Debate on the Address

Debate between Iqbal Mohamed and Adnan Hussain

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I would like to start by associating myself with the remarks made by Mr Speaker about how we should conduct ourselves in this place: with kindness, compassion and respect, even when we disagree. I will quote Jalaluddin Rumi, a Muslim Sufi philosopher, who said:

“Before you speak, let your words pass through three gates. Is it true? Is it necessary? Is it kind?”

I believe that if we all followed that principle here, in the other place and in our country, we would be more united and compassionate to each other.

I join Members across the House in paying tribute to the absolutely amazing speeches by the hon. Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Harlow (Chris Vince). They spoke generously about their constituencies, and I intend to do the same, although as an independent Member I will do so without the burden of a Whip. Having said that, I am not sure that colleagues on the Government Benches feel particularly burdened by the Whip at the moment either.

I mention the lack of a Whip behind me, but that is the furthest thing from a complaint. The people of Dewsbury and Batley provided me an explicit instruction in 2024, when they returned the first independent MP to Yorkshire in more than a century, and they doubled down on that message last Thursday. Across five wards out of six on Kirklees council that I represent, 11 out of 15 elected councillors are independents. In this election, the people showed that voting for an independent is not a protest vote, but a real alternative to failed party politics. The two-party system is well and truly finished, and I will not mourn its demise if it means that we get more legislators who pick constituents over their party Whip or their rich corporate donors.

[Mr Adnan Hussain]

I am the Member for Blackburn, and I too am one of the first independent Members of Parliament for my area. I am proud to represent my constituents. People up and down this country are speaking against the two-party system, because they are fed up of being spoken for and spoken at. It is time to listen to the people and to hear them. I often say this, but my policy is the people of Blackburn, my Whip is the people of Blackburn and my boss is the people of Blackburn. Does the hon. Member agree?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I believe that every single Member in this House has a primary duty to their constituents—those who voted for them and those who did not. Every single resident in their constituency has a right to their Member representing them without fear or favour. I look forward to welcoming many more independent and independent-minded colleagues to this place in future.

As for the Gracious Speech, it contains measures that I welcome. The Hillsborough law is long overdue—a statutory duty of candour and accountability will finally begin to address a culture of institutional defensiveness that has failed families for too long. There are also meaningful steps on economic security. The small business protections Bill will tackle late payments—a crisis that is costing the UK economy £11 billion annually and closing 38 businesses every day. That is a practical reform that will make a real difference. The Government are also right to prioritise cyber-resilience. Some 43% of UK businesses experienced a cyber-attack last year, with the UK facing major attacks every week on average. This is a real and growing threat, and action is both welcome and necessary.

The Government are likewise correct to identify access to SEND provision as a key issue. Parents should not need to go through the lengthy, challenging and dispiriting process of obtaining an education, health and care plan before their children can receive the support they need. However, the Government’s proposals need to be matched with a more comprehensive plan to address the teacher recruitment and retention crisis, in order to ensure that classrooms receive the targeted interventions they need. There are clearly measures in the Gracious Speech that move us in the right direction—admittedly, they may be too little, too late in some instances, but they are welcomed none the less.

I cannot, though, ignore the measures included in this speech that I vehemently oppose. Words do not put a roof over people’s heads or food on their tables. Words do not heat homes or make work pay, and they do not end the cost of living crisis that is affecting the majority of people in our country. The Government’s actions do not address the acute nature of that crisis for many people in our constituencies.

The actions that the Government have taken need to be challenged. The continued curtailment of protest rights undermines the fundamental democratic principle of the right to dissent. If the Government continue down this path, they will stand on the wrong side of history, and the UK will be listed with other authoritarian regimes. The immigration and asylum Bill, while framed as “fair but firm”, runs the risk of introducing a system that is anything but—a system in which rights are conditional and subject to contribution, narrowly defined by income. Retrospectively doubling the standard qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain from five years to 10 would leave an indelible stain on this Government’s legacy. The expansion of digital ID, presented as a convenience, instead represents a wildly unpopular Orwellian shift in the relationship between citizen and state. It creates what Big Brother Watch rightly calls an “intrusive” system from “cradle to grave” that would be

“ripe for mass surveillance and more government control over people’s lives.”

These proposals risk trading away hard-won freedoms in the nebulous name of efficiency. That is a trade that this House must scrutinise and stop.

Our principles must not stop at our borders. We cannot claim—as this Government so often do—to defend the rule of law and human rights while failing to uphold those principles abroad. The UK must end weapons exports to Israel and to any other state suspected of, or shown to be, violating international humanitarian law, or accused of genocide before international courts. Our commitment to justice must be consistent, otherwise it loses all credibility.

Perhaps the greatest weakness of this King’s Speech is not what it contains, but what it leaves out. It contains no meaningful framework for AI safety, despite overwhelming evidence of the risks posed by this new technology, which is developing at an alarming rate.

An Institute for Public Policy Research report has stated that up to 8 million jobs could be lost due to AI disruption in the next three to five years. AI-exposed firms are already cutting entry-level roles and reshaping the labour market. Even more worryingly, many AI experts, including Geoffrey Hinton and more than 300 others, consider the risk of existential catastrophe as a consequence of loss-of-control scenarios to be plausible at best and likely at worst without adequate regulations and global collaboration.

Our blueprint should be the Montreal protocol. That framework helped to pause and reverse the damage to the ozone layer from the use of chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs. The world had decades to stop and reverse the harms from CFCs, but with AI, the disastrous consequences could be realised during this Parliament. The potential risk from unregulated AI could cause irreversible harm to humanity and our planet. It demands immediate and meaningful Government action to prevent these harms before it is too late.

The public is rightfully clear that it wants sustained, forceful action. A 2025 survey by the Ada Lovelace Institute and the Alan Turing Institute found that 72% of the UK public reported that laws and regulations would increase their confidence in AI. However, in today’s Gracious Speech, there was no plan for governance, safety or accountability. Similarly, it offers no plan to hold social media companies to account. There is no meaningful framework for transparency, no clear standards for algorithmic responsibility, and no serious enforcement mechanism for those who flagrantly breach the rules. There is no ability to take action to ban addictive platforms or to compel safety by design.

This King’s Speech is a programme of progress in parts, problems in principle and profound omissions. It contains measures that I welcome, proposals that I must oppose, and omissions that I and others cannot ignore. It falls short of the radical action that this country needs and has been crying out for. It lacks urgency on material issues that affect people’s daily lives. It avoids hard decisions to tackle vested interests. It fails to hold power and wealth to account. It also fails to clean up politics by banning dodgy donations and revolving doors.

In conclusion, the people of Dewsbury and Batley did not send me here to be loyal to a party; they sent me here to be loyal to them and to stay true to them. In this Session, I will vote against inhumane, unjust and unfair policies wherever they appear; defend our public services and the funding they need to thrive; and give voice to my constituents of every faith or none and of every colour and creed who refuse to look away from injustice abroad. I will fight for Dewsbury sports centre, Batley baths, GP surgeries, local dentists and the buses, schools, charities and communities that hold our towns together.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Debate between Iqbal Mohamed and Adnan Hussain

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Adnan Hussain]

Does the hon. Member agree that now is the time when the Government need to confirm what we are voting on? We have had U-turn after U-turn, and I believe Members are confused.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I will accept a Government who listen, adapt and change their approach in the light of new evidence put before them, so I would congratulate the Government on improving on the proposals. I really do not question the core intentions. Fourteen years of waste and mismanagement have led us to the point of having an unmanageable welfare state, and that absolutely must be assessed and improved, but that cannot be at the expense of support for the most vulnerable in our society.

This Bill will impact not just on disabled people, but on carers. It slashes £500 million from carer’s allowance, which is the largest real-terms cut since the benefit was introduced in 1976. Carers save this country tens of billions of pounds through unpaid labour, and nearly half of them already live in poverty. Is this really the thanks that they deserve?

It gets worse: if an existing claimant loses their PIP on reassessment, which happens all too frequently due to assessor errors, they will be treated as a new claimant and be subject to stricter rules. That includes anyone moving from DLA to PIP. That is punitive and regressive, and will erode trust in the entire system.

We are told that there will be consultation, but what consultation happens when a Bill is pushed through in a single week without adequate scrutiny or engagement with those most affected? The principle of “Nothing about us without us” has been flagrantly ignored.

We have heard from Scope that the extra cost of living with a disability is nearly £1,100 a month, which is not covered by PIP. That is expected to top £1,200 by 2029, yet under this Bill those same people will be expected to survive without the support they rely on. The Government expect disabled people to shoulder £15,000 in extra costs and to offer them less and less.

The public see through this. Only 27% support these reforms, while nearly half of those surveyed believe that they will worsen the health of disabled people, and over half expect more pressure on the NHS. These cuts will make people sicker, more isolated and more dependent on an already overstretched service. The politics of this is damning, but it cannot be about politics—it must be about the people we are in this place to serve. I ask the Government to please go back, wait for the consultation to be completed, and then integrate the learnings and the feedback from the people affected so that this legislation makes a positive contribution to our society, not a negative one.

Non-stun Slaughter of Animals

Debate between Iqbal Mohamed and Adnan Hussain

Monday 9th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd.

I am also an animal lover, and it is really important to put that on the record. I think everybody in this room would be happy to be described as an animal lover. However, we are omnivores, and some of us eat meat. As a Muslim, I will only eat meat that has undergone slaughter using the traditional Islamic halal method.

The rhetoric around non-stunned slaughter, and the way this debate is being framed in Parliament today, are deeply concerning not just to me, but to other Members, to organisations and to many of my constituents. I care about animal welfare, which is the supposed topic of the debate, but I am equally disturbed by the undertone—a title dressed as a welfare concern, but sounding like a dog whistle for xenophobia, targeting religious practices, particularly those of Jewish and Muslim communities.

The methods of slaughter we are discussing are long-standing practices already regulated by clear legislation. Previous Governments have ensured that safeguards are in place to protect animal welfare during religious slaughter. So why are we having this conversation again, if not to stigmatise kosher and halal traditions?

The claim in the petition that non-stun slaughter does not reflect our culture or modern values is not just inaccurate; it is worryingly exclusionary and divisive. It shows a lack of understanding of why these practices exist and how they are monitored.

Let us make this conversation what it should be: about learning and inclusion. As the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) said, many people may not realise that both halal and kosher slaughter practices are centred around minimising suffering. They require the animal to be alive and healthy at the time of slaughter. Animals must not be shown the implement with which they will be slaughtered. They should not be in the presence of other animals that are being slaughtered. If that is not humane, I do not know what is.

A sharp knife is used to make a swift incision, cutting key arteries and the windpipe, but not the spinal cord, causing rapid unconsciousness and minimal pain. Evidence shows that when done properly—the key word here is “properly”; I am a proponent of halal and kosher slaughter done in the proper way—kosher and halal methods can be as humane as stun slaughter, if not more so. In fact, if we flip the narrative, mistakes in stunning can cause suffering and expose animals to bad welfare in pre-slaughter handling, or cause pain and fear.

We have heard how halal and kosher slaughter are performed. In the UK, the main methods used to stun an animal before slaughter include penetrating captive bolts, which are used on cattle, sheep and some pigs. A gun fires a metal bolt through the skull into the brain, causing unconsciousness after excruciating pain. In electrical stunning, which is used on sheep, calves and pigs, an electric current is passed through the brain, temporarily rendering the animal unconscious, but not always. Chickens are often stunned before slaughter using an electrical water bath, which involves shackling the birds upside down and passing them through a bath of electrified water. Does that sound humane to anyone in this room? It does not sound humane to me. We have already heard about gas stunning and killing, which is primarily used for pigs and some poultry. Animals are exposed to mixtures of gases, such as carbon dioxide, that cause unconsciousness and eventually death. Each of those stunning methods can lead to the death of the animal, and the eating of a dead animal by Jewish and Muslim believers is not permissible.

This is not a simple “stun good, not-stun bad” issue. It is far more complex and should be centred around good and well-monitored practice. Assuming that there is only one ethical way to slaughter an animal is not science; it is imposition, and it does not reflect the values of a pluralistic society. To claim that halal and kosher practices are outside of “our” culture is a dangerous path—one that risks vilifying communities under the guise of animal welfare.

If we are talking about welfare, let us talk about factory farming. Are the same concerns being raised about that industry, which still allows animals to live in cages, to be mass culled and to suffer through profit-driven systems from birth to death? Despite the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and subsequent legislation, certain intensive farming practices are still legal and widely used. One is enriched cages for hens. Although barren battery cages were banned in 2012, around 28% of the UK’s laying hens are still kept in enriched cages, which severely restrict natural behaviours. Another is farrowing crates for sows, which prevent mother pigs from turning around or interacting properly with their piglets.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

The hon. Member is putting forward his case passionately. Does he agree that this debate is not about animal welfare? We once saw Nazi Germany put into law policies similar to those we are discussing. The justification then, too, was animal welfare, but in context it was a thin pretext for antisemitism. That ban was part of a broader programme to marginalise and dehumanise Jewish people by stripping away their rights and religious freedoms. Does the hon. Member agree that such a ban threatens to have a similar effect on Britain’s Muslim and Jewish communities?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

We in this place must drive our society to move away from divisive rhetoric, hurtful behaviours, racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia. Any attempts to bring them to the fore should be challenged, and communities should be protected.

Another practice that is allowed is the use of individual calf pens. Young calves can be kept in isolation for weeks, which can cause stress and developmental issues. All the practices I have mentioned are legal under current UK law, but are increasingly seen as inhumane by animal welfare advocates. Many of my constituents in Dewsbury and Batley have written to me in support of the RSPCA’s campaign to end cages that restrict an animal’s movement for life. Why are we not debating that?

These are not questions of belief; these are clear, systemic welfare violations, undisputed and urgent. Yet, here we are instead scrutinising faith-based practices rooted in ethics and compassion. This debate must not become a platform to demonise or criminalise. If we truly care about welfare, we must look at the bigger picture: intensive farming, mass culling, corporate cruelty, the prevalence of illegal fox hunting, and the importing and selling of fur products, which is still permitted. That is where the real, meaningful change lies.

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Debate between Iqbal Mohamed and Adnan Hussain

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.

Income Tax (Charge)

Debate between Iqbal Mohamed and Adnan Hussain

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches in the House today. The first Budget of a Labour Government in nearly 15 years is definitely an improvement on the 14 years of Tory austerity and waste, but it is a missed opportunity to bring about the transformative change that the country needs. I welcome the increases in the national minimum wage and carer’s allowance, but it is disappointing that those changes have been accompanied by cuts to social security and disability benefits.

I am grateful for the long-overdue investment in hospitals and the NHS. However, the Government must guarantee that those resources will go into our NHS and not into the pockets of private shareholders.

Some 4.2 million children are growing up in poverty and a quarter of a million people are homeless; meanwhile, we are on the brink of an irreversible climate disaster. Those crises demand bold solutions. The Government could have implemented wealth taxes and closed corporate tax avoidance loopholes to bring about a more equal and sustainable society. Instead, they have chosen to bake in decades of inequality by feigning regret over tough choices they do not have to make. Those include keeping the two-child benefit cap, cutting the winter fuel allowance and increasing the bus fare cap by 50%. At the same time, the Government have committed to an additional £3 billion of military spending.

I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on the link between housing and health. While I welcome the measures in the Budget to increase funding for housing, I am concerned that they do not go nearly far enough. Real security is when everybody has a decent home, and we will solve the housing crisis only with rent controls and a huge council house building programme.

The Government will be aware that plans to freeze the local housing allowance will have a detrimental impact on hundreds of thousands of families struggling in temporary housing or facing eviction. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, if the LHA remains frozen over this Parliament, private renters on housing benefit will on average be about £700 worse off.

If the Government are serious about tackling child poverty and homelessness, they need to start by ending the LHA freeze and linking housing costs to housing support. While I welcome the commitment from the Deputy Prime Minister to deliver 5,000 new social and affordable homes, that is only scratching the surface.

[Mr Adnan Hussain]

On the winter fuel allowance, does the hon. Member agree that freezing pensioners will only increase the need for NHS resources when hospitals are already struggling?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I completely agree that there is a direct link between pensioner poverty and demands on the NHS.

The Government’s proposals in the Budget do not go nearly far enough. The situation is simply not sustainable. The ability to provide the bulk of its citizens with a roof over their head is a litmus test for the success of any state. Unfortunately, that test has been failed by successive Governments. Without more radical measures to increase the stock of affordable housing, I fear it is a test that this Government will also fail.