Naz Shah MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Jul 2025 · Sport England: Tackling Racism · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the role of Sport England in tackling racism in sport. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am grateful to have been granted this debate, because this is an issue I have been dealing with for over seven years now. We know that racism exists within sports across the country, but what we do not talk about enough is when it impacts at a grassroots level—in local clubs that work and are situated in marginalised communities. This is not an issue exclusive to my constituency of Bradford West. Although I will make mention of wider racism in sport, my focus today is Onna Ju-Jitsu, a multi-award-winning martial arts club based in my constituency. For several years, I have had the privilege of supporting the club, which delivers self-defence and ju-jitsu training to children and adults from all backgrounds, ethnicities and faiths. Its membership includes students and individuals from disadvantaged communities, and I have witnessed at first hand the dedication and excellence this club brings, not just to the sport of ju-jitsu, but to our diverse communities. Impressively, the club has achieved a 50:50 male-to-female participation ratio and is led by a strong, accomplished female coaching team under Sensei Mumtaz Khan, a 7th degree black belt with over 32 years of experience. I would not want to get on the wrong side of Mumtaz. Almost seven years since I raised this issue directly with Sport England—it was on 29 November 2018, to be exact—I am raising this matter in Parliament because, despite Mumtaz’s best efforts to seek justice for her students who have been wronged, Sport England has failed. It has not only failed the club and those individuals; it has failed to uphold its own policies, and has engaged in what I can clearly see are—and I am clear in calling out as—textbook attempts to cover up that failure. The tragedy is that the very students who Mumtaz tried to seek justice for have now left British ju-jitsu without the justice they deserved. Any ambition they may have had for a future in sport ended the moment that accountability and justice were not provided by the very organisations that could have taken action. During a competition bout at the British Ju-Jitsu Association National Championships in Birmingham on 1 September 2018, a competitor from Onna Ju-Jitsu was injured by a kick to the face and head. The impact was significant; it was caught on video, and required attention from the event’s first aider and qualified paramedic. According to the accident report, the paramedic advised the competitor not to carry on the round due to the pain. The competitor accepted this reluctantly. That instruction was clearly conveyed on the accident report and verbally to the competitor and to Mumtaz. Despite this being directly attributed to an uncontrolled kick to the head—a move that would ordinarily receive a red card and disqualification—the bout was then awarded to the opponent. At the same championships, Ruqayyah Latif was moved up a weight category and missed out on a guaranteed gold or silver. Safa Zahid clearly won her match, but had her win go to another opponent. In fact, in one BJJ competition—not the championships—Safa Zahid was entered into a category to fight boys. She still managed to win a bronze, fighting boys with her two long plaits. Ismail Ghani fought someone whose dad refereed the final. He was told that he lost by one point to make him feel better, even though referees are not allowed to disclose scores. His brother, Eessa also suffered the same fate, losing his match by, again, apparently one single point. At the 2017 nationals, Eessa clearly won his final match. Even his competitor and the competitor’s father apologised to him, because they believed he had won. That match is all on video and recorded, by the way. Between them, those two brothers missed out on three gold medals. Another boy at the club was moved to a higher weight category and fought boys weighing up to 10 kg more than him, which was a serious safeguarding risk. The Minister responded yesterday in the main Chamber to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) regarding Alex Eastwood’s tragic death, and the same safety issues apply in this case. Going back to Onna Ju-Jitsu, when Halah, a young girl at the club, clearly won her match but was still handed a loss, that was when things erupted. This was not just one student fighting in one competition alone; the club competed for the first time at the British Ju-Jitsu Association national championships in 2014. During that competition, and subsequently at the championships of 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018, the club experienced numerous questionable decisions that denied its competitors gold medals and national championship status. We arrive here today as the result of literally years of systemic discrimination and bias faced by these competitors of ethnic minority backgrounds. Many of these students decided to leave the sport and never competed again, due to the blatant bias and discrimination that they faced. For that reason, Mumtaz lodged an official complaint with Martin Dickson, chairperson of the BJJA, regarding the award in one fight.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Sport England: Tackling Racism · Hansard source

  More

  I know how passionate my hon. Friend is about this issue in his constituency. I absolutely agree that we need such opportunities, because that is what it leads to. When we fail at the grassroots level due to institutional issues, we fail at success. There is growing concern that Sport England continues to fund and legitimise governing bodies that are consistently weak on equality, diversity and inclusion. What is being done to move beyond policy paperwork and enforce meaningful standards for inclusion, not just box ticking? It is time for Sport England to explain how it holds funded organisations accountable on issues of equality and diversity, because recognition without results undermines trust. What safeguards does Sport England have in place when repeated concerns about racism or exclusion are raised not just in jiu-jitsu but in other governing bodies? Has Sport England commissioned an independent review into ensuring transparency and accountability where patterns of exclusion emerge? We need to ensure that Sport England’s inclusion policies do not just exist on paper, but deliver a measurable change at every level of the sport. Although Sport England supports equality and diversity on paper, how is it measuring the real world impact across sport, particularly for marginalised communities? If we take the issue at the club I am talking about, it is clearly failing drastically. Grassroots and ethnically diverse-led organisations often feel under-looked. How will Sport England ensure that their voices shape future priorities? Ultimately it is taxpayers’ money that funds the institution. I am grateful to the Minister for taking time out and meeting me when I raised concerns with her Department. I would like the Government to act to ensure that Sport England immediately derecognises the BJJA. I want the Government to conduct a full independent investigation into the leading national governing body and ensure the establishment of a new body that can provide confidence in the sport. The Government should also arrange a full independent inquiry into Sport England’s handling of Mumtaz Khan’s complaint regarding the BJJA national governing body, and instruct Sport England to immediately release all the data held, unredacted, to Mumtaz Khan regarding her and her club from 29 November 2018 to date. I urge the Minister to take those matters seriously—no doubt she will. I also urge her to meet Mumtaz Khan and to hold Sport England and the BJJA to account. If we want British sport to reflect the values of fairness, respect and inclusion, we must ensure that those words are backed with real action.

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress. Hundreds of eating disorder experts, doctors, lawyers, charities, family members and people with lived experience urged Parliament to close this loophole and support amendment 38. As a Committee, we failed to heed their warning. We have now learned that the one remaining amendment that could protect people with eating disorders will not even be voted on. Our responsibility is to make the Bill safe. We know what happens when politicians think they know better than the experts. Let us make it clear: the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Pathologists, palliative care doctors, the British Geriatrics Society, almost every eating disorder charity and almost every disabled people’s group do not support this Bill. That is not because they do not believe in the principle; they are warning us about the dangers of this Bill, and of getting this wrong. Our job is not to be activists—to fight until our last breath for the principle, whatever shape or form it is delivered in. Of course we believe in causes—that is why each and every one of us is in Parliament—but we legislators must listen to the experts, heed the evidence, scrutinise and debate the ideas that are before us, and deliver for our constituents laws that are safe, workable and effective. We have a proud history; the likes of Florence Nightingale—the lady with the lamp—broke every barrier possible to heal the wounded, provide care for the vulnerable and reduce the chance of death. Those are the principles that our great NHS was founded on. We must ask ourselves whether those fundamental principles will still be intact if the Bill passes. Will they be there to protect those who face a postcode lottery in healthcare and palliative care, the most vulnerable, and those who have faced the greatest hardships in life and feel like a burden? Will those principles be there to protect those who feel like giving up, but whom we could help back up and push towards a better life? Instead, we will be giving them a way to give up, even if they could have survived. This is the question for all Members: what is the margin of error that we are willing to risk today when it comes to something as serious as death? I urge Members to vote against this Bill.

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think he might have read some of my speech, which I will carry on with. I will set out why the Bill is not safe, and speak about the two amendments that I tabled: amendment 14, which we have nodded through today, and amendment 38, which we will not get the chance to vote on. Amendment 14 dealt with the issue of voluntarily stopping eating and drinking, or VSED, which has been used as a “bridge” to assisted death in other jurisdictions. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley accepted that amendment, but let me be very clear: this does not close the anorexia loophole—that was the subject of another amendment. Voluntarily stopping eating and drinking is not what happens to people with anorexia. People with anorexia stop eating and drinking because they have a psychiatric illness. Those are two categorically different issues. I must make it absolutely clear that even though amendment 14 has passed today, it does not address concerns about anorexia or close that loophole. Members in the other place are already raising the concern that, because this is a private Member’s Bill, they do not believe that they can provide all the necessary safeguards if we give a Third Reading today to a Bill that is not safe to be delivered to the public. At least 60 women with anorexia in multiple countries have died by assisted death when they needed treatment, not help to die. Every one of them was assessed to have capacity by two doctors.

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), all the Members who served on the Committee and, indeed, the whole House for the approach that everyone has taken to this Bill. I want to make it clear that I came to this Bill with an open mind. Like many, I supported it in principle at first glance, but this debate is no longer about the principle of assisted death—that is not the decision before us today; it is not the issue on which we will walk through the Lobby when we decide to vote for or against this Bill. Our responsibility in this place is to make sure that the Bill is safe, workable and effective. That is the test that will lead us to vote for or against the Bill today. As the Bill stands, it presents a public safety issue.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report · Hansard source

  More

  First, may I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for her leadership and commitment to getting a grip on this issue? As a Member of Parliament for one of the largest constituencies of Muslim and Pakistani heritage people, I know the sheer anger and condemnation that the vast majority of them share, like all Britons who are against those who commit these vile actions and vile sexual abuse. That is backed up not only by recent polling by Opinium showing that a majority of Muslims are deeply concerned about grooming gangs, but by sermons in mosques, letters from leading figures, demonstrations on the streets and so much more that is often not given the media coverage it deserves. I am pleased to see that the National Crime Agency will be involved in the future inquiries. Let me reiterate in this House that British Muslims stand on the side of victims and support the full force of the law being used against all perpetrators of abuse. Does the Home Secretary agree that those who display selective outrage or fan the flames to blame entire communities do nothing to protect innocent victims or further the cause of victims?

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member; she is making a very powerful speech. Does she share my concern about the removal of the coroner, as stated clearly by the Royal College of Pathologists, which speaks to her amendment?

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does she share my concern that most of our discussions today were thrashed out in Committee, and now we are being told that we have to leave them to the Lords, because we cannot fix the issues here? That is a really flawed process.

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am quite perplexed by my hon. Friend’s speech, but I would like to understand whether he has data related to the demographics of those jurisdictions compared with the UK. If he does, could he present it to the House to support his argument?

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement, and I thank the Government for the sanctions that they have imposed. I appreciate that allies must work together and that it takes time to hold negotiations and put out joint statements—which are, I agree, more powerful—but I would find it helpful to be able to tell my constituents and the country what the Government’s position will be as they go into the negotiations in America next week. Will their offer be, “Yes, we should recognise Palestine immediately,” and if not, why not?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Non-stun Slaughter of Animals · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member clarify what he proposes? Eighty-eight per cent. of halal meat is pre-stunned. Is he just after pre-stunned meat? Is that the crux of his argument?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Non-stun Slaughter of Animals · Hansard source

  More

  Following on from my intervention on the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), I have looked at the issue of stunning. I have heard from a slaughterhouse that, particularly for lambs—chickens are slightly different—the same method is used, with the same level of electricity, for stunned meat and halal. Even with chickens, the difference is actually very slight. The same legislative practice applies to the majority of chickens that are stunned. Does the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) share my concern that we are focusing on a minute number here? Ultimately, it is very disheartening that people say they are absolutely mortified to see people are eating halal meat; they would be even more mortified if they knew the real issues.

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

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and the actions he has taken. I also welcome the Prime Minister’s joint statement yesterday. The word “genocide” is used quite often here, and all indicators point towards that happening. I appreciate the suspension of negotiations on a free trade agreement, but children are still dying every single day, and people are losing their homes. What will it take? What do we have to wait for to call it what it is and act to stop what is happening?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the problem with this Bill, this process and what we are being told. We are being given things on the face of the Bill—

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. My amendment 14 is very much about anorexia. It has been debated and hashed out time and again. I have come to the House today and been told, while sitting in my seat, that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley is minded to accept the amendment without any discussion. I do not know what risk assessments or other assessments the Government have made, so how can I speak to that amendment when I do not have those details? I can say that Chelsea Roff, an expert on anorexia, gave evidence to the Committee. I can talk about how clinicians from every single major charity for eating disorders have made it clear that if this Bill goes through, it will not be fit for purpose and people will fall through that loophole. Without the information in front of me, however, I cannot speak to the amendment.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress. I sincerely appreciate the guidance from you, Madam Deputy Speaker, from Mr Speaker and from all across this House—the Clerks have been really helpful. I come back to the amendments. In Oregon, in the States, 60 women were given assisted death. Every single one of them—100%—were told that they had the capacity. We have an issue in this country. Some 11 cases have gone to the Court of Protection, and my understanding is that nine of them have been told that they do not have the capacity, but doctors have been given permission not to continue to feed them. That is an issue for us; there is an issue of capacity. There is a second issue in relation to amendment 38, which I will speak to. Even if my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley accepts my first amendment in its entirety, word for word, we do not close the loophole with amendment 38. What if we have somebody with diabetes? The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) spoke very passionately about diabetes. I know the experience, because I was gestationally diabetic on three occasions and dependent on insulin, and I also appreciate the risk of being a pre-diabetic. If somebody decides not to take insulin and that they do not want to have dialysis, they would bring themselves within the scope of this Bill as it is written. That is a fact. Contrary to the many people who have been on the radio and in other places saying, “The Bill excludes people’s mental health”, this Bill does not, as it is written, say that mental health is excluded. [Hon. Members: “It does!”] It does not.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will my right hon. Friend give way?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Sorry, I will make some progress.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank Members for supporting amendments 14 and 38 in my name. I acknowledge that the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), has said that she is happy, as of this morning, to accept my amendment 14. My hon. Friend has also indicated that there might be a need to change some of the wording, but until I see the wording of the new amendment and can scrutinise it, I cannot make an informed choice about accepting that. In addition, I was told this at only 9.30 am, on the Floor of the House. It was not discussed with me, and I am not sure whether the promoter has discussed it with Ministers. This very argument has been hashed out in Committee, where many of us spent weeks and weeks scrutinising line by line. Indeed, the promoter tabled her own amendment 181 in Committee to strengthen clause 2. At that point, Ministers, outlining their neutrality, said that the amendments tabled, for which many colleagues had argued, were not, in the Government’s opinion, workable. In the Government’s opinion, what has now changed? Has an assessment been made by my hon. Friend or the Government that these amendments could now be accepted? What this speaks to—I emphasise this to all Members listening and to the public at home—is a fundamentally flawed process. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] This is not how we make legislation. I take my responsibility extremely seriously, as I am sure everybody in this House does. This is literally a matter of life and death. If the Bill passes without these safeguards, there is no coming back from those decisions.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that there will only be three hours for a panel, and that the first and second doctors might not actually know the patient or have met them? Their ability to spot coercion will be very limited.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will make progress. I am very conscious that lots of colleagues are here. I remember that we were all sitting here in November the first time that we debated this Bill; more than 100 Members did not get to speak in that debate, and many people might not get to speak today. I feel really disheartened. As other Members who were on the Committee have pointed out, we have spent so much time rehashing these arguments. There were opportunities to fix this Bill rather than me and others having to put down amendments, taking up time and not giving those who would otherwise have spoken the opportunity to speak.

• 14 May 2025 · Gaza: UK Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  Seventy-seven years since the Nakba, Israel’s illegal occupation eats away at the land. We now have—I will repeat these words loud and clear—“plausible genocide” according to the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, Amnesty International and the United Nations. Given this week’s news, what new assessments have been made, and how often, to determine what other actions we can take to stop what is happening to the Gazans—the children, the civilians, and the aid workers—and to make sure that we can get aid in? What other pressures and levers can the Government use, including as part of a bloc, together with international partners and others, in addition to recognising Palestine? Surely that recognition is long overdue.

• 7 May 2025 · India-Pakistan: Escalation · Hansard source

  More

  Twenty six people lost their lives in the Pahalgam terrorist attack, and now 26 people lost their lives in yesterday’s attack. The truth remains that no evidence has been presented to anybody—any national or international partners—to say that Pakistan was, indeed, responsible for the attack on Pahalgam. I thank the Minister for coming so soon to the House and for all his efforts in trying to de-escalate. But to actually get de-escalation, and if India is so certain, does he agree that India should share that evidence with the world to justify this barbaric attack killing 26 people and attacking mosques in the middle of the night?