Alex Sobel
MP for Leeds Central and Headingley · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 605 lines we hold for Alex Sobel, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 13.
“I thank the Defence Secretary for his comprehensive statement. As a trade envoy, I was with the UK Government’s mission to last week’s Ukraine recovery conference in Rome, where two of the top asks for civilian recovery were improved air defence and de-mining, so I was very pleased to hear those mentioned. His statement is about our support for Ukraine, but for the long-term security of our own country and the whole of Europe, what lessons are the Ministry of Defence and the UK defence industry learning from Ukraine’s innovation in defence?”
“Otherwise, we will carry on with the unsustainable practice of using virgin plastics, and the fossil fuel industry will continue to have an international influence on our UN processes.”
“While the vast majority of plastic waste exported from the UK is for reprocessing, which is managed in an environmentally sound manner, there have been instances in the past few years where illegitimate exports of low-grade plastics have been dumped or burned overseas. A robust and properly resourced regulator could be empowered to enforce the right standards and clamp down on illegal waste exports. We must end plastic dumping. The UK Government have already implemented strong steps to improve the quantity and quality of plastics sent for recycling. However, Governments need to address fossil fuels’ influence in politics, particularly in the international plastic treaty negotiations. That is the only way we can deliver a circular economy for plastics. There needs to be sustainable long-term demand for any recycled product created.”
“They could also set out clear policy interventions to stimulate end-market demand for recycled plastics, and create the conditions for major new investment in plastics sorting and reprocessing infrastructure, so that we end the plastics recycling capacity gap in the UK, create jobs in plastics reprocessing, ensure quality, and ensure that plastic is being recycled, not just dumped. That would be a Great British plastic initiative. The UK exports approximately 50% of its plastic packaging waste. We must set out proposals for clamping down on illegitimate exports of plastic waste being dumped overseas.”
“Our recycling and waste treatment industry is hugely supportive of the proposed treaty set out at the discussions, and supports a binding target to reduce global virgin plastic production. The Government need to support the policy measures necessary to make that workable in practice. If the Government develop a clear road map for implementing the policies required to deliver a domestic circular economy for plastics, they could set a binding, viable target for reducing virgin plastic production.”
“The UK has one of the highest per capita plastic waste levels in the world. Cheap single-use packaging is incentivised over unpackaged products, or investment into reuse and recycling and wider circular economy initiatives, which the Government are seeking to champion. On the EAC, we found that much exported waste was just being dumped, with no prospect of recycling. People diligently recycling at home in the UK would be rightly appalled if they saw what was happening to the plastic they put in their bins —green bins in Leeds—for recycling. To support our UK delegation and address this issue head-on, the UK should take a lead on the international stage in securing global, legally binding targets to cut plastic production.”
“We cannot allow private interests that are damaging to health to take precedence, and we cannot allow the mismanagement of plastics, plastic leakage into the environment and the associated colossal greenhouse gas emissions. Towards the end of my time on the Environmental Audit Committee, we undertook an inquiry on plastic waste. This was in 2021-22. In the three years since it was published, little has changed. Recycling plastic is difficult. Globally, only 9% of plastic has ever been recycled. Furthermore, the carbon emissions associated with plastics outstrip those from the entire global aviation and shipping industries. Approximately 50% of the plastic packaging waste generated in the UK is exported for recycling—or so we think. That is what we call the UK’s plastic recycling capacity gap.”
“I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Minister, with whom I served in the shadow Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team for three years, will respond to the debate; I look forward to that. With less than one month to go until the next round of the UN plastic treaty talks in Geneva, we must ensure that the international and domestic focus keeps us on track. We must also ensure that the UK delegation’s priorities are clear, so I thank everybody for taking part in today’s debate. Keeping on track is difficult when the number of fossil fuel lobbyists present at the talks rises in each and every round. Those lobbyists seek to derail the talks, and to prevent any limits to plastic production being agreed. We have seen this before with the tobacco industry.”
“What is happening in Sudan—in Darfur, in particular—is one of the world’s deepest and longest-running humanitarian crises. Unfortunately, we are seeing rising tensions and military action in neighbouring South Sudan, particularly in the Upper Nile region. The Ugandan army has recently entered South Sudan, and there is a real risk of regional conflict and civil war, which would create a much deeper humanitarian crisis across the whole region. What is the UK doing to de-escalate that potential conflict, such as talking to Uganda and South Sudan?”
“The Secretary of State has been a global leader in this space for 20 years. We all know about the Climate Change Act 2008, but without his singular intervention at COP15 in Copenhagen, the world would not have agreed and would be on a worse climate trajectory today—the whole House needs to hear that. We now need significant afforestation and the repair of the world’s ecosystems—be they peat bogs, permafrost or seagrass—so what plans does he have to lead in that space at COP30 in Belém?”
“My new clause 6 seeks to embed measures aimed at achieving the financial abuse, mismanagement and fraud objective. Unfortunately, we see financial abuse and grooming across the sports, music, media and cultural industries; football is not unique. However, this is a unique opportunity for the regulation of football that could lead as an example for other areas. I want to finish by saying that this is classist abuse of young and budding talent.”
“A regulated environment would provide strong co-ordination between the clubs, the premier league, the EFL, the PFA, the FA, the League Managers Association, and other associated organisations, ultimately benefiting all parties. Football must be more than financially sustainable; it must also be ethically sound. That means protecting the health, dignity, welfare and future of the players who give everything to the sport. I urge the Government to ensure that player welfare is not overlooked as this important legislation moves forward. My amendment 12 seeks to safeguard the current and former players involved in English football who have been victims of financial abuse, mismanagement or fraud, or who are at risk of becoming victims of financial abuse, mismanagement and fraud.”
“Some of the individuals involved remain active in football, and operate unchecked and outside meaningful oversight. Players, especially younger ones, continue to face avoidable risks, such as predatory financial advice and abuses, post-career mental health problems and financial crises, and in many cases the lifelong consequences of concussion. This is a rare and timely legislative moment. The Football Governance Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to embed protections for everyone in the game—not just clubs and investors, but players too. Including player welfare in the regulator’s scope would ensure that minimum standards, transparency and accountability are applied across football.”
“They have written, alongside me and other Members, to express our strong support for the introduction of an independent football regulator, and to urge that player welfare be included in the regulator’s remit. The current system is failing too many players. Issues affecting player welfare span financial exploitation and mental health problems to retirement transition and dementia. The support system is fragmented, opaque and often reactive at best. Despite the Professional Footballers’ Association mandate, too many players feel unsupported, unprotected or unheard. These are not just historic problems; they are happening now. This is not simply a matter of correcting the past. New forms of financial exploitation are appearing today, particularly through digital platforms and sophisticated forms of financial exploitation and grooming.”
“I believe this is an historic opportunity to reform football governance in England for the long-term good of clubs, supporters and players. However, to leave out the wellbeing, protection and long-term security of players—the very people who drive the game, whom we see week in and week out, in the stands and on television, and who are the beating heart of football—would be a fundamental mistake. I have written a letter to the Secretary of State, supported by over a dozen Members of Parliament and 319 current and former professional players, coaches and managers across the game, including many legends of the game. Many of those have been victims of financial grooming and fraud.”
“I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also associate myself with the tribute from my hon. Friend the Minister after the tragic death of Diogo Jota. My son is a Liverpool fan, and his generation of Liverpool fans regarded him as one of the finest players in the club, so it is very sad news for them. I rise to speak to my two amendments to the Bill: amendment 12 and the linked new clause 6. I also support new clause 13, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans). This is a great Bill that will improve football and the financial stability of clubs, but I want to raise the failings of the great game of football with regard to the financial wellbeing of players. These amendments seek to address ongoing financial grooming and disregard for player welfare in the football industry.”
“I absolutely do. As a Leeds United fan, I know that we definitely cross the spectrum from sport to culture—everybody has probably seen “The Damned United”. In a country such as Spain, football goes across the cultural spectrum, but the ownership of clubs is also with the fans and not with oligarchs—as the former Chelsea owner was—or others. There is a different cultural aspect to it in other European countries. As I was saying, this is classist abuse of young and budding talent that exploits their lives for the benefit of financially high-powered middlemen. Labour’s driving mission is to protect working people against exploitation. Let us include football players in our party’s founding mission and give them the protections they deserve.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“Everyone in the UK would benefit from access to the human right of the general prohibition on discrimination, including LGBTQI+ people.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”