Violence against Women and Girls: Smart Glasses

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing this important debate.

I declare my interest as a practising optometrist. For my whole working life a pair of glasses has been my livelihood, and it has been nothing but an object of trust and good, allowing people to see and changing their lives. It is one of the most trustworthy pieces of clothing we could have. No one has ever been deceived by a pair of glasses, except perhaps when Clark Kent prevented us knowing he was Superman. My son likes to wear glasses with no lenses, so he can look very intelligent posting on social media with books in coffee shops. It is a matter of debate how convincing that is, but generally glasses are a product for good.

I am not a technophobe. I have seen in my practice, and that of colleagues, what this technology can do, as has been acknowledged by hon. Members. It can be used for good. More than 2 million people in this country live with sight loss and 250 more begin to lose their sight every day. For a blind or partially sighted person walking down the street to be able to ask their glasses what is front of them and hear that, for example, a van is unloading scaffolding, is genuinely life changing. I will not argue that we should take that away—I suspect nobody here would—but we cannot ignore what is happening.

It has been reported that more than 7 million pairs of one brand alone were sold last year in this country. We have all witnessed men using these glasses covertly on our streets, posting the footage online and then demanding money to take it down. There are reports of women being filmed during sex without knowledge or consent. As the hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) mentioned, a small LED is supposed to warn of recording, but it is easy to miss. I sell these glasses and know it is not always possible to see the lights.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I am not familiar with the glasses the hon. Member is discussing, but it strikes me, as a lay person, that it would not be difficult to cover a small LED on a pair of glasses. Does he agree?

[Shockat Adam]

I absolutely agree. We must ensure that they are tamper-proof. Somebody will always create something to supersede technology, which I will come to. A woman cannot move away from a camera if she cannot see it.

I also want to consider what these glasses could do in school changing rooms. We know children can be cruel. It could be devastating to record a child—girl or boy—in their insecure period, upload the footage and threaten them with blackmail.

Harm does not stop at the wearer. It was reported earlier this year that workers paid to label footage for AI training were viewing intimate recordings captured by these devices, including people using the toilet. The people in the footage had not consented and were not aware that it was being used for training purposes.

The National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection told us last month that at least one in five flagged online VAWG crimes are image-based abuse, with almost 75% of the victims being female. Every digital form of this abuse is rising, yet when we ask how many arrests have been made for covert filming, the answer is that the information is not held centrally, so we are legislating in the dark. I would like a response from the Minister on that point.

This abuse is not restricted to cameras, because hearing technology is now arriving in spectacle frames. Hearing glasses with directional microphones are already in our practices, and the patients starting to lose their hearing are often the same patients who are fitted with varifocal glasses. Again, I welcome that because live captions, conversation boosting and real-time translations are incredible. I tried the technology and even though I was in a noisy room, it did not just help me hear the conversation I was having—I was able to hear somebody else’s conversation on the other side of the table. If we take all that into account, we have facial recognition, which manufacturers are reportedly exploring, and a device that can know who we are, where we are and what we say without us even knowing it is there. The wearer knows they are using the device; people around them do not.

What is the law doing about that? Filming in public is generally lawful and data protection laws do not apply to individuals acting in a personal capacity, but the Information Commissioner has said that doxxing is largely outside their remit, wearables are not regulated in any particular category and the Government’s own violence against women and girls strategy does not mention smart glasses. As Doughty Street Chambers put it,

“English law was not written with this technology in mind”.

The industry already knows what is good. At this year’s 100% Optical, EssilorLuxottica, which makes the Ray-Ban Meta glasses, told practitioners that devices should show people nearby that they are in use, that encryption is

“not nice to have, but an absolute must”,

and that only necessary data should be collected.

[Anna Sabine]

While I welcome the suggestion that nearby users should be notified if the devices are in use, the point still stands around consent. It should not be on me as an individual to have to challenge people using them; they should have to seek my consent before they start filming me.

[Shockat Adam]

I agree wholeheartedly with that. We cannot leave this issue to good will; it belongs in the law. I do not believe in a blanket ban, as it would punish the disabled people who benefit most. The RNIB is right that blind and partially sighted wearers already fear hostility from people who cannot tell they have sight loss. However, no ban should not mean no action.

I ask the Minister to consider the following: putting a statutory duty on manufacturers to provide a clear, tamper-proof recording indicator and making it an offence to turn that off or sell products designed to defeat it. Secondly, we need to close the gap in the criminal law so that covert sexualised filming and posting it for whatever reason is clearly an offence, and bring the intimate image provisions of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 fully into force without delay. Thirdly, we must give survivors a fast and affordable route to redress, as the Women and Equalities Committee recommended. Fourthly, we must protect accessibility for those who need to use the technology for assistive purposes, as they should not be penalised. Fifthly, if we are not already, we need to collect national data on covert filming offences and include smart glasses and other sensing wearables in the violence against women and girls action plan. My profession has a part to play, too.

We are told that the harms of social media were unforeseeable; these harms are not. They are right in front of us—quite literally at our eye level. Let us act on this issue before it is too late.

[Pete Wishart (in the Chair)]

I call Jim Shannon—you have up to half an hour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marie Goldman]

It seems that across the House we entirely agree on this matter.

[Shockat Adam]

In addition to the platforms, the manufacturers have a responsibility here. Does the hon. Member agree that manufacturing must come with greater responsibilities?

[Marie Goldman]

Absolutely, and I thank the hon. Member for his important intervention, which proves what a difficult and complex subject this is. Everybody has a role to play, not just the victims. As my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset said, it is important that we do not leave this matter just to the victims, but to manufacturers, broadcasters and social media platforms, as well as the so-called content creators—I struggle with that phrase, because they pose as content creators, but they make a lot of money out of this. That is one of the disgusting things; it is monetising misogyny, as I have said. Everyone has a role to play, and we must focus on that.

As we have seen, legislation is falling woefully behind advances in technology such as smart glasses and changes in behaviour on social media. When we legislate, we need foresight about what might come later, not just what is happening now and what happened in the past. We need to write legislation in that way. I urge the Minister to review the effectiveness of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, to ensure that the harassment loophole that I described is closed. I am sure she does not doubt that these examples are indicative of harassing behaviour, not least because social media feeds often show the same video to the same user over and over again.

Every woman and girl, regardless of who they are or where they live, has the fundamental right to live free from fear, harassment and violence—but, to ensure that that is a reality, not just a slogan or aspiration, we have to act decisively. As my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset said, the problem is not a lack of understanding of the issue. We can take simple steps right now to mitigate this misuse. We must begin by enforcing hardware-level standards to ensure that smart glasses are tamper proof, as other hon. Members have said. We must ban modifications that disable or remove the recording indicator, as well as those that might cover it up—a bit of electrical tape might do the job, as others have suggested, and that should not be okay either. We must also expand the scope of sexual harm prevention orders to prohibit completely the purchase or use of smart glasses by sex offenders, where appropriate, including as a condition of release.

The problems with emerging technologies do not exist in isolation. They are amplified by and rely on social media. I implore the Government to take stronger action to hold to account the social media giants—the companies that do not just facilitate, but promote this content. Stories such as those detailed in London Centric would not exist if not for the impunity with which these companies currently operate. Profit must never be placed above the safety and dignity of our citizens.

We should have ensured that Ofcom had the powers and legal backing to enforce accountability years ago. It must be equipped to prevent smart glasses-enabled abuse online, with tangible consequences for the companies that fail to comply. The Liberal Democrats have also called on the Government to create a new online crime agency to effectively tackle illegal content and activity online, and build a digital world where women and girls can live safely and without fear.

As we have heard, it is important that we acknowledge that developments in technology can still be harnessed for the better. Smart glasses act as genuinely life-changing technologies for blind and partially sighted people. As we have heard, by providing hands-free access to information, object recognition and descriptions of surroundings, they can dramatically increase an individual’s personal independence. However, that is all the more reason for action. As other hon. Members have mentioned, the Royal National Institute of Blind People has reported that users are becoming increasingly hesitant to wear smart glasses for fear of a backlash and of others becoming angry or suspicious towards them. Preventing smart glasses from being used for predatory and covert filming will not only protect women and girls from abuse but help to protect legitimate users from suspicion so that those who benefit from this technology can use it with confidence.

I hope the Minister will take very seriously today’s cross-party calls for much stronger action to tighten the law to prevent the monetised online harassment of women and girls, to give Ofcom real teeth to regulate social media companies and ultimately to provide a stronger legal framework for smart glasses, so that those who genuinely benefit from them are not subject to suspicion or threats.

--- Later in debate ---

[Satvir Kaur]

Ofcom is fining platforms, but I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member. Do I believe that all platforms are doing everything possible to root this out? Absolutely not. Do they need to go further? Absolutely.

[Shockat Adam]

Further to the intervention by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) about profitability for social media platforms—and going back to what the shadow Minister said about how the manufacturers of these products intend to be good—I think we may be being a little naive. The company that makes the most popular smart glasses on the market is worth £28.5 billion. These are very smart people, and they know how these things can be utilised. Does the Minister agree that the product manufacturers hold a great deal of responsibility, and that we must be able to legislate for that as well?

[Satvir Kaur]

The hon. Member will have heard me talk at the beginning of my speech about designing out the problem. That is really targeted at manufacturers—an Apple or a Google—rather than the platforms themselves. One example of us going further where tech companies have failed is device-level controls. We need to nip this in the bud rather than allowing it to get out of control, and one way to do that is designing out the problem in the first place.

Immigration: Earned Settlement

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I disagree with my hon. Friend, as she knows from my statement today, which has listened to the consultation responses in detail. As I have set out in answer to other hon. Members, the position for settlement applications is that the rules apply at the point at which the decision is made, not when someone has come into the country. That has been settled law and settled policy for a very long time, and it will not change.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

In her statement, the Home Secretary used the word “fair”, or different iterations of it, 20 times. She said that her own parents left a place where “power was often arbitrary,” and the “dice were always loaded”, and they came here because they would be “treated fairly.” Now, a worker earning £40,000, who came here legally, paid their taxes and played their part, has been moved from five to 10 years, halfway through. Is changing the rules mid-game fair, or is that exactly what loaded dice look like?

[Shabana Mahmood]

It is absolutely fair. The hon. Gentleman will know that for people who arrived around the time my parents and grandad did, the rules often changed regularly. As I said, it has been settled policy that the rules that apply to an application are those at the point of decision, not the point when someone arrives in the country, and it is made clear to people arriving on a temporary work visa that that does not necessarily indicate that settlement rights will follow. In my statement, and in our document responding to the consultation we carried out, there is a fair resolution for all the different cohorts that are affected by earned settlement, reflecting unique circumstances where appropriate, and ensuring that the default period moves to 10 years, which has been settled policy since last summer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

Let me give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance on how seriously we take those matters. The defending democracy taskforce provides the fulcrum point for us to respond to those threats across Government, and I know my hon. Friend will have heard and welcomed the protective security review that the Home Secretary announced a week ago.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Sally Rooney is a writer, not a terrorist, yet her books are being withdrawn from shelves up and down the country. Under a new Prime Minister, will this Government reverse course, or does the Home Secretary see any author she disagrees with as a terrorist?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman should be much more responsible about the way in which he makes his point in this Chamber. He will know that there is a world of difference between someone selling books and enjoying the fruits of their labour and saying that they will use that money to fund a proscribed organisation. The organisation was proscribed through a vote in this House; it is the subject of a legal case at the moment, but all of the appropriate legal safeguards and thresholds in law were followed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

The Metropolitan Police Service maintained public order and kept Londoners safe on a day when there was an unprecedented number of large-scale events. Some 43 arrests were made at the Unite the Kingdom rally and the Nakba 78: March for Palestine. In advance, 11 foreign nationals were prevented from entering the UK to speak at the event and were prevented by the Met from broadcasting to the event. Of course I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend’s constituent raises, but the Metropolitan police, with their 4,000 officers on that day, did a very good job.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Many in the Muslim community are feeling bewildered, besieged and beleaguered. When they exercise their democratic right to vote and the results do not go a certain way, they are accused of sectarianism. When they take to the streets to protest peacefully against genocide, they are accused of going on hate marches, all the while witnessing not one but two Unite the Kingdom marches, where there were open calls for their expulsion from this country, which are met with apparent indifference. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to protect the Muslim community from further alienation and what message does she send to those who incite hatred against them?

[Sarah Jones]

This Government are committed to tackling all forms of hate crime, including anti-Muslim hostility. We are actively seeking to ensure the safety and protection of all individuals and communities. The UK has a proud tradition of racial and religious tolerance within the law, and this Government are absolutely committed to building the strong and integrated society that we all want to see.

Improving the UK Visa System

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Stuart, for chairing today’s debate. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing this important debate. As he has highlighted, his thoughtful and comprehensive report sets out a series of practical proposals to close loopholes and strengthen our legal migration system. At a time when immigration remains one of the most important issues facing the country, any serious attempt to examine the system as a whole and identify where improvements can be made deserves careful consideration. Whatever view one takes of his recommendations, nobody could accuse my hon. Friend of lacking ambition. His 30 proposals provide a clear direction of travel, including tightening loopholes, strengthening incentives and ensuring that our immigration system works in the interests of the British people.

Policy decisions matter. The Oxford Migration Observatory noted that the recent decline in net migration was driven largely by policy changes introduced by the previous Conservative Government. Those measures included restrictions on dependants, higher salary thresholds and tighter work visa requirements. They showed that when Governments are prepared to take difficult decisions and close obvious loopholes, migration can be brought down without compromising the principle of attracting talent.

Those measures addressed mistakes that had been made, and it is notable that the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), acknowledged those mistakes early in her leadership and accepted the need for change. She also rightly recognised that, since the change in leadership at the Home Office, the Government have taken some steps in the right direction. While many Labour MPs appear reluctant to support tougher measures, we have consistently said that where the Government bring forward sensible proposals to strengthen the immigration system, we will support them. I hope that the Government move quickly to implement their proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain and to increase the qualifying period for settlement. Such reforms are long overdue.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Does the hon. Member agree that it is not simply unfair but un-British to change the rules for people who were told that they could qualify for settlement if they stayed in this country for five years, by moving the goalposts to 10 years?

[Matt Vickers]

There are real challenges in our immigration system, with real costs and pressures on our public services. We have to do something about it. What might be halfway for somebody at this point in time is day one for somebody else. We back the Government. We will look at what they bring forward and take it from there, but we are determined to support them where sensible measures are brought forward.

As today’s debate has demonstrated, immigration policy cannot be reduced to a single issue. Settlement matters, but so do work visas, family routes, student migration and enforcement. The system must operate as a coherent whole. Focusing on one area while weakening another risks undermining the overall objective.

That brings me to one of the recommendations highlighted in the report of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire. This is an issue on which I would welcome clarification from the Minister: the proposal to make remote English-language testing the default method of assessment. It raises a broader question about the future direction of the immigration system: in seeking efficiency and convenience, are we risking the robustness and integrity of existing safeguards? For many years, the Home Office has relied on a small number of trusted providers delivering secure English language tests in controlled environments, but the Government now intend to move increasingly towards remote assessments.

[Matt Vickers]

There is a role for the British Council, but when it comes to remote testing, we have had a standard that the public has confidence in, and although this might be more efficient, it might undermine public confidence in the process. As has been said, organisations such as the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants are moving back to in-person examinations in order to protect test security and integrity. Is the Minister confident that the safeguards proposed will be sufficient?

Although it may seem to be a technical issue, it illustrates a wider concern. Every change to the immigration system should strengthen and not weaken public confidence. Those of us who spent many hours serving on the Public Bill Committee for the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 debated numerous proposals to strengthen the Government’s response to both legal and illegal migration. Unfortunately, many of those measures were rejected.

One proposal that continues to warrant serious consideration is the introduction of an annual migration cap approved by Parliament. The Government have repeatedly opposed such a measure, but they are quick to celebrate any fall in migration figures. If migration levels matter—and clearly, they do—Parliament should have a greater role in scrutinising and setting expectations around them. Such a system would provide greater transparency and accountability. Parliament would have oversight of visa numbers across different routes and Ministers would be required to justify the choices they make.

[Shockat Adam]

Is there not a real threat of politicising immigration at a time in which universities in my constituency are really struggling because there is a lack of international students, who are no longer willing to come to this country? The amount of money they bring to our economy is phenomenal. Pursuing this type of policy will disrupt the foundations of our universities.

[Matt Vickers]

The idea that we, as a Parliament, have the right to scrutinise the decision-making process, to decide how many people should come and by what means, is a real positive. It is a real positive for public confidence and it improves transparency, so I support the idea of a cap for that very reason. It would be for us to debate and decide in this very House who should and should not come to this country.

Murder of Henry Nowak

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. In fact, the Minister for Policing met the police and crime commissioner earlier today.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Henry’s heartbroken father has said that Henry’s family do not want his murder to

“be used to create further division, hatred or tension.”

I pray that we all heed those words in this House. This heinous crime is made worse by the shocking police response, and lessons must be learnt. What will the Home Secretary do differently to crack down on the epidemic of knife crime, such as creating a dedicated knife crime Minister? What steps will she take to ensure that our Sikh community, who are overwhelmingly peaceful and integrated, are not held collectively responsible by those who wish to divide us?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The Government have a landmark commitment to halve the levels of knife crime in this country over the next decade. We have our landmark knife crime action plan, which is a funded action plan. The Prime Minister has taken a personal interest in that commitment. This Government will strain every sinew to deliver on that.

Knife Crime

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend and I take the same approach, and knife crime is such an important issue in our constituencies. It is front and centre of everything that we do and think about. She is right to say that from tragedies come exceptional people doing exceptional things, and those people need support. She is also right to ask the question about long-term sustainable funding. The funding on youth justice interventions is long-term, and our local authorities have now got long-term funding, too. The funding for our violence reduction units has been for just this year, but I very much hear the call that long-term funding helps those organisations to plan much better for the future.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement, and I send my deepest sympathy to the families of everyone who has been affected, especially the family of Khaleed Oladipo, a 20-year-old young man who was stabbed in my constituency just a few weeks ago and sadly lost his life. I also pay tribute to grassroots organisations and individuals with street experience, such as Ditch the Knife, for the vital work that they do. I am glad that the Minister is aware of the work being done by De Montfort University on round-bladed knives, because in 2025 alone 95 lives were lost to kitchen knives. Will she commit to ensuring that grassroots organisation and those with real-life street experience are empowered to play a greater role in delivering lifesaving work?

[Sarah Jones]

I express my condolences over the death of the man in the hon. Member’s constituency. Grassroots organisations are incredibly important and we have done a lot of work, as have the violence reduction units, in making sure that things are evidence-based, so that we know they are having an impact and are working. The Youth Endowment Fund has done a whole raft of work looking at what does and does not work, so that we know that and fund it appropriately. I hope that he can be reassured that we will continue to support, through violence reduction units and other vehicles, those local grassroots organisations to make sure that they are having the impact we need them to have.

Protest Policing

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The Charity Commission has powers to launch its own inquiries and enforce compliance. It has a full suite of powers to take action if it thinks someone has fallen outside of our rules. There is an ongoing Charity Commission investigation into the overall body relating to the IHRC—the trust, rather than the organisation we are discussing here today. I am sure that once the Charity Commission has completed that work it will take appropriate action, and I know that that will be the subject of further discussion in this House. Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that we recognise the desire by some to use our charities legislation and to find gaps to pursue ends that are not charitable and for which the law was not intended. We will not hesitate to take further action in that area if we need to do so.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Will the Home Secretary care to explain a contradiction? She has taken to ban a peaceful march that has been happening for over 40 years, citing serious public disorder, while the Government continue to permit the far right, who call for serious public disorder outside hotels housing asylum seekers, to protest outside those hotels. In September 2025 at the Tommy Robinson “Unite the Kingdom” march—the Home Secretary might like to know that he is a big fan of hers—violence was sighted, in particular against Muslims. Will that march be banned in future as well?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Each case has to be dealt with on its own facts. The “Unite the Kingdom” march was very large. The police did not seek this power because, based on their own risk assessment, they assessed that it was possible for that march to take place safely and that they could police it safely, as well as the counter march that took place, which was smaller in nature. If they had made such a request, I would obviously have had to consider that request based on the full facts disclosed to me in the risk assessment.

The hon. Gentleman should not conflate multiple different things. There is a very specific risk that is being posed by the march on this occasion, given the international context and given that there will actually be five marches; there is the main march by those behind the al-Quds Day rally and then there are the four counter-protesting marches. He must recognise the unique challenge posed by five marches taking place at the same time in this international context. That is different from every other kind of protest and march that has taken place. I would hope that he does not conflate the two, because that could cause a loss of confidence across our communities.

Marches take place every day on a whole range of issues—international and domestic in nature—but the police almost never ask for those to be banned. In fact, such a request has never been made of me. I think the last time this power was used was in something like 2010 or 2012—many, many years ago. This is a unique situation, given the current context and the unique policing challenge of five different marches at the same time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can focus a little more on the facts, rather than the hyperbole with which he began his question.

Immigration Policy

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

As I have said to other colleagues, I can confirm that the income threshold, and particularly how it is resolved at a family unit level, was part of the consultation. We have had more than 200,000 replies, and we are looking at them closely.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Over 330,000 people have signed a petition urging the Government to scrap the plan to increase the ILR period from five years to 10 years, especially the retrospective nature of it. This will have a detrimental effect on the core of our society, especially the NHS, and will exploit workers, who will be vulnerable to exploitative bosses. Does the Minister agree with many of his Back Benchers that the Government must stop this cruel proposal taking effect?

[Alex Norris]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as I have said previously, the governing criteria for settlement have always applied at the point of application, rather than at the point of entry. He will also have heard from me that one in 30 people in this country came during the last three or four years, so a significant problem must be resolved in terms of pressure on public services and fairness to the British taxpayer. That is why we are looking at this issue so closely.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not get into the specifics—we do not comment on individual cases—but I can tell him that the Home Secretary will use all the tools at her disposal to ensure that we keep the public safe.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I would like to pass on my heartfelt sympathies to the family of Khaleed Oladipo, who was tragically killed in a knife crime incident last week in the city of Leicester. I am sure that no Member of this House wants to see another life cut short and another mother’s heart broken, so will the Minister back my calls for the Government to appoint a dedicated Minister to tackle knife crime?

[Sarah Jones]

I am that dedicated Minister. It is my job to tackle knife crime; it is what I have campaigned on for many years. I am glad to say that we are having some success, but every knife attack and every knife murder is an absolute tragedy, and we will continue to do all we can.