Imran Hussain MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 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?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 February.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I am proud to have played my part in helping to draft what has become the Employment Rights Bill. A new poll shows that three quarters of the British public back the stronger workers’ rights in the Bill, including better sick pay, yet that lot over there—the Tories and Reform—disgracefully voted against it. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition does not even believe in maternity pay or the living wage. Our statutory sick pay is ranked as one of the lowest in Europe; it needs to be brought in line with the living wage. Will the Prime Minister back my campaign to strengthen the Bill further so that sick pay is at a level that will finally stop punishing workers for being sick?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making a pertinent point about the international, rules-based order. We see that the International Court of Justice is investigating genocide but states are acting as though it is not; we have seen the International Criminal Court threatened directly by the most powerful country in the world; and we see international hypocrisy and double standards like we have never seen before. Surely the international, rules-based order is not only collapsing but dying before our eyes, if the UK Government and others do not act now.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important and timely debate. He is absolute right to point out that this is perhaps the most substantial advisory opinion on Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories, which makes it clear that settlements are illegal, as is Israel’s ongoing expansion of them, and settlement goods are illegal, as is the import of them. Does my hon. Friend agree that this places a particular and clear obligation on our Government to act immediately and abide by international law?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  The world is watching, so let us be clear in this House that the UK’s reaction to this brazen attempt to further rip up international law will echo for generations. With 61,000 Palestinians killed, the ceasefire hanging by a thread, and now a blueprint to ravage Gaza, ethnically cleanse Palestinians and resettle the land, where exactly have diplomacy and refusing to sanction Israel led us? Palestinians are now facing mass expulsion, reoccupation and resettlement, all while the international rules-based order has been ripped to shreds.

• 5 Feb 2025 · English Devolution and Local Government · Hansard source

  More

  As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, councils such as Bradford have been cut to the bone. We have lost £350 million—60% of our funding—since 2010, forcing impossible cuts in social care, in homelessness support, and in special educational needs and disabilities services. The reality is that 14 years of Tory failure have resulted in our communities being devastated and our services decimated. Even though additional council tax flexibility has been granted to places such as Bradford, that is no long-term solution. Frankly, it is not fair on residents to have to pick up the tab for 14 years of Tory failure. Will my right hon. Friend confirm how the Government will deliver a long-term sustainable settlement to put councils on a stable financial footing, which must reflect real need?

• 4 Feb 2025 · National Cancer Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his welcome statement, and join him in thanking all the organisations that do the vital work of helping and supporting those with cancer and their families. He is right to talk about health inequalities, which, as he will know, continue to worsen in constituencies such as mine, where, on average, people live 10 years less than others in more affluent areas; and last year more than 13,000 were waiting for diagnostic tests. Will he join me in commending the work of Eccleshill community diagnostic centre in Bradford— essential, and the first of its kind—which is speeding up the detection of life-threatening conditions such as cancer, and will he assure me that, as part of his national action plan, more support will be given to places such as Bradford and the Eccleshill community diagnostic centre, so that no one is left behind when it comes to their treatment?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Outsourcing: Government Departments · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. In Bradford, there was an attempt at outsourced back-door privatisation, which was successfully fought off by me alongside trade unions. Does he agree that trade unions play a crucial role and that it is shameful that, in the disputes he talks of, many of the organisations that hold public contracts have refused even to recognise trade unions?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Outsourcing: Government Departments · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his years of work in this area; he has been instrumental in shaping the Government’s policy. All too often, particularly in the public sector, outsourcing is disguised in many shapes and forms, but the reality remains that it is back-door privatisation that leads to lower standards and higher costs. Most importantly, workers are treated as second-class citizens, and it has a disproportionate impact on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. Does he agree that the central question is the one that was in the new deal: is it in the public interest? The answer is that it never is.

• 23 Jan 2025 · ECO4 and Insulation Schemes · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister knows, I have long campaigned in this area, and I am grateful to her for meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) and myself, along with the SSB victims support group, last year to discuss these important issues. As such, I welcome the concrete steps that the Minister intends to take in this area. She will know that many of the victims of the SSB Law scandal were directly impacted through faulty cavity wall insulation, but the steps that the Minister has outlined today are about solid wall insulation. Can she confirm that exactly the same actions will be taken when we are dealing with cavity wall insulation, and if not, why not? Will she also agree to make sure that compensation is available—whether through remedial work or in other ways—for all those impacted by the cavity wall insulation scandal?

• 22 Jan 2025 · Education, Health and Care Plans · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for bringing forward this important debate to the Chamber, as she is right to mention the timescales. As she knows, in 2023 only half of EHCPs were issued within the statutory 20 weeks, and whether children receive support depends too much on their postcode and how well their parents can navigate what can only be described as a chaotic system. Does she agree that the special educational needs and disabilities system is failing families? We cannot have a sticking-plaster solution; we need a root-and-branch review.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Family Visas: Income Requirement · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is an expert and she makes a powerful case. A point that has not been raised is about the further complications caused by delays and bureaucracy at the Home Office. In an example from the hundreds of cases I deal with, somebody provided his wage slips, but there was a discrepancy of pennies between the money that went into his bank account and his wage slip, so the case was refused. I know that the Minister is rightly interested in this area, and I hope that she will be able to address that point. Does the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) agree that we need to address the bureaucracy, delay and complications at the Home Office?

• 20 Jan 2025 · Family Visas: Income Requirement · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. Does she agree that the right to family life, which is rightly enshrined in article 8 of the European convention on human rights, is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals are afforded? Central to this debate is systemic inequality, such as the fact that women are still paid less than men due to entrenched structural pay disparities, and that young people who are in the early stages of their careers often earn less as they build their futures. Systemic inequality also affects those from lower-income regions such as West Yorkshire and Bradford, which I represent. The hon. Lady will be aware that the Centre for Cities released a report this morning saying that those who live in places such as West Yorkshire, including my constituency, earn £20,000 less. Does she agree that the current system being considered by the Migration Advisory Committee should be scrapped, and that a fair requirement would be one in line with the national living wage?

• 20 Jan 2025 · Family Visas: Income Requirement · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady continues to make an excellent case and she is right to focus on the extortionate fees. She mentioned the current figure of over £10,000, which ordinary working families struggle to pay or simply cannot pay. She also referred to Reunite Families UK, which does excellent work and has said that 23% of families have to wait longer than seven years to be reunited. Does she agree that that continuing injustice needs to be addressed? Those are not just stats, but real people.