duty to assess the risk of illegal harms on their services, with a deadline of 16 March 2025, subject to the codes of practice completing the parliamentary process on 17 March. Online platforms will need to take safety measures set out in the codes of practice, and to use other effective measures to protect users from illegal content such as that of which my hon. Friend speaks. If they fail to do so, they will face significant penalties. As she might imagine, I will be keeping a close eye on that.

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

What measures is the Minister taking to address the record backlog of court cases in the UK, which, as the chief inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service and Serious Fraud Office has warned, is on target to hit 100,000? In particular, can she comment on the call for changes to be made to the way that court cases are prioritised, which at present is resulting in victims of serious crimes, including sexual trafficking, exploitation and rape, facing years-long waits for trials, while less serious crimes are prioritised ahead in the queue?

[Jess Phillips]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I recognise the parlous state of the criminal justice system that we inherited, which has led to some victims of rape and sexual violence waiting for years on end. I note that the shadow Justice Secretary has only just noticed that failing, now that he has the word “shadow” in front of his job title, and even though his Government presided over that failing for a decade. Part of the strategy to tackle violence against women and girls, which I work on in concert with the Ministry of Justice, is about ensuring that that issue is sorted.

Extremism Review

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

As I hope I have made crystal clear, I am always happy to come to this House to debate and discuss matters relating to national security. I will do that whenever the House wishes me to do so, but on this particular occasion—as I think I have also been crystal clear about—this leak is about something that does not represent Government policy.

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

There is no place for extremism in our society or country, from anyone. Prevent unfairly associates certain ethnic minorities and religious groups with extremism, and the programme’s vague definition of extremism has led to inconsistent implementation, with concerns about overreach. What steps are the Government taking to address the discrimination and failings in the Prevent programme and make it impartial and effective, to prevent extremism and violence across all of society?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member is right to say that there is no place for extremism in this country—of course that is the case—but I do not agree with his characterisation of the Prevent programme. That programme consists of some extremely dedicated and hard-working public servants, but the hon. Member will know that the Home Secretary has announced the appointment of an interim Prevent commissioner, Lord Anderson. He will be looking very closely at how the Prevent programme works and how it can be made to work more effectively in the future.