Shockat Adam MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 13 May 2025 · Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities · Hansard source

  More

  It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for leading the debate. Let me be clear: we do not own these buildings. We are simply their caretakers and custodians for a future generation. Our job is not to profit from them, but to protect them—ideally without charging them 20% for the privilege. These places, whether they are cathedrals, churches, mosques or gurdwaras, are much more than bricks and mortar; they are history books made out of stone and community centres made out of marble. Let us take, for example, Leicester cathedral: a 12th-century gem so ancient that it gets a shout-out in the Domesday Book. It gives our town a sense of awe and is a much-needed break from the concrete jungle around it. It is also home to King Richard III, who spent 500 years lying low in a car park before getting the royal treatment. Some even say it was his reburial that triggered the greatest miracle in modern sporting history—Leicester City winning the premier league. Was that a coincidence, or was it divine intervention? Those buildings do not just have beautiful backstories. As many hon. Members have mentioned, they are where the lonely find company and the hungry are fed. Just last week, I visited the Geeta Bhavan mandir in the Clarendon Park area of my city, and the commitment to sustainability and the environment was much more progressive than in half the tech start-ups in Shoreditch. Another example is the local gurdwara, the Guru Amar Das, which serves hundreds of meals daily with no questions asked. In fact, the only question asked is, “Do you want some more?”, to which the answer is always, “Yes”. This unity and service crosses boundaries—I am a Muslim, and I volunteer for a Sikh charity, the Midland Langar Seva Society, which operates out of a church and serves people of all faiths and no faith. That is what community looks like and what Britain looks like—it is not an island of strangers. I say to the Minister that we cannot put a price on such things, so let us not be the generation that taxes them; let us be the generation that funds them for future generations. Beauty, service and spiritual refuge deserve relief and not receipts.

• 12 May 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We can all agree that immigration must be managed. The public rightly expect a fair, firm and functional system, but control cannot come at the cost of compassion, so let me be clear: immigrants cannot be viewed through the lens of fear, and parliamentarians on all sides must choose their words carefully. We are responsible for ensuring that our rhetoric does not incite attacks, fear and division, or even lead to violence. It is not enough to say that we denounce hate; we must also refrain from language that fuels it. Terms like “island of strangers” simply do not help. Too often, we hear suggestions—either explicitly or implicitly—that immigrants are to blame for everything that is wrong in our country. Let us be honest with the public: it is not immigrants who have polluted our rivers or our seas with sewage; it is not immigrants who set sky-high rail fares while slashing routes; it is not immigrants who have hollowed out our NHS, cut GP services or closed libraries; and it is not immigrants who have overseen 14 years of economic stagnation, rising rents and growing inequality. There are some aspects of this Bill that I can support—abolishing the ridiculous Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 is one—but there are more shortcomings, especially in relation to the lack of help for victims of human trafficking, which is why I rise to support some of the amendments. I call on Members across the House to support new clause 27, which would ensure that proper age assessments are conducted by trained and independent social workers, and not through rushed visual judgments or flawed and impersonal scientific tests. Furthermore, in the shadow of our immigration debate, children are being exploited. They are the victims of a modern slave trade run by smugglers and traffickers who prey on desperation. Children are coerced into roles that put their lives and the lives of others at risk. These are not isolated cases. Over 4,000 unaccompanied children claimed asylum in the UK last year alone. The system must recognise the unique vulnerability of children and treat them as such, not as suspects and not as statistics, but as they are: children. Although the Government’s intention to address the asylum appeals backlog is laudable, proposals such as new clause 6 and 7 to impose arbitrary deadlines of 24 weeks, without sufficient resources or legal safeguards, are not the answer. Justice rushed is justice denied. Finally, by taking on the narrative of those on the right wing, by mimicking their talking points and rhetoric, we are not neutralising the threat of extremism, but feeding it. We will only push Reform UK and others even further to the right, emboldening them to say things that we have made appear acceptable. I ask the Government: when will they stand their ground, choose principles over polling and remember that leadership means bringing people together, not chasing after the loudest voices in the room? Let us reject the politics of scapegoating, and lead with integrity, facts and humanity. Our country deserves nothing less.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Military Co-operation with Israel · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of military collaboration with Israel. It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. My speech for today’s important debate was written and completed yesterday. My arguments were factually and systematically constructed, and at the core of my speech was essentially the pursuit of truth, with very little emotional rhetoric. I woke up this morning just before dawn, like millions of other Muslims around the world, to begin fasting for another day with some food and water, when news broke of yet another violation of yet another peace deal, as Israelis rained down bombs on makeshift shelters, slaughtering men, women and children. Perhaps like me, those men, women and children were preparing for their day of fasting, but now they will never see another sunset. The question is this: have we provided those lethal bombs, or the parts for the aircraft that are dropping them, and has our intelligence sharing led to the slaughter of a further 400 people last night? I beg the Minister, “Please do not sit here and say we are doing everything we can,” because that will add insult to injury. I accept that no one in the Labour Government has openly called for the Israel Defence Forces to be given a Nobel peace prize, but we have not even summoned the Israeli ambassador to express our concerns or contemplated economic sanctions because, in the words of our Foreign Secretary: “Israel remains an important ally. We have an important trading relationship, worth £6.1 billion last year and involving 38,000 British jobs. I am sorry; any discussion of sanctions is just not correct.” —[ Official Report , 14 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 152.] I say to the family of the children who were burned alive last night that I am sorry; the Government say that we cannot afford to lose the money.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There but for the grace of God go I. Like everyone in this House, I appreciate the need for security at our borders and the need for a sensible discourse around immigration, but we must be very careful and mindful of our approach, rhetoric and implementation. Our approach must always be guided by compassion, legality and an unwavering commitment to human rights. I appreciate that the Bill seeks to confront the increasingly sophisticated methods used by organised crime groups to facilitate irregular migration. However, global instabilities, be they conflict or the devastating impact of climate change, force desperate people to risk everything in search of security. Since August 2019, 138 people, including many children, have tragically lost their lives. They are not migrants who drown; they are not asylum seekers who drown. They are human beings. These losses are a stark reminder that people do not take such risks unless they are fleeing unimaginable atrocities. In our pursuit of security, we must take care not to conflate genuine asylum seekers with criminals or opportunists. Our language and policies must not inflame hatred or prejudice against those seeking sanctuary. In addressing irregular immigration, the Government have proposed the following four pillars: preventing, by disincentivising migrants; pursuing, by disrupting the operations of organised crime gangs; protecting; and preparing. I would like the Government to add one more: participating, to meaningfully resolve global conflict and address the root causes of migration, such as climate change, famine, conflict and human rights violations. We must increase our spending on overseas aid back up to 0.7% of GDP. By taking a proactive international role, we can help to create conditions that reduce the pressures driving desperate migration. We must not view this entire process through the prism of criminality. Particularly alarming is clause 18, which creates the criminal offence of “Endangering another during sea crossing”. This clause is aimed clearly at those inside the boats—the very individuals fleeing peril—and represents a dangerous escalation in the criminalisation powers under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. Such measures risk penalising vulnerable people who are already caught in the midst of conflict, deprivation and despair. Worryingly, according to the European convention on human rights memorandum, “Although it is very unlikely, there is no absolute bar to prosecuting parents who have taken their children on journeys which come within the ambit of the Endangerment Offence, which could result in the break-up of families.” Furthermore, we must ask why the Bill excludes countries such as India, Albania and Georgia from its protections. Genuine survivors of torture, trafficking and persecution from those nations deserve our help, not our suspicion. The retention of sections 59 and 29 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 would restrict or even criminalise asylum and human rights claims from those very countries. I call on the Government to address these pressing questions. How will we ensure that our measures do not criminalise those seeking asylum? Why are we excluding countries like those mentioned above? What steps will be taken to increase international aid? The Bill is a missed opportunity to demonstrate the Government’s stated commitment to human rights and the rule of law, and to “modernise the asylum and immigration system” —[ Official Report , 17 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 40.] We all welcome the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, but I look forward to seeing some meaningful amendments in Committee.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Flooding · Hansard source

  More

  As Members from all parts of the House have already mentioned, one of the major causes of flooding is the blockage of our drainage systems and gulleys. Unfortunately, many councils nationally have reduced the frequency of cleaning gulleys due to budgetary pressures. Areas such as my landlocked constituency are seeing flooding like never before; my local Victoria Park health centre is flooded as we speak. Will the Minister commit to providing more funding for councils to assist our larger agencies, such as the Environment Agency?