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.

• 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—

• 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 · 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?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Leicestershire police has signed a reported £800,000 contract with Palantir—a company that has a worrying history of racial profiling and surveillance concerns in the USA. It has since removed all the contract details from the public record, and the Home Office holds no central records of such a deal. What reassurances can the Home Secretary give that the people of Leicester are protected from intrusive and discriminatory policing practices? How can transparency and oversight be upheld in such partnerships where no central records are kept?

• 15 May 2025 · Youth Services · Hansard source

  More

  The simple truth is that the money we invest in our youth services and young people today will save hundreds of millions of pounds tomorrow. More than that, it will save lives, futures and entire communities. Across Leicester South, we are proud to have incredible grassroots youth organisations changing lives. Pedestrian allows children with special educational needs and disabilities to express themselves and build confidence through youth music sessions; it even helps them to feature in exhibitions. Shubaan youth project is a beacon in the Highfields area of the city, offering a safe space, a sense of connection, and even a football club. The Eyres Monsell club for young people stands tall, mentoring, supporting and empowering the next generation. Those examples are all too rare. Too many young people have nowhere to go and no one to turn to. As the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Katie White) said, today we learn of the alarming statistic, published by UNICEF, that the UK ranks 21st out of 36 in the happiness and wellbeing league for children. That is simply unacceptable for one of the richest nations in the world. In the past 15 years, local authority spending on youth services in England has been slashed by £1.2 billion in real terms. That is a 73% cut. As provision shrinks, violence rises. In areas where youth clubs have closed, people aged 10 to 17 are 14% more likely to commit a crime. Why? Because if we do not offer them real role models, as we used to in youth clubs, they will find toxic ones on social media. When there is no safe space, isolation takes root, mental health declines, physical health follows, and hope disappears. Youth work is a lifeline. Government-funded research shows that young people who access youth work are not just happier but healthier. Investment in it is smart economics, because for every £1 invested in youth work, the social return is anywhere between £3.20 and £6.40. Youth work saves us more than £500 million a year in costs from knife crime, antisocial behaviour and criminal justice. This is not spending; it is saving. But this robust sector is under threat. Funding is short term, insecure and skewed towards buildings, rather than people, but buildings alone do not change lives. Youth workers do, yet more than 4,500 youth workers have left the sector in the last decade. A third of those who remain are on zero-hours or temporary contracts, earning an average of just £21,000 a year—far below the UK average. There are several actions we can take. First, we could have a national youth strategy with long-term, measurable plans to protect and strengthen youth services. Secondly, we could have a dedicated youth Minister in Cabinet to ensure that youth is not an afterthought but a priority across all Government agendas. Thirdly, we could have a long-term youth workforce strategy to recruit, retain and properly pay the skilled professionals our young people rely on. Finally, we should have ringfenced, sustainable revenue funding—not just capital investment—for open-access youth services in every postcode.

• 14 May 2025 · Gaza: UK Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  Three weeks ago, while I was in the west bank, I spoke to a young Palestinian refugee mother who asked me, with tears in her eyes, “Why has the world forgotten us?” My response then has been echoed today: the world has not forgotten them, but what we have done is fail them completely. The failure looks like this: the United Nations has now confirmed that since March, more than 100 children every single day have been killed or injured. Imagine if it was our children. If, God forbid, 100 European children or 100 Israeli children were being killed every single day, would we be supplying even a penknife to the perpetrators of the crime—yes or no?

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

  More

  I thank all hon. Members for their sincere contributions. We all want the hostages to be released, but as the Hostages and Missing Families Forum said, “The Israeli government has chosen to abandon the hostages.” I say to the shadow Minister that I agree with the defence industry that we must have a robust arms industry, but I pray that our children’s lives are never at the behest of a nation’s economic profit. History will judge us not by our words but by our actions. Let me be completely clear: this debate is not an attack on our Government, nor is it about politics. It is simply about truth. Only truth can serve justice, and only with justice can we bring about peace. I urge hon. Members to reflect not on their political loyalties but on their moral duty. When history looks back at this moment, we must be able to say with absolute certainty that we stood on the right side. That is the least we owe to Shaban, Hind and all the dead children of the conflict. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the matter of military collaboration with Israel.

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

  More

  I concur with the hon. Member completely. In the words of Martin Luther King: “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” Against that backdrop, let us continue. As I mentioned, today’s debate has been secured on no other premise than to find the truth. At this moment, the global order that we helped to build stands on the precipice of collapse. If we, as one of its architects, fail to uphold the principles that we established, we will also be complicit in its destruction. No one voted me in to resolve the conflict in the middle east overnight singlehandedly, or expects me to do so, but what the British people in their millions are demanding—rightfully and unequivocally—is moral clarity, a strategic commitment to ending hostilities and the absolute assurance that our nation is not complicit in facilitating war crimes. Today’s debate will not delve into the historical archives of the conflict, which date from Balfour onwards—the Nakba, the occupation and the consistent humiliation, or the Hamas atrocities of 7 October. Instead, this is a legal and moral inquiry into our nation’s military co-operation with Israel in the face of credible allegations, including of genocide, now before the International Court of Justice. The ICJ has ruled that the occupation is illegal and warned that Israel’s actions in Gaza may constitute genocide. Under international law, the UK has an obligation not only to refrain from facilitating those crimes but to prevent them actively. Yet despite that duty, our country continues to engage in military co-operation with Israel. The question before us is very clear: are we upholding the rule of law?

• 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.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Holocaust Memorial Day · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome that intervention. All the work being done is absolutely vital. We have seen genocide in Rwanda, where close to 1 million Tutsi were killed, and now, as we speak, in Sudan. If “never again” means anything, it means that the international community must take decisive action to pursue the perpetrators through the International Court of Justice. Instead, the far right is almost being indulged. Earlier this week, people who rioted on 6 January, who very much have far-right tendencies, were forgiven. Many of them were radicalised online. This year’s Holocaust Memorial Day theme is to take action “for a better future”. That is why I am delighted to hear from the Minister that education will remain a priority. If we do not learn the lessons of history, we will live them again. Inter-faith work is absolutely vital. That is why I am proud to have been part of a team that set up an inter-faith group so that religions can talk to each other, not point fingers, and build bridges, not burn them. We must also take action against and hold social media firms and publishers to account for far-right misinformation. I end with the words of Elie Wiesel: “We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

• 21 Jan 2025 · Southport Attack · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Despite the attacker’s three referrals to Prevent, five referrals to the local police force and multiple referrals to multiple hubs, we still did not protect Elsie, Alice and Bebe. We have failed them. We must ensure that this never happens again. Does the Home Secretary agree that whoever the perpetrator is, the victims are always terrorised, and that an obsession with ideology may have been an underlying factor in why we missed this perpetrator? Should we not look again at the Shawcross recommendations on ideology obsession?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday on the streets of Gaza, mothers came out to celebrate the news of the impending peace deal. Today, many of those mothers were crouching over loved ones, as news came in of a further 73 Palestinians having been killed. That is 73 added on to the thousands and thousands who have already been killed, but when it comes to the number of Palestinians dead, that is all it seems to be—a number. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that no justice and no meaningful peace can be achieved if we continue to allow the cries of the oppressed to go unheard? I ask this not as a political rival, but as a fellow human being. The Palestinian people and, indeed, the families of the hostages have no more time for rhetoric, platitudes and words. What are we going to do to ensure that this peace deal goes ahead and justice is given beyond words, so that no more innocent blood is shed?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Neighbourhood Policing · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to my registered interests, and I echo the sentiments expressed by the Home Secretary. Last year, the Leicestershire police panel raised serious concerns about being underfunded, having received a real-terms cut of 20% over the past 13 years. Due to this funding crisis, the police simply do not have enough manpower for night-time patrols. In the Clarendon Park area there has been a wave of burglaries in local businesses—the Christopher James Deli, Loros and Spice Bazzar are three of eight that have been smashed and grabbed over the past two months. At the local crime summit that I arranged to discuss the situation, one owner, Jaskaran Dutta, said: “We do everything we can to survive in this incredibly difficult economic time. All we ask is that the government supports us by improving policing and security”. What is the Secretary of State doing to address these concerns?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Neighbourhood Policing · Hansard source

  More

  1. What steps she is taking to ensure that the police have adequate resources to help tackle neighbourhood crime.

• 13 Jan 2025 · Sudan: US Determination of Genocide · Hansard source

  More

  As the horrendous nature of this conflict becomes apparent, I concur with many Members in this Chamber that it is a forgotten conflict. I thank the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for bringing this urgent question to the House, especially when we read reports indicating a dramatic increase in gender-based violence, including over 2,000 cases of sexual violence reported in Darfur alone since the beginning of the conflict. As the penholder on Sudan at the United Nations Security Council, what steps is the UK taking to work with the International Criminal Court and the international community to ensure accountability for the perpetrators of that crime, and of genocide per se?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her statement and for bringing this debate to the Chamber. As has already been mentioned, there have been some powerful contributions today, none more so than that of my friend the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood). I also echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who mentioned that those who have a history of amplifying the voices of recorded misogynists are not welcome here to tell us how we should be running our country. Secondly and possibly more depressingly, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) mentioned that children watch pornography, and cited the statistic that one in 10 children has watched pornography by the age of nine. This has led to a horrendous rise in child-on-child sexual abuse; according to the police, 52% of recorded sexual crime is child-on-child, the youngest being a child only four years old who uploaded an indecent image and shared it. Much more needs to be done on this matter with our children. I thank the Minister for mentioning male victims of sexual violence, and I also thank a charity in my constituency, First Step, which does some incredible work on this issue. It is really important that we focus on the needs of victims and survivors. That is why I would like to highlight some of the work that is being done in my constituency. Victims of rape, who have already had to endure such horrendous torture, are sometimes left behind and are victims once again because they get no support whatsoever. That is why for the past 35 years, Shama Women’s Centre in my constituency has provided sanctuary for victims of domestic abuse, among other incredible work. It helps those victims back on their feet, giving them training, job skills, advice, financial help and somewhere to stay while they are hiding from the perpetrators. This really helps women as they strive for independence in their battle for a better life, and to get away from the horrendous abuse they have experienced. We must do more to protect our charity sector; charities are sometimes the last place that these women have to go to, because they have been neglected by everybody else. Financial support is really needed.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Member, which is why I have raised the issue of national insurance on a couple of occasions. In fact, Jasmine House, which supports women who are the victims of rape and already has a two-year waiting list, was looking to add an extra member of staff, but is now going to reduce its number of staff members. It just cannot afford it, because of the rise in national insurance contributions. With 8,000 cases of domestic violence being reported to the police in Leicester alone, it is clear that we need to ensure that the charity sector receives increased long-term funding, and that the police receive the best possible training on how to help the victims and investigate the cases. From our side, we offer cross-party support to help the Government however we can, to make sure that we can help with this matter.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Charities · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. I will be a little more generous and say that this situation was an unintended consequence of the Budget, because it is unravelling very quickly. However, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the charity sector could cease to exist. Jasmine House, which provides support for women who have been victims of sexual violence and are having to wait five to six years for a court appearance, has a two-year waiting list. Last year, when I spoke to the charity, it was intending to expand. Now it is going to more or less shut down because it just does not have the money. It will cost too much to continue operating. Another charity, which is close to my professional career, is Vista. It is 170 years old and provides support for partially sighted and blind individuals in the city of Leicester. The changes will cost Vista an extra £25,000 a year. It is calling for an exemption for social care providers and charitable organisations, or for ringfenced funds to be provided to local governments to cover the cost in full.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I totally agree with the hon. Member that GP services are already on their knees, and this is going to further increase their despondency. It will give them no confidence whatsoever. A second issue relates to our charities. I do not think there will be a single Member in this House who has not posed in front of a charity for a photo for their social media or for the work that they do. In my short time in this profession I have seen that this country is virtually run by charities, but every single year they have to jump through fire hoops just to make ends meet. They have to prove their worth and look for funding every year, living virtually hand to mouth. This will be the final nail in the coffin for many charities that are doing vital work for our communities. There are so many that I could mention, but I will mention just one. Jasmine House is a charity in my constituency that provides vital support for women who have been victims of sexual violence. We already know the dire state of the judicial system, with women who have been raped having to wait up to five years or sometimes seven years for justice. This home, which provides much-needed psychological and emotional support, already has a two-year waiting list. This rise in national insurance will completely destroy this charity and many more like it across the country, which is why I urge the Government to rethink this disastrous policy and accept my amendment.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Gambling-related Crime: Support for Victims · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome that response from the Minister. Gambling addiction destroys lives. In fact, on average, 496 gambling-related suicides occur every year. It is not just the lives of the gamblers that get destroyed; there is an invisible group of victims—the families who have to pick up the pieces. A local charity in my constituency—Spinney Hill drugs, alcohol and addiction support—told me of a talented young man from a deprived socioeconomic background whose family saved every single penny to send him to university. He spent that and more on gambling because of his addiction. The family are now in spiralling debt, and the whole family unit has been destroyed. Does the Minister agree that gambling companies should pay a levy to help compensate families, especially when children are becoming addicted?

• 10 Dec 2024 · Gambling-related Crime: Support for Victims · Hansard source

  More

  12. What steps her Department is taking through the criminal justice system to help support victims of gambling-related crimes.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a leaseholder. I welcome this debate and, in particular, the Deputy Prime Minister’s considered, sympathetic and empathetic contribution. I agree with her wholeheartedly that the Grenfell disaster was caused by systematic failures across the board, including in the Government—or Governments—and in the private sector, where commercial gain was prioritised over people’s lives while a broken system allowed unfettered competition to bulldoze through what little regulation was in place. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) said, we all remember where we were that evening. It was the month of Ramadan and we were coming home from evening prayers. My heart broke twice that evening. Once was when I saw the victims in front of me on my television screen and mobile phone. The second was knowing that those victims were going to have to wait an age for justice. Even I did not perceive that it was going to take this long. The 72 people who died on that terrible night, their relatives, the bereaved and the survivors, deserve justice, and it can happen with real change to the building safety system from top to bottom. That is why I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment to putting into place all 58 of the recommendations, but it has to be done as soon as possible. Furthermore, we welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s expediting the remediation of the unsafe cladding. This has simply taken too long. On 9 September, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), said in answer to a parliamentary question: “Speeding up the remediation of buildings is absolutely critical. Seven years on from Grenfell, action has been far too slow and the fire in Dagenham is a horrific reminder of the risk unsafe cladding still poses to far too many people.” For the 49 private tenants of Abbey House, an eight-storey block in Leicester South with dangerous cladding, that remediation cannot come too quickly. However, they are caught between a bureaucratic rock and a commercial hard place. The freehold of that block is owned by Leicester City Council, but in 2015 the mayor granted a 150-year lease to a private company to refurbish the block as private rented accommodation. As the block contains no individual leaseholders, it is not eligible for any Government funding for cladding remediation. This is clearly intolerable for the residents of that block. While the to-ing and fro-ing goes on about who should remediate the block, the residents are living in constant fear that their block is unsafe, and the lack of resolution just makes it worse. As the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) mentioned, if the Government are truly serious about making homes safe, ownership issues such as those at Abbey House cannot be allowed to get in the way of removing unsafe cladding and other materials. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it is now essential that Government funds are made available across the board urgently, to make all our buildings safe? Once that is done, issues of who is responsible and how to reclaim the costs can be resolved.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that local charities like Jasmine House, which operates in my constituency, play a vital role in supporting women who have been victims of a sexual crime? But in addition to the worry of constantly trying to find funding, they are concerned about the impact that the Government’s proposed increase in employer’s national insurance will have on their ability to continue providing that help. Does the Minister agree that they should be exempt from the changes to national insurance contributions?