Shockat Adam MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Jun 2025 · War Memorials · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

  In addition to the 400 the hon. Member mentions, we have seen close to 50,000 Palestinians killed, the majority of whom have been women and children. In addition to the manufacture and supply of F-35 parts, it appears that RAF Marham in Norfolk has been used at least seven times to send spare parts directly to Israel. Since declaring a so-called suspension of arms exports, the UK has issued 34 new licences, including those for essential aircraft components. I ask the Minister directly: which licences were suspended in September 2024, which licences remain suspended, and why have the Government refused to publish details of arms exports between July and September 2024? Our military co-operation extends beyond arms sales; it is operational, especially when it comes to using our airbase in Akrotiri, Cyprus. In one year alone, from December 2023 to November 2024, the UK conducted 645 surveillance and recon missions, which amounts to almost two flights a day. Interestingly, during the same period, the US moved heavy transport aircraft carrying military equipment to Akrotiri, and the RAF subsequently conducted daily cargo flights from Akrotiri to Tel Aviv. We have been told that those flights were for surveillance and hostage rescue, but if that is the case, we must ask why we used RAF Atlas C1 aircraft, which are large enough to transport military vehicles and helicopters.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Schooling Costs · Hansard source

  More

  Parents whose children have special educational needs and disabilities do not wish to send their children to far-away schools, but they have to, because of a lack of local provision. If the children are over the age of 16, however, it is at the discretion of the local authority to decide whether to meet the cost of transporting them to school, even though education is effectively compulsory until the age of 18. Many local authorities, including in Leicester South, are now passing that cost entirely on to parents. Will the Minister commit to dealing with SEND transport costs in the Department’s work to reduce the cost of sending children to school?

• 25 Feb 2025 · SEND Education Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing this vital debate. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am an NHS optometrist. I rise to highlight two critical issues: the severe gap in transport provision for post-16 students, and the additional challenges faced by children with visual impairment in the SEND system. No parent of a SEND child willingly chooses to send them miles away for education. They do so because there is a lack of local provision. Until the age of 16, local authorities cover the cost of transportation, but beyond that, families are expected to finance it themselves —an expectation that is, frankly, unrealistic. I have spoken to parents who are on the brink of crisis, including Ruth and Esther from Still SEND 16+. Some are considering giving up their work to personally manage their child’s school commute, pushing them into benefits and ultimately costing the state more than simply providing transport would. A consultation has already shown that 29% of affected young people may be forced to abandon education. Will the Government consider making post-16 SEND transport statutory, ensuring that young people do not have to choose between education and affordability? I also wish to raise the additional challenge faced by children with a visual impairment within the SEND framework. Across the UK, 41,000 children and young people rely on specialist visual impairment education services. Half of them have additional SEND needs, yet local disparities in provision mean that many do not receive the support they require. The Royal National Institute of Blind People has called for urgent reforms. I echo that. The curriculum framework for children and young people with visual impairment must be embedded in all SEND policies. The Government commitment to recruit 6,500 expert teachers must include funding for additional registered qualified habitation specialists and qualified visual impairment specialist teachers, and all teacher training and special educational needs co-ordinator courses must include mandatory visual impairment awareness training to improve inclusivity in mainstream schools.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Holocaust Memorial Day · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. “Hate is the worst 4 letter word that exists”, said Holocaust survivor Mathilde Middleberg. I am deeply honoured to be called in the debate. As movingly articulated by the hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky), 80 years has passed since the liberation of Auschwitz, but it is heartbreaking to see acts of genocide, hate and evil still happening across the world and increasing threats from a new wind of far-right. The horrors of the camps must never be forgotten, and the testimonies of the survivors are still ringing in our ears and are as relevant today as they were 80 years ago, because what is 80 years in the history of the world but a blink of an eye? Yet, sadly, current events suggest that some people today need a reminder of the lessons of that horror. For the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Bergen-Belsen, the University of Leicester in my constituency published extracts from the east midlands oral history archive of an interview with Leicester nurse Erti Wilford. Erti treated the survivors of Belsen for two years after its liberation by the British Army. She spoke of approaching Bergen-Belsen and smelling the dreadful smells from as far away as five miles, saying that she had: “Never seen so much suffering and lice and filth. At Belsen they were just bag of bones and it was just dreadful, but some of them lived, it was quite incredible”. Erti recalls the excitement of a camp doctor finally being allowed to deliver a baby and return it back to its mother rather than hand it to a guard for execution. We must remember the names of Anne and Margot Frank, whose final resting place is Bergen-Belsen. They unfortunately died of typhus approximately a month before the liberation. One would hope that such experiences mean that hate and genocidal and Nazi actions are a thing of the past, but sadly that is not the case. As articulated by the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), in Bosnia, the trucks arrived and they said, “Men, young and old, tall and short—get on and we will transport you to safety.” Within two weeks, 8,000 Muslim men, women and children were executed.

• 3 Dec 2024 · Home-to-School Transport: Children with SEND · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this vital debate on a subject that is of concern to many of my constituents. Education is a fundamental right for every child and should not be treated as a favour or privilege. We are witnessing at first hand how the lack of adequate travel provision can prevent children from accessing education. The consequences of not providing proper travel services extend far beyond the immediate inconvenience to parents. Without transport, children will remain at home, where they are not engaged in education or employment. The social cost of that is immense. Parents will be forced to reduce their working hours or even give to up their jobs. We must ask ourselves whether that is the kind of future we want to create for our children and communities. Travel arrangements for these children are about more than just convenience; they are about ensuring they can get to school safely and on time. Furthermore, we must ask ourselves about the reality of SEND children travelling for about two hours daily. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) mentioned, cost is not the issue; it is the fact that no provision is available locally. That is why parents are forced to send their children so far away. What impact must that have on their wellbeing? We must have more facilities and more schools—