Shockat Adam MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  I came to this country as a child; it nurtured, educated and embraced me. I love this country for so many reasons, but for two reasons more than anything else, I suspect. The first is for its sense of fairness, and the second is for the freedom to express how we feel democratically. That is why I speak specifically about Palestine Action when I say that if we proscribe this organisation under the Terrorism Act, we will for the first time in this nation’s history outlaw a domestic protest group as a terrorist organisation. Britain has a proud and often hard-fought tradition of civil resistance. We remember with reverence the suffragettes, who were branded as criminals for smashing windows but are now celebrated as heroes of justice. We remember the civil rights movement, in which protesters occupied streets and broke unjust laws to dismantle segregation. We remember the global campaign against apartheid—which included Ministers in this House—where people of conscience defied authorities, trespassed and disrupted in the name of ending a brutal system. The very freedoms we hold dear today—votes for women, racial equality and the end of apartheid—were born not from men and women in suits in this establishment, but from people out there. It is that tradition that we are about to disrupt today. This decision, which has been rushed through Parliament in a matter of days and bundled with unrelated, foreign neo-Nazi groups and debated for mere minutes, is a reckless abuse of process. It denies Parliament the gravity of deliberation that this issue so badly demands. The proscription has already been condemned by a vast range of people, from Sally Rooney to Lord Falconer, and that will continue. Even worse, this statutory instrument risks criminalising anyone who supports, sympathises with or even publicly praises the aims of Palestine Action. It opens the door to the prosecution of journalists, filmmakers, campaigners and politicians for doing nothing more than expressing solidarity. This is Orwellian dystopia on steroids. Let us ask ourselves honestly: if we set this precedent, who will be next? History will judge harshly those who choose silence in moments of moral testing. I urge my colleagues not to allow this dangerous step to go unchallenged. Do not allow a Home Secretary, in a moment of political expediency, permanently to expand the reach of anti-terror laws into the heart of a domestic protest. Do not let this House be the one that shrank the boundaries of freedom of expression. We owe it to those who fought so hard for our freedoms, dared to dissent and refused to be silent—let us summon their courage now. I urge colleagues to vote against this proscription, and to protect our democratic tradition and our right to protest.

• 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.

• 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.

• 27 Feb 2025 · War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing the debate, although I do not know about the image I will have forever of him baking pizzas in the snow. I rise today in support of the people of Ukraine. They have seen their nation invaded and devastated by bombing, their children kidnapped, their mothers and sisters raped and many of their homes, hospitals and schools completely destroyed. In Leicester, like in the rest of this country, we have a tradition of standing up for the oppressed, the bullied and the underdog. During world war two, RAF Leicester East—now Leicester airport—was home to the US 82nd Airborne Division, which played a major role in D-day and the liberation of Europe from the Nazis. Britain has shown its compassion since Russia invaded Ukraine three years ago, as the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) articulated perfectly. The British people have stood firmly and resolutely beside the Ukrainian people, and one reason for that is our nation’s tradition of standing up for the underdog. Russia invaded Ukraine in the belief that Ukraine was weak and vulnerable, and that it would roll over and play dead while Putin took its land, identity and resources. What he discovered was that Ukraine is an underdog that bites back, and the British people have wholeheartedly identified with its bulldog spirit. The Ukrainian people have won our hearts and our loyalty. Their determination to fight on and to protect their homes, their families and their culture has been painful to watch, but any nation that can so effectively fight Putin’s military might deserves our unwavering support and the support of our supposed allies. What may be even harder to watch in the coming months and years is the UK and other European countries having a taste of what many smaller countries have experienced for generations: a new world order where the largest powers decide to redraw the map or steal minerals and other natural resources at the stroke of a pen, with the smaller countries facing menacing threats of much worse if they do not comply; a new world order where those who pardon insurrectionists, who try to overturn the result of a democratic election and who to this day do not accept the result of the 2020 US elections have the cheek to lecture long-standing European countries on the imperfect nature of their democracy. Our country must stand against this new gangster world dominated by a few bros in ivory, or even gold, towers, who trade the world’s smaller nations between themselves like property on a Monopoly board. That is why, despite Ukraine’s troubled past, its fight is our fight, and we must work with our European partners to ensure it wins, regardless of the threats from Washington, Moscow, Pyongyang or even Beijing. Who would have thought that the future President of those brave soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division stationed in Leicester would align himself with today’s equivalent fascists, rather than with the nations and people who fought to defeat that particular evil? When Ukraine wins, the new world order that the few gangster bros are trying to establish will fail. That is why supporting Ukraine is so important and why European democracies have to step up and ensure they win.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Apprenticeships · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes); I have a business in Peterborough, and I concur with everything he said. Let me begin by highlighting the remarkable return on investment that apprenticeships provide. I know from my time in Parliament that everything leads to the Treasury. Studies have shown that every £1 invested in level 2 and level 3 apprenticeship training will see a return of between £26 and £28. That is a big win not just for employers, but for apprentices. For many individuals who do not thrive in traditional academic environments, apprenticeships are a lifeline. I lost so many friends, colleagues and peers who were brighter by far than I was, but who just did not fit into the conventional education system. If they had had an apprenticeship model they would have been really successful, but unfortunately they are now without work after so many decades. That is especially the case in unconventional areas like ours. There are several challenges that employers and apprentices face. Among the most important is system complexity. For the employers I have spoken to, it is so complicated to employ apprentices. The system was meant to make things easier, but it has made things more complicated. We need to concentrate on making the levy system a lot simpler for employers. We may need to revisit the tax treatment of self-funded training. Employer-funded training benefits from broad tax exemptions, while self-funded training does not enjoy the same advantages. To encourage greater training uptake among the self-employed and smaller businesses, we should align the tax relief for self-funded training and employer-funded training, levelling the playing field and incentivising skills development. We must also improve administrative support and reduce the regulatory complex. The decline in apprenticeship numbers and the overall reduction in training participation are not just statistics; they are signals that our current system is too complex and that both employers and apprentices are facing real, tangible challenges. Before I conclude, I have a few questions for the Minister. How will the Government simplify the apprenticeship levy to ensure a uniform and effective subsidy rate for all employers, regardless of size? What measures will be introduced to ensure that public funding for adult education is increased and spent effectively to achieve outcomes? How do the Government plan to address the administrative burdens that discourage employers? Will the tax treatment of self-funded training be reviewed to create a level playing field for everybody?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Hospice and Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  Palliative and end of life care is about dignity, compassion, and giving every person their right to live their final days in comfort and peace, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) observed when compassionately describing his parents’ last moments. However, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) that access to high-quality care is a postcode lottery across the UK. Only a third of local NHS areas in England can provide 24/7 end of life care at home, which leaves nearly 100,000 people every year without the care and support that they deserve during their most vulnerable moments. We must address this disparity. Every patient deserves a personalised care plan that respects their wishes and supports their physical, emotional, social and spiritual needs. Care plans should also offer non-clinical help, such as financial advice and opportunities for people to participate in meaningful activities while they can still do so; and let us not forget the families who require respite care during this period. Hospices play a vital role in such care, but, unlike the NHS, hospice care is not fully funded by the Government. Hospices receive only about a third of their income from the state; the rest is raised through charitable donations, which is pitiful. This model is unsustainable. As a result of rising costs, which have not been helped by the national insurance increases, the sector faces a £60 million deficit this year alone. As demand for hospice care grows owing to an ageing population and advances in medicine that help children with life-limiting conditions to live longer, the strain on hospices will only increase. Without immediate action they will struggle to meet this growing demand, leaving more people without the care that they deserve. We need bold and decisive steps to fix that. First, we need fair and sustainable funding. The Government must create a national plan to secure consistent funding for hospices. Emergency funding is urgently needed. Secondly, we need a national standard for care. National quality standards and agreed outcomes for palliative and end of life care are essential. Every integrated care board must meet minimum standards to provide fair access to care nationwide. Thirdly, we need support for underserved communities in areas where people are currently missing out. There should be access to palliative care in homes, care facilities and hospitals, ensuring that no one is left behind. Fourthly, the £26 million children’s hospice grant must be ringfenced. Let me end by thanking the incredible teams at the two hospices in my city that serve my constituency: LOROS, which assists 2,500 people a year, and Rainbows, a fabulous organisation that cares for young people with life-limiting conditions. I want to thank them both.

• 11 Sept 2024 · Democracy in Bangladesh · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree about the positive contribution that the Bangladeshi community has made to our country, which has made it as it is today? I would like to take this opportunity to pay homage to the Bangladeshi community of Leicester South, who are hard-working, entrepreneurial and philanthropic. Their commitment to using the political system to improve their community has made my city as great as it is today. Does the hon. Member also agree that the riots we saw recently in Southport after the devastating attack and killing of three innocent people emphasise how important it is that we do not single out a community, because that can have devastating effects? Does she agree that both sides of the House should be much more responsible in the language they use to ensure that community cohesion ensues?