Shockat Adam MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I agree wholeheartedly that conflating a people’s religion with a Government’s actions is totally unacceptable. Criticising the state of Israel and its actions, especially with its present Government, is not antisemitic, otherwise the bombing of Iraq or Afghanistan would be Islamophobic. I want to concentrate my speech particularly on Elbit, which supplies around 85% of Israeli military drones and land-based military equipment. As the International Court of Justice considers allegations of genocide, and while the ICC has issued arrest warrants against the Israeli Prime Minister and former Minister of Defence, Elbit continues to profit from the genocide in Gaza. United Nations investigators have documented the repeated use of armed quadcopter drones against Palestinian civilians. One of those systems, the Lanius drone, is manufactured by Elbit. Elbit has a significant presence in my city of Leicester through its manufacturing and technology operations. The company generates billions of dollars in annual revenue while supplying the military equipment used in a conflict that is subject to allegations of genocide before the International Court of Justice. That is why parliamentary scrutiny of its access to Ministers is essential. It is deeply alarming that freedom of information disclosures reveal repeated meetings between Elbit executives and the Home Office. Briefing papers show that Ministers were preparing to reassure the company in response to Palestine Action protests. They also reveal that Home Office officials had been in contact with the police regarding those protests, while another meeting was scheduled to include a representative from the Attorney General’s Office. It is disturbing that, while Ministers meet privately with executives from a company whose weapons are alleged to have been used in acts now under scrutiny before the international courts, those who want to challenge those activities through protest increasingly face being associated with terrorism. While the suppliers of war and genocide are granted meetings with Ministers, those opposing the machinery of war risk being treated as a threat. Most troubling of all, the section of the ministerial briefing entitled “Past lobbying” was redacted. If there is nothing to conceal, why are the details of previous lobbying being withheld from Parliament and the public? My question for the Minister is straightforward: why was an arms manufacturer being reassured by Government Departments while international legal proceedings over genocide in Gaza continued? What safeguards exist to ensure that commercial relationships with any foreign defence contractors do not influence policing, prosecutorial independence or British foreign policy? Transparency is not optional; if Ministers are confident that those relationships are appropriate, they should have no objection to placing them fully in the public domain.

• 19 May 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  In 2021, the Prime Minister wrote an essay in which he said, “Where the current Tory government has muddied the waters of transparency…I want to make it easier to hold government to account.” He said that a Labour Government must “play its role in restoring honesty, decency and transparency in public life”— and yet here we are. Does the Minister agree that after all the redacting of messages, it is not only the Labour party that is being damaged, but democracy itself?

• 19 May 2026 · High Speed 2 Reset · Hansard source

  More

  The truth of the matter is that despite spending over £103 billion of taxpayers’ money, my son has laid more rail track from his Lego set than the previous Government did under the HS2 programme. But seriously, whistleblowers have alleged that costs were deliberately hidden from Parliament, documents were shredded and staff who spoke out were sacked. Before another penny is spent by the British taxpayer, how will the Secretary of State ensure that in the future there are accountable binding mechanisms to stop contractors and executives from misleading the House again?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the recommendations of the Rycroft report, particularly the cap on donations from overseas voters, but we all know that our domestic politics is still prey to big money influencing all the parties in this House, which warps our politics and moves it away from public discourse in favour of the interests of the wealthy. In fact, the last election saw one of the highest ever levels of spending in a general election, at close to £70 million. That is extremely unfair for the smaller parties and independents, so can I ask the Minister how we can promote fairer representation and a move away from domestic big-money politics?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. There should be no issue about our civil service being paid their pensions, but 56,000 people are not receiving their pension from Capita. My constituent, Erral McDonald, is due to retire at the end of the month, and despite countless messages to the Department, he has not yet even received his pension quote. My team has no way to escalate this matter. What reassurance can the Minister provide that the backlog will be cleared, and that my constituent, and all our constituents, will receive their pensions in full and on time in the coming weeks?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review · Hansard source

  More

  When in opposition, the Prime Minister said that Boris Johnson “always looked the other way” over standards in government, and that he was “corrupt”. Yet Labour Together has been led by key advisers to the Prime Minister, including my constituency predecessor, and some remain in his Cabinet to this day. Given the £730,000 in undeclared donations from millionaire venture capitalists, and a payment of almost £36,000 to a public relations firm to smear investigative journalists, does the Minister agree that the public were promised real change but all they are getting is much of the same, and that the great British people expect a lot better?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Standards in Public Life · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement, and I definitely agree that Epstein’s crimes were disgusting and Mandelson’s behaviour despicable. I remind the Chief Secretary that, under the last Conservative Government, the now Prime Minister said, “a fish rots from the head” and that real change had to be “led and modelled from the top”. Yet here we are, and the issue is back. Despite the colour of the rosette changing, the Prime Minister’s closest circle must now take the fall for his poor decision making in appointing a man who was best friends with a paedophile. Given that there is now a criminal investigation into his closet advisers, should he not do the honourable thing and take his own advice?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Having a policy like the current one also flies in the face of the Prime Minister’s pre-election pledge. It is a betrayal of his sixth pledge, which we were told was: “an immigration system rooted in compassion and dignity.” I, and I am sure many others, feel the betrayal most sharply when it comes from an Asian Home Secretary—someone whose own journey reflects the promise of migration, but who now advances policies that punish people who are just like her own family and mine once were. Apart from the policy being morally bankrupt, it also flies in the face of fiscal responsibility. We are told that this issue is all about cost, and that migration is a burden. Yet those claims collapse under scrutiny. The widely cited £234 billion “ILR emergency figure” has been discredited even by its own authors. Correct the errors and migration delivers a net fiscal gain of £100 billion.

• 10 Dec 2025 · AI Safety · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for securing this vital debate. Artificial intelligence is here, and here to stay. It has the potential to do incredible good: it is going to save us time and mental energy, and it will save lives. I am sure of that. The question is not whether to halt its progression, but what we can do to ensure that it is safe. As a pioneer in the world of AI asked, how do we change the wheel of a moving car? My concern is that AI is not a moving car—it is a racing car. To understand how difficult this is going to be, we must heed the lessons from California. Regulating the beast is going to be extremely difficult. Home to Google, Meta, Anthropic and OpenAI, the state tried to regulate it, but despite four in five Americans—along with engineers, scientists and safety experts—supporting a Bill that would have mitigated the risks of catastrophic harm, intense lobbying killed that Bill. We are going to face the same issues here. In regulating AI, the Government must ensure that safety and security are given equal importance. It appears that the Government have decided to change the remit of the AI Security Institute from safety to security—shifting the focus away from broader safety issues such as algorithm bias, discrimination, human rights and freedom of expression to concentrate solely on cyber-crime, biohacking and national security harms. Of course those are important, but by narrowing the remit, the Government risk creating a false sense of security, fortifying the system against external attacks while overlooking the harms that can be built directly into the systems. The previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), understood that. At the Bletchley Park summit, he made it clear that the AI companies cannot be allowed to mark their own homework, and that independent safety evaluations are not optional. Like the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), I fear that the Government have not learned from previous legislative failures. We all remember that deepfake pornography, one of the most disturbing and harmful uses of AI, was a glaring omission in the Online Safety Act 2023; only now, years later, is it being addressed in the Crime and Policing Bill. Regulation that arrives years after the technology has proliferated is not regulation; it is damage control. That is why it is profoundly disappointing that no AI Bill will be introduced in this Session. The United Kingdom has the chance, ability and responsibility to lead. We hosted the world’s first AI safety summit. We can and should use our global influence to shape standards, champion ethical safeguards and ensure that the public are protected from both immediate and long-term harms. The Government must restore safety to the heart of AI policy. We need independent oversight, a strengthened statutory remit for the AI Security Institute, and a comprehensive AI Bill that brings transparency, accountability, reversibility and fairness to the centre of our national approach. Humanity depends on it.

• 18 Nov 2025 · ECO4 Scheme: TrustMark Standards · Hansard source

  More

  14. What steps his Department is taking to ensure approved suppliers providing home improvements under the ECO4 scheme continue to meet TrustMark standards.

• 18 Nov 2025 · ECO4 Scheme: TrustMark Standards · Hansard source

  More

  Hundreds of my constituents in Leicester South installed external cladding as part of the ECO4 scheme. Despite using TrustMark contractors, my constituents have been left to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds in fines because those contractors failed to obtain correct planning permission. To make matters worse, when these homeowners approach the contractors to complain, they discover—surprise, surprise—that they have all gone bust. These are not rich people, and they now face stress and financial hardship, so will the Minister please meet me and my Highfields residents to discuss how this issue can be redressed?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Independent Football Regulator · Hansard source

  More

  I and like-minded football fans welcome the much-needed creation of an independent regulator. Indeed, I am not even questioning the merit of the individual appointed as its chair. The issue is this: the Secretary of State, by her own admission, forgot that she was given money by the new chair before he was appointed. That comes alongside the £33,410 that he has given to the Labour party over the past five years. Despite what the Secretary of State has just said, she has previously called out the Tories for double standards, said that Boris Johnson trashed the UK’s global reputation, and has, over many years, called for the Tories to “come clean”. Should she not consider her own reputation, rather than joining those sleazy ranks?

• 11 Nov 2025 · Support for Dyslexic Pupils · Hansard source

  More

  It is such a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Members for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) for securing this vital discussion of dyslexia. Dyslexia is an evolving issue, with the definition being discussed as we speak. One in 10 children—more than a million—are potentially dyslexic, but the definition itself is too narrow to address the issue, which we have to work on. Dyslexia diagnosis is difficult at the best of times, but unfortunately it is even more difficult for some than it is for others. There is real inequality of diagnosis. As the hon. Member for Broxtowe said, for too many families diagnosis depends not just on the child’s ability, but on the parents’ bank balance. The figures are really stark. Work done by the Sutton Trust and others shows that 90% of dyslexic children in households that earn more than £100,000 have a formal diagnosis, while only 43% in households earning less than £30,000 receive one. The inequality continues even after diagnosis, with just 30% of young people from lower-income households describing the support that they receive at school as “good”, whereas for children from wealthier families, that figure rises to 86%. When private assessments by a specialist teacher cost £540 on average, and by an educational psychologist £720, they are frankly out of reach for too many people. I read something many years ago in which a commentator summed it up very painfully: “Rich parents have dyslexic children; poor parents have thick children”. That is something we need to address. Another issue widens the gap: race. Unfortunately, many children from black, Asian or ethnic minority communities simply do not know what the term dyslexia means. Expert Jannett Morgan notes that more than 80% of young, black British people who are dyslexic are not diagnosed “until they are in university and are pushed to their limits.” She has spoken about the burden of labels, such as being black and being female, and asked whether they need “another label” of being dyslexic. We see then how visible and hidden differences together compound disadvantages even further. Early research into neuro- diversity ignored race, and the experiences of many children were written out of the story altogether. That too must be addressed. As the hon. Member for Broxtowe said, studies have shown that approximately 30% of our prison population have dyslexia—the true figure could be as high as 56%—so we need to help our children in order to help ourselves. Our schools also need adequate training resources. Teachers are doing their best, but the truth is that many do not have the capacity to identify and support dyslexic pupils effectively. Special educational needs co-ordinators are often overstretched and provision varies significantly between schools. There are currently no consistent national standards for SENCO training or for the level of support children should receive. Teachers want to help, but without time, funding and specialist guidance, their ability to do so is limited. We also need more clinical research into tools and aids that actually assist our dyslexic population. I declare my interest here as an optometrist. We have provisions available for children, such as changing background colours, coloured overlays and tinted lenses, and it does work. I have seen grown men crying when, for the first time, they have been able to read to their children. Such measures are really effective, but the evidence is still incomplete. The Government should commission research to identify which tools genuinely make a difference, so that schools can adopt the evidence-based approaches, rather than just relying on anecdote and trial and error. I am very lucky that in my constituency of Leicester South we have Every Cherry Publishing, which offers a specialist range of books for dyslexic children and adults, bringing classics like “Frankenstein” and “A Christmas Carol”, among other stories, to be enjoyed by people with dyslexia. Their books incorporate senses, signs and images to cater for students. That is the work of educator turned publisher Emma Steel, and these books are changing lives. The British Dyslexia Association is calling for urgent and practical action. We need a national strategy for dyslexia, universal assessments and screening tools, a national standard for SENCO provision, greater investment in research, and real, sustained support for our schools.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Vehicle Headlight Glare Standards · Hansard source

  More

  I agree wholeheartedly that better cars mean that we are driving for longer, but does the Minister share my concern that the UK is the only country in Europe that allows people to hold a driving licence until the age of 70 without ever being required to take a sight test? Perhaps we need a sight test at initial licence application, at every 10-year renewal and at every three years from the age of 70 because we are driving for much longer.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Vehicle Headlight Glare Standards · Hansard source

  More

  It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. I declare that I have personal experience with this issue as a practising NHS optometrist, so I can say with some clarity that it is of great importance and concern, with potentially significant consequences. Many of my patients have told me of their utter despair when they want to drive at night. Some only take the keys out if it is a real emergency, while others have abandoned it altogether, which feeds into the narrative that elderly people in particular will not go shopping or go to the pharmacist to pick up medication. That can result in loneliness and other problems. There are also those who continue to drive despite knowing that night driving is really difficult for them. That becomes a matter of life and death, as some of the statistics bear out. As an optometrist, I have only anecdotal evidence, but although excellent research has been done by the College of Optometrists, the Association Of Optometrists and the RAC, among others, it does not take an expert to know the link between eyesight and safety for everyone who uses the road. I want to focus on two intertwined challenges: the impact of modern car lighting, and the lack of research and subsequent legislation around it, and the failure of our system to ensure that drivers meet basic vision standards. Modern vehicles are brighter than ever. LED and xenon technologies have replaced many older halogen bulbs. They are much brighter and more efficient, and provide better clarity on the road for the driver, but unfortunately the increased brightness comes at a cost, which is a rise in glare and dazzle for other road users. The RAC, drawing on Government collision statistics, reported that since 2013, an average of 280 crashes a year in Britain have involved dazzling headlights as a contributing factor. Six of those crashes a year involve a loss of life. Campaigners believe that the real figures could be a lot higher. The shift from halogen to LED, combined with higher headlight positioning because of SUV cars, is part of the problem. Experts at the light and health research centre at Mount Sinai hospital in New York have identified three factors driving the problems: the rise of taller vehicles, incorrect alignment of lights and the blue light of modern LED bulbs. Due to their shorter wavelength, they can potentially scatter more light in the eyes, and are more uncomfortable than other light forms. No research, as far as I am aware—there have been some anecdotal studies and very small-scale studies, but nothing conclusive—confirms that they help night driving. The RAC also found that it takes 68% of drivers—this is really worrying—up to five seconds to recover after they have been dazzled, and more than 11% say that it takes six seconds or more. That is the time it takes to travel 160 metres at 60 miles per hour, without any clear vision. That is worse for anyone who has other eye health conditions, such as corneal opacity at the front of the eyes, cataracts or macular degeneration problems, but also a dirty windscreen or glasses lenses. The greater, and quieter, threat is the number of drivers who already have poor or unsafe vision and continue to drive anyway. According to statistics by Mortar in October 2024, one in seven people knows of a relative, friend or co-worker who they believe is breaking the law by driving despite poor eyesight. Almost 30% of motorists admitted they would continue to drive even if they knew their vision was below the legal standards. More than a quarter said they are worried about someone they know who drives despite having poor vision. These figures are deeply concerning, and reveal that our current, self-referral system is failing and many people either do not know their vision has declined or choose to ignore it. Earlier this year, a coroner in Lancashire issued a prevention of future death report following a fatal crash caused by undiagnosed sight loss. We need to change the legislation and have more research done on lighting.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Birmingham Bin Strikes · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for tabling this urgent question. I also thank the Minister for his answers, and I sympathise with his position, but replacing this workforce, policing the dispute and paying the legal fees has cost the already overstretched council £4 million. All the while, the good people of Birmingham—the very people who voted in a Labour council and many Labour Members of Parliament—are living in foul misery. Does the Minister agree that it would save millions of pounds, improve our relationship with the dedicated bin workers and restore a basic necessity to the people of Birmingham if he intervened to get us out of this stink?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Strategy for Elections · Hansard source

  More

  According to the latest British social attitudes survey, 60% of the British public now support proportional representation. Given that mayors will be elected under this system from 2027 onwards, why does the Minister refuse even to consider that fairer system so that by the time the next general election comes along, voters will have their views more fully and fairly represented?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Glaucoma Awareness · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered glaucoma awareness. It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Mr Pritchard. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for attending this important debate. First, I declare my registered interest as a practising optometrist for the NHS. As an optometrist for many years, I have had the privilege—sometimes the heartbreak —of looking into the eyes of people whose lives are changing without their even knowing about it. Fundamentally, that is what glaucoma does: it changes lives quietly, and often without warning. Last week was Glaucoma Awareness Week because many people are not aware of the condition. At this point, I applaud the work done by Glaucoma UK to raise awareness of the condition. It is known as “the thief of sight” for very good reasons. Broadly speaking, glaucoma damages the optic nerve. The optic nerve is made of millions of little nerves and bundles, and each part of the nerve represents a single point in our visual fields. Because vision loss begins at the edges, people do not often realise that anything is wrong until it is too late. I would like to give two brief but real examples from my experience. First, a woman came into my practice who had been hit by a car, while in her own car, from the side, not once but twice. She came in and read out the bottom line—the tiniest letters that can be seen—and could not understand why she kept missing things on the side: in this case, cars. It became apparent that she was a quite advanced sufferer of glaucoma, and she had lost the majority of what we call peripheral or side vision. Another memorable patient was a gentleman who was brought in kicking and screaming by his wife because he kept knocking off the salt, pepper and ketchup from the dinner table. It became apparent, again: he could see everything clearly straight ahead, but he really could not see anything on the side. He also had a very advanced form of glaucoma. Glaucoma is the leading cause of preventable blindness in this country, with over 700,000 people affected, but the shocking thing is that more than half of them—350,000 people—are undiagnosed: they are walking and driving around not knowing that they have the condition. They could be one of us—somebody we love, or somebody we work with, as was the case of a former Member of Parliament of this parish, Paul Tyler, a Lib Dem Member, who was diagnosed at a completely routine eye test. In his own words, he might not have been able to carry on his duty as a parliamentarian if he had not gone for a simple eye test where they detected glaucoma. Twenty-five years later, his sight is still preserved.