Alex Sobel MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Fracking Ban · Hansard source

  More

  North Yorkshire council’s planning committee rejected the Burniston site that the hon. Lady has mentioned not just on seismicity grounds, but because of issues of groundwater pollution, traffic and a whole range of other issues. Although these low-level fracking sites are technically legal, they still have a range of issues for us to deal with.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  I know of constituents who have moved from Israel to Leeds because of the actions of the Israeli Government, and who applaud what we have done in banning Israeli settlement goods and services. Many of us stand squarely behind international law and human rights, and commend the Minister and the Foreign Secretary for their actions.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent argument. In 2025, our regional water company, Yorkshire Water, discharged untreated sewage into our regional waters for 285,000 hours. Does he agree that that shows the failure of the private sector?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary started by talking about our shared history of visiting our grandmothers in Israel. It gives him a clarity and authority on these matters that few else in the Chamber have. We would not accept goods from Russian-occupied Ukraine or Chinese-occupied Tibet, so why would we accept goods from Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory? I still have many Gazan students wishing to come to Leeds University, as do other colleagues to other universities, and not being able to get their visas. Can we look at a visa-lite or visa-free regime for those Gazan students?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Artificial Superintelligence · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision to prohibit the development, deployment and operation of artificial superintelligence systems; to establish monitoring and control powers in respect of such systems; and for connected purposes. I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this Bill alongside respected colleagues representing parties across the House. I also would like to thank ControlAI for its support with the Bill. This summer, artificial intelligence systems developed by OpenAI executed the first autonomous cyber-attack on a real company. The AI systems were being tested, and during this they escaped the testing environment, which should have been secure, and reached the open internet. From there, the AI systems conducted a cyber-attack on the AI company Hugging Face to steal the information that would help it cheat on the test that OpenAI had set it. To put it simply, the AI systems went rogue and launched an unprecedented attack just to cheat on a test. Meanwhile, our own AI Security Institute has had AI systems that it was testing engaged in sustained, potentially harmful activity directed at real people and organisations, including attempts at social engineering to trick humans into accepting malicious code. It is important to understand why this happens. The general-purpose AI systems used today are not coded line by line, like traditional software. Using vast amounts of data and compute, they are grown, not built. This results in systems that nobody fully understands or can reliably predict. In other words, no engineer programmed the rogue, deceptive behaviours that I earlier described, and no engineer can simply patch them out. This is the least powerful or autonomous that AI systems will ever be. Companies are spending billions to make superintelligent AI a reality. The chief executives at top AI companies themselves put the chance that it ends all human life between 10% and 25%. In the words of renowned British computer scientist Professor Stuart Russell of Berkeley, “For Governments to allow private entities to essentially play Russian roulette with every human being on earth is, in my view, a total dereliction of duty.” Despite the risks, top AI companies continue a reckless race towards superintelligent AI—AI that can fully replace and outmatch humans at any task. That is the reason why experts such as Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio and other notable figures signed a statement saying that mitigating extinction risk from AI should be a global priority. The main vector of this risk is superintelligent AI, because no company, Government or individual knows how to keep superintelligent AI under human control. Honourable colleagues may remember that I proposed a kill switch amendment to the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill to protect our critical national infrastructure—a metaphorical big red button that the Government can press to cut off a catastrophic emergency caused by AI. This is a common-sense proposal—one that is being considered by US lawmakers—and I am pleased that the other place will be taking it forward in the autumn. It is a power that the Government should already have. But even kill switches will not be enough if the development of superintelligent AI continues. Let me be very clear: AI is the crucial technology of the 21st century, promising vast benefits for science, medicine and the UK’s prosperity, but superintelligent AI is different. It would not be a tool that we can leverage but an entity in its own right, capable of improving itself, replicating itself and resisting attempts to shut it down. It would be a force so uncontrollable that, if developed within the UK’s borders, it would put our security in jeopardy. It would amount to a rogue power stationed inside our data centres, under no one’s command, capable of seizing control of our critical infrastructure and running sophisticated influence operations. Colleagues, we need to take back control. If the UK is to be truly sovereign, we cannot allow a threat to our national security like superintelligent AI to be developed. My Bill is therefore not a verdict on AI as a whole; it is a targeted Bill that addresses a problem of unmatched severity. It strengthens the security of our country as a whole by specifically targeting the systems where the greatest risks are concentrated—superintelligent AI systems—by prohibiting their development. The Bill strikes a balance to address the grave security risks posed by superintelligent AI development while not undermining the UK’s AI ambitions, especially those relating to economic prosperity. Instead, it is acutely focused on mitigating the risks that superintelligent AI presents. Rather than betting on technical definitions that the technology will outgrow, it defines superintelligent AI by what it could do. Just as the Chemical Weapons Act 1996 defines toxic chemicals by the effect they have on living organisms rather than their technical characteristics, my Bill defines superintelligence by outcome: it is an AI system that can cause serious damage to the security of the United Kingdom because of its capabilities to neutralise, displace, circumvent, subvert or render ineffective relevant human authorities in the exercise of their functions. The development of the most advanced AI systems happens on a spectrum, so it matters where we draw the line. That line must recognise the capabilities of superintelligent AI. The clearest example of such a capability is recursive self-improvement—the full automation of AI development with no humans in the loop. That is the point where we lose control as development towards superintelligent AI proceeds too fast for humans to intervene and remain in control. My Bill would also empower the Government to monitor and, where necessary, restrict precursors to superintelligent AI. A challenge that we cannot overlook, however, is that if anyone builds superintelligent AI—wherever they build it—we are all in danger. Some talk of a race to develop superintelligent AI as if there could be a human winner. The only winner of that race would be superintelligent AI itself, and we would all be at its mercy. When a machine can outsmart our best engineers and resist shutdown, national borders offer no protection. Domestic legislation can protect us from the risk of superintelligent development at home, but it cannot by itself address the risks posed by superintelligent programs abroad. A global program necessitates a global solution. My Bill recommends that the Government work with other countries to secure an international agreement prohibiting superintelligence. Why should Britain lead this effort? Because we already have. AI’s foundational theoretical groundwork was laid by Alan Turing at Cambridge, Bletchley Park and Manchester. Google DeepMind was founded in London. Most importantly, Britain hosted the first global AI safety summit at Bletchley Park, which brought the US and China to the table to shape the future of AI. Britain established the world’s first AI security institute, building crucial expertise within Government. With AI policy now at the Cabinet table, Britain has an opportunity—and, I would argue, a responsibility—to leverage its state capacity and lead the next stage of international AI governance, especially when we have the next presidency of the G20. The Bill recognises that responsibility. With this Bill, the UK becomes the first G7 country in which legislation has been introduced to address the national security and extinction risk from super-intelligent AI by prohibiting its development. It is a watershed moment that lays the foundation for the UK to champion and work with others on a lean international agreement—a “trust but verify” regime—that does not need to wait on the slow machinery of traditional institutions. Key choke points in the AI supply chain would provide Governments with the ability to monitor and control the development of superintelligent AI. The most advanced AI systems depend on state-of-the-art chips. Such features make the supply chain inherently controllable and an international agreement eminently enforceable—for example, through the programming of chips. What is missing is not the technical ability to implement such a treaty, but a coalition of countries ready to tackle this national and global security threat. Britain can lead the way. I am proud to champion this Bill, but we are not alone in this effort. In June this year the United States Government suspended access to Anthropic’s Mythos model on national security grounds. If the Trump Administration, who are perceived as historically against AI regulation, can contemplate drawing a line on models that are too powerful and dangerous, it would be strange for us not to ask what our response should be. That is especially true given our legacy of being a first mover on AI security, with Bletchley Park and the world’s first AI security institute. A growing worldwide coalition of the willing is calling for decisive action. We should kick-start this effort at home. The clock is ticking.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not want to anger Madam Deputy Speaker, with whom I have served not just here but in other democratic forums, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The number of Members who signed new clause 31 shows the amount of support there is for this in the House; it reflects how many Members support change. I understand that this issue is not in scope of the Bill, but I trust our Prime Minister, who has long been supportive on this issue.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I know the Minister has long supported changing the system of election to the House of Commons. The Prime Minister has also committed to it. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are actively considering changing the system from first past the post?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, the largest APPG in Parliament, I am delighted to welcome the Bill as a significant culture shift for our democracy and a generational step towards fairer politics. I also welcome the Minister to her place, as she is a trusted friend and ally on fair elections. The APPG’s loss is certainly the Government’s gain. It is fitting that the Representation of the People Bill is the first piece of legislation to come to the House under the Government’s new leadership. The Prime Minister’s long-standing commitment to free and fair elections, support for young people and commitment to cleaning up our politics is well known, and I look forward to this being the first of many steps that he will take to make our politics fit for the future and reflective of the United Kingdom in which we live today. The Labour party is the party of change: system change, culture change, democratic change. I am proud to be part of a party that has always fought to strengthen our democracy. We must now do that for a new generation, by facing up to the triple threat that disinformation, dark money and a failing electoral system pose to our politics. Westminster is unfortunately becoming dangerously outdated. A five-party electorate can no longer be represented by a two-party system. “Business as usual” and low voter turnout are changing everything. I am sad that my new clause 31 has been ruled out of scope today.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House notes the critical threat that Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) pose to press freedom, public interest research, and the right of citizens and campaigners to speak out on matters of public concern; recognises that SLAPPs predominately target individuals, including private citizens, utilising novel legal tactics, with the weaponisation of libel law and data protection claims and the aggressive use of injunctions, which often come hand in hand with other forms of harassment including smear campaigns and surveillance; further recognises that the anti-SLAPP provisions within the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 are ineffective due to their complexity and insufficient due to their narrow focus on economic crime; further notes the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) view that the ‘main way to address the problem of SLAPPs is through a robust legislative solution that gives the courts more powers’, and that SRA regulation will inevitably be severely limited absent a new law; highlights concerns over the suppression of public interest information and acts of public participation in the absence of a universally applicable anti-SLAPP law; and also recognises the urgent need for the Government to find a legislative vehicle for simple, comprehensive anti-SLAPP provisions that filter out abusive lawsuits swiftly and fairly. I rise to speak on this motion on the impact of strategic lawsuits against public participation, also known as SLAPPs. It is the custom to thank the Backbench Business Committee. This is our second attempt to have this debate. Last time, I agreed to pull it, so there could be a longer debate on settlement goods. However, I thank the Committee for giving us 90 minutes of protected time; otherwise, we would have had only 44 minutes for this debate. That is really why I am thanking it this evening. A SLAPP is litigation, or commonly the threat of litigation, designed primarily to silence criticism, rather than vindicate a legitimate legal right. The objective is often not to win in court, but to make speaking out so expensive, stressful and risky that journalists, campaigners, academics, whistleblowers and ordinary citizens decide that remaining silent is the safer option. On the surface, SLAPPs may appear to be a niche media law issue. However, as we will no doubt hear in examples from Members today, by suppressing information that is in the public interest, SLAPPs undermine our democracy, our public watchdogs and the integrity of our justice system. Back in June, during Justice questions, the then Secretary of State recognised the profound financial and psychological impact of SLAPPs, and the threat they represent to democracy and free speech. He also highlighted that SLAPPs extend beyond journalism and issues of free speech, and are used to silence sexual abuse survivors and tenants who have complained to landlords. That is one of five reasons why this debate is particularly important and timely. Many think SLAPPs are confined to journalists being threatened by Russian oligarchs. In fact, the threat is more diverse than ever. The expanding scope of this abuse across all types of public interest is deeply concerning. There has been a significant spike in cases reported to the UK Anti-SLAPP coalition over the last 18 months, a large proportion of which are from private citizens who have spoken out about concerns in their local area, or services they have received. No doubt, we all have constituents affected by SLAPPs. Secondly, the tactics are evolving. While defamation remains a common legal basis for use, SLAPPs are now being brought through claims such as harassment, data protection, privacy and trespass, demonstrating that any effective response must establish universal protections, irrespective of the cause of action. Thirdly, the UK appears to be an attractive jurisdiction for this kind of legal abuse. Our expensive litigation and claimant-friendly reputation have made London a popular destination, while the European Union has moved ahead with an anti-SLAPP directive and 22 EU countries have taken action to progress anti-SLAPP legislation at a national level. In the UK, broad protection is still absent, and we risk becoming an outlier. Fourthly, in recent months, the limit of the regulatory framework has been brought into sharp focus. The Solicitors Regulation Authority has faced challenges in progressing SLAPP complaints, particularly those that have reached the tribunal stage, and recent Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal judgments have failed to address the fundamental issue of SLAPPs as an abusive tactic. Despite over 70 cases being opened since 2022, only three have so far progressed to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Moreover, the Solicitors Regulation Authority has not publicly released any data regarding the state of its SLAPP-related investigations since 2024. While new legislation is urgently required, it must be accompanied by strong regulatory guidance and enforcement action. Finally, Parliament now has an opportunity to act. Before the summer recess, two new private Members’ Bills were introduced: one by the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale)—I am sure that we will hear more from him on that—and one in the other place by Baroness Stowell. The Bills aim to create broader anti-SLAPP protection. The issue before us is no longer whether the problem exists; it is whether we are prepared to legislate with the urgency the problem demands. Many of Britain’s biggest national scandals only came to light because determined journalists, courageous whistleblowers and persistent campaigners refused to be intimidated, but SLAPPs have often been present. SLAPPs delayed reporting on the Horizon Post Office scandal, maternity scandals in teaching hospitals—such as those in Oxford and in my constituency in Leeds—and the Grenfell tower tragedy. Think about the scandals we have never discovered because someone successfully silenced those asking the questions. That is why the issue is about far more than protecting journalists; it is about protecting the public’s right to know. I acknowledge that the previous Government recognised the problem. Following the Ministry of Justice’s 2022 consultation, reforms were introduced through the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, creating protections against SLAPPs connected to economic crime, including an early dismissal mechanism and greater protections on legal costs. Those were welcome reforms, but they are also flawed and limited; they only protect investigations into economic crime and depend on a complex and time-intensive process to determine the intentions or mindset of the claimant. Those limitations matter. Public interest speech is not confined to speech about corruption, fraud and money laundering. It also concerns patient safety, environmental harm, housing conditions, human rights abuses, sexual violence, animal welfare and failures of public administration, among other things. People should not lose protections simply because the wrongdoing they expose does not fit within a narrow statutory category. That is why I am calling on the Government to use the opportunity of the two private Members’ Bills to introduce universal anti-SLAPP legislation. I will keep my remarks short because we are short on time, and I want to ensure that all Members who have come to this debate get to speak. I take the opportunity to thank all those who have been working on this issue for the last five years, supporting the cases that we will hear about, including the Foreign Policy Centre, the Index on Censorship, Global Climate Legal Defence, the News Media Association, the Bureau of Investigative Journalists, Reporters Without Borders, Spotlight on Corruption, Transparency International, and all the members of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, as well as the Media Lawyers Association and the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, which supports this work. I also thank the targets of SLAPPs who have bravely spoken out about the legal threats they have faced. SLAPPs encourage silence to avoid increasing liability, but we only know about the scale of the issue because brave people across the country have spoken out. We are indebted to them.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation · Hansard source

  More

  I think that tonight’s debate has shone a light on the practice of SLAPPs, and that the whole House now understands the urgency with which we need to move forward, and we have two opportunities to do so through private Members’ Bills. All the contributions to the debate, but particularly the Minister’s winding-up speech, have made clear the determination throughout the House and across parties to ensure once and for all that those who speak up about these vital public interest issues can be heard, and are not crushed by those with the money and power to use our legal system to ensure that their voices are not heard, so that we can end this terrible practice for good. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House notes the critical threat that Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) pose to press freedom, public interest research, and the right of citizens and campaigners to speak out on matters of public concern; recognises that SLAPPs predominately target individuals, including private citizens, utilising novel legal tactics, with the weaponisation of libel law and data protection claims and the aggressive use of injunctions, which often come hand in hand with other forms of harassment including smear campaigns and surveillance; further recognises that the anti-SLAPP provisions within the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 are ineffective due to their complexity and insufficient due to their narrow focus on economic crime; further notes the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) view that the ‘main way to address the problem of SLAPPs is through a robust legislative solution that gives the courts more powers’, and that SRA regulation will inevitably be severely limited absent a new law; highlights concerns over the suppression of public interest information and acts of public participation in the absence of a universally applicable anti-SLAPP law; and also recognises the urgent need for the Government to find a legislative vehicle for simple, comprehensive anti-SLAPP provisions that filter out abusive lawsuits swiftly and fairly.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  I have long called in this House for the proscription of the IRGC. Last year, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I sit, undertook an inquiry into transnational repression, which found that Iran was one of the most flagrant perpetrators of transnational repression globally. The IRGC uses proxy criminal networks, surveillance and direct threats to silence journalists, opposition groups and the Iranian diaspora in this country. How will they be protected by the proscription?

• 13 Jul 2026 · State of Climate and Nature · Hansard source

  More

  The Government have produced a global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security report, and I support the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for the analysis to be released in full. The information already in the public domain warns about the exact cumulative heatwaves we are now experiencing. What work is being done to protect nature globally, particularly in relation to the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework? What adaptations are being made here at home, to protect people from this extreme heat?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with regard to my visit to Palestine with Yachad. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing the debate and for her exemplary argument, among the many given by colleagues. I have always supported a Palestinian state in the west bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. Israeli settlement land grabs and control of Palestinian territory are illegal under international law, and I consider them an occupation of Palestinian land. We do not recognise the Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine, and we do not recognise the Israeli-occupied territories of Palestine. We do not trade with the Russian occupied territories, and we must apply the same principle here: no trade with the Israeli occupied territories of Palestine. Violence and harassment by Israeli settlers has reached unprecedented levels. According to the UN, in 2025, more than 1,700 settler attacks causing casualties and property damage were recorded across more than 217 Palestinian communities in the west bank. I witnessed that myself in the south Hebron hills in 2024. The international trend is moving towards prohibiting settlement trade outright, rather than relying solely on differentiation, as the Government do. Spain has enacted legislation prohibiting settlement trade, and the Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium and Norway have advanced legislation or Government proposals. Bills have been introduced in the French and Italian Parliaments. I therefore support the call for a total ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements, in line with our European counterparts. I will use my remaining time to raise the need to free Marwan Barghouti. Marwan has been illegally held by Israel for 24 years, two months and 22 days. He has been unjustly imprisoned by Israel for over two decades, convicted in a trial by a court he did not recognise. The Inter-Parliamentary Union has declared multiple breaches in his case, starting with his illegal arrest and transfer to Israel. Despite his imprisonment, poll after poll shows that he is Palestine’s most popular leader. He is a powerful symbol of unity and a long-time advocate for freedom and dignity for the people of Palestine. In the words of Nelson Mandela in 2002, “What is happening to Barghouti is exactly the same as what happened to me.” We must free Marwan and end the occupation.