Budget Resolutions

Debate between Shockat Adam and Nusrat Ghani

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.

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Debate between Shockat Adam and Nusrat Ghani

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I broadly agree with the Bill, but I hope you will kindly indulge me this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker, especially as my team, Leicester City, which has languished near the bottom of the premiership, is now confirmed relegated to the championship. Relegation is not a new experience for Leicester City fans. What is new, however, and what made this season hard to bear, was the absence of fight and passion and the complete lack of competitive edge, which brings me to the heart of my remarks today.

Those of us who have long admired the beautiful game will remember why English football captured the imagination of the world. It was not merely a technical exercise; it was a game of passion, grit, and blood and thunder. Teams would throw the kitchen sink at the opposition to get a goal, and games were contested with courage as much as skill. Within the fabric of the sport lived characters, mavericks and personalities who made the game more than just a business—they made it a spectacle.

Football today is different. While there have been many improvements, as has been mentioned by other Members, it is now is a highly technical game. Players are physical specimens, sculpted by science. There is widespread feeling that character is being coached out of our players, leaving behind robotic individuals tasked with executing tactical blueprints. If football on the pitch is already at risk of losing its fire to rigidity and over-formulation, will regulation off the pitch risk extinguishing the spirit of competition entirely?

Let me speak from a personal experience. Under the late Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha—a man we still sing about from the terraces; a man who dared to dream—Leicester were promoted from league one to the championship and, within six years, were crowned premier league champions in perhaps the greatest miracle in sporting history. How did that happen? It was by taking certain risks. One such risk was spending £1 million on a non-league player in his mid-20s—an absolutely unheard of move at the time, and an absolute gamble for a club of our size. That player, of course, was Jamie Vardy, who went on to break records, represent his country and inspire an entire generation. As Jamie now announces his departure after 13 magnificent years, I will take this opportunity to say: Jamie, you are the GOAT—thank you for everything you have done for us.

Leicester City’s success gave hope to every so-called smaller club, showing that ambition, risk taking and dreaming could defy the odds—the essence of competitive sport. That is why some of us are concerned about this Bill. Will regulation inadvertently consign clubs like Leicester to knowing their place and simply participating, rather than competing? Will it entrench a system where a few are dominant and others merely survive? Of course, reforms are necessary; we must improve fan engagement, protect club heritage, stop breakaway leagues and insist on proper conscientious ownership. However, we must not create a sterile landscape where ambition is stifled and dreams are confined to the past.

I seek reassurance on a couple of points. Will the funding from this legislation be channelled properly into grassroots clubs—the lifeblood of our national game? Will the financial distribution address, rather than exacerbate, the widening gap between the premier league and the lower divisions, particularly regarding parachute payments? Will the arbitration process be fair, promoting compromise rather than extreme outcomes? Lastly, will club reviews be targeted and proportionate, instead of Ofsted-style tick-box exercises?

We invented the beautiful game and shared it with the world. It is played in every gully, alley and favela across the globe—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order.

Social Security Benefits

Debate between Shockat Adam and Nusrat Ghani

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shockat Adam]

I could not agree more; that would be vital for pensioners. Ever since I was elected, emails from pensioners on that issue have been in the top three issues—it is a real issue. If alongside increasing pensions we could reverse the cuts to the winter fuel payment, that would save lives.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That concludes the Back-Bench contributions. I believe that the Minister would like to do a short wind-up.

Point of Order

Debate between Shockat Adam and Nusrat Ghani

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition said:

“The Labour party has adopted the APPG definition of ‘Islamophobia’. The same APPG report said that talking about sex groomers was an example of Islamophobia.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 839.]

That is an inaccurate description of the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims’ definition of Islamophobia. Its definition cites the example of using the symbols and images associated with classic Islamophobia to characterise Muslims as sex groomers. Can the Leader of the Opposition return to the Chamber to correct the record and confirm whether she agrees that characterising Muslims as sex groomers is indeed an example of Islamophobia?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. As he will know, the Chair is not responsible for the Leader of the Opposition’s comments in the Chamber, but he has succeeded in putting his point on the record, and no doubt that statement has been heard.