Alex Sobel MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Jun 2025 · Legislative Scrutiny: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 26 Jun 2025 · Legislative Scrutiny: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 26 Jun 2025 · BBC World Service Funding · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that this form of soft power, the BBC World Service—in particular, the Farsi and Russian services—is a much more cost-effective way to try to create democracy and democratic change in countries than military action is?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Just a week ago, we were here calling for de-escalation because there were so many civilian deaths, but in the past week we have seen an escalation and so many more civilian deaths in Israel, Gaza and Iran. We know that it is much easier to get into a conflict than to conclude it. If the justification for military action is now a nuclear weapons programme and being a threat to neighbours, how many other nations fit that category? Is North Korea not another example, but with an even more advanced nuclear weapons programme? Where are we in terms of justification and article 51 of the UN charter?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  In the words of the organisation Stonewall: “Pride Month 2025 is grounded in this year’s powerful theme, activism and social change. It’s a reminder of how far the LGBTQI+ community has come and how much work still needs to be done.” I would like to thank Stonewall, Trans+ Solidarity Alliance and Rainbow Migration for their vital work, which I have relied on in understanding the challenging issues facing the LGBT+ community. Rainbow Migration in particular supports LGBT+ people through the asylum and immigration system. Its work is pivotal to a number of constituents of mine who have fled their country and identify as LGBT+. They are seeking support in the UK, where they can feel like their true selves. Rainbow Migration has asked Home Office Ministers to remove blanket inadmissibility provisions for so-called “safe states” such as Albania, Georgia and India. For example, Noah, a gay Georgian and former service user of Rainbow Migration, had the following lived experience of a “safe state”. Noah fled homophobic persecution in Georgia. He was extremely fearful of being sent back there, saying that he would rather take his own life than go back and face persecution. He said: “No one can know that you are gay in Georgia. If people do, homophobic people will try to attack you. Either with words, or they’ll try to beat you.” Noah was physically attacked by family members. He was forced to stay in a hospital for people with mental health issues and had an exorcism performed on him at church. Thankfully, he was granted refugee status due to the risk of harm, but he is deeply concerned about Georgia’s designation as safe. He says: “Georgia cannot be considered a safe country. They don’t know what is going on in Georgia—how the LGBT people are living there. They cannot understand. The last time that Pride took place, the television operator was killed. Who will come and say Georgia is a safe country after that? If you’re gay, your two options are either hospital or exorcism.” How can we in this country describe Georgia as safe for LGBT people? In 1997, under the last Labour Government, the first positive recognition of same-sex relationships in UK law was introduced for migrants. The unmarried partners concession made it possible for same-sex couples to make an application for a partner of a British citizen to remain in the UK if they had lived together for four years. It paved the way for greater legislative equality for same-sex couples, and it was the first time same-sex relationships were recognised positively in British law. Being an ally is about reflecting on how to contribute to lasting social change and acting on that reflection, so I agree with Rainbow Migration in calling for an asylum and immigration system that treats LGBT people with dignity. Unfortunately, the UK’s current legal framework for dealing with inequality and discrimination is creaking under the weight of the culture wars. Legislation such as the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998, which were designed to protect the most marginal and vulnerable in society, have been weaponised by those who seek to promote exclusion and social division, with this year’s Supreme Court ruling and the subsequent guidance by the EHRC causing widespread fear among the trans community. At a time of rising discrimination, the UK should reassert its commitment to the value of equality, instead of creating a set of contested rights that dehumanise the most marginalised. It can do this in a powerful way by signing and ratifying protocol 12 to the European convention on human rights, which creates a general prohibition on discrimination. The UK is one of only nine countries in the Council of Europe not to have signed protocol 12. Everyone in the UK would benefit from access to the human right of the general prohibition on discrimination, including LGBTQI+ people.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Iran-Israel Conflict · Hansard source

  More

  As always, civilians are paying the heaviest price: there were 1,195 casualties on 7 October, with at least 74 hostages since; there have been 55,000 casualties in Gaza; this weekend, 24 Israelis were killed by Iran, and 224 Iranians were killed by Israel. We need to de-escalate this conflict, and quickly. Those 55,000 people in Gaza deserved a future. I understand that the conference to be co-chaired by Saudi Arabia and France on the two-state solution has now been delayed. What are we doing to get that back on track, and how will we progress that solution?

• 12 Jun 2025 · SEND Funding · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  On 23 May, I stood in exactly the same spot where I am standing now and asked the Foreign Secretary to sanction Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, so I thank the Government for their action today. The Palestinian people are now in existential crisis. Even this week, we saw the Israeli military board a British-flagged vessel in international waters and confiscate it. Mass starvation events in Gaza continue, and as the Minister has said, there is increasing settlement action on the west bank. I have been to the region and met senior members of the Palestinian Authority, and I am proud that the Prime Minister took the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority into Downing Street, and that we have a trade envoy to Palestine. The Palestinian Authority is a government under occupation, and has all the effects of government, so what is stopping us from recognising them as the legitimate government of a state? What is the Minister’s view of the Palestinian Authority?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Chinese Embassy Development · Hansard source

  More

  I understand that the Minister cannot comment on this case, or any individual case, but national security is of the utmost concern to everybody in this country and in this Chamber. When an application comes before the Secretary of State, and in granting applications from foreign Governments, will national security be a material concern for the Government?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. We have seen a huge loss in biodiversity in this country. As Lord Goldsmith, a Minister in the former Government, said in the other place, we are one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. Making small changes in planning law will increase biodiversity. The duties on Forestry England are simply too weak. Its only existing nature duty is the biodiversity duty, updated in the 2021 Act, but it is ineffective. It requires Forestry England only to consider biodiversity, not contribute to nature recovery. That is not good enough. It lacks clarity, enforceability and, crucially, any tie to our legally binding nature targets. As a result, economic interests too often take precedence. Forestry England continues in many cases to prioritise commercial forestry over restoring biodiverse habitats, including areas of ancient woodland. There are no legal climate duties on it, either. Its climate work, while good, is entirely at the whim of political feeling at any time. This imbalance is rooted in history. The Forestry Commission was set up in 1919 to promote timber production, and that economic priority still dominates. It is reinforced by the growth duty in the Deregulation Act 2015, which requires the Forestry Commission and Forestry England to have regard to economic growth. However, as the nature and climate crisis has worsened, the law has failed to catch up. The result is missed opportunities, poor outcomes, and actions that directly undermine Government policy, such as grant funding of invasive species and the approval of development on deep peat. Let us look at the facts. The target for restoring damaged ancient woodland is 5,000 hectares a year, yet under the last Government, in 2023-24, just six hectares were restored. That is indefensible. New clause 58 is a straightforward, cost-effective fix. It would rebalance the scales, and give Forestry England a proper legal duty to contribute to nature recovery and climate goals in a way that is in line with the Government’s targets. That means no more missed changes—just clear accountability, better outcomes and better value for public money. I urge the Minister to look at new clause 58 and consider giving Forestry England the clear mandate that it needs in order to deliver for people, nature and the climate.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to new clause 58 in my name. It would place a clear environmental and climate duty on Forestry England and its parent body, the Forestry Commission. That is a simple but crucial step that is long overdue. Forestry England manages over 198,000 hectares of land across England, and with that comes huge untapped potential. Estimates suggest that around 100,000 hectares of ancient woodland and open habitats such as lowland heath could be restored. Restoration at that scale could deliver a fifth of the Government’s legally binding target to create or restore 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat, as set out in the Environment Act 2021. That is a massive opportunity that we cannot afford to waste.

• 20 May 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that we are all absolutely horrified that the Israeli Government are creating a mass starvation event in Gaza. We are seeing the language of a Gaza plan that talks about the “concentration” of the Palestinian people in the south of Gaza, and even works against its own citizens. Nine Israeli citizens have been arrested—including civil society leader Alon-Lee Green, who I hosted in Parliament only last week—and have not yet been released. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this is a deliberate and systematic attempt to destroy the Palestinian people in Gaza? Is it not time that, instead of sanctioning those taking orders, we sanction those giving the orders in the Israeli Government?

• 19 May 2025 · Gender Self-identification · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 8 May 2025 · Cold and Damp Homes · Hansard source

  More

  This Sunday!

• 8 May 2025 · Cold and Damp Homes · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Western; your chairing this afternoon has been excellent, and I hope to serve under you in many more debates. I thank all Members who have taken part: the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi); the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon); the Opposition spokespeople, the hon. Members for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) and for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes); and most of all the Minister. I have contributed to a number of debates in which he has been exceedingly gracious and generous in what he has offered. It is very clear that he recognises the scope and scale of the issue that we face, and I am really pleased with the range of measures that he outlined. It is a league above where the previous Government were, but we need a driving focus on removing the barriers to providing warm and dry homes for those on the lowest incomes. That needs to be our main priority, because they are the ones who are still suffering the most. Many Members mentioned the fact that many older people who may be just above the pension credit threshold are struggling to pay their fuel bills. We are only in May, and there are many months until the winter, but I hope that the Government, in addition to introducing measures that will result in lower energy bills in the future, might look again at that issue for the group who are just slightly above the threshold. Perhaps the Government could look again at the taper or threshold for winter fuel payments. As the Minister said, the worst tenure overall for cold and damp homes is the private rented sector. We need to go further and faster on action to ensure that landlords provide warm and dry homes, because everyone deserves a decent home. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the matter of cold and damp homes.

• 8 May 2025 · Cold and Damp Homes · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of cold and damp homes. Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Western; this is the first time that I have served under your chairship. I rise to speak about a crisis that continues to affect millions of people across the UK and goes to the very heart of the inequality, inefficiency and injustice embedded in our housing and energy systems. I welcome the Government’s new warm homes plan, which includes the warm homes social housing fund and the warm homes local grant, through which social housing residents, lower-income householders and renters will receive funded energy efficiency upgrades, including insulation and low-carbon heating. However, there are a number of opportunities to truly protect all from living in cold or damp homes. As part of its United for Warm Homes campaign, Friends of the Earth published a joint report in 2024 with the Institute of Health Equity, “Left Out in the Cold”, which is one of the most comprehensive documents on the issue. It reveals that 9.6 million households in this country—nearly one in three homes—are at risk of living in cold, damp and energy inefficient homes. Many of them are in constituencies like mine. Leeds is home to a vibrant mix of residents: young professionals, students, families and retirees. It has a range of housing, much of it Victorian and Edwardian stock that is woefully under-insulated. In my constituency, Leeds Central and Headingley, 44.8% of constituents live in private rentals, compared with a national average of 19.4%. Citizens Advice found that one in three private renters could not heat their homes to a comfortable temperature over winter 2024, with millions living in damp and mouldy conditions. Last summer, 40% of renters—4.3 million people, including 1.16 million children —were living in a home with mould or damp. That is very concerning, given the impact that cold and mould can have on people’s physical and mental health, as well as the high energy bills that people face when they need to heat draughty homes. This crisis does not start and end in winter. Cold, damp and poorly ventilated homes cause year-round problems, from exacerbating asthma and bronchitis to increasing anxiety, depression and other mental health conditions. My office frequently receives damp and mould cases and works closely with the private rented sector team at the council to resolve them. All too often, constituents are told that the issue is their fault. They are typically blamed for drying laundry indoors or for not opening windows. The problems usually worsen over time and become much harder to fix. My constituent Angela reported damp last year, but the issue persisted into this year. By then, water was dripping from the living room and kitchen ceilings. She had been diagnosed with a lung infection, which the GP linked directly to the damp conditions in her home. She was eventually forced to live exclusively in her bedroom, which was the only room that was less affected. My constituency is home to the highest population of students in England and Wales. Student accommodation is often rife with damp. Large house shares are often the only economical option for full-time students. Student houses of seven or more struggle to balance keeping the house warm with ventilating it from drying laundry, cooking and bathing. I have heard from students in my constituency who are not even given autonomy over their heating, which their landlord controls remotely. Students are living with year-round cold symptoms that are due to the quality of their housing. As their tenancies run year to year, damp issues are often painted over, both physically and metaphorically, by landlords who know that a fresh cohort of tenants will be in within 12 months. Ongoing respiratory issues, possessions ruined by damp and cold, the feeling of insignificance and being disregarded by the landlord—these are not the standards that we should be setting for students’ quality of life in this country. Indoor air quality is a large part of the problem. Breathe Easy Homes, which is delivered by Care and Repair in partnership with Leeds city council and the integrated care board, works to address issues with indoor air quality that can trigger attacks in children with a diagnosis of asthma or other respiratory conditions. The team is working hard to ensure that all families have safe living conditions, but the battle with damp is relentless. It is not a new statement that cold and/or damp homes exacerbate existing health inequalities. However, too many people are forced to survive in day-to-day, all-consuming living conditions. Today’s debate is an opportunity to focus on how the warm homes plan can go further to ensure that all barriers are removed to securing warm homes for all. That includes the 9.6 million homes that are at risk of being cold, damp and energy-inefficient. The Government’s warm homes plan will be a vital step to delivering home upgrades for millions of people, to make their homes warmer and healthier, and reduce their bills. We also welcome the Government’s plans to extend Awaab’s law to the private rented sector through the Renters’ Rights Bill and to update minimum energy efficiency standards to energy performance certificate rating C in the private rented sector. A researcher at the University of Leeds, Rebecca Sale, is examining the impacts of poor indoor air quality. Her research shows how we spend up to 90% of our time indoors. Indoor air pollution can be hard to manage; the pollutants are invisible and are produced from everyday products and practices. The quality of the air is important for atmospheric services in the home, which includes the provision of suitable air for respiration, the regulation of heating and cooling, and the state of the air for comfortable living. Indoor air quality is much less recognised than outdoor air quality. Damp and mould may be particularly prevalent in UK households due to draughty and leaky buildings. That partly relates to the legacy of coal burning in homes, which necessitated high levels of ventilation. Rebecca’s research explains how it can be hard to achieve a balance between insulating homes to improve energy efficiency while also allowing ventilation to maintain good indoor air quality. New building standards and regulations have meant that buildings are highly insulated and airtight. Although that makes homes warmer in winter, in hotter periods there is an increased requirement for ventilation. Insulating a home or making it more airtight can increase the incidence of mould if moisture is not being ventilated out of the home. Older people, pregnant women, children and babies are especially vulnerable to the health impacts of indoor air pollution. A well-known and extremely important example is that of Awaab Ishak, the two-year-old boy from Rochdale who tragically died in 2020 as a result of respiratory arrest caused by the damp and mould in his family home. We know how important indoor air quality issues are, so I thank the Government again for extending Awaab’s law to the private rented sector, in which many children live. Many older people still struggle to heat their home during winter, particularly those who are just above the pension credit limit and so no longer receive the winter fuel payment; I have met many people in that situation on the doorstep. It is therefore clear that we need an all-round, holistic and comprehensive approach to overcoming the problem of cold and damp homes. Upgrading homes is one of the key ways in which the Government can put money back into people’s pockets while improving living standards. For the warm homes plan to be successful, it must ensure that upgrades are affordable for low-income households by providing grants tapered by household income and introducing Government-backed low interest rate loans for households that cannot afford to borrow money to carry out the work that is needed. We also need to overhaul the consumer protections landscape to ensure that people are confident in the process and can easily put things right if they go wrong. We are encouraged by the announcement from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero that it will address the current patchwork of protections that allow rogue traders to operate in this area. The Government need to provide access to free, independent and personalised advice throughout the home upgrade journey, including additional case-handling support for vulnerable households, which may need more support. Additionally, energy-inefficient homes are responsible for some 14% of the UK’s carbon emissions. Meeting our net zero targets will be impossible without tackling them. I urge the Minister and colleagues across the House to join me in calling for a fully funded nationwide warm homes plan; a legal commitment to bring all homes to EPC rating C by 2035; fair support for renters and the most vulnerable, particularly our youngest and our eldest; and recognition that this is not just a housing issue, but a public health issue, an economic issue and a moral issue.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to my new clause 14 and amendment 10. Furthermore, I would like to make note of my steadfast opposition to new clause 21, which does not simply change data collection. It proposes to mark and track individuals based on “sex at birth”, regardless of their lived reality, legal recognition or consent. No one—not a Government, not a public authority, not a politician—has the right to define who another person is; only the individual can do that. This is a fundamental principle of dignity and respect that transcends political views and legal debates. We must reject new clause 21. Moving on to my new clause 14, it is widely accepted that AI has already ingested everything on the internet, whether it be music, films or books, yet there is no legal requirement on these companies to disclose what they have used, making it difficult for musicians and authors to enforce their rights and, crucially, to be paid for their work. So I urge the Minister to give a commitment to legislating for transparency to protect the creative industries. I note the Government’s new clauses 16 and 17 as a starting point, but we both know that we want to see a thriving licensing market between content creators and AI developers. A transparency commitment today would enable that licensing market as creators would be in a position to enforce their rights and demand fair pay. There would be certainty for AI developers, removing the risk of mitigation in the future. Without transparency, there is no incentive for AI firms to reach agreements with creators, and billionaire-owned tech firms will continue to rip off musicians, filmmakers and authors.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My new clause 14 would do that, so I hope the Government are taking note. This debate is not just about economic rights. Last week I learned about the holocaust survivor Renee Salt, whose book “A Mother’s Promise” was ripped by AI, with similarly named books appearing online days after the original was released. There can be no starker contrast than Renee sharing her most traumatic experiences for the benefit of others, and a computer algorithm stealing from a Holocaust survivor to profit from her suffering. We must stand up for the human creativity that helps us to process the world we live in, or the world will become a much darker place. I tabled amendment 10, which relates to safe data transfer, in order to confront a glaring weakness in our current data protection regime through the continued transfer of UK user data to jurisdictions that cannot and do not provide basic legal protections or enforceable rights. The need for the amendment is not theoretical. Under current rules, companies often rely on a set of contracts—international data transfer agreements—as proof that data transfers will be adequately protected. However, that assumption is increasingly proving to be false. The Irish Data Protection Commission fined TikTok €530 million after an in-depth inquiry into its transfers of European Economic Area user data to China. The Irish authorities found that TikTok had failed to adequately assess whether Chinese law provided a level of protection “essentially equivalent” to that guaranteed under GDPR— the General Data Protection Regulation. The ruling was possible because there are no credible legal remedies in China. Laws such as the national intelligence law, the cyber-security law and the anti-terrorism law compel organisations to provide access to data without judicial oversight or meaningful recourse for individuals. China is unable to provide a level of protection “essentially equivalent” to that guaranteed in the Data Protection Act 2018 and in this Bill. Contracts alone do not protect users when the legal system of the receiving country is incompatible with fundamental rights. This amendment introduces a clear rule: where there is no meaningful enforcement of data rights, no independent judiciary, no administrative remedy or no legal path to challenge unlawful access, such countries will be deemed unsafe for UK data transfers. The Bill must address this critical blind spot. Contracts alone cannot ensure user rights in jurisdictions that offer no legal safeguards. This amendment provides a principled, legally sound and urgently needed response to a real-world threat. I hope that the Minister, given his background, will take these issues seriously and meet me to look further at how we can close this loophole.

• 6 May 2025 · Counter Terrorism Policing: Arrests · Hansard source

  More

  The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, is currently undertaking an inquiry on transnational repression. We have reams of evidence of Iran oppressing and taking action against people of Iranian heritage here in the UK. I heard what the Minister said about proscription, and I have asked many times for proscription of the IRGC, as it is certainly one of the bodies in Iran that is responsible for transnational repression. Will he outline what will happen after the publication of Jonathan Hall’s review? What will the timetable be? We are keen to see swift action in this area.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Global Deforestation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for securing this debate. It is a really important issue, which looms large over us. I want to talk about one specific project that could be absolutely devastating for the global climate and biodiversity. We always talk about the Amazon, but the world’s third largest rainforest is on the island of Papua, in Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. A huge shadow looms over Indonesia’s forests. We have seen recent media coverage in the British, Indonesian and international press about an initiative that has been described as the world’s largest deforestation project. That project, backed directly by the Indonesian Government, is targeting 3 million hectares of moist tropical forest, dry forest, mangrove and wetland for conversion to huge commercial rice and sugar cane plantations in the district of Merauke, West Papua. That is an area one and a half times the size of Wales—or, as there are so many Members, including myself, with strong Yorkshire connections, three Yorkshires. Similar projects in Borneo and Sumatra are threatening orangutans, tigers and other critically endangered species. Battalions of soldiers from the Indonesian military have been deployed to clear land and quell resistance from local and indigenous communities, many of whom strongly oppose the project but lack the rights and means to protest. West Papua, in particular, is a highly militarised territory, which is effectively under military occupation and rule. Community leaders who object face violence and intimidation in a landscape already marred by a conflict that is now 60 years old. The communities are also not even being recompensed properly for the land. There are reports that some communities are being forced to sell concessions within the state plantation for £5 an acre. The value of the timber alone should make the land worth many hundred times that. Indonesia has a long history of failed mega-projects. Similar mega-projects failed in the past because draining wetlands makes the soil more acidic and farming more difficult. Once cleared, vast stretches of forest are abandoned and burned, as we have previously seen in the Amazon. Indigenous people rely on natural forests for hunting and gathering, and burn waste wood for cooking, so the practice increases malnutrition and disease, and affects the whole lifestyle of indigenous people. From an environmental point of view, the project will destroy globally critical habitats, triggering irreversible ecosystem degradation on a vast scale. It is estimated that this one project in Papua will release an estimated 782.5 million tonnes of additional CO2, which is equivalent to a carbon loss valued at £2.1 billion. That means that the Merauke food and energy estate alone could more than double Indonesia’s emissions. Like the UK, Indonesia is signed up to the Paris agreement and COP, as well as to the CBD protocols. The astonishing impact of the project threatens to completely undo any progress Indonesia has made in reducing deforestation and undermine the UK Government’s efforts to help the country to drive down forest loss and meet its climate targets. Some 10,000 hectares of land have already been destroyed, but that is a minute amount compared with what we could see. Where does the UK come in? In November 2024, the UK and Indonesian Governments agreed to work together in on new strategic partnership, which they stated is designed to provide “a framework, grounded in the principles of mutual respect and cooperation, to deliver the full potential of our relationship”. The partnership will engage “our respective businesses, academia and research institutions, cultural organisations and wider societies.” In addition to having closer political, economic and societal ties, Indonesia is an important partner for the UK in advancing our shared global climate commitments, particularly with regard to the protection of forests. Through programmes such as the forestry, land use and governance programme, the UK is working with Indonesia to address deforestation and promote sustainable forest management to combat climate change. The work is critical and has contributed to a significant decrease in deforestation since 2020. I pay tribute to the former Minister Lord Goldsmith, with whom I have discussed this matter many times, including at COPs. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent West mentioned schedule 17 to the Environment Act 2021. When it is finally implemented, it should ensure that products that contain palm oil or cocoa that have been grown on recently deforested land such as Merauke—palm oil and cocoa could well end up being grown there, because the land is not at all suitable for rice growing—are not sold in the UK. That is the intent behind schedule 17, and its implementation is long overdue. My hon. Friend also made the point that responsibility for this matter sits across a number of Departments, but as we are in a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs debate, I will address my questions to the DEFRA Minister. Given the new partnership framework with Indonesia, and the UK’s status as a respectful but critical friend of Indonesia, do the Government intend to provide technical analysis, advice and support to help the Indonesian Government to find ways of meeting the country’s food and energy needs that do not require setting off such a climate time bomb as the Merauke project? Given the UK’s global forests agenda, its leadership role in the Glasgow declaration, and existing trade partnerships, does the Minister believe this is an opportunity for the UK Government to take diplomatic action regarding this colossal project, given not just its implications for deforestation but its devastating impact on indigenous communities?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Visit · Hansard source

  More

  I too welcome the MOU and the funding we will provide to the Palestinian Authority. When I went to Jerusalem last year with other Members, we talked to the NGO community—an absolutely vital community in both Israel and Palestine, working for democracy and human rights. On 5 May, the Knesset is planning to vote on another law that will clamp down on the activities of NGOs working to help build a two-state solution. The law will impose an 80% tax on donations from foreign state entities, including the United Kingdom, and ban access to courts for NGOs. What discussions has the Minister had with counterparts in Israel to ensure that our state funding can go to towards building that two-state solution with both Israeli and Palestinian NGOs?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Headingley Incident · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, I am very grateful to you for granting this urgent question after the harrowing attack in Headingley on Saturday. My community is still reeling in shock and disbelief at the horrific act of violence that occurred in our midst on Saturday afternoon. I begin by expressing my concern and sending my best wishes for the recovery of the two women who were harmed in the egregious attack this weekend. I also express my gratitude for the heroic efforts of the members of the public and of our local community who intervened. The details of how they helped are still emerging, but I already know that without them, we may have had a far worse tragedy. I also thank all the emergency services and Leeds city council for their swift response, and for ensuring that the situation was brought under control and isolated. The fact that this most heinous crime was committed against two women is not lost on anyone, and I thank West Yorkshire police for committing to increase its presence in the area and working to ensure the safety of women and girls. The response to this horrific attack is a testament to the Headingley community, Leeds, and the people of West Yorkshire. Our community is strong and we will show that we remain united. We will not allow this to divide us. The key suspect was carrying a range of lethal weapons when the attack was carried out, and the two victims were both shot by crossbows, a weapon that has been used in murders before. I know that the Home Office issued a call for evidence on strengthening controls on crossbows on public safety grounds, which ran from 14 February to 9 April last year. Will the Minister now publish a response on providing further controls on the use, ownership and supply of crossbows after Saturday’s horrifying attack? We need to see action taken on those lethal weapons. Police inquiries are ongoing, but we know that this is a critical incident and that the lead force is Counter Terrorism Policing. The fact that an individual was able to plan and carry out such a vile, hideous attack on two women requires us to ask questions about how our intelligence gathering operated prior to the attack. Can the Minister reassure me, my community and the House that there will be a thorough investigation into what intelligence gathering had been undertaken on the suspect, and whether lessons can be learned for the safety and security of the public? I pay tribute once more to the local community in the area that I am proud to call home, and thank them for their bravery and kindness, as I do to our excellent emergency services in West Yorkshire.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Headingley Incident · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the incident that occurred in Headingley on 26 April.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Ukraine Update · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary was quite right to say that the announcement by President Putin of a pause in fighting over the Easter weekend was a false promise. We have seen many false promises from Putin, and his aggression against not just Ukraine but the whole of Europe is really concerning. While we were on recess, he had to scramble RAF Typhoons to the Baltic to intercept an Ilyushin Il-20M spy aircraft. What more will he do to protect NATO air and maritime space from the aggression of Putin and Russia?

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK-US Trade and Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  I hope the Secretary of State agrees that protectionism is not the way to protect consumers and businesses. Our own history teaches us that: the Tory corn laws kept working people impoverished for generations in this country. I hope our approach will be that we should have free and fair trade with other countries and not see rising prices for British people, American people or people anywhere else in the world, and that we will do our best to ensure that people’s living standards rise by ensuring the fair and free flow of goods and services.