Imran Hussain
MP for Bradford East · Labour · United Kingdom
“My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: we have a proud tradition of welcoming those fleeing persecution, oppression and injustice. In my constituency, over a decade ago many Rohingya who were fleeing genocide made Bradford their home, and we welcomed them.”
“I thank both my hon. Friends, and I absolutely agree with them. They will know that, as chair of the APPG on Kashmir, I co-ordinated a letter to the Foreign Secretary calling for urgent diplomatic engagement to address those very issues and tabled an early-day motion that now has the combined support of over 70 parliamentarians across the…”
“I absolutely agree. While not all the reports have emerged in full because of the communications blackout, they continue to concern the whole House, as they should. My message to those who use inflammatory and divisive language is that they do not help anyone.”
“They must continue to use every appropriate diplomatic channel to encourage restraint, de-escalation and dialogue. Ultimately, peace and dialogue must prevail. There is only one sustainable path forward: peaceful table talks.”
“He has visited Pakistan and continues to monitor the situation and raise the matter directly. Today, we in this House make an appeal to our Government to send a direct appeal to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the Government of Azad Kashmir to ensure that this situation ends immediately.”
“In August 2019, we all saw the right-wing Modi Government unilaterally and illegally revoke articles 370 and 35A, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special constitutional status.”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Imran Hussain, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 13.
“My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: we have a proud tradition of welcoming those fleeing persecution, oppression and injustice. In my constituency, over a decade ago many Rohingya who were fleeing genocide made Bradford their home, and we welcomed them. Many of them were able to reunite with their families from refugee camps, who are now living with them in Bradford, and all of them are contributing very positively to Bradford and to this country. Under the Home Secretary’s changes, they would never have been able to reunite with their families, and they would not have done that. Does she think that is right and fair on them?”
“There is no comparison between the long-term systematic human rights abuses in Indian-occupied Kashmir and the current situation in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The scale, duration and nature of the repression in Indian-occupied Kashmir remains in a different category altogether. But that does not mean we should remain silent when serious concerns arise. That brings me to the deeply troubling and worrying situation we have witnessed in recent weeks in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Members from across the House have been contacted by deeply distressed constituents unable to reach loved ones because of the lockdown and communications blackout imposed on parts of Azad Kashmir, now well into its fourth week.”
“In August 2019, we all saw the right-wing Modi Government unilaterally and illegally revoke articles 370 and 35A, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special constitutional status. That was followed by mass detentions and unprecedented communications blackouts, severe restrictions on civil liberties and the further erosion of democratic rights. I led the campaign in this place, on every single forum, to call out the illegal actions of the Modi regime. I want to today reassure the sons and daughters of Kashmir who remain under oppression in Indian-occupied Kashmir that their voices will never be silenced. They will continue to be heard loudly and clearly in this place. I want to make another point for the record before I move on to the substantial part of the debate.”
“For over a decade, I have called out the persecution, oppression and injustice faced by Kashmiris in Indian-occupied Kashmir. Their calls for justice have too often gone unanswered. Their fundamental human rights have been violated. Their right to self-determination has been repeatedly denied to them. For over a decade, I have called out and challenged the most repressive and draconian security legislation: the Indian Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, the Public Safety Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. This legislation continues to be used to give the Indian armed forces sweeping powers of detention and immunity to persecute journalists, human rights defenders, political activists and ordinary civilians.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for human rights in Kashmir. It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. As a British parliamentarian, I remain proud of my roots in Pakistan and Kashmir. I continue to be privileged to chair the all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir, which has support from across the political spectrum. It has worked across Parliament and engaged with Government Ministers around one simple principle: the inalienable human rights of Kashmiris must always come first. That is why this debate is extremely timely, as Members across the House continue to be extremely concerned about the seriously escalating tensions in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Before I come on to that, let me put some points on the record very clearly.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall come to his point shortly. For over 1 million British Kashmiris, more than 50,000 of whom demonstrated on the streets of London over the weekend, this is not a distant foreign policy issue. These are their parents, brothers and sisters—their families—and they have been worried sick, staring at silent phones waiting for a call that does not come and hoping that people they love are safe.”
“Of course, there will be strongly held views on all sides of that issue, but whatever view one takes, ordinary Kashmiris should not be made to pay the price for a failure to return to peaceful table talks. It is deeply unfortunate that the situation has deteriorated to this point. I say to the Governments of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir, and to the Joint Awami Action Committee, that the answer must be dialogue, restraint and peaceful negotiations. I welcome the efforts made in recent days by political figures and others who have called for an immediate return to negotiations. Those seeking to lower the temperature deserve the full support of this House.”
“Those reports are profoundly concerning. We have also seen reports that those seeking to act as peaceful arbitrators, including senior Pakistani politicians, have been prevented from entering Azad Kashmir. That cannot help to de-escalate the situation. Groups such as the Joint Awami Action Committee have for many months sought to pursue peaceful negotiations around long-standing civic governance and economic concerns. There was a commitment that those issues would be resolved through dialogue. Criminalising grassroots movements can never be a solution. Most of their reasonable demands were negotiated and met. There remain a number of outstanding issues, most importantly the 12 refugee seats.”
“I thank both my hon. Friends, and I absolutely agree with them. They will know that, as chair of the APPG on Kashmir, I co-ordinated a letter to the Foreign Secretary calling for urgent diplomatic engagement to address those very issues and tabled an early-day motion that now has the combined support of over 70 parliamentarians across the House, so I am grateful to all my colleagues. We have met Ministers and convened emergency parliamentary meetings through the APPG because this House cannot simply look away. We have all seen deeply concerning reports of continued bloodshed, arbitrary arrests, restrictions on communication and a breakdown in dialogue with representatives of grassroots groups. More recently, we have seen reports suggesting restrictions on the movement of food and medical supplies into parts of Azad Jammu and Kashmir.”
“They must continue to use every appropriate diplomatic channel to encourage restraint, de-escalation and dialogue. Ultimately, peace and dialogue must prevail. There is only one sustainable path forward: peaceful table talks. As chair of the APPG on Kashmir, I will continue to work constructively with all those prepared to pursue that objective. I will continue to stand up and be the voice for over 1 million British Kashmiris with family who continue to be directly affected by these events. We will continue to speak out whenever the human rights of Kashmiris are threatened, and I will continue to push for a peaceful resolution in which the voices, dignity and fundamental rights of the Kashmiri people are placed where they always should have been: at the very heart of any lasting settlement.”
“He has visited Pakistan and continues to monitor the situation and raise the matter directly. Today, we in this House make an appeal to our Government to send a direct appeal to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the Government of Azad Kashmir to ensure that this situation ends immediately. The lockdown and communications blackout must end. Any restrictions affecting the movement of food and medical supplies must end. Those acting as peaceful mediators must be allowed immediate access. Meaningful table talks with grassroots groups must resume immediately. At the heart of those negotiations must remain one principle above all others: respect for the human rights of Kashmiris. Our Government must play their role for the 1 million British Kashmiris impacted by this situation.”
“I absolutely agree. While not all the reports have emerged in full because of the communications blackout, they continue to concern the whole House, as they should. My message to those who use inflammatory and divisive language is that they do not help anyone. Successive Pakistani high commissioners and Ministers have engaged constructively with the all-party parliamentary group in the past. I ask the Governments of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir what message they are sending on human rights to over a million British Kashmiris and the international community. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer)—he could not be with us today, but he is no doubt well represented—for regularly meeting me and the all-party parliamentary group.”
“To go to the root of it, I again urge our Government to continue to use every diplomatic lever to press the Governments of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir to immediately end the lockdown; to immediately restore all communications; to immediately allow full access to food and, in particular, medical supplies; to allow access to mediators and human rights organisations; and finally, to immediately resume peaceful table talks, at the heart of which must remain the inalienable human rights of Kashmiris. Question put and agreed to . Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for human rights in Kashmir.”
“He has kept me regularly updated, has visited Pakistan during this period and has assured me that he continues to monitor the situation, relay the concerns of this House and make sure that we push and press towards a peaceful resolution. I will make this point to the Government again: over 70 parliamentarians now support the call of the all-party parliamentary group—I am grateful to them—and I hope the Government have heard that call clearly. We will not stop. We will continue that campaign, and more parliamentarians will join it.”
“I thank all Members who have taken part in this very important debate. Our constituents will no doubt have listened to all the contributions. May I briefly address the age-old policy that this is a bilateral issue? Let us be absolutely clear in this Chamber that this is an international issue that stems from international law and the birthright of Kashmiris under international law. We in this place have a moral, historical and legal duty, and it is about time we developed the moral courage to execute that moral duty. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister who responded to the debate today, but also to the Minister for the Middle East and Pakistan.”
“I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir. The Foreign Secretary will know that I have written to her with the support of more than 60 parliamentarians to raise concerns around the serious escalation in tensions in Azad Kashmir, including reports of bloodshed, arbitrary arrests and food blockages. Will she reassure this House that she will use all diplomatic levers open to her to push for peace and justice in Kashmir? That includes the lifting of the lockdown, the restoration of all communications and the immediate resumption of peaceful table talks, at the heart of which must remain respect for Kashmiri human rights.”
“Frankly, the measures announced today, while necessary, do not go anywhere near far enough. They will not stop the genocide in Gaza, they will not stop the war crimes in Gaza, and they certainly will not stop the continuation of illegal settlements. What real, concrete measures can the Foreign Secretary announce here today? She stated earlier, to a number of colleagues who asked the question, that she wants to see an end to trade with illegal settlements. Well, that is in her gift, because she can stand at the Dispatch Box today and announce a ban on trade with all illegal settlements. Why will she not do that?”
“The reality is that Israel continues to rip to shreds every last line of the international rules-based order. It continues with its illegal land grabs, illegal settlements, war crimes and genocide in Gaza. It is now breaching the ceasefire agreement with illegal military action in Lebanon. In Lebanon, 55 children have been killed and 212 injured since the ceasefire began on 16 April. The Minister will have seen the strength of feeling in this place and I seriously ask him this question: how many more children must be killed in Lebanon and Gaza before his Government stop the empty condemnations and take real action?”
“On the point of communication between Peter Mandelson and Ministers, the fact remains that the more documents that are released, the more questions emerge about Peter Mandelson’s reach across Government. Will the Minister tell the House whether Lord Mandelson had any discussions whatsoever with Ministers, officials or advisers about Palantir? Will further documentation with regards to that be released?”
“T5. Bradford is a proud multicultural city, and we celebrate all the good that diversity brings. We speak over 100 languages, and I am sure you will agree, Mr Speaker, that we have the best cuisine in the country. We hosted amazing events as the city of culture last year. We have one of the youngest populations in the country, and one of the highest business start-up rates. What further steps will this Government take to boost our economic growth, and provide support for our young people and, in particular, business start-ups?”
“Last weekend’s march saw vile racist thugs, national figures, openly fanning the flames of hatred against British Muslim communities, saying things like, “It’s time for many Muslims to leave this country” and “This is a war—we need to get ready to fight.” There were many more vulgar and dangerous statements that I am unable to repeat in this House. The incitement of hatred and violence against British Muslims in the heart of our capital should worry us all. Will the Leader of the House allow sufficient time for a proper debate to address the dangerously rising levels of Islamophobia, protections for British Muslim communities, and the consequences for those responsible?”
“Even as we debate today, Israel continues to commit genocide in Gaza and war crimes across Palestine. It is engaging in illegal land grabs, expanding illegal settlements at unprecedented levels, and illegally abducting and torturing activists simply for trying to deliver aid to starving children. Our duty under international law is not unclear; what is unclear is this Government’s courage to act. All we have heard again today from the Minister—it is becoming somewhat repetitive—is some light condemnation and a vague promise to act at some point in the future. I say this to the Minister very sincerely: even as we debate today, hundreds of Palestinian children are dying and starving. He has a moral and a legal duty to act today. Why will he not?”
“The hon. Lady’s speech is based on wisdom, reflecting on her personal experience in previous votes. Does she agree that, no matter which voting Lobby we walk through, the question we must all ask today is whether we can justify our decision to our constituents?”
“The hon. Lady comes to the crux of the debate: was due process followed? The simple fact is that vetting must always come before an appointment, but as we heard in evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning, that did not happen. It is clear that due process was not followed.”
“I say gently to my hon. Friend, and to others who seek to make the same argument, that at the heart of this matter is a toxic and dismissive culture at No. 10—we cannot get away from that point. That dismissiveness has led us to this place. This is not a small administrative breach; it is a matter of national security. The British public is not buying it. Surely, there needs to be a full, transparent and independent inquiry on this whole situation that uncovers the truth and leads to consequences, including for the Prime Minister. That is what the British public want.”
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He knows full well that this is not any personal vendetta against No. 10. He, of all people, knows the culture that exists in No. 10 and the toxicity of that culture. The question that I want to ask him—and I ask it in all sincerity—is whether he really expects the British public to buy what he is saying.”
“The reality is that Trump’s warmongering and illegal war not only risk plunging the middle east into a dangerous conflict, but are now impacting people here at home. Does the Minister accept that the only lasting and right way forward is to continue to push for de-escalation and an immediate end to this illegal war?”
“Peter Mandelson’s appointment has done serious damage to public trust, but the deeper issue, as we are finding out, is the culture that made this possible. When a small clique is able to wield this much influence, confidence in public appointments is of course badly undermined. What structural changes are being made to ensure that factionalism and cronyism can never again override the national interest?”
“My right hon. Friend is right to set out the importance of jury trials as a cornerstone of our democracy and justice system. They are in place for a very good reason. In the Lammy review, he previously emphasised the importance of jury trials and, in particular, the disproportionate impact on BAME communities. What has changed?”
“The power that we are giving the state is not simply the power for it to issue a fine; we are talking about people losing their liberty.”
“I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of the Bar. I rise to oppose the plan to curtail jury trials, because restricting jury trials is wrong in principle and wrong in practice. Trial by jury is not some quaint tradition that we can trade away when Ministers feel the pressure. As has been said, it is one of the great democratic safeguards in our justice system; it allows ordinary citizens to be judged by their peers and the power of the state to be held in check. It is dangerous to challenge that principle, because there is a reason for it: the balance between the state and the citizen. History teaches us that changing that balance in favour of the state is a dangerous road to go down.”
“What I am saying is that there is a reason that we protect this liberty—this cornerstone of our system of justice and democracy. When we see this much of a change in state power, I will tell my hon. Friend who is at the receiving end first: it is black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, working-class communities, elderly communities and women who are disproportionately impacted.”
“Restricting jury trials would deliver only limited time savings in the Crown court system—hon. Members have made that case time and again today. The core point is that undermining fundamental rights will not fix a backlog caused by years of under-investment, court closures, reduced capacity and a criminal justice system stretched to breaking point. Ministers have published impact assessments, but they have still not shown that curtailing jury trials will meaningfully solve a backlog caused by years of under-resourcing.”
“These are not competing interests. I thank all hon. Members who have made brave and passionate speeches today—I salute their courage. Of course we want to see justice delivered to victims as soon as possible, but there is not a shred of evidence that suggests that curtailing jury trials will do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) addressed that point with great passion. Let us be clear about what the proposals mean in practice. The Government are suggesting that people could face lengthy prison sentences following judge-only processes in a new category of so-called swift courts. Frankly, that should send a chill through every democrat in this country. Ministers claim that this is about efficiency, but no argument has been put forward in this debate to support that.”
“Okay. Perhaps I have been too generous with my time. The real fear is that these changes will not simply speed things up but change how justice is done. In the limited time I have—it is a tragedy that I have only three minutes to speak in a debate of this magnitude, amending cornerstones of our democracy—I ask the Justice Secretary to take advice from the Member he was a number of years ago, when he made some of the most powerful arguments for the jury system. I ask him to look back at his old self.”
“My constituent came to this country after leaving a very good job and uprooting his whole family, including young children, on the promise that he would be allowed to work and contribute to our NHS, which he has done for the past four years. However, because of the Government’s harsh and hostile policies, not only is his future now uncertain, but his children may not even be able to go to university. Does the Minister not understand the hostility and unfairness of this?”
“We should be deeply alarmed at the sight of US bombers arriving at UK bases ahead of joining President Trump’s bombing of Iran. These attacks violate international law, and the suggestion that these aircraft would be used only for defensive purposes is frankly absurd. Their deployment risks dragging Britain into unlawful attacks and the further loss of civilian life. What assurances can the Secretary of State give this House that UK bases will not be used to facilitate further unlawful attacks and that Britain will not be dragged deeper into an illegal war that the majority of the British public do not support?”
“The reality is that the abhorrent rise in inflammatory rhetoric from national figures, including in this place, has normalised Islamophobia to the extent that it is now open season on British Muslims. This scapegoating feeds a hostile environment, and recent violent attacks on British Muslims show the real-world consequences. Let us be clear in this House: this is not just an attack on British Muslim communities; it is a direct challenge to the British values of fairness, respect and the rule of law. We must stand united in saying that British Muslim communities deserve safety, dignity and the freedom to exist without fear, like every other community. Can the Minister set out how the strategy will directly address this open season of hatred against British Muslims?”
“Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and now this illegal war on Iran—the reality is that time and again we are dragged into conflicts that are illegal, make the region less stable and result in devastation and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children. Have we not learned the lessons of the past? Will the Prime Minister make it clear from the Dispatch Box that Britain is not Trump’s poodle and never again will we be a launch pad for illegal and endless wars that have no plan and no end, and will he make it clear that any final decision will be made by this House?”
“Q9. We have all heard the horrific news that a man entered Manchester Central mosque last night in this, the holy month of Ramadan, carrying weapons including a hammer, a knife and an axe. Violent and Islamophobic attacks against the Muslim community are becoming far too frequent in our country. Prime Minister, is it not the case that every single politician in this place, and I mean every politician, especially that lot over there— [Interruption.] They may nod their heads, but this morning we could have woken up to news of a horrific terrorist attack, in which innocent Muslim worshippers were killed only for being Muslim. Prime Minister, is it not the case that every single politician in this place, and every single journalist, has a responsibility to stop fanning the flames of hatred against the Muslim community?”
“The Minister will know that I wrote to the Home Secretary in a letter co-signed by 30 Labour MPs raising serious concerns about the new rules and how they will impact British dual nationals. The reality is that British citizens will be left stranded abroad and many will be priced out of returning home, adding them to a growing list of people who are effectively classed as second-class citizens. The Minister will also know that hundreds of thousands of people could be affected by these ill-thought-out, rushed reforms that lack any parliamentary scrutiny. I gently ask the Minister to please pause the rules to allow for meaningful consultation and proper parliamentary scrutiny and to please remove the outrageous £589 charge for the certificate of entitlement.”
“The Minister will know that Bradford is one of the youngest and fastest-growing cities, yet we are urgently and desperately in need of social and affordable housing. The reality is that homelessness is on the rise, and we have record numbers of people on waiting lists. Families simply cannot get decent houses. While I welcome the Government’s ambitious home building programme, will the Minister assure me that adequate measures are in the programme to address the need for social and affordable housing? While local government will have some say, we must give clear directions.”
“The vicious actions of Labour Together are despicable. Any attack on the freedom of our press and individuals is unforgivable. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister keeps referring to an independent ethics adviser while at the same time admitting that his only remit is the ministerial code of conduct. He needs to be reminded that the actions that have been referred to took place before the Minister concerned was in office. These actions are such that they will cause irreparable and tremendous harm to the Government and our party. Only an independent investigation into all the actions of Labour Together will suffice. Why will he not understand that?”
“Britain must no longer be part of that silence. We have a moral, legal and historical duty, and it is about time we honoured it.”
“Finally, the Minister will be aware that Indian-occupied Kashmir remains disputed territory. What safeguards are in place regarding any trade that occurs, as a result of this agreement, directly with an occupied territory, as recognised under international law? The agreement remains silent on that important point. This agreement is not yet in force, and Parliament still has a responsibility. We must insist that trade policy strengthens justice, rather than undermines it. We must refuse to send the message that human rights, especially the rights of an oppressed people, are negotiable. For the Kashmiri community I represent, I cannot stay silent and see injustice continuing. I cannot accept a trade agreement that deepens economic ties while turning its back on human dignity and justice. The world has ignored Kashmir for far too long.”
“The agreement may have come before us, but what real influence does Parliament have, even in a debate like today’s? What ability do we have to add safeguards or human rights clauses? Let me use the little influence that we have to ask the Minister some questions; I look forward to direct answers —he is normally very good at giving those. How can the Government justify advancing a trade agreement of this scale while excluding binding human rights protections, particularly in the light of the situation in Kashmir, which continues to worsen? What mechanisms are there, linked directly to this agreement, for monitoring and responding to credible reports of human rights violations? What assurances can be given to British Kashmiri communities that their concerns are not being sidelined in the name of economic convenience?”
“If we are serious about a modern partnership, then workers’ rights and decent standards cannot be treated as optional add-ons. Warm words are welcome, but without clear accountability, they offer little reassurance to those at risk of exploitation, and they leave an imbalance between what the agreement compels and what it merely encourages. Parliament’s duty to get the safeguards right is all the greater, given that UK-India trade is at around £43 billion, and given the deep ties across our communities. It is troubling that there are no monitoring triggers, safeguards or accountability mechanisms that speak to Kashmiri or minority protections. There are no graduated remedies for serious abuses—there is nothing short of tearing up the whole agreement—and there is no meaningful lever to use when violations occur.”
“Independent organisations, including UN bodies and human rights non-governmental organisations, have documented widespread, systematic torture and ill treatment by Indian police and security forces, including custodial violence and abuse of pre-trial detention. India signed the UN convention against torture in 1997, yet by choice remains one of the few countries in the world never to have ratified it. The House will know that torture is absolutely prohibited under international law. That is not culturally relative and not negotiable, and it cannot be ignored while negotiating preferential trade access. I also note that the agreement’s labour commitments are explicitly excluded from the dispute settlement mechanism, which means that they cannot be enforced in practice in the way that provisions in the core economic chapters can.”
“The Government present this agreement as a landmark deal, designed to deepen economic ties and open new markets, but trade agreements are not neutral instruments simply for economic gain; they reflect political choices and moral priorities. This agreement seeks to formalise and deepen economic co-operation with India, while deliberately excluding enforceable human rights provisions. What kind of message does that send? It sends the dangerous message that human rights violations can be overlooked in the pursuit of market access. It tells those responsible that there will be dialogue, but no consequences. Engagement without conditions does not drive reform; it signals impunity.”
“Political prisoners remain behind bars without due process. Khurram Parvez, a globally respected human rights defender, has spent years imprisoned for documenting abuses. Yasin Malik has recently been convicted, following proceedings that have been widely condemned for lacking fairness and transparency. These cases symbolise a broader reality about the use of national security legislation to silence dissent, criminalise peaceful political activity and intimidate those who speak out. Despite that context, the UK-India free trade agreement contains no binding human rights safeguards, no accountability mechanisms and no credible system of monitoring. There is no dedicated human rights chapter, and under the agreement, no monitoring body would be required to monitor human rights risks, such as the risk of arbitrary detention and repression.”