Imran Hussain MP: speeches

Speeches

• 28 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Statutory Sick Pay · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the rate of Statutory Sick Pay. It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Successive Governments have grappled with statutory sick pay, with report after report saying that we need fundamental, root-and-branch change to a system that is letting workers down every day. Frankly, successive Governments have failed to tackle this important issue head-on, with many actively avoiding or dodging it. I am therefore glad that, within their first 100 days, this Labour Government delivered on our pledges and introduced a transformative, once-in-a-generation Employment Rights Bill to drag workers’ rights into the 21st century. Although the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who is largely responsible for the Bill, is not here today, I put on record my thanks to him. In a previous role, I had the pleasure of working alongside him in developing much of the policy outlined in the Bill, which will mean that workers’ rights in our country are fit for purpose. The Bill makes welcome changes to statutory sick pay. In 2022, a Trades Union Congress survey found that 80% of those earning more than £50,000 a year receive their full pay when sick, compared with only a third of those earning under £15,000. Around half of all employees in the UK get their full pay, just under a third get statutory sick pay, and one in 10 gets nothing at all. Most low-paid employees—around 8 million—are in the middle group, reliant on statutory sick pay. For those workers, the measures in the Employment Rights Bill are much welcome: removing the three-day waiting period so that workers are eligible for sick pay from day one; removing the lower earnings limit and extending sick pay eligibility to 1.3 million of the lowest-paid workers currently denied it due to the lower earnings limit of £123; and setting the 80% earnings replacement rate. However, as the TUC, the safe sick pay campaign and many others have said, we must not stop here. We must continue to be ambitious in strengthening workers’ rights.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Statutory Sick Pay · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely—that is the crux. As I said before, I acknowledge that the Government have gone a considerable way. The Employment Rights Bill will make significant changes that allow millions of people to benefit from statutory sick pay when they would not have before. But the journey must not end there. The hon. Member is absolutely right that there are many people who are still missing out—there are 300,000 people who will significantly miss out, as I said. This is not just an economic issue, and it should not be viewed as one. It is a moral issue. The Government have the power to ensure that every worker—whether in an office, a hospital, a factory or on the frontline—can take the time they need to recover without fear of financial ruin. They also have the power to ensure that no worker, especially those with long-term illnesses, receives less under the new rules than they would have received before. Let me be clear: we cannot allow this opportunity to pass without ensuring that every worker benefits from the changes we have introduced. This is our chance to build a fairer society that treats working people with the dignity and respect they deserve. I hope the Minister, for whom I have much respect and regard, understands that I come at this from a place of support. He has a long track record of understanding these issues, and this is our opportunity. We must go further, because that is the only way we will address this matter, so I urge him to do so. Will he commit to reviewing SSP so that workers no longer have to rely on poverty pay when they are sick? Will he today commit to reviewing the impact of the new changes, specifically in relation to the 300,000 people who will be worse off under the new 80% replacement rate? On the second question in particular, I urge the Minister to provide information to allow the House to see the impact on those 300,000 people. I do not believe for one minute that the Government intend to make them worse off; but, equally, I do not think we can just ignore it. Finally, will the Minister outline exactly what steps he is taking to make sure that those with the most severe illnesses, and those who find themselves sick or in recovery for longer than five weeks, do not find themselves unfairly punished? The Minister knows that if we fail here, we will fail an entire generation of workers.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Statutory Sick Pay · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He makes an important point that I will address more substantially later in my speech. He will also understand that having a healthier workforce and limiting presenteeism would massively increase the productivity of those small and medium-sized businesses in the long run. One of the huge issues we currently face is that people who are too sick to work are being forced to do so, because of the lack of support. That is not good for them or for businesses.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Statutory Sick Pay · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important and pertinent point. If he bears with me, I will address that later in my contribution. It is actually one of two points I want to address. Hon. Members will know that I tabled two amendments to the Employment Rights Bill to strengthen its provisions on statutory sick pay. The first sought to bring statutory sick pay into line with the national living wage, so that no full-time worker is forced to live in poverty while unwell. The second amendment aimed to guarantee that no worker would be worse off under the new system, regardless of their earnings—my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) made reference to that, and I will come on to it. First, I turn to the rate of statutory sick pay. For far too long, our statutory sick pay system has been one of inadequacy, and it has failed workers when they are at their most vulnerable. The pandemic laid bare just how broken the system is. Over a third of workers rely on statutory sick pay, and at a rate of £118.75 a week it is nothing more than a cruel joke—a poverty wage that leaves workers in financial insecurity, instead of being able to rest, recover and take the time they need to return to work fully fit. The current rate makes up a mere 16.5% of the average weekly wage in the UK, far behind our European counterparts. To name some, workers in Iceland, Norway and Luxembourg are entitled to up to 100% of their pay during sick leave. However, we do not trail far behind only our international counterparts. When statutory sick pay was introduced in the 1980s, it was equivalent to 35% of the average weekly wage—double what workers can expect today. No other financial responsibility in a worker’s life is ever slashed by 83%. When someone falls ill, their bills, their council tax, their electricity bill, their mortgage payments and their grocery bills do not suddenly go down. That poses the question: why does statutory sick pay remain such a paltry sum, forcing people to choose between their health and their financial survival? We know that the current rate pushes too many workers into the workplace when they are simply not well enough. It entrenches presenteeism, harming public health, reducing productivity and contributing to longer-term sickness and burnout, which makes workers drop out of the workforce entirely. The clear consensus is that the rate of statutory sick pay must increase, and it must increase in line with the national living wage. That call is echoed by unions such as Unite and Unison, and by organisations such as the Child Poverty Action Group, Scope, Mind and Disability Rights UK. It is also supported by the majority of the British public. I urge the Minister not to ignore the swell of public opinion or the needs of workers across the UK, and to share the next steps that the Government are taking to fairly recompense workers during periods of illness. The rate of statutory sick pay is not the only change that is urgently needed. Despite the Government’s best efforts, those on the lowest incomes, who do the hard and vital work in our economy, will be financially penalised for falling ill. These are the workers who are the backbone of our economy: cleaners, carers, drivers and retail workers. They are the very people who can least afford it. Low-paid workers—disproportionately women, young people and disabled workers—will still face the hardest burden. The reality is that the new 80% earnings replacement rate extends sick pay to those who were previously excluded, which is very welcome, but it risks creating a system where some workers are worse off. I have worked with the Minister for many years, and I am sure that this was not the Government’s intention. But under the new rules, the reality remains that more than 300,000 workers earning between £123 and £146 a week could see their sick pay cut, which is something that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East referred to. While previously a worker earning £123 a week was entitled to an earnings replacement of 95%, which is comparable to statutory maternity leave, for example, now a worker earning £124 for three days’ work a week will receive 80% from the first day of illness—£99.22 a week. Under the old rules they would have been entitled to the flat rate of £118.75 from the fourth day of illness. Under the new rules they will be worse off after five weeks. The fact that it takes five weeks to become worse off should not be seen as a mitigating factor, because this is not just about numbers. The new rules will directly affect workers with chronic illnesses, those recovering from serious surgery and those undergoing cancer treatment. In short, it affects the people who can least afford to take a financial hit at the most vulnerable time of their life. These are workers who rely on every penny that they earn, and they must not be left behind under the new rules. That is the bare minimum that working people should expect. I ask the Minister to outline how the Government will be supporting workers with chronic illnesses who fall sick, especially those who currently work and rely on disability benefits such as the personal independence payment to be able to dress, wash and get out and about in their daily lives. These workers have been left terrified by the recent announcement of changes to PIP eligibility criteria, and now they could also see statutory sick pay reduced, if they find themselves in that situation. I urge the Government to think again about making the most vulnerable in our society pay for economic instability that is not of their making. It is not just an economic issue but a moral one. We can and must go further to support workers during their most vulnerable times.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Spring Statement · Hansard source

  More

  It is absolutely right that the Opposition devastated our communities and left us with billions of pounds’ worth of debt, but it is not right that disabled people and the most vulnerable in our society should pay for it. Thousands of my constituents continue to be fearful about the announced welfare cuts, and disability organisations have warned that hundreds of thousands of people will be pushed into poverty. So I say to the Chancellor: we must make the right political choice. We must protect the most vulnerable in society and introduce a wealth tax so that multimillionaires and billionaires can pay their fair share.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Conflict in Gaza · Hansard source

  More

  The double standards and injustice we are witnessing on the international stage are truly appalling. It is obvious that Israel is breaking international law, as every serious legal expert on international law has pointed out. It is shameful, frankly, that the Government refuse to state that about Israel but will rightly do so about Russia’s violation in Ukraine. I say to the Foreign Secretary that the concern and outrage that he expresses at the Dispatch Box is not ending the bloodshed. When will we get the scale of sanctions on Israel that its war crimes demand?

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

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this important and timely debate. He is right to refer to the Israeli airstrikes that killed over 400 people last night, shattering the fragile ceasefire and violating international law. He will also know that this has happened against the backdrop of the last two weeks, when we have seen a siege and blockade of Gaza, denying the people there food, water and electricity, which is collective punishment and in itself a war crime under international law. Does he agree that the silence of the international community is unacceptable? It is not a choice to act. The international community, including the UK, has obligations under international law and the UK Government must meet those obligations by imposing immediate sanctions on Israel.

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

  More

  The right hon. Member makes a powerful case. Does he agree that the international dimensions of the situation are so clear, with the ICJ investigating genocide and the International Criminal Court investigating war crimes, even though it continues to be attacked for that, that there is no room for any nation to deny this serious international situation? Secondly, would he agree that silence, frankly, goes with hypocrisy and double standards?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The reality remains that over the last few weeks, thousands of the most severely disabled people in my constituency and millions across the UK have watched in disbelief as politicians debate cuts to the support that enables their very survival, leaving many at breaking point. Does the Secretary of State understand the real fear and distress that that has caused? Will she today commit at the Dispatch Box to ensuring that not a single person who currently receives PIP will be unfairly punished or left struggling by these plans?

• 17 Mar 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. This very important debate greatly matters to all my constituents, particularly the 4,900 women in my constituency whom it impacts. As the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) said in eloquently opening the debate, over 3.7 million women born in the 1950s have suffered grave injustices because of the changes to state pension age brought about in 1995, 2007 and 2011. Those changes were introduced without proper notice, leaving many in financial and emotional distress. Those 1950s women worked hard all their lives; they paid their dues and contributed to the country and the economy, only for many of them to find that the retirement they had planned for was stolen from them without support or the basic courtesy of being informed in time. The Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign has fought tirelessly for over a decade to shine a light on that injustice, and I pay tribute, along with other Members, to its determination. I assure those in my constituency that it continues to have my support and solidarity. The previous Government kicked the can down the road and delayed committing to anything that could repair the damage done to WASPI women. Their delay has meant that at least 300,000 WASPI women have died waiting for the justice they deserved. I will say that the current Government must not, and cannot, go down the same path. While I note this Government’s acknowledgment of the ombudsman’s report that failings happened, communication was inadequate and women suffered, I also note their commitment to ensure that the maladministration and delay in sending out notifications never happens again, both of which are welcome. Frankly, an apology alone is not enough. Apologies do not pay the rent, put food on the table or undo years of financial struggle. Let me be clear: this is about the principle of Government decision making and the responsibility to communicate properly, so that people can plan their futures with confidence. Crucially, as has been said by many hon. Members, it is also about recompense and redress. In this case, a 28-month delay in notifying affected women meant that they lost precious time to adjust their plans. Some lost tens of thousands of pounds, while others lost their homes. That is time and money that they will never get back. I say to the Minister that we must look again at the ombudsman’s recommendations for fair remedy. Words are not enough; we need action. I know that a High Court challenge could be on the way, but that should not be necessary. The WASPI women should not have to take their own Government to court to be heard. The point has been made, which I want to echo, that there is a reason why we have a parliamentary ombudsman, why we have inquiries and why we should follow well-made recommendations. I believe the Government seriously need to look at this case. We must now ask: what more can be done to ensure that 1950s women receive fair treatment? I urge the Minister to address that question and to set out the next steps that the Government are taking to work constructively with campaigners, MPs and affected women to find a fair resolution. Whether it is through targeted support, a compensation framework or other measures, we must ensure that WASPI women are not abandoned once again.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Sentencing Council Guidelines · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is a two-tier justice system, it is not the one claimed by the Conservatives, but it is certainly one that was created by them—one where victims of crime are let down by delays, where working-class communities see justice delayed and denied, and where the reality remains that black and ethnic minority defendants are disproportionately sentenced? Does he agree that instead of playing political games with sentencing, we should focus on delivering real justice, ensuring that every decision made in our courts is based on evidence, not culture wars or headlines in right-wing rags?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Kashmir: Human Rights and Peace · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Kashmir: Human Rights and Peace · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Kashmir: Human Rights and Peace · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a very passionate case for the rights of Kashmiris. He is absolutely right to mention the revocation of articles 370 and 35A. Does he agree that that was in direct contravention of international law and a clear attempt by the right-wing Modi Government to quash the Kashmiris’ struggle? And is he as concerned as I am at the lack of international condemnation?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Kashmir: Human Rights and Peace · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for sparing so much of his time. I welcome his making the Government’s position clear that we will call out human rights violations in the region and condemn violations that occur, but will the Minister also confirm that, in line with our policy and our international obligations, no future trade deals in the region will be agreed at the expense of Kashmiris’ human rights? I say this despite the fact that I promote trade deals in the whole region of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, because it has a great deal to offer.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Kashmir: Human Rights and Peace · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the fact that the Government are calling for the human rights abuses, which have escalated since 2019 after the illegal revocation of articles 370 and 35A, to be ended. Will the Minister clarify one point? While he uses the line used by successive Governments that this is a matter for India and Pakistan, will he at least confirm that we support the Security Council resolutions that very clearly restate the birthright of the Kashmiris to self-determination through a free and fair plebiscite?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes the case brilliantly. I would support that in principle, because the challenges are exactly the same. I said at the beginning of my speech that many of the amendments, if not all—not the ones tabled by the Opposition, but the reasonable ones from the Government Benches—are constructive and designed to improve the Bill further. My hon. Friend the Minister and I have had the great pleasure of working together for many months on the Bill, so he will know that I come from a position of sincerity to strengthen the Bill further. I fully understand that amendment 7 is a probing amendment, which will not be voted on in Lobbies. However, it does reflect the ambition that we should rightly have because it is shameful, frankly, that we are in the situation of offering among the lowest statutory sick pay. Our partners across Europe, quite rightly, are much better on this. I ask the Minister to seriously consider new clause 102. Again, it does not ask for any immediate action today; it asks the Government to come back to the House in three months to report back that nobody will be worse off as a result of these measures. I do not think that is ever an intended consequence of the Government’s excellent measures, so I look forward to my hon. Friend engaging with me further on that. Finally, I want to end by paying tribute to the millions of workers who are the backbone of our economy. It is my hope that, with the amendments and new clauses that we have proposed today, we can take significant steps towards a society that rewards workers instead of punishing them, that treats them with dignity instead of malice, and where no one must choose between their health and their livelihood.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is an absolute honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), and I know the whole House will join me in thanking him for all the work that he has done in shaping the Bill before us today. The Employment Rights Bill, which I am also proud to have played a small part in shaping, represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity. The Bill is a testament to the values that we stand for: a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work; dignity; protection; bargaining powers for workers; and a safety net for the most vulnerable when they need it the most. There is much to celebrate in the Bill, as we have heard in the many excellent contributions today. I have also put my name to many of the amendments that we have heard hon. Members speak to in the House. I do feel that all of them are designed to strengthen the Bill further. However, given the time constraints, I shall focus my remarks on my amendments relating to statutory sick pay. As we all know, and as has been said very eloquently today, the current system of statutory sick pay is not just insufficient, but completely and inexcusably broken. We have the worst system in Europe, which is shameful. Workers are entitled to just 17% of the average weekly wage, yet the cost of living does not suddenly plunge by 83% when they are sick. Their rent, their energy bills and their grocery tabs are not discounted, so why does SSP remain such a paltry sum? Being forced to survive on £118.75 a week—if they are lucky enough to get that in the first place—leaves workers exposed to financial hardship. It forces many to make the difficult decision to go to work when they are unwell. It is therefore quite right that the Government have put forward major, necessary and welcome reforms. They include: removing the three-day waiting period, so that workers are entitled to sick pay from day one of illness; and extending sick pay to all workers by removing the lower earnings limit and implementing a fair earnings replacement percentage of 80%. These reforms will directly benefit more than a million low-paid workers, a disproportionate number of whom continue to be those from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds, women and young people. There is much more that we can do to strengthen the Bill, which is why I have tabled two amendments, which will do just that and ensure that no worker is left behind. Amendment 7 calls for sick pay to be aligned with the national living wage. Let me make it clear that uprating SSP is popular with businesses as well as with workers. Six in 10 employers agree that the rate is simply too low for workers to survive on. We know that because the poverty rate among those claiming SSP is more than double that among the overall working population. Amendment 7 makes it clear that if a person is working full time, they should not be paid poverty wages when they are unwell. No one should have to choose between their health and their financial security, which is why my amendment would immediately raise SSP to around 67% of the average weekly wage, putting us on a par with many of our European counterparts. My new clause 102 is about ensuring fairness. Although I welcome the Government’s proposed system, the reality is that 300,000 workers may actually end up worse off than they are today. Those who earn slightly above the current lower earnings limit of £123 up to £146 per week would receive 80% of their earnings, which is lower than the SSP rate that they would receive today. We cannot allow anyone to be left behind. Although removing the waiting period puts more money in people’s pockets from the beginning of the illness period, workers taking more than four weeks off due to long-term conditions, going through cancer treatment, recovering from serious operations or suffering from mental health crises will face the biggest losses under the new system.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he makes the case brilliantly against some of the nonsense arguments about productivity that we have heard from the Conservative Benches today. It is the right thing to do, but also it will lead to much improved productivity and a better, healthier, happier workforce, as well as being much better for the employer. My amendment and new clause would ensure that every worker receives, at the very least, the same amount of sick pay that they would have done under the current system, and not a penny less. I urge the Government to support them, as they are very much in the spirit of this legislation.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Income threshold for partner and family visas · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to present a petition on the minimum income threshold for partner and family visas, alongside a corresponding online petition, signed by more than 420 residents in Bradford, declaring that everyone deserves the right to family life under article 8 of the European convention on human rights, and that it is fundamentally wrong that people are denied the ability to sponsor a spouse or family member to live with them because of an arbitrary income threshold that is now being reviewed by the Migration Advisory Committee. Around half of all employees in the UK earn under the current frozen threshold of £29,000, including nurses, police community support officers and nursery teachers at the start of their careers, disproportionately impacting women and young people, who are unable to exercise their right to family life. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take a compassionate approach to partner/family visas, withdraw the previous Government’s changes to the minimum income threshold, and ensure that any future threshold be accessible and no higher than the National Living Wage. And the petitioners remain, etc.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Bradford East, Declares that everyone deserves the right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and therefore the minimum income threshold for partner/family visas should be withdrawn. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take a compassionate approach to partner/family visas, withdraw the previous Government’s changes to the minimum income threshold, and ensure that any future threshold be accessible and no higher than the National Living Wage. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003049]

• 5 Mar 2025 · Jammu and Kashmir: Human Rights · Hansard source

  More

  I have a follow-up point. As it stands, the position under international law is very clear; there is a United Nations resolution that gives the birthright of self-determination to the Kashmiris. Do the UK Government support that position? That is the question.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Jammu and Kashmir: Human Rights · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this timely and important debate. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that, for more than 70 years, the people of Kashmir have suffered persecution, oppression and injustice. Their calls for justice have gone unanswered, their fundamental human rights have been violated, and their right to self-determination has been repeatedly denied. They have faced enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings and the largest military occupation in the world. Even today, mothers wait in vain for sons who never return and wives live in perpetual uncertainty—so much so that the term “half-widows” has tragically entered our lexicon. That injustice has been facilitated by laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, which even the Supreme Court of India describes as “lawless law”. Those laws grant military personnel extraordinary powers to detain, arrest and even take lives without fear of prosecution. They have been weaponised against human rights defenders, journalists and political activists. Today, Yasin Malik, Khurram Parvez, Asiya Andrabi and Irfan Mehraj, as well as hundreds of others, remain imprisoned as a result of those draconian and illegal laws. Not one of them has been allowed the right to a fair trial. We must be clear in this House and call it what it is. It is not the rule of law; it is state-sponsored persecution and oppression, used over seven decades to try to silence the voice of the Kashmiris. In August 2019 the Indian Government took the unprecedented and unconstitutional step of unilaterally revoking articles 370 and 35A, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special status. That action was not only a direct violation of international law, the commitments made to the Kashmiri people and decades of United Nations resolutions; it was, let us be clear, a blatant attempt by the right-wing Modi Government to quash the Kashmiri struggle once and for all. The consequences were devastating: a 150-day communications blackout, mass detentions, violent crackdowns and the transformation of the region into an open-air prison. Families were separated, businesses destroyed, young people denied education and basic rights trampled upon. Yet the Kashmiri people have shown remarkable resilience in the face of such adversity. In the elections of September 2024, held after a decade of political repression, voter turnout reached 63%. It was not merely an election; it was a referendum in which large numbers of Kashmiris took part, and the voice of the Kashmiri people unequivocally rejected the revocation of articles 370 and 35A, and demanded the restoration of the region’s special status. Indeed, the first act of the democratically elected Assembly was to pass a resolution to that effect. The question that is central to today’s debate is: where has the international community been? Despite the overwhelming evidence of human rights abuses, the response from the international community has been deafening. Although United Nations human rights organisations and Governments worldwide have issued statements of concern, statements alone are insufficient. Action is required. The silence is not merely inaction; it sends a dangerous message that nations can suppress, oppress and brutalise without any consequences. We have a moral and historic duty to act, particularly given this Parliament’s role in shaping the region’s legacy—a point we can never forget. We have a duty beyond that of other nations, so today I press the Government and the Minister, who is a dear friend of mine. Over the last decade, she and I have discussed this issue on many occasions. We must start by moving away from the decades-old policy in this area—the policy that has been adopted by Governments of all stripes. The central point is that this is not a bilateral issue. We have to be absolutely clear: this is not an issue for India or Pakistan to determine. There is a central voice here, and that is the voice of the Kashmiri people. That voice has been ignored for far too long, so I urge the Minister to listen. I sincerely think she will, and I hope she responds to that point. Although I support trade agreements with the region, we cannot in good conscience enter into a clear agreement with India, as talks now begin, without addressing the human rights abuses in Kashmir. Trade must not come at the expense of human rights. Any future trade deal with India must be conditional on tangible actions to end these violations, which include repealing repressive laws such as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and the Public Safety Act; restoring Kashmir’s special status; and upholding the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination. I hope the Minister will address these important points on the UK Government’s position and on the trade deal. Finally, the voices of the hundreds of thousands of Kashmiris in this country will be heard on this important issue. I am a proud British Kashmiri, and Kashmiris stand tall and proud, and will never bow or beg in the face of oppression and injustice. Our voices will be heard, and we will continue to raise our voices loud and clear until our birthright of self-determination is granted.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Jammu and Kashmir: Human Rights · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 4 Mar 2025 · Gaza · Hansard source

  More

  It is clear that Israel has been emboldened by Trumpian tactics in imposing a total siege and blocking all supplies, including humanitarian aid into Gaza, to force new ceasefire terms. We in this House should be clear and call that what it is: collective punishment of the Palestinian people, starvation as a method of war, and a blatant war crime. Will the Minister finally sanction Israel for these gross violations of international law?