Iqbal Mohamed

I believe that every single Member in this House has a primary duty to their constituents—those who voted for them and those who did not. Every single resident in their constituency has a right to their Member representing them without fear or favour. I look forward to welcoming many more independent and independent-minded colleagues to this place in future. As for the Gracious Speech, it contains measures that I welcome. The Hillsborough law is long overdue—a statutory duty of candour and accountability will finally begin to address a culture of institutional defensiveness that has failed families for too long. There are also meaningful steps on economic security. The small business protections Bill will tackle late payments—a crisis that is costing the UK economy £11 billion annually and closing 38 businesses every day. That is a practical reform that will make a real difference. The Government are also right to prioritise cyber-resilience. Some 43% of UK businesses experienced a cyber-attack last year, with the UK facing major attacks every week on average. This is a real and growing threat, and action is both welcome and necessary. The Government are likewise correct to identify access to SEND provision as a key issue. Parents should not need to go through the lengthy, challenging and dispiriting process of obtaining an education, health and care plan before their children can receive the support they need. However, the Government’s proposals need to be matched with a more comprehensive plan to address the teacher recruitment and retention crisis, in order to ensure that classrooms receive the targeted interventions they need. There are clearly measures in the Gracious Speech that move us in the right direction—admittedly, they may be too little, too late in some instances, but they are welcomed none the less. I cannot, though, ignore the measures included in this speech that I vehemently oppose. Words do not put a roof over people’s heads or food on their tables. Words do not heat homes or make work pay, and they do not end the cost of living crisis that is affecting the majority of people in our country. The Government’s actions do not address the acute nature of that crisis for many people in our constituencies. The actions that the Government have taken need to be challenged. The continued curtailment of protest rights undermines the fundamental democratic principle of the right to dissent. If the Government continue down this path, they will stand on the wrong side of history, and the UK will be listed with other authoritarian regimes. The immigration and asylum Bill, while framed as “fair but firm”, runs the risk of introducing a system that is anything but—a system in which rights are conditional and subject to contribution, narrowly defined by income. Retrospectively doubling the standard qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain from five years to 10 would leave an indelible stain on this Government’s legacy. The expansion of digital ID, presented as a convenience, instead represents a wildly unpopular Orwellian shift in the relationship between citizen and state. It creates what Big Brother Watch rightly calls an “intrusive” system from “cradle to grave” that would be “ripe for mass surveillance and more government control over people’s lives.” These proposals risk trading away hard-won freedoms in the nebulous name of efficiency. That is a trade that this House must scrutinise and stop. Our principles must not stop at our borders. We cannot claim—as this Government so often do—to defend the rule of law and human rights while failing to uphold those principles abroad. The UK must end weapons exports to Israel and to any other state suspected of, or shown to be, violating international humanitarian law, or accused of genocide before international courts. Our commitment to justice must be consistent, otherwise it loses all credibility. Perhaps the greatest weakness of this King’s Speech is not what it contains, but what it leaves out. It contains no meaningful framework for AI safety, despite overwhelming evidence of the risks posed by this new technology, which is developing at an alarming rate. An Institute for Public Policy Research report has stated that up to 8 million jobs could be lost due to AI disruption in the next three to five years. AI-exposed firms are already cutting entry-level roles and reshaping the labour market. Even more worryingly, many AI experts, including Geoffrey Hinton and more than 300 others, consider the risk of existential catastrophe as a consequence of loss-of-control scenarios to be plausible at best and likely at worst without adequate regulations and global collaboration. Our blueprint should be the Montreal protocol. That framework helped to pause and reverse the damage to the ozone layer from the use of chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs. The world had decades to stop and reverse the harms from CFCs, but with AI, the disastrous consequences could be realised during this Parliament. The potential risk from unregulated AI could cause irreversible harm to humanity and our planet. It demands immediate and meaningful Government action to prevent these harms before it is too late. The public is rightfully clear that it wants sustained, forceful action. A 2025 survey by the Ada Lovelace Institute and the Alan Turing Institute found that 72% of the UK public reported that laws and regulations would increase their confidence in AI. However, in today’s Gracious Speech, there was no plan for governance, safety or accountability. Similarly, it offers no plan to hold social media companies to account. There is no meaningful framework for transparency, no clear standards for algorithmic responsibility, and no serious enforcement mechanism for those who flagrantly breach the rules. There is no ability to take action to ban addictive platforms or to compel safety by design. This King’s Speech is a programme of progress in parts, problems in principle and profound omissions. It contains measures that I welcome, proposals that I must oppose, and omissions that I and others cannot ignore. It falls short of the radical action that this country needs and has been crying out for. It lacks urgency on material issues that affect people’s daily lives. It avoids hard decisions to tackle vested interests. It fails to hold power and wealth to account. It also fails to clean up politics by banning dodgy donations and revolving doors. In conclusion, the people of Dewsbury and Batley did not send me here to be loyal to a party; they sent me here to be loyal to them and to stay true to them. In this Session, I will vote against inhumane, unjust and unfair policies wherever they appear; defend our public services and the funding they need to thrive; and give voice to my constituents of every faith or none and of every colour and creed who refuse to look away from injustice abroad. I will fight for Dewsbury sports centre, Batley baths, GP surgeries, local dentists and the buses, schools, charities and communities that hold our towns together.