Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Josh MacAlister]

I share some of those concerns; this is an important issue. I have asked officials to meet the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman to better understand the issues in the current complaints process, and I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady. Separately, we will soon publish updated statutory guidance on advocacy services for children. The points the hon. Lady raised are important.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

The household income threshold for the maximum maintenance loan for students has not changed since 2008. If the threshold is not increased, by 2028 a child from a single-parent household with a parent working full time for the minimum wage will not qualify for the full maintenance loan. What are we doing to end this scandal after 18 years and raise the quota?

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. The Government are focused on protecting support and increasing it for those who need it most, which is why we are increasing loans in line with inflation, reintroducing maintenance grants and, crucially—something I am very proud of and which the Secretary of State recently announced—giving care-experienced students automatic access to the full loan entitlement.

Universities: Statutory Duty of Care

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on setting out the case for a statutory duty of care so well.

Students face an array of intersecting pressures throughout their student journey. One is the cost of living. York is one of the most expensive places to be a student, not least because of the lack of supply and the cost of accommodation. That bears down on students, who have to take on more responsibilities, often working full time alongside their studies. Having to dedicate more of their time to surviving compromises their studies, yet universities seem quite impervious to understanding those cost pressures by putting mitigation in place, whether by providing accommodation or by supporting students who do not succeed because they have to spend more time on their work.

Transport pressures also bear down on students, as does the array of challenges that young people face today, including social media, violence and sexual violence, and we have talked about the interplay of neurodivergence and mental health. It is really important that there be a statutory duty of care on universities to provide holistic support around a student.

We must also recognise the challenges facing international students, who have not yet been mentioned in this debate. They are from another jurisdiction with different mental health models, but they also face challenges with their immigration status, which I have come across in York. We need to look at the system. An Iranian student today who would not be able to return to Iran because of the situation there must be able to change their status here. There are many intersections for international students, which we must take on board.

In 2015, York had a real surge in the number of students who took their lives. I congratulate the universities and the wider community on looking at how they could put mitigation in place, but 1,108 students have since taken their lives across the country. Therefore, this situation does permeate the sector.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

As near neighbours with universities in our constituencies, my hon. Friend and I see a real patchwork of support at universities across the country. Does she agree that a statutory duty would bring universities on a level playing field with hospitals, schools and employers? I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on students, and this is something that we have long called for. Does she not think it is time that we brought forward the statutory duty to support all those students?

[Rachael Maskell]

I agree. We must legislate in this place; that is why we are here. I particularly want to thank the student unions, because they are the people who are making the case, day by day, to the employers and the universities about the need to provide that statutory duty and the necessary services.

I want to address a different issue that has not been raised in the debate, around mental health services. We know that they are in crisis and, as a result, they are not responding to needs. Often, somebody will have a relationship with their mental health service at home but not when they move to a new area. We need a better transition for people who are neurodivergent, but also for those who experience mental health challenges, to ensure that they are properly engaged with those mental health services. The problem we have is that it is always somebody else’s problem, so we need to ensure that those mental health services are provided through a different model. Particularly within the student setting, I encourage a primary rather than secondary care model, because often the thresholds are in the wrong place for proper engagement. In the primary care setting, there can be a partnership formed between the university, the GPs and professionals to ensure that those services are timely.

My final point is about students who do not succeed in their studies and the welfare services that are wrapped around those students. There must always be a second chance for a student. Perhaps they do not get the scores they need; perhaps their relationships with some of their lecturers and professors are not, shall I say, cordial. As a result, conflict can often arise. We always need a second chance for a student so that there is another avenue to pursue and another opportunity ahead of them. That is what a statutory duty of care will confirm for students.

Legislative Scrutiny: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

We begin with a Select Committee statement. Alex Sobel will speak on the publication of the fourth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, “Legislative Scrutiny: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill”, HC 789, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions will be taken. At the conclusion of the statement, Members will put questions on the subject of the statement and Alex Sobel will respond to those in turn. Questions should be brief, and Members may ask only one question each.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding the time for this statement on the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on legislative scrutiny of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. I also thank my fellow members of the Committee, Lord Alton, who is the Chair, and the staff, who worked very hard in the production of the report.

The Bill is intended to prevent loss of life at sea and to deter and disrupt organised immigration crime. The Committee welcomes that intention. The Bill introduces a number of new offences targeted at organised criminal gangs facilitating unlawful migration, but the Committee is concerned that the new offences are drafted excessively broadly and pose a serious risk of criminalising refugees and other vulnerable groups. It recommends some changes to address that issue.

Clauses 13 to 17 create three new precursor offences. Those measures are intended to target the activities of facilitators and organised criminal gangs that look to profit from organised immigration crime. The provisions engage rights under the refugee convention—in particular, article 31, which prohibits the general imposition of penalties on refugees on account of their unlawful entry or presence in the country where they claim asylum. Those offences could potentially also interfere in some cases with rights under the European convention on human rights—notably, article 5, the right to liberty and security, and article 1 of protocol 1, on peaceful enjoyment of possessions—which are incorporated in domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Committee supports the Government’s intention to disrupt and deter organised immigration crime and to safeguard life. However, the Committee is concerned that, as drafted, the precursor offences create uncertainty, extend beyond the Government’s stated legitimate aim and risk inadvertently criminalising persons who ought to be protected from criminal penalty. The scope is broad, the thresholds are low and the penalties are high. In its report, the Committee proposes a series of amendments to deal with those issues.

Clause 18 makes it an offence for a person, while journeying by water to the UK from France, Belgium or the Netherlands, to have done an act that

“caused, or created a risk of, the death of, or serious personal injury”—

physical or psychological—

“to, another person.”

The Government should ensure that that clause is sufficiently clear and defined, reflects the legitimate aim that it is intended to achieve and is proportionate to that aim. In particular, the Committee believes that a mental element should be introduced to ensure that only conduct that is intentional or reckless is criminalised.

The Bill will repeal the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 in its entirety, as well as certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. Repealing the 2024 Act removes the significant incompatibilities identified in the predecessor JCHR’s report. However, certain provisions of the 2023 Act have been kept, which raises human rights concerns. Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act modifies the common-law position such that it is for the Secretary of State, not the courts, to determine what is a reasonable period of detention. The Committee agrees with its predecessor Committee and recommends repeal of section 12 to restore certainty and ensure compliance with article 5 of the ECHR. Section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act broadens the public order disqualification in section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The Committee believes that that provision is not compatible with the UK’s obligations under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings and article 4 of the ECHR, on prohibition of slavery and forced labour. The Committee recommends repeal of the provision.

Section 59 of the IMA amends section 80A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which provides that asylum claims and human rights claims from nationals of listed states must be declared inadmissible. The Committee believes that it must be possible for such individuals who face a real risk of persecution on return to make a protection or human rights claim, which must be considered on its merits, in order to guard against the risk of refoulement. If the Government choose to bring section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act into force, they should, at the very least, periodically review the list of safe countries, with particular consideration of the rights of minority groups. In 2023, Georgia, India and Albania were added to the list of safe states to speed up the process of returning people who have travelled from those countries illegally, but we understand those states to be high risk in particular for LGBTQI+ people. It is therefore important that the Government take notice of the universal periodic review by the United Nations Human Rights Council of states listed, as well as other assessments, in order to judge their safety for specific groups, particularly those from the LGBTQI community.

Section 62 of the IMA means that if a person making a human rights or asylum claim does not allow the Home Office to look at everything, including private information, on their phone, then the Home Office shall take that into account as damaging the person’s credibility when deciding whether to believe the person. The Committee believes that this provision should be amended to make it clear that the credibility of a claimant who has provided a reasonable excuse for their failure to provide a password or other method of access requested by the Home Office will not be affected.

Clauses 19 to 26 introduce new search, seizure and retention powers in relation to electronic devices. The Committee is concerned that there is a risk that the new powers of search, seizure and retention may in practice lead to a blanket policy to search and possibly seize and retain items such as mobile phones from asylum seekers, victims of trafficking and children. The Committee recommends that the Government clarify in the Bill how these invasive powers will be used, in order to guard against the risk of indiscriminate searches. The Committee also recommends that guidance clearly sets out that in circumstances where electronic devices are confiscated the authorities must facilitate the contact of individuals with their close family members.

The Committee is concerned that clause 35(7) and (8), deeming transfer of personal data to third countries and international organisations to be necessary for important reasons of public interest, inappropriately disapplies the normal safeguards in data protection legislation when data is transferred to third countries. The Committee recommends the removal of those provisions.

Clause 41 amends the current powers contained in paragraph 2(2) of schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971, which permits the Secretary of State to detain individuals liable to deportation on the grounds that their presence in the UK is not considered conducive to the public good. The Government state that the clause is intended to clarify that the Home Office may detain someone subject to deportation from the point at which the Home Office serves notification that deportation is being considered. However, the operational effect would appear to amount to retrospectively making it lawful to have detained persons liable to deportation. This does not comply with article 5 of the ECHR, which requires a lawful basis for detention, and article 13 of the ECHR, which guarantees an effective remedy. The Committee recommends the repeal of this clause.

The Committee believes that the requirements in clause 43 for imposing conditions such as electronic monitoring, geographical exclusions and curfews should be expressly limited to cases involving conduct such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, extremism or serious crime, or where the person poses a threat to national security or public safety. The Committee proposes an amendment to deal with this point.

The Committee acknowledges that the exclusion of individuals who pose a danger to the community is an important issue, and supports the Government’s intent to ensure that dangerous sex offenders cannot benefit from the protections of the refugee convention. Individuals will be able to argue against the presumptions made by the state regarding the seriousness of their offence and the danger that they pose to the community. This is important to give refugees the opportunity to argue against the seriousness of their offence and the danger they pose to the community.

Given the severe infringement on the right to privacy posed by the imposition of electronic monitoring, the Committee believes that the threshold test for electronic monitoring should be one of necessity and proportionality, not whether it is appropriate. Clause 52 should be amended accordingly.

Overall, the Committee welcomes the Government’s intentions in bringing forward this legislation but would like to see changes to ensure that the legislation is more tightly focused on criminalising those who exploit refugees and other vulnerable groups.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for making that statement. As everyone will know, I chair the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief. It is one of the issues that I am really concerned about, in this country and across the world, and I always speak about asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution and human rights abuses. Has the Committee been able to ascertain whether there has been an increase in the numbers of those seeking asylum who are religiously disenfranchised and have suffered human rights abuses? Is that something that the Government need to address?

[Alex Sobel]

I thank the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to address that, as I did not include those who have come to this country to seek asylum due to an impingement of their right to practise their faith or religious belief in their home country. We have seen an increase in asylum claims—I do not have the figures to hand—but the Committee’s consideration of that area in its inquiry on the Bill was in relation to the list of safe countries. Countries might be broadly safe, but not safe for individuals who are practising certain beliefs. I mentioned three countries, and of those the one where there are issues in that regard is India.

The Government should review the list of safe countries and have regard for the UN Human Rights Council’s universal periodic review in terms of the ability of an individual to practise their religion or belief in safety. That is an important consideration that the Government should take into account.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to make a brief comment. I thank my hon. Friend for his statement and for applying to make it. I also thank the Committee for its work on the report. I assure him that the report is being read in detail and that the Government will respond in due course.

SEND Funding

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will speak about the deepening funding crisis, and the crisis in general, for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, including the failure of our national curriculum to meet the needs of all learners.

Since the curriculum reforms introduced in 2012, we have seen a return to a rigid, academic model of education—one that might have suited a mid-century grammar school but fails to deliver for a modern comprehensive system. The curriculum is simply inaccessible for at least a third of our pupils, both those with SEND and many others who thrive with practical, creative or vocational learning. Too many children are being told, implicitly or explicitly, that their job is to, “Just get a pass and forget about it.” That is not a curriculum that inspires or includes, it is not a curriculum that recognises or nurtures diverse talents, and it is certainly not a curriculum fit for the 21st century. It also ignores the cost of adequately educating children with special educational needs. This narrow focus does more than limit opportunity; it damages self-esteem, confidence and emotional wellbeing. It restricts the gifts and potential of our young people, particularly those who already face the greatest barriers.

Critically, schools have lost the flexibility they once had to tailor education to the needs of their pupils. They are now judged on a narrow set of outcomes, forcing a one-size-fits-all model on to a hugely diverse student body—again, a cut-price way to deliver our education system. That has consequences. We can draw a direct line from the rigidity of the curriculum to the crisis in school attendance, and from there to the rise in NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—who are vulnerable to exploitation or even to entering the youth justice system as they are exploited by organised crime. Too many young people with SEND are being failed by a system that offers them no real route to thrive, and when school stops being a protective factor, the risks grow.

That situation is being made worse by how SEND funding is distributed. Local authorities are under incredible pressure, with funding that simply does not reflect the growing complexity and volume of need. We see huge disparities between areas, and often between schools within the same local authority, where children miss out on vital support not because their needs are different, but because of postcode lotteries in funding.

Fair and adequate funding is a matter of educational justice. If we are serious about inclusion, we cannot continue to under-resource the very system meant to deliver it. We urgently need to reimagine our education system not as a funnel toward academic exams alone, but as a foundation for every child’s success in every form it might take. I hope the Minister will listen to the parents, carers, teachers and young people themselves calling for change.

Gender Self-identification

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Thank you for chairing this debate, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on moving the motion on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

I will focus on the text of the petition by talking specifically about what a gender recognition certificate is and is not needed for. A person does not need a gender recognition certificate to update their driving licence, passport, medical records, employment records or bank account, and they do not need one to go into a toilet or changing room—nor do they need a birth certificate to go into a toilet or changing room, I hasten to add.

The point of a gender recognition certificate is to allow someone to update their birth or adoption certificate. That allows them the human right of privacy. A gender recognition certificate allows someone to get married or form a civil partnership in their affirmed gender. Again, it allows them that privacy; it allows them and their partner to have the correct genders on their marriage or civil partnership agreement. A gender recognition certificate also allows someone to update their marriage or civil partnership certificate.

A gender recognition certificate also allows someone to have their affirmed gender on their death certificate. Imagine if your partner, father, mother or child died and they had to have the wrong gender on their death certificate. Imagine how that would compound the misery you are already feeling.

Those are the things that a gender recognition certificate allows someone to do. It might also change their pension entitlements, which is really important for people who are not getting the correct pension entitlements, particularly if their partner dies.

People can apply to have a gender recognition certificate even if they have not had any surgery or treatment. The hon. Member for South Cotswolds mentioned the issues with gender-affirming care and gender identity clinics, and the extremely long waiting times even for initial appointments. Imagine if people did not have to have a gender dysphoria diagnosis to apply for a gender recognition certificate; they would not even need to see the gender identity clinic should they not wish to.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that other jurisdictions have implemented the self-declaration of legal gender without any detriment, and without any of the debates we have had in this country even without those reforms? For instance, Ireland has had an Act providing for the self-declaration of legal gender for 10 years. Is it not time that we moved with those other jurisdictions?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I completely agree. As the hon. Member for South Cotswolds said, there is still a legal requirement not to lie, with powers to punish people who lie when applying for a gender recognition certificate.

Across these islands, very few medical practitioners are competent, trained and working in this area. If we freed up some of their clinical time, the people who need gender-affirming surgery and treatment would get it far more quickly. The queue would shorten because those seeking a gender recognition certificate would not need a gender dysphoria diagnosis.

The Government could also choose to put other rules in place, and there are already other rules for getting a gender recognition certificate. The petition focuses on the gender dysphoria diagnosis, but it does not focus on the fact that people have to provide two years’ worth of evidence. The Government could still require that people provide evidence for every three-month period in at least the previous two years showing them using the title of Mr, Mrs or Ms, showing them using their new name, and proving that they have been living in that gender. The Government could still require all that while taking out the requirement for a gender dysphoria diagnosis, which would make things so much better for people.

As the hon. Member for South Cotswolds and a number of other hon. Members have said, what has happened around the Supreme Court ruling has made things even more complicated and confusing for people—it has not provided clarity. We are now in a weird limbo situation where huge numbers of pubs, restaurants and shops, which are just trying to do their best, do not know what they have to do. They have the interim guidance, which is frankly not very clear, the Court ruling and the Equality Act to look at, but they do not know what toilets they should be providing.