Shockat Adam MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 24 Jun 2025 · War Memorials · Hansard source

  More

  It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for securing the debate. Like everybody else, I will speak about the importance of war memorials, not just as statues but as living symbols of remembrance that link our past to our present and help us shape the future that we want to build together in this country. Each war memorial—a cenotaph, a plaque or something practical such as a hospital wing or a bus shelter—is unique. These monuments build cohesion and serve as a method of remembrance for local communities. Sometimes the names etched on memorials are the only place where those individuals are remembered, so it is vital that we preserve them. Through them, we honour the sacrifices and courage and—a vital point in this divided and polarised world—our shared history.

• 24 Jun 2025 · War Memorials · Hansard source

  More

  I agree: that local link with the community connects the past and the future. As we remember, we must also reflect. It is painful to acknowledge that the stories that we tell through our war memorials have been incomplete for far too long. Animals that were sacrificed in the war efforts were rightly honoured with a national memorial in Hyde park in 2004, yet black and Asian soldiers who fought, bled and died for Britain have only recently begun to receive dedicated recognition. That is a shame that we as a nation must not shy away from. More than 1.3 million soldiers from British India, including 400,000 Muslims and 100,000 Sikhs, served with dignity and honour in world war one. More than 53,000 lost their lives, and at least 2.5 million Muslim soldiers and labourers from across the globe supported the allied war effort. In fact, more than 9,000 soldiers from Palestine fought for Britain in world war two, and yet their stories remain largely erased from our national consciousness. As recently as 2021, a report from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission concluded that hundreds of thousands of predominantly black and Asian service personnel were not formally commemorated like their white comrades—a legacy underpinned by systemic racism at the time. Who we remember and how we remember them matters, especially in these times of amplified fault lines. War memorials are not just stones and bronzes, but teaching tools. They are historical touchstones that allow young people to understand the past and the diverse sacrifices that were made in building this country and defending its freedoms. Excluding the contribution of black and Asian soldiers distorts our understanding of our shared history. I am proud that in my city of Leicester, we now have a statue commemorating Sikh soldiers. It was unveiled in 2022, making it a long-overdue tribute to a community that made up more than 20% of the British Indian Army during world war one. I also welcome the plans to erect a national Muslim war memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum. That monument will finally give permanent recognition to the service and sacrifices of Muslim soldiers who fought for this country. There is still much more to do. War memorials must do more than help us remember. They must tell the truth fully and fairly, and help us understand that British history was not built by one group alone but by people from every corner of the world. Memorials are and must always be more than stone and metal; they are symbols of our history and, when reflected accurately, our unity.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier this month, the US President ordered the brutal Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Los Angeles, and called those protesting against these raids “paid insurrectionists” and “criminal invaders”. A few days later, a gunman assassinated Democratic politician Melissa Hortman. In recent months, figures associated with the US President have spread disinformation and polarising rhetoric via social media, even targeting a Government Minister. I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that this level of political violence—

• 23 Jun 2025 · Severely Disabled People: East Worthing and Shoreham · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on eye health and visual impairment. A recent freedom of information request by the Royal National Institute of Blind People found that thousands of recipients whose primary health condition is listed as eye disease are set to lose out from the reforms to PIP, with referrals to the RNIB’s counselling services more than doubling since the Secretary of State announced the reforms. There are over 3,500 people in Leicester with sight impairment. What is her Department doing to help those constituents, given these harmful changes to PIP?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  The most in-depth study ever conducted of the casualties of the so-called war on terror was carried out by Brown University in America, which found that, directly or indirectly, more than 4.5 million people lost their lives partly because of what was voted for in this House. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the only way in which this conflict can be resolved is through diplomacy, and can he assure the House that he will not follow the last Labour Government and the mantra of the former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair when it comes to America’s bombing a middle eastern country—“with you, whatever” —and lead this country and the world into the abyss?

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

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point. Can he foresee a circumstance in which a child with anorexia turns 18, decides to get assisted dying, and the first time the family hear about it is after they have died?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Last month, I met more than 20 business owners in the hospitality trade in Leicester city centre. They tell me that, due to the rise in national insurance and hikes in business costs, they are on their knees. That is compounded by antisocial behaviour, rising crime and a lack of parking. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the future of our city centres?

• 18 Jun 2025 · HS2 Reset · Hansard source

  More

  With a decade of delay, costs spiralling to eye-watering sums of anywhere between £60 billion and £100 billion and now credible allegations of fraud in the supply chain, will the Secretary of State say what steps the Government will take to recover hard-working taxpayers’ money from fraudsters, hold those responsible to account and announce a final stop to wasting money?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to speak briefly to the issue of live facial recognition and new clauses 21 and 22 in my name. New clause 21 calls for a ban on live facial recognition because it is not safe, lacks legal legitimacy and is an attack on the fundamental democratic rights of the British people. It is the choice of authoritarian states and dictators and should have no place in British policing, which I remind the Minister is still by consent. The technology is not safe. It was described by the Court of Appeal as “novel and controversial”. Academics have shown that the technology makes mistakes in the recognition of darker-skinned women in 21% to 35% of cases, yet 99% of light-skinned men were identified correctly. Caucasian females are also not safe—just ask Danielle Horan, who was escorted out of not one but two Home Bargains stores due to an apparent facial recognition mix-up. It is no wonder that the Court of Appeal, in striking down the south Wales experiment, ruled it a breach of public sector equalities duties in failing to recognise possible bias in the algorithms. Facial recognition lacks legal legitimacy by operating under vague common law powers, unlike DNA or fingerprints. It is also an attack on hard-won democratic rights, undermining the principle that people should not be forced to identify themselves to police without suspicion. It has been used to monitor protesters, thus deterring lawful participation and threatening free assembly, which are some of our most important and enshrined civil liberties. Just ask the protesters picked up in Russia’s underground train stations or protesters and Uyghurs in China. The Government must think again. New clause 22 calls for broader safeguards on automated decision making to ensure that law enforcement does not solely rely on AI algorithms and that there is always human review of its use. The new clause also calls for transparency, for the rights of people both to know what information is held about them and to contest decisions made by any AI, and to stop abuse by putting in the necessary checks. Those checks must meet high global standards, recommended by human rights organisations, and the best practice standards of our neighbours in the EU. Without human safeguards, the Government are ushering in a “Minority Report” world—a potential dystopia where the computer simply says no and there is nothing we as individuals can do about it. Unamended, the Bill is dangerous and intrusive and breaks the fundamental contract between the British people and the police, along with the fundamental right to be considered innocent until proven otherwise. For those who think that that will never happen here, please take a look across the Atlantic. It certainly can happen here. It is time for the Government to admit that they have got this wrong. It is a sign of a strong, not a weak, Government if they listen to the evidence and change course as a result. Live facial recognition is not the answer and will cause more problems than it claims to solve. It needs to go.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Can I ask the hon. Gentleman what he would like me to tell the family of Mohammed Saleem, the 80-year-old grandfather who was stabbed simply for being a Muslim?

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

  More

  Last week, this House was united in supporting the long-overdue recognition of a Palestinian state, and we urged the Minister to advocate for that at the United Nations conference in Saudi. That has now gone up in smoke. We believed that the US-Iran nuclear peace negotiations were coming close to fruition, so does the Minister share my concern that Netanyahu’s Government may be seeking to create further instability in the region, to block progression for peace and the recognition of the Palestinian state, and to distract from the genocide in Gaza?

• 16 Jun 2025 · Air India Plane Crash · Hansard source

  More

  When news of the tragedy came last week, it served as a real unifier in my great city of Leicester—it unified us in shock, absolute disbelief and mourning. I take this opportunity to remember the names of those who lost their life who were associated with my great city: Hardik Avaiya, Vibhooti Patel, Pooja Patel, Harshit Patel, Ajay Kumar Ramesh and Faizan Rafik. We also had the one sole survivor, Vishwash Kumar Ramesh. When I visited the families, it was great to see so much support from their neighbours, of all faiths and no faith. Indeed, during our darkest time we saw the best of my city. A couple of families mentioned some difficulty in accessing information. Will the Minister look urgently at communications with the families, so that they can get support at this very difficult time? My message to them, as I am sure the whole House will agree is this: you are not alone.

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

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that no matter how many new clauses we introduce, we cannot militate against people being vulnerable, particularly financially? According to the charity Mind, 2.7 million people in this country have considered suicide because of financial hardship. How could we militate against that?

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

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  As a person of Gujarati heritage and an MP who represents a large number of Gujarati constituents, I, too, would like to express my shock, horror and sympathies over the devastating news coming out of India. Like the rest of the House, I pray and hope beyond hope for some good news. Recently, I have spoken to many nurseries in my constituency who have served close-knit, hard-working communities for generations, including Shanklin day nursery, Nursery Rhymes and Saffron pre-school. They all tell me that they are struggling and one is to close imminently, due to a combination of rent increases from the council, increases in employer’s national insurance, the low rate provided by the Government for free childcare places and their no longer being able to charge for additional services. Will the Leader of the House kindly commit to scheduling a debate on how we can improve funding for our vital nurseries?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Long-term Medical Conditions · Hansard source

  More

  It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for his learned and absolutely excellent speech. I will focus on my profession as an NHS optometrist and discuss the impact of sight loss from long-term conditions. Let us imagine a young mother-to-be sitting in my consulting room glowing with excitement, whose joy turns to fear as I gently explain to her that her sight is deteriorating—all of a sudden it becomes a race against time; she may never be able to see her baby clearly. Or let us imagine the teenage boy with dreams of a rugby career who leaves my room with the life-changing knowledge that he is losing his vision. Unfortunately, those are not extraordinary cases; they are everyday tragedies in my workplace. These long-term conditions are often framed in terms of physical health, but as someone working with patients losing their sight, I see—as the hon. Member already eloquently articulated—the more profound, layered consequences everyday: the emotional trauma, isolation and loss of independence, and the inevitability of declining mental health, which I want to concentrate on. For example, macular degeneration is the leading cause of blindness in the UK. It does not just take away people’s central vision; it also affects their ability to read, recognise faces and drive. That means grandparents may never be able to see the faces of their grandchildren; tears are a natural result of such a devastating awareness. There is also a condition called glaucoma—generally diagnosed later in life—known as a thief of sight, because it creeps up on someone silently, often unnoticed, until irreversible damage has been done. It steals more than vision; it robs people of confidence, safety and the ability to live independently. For many, the diagnosis comes too late, and with it comes a slow loss of identity. Sight loss is not just a health issue but a social one, and its impact is profound. More than 4 million people in England with a long-term physical health condition also live with mental health problems. Those individuals experience significantly poorer outcomes and shorter life expectancies, and economically the toll is massive: between £8 billion and £13 billion a year, or at least £1 in every £8 spent on long-term conditions, is linked directly to poor mental health and wellbeing. One extremely overlooked condition—I suspect many people have not heard of it—is a consequence of vision loss called Charles Bonnet syndrome, which causes people to see vivid hallucinations as the brain attempts to fill in the gaps left by the reduced sight. The images can be repetitive patterns, but more often and distressingly they can be realistic visions of people, sometimes long deceased, or landscapes. Let us imagine that a person who is elderly, fragile and possibly alone is diagnosed with sight loss, and all they can see is their long-lost childhood pet—it is beyond frightening. It is not a mental disorder, yet many patients suffer in silence, afraid to talk about the hallucinations for fear of being misunderstood and misdiagnosed. Research suggests that at least one in five adults with sight loss will experience Charles Bonnet syndrome—more than 1 million people in the UK—but the figure is probably even higher. Children are affected too, but we are only beginning to understand their experiences. People living with long-term conditions such as macular degeneration, glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy face a constant battle not just with their illness, but with a system that is not designed to meet the complex, long-term nature of their needs. We need a change in the Government’s upcoming 10-year healthcare plan, and I have some suggestions for that. We should recognise sight loss and associated conditions such as Charles Bonnet syndrome as part of the national long-term conditions framework. We need routine mental health screening and support for people with chronic vision impairment—in fact, for all long-term conditions. We need training for all healthcare professionals, as the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said, in integrated work, so that optometrists, GPs and nurses identify patients and support them with the psychological impact of the illness. NHS funding models and care pathways should be redesigned to reward integrated care and cross-speciality collaboration, especially where physical and mental health intersect. We need investment in early detection and care pathways. Long-term conditions shorten lives not only through the body but through the burden they place on the mind. If we do not act, we will be complicit in that erosion. But if we do act—if we integrate care, listen to patients, fund innovations and remove stigma—we can change what it means to live with long-term conditions in this country. Let us ensure that people living with long-term health conditions, whether heart failure, arthritis, diabetes or sight loss, are not left to fall through the cracks. Sight is not a luxury, independence is not optional and suffering in silence must never be acceptable.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Outdoor Education · Hansard source

  More

  Will there be consideration for children with sensitivity issues and special educational needs in that programme?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Outdoor Education · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that, as one in eight children living in urban areas does not have a garden, we should encourage some sort of exchange programme between rural and urban schools so that they can also enjoy the outdoors and benefit from it?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Outdoor Education · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

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

  More

  Ben-Gvir is so extreme that the Israeli Government themselves banned him from joining the army, and that was three decades ago. So if the Minister will please excuse me, I am not going to extend a warm welcome to this announcement. The fact is that this is a matter of trust. The Government tell us they are going to cease arms sales to Israel, yet F-35 fighter jet parts get to Israel, massacring young children. The Government tell us they are appalled by the actions of the Israeli Government, yet Government Ministers find themselves partying with the Israeli ambassador and Holocaust trivialisers. The Government tell us that they are ceasing trade deals with Israel, yet the very next week a trade envoy is sent to Israel to drum up business. Who are the Government trying to fool?

• 10 Jun 2025 · USAID Funding Pause · Hansard source

  More

  It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew)—who cut his teeth in the continent and the country in which I was born, Malawi—for securing this important debate. We are seeing the dismantling of the world order that we created. I sincerely believe that we stand at a crossroads of not just policy, but principle. The United Kingdom has long prided itself on punching above its weight, not just militarily, but with moral leadership. Having said that, to address the point made by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor), it was Tony Blair—the “hard left”—who said that Putin should have a seat at the table and gave him a pair of silver 10 Downing Street cufflinks. With our moral leadership, through decades of smart and targeted overseas aid, we have saved lives and shaped the world in our image—an image that is just, resilient and humane. The decision that we have made to cut overseas aid by £6 billion is lowering our commitment, such that overseas aid will be at its lowest level in 25 years. That not only betrays the world’s most vulnerable people; it betrays us. It betrays who we are and what we stand for. Let us be clear: aid is not just about generosity. We all know that. It is also about foresight. I am an optometrist, and this decision is extremely myopic. Aid is about security for us in the long term. It is about stability and recognising that the surest way to keep disease, conflict and extremism from reaching our shores is to invest in preventing them, rather than reacting in panic when they emerge. In my opinion, cutting aid while increasing defence spending is putting the cart before the horse. How can we talk about protecting our nation while we tear down the very programmes that prevent wars, contain pandemics—have we already forgotten covid?—and stabilise fragile regions? These aid cuts are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; they are unprotected lives, including children who are unprotected because they are unvaccinated, whose futures will be erased. For example, over the past four years our support for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance has helped to immunise 1 billion children. Now that we are reducing the funds for aid, we risk reversing decades of progress. Measles, polio, typhoid—these are not diseases of the past. They are clawing their way back and our retreat invites them in. We have seen what our aid can do. In just two years, the Reach Initiative helped to boost immunisation rates in conflict zones from 16% to 96%, reaching more than 9 million children. Are we now to abandon those children in the name of “sharpening focus”? The UK’s aid has helped to provide antiretroviral therapy to 23 million people, distributed 133 million malaria nets and, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald), educated more than 1 million girls in the world’s hardest places. Are we about to cut this system to meet a political target or to mimic a short-sighted policy from across the Atlantic? Aid fosters growth over time. Since 1960, the International Development Association has helped 36 countries through loans and grants; 19 of them have seen economic development to such a degree that they are now giving money to the IDA rather than receiving it. Let us not kid ourselves. This aid cut is not about leadership; to me, it looks like retreat. While following the USA in gutting aid programmes might seem politically expedient, it is morally bankrupt and strategically reckless. This policy will stoke the very fires that we seek to extinguish—displacement, disease and extremism—and send their embers across the globe. And what of our standing on the world stage? Are we prepared to go from aid superpower to spectator, and to shrug while global poverty, education and health collapse under the weight of our absence? While we pull back, authoritarian regimes are—as we speak—filling the void with their influence, their ideologies and their terms. I believe that we should increase our investment in global health security, not scale it back. Our aid was not charity, in a world still reeling from covid and now facing new disease outbreaks; it was, in fact, an insurance policy against global collapse. Now is not a time for retreat; it is a time for us to lead, with compassion, clarity and courage. We must not allow short-term politics to cause long-term catastrophe. We must restore our commitment to giving 0.7% of GNI, reassert our leadership in education in particular, global health and crisis response, and protect not just lives overseas, but the future of our nation and the values that we claim to defend. We are not just donors; we are architects of a safer and more stable world. Let us not dismantle what we have built.

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

  More

  It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. Let me take this opportunity to thank Mr Osborne for bringing this petition to the House, allowing us to debate it in the respectful manner that it has been. I also thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for the compassionate manner in which he set out the petition. I hope to follow suit. As has been articulated, we are a nation of animal lovers. In the words of Immanuel Kant: “We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” But to truly protect animals, we must look at their entire lives, not just their final moments. Many animals endure terrible suffering in the food system from the farm to the fork: chickens in battery cages, pigs exposed to CO 2 and cattle transported for hours in cramped conditions. Yet debates such as this often focus narrowly on the method of death, and occasionally even more narrowly on religious slaughter. Let us look at the facts. Scientific studies, including those from the European Food Safety Authority and Massey University in New Zealand, suggest that methods such as kosher and non-stun halal slaughter may cause more pain than pre-stunning. But even scientists concede that pain can only be inferred, not definitively measured, through behaviour and EEG data. Meanwhile, pre-stunning methods are far from perfect—everyone would agree with that. As has been mentioned, in the commonly used penetrative captive bolt method, a 7 cm to 11 cm bolt is fired into the animal’s brain. Yet the EFSA found that 4% of cattle are not rendered unconscious after the first attempt of that bolt of electricity. The non-penetrative method, where the bolt strikes but does not penetrate the skull, has a failure rate of up to 30% of animals, causing skull fractures and distress. Electrical stunning, often used in poultry, involves passing a high voltage current through the brain, but if done incorrectly, the animal remains fully conscious. Let us be honest: no method is entirely pain-free. The idea that one is humane and the other is completely barbaric does not hold up to scrutiny. While we are on the subject of fairness, we must talk about human rights, as has been mentioned by hon. Members. Article 9 of the Human Rights Act 1998 protects freedom of thought, freedom of belief and freedom of religion, including the right to eat in accordance with those beliefs. UK laws reflect that. Religious slaughter is legal as long as it is regulated by licensed slaughterhouses and under the oversight of the Food Standards Agency. Furthermore, as has been mentioned, 88% of halal meat in the UK is already pre-stunned. In fact, just 2.5% of the 1 billion animals that are slaughtered annually are processed using non-stun halal methods. I may not be able to speak about the Jewish communities, but I am of the firm conviction that many Muslim communities support clear, accurate labelling. Those who do not wish to eat religiously slaughtered meat have the freedom to choose. This is not about hiding anything but about respect and choice for all. Why does this issue keep returning to the political spotlight? Frankly, we must ask if it is being used as a dog whistle—I exclude the people who may have brought this petition today—by stirring suspicion and division under the guise of concerns for animals. When MPs table 12 questions about halal, only one about kosher and absolutely none about CO 2 gassing of pigs or factory farming, that does send a message—either consciously or not—that this may be about faith, not welfare. If we are genuinely committed to animal welfare, let us raise standards across the board for how animals are raised, transported and treated, and not just how they die. Let us tackle intensive factory farming and support improved enforcement, CCTV in slaughterhouses and transparency in all meat production, including for the food we import such as foie gras, which is the diseased liver of force-fed ducks and geese—how inhumane is that? Let us build a system rooted in science, compassion and dignity for all animals and for the people of this country.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Free School Meals · Hansard source

  More

  Sadly, a local survey recently found that close to 20% of children in Leicester are worried about not having enough to eat. But, paradoxically, a quarter of the population of 10 to 11-year-olds in my city are clinically obese, and close to 40% have visual signs of dental decay. I warmly welcome this announcement, but why are the Government waiting till September 2026 to make these changes? Will the Minister reassure us that this policy will be properly funded so that schools can provide nutritious and balanced meals, and not just ultra-processed food like turkey twizzlers, which have been shown, among many other things, to reduce life expectancy?

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

  More

  Ward Jalal is a six-year-old Palestinian girl who, last week, crawled out of a burning school, leaving behind her mother and two siblings, who burned to death. I mention Ward because she is Palestinian. Last month, there was Al-Haq’s case against the Government. By September 2024, 40,000 innocent Palestinian men, women and children, like Ward and her family, were killed. The Government reviewed 413 cases and found one possible breach of international law, which was the killing of volunteers at the World Central Kitchen. Do the Government have any regard for children like Ward and the Palestinian people?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Dementia Care · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is being extremely generous with her time. Is she concerned, along with the Alzheimer’s Society, that more than 71% of carers for people with dementia have no formal training whatsoever, although dementia requires very specific care and training? Will she join me in calling on the Government to introduce mandatory training for all those who care for our loved ones with dementia?