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 3 of 13.
“Like my hon. Friend, I welcome some of the last-minute concessions that were made last week. Does she share my concerns, in particular around UC health, that there are still £2 billion in cuts that will impact more than 700,000 people, meaning that they will get £3,000 less? These are some of the most vulnerable people.”
“As ever, my hon. Friend is making a passionate case. Does she agree that, for many of us, our principled objection to the Bill remains? It will still balance the books on the backs of the most vulnerable; it will still bring poverty to our streets. Will she join me in my plea for the Bill to be withdrawn, which is the best option for the Government?”
“I welcome the Minister’s answer. Knife crime ruins lives and devastates communities; rightly, those responsible must be held accountable. If we are serious about preventing reoffending, however, we also need structured, credible rehabilitation, the focus of which must be on prevention and diversionary activities. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on boxing, I have seen how grassroots boxing clubs offer something different—structure, community and hope—that is of particular benefit to young people. I ask the Minister to meet me to discuss how boxing can be a key part of successfully rehabilitating offenders.”
“Much of what is in today’s statement is of course welcome, but for places such as Bradford that have been left behind for a generation, we need to go much further. So I again make the case for a connection for Bradford to the trans-Pennine route as part of Northern Powerhouse Rail. This, along with a new rail station and a bus station, will unlock £4.5 billion in economic output, which is growth not just for Bradford, but for the whole region. While I appreciate that the Secretary of State is saying the decision on Northern Powerhouse Rail will be announced in due course, Bradford cannot wait for that growth. Can she give a specific time when that will be announced, and can she confirm that Bradford will be included as part of the trans-Pennine route?”
“Non-violent protest, which our democracy is meant to protect, now risks being labelled as terror. The legal basis for this proscription is unsound. The democratic consequences are severe, and the moral cost is frankly unacceptable. Let me be clear: it will disproportionately target campaigners and minority communities and set a precedent that reaches far beyond this one group. Today it is Palestine Action, and tomorrow it could be climate activists. We are standing on a slippery slope. Proscribing a protest group is not strength. I urge this House to defend our hard-won rights and civil liberties. Conflating protest with terrorism is not democracy. I therefore put on record that I will not support any proscription of Palestine Action.”
“Under this proscription, people could face prosecution for something as simple as wearing a badge, sharing a post online or attending a peaceful protest. The question for the House is: do we really want to become a society where non-violently expressing solidarity, or even speaking out, could be interpreted as terrorism? That will only further fuel fear and repression. Local anti-racist groups could suddenly find themselves under suspicion. Whole communities could be classed as suspects, not for what they do but what they stand for. There are numerous examples of that, which I do not have time to set out today. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) has already eloquently set out a number of examples that, frankly, should send shivers down the spine of all hon. Members. This is not the way forward.”
“There is adequate provision in our criminal law to deal with any criminal activity, but we are being asked to proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act. To treat civil dissent, whether or not we agree with it, as extremism is a concerning shift, and we risk crossing a line. Hundreds of lawyers, including King’s counsel and human rights advocates, have warned that such a move is not a hallmark of democracy. We heard earlier today that United Nations special rapporteurs have expressed serious concern about the measure, but we have not heard about the huge implications that the proscription will have for some of our communities, who risk being criminalised simply for showing support for Palestine.”
“I place on record my full support for the proscription of Maniacs Murder Cult and Russian Imperial Movement. They are vile, murderous and fascist cults, and their place on the proscribed list is justified and necessary. However, it is precisely because we must take terrorism seriously that we must draw clear lines. To put Palestine Action, a direct action protest group, in the same category as those murderous, extremist organisations erodes the credibility of our legal framework and risks undermining civil rights. Proscription must be used judiciously. Conflating protest with terror is a dangerous step that undermines the freedoms that our counter-terrorism laws are meant to protect.”
“We can discuss the concessions next week if the Bill makes it, but it must be pulled today, because I cannot go back to my constituency tomorrow and tell my constituents that for the sake of some concessions that were not in the Bill, I voted for it, even though it could deepen the poverty that people on my streets face. That is not the premise I was elected on.”
“I have the greatest respect for Ministers, but we as Back Benchers should be afforded the same dignity, because we have all been elected on the same premise. My constituency of Bradford East suffers from some of the worst health inequalities and child poverty—over half of all children who live in my constituency are living in absolute poverty. I have to go back and face them. Regardless of what Ministers tell us, the Bill today is the same Bill we had a week ago and the same Bill we had when it was introduced. That is what we are voting on.”
“We continue to come from that place of sincerity, but it is disrespectful to Back Benchers, and in particular to Labour Members, that we continue to be fed things piecemeal, even at this late stage. While I welcome the previous concessions and today’s concession, we have been talking about this for months, and we could have been engaged in the process. We approached it in good faith, and this piecemeal approach makes a further mockery of a process that will result in hundreds of thousands of people being pushed into poverty. The timescale we have been given already lacks the respect that this democratic House should be afforded, but the piecemeal way in which information is being leaked to us means that we are being asked to rely on the good will of Ministers.”
“There is no denying that the ideological austerity of the previous Government over the past 14 years has led to the decimation of our services, the devastation of our communities and extreme poverty, as well as an economic mess, so I get that this Government have to make some extremely difficult decisions. However, the central point in this debate is that we cannot balance the books on the backs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. It is not the fair thing to do, it is not the right thing to do, and simply put, it is not the Labour thing to do. Labour Members who oppose the Bill do not come from the same place as Tory Members. We come from a place of sincerity; they come from a place of political game-playing.”
“Absolutely, and I will come on to that point. I have already touched on the seismic nature of the Bill. To be frank, I have spent a decade in this place, and I have never seen a Bill of this seismic nature and with these direct consequences being rushed through in one week. The motion that goes to the House of Lords will be a money motion, which will not allow it to make any amendments before the Bill comes back.”
“Members on both sides of the House, many of whom are acting in good faith for the collective good of the people they represent, which is this: all of us will have to go back to our constituencies and justify the decision we make today. I have always promised my constituents in Bradford East that I will never vote for anything that will increase poverty and deprivation or deepen the health inequalities in my constituency, because it is not this place that sends me to Bradford, but the people of Bradford who send me to this place. I will remain true to them, I will remain accountable to them, and I will make sure that their voice is heard. I will be voting for the amendment, and I will be voting against the Bill today.”
“Courageous political leadership sometimes demands that we admit it when we get it wrong, like we did with the winter fuel allowance. I sincerely think that people respect us when we get something wrong and come back to it. We have had concession after concession, and that is admission enough that we have got this wrong. My view remains that it would be dignified for the Government to say, “We will go with the reasoned amendment. We will have meaningful consultation with disability groups, and then we will come back.” Everything I say is said in absolute sincerity, and I finish by making a point that has been made by hon.”
“It is clear that the central issues for many on the Government Benches remain. Rushing through legislation without full and meaningful consultation with disability groups is the wrong way round—we do not build policy first and ask questions later. The Government’s arbitrary deadline is not a necessity, but a political choice. They are forcing through decisions that risk pushing hundreds of thousands more disabled people into poverty. I therefore say to the Secretary of State with absolute sincerity on behalf of many Members: do the fair thing—and, more importantly, the right thing—and withdraw this Bill and listen to disabled people.”
“I urge the Government to set out what additional funding and support can be made available. Madam Deputy Speaker, you and I know that a fully connected Bradford will lift the entire region. We will continue to campaign for the transport investment that Bradford so clearly deserves.”
“If Bradford were just to meet the UK average for productivity, enterprise and employment, we would unlock over £4.5 billion in additional annual economic output. As the House will know, Bradford’s 2025 city of culture programme is already unlocking billions in regeneration across West Yorkshire, but to truly meet the Government’s growth objectives and level up opportunity, we need a fair, ambitious settlement, because without mobility there is no capability. I welcome what the Government have done for transport in Bradford so far, but again I make the case for a new rail station, which I know the Minister and different Departments are looking at seriously. I also ask the Minister to consider the strong case for giving Bradford real access to the trans-Pennine line.”
“I ask the Treasury to continue to work with the Department for Transport and regional partners to explore improvements in east-west connectivity to complement the city’s long-term growth strategy. Let me turn to the huge economic benefits not just to Bradford or West Yorkshire but to the whole of the north. Maximising investment in mass transit and Bradford rail would open key regeneration and housing sites. It is central to delivering Bradford’s southern gateway—West Yorkshire’s largest regeneration opportunity—and could unlock up to 10,000 homes across the wider city centre. More investment in Bradford would be not a cost but a long-term saving: it would mean lower welfare dependency, better access to jobs and learning, and a more prosperous, healthier population.”
“A new railway station is deliverable and could be built at pace, with low risk of cost increases. I understand that different Departments have already been looking at the business case and evidence for it. The benefits would be transformative. Improved connectivity between Leeds and Bradford would unlock our huge growth potential. I would also like to make the strong case for Bradford to be linked into the £11 billion trans-Pennine upgrade. I know that there have already been consultations on its feasibility, and I ask the Minister to address that in his remarks. By linking Bradford to Huddersfield on the trans-Pennine line, we would have direct access to the wider region. It would speed up journeys to Manchester by half, help put Bradford on the map and be a huge boost for growth.”
“We need additional funding to ensure that Bradford receives the full investment in transport that it needs, not only to support our local communities but to strengthen the economic performance of West Yorkshire and the wider north. Despite being one of the largest cities in the UK, Bradford has historically been left behind when it comes to national transport planning. The absence of strong rail connectivity continues to limit our potential, and that must change. I believe that Bradford would benefit significantly from a new, modern and fit-for-purpose railway station. While I welcome improvements to Forster Square, we must be far more ambitious if we want to deliver a station that truly connects Bradford to the rest of the country and enables wider regeneration in our city centre.”
“Those projects represent an important step forward, and I am grateful that Bradford is finally receiving the long-overdue attention that it deserves. Communities in Bradford such as mine, and indeed yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, have waited too long to see promises become progress. I have long campaigned for improved transport links in Bradford and across West Yorkshire, alongside colleagues, campaigners and Bradford council, because I know how vital transport is to unlocking economic growth. It is a driver for regeneration, a bridge between communities and a pathway to opportunity. If the Government are serious about long-term regional growth, they must go further.”
“Let me begin by agreeing with the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). She is right to welcome the huge ambition that the Government have shown on transport. It is certainly much more ambitious than what we saw under the previous Government. I urge the Government to grow that ambition boldly, particularly for the areas that were left behind under the previous Government, and to enable growth and opportunity to reach every corner of the UK. Much of my speech relates to my constituency and the great city of Bradford, which will not be lost on you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the recent announcement in the spending review of £2.1 billion for a new tramline and bus station in Bradford.”
“My hon. Friend is making a strong case. Further to the previous intervention, 44,000 disabled people in my constituency risk losing PIP. They are absolutely horrified, because they will not only lose their dignity but be pushed into serious poverty. This is not the right way to do things, and it is certainly not the Labour way to do things. Does he agree that the right choice would be to tax the super-rich, so they pay their fair share?”
“Today’s statement is a step in the right direction, particularly with the announcement that half a million more children will be eligible for free school meals, but frankly it does not go far enough. Will the Chancellor tell me what further measures this Government will announce to alleviate and finish child poverty, including scrapping the two-child limit, which continues to put thousands of children into poverty?”
“Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that your constituents, my constituents, the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon), and indeed the Chancellor’s constituents, will greatly welcome the £2.1 billion for a new tram and a new bus station in Bradford, as well as the billions for social and affordable housing, which is much needed. However, the Chancellor will know that over half of all children in my constituency are still growing up in poverty, which is true of many hon. Members’ constituencies. Child poverty is not a statistic; it is a national disgrace. It is a direct result of 14 years of ideological austerity under the Conservatives.”
“Many of us have been consistent in our calls for sanctions against those who commit war crimes in Gaza, so the sanctions placed on these two far-right Ministers today are a step in the right direction. But let us be clear: this is nowhere near enough. Palestinians starve and aid is blocked in flagrant violation of international law while the UK continues to allow arms exports to Israel. We cannot condemn the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza while continuing to arm those who contribute to it. The Government must act now and end all arms sales to Israel. Anything less is not just a failure of diplomacy; it is an absolute failure of moral leadership in the face of a genocide.”
“The original decision to cut the winter fuel payment was the wrong decision; today’s decision is the right decision and a much fairer decision. In my constituency, 2,000 more pensioners will, quite rightly, get the winter fuel payment again. It is clear that the Government have listened, so I ask them to listen again to the growing calls in the Chamber and to scrap their planned, devastating cuts to disability support.”
“What we have heard from senior UN officials this morning should frankly send shivers down the spine of every Member in this Chamber. Some 14,000 Palestinian children could die in the next 48 hours because of Israel’s actions. Today we are getting stronger words, but limited action, and the time for it is long, long past. We need further bold and immediate action. We need to end all arms sales to Israel, impose economic sanctions and ban Israeli settlement goods. What are the Government waiting for?”
“The Minister still refuses to address the central issue, which is that our obligation to prevent genocide under the Rome statute has already been triggered by the ample evidence of Israeli war crimes in Gaza. In the week marking 77 years since the Nakba, how many more times will he come to the Chamber with just words—words that do nothing? We need action. Let us be clear: it is not a case of if but when he will end the UK’s complicity in arming a state that is accused of genocide against the Palestinians, and of when he will finally impose sanctions on Israel. History will judge his delay.”
“The reality remains that the international community has failed to act on the plight of the Kashmiris for over seven decades. From the revocation of articles 370 and 35A, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special status, to the mass arrests and political repression in one of the most militarised zones in the world, the attacks on Kashmiri human rights and civil liberties are intolerable. If we are serious about human rights and long-term peace and stability in the region, the central issue of Kashmir cannot be ignored any longer and must now get the attention it deserves. Will the Secretary of State today reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the birthright to self-determination of the sons and daughters of Kashmir?”
“Many of the 41,000 disabled people in Bradford who rely on PIP to live with dignity and stability are rightly horrified by these proposed cuts. In particular, the four-point rule has the potential to devastate the lives of tens of thousands of people in Bradford overnight. Let us be clear: these plans would take away a vital lifeline from those with the greatest need living in the most deprived areas of Britain. I cannot support any cuts that worsen inequalities in places such as Bradford, so I say to the Minister in absolute sincerity: please listen to the growing calls in this place and out there to scrap these unfair cuts and instead do the right thing by taxing the super-rich so that they can pay their fair share.”
“Let us be honest: this is not about sustainability; it is a political choice. We cannot weaken the foundation that protects those with the greatest need. This is a moral line that we cannot and must not cross.”
“Millions of lives have been impacted overnight by a single policy. It is indefensible. It will drive more disabled people into poverty, push children further into poverty, further strain public health and leave those in the greatest need behind. We should help those in greatest need in our society, not abandon them. Let me be clear: the four-point rule is a cruel test dressed up as a reform. It means that people with complex, overlapping needs who score few points in many areas could be cut off. Those are real people, with anxiety, chronic pain or fluctuating conditions. If they do not tick a box, they do not get help. The system should protect, not punish. As outlined by a number of speakers, a 2% tax on wealth above £10 million would raise £24 billion a year, more than five times what the Department for Work and Pensions hopes to save.”
“Indeed, the plight of the Kashmiris has been raised by me in this Chamber over the last decade. Does the Minister accept that the UK has a moral, historical and legal duty and responsibility to end this 80-year period in which UN resolutions on Kashmir have, frankly, sat gathering dust? Will he act so that the sons and daughters of Kashmir get their birthright of self-determination, promised to them decades ago?”
“The reality is that India’s air strikes in Pakistan and Azad Kashmir have seen the killing and injury of dozens of civilians, including children, and led to a massive escalation in the real threat of war between two nuclear powers. That follows two weeks of bulldozer tactics and thousands of mass arrests in Kashmir, the unilateral withdrawal from the Indus treaty effectively threatening collective punishment on millions of Pakistanis and now this act of aggression, all in complete contradiction of international law. The Minister is right to say that the international community must now focus on de-escalation and stability, but that cannot be achieved in full without addressing the central issue of Kashmir, an issue close to the hearts of many hon. Members.”
“As has already been said, negotiating a trade deal on beneficial terms is hugely significant, particularly with regard to the recent trade war initiated by Trump. However, I have come to this House countless times to raise the issue of human rights violations and abuses against the Kashmiris by the Indian Government, and I will do so again today. Can the Minister tell me whether the persecution of Kashmiri journalists and human rights activists has been raised at any point during these negotiations, and whether he will return to this House, before he signs on the dotted line in a few months, with a full response detailing exactly how the UK Government are upholding their international human rights obligations, and not undermining efforts to defend Kashmiri human rights?”
“No one can deny any longer that Israel is committing war crime after war crime, with over 50,000 Palestinians killed, millions forcibly displaced, the complete blockade of Gaza for the last two months and now plans to annex the entirety of the Gaza strip. Just what will it take for the Government to properly act over Netanyahu’s breaking of every single international norm and rule? I say to the Minister that simply opposing the expansion of military operations from the Dispatch Box is not securing peace or helping the Palestinian people. The Government have rightly imposed widespread sanctions on Russia. Why do they refuse to impose widespread sanctions on Israel?”
“Kashmir continues to be a flashpoint between the two nuclear neighbours, so does the Minister agree that the international community must now seriously focus on de-escalation and long-term peace in the region? Can he also set out what the Government are doing to ensure that Kashmiris do not face further persecution or oppression?”
“The whole House is united in its condemnation of the horrific attack that killed 26 people in Pahalgam, Kashmir. It has rightly been condemned by all in the region, and we must now see a full and independent investigation where those responsible are brought to justice. The response from the Indian Government has been somewhat concerning, with unilateral action taken to revoke the Indus waters treaty, risking the lives and livelihoods of millions in Pakistan. We are now hearing reports of crackdowns in Kashmir, with 1,500 people rounded up by the police and bulldozer tactics used on households. Hard-line groups have issued statements promising reprisal attacks, death threats and action against every Muslim in India.”
“In his remarks yesterday, the Palestinian Prime Minister quite rightly reminded MPs of the UK’s historic, moral and legal obligations to the Palestinian people. The importance of our actions to uphold international law today cannot be underestimated, so I must ask the Minister why the UK is still reluctant to sanction Israel for its war crimes against the Palestinians? Why are the Government deepening our trade ties with Israel, as the International Court of Justice warns countries not to assist or aid illegal occupation? Finally, I ask the Minister to listen to the growing calls in this Chamber and announce when the Government will finally recognise the state of Palestine.”
“To follow on from the two previous questions, 5,000 university jobs have been cut nationally, and the University and College Union projects that 10,000 more will be cut by the end of the year. In Bradford, up to 300 further jobs are at risk. Bradford University’s nursery service faces the chop, and some courses are long gone in a bid to meet funding shortfalls. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to protect staff and students in places like Bradford, given the growing crisis in higher education?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”