Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Debate between Iqbal Mohamed and David Davis

2nd reading
Friday 4th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I completely agree with the hon. Member. Services must be of the same quality and standard, with the resources that the demand in an area requires. Whether in rural areas, urban areas or city centres, there should not be a postcode lottery for the quality of care that expectant or new mothers receive anywhere in our country.

These amazing individuals—healthcare workers, midwives and obstetricians—are working under immense pressure, as is our entire health system. We have seen a significant reduction in the health visiting workforce over recent years, while demand has continued to grow. If we are serious about giving the Bill meaning beyond good intention, the resources required to deliver it must follow. Health visitors in Kirklees and in my area used to have manageable caseloads, with a number of families that they could visit at the appropriate frequency and provide the necessary support. However, due to funding reductions and the necessary cuts to balance the books, there are reports that individuals now face mountains of casework and up to almost a thousand families per caseworker or healthcare professional. That is clearly not sustainable and will never deliver the support that those families need.

In conclusion, I am honoured and delighted to support the Infants, Parents and Carers Bill. It will not solve every challenge facing families with young children, nor should we pretend that this legislation can address the root causes of poverty, poor housing or widening inequality. However, it is a vital step towards ensuring that babies and their families are visible in public policy and that access to support becomes a consistent expectation, rather than the roll of a dice. Every child gets only one start in life. Our responsibility in this House is to ensure that that start is as fair, safe and healthy as possible, and we must act in the period when intervention can have the greatest impact. This is not simply a maternity issue; it is a health issue, a social justice issue and an education issue. I fully support this Bill.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on putting a Bill in front of the House that has support from literally everybody in the Chamber? That is not true of the next Bill, which would protect our veterans from gratuitous prosecution under the Government’s new legislation. For that reason, the Government Whips Office does not want it to be properly debated or to progress today. The Bill we are debating is important, but it seems to me that we need to make time for another important debate about protecting our veterans. In view of that, I shall beg to move the closure.

Debate on the Address

Debate between Iqbal Mohamed and David Davis

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Davis]

It is interesting, because the hon. Member’s Government and his Secretary of State have claimed, “All these green policies are reducing the cost of our energy. Not using oil and gas is reducing the cost of energy.” What is the consequence? The highest energy costs in the world. I will be interested to hear if he can explain that when he makes his speech.

The other issue is that growth, or the loss of growth, has a material impact on the public finances. To give the House a measure of that, a 1% change in the growth rate is £10 billion to £11 billion in the first year and then more money in the consequential years, so when we lose that growth, we lose that amount of money. But even if we imagine that we could get that growth back, it still would not be enough. It would not be enough to pay the bills that we need to pay.

So what can we do? I am afraid that, because of the size of the debt, we have no choice but to cut welfare costs. I am a great believer in our welfare system, but it should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice. People who can work should work, and the public have little sympathy for those who choose benefits over a job. It is true today, and it has been true since I was a child on a council estate, that the British working class, who Labour used to think of as its own voters, hate it when they see one of their neighbours choosing to sit at home spending the taxes that they have earned. Low growth handicaps our ability to solve our citizens’ problems.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I agree, and I think most people agree, that people capable of working should be helped into work, but while the right hon. Member’s party was in government for 14 years, did it do an analysis of or have statistics on how many people on benefits across our country were actually fit to work, and what did his party do to get those people into work?

[David Davis]

I think the answer to the question is, “No, it didn’t,” but the hon. Member should be aware that it was only two months ago that a Labour Member described me as the MP who is never knowingly on message, which is a label I espouse—I do not mind that. No Government have got this right. We need a welfare system that looks after the disabled and people who have no choice about what they are suffering, but not one that makes it an even choice to be on the dole or in a job.

Mandatory Digital ID

Debate between Iqbal Mohamed and David Davis

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.