Oral Answers to Questions

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

I am happy to discuss that issue with my hon. Friend. We are determined to have co-located UTCs; I know that that is a matter for the local commissioner, but I am happy to talk about it further.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Vista is a 160-year-old charity serving people in Leicester and Leicestershire who are suffering from visual disabilities. Last year alone, it served 21,000 people, but sadly, it faces imminent closure if it cannot raise £2 million by the end of March. If that happens, the devastating effect on the national health service and the social care service will be unimaginable, so will the Minister meet me and other local MPs, as well as representatives of University Hospitals of Leicester, to discuss what we can do to save Vista?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, and pay tribute to Vista for the outstanding work it is doing. Improving IT connectivity is a vital part of what we are doing, and the single point of access project is of relevance in that context. I would be more than happy if the hon. Gentleman wrote to me so that we can look at the issue he has raised.

Hughes Report: Second Anniversary

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for this valuable and vital debate.

I pay tribute to all families who have suffered a miscarriage of justice, and in this case to all those who have been impacted by sodium valproate or pelvic mesh. I am especially grateful to my constituent Emma Friedman, and I salute her and her son Andy for educating me about this issue, and particularly about sodium valproate, but also for their real strength and perseverance and their unwavering commitment to justice.

Achieving justice should not really be so hard, but unfortunately it is. As the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) mentioned, we have seen this all before: 30,000 people were infected and affected in the contaminated blood scandal in the ’70s and ’80s; 700 hard-working postmasters and postmistresses were falsely prosecuted and their lives destroyed; and billions and billions of pounds were wasted on unusable personal protective equipment during a national emergency.

Sodium valproate is an effective drug. It was developed in 1962, and it has transformed the lives of countless people with epilepsy and bipolar disorders. However, it has always been known to cause serious harm when taken during pregnancy, and the risks are stark: around 30% to 40% of children exposed in the womb develop neurodevelopmental disorders and approximately 10% suffer serious congenital malformations, including spina bifida, cleft lips and other lifelong disabilities. The sadness is that 20,000 children in the UK are estimated to have been affected.

The concern is that evidence suggests doctors were aware of the risks from the early years. However, according to the minutes of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, it made the extraordinary decision in the 1970s that fully warning women may cause “fruitless anxiety”. The warnings were not given, and the fact that that decision was made after the thalidomide scandal makes it all the more shocking.

Some parents report that they were warned about the possible side effects to themselves, but never about those to their unborn babies. That pattern appears to have been repeated again and again. Clear warnings did not emerge until the late 1990s and were only strengthened around 2010. The first GP toolkit was published as late as 2015—and it still did not mandate direct, informed conversations with patients, so GPs simply did not have to tell patients.

As has been mentioned already, women were often dismissed. No long-term study was ever conducted; even today, some women are only discovering through their own research why their 30 or 35-year-old child lives with a disability linked to valproate. That is truly shocking, and it is still ongoing—it is not history. The Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review chaired by Baroness Cumberlege published its First Do No Harm report in 2020. It concluded that women had been misled and ill-informed, and recommended an independent redress agency, specifically a compensation scheme for those harmed by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. Unfortunately, the Government did not accept those recommendations. In December 2022 the Patient Safety Commissioner was asked to explore options, and on 7 February 2024 the Hughes report clearly called for an independent two-stage scheme providing both financial and non-financial compensation. The Government have yet to respond.

Meanwhile, families continue to struggle. In many cases it is the mother, who may herself still be suffering with epilepsy, who is the primary carer of a disabled child. Many families are living in difficult socioeconomic conditions and they are barely surviving. We cannot even begin to imagine the emotional toll and the feeling of guilt that many parents talk about. Many feel that it is their fault. We cannot imagine their mental anguish.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I pay tribute to the people who have brought this issue so far. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the emotional toll he speaks of is living large in the lives of those families and that they deserve, at the absolute least, an apology and redress?

[Shockat Adam]

Yes—that is the least that we can do.

Sodium valproate is effective, as was powerfully demonstrated by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), and women must not abruptly stop taking the medication, as that can be seriously dangerous. However, this issue represents a serious failure of communication between regulators, GPs, specialists, fertility clinics and pharmacists. We must modernise the safety system, with better data sharing, digital alerts, clear warnings on packaging and, above all, mandatory one-to-one consultations so that every woman of child- bearing age understands the risks and the alternatives.

Mistakes will always occur in medicine, but how quickly we acknowledge them, learn from them and compensate those harmed is the true mark of a progressive society. The current Health Secretary, when in Opposition in February 2024, expressed frustration at how slowly justice was progressing. Those words must now be matched with action.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out this issue. As I have said, the reforms that we announced in December will make a major difference, because dentists have not been incentivised to do NHS dentistry. That requires us to significantly increase the UDA, as we are doing, but there is a range of other measures that we need to take. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the specific details of that case.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Failed private finance initiative schemes from the noughties in three Leicester hospitals resulted in the NHS being sued for almost £30 million, despite no work being carried out. Leicester hospitals are still without any new buildings. I ask the Minister that expensive, inefficient financial packages—£60 billion of private money costing £306 billion of taxpayers’ money—not be utilised for future projects.

[Wes Streeting]

This Government are putting record levels of capital investment into the NHS to correct more than 14 years of Conservative failure. We are using public investment. We are certainly learning the lessons of the past in relation to PFI. We are able to do that only because people voted Labour and elected a Labour Government. I look forward to working with the city’s Labour MPs to deliver the improvements in services that it deserves.

Budget Resolutions

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome the Government’s abolition of the two-child benefit cap, but it should not have taken 16 months—it should have been the first act of a Labour Government.

I will speak first about the national health service. It is the jewel in the UK crown, but under consecutive Governments, millions of pounds of public money has gone to waste on interest payments for PFI schemes—that is money that should have been spent on frontline care or paying for doctors and nurses. PFI was a costly failure that lined the pockets of private consultants and contractors at the expense of NHS patients and staff. Now, it appears that the Government are planning to do the same again but expect different results.

Failed PFI schemes from the noughties, for three Leicestershire hospitals, saw the NHS sued for almost £30 million by the favoured consortium despite work not being taken and not a single hospital being built. Leicester’s three hospitals are still without any new buildings, as Ministers have pushed their development into wave 2, way beyond the original 2030 target, more than 30 years after the need was first identified. Coventry hospital, which was built, costs £1 million a week alone. The law was even changed to ensure that private contractors were paid before our NHS staff. Since the inception of PFI, around £60 billion of private money has gone into 700 PFI projects. In return, the Government will pay £306 billion. Those escalating costs eat into the NHS budget and leave less for frontline services.

Secondly, I will speak about private providers. As an optometrist, I have referred people for cataracts surgery because the waiting time is much shorter and it makes sense to do so, but unfortunately the transfer of taxpayer money to the private sector reduces resources for NHS services and ultimately limits its ability to treat patients effectively. The Government have apparently set aside £2.5 billion—and that is set to rise to £16 billion—for private services That is disappointing, as they could have used the Budget to expand NHS capacity by building new facilities, rather than buying out private sector clinics, but they did not. They could support local authorities and not-for-profit organisations to take over social care, but they have not. These are political decisions that have consequences in the long run.

Thirdly, I would like to speak about the deal with Palantir on data sharing that the Health Secretary is pressing ahead with. I have had patients contact me who are really concerned about data sharing. In fact, two of them wrote to me in the last week because they are really frightened that they have to opt out of this. It seems that our data is a commodity that is going to the highest bidder.

I would also quickly like to touch on hospices. I am running out of time, but LOROS hospice in my constituency is serving 1.2 million people in Leicester with only 18 beds—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order.

Defibrillators

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing this debate on what is literally a matter of life and death.

Last week, I was fortunate enough to unveil a new community defibrillator in the Evington ward of my constituency, thanks to the dedicated work of community champions such as Teej and organisations such as the Evington Road Neighbourhood Association, and to the generosity of the local pharmacy, Pearl Chemist, which allowed them to use its wall. That work shows that when people get together they can achieve anything, but it also highlights the wider crisis that access remains a postcode lottery.

A quarter of the postcodes in my constituency are not within easy reach of a defibrillator. Every single day, 80 to 90 people die from a cardiac arrest out of hospital. However, when a defib is used quickly, not only does it save lives, but recovery is faster and the risk of comorbidities, including brain damage, and the need for long-term care are dramatically reduced. An intensive care unit bed costs around £2,300 a night, but a patient treated with a defibrillator within one minute will often avoid intensive care altogether and suffer far fewer longer-term complications. Early access to a defibrillator therefore saves the NHS and the Government significant amounts of money, as well as saving lives.

Defibrillators should be readily available everywhere, but one area where they are not is places of worship. I ask Ministers to scrap the VAT and give peace of mind to our communities.

Glaucoma Awareness

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

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.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He rightly alludes to the issue of regular eye testing. Although we obviously want a response from the Minister, does he agree that if nothing else is achieved from this debate but raising people’s awareness about doing exactly as he recommends—and all of us recommend regular eye testing—to detect conditions such as glaucoma, he will have done us all a service?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shockat Adam]

I could not agree more. If we achieve that one thing today, we will have achieved a great milestone. In its early stages, glaucoma has no symptoms, pain or warning signs—just a slow, silent theft of vision. By the time it is noticed, the damage is permanent; it is as if the fire has gutted the house before anybody has even smelled the smoke. That loss has far-reaching consequences. People lose not only their sight but, more importantly, their independence—their ability to drive, read, cook or even leave the house. Falls increase, isolation grows, and then come the emotional and mental health impacts: fear, depression and loss of identity. At this point, I quickly pay homage to charities such as Vista in my constituency, which has offered valuable support for people living with visual loss.

On the subject of depression and identity, I want to share a moment that has stayed with me; it concerns a rare condition that many people do not know can be a consequence of vision loss. A woman, diagnosed with glaucoma, phoned my clinic, deeply distressed. She said a child was following her—but no one else could see them. She was terrified that she was losing her mind. In fact, she had a condition called Charles Bonnet syndrome, a common but under-recognised condition in which the brain fills in visual gaps with vivid hallucinations. Many people never mention it, understandably fearful that they will be labelled as senile or unstable, and so they suffer in silence. Esme lived with Charles Bonnet syndrome for over a decade, haunted by hallucinations that she knew were not real. Her daughter, Judith, now champions awareness through the incredible organisation, Esme’s Umbrella. These are not clinical oddities; they are real human stories, and far more common than we acknowledge.

We are now facing a growing crisis. Work done by the Association of Optometrists, Primary Eyecare Services and Fight for Sight has shown that glaucoma cases are expected to rise by 22% in the next 10 years and 44% in the next 20 years. That is hundreds of thousands more people needing care, follow-up and support, yet we already have the tools to stop this.

I would like to frame this, Minister, around the three bases of the Government’s own proposals for tackling healthcare. First, we must move from hospital to community. Patients are losing their sight not because care does not exist, but because the pathway is broken and follow-up is delayed. Just recently, a patient of mine was referred to hospital and diagnosed with glaucoma—fine, no problem there. The initial appointment happened without any problems, but the follow-up was postponed. Then the patient missed her appointment, and the one after that was postponed again. By the time I saw that patient again, just over a year later, they had lost two full lines on their visual acuity chart—the chart used by the optician. That is two lines that this patient will never, ever get back. That is the difference between being able to read letters or not; between seeing a grandchild smile or only hearing them.

One of the problems is that current waiting list data measures only first-time appointments, not the ongoing care vital to chronic conditions such as glaucoma. We need published data on follow-up waiting times, because that is where sight is being lost. That data would allow patients to make an informed choice about where they would like to receive treatment.

Here is the reality: hospital ophthalmology is the largest outpatient specialty in the NHS, with 8.9 million appointments in England in 2023-24, according to the College of Optometrists. It cannot carry that load alone. The answer lies in the community. There are over 14,000 qualified optometrists in England, providing more than 13 million eye tests. They are trained, regulated and ready to help.

Community glaucoma services led by optometrists have already demonstrated the ability to reduce hospital referrals by up to 79%. If we implemented a nationally regulated programme, it could free up 300,000 hospital appointments a year. That is not a one-time saving, because glaucoma is a chronic condition. People are not cured of it—they live with it, and must continue with recurring appointments for the rest of their lives. Shared care would allow faster appointments, earlier diagnosis, less vision loss, and critically, more time for hospital ophthalmologists to treat complex cases. It could also save the NHS an estimated £12 million annually.

Wales has already adopted this model; England should do the same. Yet fewer than one in five areas in England offers this service. It is a postcode lottery—one that punishes the most vulnerable, especially given that people from black and Asian communities are up to four times more likely to develop glaucoma and often have the least access to care. We need to raise awareness and create the statutory framework so that everyone—GPs, pharmacists, the public—knows to go the optometrist for an eye test. We need a national roll-out of a statutory integrated glaucoma pathway.

Secondly, we must move from analogue to digital; lack of digital connectivity is another major obstacle. Many optometrists are unable to send digital referrals to local hospitals. Some do not even have access to NHS email and we still cannot access shared patient records. That means crucial information such as medication, medical history and images get lost, delayed or duplicated. This is 2025. It should not be easier to get a takeaway delivered than to refer a patient with a sight-threatening disease. To move forward, we need access to NHS email for all primary eye care providers; shared patient records between optometrists, GPs and hospital services; and an efficient two-way electronic referral system. That kind of interoperability is basic infrastructure and would transform the speed, safety and continuity of glaucoma care.

Finally, we must move from sickness to prevention. The final and most important pillar is prevention.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. I know that he is very passionate about this area. More than half a million people suffer from the illness. Would he agree that the issue is about not just a national roll-out and getting an understanding, but a proactive approach where general practitioners make referrals for individuals whom they know are at a higher risk?

[Shockat Adam]

The hon. Gentleman may have read my speech when I was not looking, as I am coming to that point in a little while.

Regular eye exams are the frontline of glaucoma detection, yet one in four people in the UK is not accessing any form of eye care at all. Minister, we should begin with a mandatory sight test for drivers. The UK is the only country in Europe that gives lifelong licences until the age of 70 without requiring an eye exam. Earlier this year, a coroner in Lancashire issued a prevention of future deaths report linking a fatal crash to undiagnosed sight loss. This is no longer just a health issue; it is a public safety one. We can also incentivise eye tests, perhaps through reduced insurance premiums, employer wellbeing programmes or GP-led initiatives. For those over 40, when glaucoma risks are higher, every routine health check should include a simple question: “When did you last have your eyes tested?”

Finally, we must consider innovation. Most glaucoma patients are prescribed lifelong eye drops, but there is poor compliance. Mr Pritchard, imagine that you were elderly and trying to open up a bottle of eye drops and bring it to your eyes. It is very difficult, especially with arthritis and tremors; difficulty inserting the drops remains a major challenge. But new options are now available. One is called minimally invasive glaucoma surgery, which can delay or even eliminate the need for drops. I urge the Minister to explore commissioning MIGS, especially for suitable patients undergoing cataract surgery. Everybody who lives long enough will need to have a cataract operation. If they are also suffering with glaucoma, we can stop the disease in its tracks before it causes irreversible harms. It is critical that patients with glaucoma who need cataract surgery are able to discuss options with their glaucoma consultant, because if MIGS is not performed during cataract surgery, it may be eliminated as a future option.

The total cost of visual impairment in the UK is now £26.5 billion. That is projected to rise to £33.5 billion by 2032. Glaucoma alone accounts for £750 million, according to the College of Optometrists, and most of that burden falls outside the national health service in lost productivity, in formal care, in people having to give up work to look after family who have lost their sight and in a completely diminished quality of life. In fact, 41% of people surveyed reported severe financial impact due to sight loss, often followed by depression, anxiety and social withdrawal.

This is a silent epidemic and it all leads to a low score in every perceivable index. But it is not inevitable. We already know what works and we already have the workforce and technology. What we need now is collaboration from the optical and ophthalmic industry and a political will. That will help us shift care from hospitals into the community, bring eye care into the digital age and help us prevent sickness such as glaucoma, saving the sight of millions in the future. Let us act now while we can still see what is around us.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing this important debate. When the time comes, I will welcome an intervention from him to help me pronounce the name of the eye operation that I had, because I can never say it.

I often say that all politics is personal, and that is incredibly apt for me in this debate, because 17 years ago, when I was 25, I was diagnosed with glaucoma. Pre-diagnosis, my knowledge of the condition extended to Edgar Davids, the Dutch footballer who wore what looked like safety goggles when playing because he had glaucoma and could not wear contact lenses.

Unlike many people’s glaucoma stories, mine is a very fortunate one. Before coming to this place, I was a golf professional. At the time, I was giving lessons to an optician, who offered to gift me a pair of glasses as thanks—I know that sounds a familiar story for a Labour politician, but I move on. He did some tests, including for glaucoma, and commented that my eye pressure was extremely high, in the mid-30s. Within the hour, I was in the ophthalmology clinic at Perth royal infirmary and was diagnosed with glaucoma.

Dr Cobb, who became my consultant, saw me at Perth royal that afternoon and has been absolutely incredible ever since. She explained to me that I was very lucky: if I had continued undiagnosed, I would probably have had another decade or so of eyesight and then would have woken up one day, in my mid-30s, unable to see. There would have been nothing she could have done for me; I would have been blind. The glaucoma was totally symptomless, and it is irreversible—those are the real dangers.

[Shockat Adam]

I always recall a patient of mine who was diagnosed with glaucoma at a very late stage. She came into the practice with a wad of cash and said, “Give me the best glasses and lenses you have, so I can see again.” Unfortunately she had glaucoma, and the vision was lost. There was nothing that money could buy.

[Brian Leishman]

That is not the first time I have heard that. I have another optician friend, who said that that has been a regular occurrence in his career. Someone may not know that they have glaucoma until it is too late.

I was prescribed eye drops. I went through a few options, with not much success, until I ended up on three different drops: bimatoprost, brinzolamide and brimonidine. All three go in my left eye at bedtime and then again the next morning, and then just brimonidine in my right eye at bedtime and again the next morning.

My right eye needs only one set of drops because it has been operated on. It has had a trabeculectomy—I hope that pronunciation was close enough. The operation was needed to save the eyesight in my right eye. It was an operation under general anaesthetic to make an incision in my eyeball to allow pressure to disperse and not attack my optic nerve. After an overnight stay in hospital, I wore an eye patch for a week, with no bending over for a fortnight and four weeks off work. I had a good report from Dr Cobb, and have had eye drops twice a day and twice-yearly check-ups at hospitals since. I really am lucky.

As well as my thanks to my consultant, I want to record my appreciation for my optician, Eddie Russell of Norman Salmoni, who provides regular check-ups between hospital visits, and for the outstanding care that his practice provides.

All that goes to show that the NHS really is our greatest invention. Personally, I reject the language of the NHS being broken. It is not broken; it is underfunded. The staff deserve more. They deserve the very best.

I cannot emphasise enough how important it is to get tested. Testing could be the difference between retaining one’s eyesight and not. I thank hon. Members for permitting me to share a bit about my ongoing glaucoma journey. Glaucoma cannot ever be cured, but we can try to manage the decline somewhat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shockat Adam]

It has been a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank each and every hon. Member for their contribution. I think we have achieved the first objective, which was to raise awareness of glaucoma, and we should keep the conversation going. As my neighbour, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, we have an ageing population. If nothing is done, very soon there will be more than half a million people walking around with this condition. That is why it was pleasing to hear that the Minister remembered our meeting, which was early on in our tenure; I can assure him we will continue to have that meeting every time he sees me about eye health.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people in the Public Gallery: we have people from the Worshipful Company of Spectacle Makers, the General Optical Council, the College of Optometrists and Glaukos —my apologies if I have forgotten anybody there. We must utilise optometry as the primary eyecare provider that it is, and treat it as such, equivalent to how we treat our GPs and pharmacy colleagues. We need a statutory framework to regulate the whole process of detection, monitoring and treating glaucoma. Working collectively with the optical and ophthalmic bodies and the Government, we can surely do our best to keep people from suffering preventable sight loss and the devasting impact that that has on their lives.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered glaucoma awareness.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 13th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Spencer]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Of course, these are difficult things to disentangle. People will say, “You would say this, wouldn’t you, Ben?”, but we should get the person in front of a psychiatrist or a clinical nurse specialist working in psychiatry. This is what psychiatry does; this is what it is about. That is why I tabled amendments to ensure that the person is put in front of a psychiatrist as part of the process to deal with the blind spot. [Interruption.] Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will finish now.

My amendment would ensure that the code of practice clarifies the interaction with services.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Dr Spencer]

I think I am pushing it.

I tried to intervene on the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) to ask what she thinks about that. She is welcome to intervene on me now if she has further points to add. Otherwise, I ask the Minister to address those points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 15, which is tabled in my name. I will minimise my comments to maximise the time available to other hon. Members.

Owing to the widespread unease among NHS practitioners and the growing number of concerned voices about the Bill’s shortcomings, if it is passed by the House—I still hope that it will not be—it is likely that assisted deaths will take place away from the public sector. Indeed, the Bill does not prevent assisted deaths from being outsourced to private companies, and there is no definition of what “reasonable remuneration” means in return for helping to end someone’s life. My amendment seeks to ensure that providers publish annually the number of people to whom they have provided those services, the costs of doing so, and the revenues received in return.

Many hon. Members will be guided by their religion when they vote on these issues. Although I deeply respect that, I am not a person of faith. If there is a booming baritone voice appealing to my conscience, it is not that of God, but that of Nye Bevan, who was concerned about the commodification of care. In his time, the worry was about the role of the market in extending life. Today, my concern is about the potential role of the market in ending it.

Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have discussed different kinds of coercion by individuals on the lives of people whose protection is entrusted to us. As a Labour MP, I do not think that we can have this debate without addressing the economic coercion experienced by the vulnerable in our society. As someone who has sat beside a bed and prayed for mercy, I genuinely understand the attraction of arguments around freedom of choice, but arguing for that as a fundamental principle in isolation, without also acknowledging the economic, social and cultural context in which people make such choices, is not a Labour approach to the issue.

[Shockat Adam]

Does the hon. Member agree that no matter how many new clauses we introduce, we cannot militate against people being vulnerable, particularly financially? According to the charity Mind, 2.7 million people in this country have considered suicide because of financial hardship. How could we militate against that?

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Member makes an important point that we have to consider. We must recognise that, as he says, people’s choices are limited by the unfair distribution of wealth, the injustices that disabled people face throughout their life, or the attitudes of the powerful in society towards those who are less fortunate.

Dementia Care

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Voaden]

There is a lack of equity, is there not? I looked at Hansard, and dementia has been mentioned 192 times since the general election last year, but cancer has been mentioned nearly 1,000 times—we have spoken about cancer five times more than we have about dementia. That shines a light on what a hidden problem it is, and yet it is not hidden, because we all have experience of it.

We must urgently examine the funding and availability of care homes and find a way to reduce the staggering costs, which can cripple family finances and local authority budgets. House of Commons Library research commissioned by the Liberal Democrats has shown that the cost of care in nursing homes increased by 61% from 2015 to 2022. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the introduction of free personal care in England, based on the model introduced by the party in government in Scotland in 2002, so that provision is based on need, not ability to pay.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

The hon. Member is being extremely generous with her time. Is she concerned, along with the Alzheimer’s Society, that more than 71% of carers for people with dementia have no formal training whatsoever, although dementia requires very specific care and training? Will she join me in calling on the Government to introduce mandatory training for all those who care for our loved ones with dementia?

[Caroline Voaden]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention—I have not quite got there yet, but it is in my speech. We are also calling for a cross-party commission to form a long-term agreement on sustainable funding for social care in England.

Last week I met journalist John Suchet, whose wife Bonnie died of dementia. He is now married to Nula, who lost her husband James to a rare form of dementia known as Pick’s disease, diagnosed when he was just 57. John and Nula met in the care home where they were supporting their partners. They supported each other along a terrible journey and have both since written books about their experience. In Nula’s book she says:

“Dementia, dementia, what is it? I still know very little. All I know is, it’s a bloody cruel, sadistic disease, that has demolished my hopes, plans and dreams. It has taken away my life, twisted it and mangled it, and so it can claim another victim—two for the price of one…With absolutely no professional support—no-one at all monitoring his or my journey as they would, for instance, a cancer or Parkinson’s patient. I am entirely alone.”

It should not and must not be like that for the carers who give up everything to look after someone they love.

This is where the Government must step in. We need a clear strategy to support people with dementia and their families at every stage. That starts with an urgent review of NHS continuing healthcare, so that dementia-specific needs, especially cognitive and behavioural needs, are properly recognised, with specialists involved in assessments. No one should face dementia alone. Families must have access to a specialist dementia nurse, regular health and wellbeing reviews, and co-ordinated, joined-up care. We also need a national framework for young onset dementia, ensuring timely diagnosis, tailored support, and fair access to care. To relieve pressure on hospitals, every NHS acute trust should have a specialist dementia nurse service, backed by ringfenced funding.

Investing in dementia support will clearly save the NHS money in the long term. I am sure the Minister knows these statistics, but I will read them out: people with dementia visit the GP three times more often than someone without dementia; 25% of people with dementia living in their own homes are admitted to hospital with a potentially treatable condition; 25% of hospital beds are occupied by people with dementia, and they stay in hospital twice as long as other people aged over 65; and 43% of people with dementia in hospital are there due to urinary tract and chest infections, both of which are treatable at home.

A voluntary, community and social enterprise response to the closure of the Devon adviser service showed that dementia support workers are cost-effective, and that every £1 invested in dementia support worker roles results in almost £4-worth of benefits. Compare that with the cost of a hospital stay. Over 85% of dementia patients with a hip fracture stay for up to 14 days, and 34% for over a month, despite the national average length of stay being just seven days. The extra cost is estimated at around £6,000 per patient. The Alzheimer’s Society said between 2015 and 2020,

“almost 336,000 admissions costing almost £1 billion to the NHS were for chest infections, delirium, falls and UTIs, all of which can be prevented or managed well in the community.”

Clearly, this is a strong case for invest to save.

Clinical care must go hand in hand with long overdue social care reform. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a comprehensive social care workforce plan, the creation of a royal college of care workers, and a higher carer’s minimum wage to reflect the value of this essential work. Unpaid carers also need support, with paid leave, respite breaks, and proper recognition. Finally, we must expand dementia training across the sector, backed by a national care agency to uphold standards and register care workers. The Care Quality Commission has just published a report that underlines the importance of reform. Its findings were alarming, confirming that health and social care staff frequently lack understanding about the specific needs of dementia patients. The Alzheimer’s Society estimates that only 29% of paid carers have training in dementia.

Dementia is a growing issue and the system is already under strain. Right now, approximately 30% of general hospital beds in Devon are occupied by people with dementia, many of whom are there because of preventable conditions. A sustainable strategy for dementia care must focus on community-based support, early diagnosis, carer support and workforce training. That is not only the right thing to do; it will save money in the long run. It is time that we treated dementia care not as a burden, but as a vital part of building a compassionate and sustainable future for everyone affected.

Mental Health Bill [Lords]

Shockat Adam Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It has been humbling to be part of this debate and to hear powerful contributions from hon. Members who have so much knowledge, in particular the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) and the hon. Members for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) and for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), who made emotive speeches.

I welcome the Bill and the Government’s recognition that the current legislation is no longer fit for purpose. With over 54,000 people detained under the existing Mental Health Act, this is an opportunity to modernise a system that often fails to provide care fairly and effectively. We have heard brutal testimony of that today.

Although I support the direction of the Bill, one area that needs greater attention is the impact on young people. We are seeing a clear and worrying rise in mental health issues among children and teenagers, yet the Bill does not fully guarantee them the same rights and safeguards as adults. There is still no statutory test for decision-making capacity for under-16s. Without it, many young people could miss out on key rights such as choosing a responsible nominated person or accessing the protection around informal admission.

Current guidelines say that children should be placed on adult wards only in exceptional cases, but that is still happening far too often. In 2022-23, nearly 200 children were admitted to an adult psychiatric ward. These environments are not designed for them. Children who are placed there can lose access to education, peer support and age-appropriate care. This must change. It is not only adult wards that are of concern to me but the fact that many children are sent to live far away from their homes and support structures, even to other towns. We must have statutory provision to stop this happening.

Turning to racial inequality, the data continues to tell a stark story. Black people are nearly four times as likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act and seven times more likely to be placed under a community treatment order. Those orders were meant to reduce hospital readmission, but they often do not achieve that aim. Instead, they feel indefinite, coercive and difficult to challenge, and many say that they erode the trust between families and healthcare providers. That is why I support either abolishing CTOs altogether or ensuring that they are subject to regular independent reviews with clear criteria.

I also support the call to have a person in every trust who is responsible for race equity—someone with authority and visibility to ensure that training, policy and data are used effectively to address local disparities. We need national accountability too. That is why an annual report by the Secretary of State, broken down by protected characteristics, is vital. If we are serious about reducing inequality, we must measure, understand and act on it.

Finally, on autism and learning disabilities, I support the decision to remove the ability to detain people without a co-occurring mental health condition. However, there are real concerns that, without proper support in the community, people may end up being misdiagnosed just to fit the criteria for detention, or may be left without appropriate care altogether. We need a clear, costed plan for supporting integrated care boards and local authorities to deliver the care people need in the community. That means targets, proper funding and safeguards to prevent delays and poor outcomes. We cannot afford a system where a lack of planning results in another decade of delays for this vulnerable group.

The Bill is an important step forward, but it is not enough on its own. If we want meaningful change, we need investment, accountability and a stronger focus on the rights of the people who depend on mental health services every day. We are all responsible for ensuring that this legislation does more than just change the law. It must change lives.

Brain Tumours: Research and Treatment

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I salute the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for securing this debate. Hopefully we can turn her personal tragedy into a national triumph if we work together. She is absolutely correct in saying that individually, certain types of brain tumours are very rare, but collectively they are very common. The simple fact that only 1% of our national cancer research funding goes to them is absolutely unacceptable.

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a national health service optometrist. I will speak on that topic, because a simple eye test can detect a brain tumour, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said. I have unfortunately—or fortunately, in certain cases, because we have been able to detect them early—been in the position of seeing people who are completely asymptomatic or people coming in with a simple headache having brain tumours detected. That is why I really want to emphasise that the avenue of using eye tests is undervalued and underutilised. They are completely un-invasive, cost efficient and accessible, and they can save so many lives. Is it at all possible for us to have a national awareness campaign as part of a broader body to ensure that eye tests can be linked to brain tumours, so that they can be detected?

[John McDonnell]

I pay tribute to Mr and Mrs Atwal in my constituency, who lost their daughter and have been doing fundraising. One of the most effective things they have been doing is ensuring that at local community events there is a stall that provides information about how to access a diagnosis. That has proved to be incredibly effective, as a range of other professionals have picked up on the information. I pay tribute to Mr and Mrs Atwal for their creativity.

[Shockat Adam]

This is about awareness campaigns. People should be aware that 39%—I think—of children unfortunately diagnosed with a brain tumour experience some kind of sight loss or vision changes, and one in three people diagnosed report a problem with their vision that converts into a brain tumour. An eye test cannot detect all brain tumours, but it is a really valuable tool.

Over 112,000 people have signed a petition demanding that brain tumour research is no longer left behind. These are not just signatures; as we have heard from today’s powerful testimonies, they are families, and they are stories of lives cut short and missed chances. We cannot allow that to continue any longer.